Sitting of 4 April 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    SAINT BENET GRACECHURCH BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  FALKIRK BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ARGENTINA (TRADE TALKS)
  Mr. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement on the progress of the meat talks with the Argentine.
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the progress of the meat negotiations in the Argentine.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), on 12th March.
  Mr. Harrison: In view of the reply which he has just given, will my right hon. Friend take steps to restrain Conservative newspapers from publishing highly insulting articles concerning the head of a friendly State—Argentina—such as that published in the "Daily Mail" on Monday of this week?
  Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's point, but I have no power to restrain newspapers.
  Mr. Turton: To assist the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his task, will the right hon. Gentleman consider flying out to Argentina a member of the
  176
  meat trade who has knowledge of South American problems?
  Mr. Morrison: I will consider the application of the hon. Member.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how these negotiations are going? Does he not realise that millions of people are dependent on them, and want something to look forward to?
  Mr. Morrison: I fully understand and realise the purport of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Can the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance that, as soon as it is possible to make a factual statement on these negotiations, he will arrange for such a statement to be given to the House?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WHITE PAPER)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his attendance at the Council of Europe, held recently in Paris.
  Mr. H. Morrison: A White Paper on the proceedings of the last session of the Committee of Ministers will shortly be presented to Parliament.
  Mr. Duncan Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, rightly or wrongly, the impression has been created on the Continent that H.M. Government are unsympathetic, if not actually hostile, to the objects of the Council of Europe? Will he make every effort to correct this most damaging impression?
  Mr. Morrison: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman may have had something to do with that impression. In any case, that impression is a misapprehension.

  FOREIGN MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (MEETING)
  Mr. A. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now

  177
  make a statement concerning the recent talks held in Paris, of the Foreign Secretaries' deputies.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I should prefer to make no statement on this subject at the present time. I shall, however, be very willing to make a statement as soon as the progress of the talks in Paris justifies me in doing so.

  GERMANY (PEACE TREATY)
  Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that any peace treaty with Germany shall enforce some form of compensation to non-Jewish and non-German people who suffered under the Nazis.
  Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Government are unable to give any undertaking regarding the possible provisions of an eventual peace treaty with Germany.
  Major Beamish: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give me some more sympathetic reply than that. Is he aware that non-Jewish and non-German people who suffered under the Nazis went through a most appalling time and had no one to speak on their behalf? I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been more sympathetic.
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot be at this stage. It is not a question of being sympathetic or unsympathetic. This is the situation—
  Hon. Members: What is the situation?
  Mr. Morrison: What I have said—that we are unable to give any undertaking regarding the possible provisions of an eventual peace treaty with Germany.
  Mr. Eden: Could not the right hon. Gentleman, at least, undertake that this aspect of the matter, which is very serious to many people, will be in the minds of our negotiators when they come to discuss the matter?
  Mr. Morrison: Certainly. That is another matter, but we will keep all relevant considerations in mind.

  PERSIA (OIL CONCESSIONS)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the boundaries of the 100,000 acre concession to the Anglo-Iranian Company have now been demarcated on the ground.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Under its 1933 Concession Agreement with the Persian Government, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was granted the right to select, within a given region of South-Western Persia, an area or areas not exceeding 100,000 English square miles (not acres, as stated in the Question). These areas were duly selected and, as required by the terms of the Concession Agreement, were identified by maps and by the data necessary to define them. The Concession Agreement does not require these areas to be denned in any other way.
  Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the action of the Persian Parliament in regard to the Anglo-Iranian oil concessions and similar movements which are starting in Iraq, and in view of the Persian claim to Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, he will consult with the United States of America in order that both countries may have a common policy over oil concessions in the Middle East.
  Mr. H. Morrison: We are in consultation with the United States Government and will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

  EGYPT (BRITISH SHIPS)
  Miss Irene Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Egyptian Government has acquired more British motor torpedo boats than the Navy has in com mission at the moment, he will take steps to ensure that no further releases of British naval vessels and equipment shall be made available to the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Lady appears to be misinformed. Although such motor torpedo boats as have been acquired by Egypt in this country since 1949 have been boats bought direct from the trade, my information is that the Egyptian Navy have considerably fewer

  179
  motor torpedo boats of British construction in commission than the Royal Navy. No naval vessels or equipment have in any case recently been sold to Egypt unless surplus to the requirements of the Royal Navy, and those of our North Atlantic Treaty and Commonwealth Allies. The same criteria will continue to apply generally to further inquiries for ships or equipment for the Egyptian Navy.
  Miss Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman say under what circumstances a quantity of modern torpedo sights have been recently released to the Egyptian Navy? Under what policy have they reached that country?
  Mr. Morrison: I did not notice that sights were mentioned in the Question.
  Miss Ward: But did the right hon. Gentleman not say "no equipment"?
  Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Lady wanted to mention sights she could have put that down.
  Brigadier Head: When the right hon. Gentleman said that motor torpedo boats were bought direct from the trade am I not right in saying that the trade have to get the permission of the Admiralty before they allow the Egyptian Government to have them?
  Mr. Morrison: They need to have permission, but I am not sure whether it is from the Admiralty. I should like to know what hon. Members opposite want. I do not know whether they wish us to apply a complete blockade.
  Brigadier Head: What hon. Members on this side want is that the Navy's requirements should be satisfied first and the Egyptian Government's requirements second.
  Mr. Morrison: A number of hon. Members opposite have not listened to my reply. I have said precisely that that was exactly what we were doing.

  MR. NORMAN MANLEY, K.C. (DETENTION, ELLIS ISLAND)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances in which Mr. Norman Manley, K.C., a member of the
  180
  Jamaican House of Representatives, was recently detained on Ellis Island by the United States immigration authorities; and what representation he has addressed to the United States Government on this matter.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been informed by His Majesty's Consul-General at New York that Mr. Manley was detained for about three hours only, and I do not propose to take any action.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it not rather an extraordinary thing that this distinguished Commonwealth statesman should be subject to these indignities on his way back from appearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the very day after he had dined in this House with the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Should my right hon. Friend not take some steps to see that British subjects, and members of Legislative Assemblies, are not subjected to these indignities?
  Mr. Morrison: Naturally, I am sorry about it but I think that for a delay of three hours—which, even so, I regret—my hon. Friend is making rather excessively high weather about it. I was not detained in New York for three hours, but I once had a difficult reception and I put up with it like a sportsman.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Manley has described the conditions of his detention as almost like being in prison?

  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now any statement to make as to the progress of his efforts to obtain payment from Albania of the damages due under The Hague Court judgment in respect of the mining of His Majesty's ships in the Corfu Channel.
  Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his Undersecretary of State indicated five weeks ago that His Majesty's Government accepted responsibility for taking action to enforce this judgment? Can he say whether any such action has now been taken?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not want to be too specific on this matter at this moment, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can about it.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman be specific enough to say whether there has yet been any admission from the Albanian side that any of this money is due?
  Mr. Morrison: I would really prefer not to be more specific today.

  INDONESIA (DETAINED BRITISH SHIPS)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release of the s.s. "Mawai" and s.s. "Membau" detained in Sumatra; what was the pretext for their detention; and whether the Indonesian Government has been requested to pay compensation for this detention.
  Mr. H. Morrison: His Majesty's Consul at Medan made immediate representations to the Governor of North Sumatra for the release of the s.s. "Mawai" and s.s. "Membau" as well as of six other British registered ships which were detained in Sumatra. Subsequently, His Majesty's Ambassador at Djakarta took the matter up with the Indonesian Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister. The "Mawai" and "Membau" have now been released.
  The reason originally given for detention of these ships was their failure to comply with regulations requiring that they should call at the control port of Sabang. Subsequently, it was alleged that they were engaged in smuggling. I have not been informed that any claim for compensation has been submitted by the ships' owners.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the two ships mentioned in the Question, in addition to six others disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman, were detained for a substantial period, can he now assure the House that any claim for compensation for the detention of these ships will be energetically supported by His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Morrison: No claim has yet been submitted by the ships' owners. If such
  182
  a claim were submitted we would, of course, consider supporting it.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ships were detained rather longer than Mr. Manley?

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (OVERSEAS SERVICES)
  Mr. Profumoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the factors which led him to agree to the reduction in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts.
  Mr. Profumoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the countries which will be affected by the reduction in broadcasts which will have to be made as a result of the cut in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts; what proportion of the reductions will be from transmissions in English; and what from those in the languages of the respective countries concerned.
  Mr. H. Morrison: It was originally proposed that the B.B.C.'s grant-in-aid for the financial year 1951–52 should be £5,330,000. But the grant-in-aid for 1950–51 was £4,685,000 and in view of the pressing need for economy in public expenditure in the interest of the taxpayer, the Government have not thought fit to give an increased grant-in-aid and have fixed it at £4,650,000. It is, therefore, misleading to assume that, in fact, there is any major cut in the expenditure which the B.B.C. will be making as compared with last year. It is a fact, however, that owing to increased costs and certain additional obligations, some economies will have to be made elsewhere in the B.B.C.'s overseas services. Since I have taken up my present post I have had under consideration in consultation with the B.B.C. the question of how this can best be done, and I am not yet prepared to make a final announcement.
  Mr. Profumo: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that these broadcasts form an indispensable part of our overall plan to avert another war? Further, is he aware that in the last 18 months the Soviet Union

  183
  has doubled its foreign output and the United States of America are asking for £35 million a year extra for such broadcasts? Is it not plumb crazy to suggest a false economy of this sort while, at the same time, the Government are asking us to spend double this amount on the Festival Gardens?
  Mr. Morrison: That was a really first-class propaganda supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, that is what it was. I certainly do not underestimate the importance of broadcasting in connection with matters of this sort. I would not like the House to think, however, that that is the only thing that requires to be done in the present situation. I have a responsibility to co-operate with the Chancellor in the matter of public expenditure and I am not going to be squeezed by the interests concerned to give them everything they want. The matter is being most carefully considered. We will solve this problem in the best way we can, with the best ends in view. I would ask the House to accept that assurance and not to press me to go wild on public expenditure in this matter because we must have a sense of relativity in these times.
  Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two considerations which concern many people? First, can he assure us that the limitations which he is seeking to impose will not result in reduced broadcasting to the countries to which broadcasts already go out? Second, can he say when he will be able to give us a considered statement on where we stand, so that the House may consider the position?
  Mr. Morrison: I should think fairly soon.
  Mr. Eden: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this matter a little more seriously? Is he aware that some of us believe that this is more important in certain respects even than re-armament expenditure?—[Laughter]—I do not know why hon. Members opposite should giggle, but those of us who had to do with propaganda in the war feel very keenly about this. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in the Foreign Office will he look at this through the Foreign Office spectacles as well as Treasury spectacles?
  Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that, in my present position, I am bound to look at it through Foreign Office spectacles, but I do say that there is responsibility on a spending Minister to co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as he can. I do not at all underestimate the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I shall not be unsympathetic about it, but there are means of effecting economies without necessarily damaging the fundamentals of this service.
  Mr. John E. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend considering fully the international political implications of this cut in this service at the present time when, as the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) said, both America and Russia are increasing their services? Will he particularly take note that this service is the only propaganda weapon we have against Eastern Europe at present, and do everything he can to avoid a cut while maintaining economy?
  Mr. Morrison: I cannot agree that our own standards of economy in public expenditure have to be determined by the Soviet Union or the United States. We must consider them on the merits of the case. I am anxious to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend to the fullest possible extent, but I am not going to be submissive to an agitation that comes from certain quarters, calculated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I know perfectly well where it comes from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The decision as to public expenditure and the taxpayers' burden has to be the responsibility of the Government in the first place, and of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the "certain quarters" to which he referred? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Could I have a reply to my question? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the agitation comes from certain quarters. Could we be informed where those certain quarters are to be found?
  Commander Noble: On a point of order. Is it right, Sir, for the Foreign Secretary to make these insinuations without giving any explanation?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Wyatt: As the Opposition has spent the last five and a half years in this House fighting to get these services cut, is it not remarkable evidence of the success of these services that the Opposition should now be converted to their necessity? Will not my right hon. Friend very carefully consider representations from all quarters of the House, now that we have the Opposition added, to have this cut restored?
  Mr. Morrison: Let us be clear about the cut. This was a demand for a materially increased expenditure, and the cut is negligible compared with the expenditure of the last financial year. It is perfectly true that time after time the Opposition have urged that the Government were spending too much money. It is true that they have stated, in particular, that the Government were spending too much money on information services at home and abroad. At home, we have cut by 20 per cent. I am bound to say that this gives added emphasis to what I said earlier.
  Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce one shred of evidence of the demand for a reduction in our broadcasting services abroad?
  Mr. Morrison: There have been denunciations in Conservative publications of our total information expenditure and I must draw the attention of the taxpayer to the point that the Opposition are now vigorously demanding an increase in that expenditure.
  Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he may say that the cut itself is negligible, the effect upon our influence in vital areas abroad may be quite disastrous?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not agree in the least.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: While not under-estimating in any way the value of these broadcasts, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that in the last analysis more good is done to our standing and position in the world by the actual social, political and economic achievements of this country during the past five years, which have been continually depreciated by the Opposition throughout that period?
  Mr. Morrison: I think there is point in what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, we have sought to make British achievements known all over the world,
  186
  and that course has been denounced by the Opposition.
  Mr. Speaker: We seem to have got into a regular party fight at the moment.
  Mr. Profumo: May I ask another supplementary, Mr. Speaker? As the right hon. Gentleman is now more interested in our foreign policy than in our financial policy, may I ask whether he is aware that however small these cuts may appear to be, the effect will be a cut of 10 hours a day?
  Mr. Morrison: That really is a gratuitous assumption on the part of the hon. Member, and is unjustified by fact.
  Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I should be deeply grateful, Sir, if, for the benefit of back bench Members particularly, we could have some guidance on the subject of the practice of asking supplementary questions arising from a Question originally, and quite properly, asked by a back bench Member. Unless I miscounted, there have been four supplementaries, three of which I must say I agree with; from the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Each one of those, equally properly, has been made the occasion of a demonstration. I should like to ask whether it is now to be the practice that in asking supplementaries arising from a back bench Member's Question, a Member of the Opposition Front Bench has any rights that give him priority over those of a back bench Member on either side of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: No one has any right to take any priority whatsoever. I choose who is to ask supplementaries.
  Mr. Profumoasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of foreign listeners in each of the respective countries which will be affected by the reduction of broadcasts due to the cut in the Foreign Office grant for the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas services.
  Mr. H. Morrison: It is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy how many of the listeners to the B.B.C. overseas programmes are accustomed to tune in to the transmissions which will be affected.
  Mr. Profumo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that indisputable figures show that over a million French people listen

  187
  to our programmes each day? Does he think it is right that, owing to this proposed cut, we should surrender to the United States of America practically entirely the right to broadcast the democratic viewpoint to foreign countries?
  Mr. Morrison: I very much doubt whether the research machinery is sufficient in the case of overseas countries to justify the hon. Gentleman's statement.
  Mr. Harrison: With the experience of 12 months of these reduced expenses on broadcasting, could my right hon. Friend say whether any important omission which occurred during that 12 months because of the reduced expenditure has been brought to his notice?
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is a little in advance. Modification has not yet been made.
  Mr. Profumo: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

  FOREIGN PURCHASES (TAX REFUNDS)
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in the Estimates for the Foreign Office, the amount required for the reimbursement of Purchase Tax on goods bought in the United Kingdom for official use by representatives of foreign governments is to be raised to £500,000 in 1951–52, as against £220,000 in 1950–51.
  Mr. H. Morrison: The bulk of this item is for refund to the United States authorities of Purchase Tax paid by them on British goods bought for official purposes or for re-sale to United States Service personnel. As fuller use is now being made of this arrangement, a larger number of refunds is to be expected this year than last.

  FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCES
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government do not recognise Argentine
  188
  claims over any part of the Falkland Island Dependencies, and having regard to the failure of the Argentine Government to accept His Majesty's Government's offer to submit the case to the International Court of Justice, he will now make a full statement on the occupation of British territory in Antarctica by South American States.
  Mr. H. Morrison: As regards the general policy of His Majesty's Government, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary on 6th November, 1950. Since then the Chileans have established another post on British Antarctic territory in the Falkland Island Dependencies. I shall deal with this in replying to the next Question. During the last few days the Argentine Press have reported the establishment of another Argentine base also in the Falkland Island Dependencies. If this is confirmed, His Majesty's Government will protest to the Argentine Government.
  Major Beamish: Is the Foreign Secretary contemplating taking any action other than sending a feeble protest every few months?
  Mr. Morrison: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a Question suggesting what military action he requires, I will consider it.
  Mr. W. G. Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Argentine Government are at present building in this country the largest floating whaling factory in the world, which will be afloat shortly, and does he realise that this is possibly an opportunity of forcing our whalers out of the Antarctic altogether?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think that that is relevant to the point raised by the Question on the Order Paper.
  Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to recent official announcements in Santiago de Chile of the inauguration of a third Chilean base, in charge of the Chilean Air Force, on Paradise Island; and if he will now make a statement.
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Santiago has delivered a formal protest to the Chilean Government against this act of trespass on British territory in the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

  KOREA (LAND REFORM)
  Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the United Nations to secure that agrarian reforms will be carried out by the United Nations Commission for Korea in that part of Korea now securely occupied by United Nations Forces.
  Mr. H. Morrison: A land reform act was promulgated by the Republic of Korea on 26th June, 1949. Implementation was proceeding when the North Koreans invaded South Korea. When Seoul was reoccupied in September, 1950, by United Nations Forces, the South Korean National Assembly reaffirmed the land reform programme. While continued implementation is a matter for the South Korean Government, the United Nations Commission is at liberty to offer advice on this as on other problems.
  Mr. Price: May we have an assurance that the Foreign Secretary will use his influence with the United Nations and, through them, with the United Nations Commission for Korea to see that agrarian reforms are carried out?
  Mr. Morrison: My recollection is that we are not on the Commission, but I will certainly keep my hon. Friend's point in mind. He will appreciate that with the existing possibly fluid situation this is not too good a moment at which to follow this matter too actively.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that intentions and programmes of land reform were repeatedly reaffirmed in South Korea throughout the five years after the war but were never carried out, by contrast with North Korea where, for all their faults, the North Koreans did carry out a very thorough programme of land reform? Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind and do all he can to see that such reforms are carried out?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that agrarian reform in Korea is a matter for the Government of the Republic of Korea under international law and for no one else?
  Mr. Morrison: I will bear that in mind, too.

  CYPRUS (YARN IMPORTS)
  Mr. Errollasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a ban was placed on the importation of Indian yarn into Cyprus during 1950; what was the estimated loss of customs revenue; and how much more the Cyprus consumer had to pay for yarn from other sources.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): This measure was temporarily adopted in Cyprus to encourage the spinning of locally-grown cotton, but has now been given up. It is not possible to estimate the loss of customs revenue in 1950. I am informed that there was no appreciable extra cost to the consumer in Cyprus.
  Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister aware that if he takes the trouble to make himself better informed he will find that there is an extra cost to consumers amounting to £75,000?
  Mr. Cook: I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his supplementary. His statement is contrary to our information, which is that there was no appreciable difference to the consumer.
  Sir H. Williams: As most of my hon. Friends do not identify the hon. Gentleman who is answering the Question, can we be told what constituency he represents, because we have never seen him before?
  Mr. Cook: That is not very bright.

  MALTA (MIGRATION)
  Commander Nobleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what long term plans the Government of Malta has now made in regard to migration from Malta.
  Mr. Cook: Under the present Constitution, emigration policy is a matter for Maltese Ministers, and it would not be suitable for my right hon. Friend to make a statement on this matter.
  Commander Noble: Would the Minister do everything possible to use the good offices of his Ministry to help Malta in this matter, especially with the migration of Maltese to Australia?
  Mr. Cook: We have done that from time to time.
  Mr. Gammans: Have any facilities been offered to Maltese to settle in British Honduras?
  Mr. Cook: That is quite another question.

  WEST INDIES

    Grenada Riots (Damage)
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the extent of the damage caused to public and private property in Grenada during the recent riots; and to what extent the citizens or their representatives helped the authorities to suppress the rioters.
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make on the recent disturbances in Grenada, and particularly about the circumstances which served as the effective cause of the deterioration of the situation from a relatively normal industrial dispute into a serious disturbance; and whether he proposes to hold any formal inquiry into the immediate circumstances of the disturbances and into the general economic background against which they have to be considered.
    Mr. Cook: I will, with permission, make a further statement on the situation in Grenada as promised by my right hon. Friend on 21st March.
    The Wages Council Bill was passed on 28th March. Independently, representatives of the Agricultural Employers' Society and the Grenada Mental and Manual Workers' Union have met under neutral chairmanship. No incidents have been reported by the Governor since the statement in the House on 21st March. The resumption of work was delayed at Plaisance and Mount Horn Estates but is now general.
    In view of the negotiations proceeding locally I do not wish to add anything to previous statements in the House about the course of past events in Grenada. I regret to say that damage and losses in respect of crops are reported from some 80 estates, the latest total estimates amounting to £195,000. In addition, damage by arson to Government property is estimated at £8,300 and to private property at £9,700. Some citizens with
    192
    wireless experience greatly assisted police communications during the strike: others joined the special constabulary.
    Dr. Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the economic conditions of the poor labourers of the estates in Grenada and the other West Indian Islands are perfectly disgraceful? Would he see that machinery is quickly available to take the matter in hand as soon as an industrial or agricultural dispute is announced in any of the Colonies?
    Mr. Cook: We now have this Wages Council set up and we hope for good results from it.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Could the House be told what was the meaning of the word "independently" used, I think, in the early part of the hon. Gentleman's reply? I was not quite clear about it. Secondly, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I did not hear quite clearly the names he mentioned. Plaisance was one; was Mount Horn one? Thirdly, is there any means of estimating how much, if any, of the damage caused is covered by insurance policies?
    Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to reply to the latter part of the question, but if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect I will see that he is given a reply. I mentioned Plaisance and Mount Horn was definitely mentioned. The word "independently" means that they were independent of the Wages Council.
    Sir R. Acland: My hon. Friend mentioned the question of investigations that are now proceeding. If those are investigations simply by the Minister's Labour officer I would ask, without any criticism of that officer, whether he is a sufficient man to investigate alone the very important question of why it was that something that may have started as a labour dispute degenerated into a disturbance and a riot with tremendous loss by damage and loss of life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Second, who is to investigate the question of the general economic and social background of this Island, against which this dispute arose?
    Mr. Cook: It does not arise at this point. Mr. Barltrop has the full confidence of the Secretary of State in handling the situation, not only from day to day but from hour to hour. We want

    193
    the immediate problem to be settled first, and to consider post mortems later.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the known activities of Communists in other parts of the West Indies, is the hon. Gentleman able to give the House an assurance that a full inquiry into that possibility has been made?
    Mr. Cook: We have no evidence at the moment of any Communist activity so far as Grenada is concerned, but we are watching the position very carefully.

    Jamaica (Re-armament Programme)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consult with the Service Departments and the Ministry of Supply regarding the possibility of setting up a small arms factory in Jamaica, where there is a surplus of labour, and of giving orders for equipment, such as boots, to factories which already exist in the island, with a view to making better use of the industrial possibilities of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Cook: The question of the participation of Jamaica in the re-armament programme is being examined. There are, however, many obstacles, and it would be unwise to count on any immediate or appreciable expansion of industrial production there to meet needs created by re-armament.
    Mr. Gammans: Does that answer mean that, in spite of the fact that, as the Government realise, over 500,000 people in this country have to be transferred from productive industry to rearmament, no attempt whatsoever is to be made to utilise surplus labour in Jamaica and Barbados?
    Mr. Cook: All I am seeking to do is to point out that there are difficulties. The matter is being examined.

  NIGERIA

    Imported Ploughs
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the number of steel ridging ploughs suitable for small mixed farms imported into Nigeria in each of the last four years for which
    194
    figures are available; and if he is satisfied that there is now no risk that shortage of such ploughs may be a limiting factor restricting the number of mixed farms which can be established.
    Mr. Cook: I have asked the Governor of Nigeria for information on both parts of the Question, and will write to my hon. Friend when I receive it.

    Development Corporation
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many officials from his Department have gone out to investigate the Cameroons Development Corporation; whether it is intended to have any independent investigators; and what steps were taken when this investigation was decided on for any of his officials to obtain evidence from any people in this country before going out to West Africa.
    Mr. Cook: As the Corporation is a Nigerian statutory body, it would be for the Nigerian Government to initiate any investigation into its affairs. My right hon. Friend has informed the Governor of certain of the matters which my hon. Friend has raised with him about the Corporation and has asked the Governor for his comments on them.
    Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say what pressure the Secretary of State is bringing to bear upon the Governor of Nigeria to make full-scale investigations into the Cameroons Development Corporation, in view of the fact that under the present management such disgraceful inefficiency is being exposed? Already, half the British staff have left the organisation in disgust, and I think that we should investigate the matter as a problem of some urgency.
    Mr. Cook: I would prefer to await the Governor's comments.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Armed Forces (Recruitment)
    Mr. G. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken, in view of the re-armament programme in this country, to faciliate the recruitment in the Colonies of volunteers to join the Armed Forces from Jamaica and other West Indian Colonies and from the Gold Coast, Nigeria, and other

    195
    Colonies where keenness is being expressed by the colonial peoples to play their part in defence of democracy.
    Mr. Cook: Colonials resident in this country can join the Armed Forces in the normal way. No special steps are being taken to recruit volunteers from the colonial territories. In a number of Colonies the inhabitants can join local colonial Forces, and as these Forces develop, their services will be increasingly welcomed.
    Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend say if the Secretary of State has had any representations made to him by the Governors of any of the Colonies mentioned in this Question, because when I was visiting some of these Colonies recently the very strongest representations were made to me that volunteers would be forthcoming if opportunity were given?
    Mr. Cook: That is another question; but not so far as I am aware.

    Groundnut Scheme (African Employees)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposal he has for the disposal of the native labour now redundant from the Groundnut Scheme; and what compensation he has had to pay in this respect.
    Mr. Cook: On the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate of 5th March (HANSARD, Col. 167) which indicated, among other things, that few African employees of the Corporation would become redundant. As regards the second part of the Question, the Corporation have paid to redundant African staff about £2,000 in compensation up to 31st March.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there were 10,000 natives employed on this work? Does he consider that this is the best way to enhance the British reputation among the coloured natives? Will he be sure not to start any more groundnut schemes which finish up in this way?
    Mr. Cook: That has nothing to do with it, but for the sake of the record it should be made clear that the total is 8,000, and
    196
    that the number involved only 400, or, roughly, 5 per cent.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those Africans who were at work on the Groundnut Scheme, and who have not been given compensation, are now in full productive employment?
    Mr. Cook: Most of them are. Where there is any difficulty, the Secretary of State has instructed that suitable arrangements should be made for them.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Can the Undersecretary confirm or deny the rumour that the signature tune of the Secretary of State for War is the "Nutcracker Suite"?
    Mr. Cook: I always thought that that was the theme song of the hon. Gentleman.

    Overseas Food Corporation (Stores Disposal)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how many jeeps, reconditioned Bedford truck engines and other vehicles of other makes were sold by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa; what was the price received; and what was the original cost;
    (2) how many mattresses were sold by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa; what was the price received; and what was their original cost;
    (3) how many E.P.I.P. tents were disposed of by the Overseas Food Corporation at Kongwa to a Mr. Fowler; how much was paid by Mr. Fowler for these tents; and what was the original cost of them.
    Mr. Cook: These Questions relate to details of the management of the scheme and can be more suitably put to the Corporation. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, asked the Corporation to let the hon. Member have the answers direct.
    Mr. Alport: Is the hon. Member aware that, with reference to the statement in Question No. 33, the purchaser of the E.P.I.P. tents estimates that he will make 13,233⅓ per cent. profit on the transaction? Has the hon. Member's Department been in touch with the War Department about the serious shortage of tents in the Middle East? Does he not think that

    197
    it is time that an inquiry was made into the disposal of these stores, in view of the very serious information which is reaching this country from East Africa at the present time?
    Mr. Cook: That is not asking for information: that is giving it; but I would prefer that the hon. Gentleman should await the reply he will get from the Corporation.
    Mr. Butcher: In view of the widespread interest in this matter, could the hon. Gentleman give it greater publicity than that of a letter to one hon. Member of the House?

  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' SALARIES)
  Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what immediate steps are being taken by the Government of Mauritius to implement the scale of salaries as discussed and agreed upon by the Mauritius Secondary Schools Teachers' Union; and what is the official policy on the question of pension.
  Mr. Cook: The Government of Mauritius intend to introduce the agreed salary scales for non-Government secondary schools, to which I assume that my hon. Friend is referring, when the system of grants made by Government to these schools has been reviewed and established on a new basis related to the new salary scales. It is hoped that this will be before the current financial year ends on 30th June. No formal proposals have been made by the union on the question of pension, and official policy on this question has not yet been formulated.
  Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that Government grant is being paid to non-Government schools and that that grant is paid without any conditions attached at all to its payment with regard to the salary level and the pension conditions of teachers?
  Mr. Cook: I should make it clear that the Government of Mauritius have a list of "Approved" secondary schools. They are independent, but are paid a grant in aid by the Government. At 31st December there were nine such schools. I would refer my hon. Friend to my first reply.

  SINGAPORE (STATUS)
  Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have or are being taken to grant Singapore city status.
  Mr. Cook: The Municipal Commissioners of Singapore have addressed a petition to His Majesty for the grant of a Royal Charter. This petition is now being considered.

  MALAYA (ARMOURED VEHICLES)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent applications for armoured vehicles for the police and security Forces in Malaya have yet to be met.
  Mr. Cook: All armoured vehicles ordered by the Malayan Government for use by the police and security forces in Malaya have now reached Malaya.
  Mr. Gammans: Can we assume, then, that there are no shortages whatever of equipment required by the security forces?
  Mr. Cook: We have met all the indents made by the Malayan Government.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If it is true—as, indeed, we hope it is—that there is now no scarcity of these vehicles for the police and security forces, will the hon. Gentleman now turn attention to the need for similar vehicles for the planting and tin communities in Malaya?
  Mr. Cook: That is another question.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Postal Duties
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new postal duties rating involves a special new branch or another opportunity of specialisation for the sea man branch.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): A new branch of the R.N.V.R. is being formed to which personnel of the General Post Office will be recruited for training in Fleet mail duties This Reserve will form the nucleus of

    199
    a new postal branch which will be set up in the Royal Navy in war-time.

    Ships and Equipment (Sale)
    Miss Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether instructions have now been given that no more vessels of any category or naval equipment shall be offered for sale.
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Each case must be decided on its merits. It may be to our advantage to offer certain ships and equipment for sale, particularly to Commonwealth and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries.
    Miss Ward: In view of that statement, may I have an assurance that this whole policy has been reviewed by the hon. Gentleman's Department? Will he also give an assurance that it is a matter for his Department and not a matter for the trade, as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary in answer to my earlier Question?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is quite clear that the policy must be kept continuously under review if each case is decided on its merits.
    Miss Ward: May I have an assurance that this is a matter for the Admiralty and not a matter for the trade?
    Mr. Callaghan: That seems to have nothing to do with the Question the hon. Lady put on the Order Paper.

    Torpedo and Patrol Boats
    Miss Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many new motor torpedo boats or fast patrol boats have been built and commissioned since the end of the war.
    Mr. Callaghan: Twenty-four.
    Miss Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Admiralty were unwise to sell these types of boat, in view of the fact that we have such a small number of them?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES, LONDON
  Sir H. Williamsasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been drawn to the late deliveries of mail
  200
  in the West End of London, in particular, in the Westminster area; whether he is aware that in some parts of Regent Street, on 19th March, the mail normally delivered about 8.45 a.m. was not delivered until 11.30 a.m.; and if he can furnish an explanation for this.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): I much regret that heavy sick absence, particularly on 19th March, together with a re-organisation of postmen's duties has caused delay in completing the first delivery in the districts in question.
  Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a first delivery at 11.30 in the morning is really too bad, in spite of those circumstances?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite agree. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman cannot blame the Post Office because postmen are sick. I agree that it has gone on long enough, and I will look into it myself.
  Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that for many months it has been the practice of business houses in this part of London to collect their mail because the first delivery is too late?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: That is a standing practice throughout the country. It is nothing unusual for business houses to collect their mail.
  Sir H. Williams: Is it not the fact that the Post Office have had an extensive reorganisation of walks, which has nothing to do with influenza?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The re-organisation of duties was due entirely to the later collection, which was pressed for from all sides of the House.

  TELEPHONES, AYR
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Postmaster-General the number of outstanding applications for telephones in the Ayr constituency; and what are the prospects of their being met.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Six hundred and sixty-seven, plus 115 which are in process of being completed. I regret that I cannot say when all outstanding applications are likely to be met.
  Sir T. Moore: Since the demand is obviously so heavy and supplies are obviously so limited, may I presume that

  201
  there is some system of priorities such as for doctors, merchants, landladies, and so on?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a system of priorities. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Prestwick Exchange is now being extended to provide for the demand.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not the increased demand for telephones in Ayr due to the prosperity of the business community in Ayr under the Labour Government?

  WAR OFFICE (NAME)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the declared policy of this country is for defence and not for war, he will change the name of the War Office to that of the Army Office and so place it on similar lines to that of the Air Ministry and the Admiralty.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. This change would almost certainly involve legislation and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees no need for it.
  Mr. Freeman: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the use of this term is likely to cause continued misunderstanding abroad, and that a gesture of this description may be of material assistance to him in the difficult task he has ahead? Will he reconsult the Prime Minister on the matter?
  Mr. Morrison: I follow my hon. Friend's point of view quite well. This is an old name, and I do not think it will cause misunderstanding abroad. If it does we can no doubt get the Overseas Service of the B.B.C. to put it right.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that continuing to refer to the Ministry of Food by that name causes a lot of misunderstanding?
  Mr. Morrison: The copyright of that joke belongs to the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. H. Strauss) who used it before.
  Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has recently described the Foreign Office as "a Department of peace" is it not a little inconsistent that
  202
  the name of another Government Department should run contrary to that and be known as a Department of war? Is not this the psychological moment at which to make an alteration?
  Mr. Morrison: With great respect, I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend would be wholly happy even if we called it the "Army Office."

  ARMED FORCES

    Reservists
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Defence the guiding and underlying principles leading to the recall of Class Z and Class G reservists over 40 years of age who are in possession of no specialist qualifications or experience resulting from former service in His Majesty's Forces.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): These reservists are being recalled for specific tasks in balanced units, and although they may not all possess specialist qualifications it is nonetheless essential for them to be recalled if the unit is to obtain the maximum benefit from its training programme.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in those circumstances it is necessary to call up men of 43 and 44 years of age who have had no previous specialist qualifications and who were demobilised before 1946, having served only as clerks or drivers? Are not younger men available for those jobs?
    Mr. Shinwell: In response to the hon. Gentleman's request I have tried to state the general principle. If he has any specific cases in mind, I suggest that he might refer them to the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air.
    Sir R. Acland: Is there not in effective operation a system of calling up a cross-section of all reservists, which is considerably different from the expressed practice in the "Quiz," which talks about a call up on the general principle of "Last out, first in"?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend wants me to say.
    Sir R. Acland: In view of the divergence, will my right hon. Friend consider this matter again?
    Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman referred to specific cases. Is he aware

    203
    that hundreds of men of 44 years of age have written to me and to other hon. Members complaining that they cannot fit into any of the categories to which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
    Mr. Shinwell: It may be that some men who have been recalled feel that they are not easily dovetailed into special categories, but the War Office and the Air Ministry may hold a different view.
    Mr. Harrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although a lot of these men have no specialist qualifications, they must have special experience before they are called up?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that most men who served during the last war have some special experience.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Defence whether reservists will be unconditionally discharged from all further reserve liability with His Majesty's Forces on attaining the age of 45 years.
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Member is referring to Class Z and Class G reservists the answer is "No," but men over 45 years of age have not been recalled.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that a Z reservist retains the liability for recall until he reaches the age group of Methuselah or until he goes to his Maker, whichever is the earlier?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is the liability to recall while the emergency lasts.
    Mr. Nabarro: At any age?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should imagine that the War Office, the Admiralty or the Air Ministry would not call up a man if they regarded him as too old.
    Mr. Nabarro: When does the liability end?

    Egypt (British Equipment)
    Captain Soamesasked the Minister of Defence what military equipment has
    204
    been sent by this country to Egypt during the past 12 months; and what commitments are outstanding at the present time for the further despatch of such equipment.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), and other hon. Members on 22nd and 29th November, 1950. Since then the only equipment supplied to Egypt has been normal maintenance requirements and spare parts. The supply to Egypt of important items of equipment of modern types has been suspended.
    Captain Soames: Does that include the destroyer "Cottesmore," whose name, I believe, has been changed to the "Ibrahim el Awal"?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think that question might be put on the Order Paper.
    Captain Ryder: Could we have an answer to this question of the "Cottesmore," as we are very short of escort vessels at the present time?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes a reply on some detailed matter, perhaps he will put a Question down. This Question is framed in very general terms and I have given a general answer.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: In the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me there was no mention of a ship such as H.M.S. "Cottesmore."
    Mr. Shinwell: Precisely. There is no mention of a ship in the Question.
    Captain Soames: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say that no major item of military equipment would in future be shipped to Egypt; and is a destroyer not a major item of military equipment?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will repeat what I said in the latter part of my reply. The supply to Egypt of important items of equipment of modern types has been suspended. That is what I said, and by that I stand.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENT No. 252 (SCHEDULES)
Sir John Mellor: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask you a Question of which I have given you Private Notice: Whether, in view of the fact that copies of disputed Schedules 91 to 95, inclusive, of The Iron and Steel Prices Order, Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 252, laid before the House on 20th February, were absent, incomplete or incorrect, you will rule that the said Order has been improperly laid and shall be withdrawn?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Baronet for giving me notice of this Question, and, in reply, I must inform him that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply did, as he had promised to do, seek the advice of the authorities of the House, and that in the view of my advisers Statutory Instrument No. 252 of the Iron and Steel Prices Order, 1951, was not properly laid in the circumstances which have been described. I am informed that the Ministry, on 2nd April, sent the necessary documents to complete those which had been laid in dummy. The Statutory Instrument is now properly laid, and the 40-day period in respect of it will be considered to have begun yesterday.
Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. May I ask for your clarification on one point? Surely, Mr. Speaker, this Schedule is part of the Order and, therefore, there can be only one date for laying. As I understand it, there has not been any official notification to the House of the re-lay which is normally made by notification through the Votes and Proceedings Office. I submit that at present the Order is not laid at all, and I would be very grateful for your guidance upon that point.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Baronet is mistaken. The Order was laid in part. It was not complete at the time but, still, it was laid. It was, so to speak, the notification of the birth of the baby, but we found that it was not complete in all its limbs. Now it has been made complete, and so it comes before the House as a whole child, and in view
206
of my statement just now no other notification is necessary.
Sir J. Mellor: Surely, if it is possible for orders or parts of orders or schedules to be laid in dummy that would undermine the whole Parliamentary control of delegated legislation, because it would be open to the Minister to present the skeleton and to add the flesh afterwards. I submit, Sir, that that would raise an intolerable position from the point of view of Parliamentary control.
Mr. Speaker: I am quite prepared to consider that point, but at the moment I am advised that it is not necessary at all. I must take the advice that I receive.
Mr. Erroll: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, as I had a Prayer against this incomplete Order, which was adjourned by the wish of the House, and which is due to come up again tomorrow night, may I seek your Ruling as to whether I am now to start the Prayer all over again, as the Order is now complete for the first time, or must it be regarded as a continuation of the adjourned Prayer to an incomplete Order?
Mr. Speaker: That is rather a nasty one at short notice. I would like to think that over because I would not like to give a false Ruling about it. It is a difficult question to answer at short notice, but I will consider it.
Mr. S. Silverman: While you are thinking it over, Mr. Speaker, would it perhaps be worth while to take into consideration the possibility that if there were no Order there could be no Prayer?
Mr. Speaker: I take all these things into consideration.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: There is one point on which I think we ought to have an assurance, and that is that no action has been taken between the time when the original Order was mislaid and the time when the new Order has at last been laid.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Ministry. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about that.

POST OFFICE SERVICES (INCREASED CHARGES)
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): With permission, Mr. Speakers I wish to acquaint the House with certain increases which I propose to make in charges for Post Office services.
I have had under examination the developing position of the finances of all Post Office services, and as a result I have reached the conclusion—very reluctantly—that the time has come when the Post Office finances, faced with a steep rise in costs in practically all directions, must be fortified by an increase in several of our tariffs. The House may be surprised at this, in view of the considerable attention frequently given to the surplus exhibited by our commercial accounts, but there is, I fear, no escape from the conclusion that without this support the surplus for 1951–52 would fall to a very small figure.
The increases I now propose to make in Post Office tariffs are as follow:
INLAND PRINTED PAPERS.—I propose to increase the initial rate for an inland printed paper packet from 1d. for the first 2 oz. to 1½d. for the first 4 oz. These changes will be made as from the 1st June, 1951, and the necessary Treasury Warrant will be laid before the House shortly.
OVERSEAS PARCELS.—I propose, as soon as possible after the 1st June, 1951, to increase the postage rates for parcels to overseas destinations to make the service broadly self supporting. The rates for parcels to different countries vary widely but the average increase will be about 50 per cent.
INLAND MONEY ORDERS AND CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICES.—I propose to introduce the following changes in these services on the 1st July, 1951. The poundage on inland money orders and inland telegraph money orders will be increased by 2d. at each step, with a minimum charge of 8d. for amounts

OVERSEAS PARCELS

The postage rates vary widely for different countries of destination. The following are some examples of present and proposed rates:

Present

2 lb.

3 lb.

7 lb.

11 lb.

22 lb.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

France

…

…

…

…

…

…

2

0

—

3

0

4

0

6

6

U.S.A.

…

…

…

…

…

…

—

2

0

3

9

5

9

9

9

Brazil

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

3

—

5

3

6

3

9

9

India

…

…

…

…

…

…

—

2

0

3

9

5

3

8

3

up to £10. The present inland cash-on-delivery fees will be increased by 4d. at each step, with a minimum fee of 10d. for trade charges up to £1. These changes will be made by statutory regulations under existing Acts.
TELEPHONE SERVICE.—The present charge of 2d. for a local call from a public kiosk or other coin-box telephone will be increased to 3d. The increase will be made by statutory regulations under the Telegraph Acts and will come into operation as soon as the necessary adaptations of the coinboxes can be made, probably about the 1st October, 1951.
TELEGRAPH SERVICE.—I propose to introduce the following changes in this service on 1st July, 1951. The minimum charge for an ordinary inland telegram will be increased from 1s. for nine words (with 1d. for each additional word) to 1s. 6d. for 12 words (with 1½d. for each additional word). For greetings telegrams the minimum of 2s. for 12 words will remain unchanged, but each additional word will be charged 1½d. These new charges exceed the limits laid down in the Telegraph Act, 1943, and legislation will be required.
Each of the services in which I am proposing to increase the charges are at present running at a loss.
The effect of the changes which I have enumerated will be to produce additional cash revenue in 1951–52 of £5,320,000 for posts and remittance services; £700,000 for telephones; £300,000 for telegraphs; total, £6,320,000. The corresponding figures for a full year are £6,190,000, £1,550,000 and £450,000; total, £8,190,000.
For the convenience of the House I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT some further details showing the effect of the various changes.
Following are the further details:

Proposed (not earlier than 1st June, 1951)

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

s.

d.

France

…

…

…

…

…

…

3

6

—

4

6

6

3

9

6

U.S.A

…

…

…

…

…

…

—

3

3

6

0

9

9

17

0

Brazil

…

…

…

…

…

…

6

0

—

8

3

12

0

18

3

India

…

…

…

…

…

…

—

3

9

6

6

9

9

15

0

INLAND MONEYORDERS*

Poundage

Amount or order

Present

Proposed

s.

d.

s.

d.

Up to £3

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

4

0

8

Over £3 and up to £10

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

6

Each additional £10 up to £50

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

2

0

2

INLAND TELEGRAPH MONEYORDERS*

Poundage as above plus:—

s.

d.

s.

d.

Official telegram of advice

…

…

…

…

…

…

1

4

1

10

Supplementary fee

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

2

0

3

INLAND CASH-ON-DELIVERYSERVICE*

Tradecharge

C.O.D. fee

s.

d.

s.

d.

Up to 10s.

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

4

0

10

Over10s. up to £1

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

6

Over £1 up to £2

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

8

1

10

Over £2 up to £5

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

10

1

12

Each additional £5 up to £40

…

…

…

…

…

…

0

2

0

2

* Date of change 1st July, 1951.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that these are very widespread increases which will affect every section of the community. We shall obviously require time to study them; we shall want to examine and debate them. Can I ask him now whether I am right in thinking that the Post Office is now making a contribution to the Treasury? If so, can we be told what the amount of that is?
Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. These proposals are considered in the light of Post Office finances. The right hon. Gentleman will not be unaware that there is such a thing as the Bridgeman doctrine which does have an influence on my mind; but these proposals are related solely to the Post Office.
Mr. Eden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to apply his mind to the question I have put? I remember that the Post Office contribution to the Treasury was stopped during the war, and I want to know whether there is now such a contribution being made. The right hon. Gentleman will realise how germane this is to any consideration of these proposals, and that if there is such a contribution, it should cease before the public are asked to pay these new charges.
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office makes no contribution as such to the Treasury. What happens is that the cash
210
account surpluses of the Post Office go to the Treasury. [Laughter.] I thought I had made it very clear. All the profits that the Post Office has made over very many years have been taken by the Treasury, and all one has to do is to look at the accounts to see how much has been taken by the Treasury; but the size of any contribution has never yet been determined by anyone.
Mr. Eden: Since we are all trying to be as simple as we can, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the amount which the Post Office transferred last year to the Treasury?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office did not transfer any money at all. The confusion arises out of the profits on the commercial account and the cash transactions. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague has been in the Post Office and knows that there is a very clear distinction. The result is that the contribution to the Treasury over the last few years has been nil, and apparently it will be nil again this year.
Mr. Bellenger: Will the increased postal rates for overseas parcels be without prejudice to any of the concessions granted to troops serving overseas?
Mr. Ness Edwards: That is a special arrangement and it will still be borne, I take it, by the Defence Departments.
Sir Herbert Williams: Is it not a fact that over the last five years there has been a very substantial deficit on the cash transactions and that the Treasury has had to supply the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors with nearly £40 million out of taxation?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Member has made the point—the difference between the commercial account and the cash account. The postal and telephone services have rendered services of £16 million a year to other Government Departments, from which the Post Office gets no cash payments although it takes credit for them in its commercial accounts. The cash transferred to the Treasury over the last four years has been nil, but there has been a substantial commercial profit.
Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that without these increases the surplus would fall to a very small sum, can he say why the surplus should not fall to such a very small sum if the service to the public is thereby kept cheap?
Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that the reason is this. The Post Office must put itself in the position of meeting all the costs of the services it gives to the community. The Post Office in making these proposals, which hardly in any instance exceed more than 50 per cent., is very much behind the increases in the prices and costs imposed upon it.
Mr. Eden: Would I be right in saying that this extra charge on the public is in very large measure due to the additional demands which the Government Departments make on the services of the Post Office and the consequent effect on their revenues?
Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, that would be completely contrary to the facts. The fact is that the costs of the materials of the Post Office have greatly increased—public conveyance has gone up by 166 per cent., and copper, and other basic materials, paper and wages, have all increased. All these have gone up to a far greater extent than these proposed increases.
Mr. Monslow: Are these suggested increases in any way due to the improved economic condition now enjoyed by the Post Office workers?
Mr. Ness Edwards: There has been a 180 per cent. increase as compared with pre-war in the wage charges for the services rendered by the Post Office.
Mr. Assheton: Is it not high time that the Government gave up the present practice adopted in the war of not charging the Government Departments for their bills, and therefore leading to great extravagance in telephoning and postage by the Government Departments?
Mr. Ness Edwards: While I have sympathy with the suggestion, I would point out that from a purely Post Office point of view it would require something like 2,000 people to supervise the collection and totalling up of these amounts, which means that in the long run the Post Office would be actually worse off.
Mr. Collick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong objections felt on this side to his proposals, and will he give the House the assurance that none of these proposals will be brought into effect until it has had an opportunity of discussing the whole matter?
Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend must face the alternative, which is that the ordinary letter writer, the old age pensioner, will have to subsidise services of this nature, which I am not prepared to agree to.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that these proposals really amount to taxation, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the plea that has been made to him and give an undertaking, apart from the telegraph charges, that these charges will not come into effect until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its view?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The necessary Statutory Instruments will be laid and can be discussed. I want to disabuse the hon. Member's mind of the idea that this has anything to do with taxation. This is something related to the Post Office finances and Post Office finances alone.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Do I understand that the increase in local telephone calls from 2d. to 3d. applies only to kiosks and not to private subscribers, and if so, why?
Mr. Ness Edwards: It applies only to public call boxes. It does not apply to

213
the other type of calls because, as Members on both sides know, in 1949 there was a Bill before the House which had certain disagreeable features and was withdrawn. My mind is not closed to the necessity of looking at that problem again, because it is not right that only persons in public call boxes should meet the whole of the charges that are to be made.
Professor Savory: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to increased costs and expenses. Are these not largely due to the devaluation of the pound, and is not that proved by the fact that those countries which have not debased their coinage have not had to increase their tariffs?
Mr. Ness Edwards: All I am concerned about is to meet the bills which private industry presents to me for the contracts which have been awarded, and unless I get these increases in revenue, I shall be unable to meet the demands of private industry which has contracts.
Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend say if all the services which he has mentioned were losing money, and if, therefore, we are to assume that the rest of the postal services were actually subsidising the services he has mentioned today?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The services on which I have proposed increases have been carried by other sections of the postal service. They have been working at a loss and the loss is now so substantial that it must be tackled.
Sir Peter Macdonald: Have attempts to improve or increase the services provided by the Post Office been commensurate with these increased charges, because in many cases services are still on a war-time basis, especially as regards the collection and delivery of letters?
Mr. Ness Edwards: This is one of the consequences of the improvements I have made. There have been increased charges which must be paid for.
Miss Burton: Has not my right hon. Friend inadvertently left the House under a misapprehension so far as private telephone calls are concerned? Were not the charges for these increased by 50 per cent.
214
not long ago, and in addition to that there are surcharges, Would it be right for further additional charges to be put on the private subscriber?
Mr. Ness Edwards: My hon. Friend is right in some respects and wrong in others. The rental increase was 15 per cent. not 50 per cent. It would be wrong now, apart from the rental position, which I am reserving, to increase their local charges.
Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is it not a fact that if the Post Office were to receive payment from other Government Departments for services rendered there would still be, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, a small surplus, and that these extra charges would, for the time being at all events, be unnecessary?
Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot with any assurance or confidence give the House the assurance that if these charges were not imposed there would be a commercial account surplus at the end of the year. There is grave doubt about it, and it would be quite wrong of me to mislead the House about it.
Mr. Harry Wallace: Does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake a full review of the charges made by the Post Office for all its services? Can he say now what Post Office services will be carried on at a loss after the proposed increases in charges? In other words, are there not still sections of the service which do not charge a price which covers the cost?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The telegraph service has, as the House knows, been carried on at a very substantial loss for many years. The loss last year was £4 million, and this year will probably be £5 million. I agree that it is a service that we have to keep in the interests of our community, especially the poorer and scattered parts of it. I am quite prepared to carry on the policy of maintaining that service and of fixing a tariff that will not kill it altogether.
Mr. R. V. Grimston: I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that there will be a surplus in the commercial account for 1951–52. But did he not say, in his original statement that

215
there would be a surplus but that it would be a small one? Is the right hon. Gentleman now departing from what he said in his original statement?
Mr. Ness Edwards: No. What I said in my statement was that we anticipated that there will, towards the end of the year, be a very small surplus, but events are moving so swiftly against us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the prices that private industry is charging are rising—that it is not with great confidence that I make that estimate that it will be a surplus at all. It may fall on either side of the line, and the House should be aware of that.
Mr. Albu: Is it not a fact that a few months ago the price of a telephone call in telephone kiosks in the United States, where the telephone service is run by private enterprise, went up to 8d.?
Mr. Ness Edwards: The fact is that the President of the United States has already asked Congress for increases far in advance of those for which I am asking.
Sir Ian Fraser: In order to protect the Post Office from being flooded out, and to help Members of Parliament, will the Postmaster-General raise the fee for a letter stamp, when constituents write to their Members, to 2s. 6d.?
Mr. Ness Edwards: That may be very good Tory doctrine, but it is not accepted on this side of the House.
Mr. Mulley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to the last supplementary question, that we on this side of the House do not object to letters from our constituents? In regard to the need to increase the revenue of the telegraph service, will my right hon. Friend also consider raising the special rates which are given in respect of the Press telegram service, which is now run at a considerable loss?
Mr. Ness Edwards: I must have particular regard to that aspect. I do not want to do anything that will cause limitation in the dissemination of news and
216
information. I am trying to be quite fair about this: I do not want any charge that we are crippling the Press in its legitimate activities to be levelled at this side of the House. The amount we should save by adopting such a proposal would be trifling, and I have decided that the balance of argument is against doing anything about it.
Mr. Summers: How are the commercial results of the right hon. Gentleman's Department expected to work out in the current year, after taking the benefit of the increases which he has announced, compared with the commercial results of last year?
Mr. Ness Edwards: As I have already said, we anticipate a slight surplus at the end of this year if further price changes do not alter the position. As I have indicated, there are 12 arbitration cases outstanding in respect of claims for increased wages. This forecast account does not include an increase in wages to the engineers amounting to £1,250,000 per year, which has already been granted. It is these imponderable and uncertain factors that make me very reluctant to be certain and dogmatic about our future accounts.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We have now devoted half an hour to this matter. We have other business to do, and I hope that we might get on.
Mr. Summers: As the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to give me an answer, and as my question is one in which the public is vitally interested, may I again ask him how it is expected that the results of his Department will work out, after these changes, compared with last year?
Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman will only read the published forecast account, which is available in the Vote Office, he will find all the information he requires.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
  ELDERLY PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)
  Mr. J. R. Bevins: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the importance of the problem of retaining middle-aged and elderly people in employment, and move a resolution.
  LANDED ESTATES (TAX REMISSION)
  Mr. J. J. Robertson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the present prevailing remission of tax on landed estates, and move a resolution.
  TOURIST INDUSTRY
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 13th April, I shall call attention to the tourist industry, and move a resolution.
  IRON AND STEEL PRICES
  Order for resuming Tomorrow Adjourned Debate on Question [19th March] read and discharged.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  As amended, considered.
  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

    Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING LONG TENANCY WHERE TENANT IN OCCUPATION.)
    4.1 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "tenancy," to insert "of residential property."
    A long time has elapsed since we last had an opportunity of considering this Bill, which I fear is dull and uninteresting to most hon. Members, although it is of great importance to many people throughout the country. The importance depends to some extent upon what happens today and what may happen to the Bill in the future. The Amendment is a simple one and easily capable of comprehension.
    The House will observe that the Bill proposes to do two separate and distinct things. The long Title makes that clear. The first thing it proposes to do is to make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property against the coming to an end of long leases. The second thing is the renewal of tenancies of shops. Part I of the Bill is headed "Dwellings," and Part II "Shops," and yet, on looking through Part I, one finds no reference to the words "residential property." Nor, apart from that heading, is there any reference to the word "dwellings" in Part I. I drew attention to this fact during the Committee stage, when we suggested that the word "dwelling-house" should be inserted in the operative part of Clause 1. We gave to that expression the same definition as is contained in the Rent Acts.
    In his reply, the Attorney-General expressed the view that as a true ground lease was a lease of land without buildings on it at that moment, and a dwelling-house subsequently erected on that land would be excluded from the definition, there would be no letting of a separate dwelling-house. I think that that opinion expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I am sorry not to see here today, is inaccurate. I think that

    219
    he would find it so if he were to refer to one of the decided cases. He said that he would look at the point. I have not had any communication from him with regard to the matter, and if he has looked at it he has not sought to make any alteration to the Bill.
    The new approach which we are seeking to make by the insertion of the words "residential property" should commend itself to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. One reason is that it makes the text of the Bill accord with the long Title, which at present it does not. There is no reference in the body of the Bill to the words "residential property," which are contained in the long Title. What is residential property is in each case a question of fact. I do not think it would be necessary, if these words were inserted, to provide any definition of residential property. No one would regard Selfridge's, Woolworth's or the Albert Hall—these instances were given on the Committee stage—as residential properties, but yet, under the Bill as it stands, in the case of a shop let on a lease for more than 21 years, as many shops are, all that the tenant or a member of his family would have to do in order to bring that shop within Part I of the Bill, would be to go and live there immediately before the lease of the shop expired.
    I cannot believe that it is the intention that this very bad Bill should create such a degree of uncertainty as to its operation as to lead, in all probability, to litigation upon that point. No one can say that the point is not liable to arise if it is left open to all tenants of property held on leases of over 21 years to make use of Part I of the Bill in that way. No landlord of business premises would find it possible to make any arrangements certain in character for the future. No would-be tenant would be able to rely upon securing possession, even though the tenant in occupation had said that he was going. Any arrangements that the would-be tenant had made could be defeated if the occupying tenant changed his mind and decided to live on the premises for a week or so before the expiry of the lease.
    It is a serious defect in the Bill that the words "residential property," although they appear in the long Title, do not appear anywhere in the text. As I understand the Bill from the long Title,
    220
    the intention is that Part I should apply only to residential property, but that is not said. We say that, to make Part I accord with the long Title, the House should certainly incorporate these words. In that connection I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the passage in the Gracious Speech referring to the Bill, which said:
    "My Ministers have under consideration the reform of the law relating to leaseholds and meanwhile measures will be introduced to provide for the continuation for a short period of ground leases relating to residential premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 8.]
    The Amendment seeks to carry out the intention, revealed in not only the long Title of the Bill but also in the Gracious Speech.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am very sympathetic to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but does not the title "Dwellings" at the head of Part I comprehend the very objective he seeks to attain?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not consider that the heading forms any part of the Statute for the purposes of interpretation? What we have to look at is the wording of the text. I appreciate that he is not unsympathetic. If he looks at the text, he will see that, although we have the heading "Dwellings," there is no reference to "dwellings" anywhere in Part I and also no reference to residential property. As objection was taken to our attempting to insert the word "dwelling," we are now seeking to do nothing else than to put in the Bill what should obviously be there to carry out the intention of the Gracious Speech and the long Title.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not the point that "dwellings" is a classification? I agree that it is not a very tidy one, but nevertheless it stands there as a category. The point is whether incorporating between the words "tenancy" and "was" the phrase "of residential property" will make confusion worse confounded. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to do what he now seeks to do, it seems that it might be wise to eliminate the title "Dwellings" altogether and then incorporate the phrase "of residential property." It would be rather confusing if both were to stand together.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not share that view for two reasons. One is that "dwelling" is another way of expressing "residential property." The second reason is that the word "Dwellings" at the head of Part I is of as much assistance in interpreting the Statute as the marginal note, but it does not form part of the Statute.
    I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree that no one could say, merely because of the one word at the top of Part I, that the application of Clause I could be limited to dwellings, if a case could be brought within the actual wording of the Clause. While I see no difficulty arising if Part I is headed "Dwellings" and the first line of the Clause refers to "residential property," we feel that if we insert the words "residential property" or "dwellings"—we do not mind which it is in the actual text of the Bill—it will lead to clarity, and the avoidance of a great deal of confusion and a great many attempts by various individuals to take advantage of the Measure when it is not intended to apply to them.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I am not a bit sympathetic to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Is it not quite obvious to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, even if these words were inserted, the position would still be left exactly the same in the instance which he gave of the person going to live in a shop?
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman's views are not nearly so convincing as those of his hon. and learned Friend. He may be less sympathetic to my argument, but his views are also less well founded. It is obvious that, if we insert "residential property" in the text, in order to bring a person within the Clause we have to find that he is living in residential property. No solicitor could be heard to contend that the Albert Hall would become residential property merely because the hon. Gentleman once spent a night there.
    4.15 p.m.
    By inserting the words "residential property" we should clarify and, at the same time define the operation of Part I. Although the hon. Member says that he
    222
    is unsympathetic to the argument I am advancing, I would point out to him that his lack of sympathy relates, I believe, to the whole of the Measure, because all we are seeking to do is to make the Measure accord with the intention expressed in the long Title and in the Gracious Speech and to make it as clear as it can be made and as workable as such a very bad Measure can be made.
    Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I always feel a certain amount of diffidence, not being a member of the legal profession, in taking part in the discussion of this very difficult and complicated Measure, but I am fortified by the view that, when the Bill becomes an Act, we hope it will be understood by the members of the public who will be concerned in its operation and not merely by those who can bring a trained legal mind to bear upon its phraseology.
    Therefore, I plead with the House to accept the Amendment with the object of making the Bill a little more intelligible to the ordinary member of the public. I am fortified in my appeal by two statements made by the Attorney-General in Second Reading debate. He said:
    "… we are left only with the word 'dwelling'; and there is really no definition of 'dwelling.' Anything is a dwelling in which a person happens to dwell at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 937.]
    Therefore, even if it were possible to import the word "dwellings," it would be an unsatisfactory way of seeking to define what classes of property should properly be brought within the purview of the Clause. In the same speech the Attorney-General said:
    "… I am in favour of anything which avoids unnecessary litigation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 936.]
    Acceptance of the Amendment would avoid a considerable amount of misunderstanding and litigation later on.
    If we accept the Attorney-General's statement that "dwelling" means "anything…in which a person happens to dwell at the time," it is obvious that we are dealing with something wider in scope than a residential property, and it would be fair to say that if one had a very large office building in London containing two or three rooms reserved for the occupation of a caretaker or a housekeeper, although

    223
    99 per cent. of the building was devoted to office purposes, those rooms could be regarded as a dwelling. Therefore if that is the case, the lessee of such a property under a ground lease would only have to enter into possession of those two or three rooms for a short period over the expiration of the lease itself to bring the property within the scope of Part I of this Bill. I cannot for one moment think that it was really in the minds of those who brought the Bill before the House that that type of case should be caught by Part I of the Bill.
    It would also be fair to say that in the case of a man having a chain of multiple shops where in each shop the occupation was predominantly a business occupation, but each shop had two or three rooms occupied by a manager or an assistant, the proprietor of the business, by living in the two or three rooms for a limited period over the expiration of the lease, would be able to bring himself within the framework of Part I of the Bill.
    If the Amendment were accepted we would, by the insertion of the words "residential property," limit the operation of Part I to the class of property which it was intended to bring within the scope of Part I, and would get away from the obvious ambiguity which exists regarding the interpretation of the word "dwelling," even if it were possible to bring the word "dwelling" from the head of this part of the Bill into the interpretation of what follows.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): Since the Committee stage of this Bill we have carefully reconsidered the wording of this Clause, and as a result we feel that it is perfectly satisfactory as it stands. May I endeavour to give my reasons why? I think that some hon. Members are under a slight misapprehension about the object of Part I. It is not intended to apply exclusively to residential premises: it is intended to include mixed residential and shop premises, and that is made perfectly clear by the language used.
    Clause 1 requires, first, that there should be a tenancy for the requisite period of years and, secondly, that immediately before the date of expiry of that tenancy
    "the tenant or a member of his family is living in the property or a part thereof in right of the tenancy."
    224
    Upon the assumption that those conditions are fulfilled, Part I has application, and it will be immediately apparent, if one considers those words, that it has application as a result to premises which may be partly shop premises and partly residential, so long as one can say of them that, first, they are held upon a lease which is of the requisite length, and secondly, that the tenant or a member of his family in right of the tenancy is living either in the premises as a whole or in part of them.
    If we introduced the words, "of residential property" as proposed by the Amendment, the effect would be substantially to limit the application of the Clause. It would mean that the only premises which were affected by Part I would be those premises which could be described as residential premises and it would exclude all mixed premises. That is not the intention, and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is not quite accurate in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend did not intimate that it was the intention of those who proposed this Bill that mixed premises should be included. If the hon. and learned Member will be so good as to look again at a letter which my right hon. and learned Friend wrote on 21st March of this year, after the Committee stage proceedings, he will see that that was made clear.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain, then, why the first part of the long Title, which relates solely to Part I, refers only to residential property?
    The Solicitor-General: Because if the premises are lived in they also include residential premises and therefore would be within the long Title. That is why we feel we should be limiting the first Clause to an extent which is not intended if we accepted the words in the Amendment.
    The basis of the argument advanced in support of the Amendment is as follows. It is said that if we do not import some words like "residential premises" it may lead to ridiculous results. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) instanced the case of a large block of offices in one or two rooms of which a caretaker was living. Of course, if these were the circumstances, that would not be sufficient to make

    225
    Part I of the Bill apply because, as the hon. Member is well aware, the person who has to be living in the premises has to be the tenant or a member of the tenant's family. I think the hon. Member intimated that he was aware of that, because he went on to assume that in the case he was posing, the owner of the block of offices had at the last moment evicted and supplanted the caretaker.
    One has to look at the generality of cases. I suppose one could theoretically or conceivably have a case of a large block of offices the lessee of which was minded at the last moment before the expiry of the lease to expel the caretaker living in part of them and to supplant him by his own personality; but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that is an unlikely case.
    Mr. Black: No.
    The Solicitor-General: Equally is it unlikely that one would get a person moving his bed on Christmas Eve into the Albert Hall, which was another example given at an earlier stage. Such things do happen in this world in which almost everything is possible, but obviously that is an extraordinary case and that rarified concatenation of circumstances is not the sort of thing about which one has to legislate.
    We have to deal with the generality of cases in which either the tenant or a member of his family is living, in the true sense of the word, in the whole or part of the premises. The touchstone is the word "living." It is always a question of fact whether premises are residential. It is equally a question of fact whether one can say in any given circumstances that a person is living in premises.
    I should have thought it unlikely as a fact that any court would conclude that, supposing a person moved his bed into the Albert Hall on Christmas Eve—for some reason which might be difficult to conjecture, at any rate without further explanation—he was living in the Albert Hall. Equally I should have thought it unlikely on the whole that if the lessee in a large block of offices supplanted the caretaker and moved in for two days at the end of the term, it would be said that he was living there.
    226
    4.30 p.m.
    Therefore, the qualification is to be found in the word "living." We have to find the premises and then we have to be able to say as a matter of fact that the tenant or a member of his family is living in those premises. The word is "living," and, after all, to come within the four corners of that word there has to be a given state of fact which does correspond to what the ordinary person regards as the process of living in a particular building. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation and the assurance that we have carefully considered again the arguments put forward and we feel that the present language in the Bill is satisfactory, the House will agree that the Amendment ought not to be accepted.
    Captain Crookshank: This is not a subject in which I am very well versed, but I understand that the word "reside" is normally the word used in statutes of this kind. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument really turns on what is or is not meant by the word "living." He said that if one moved a bed into the Albert Hall, one could not make the Albert Hall into a residence. I understand why that may be in an extreme case.
    I wonder what happens in a case corresponding to that in which certain Ministers have the use of certain rooms in their Department and which they occasionally use when kept up late in the House or when they cannot get home at night. It may very well be that similar circumstances occur in other walks of life. A solicitor may have a bed in his office for occasional use, or a doctor in Harley Street who did not live in that street, might find that from time to time he occasionally slept a couple of nights in his consulting rooms. Would that constitute living in premises under the Bill? It would not constitute residing under the law as it is now. By changing the word to "residing" instead of "living," might it not be said that this would let out the kind of case I have in mind?
    The Solicitor-General: As I am sure the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will agree at once, it is very difficult to draw the line. If one takes the case of the Harley Street doctor living on the premises for an occasional night, I do not think an ordinary person considering the ordinary

    227
    meaning of the word "living" would say that he was living there. On the other hand, supposing one had a shop with premises at the back where a person habitually sleeps, then he lives there.
    I should have thought that, generally speaking, it would not be difficult to say on which side of the line the case fell, and in the sort of example the right hon. and gallant Member gives the line would fall roughly as I sought to put it. With regard to the use of the word "reside," I think he is not quite accurate in thinking that is the usual word used in legislation of this kind. If one looks, for example, at the Rent Restriction Acts—a very extensive code with very many Acts going to make it up and where one would be able to find some answer as to what is the usual word used—I think I am right in saying that the word "reside" is used in only one place; that is in Section 12 (1, g) of the 1920 Act, where it would be awkward for a particular reason, if one looks at the definition, to use the word "living" because it would have an unfortunate connotation. Broadly speaking, I think it cannot be said that the word "reside" is the usual word used. Therefore I think the answer to the question the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has put to me is "No."
    Looking away from legislation, I think that if one asked, in the ordinary English acceptation of the term, "Does the word 'living' convey a clear conception or is a clearer conception conveyed by the word 'reside'?" I should have thought the ordinary meaning to be attributed to it is also the legal meaning. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the expression "to live in premises" is cleary understood on the whole and conveys a perfectly clear connotation to the mind of the ordinary person.
    If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not agree, may I make a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian" which contains a very outspoken protest against what is described as ugly English, and the word "resided" is selected as an example of ugly English and the word "live" is preferred to the word "reside"? If one judges the matter by standards of taste, perhaps the "Manchester Guardian" view is one which the House would be disposed to
    228
    take into account as being authoritative in the matter. I think the House would agree that no really useful purpose would be served by making the change.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are two separate apprehensions in the minds of those of us who support the Amendment. The first is that without some limitation of this kind this part of the Bill might apply to property which is not residential at all. The second apprehension is that it might apply to property which, although mixed residential and non-residential, is of a kind and scope which we feel should not be dealt with in the manner laid down in Part I.
    The Solicitor-General has argued that if there were non-residential premises into which the tenant moved and took up his temporary habitation shortly before the date of expiry, that would not attract the provisions of Part 1 of the Act. He prayed in aid the use of the word "living" as the technical term in the Rent Restriction Acts. He overlooked the reason the Rent Restriction Acts do not cover non-residential property. It is not by reason of the exclusive force of the word "living" but by reason of the exclusive force of the word "house." The basic conception is "house."
    In various cases arising under the Rent Restriction Acts, it has been ruled that a person who was living, and more or less permanently living, in premises which were not in themselves adapted for residence could not invoke the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts because the premises were not a house. In fact, the term "living" has been treated as having the opposite force to that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to it in this Clause. Therefore, on the first count, I feel that unless there is some limitation, some change in the wording, this part of the Bill will be found to cover premises which are not residential, and there will be a quite considerable loophole where residence is taken up for a short time or where there is temporary use of such premises by the tenant for sleeping or other forms of habitation.
    As regards mixed premises, it seems to me that the Solicitor-General put Part I of this Bill in a rather new light in his remarks to the House. We have all along been led to understand that it was the protection of a tenant in his

    229
    domestic occupation which was the aim of Part I and not that the intention was to protect him in his tenancy of non-residential property which happened to be conjoined or linked up with it. Now we are told that there was a subsidiary aim to Part I and that was to protect mixed premises. Admittedly the Solicitor-General said "mixed residential and shop premises," but there is nothing in the terms of the Bill to restrict it to mixed residential and shop premises. It may be mixed premises of any kind. It may include a factory or a workshop and a block of offices where there is living accommodation and where tenants are living, a solicitor's office and so forth.
    So we must not be misled by the limitation which the Solicitor-General imported. He is now claiming it is the object of Part I to protect a tenant not only in his home but in his business premises. To me that is a quite new application of this part of the Bill. In so far as it is desired to give protection to a mixed residential and shop property, that protection is given under the provisions of Part II. All along the Government have argued that they have no desire to protect any kind of non-residential property except shop property and so the second half of a possible case falls.
    I feel that on both counts, first, the danger that this Clause might cover property which is not residential at all, and secondly, the admitted fact that it could cover property which is only partly residential and is either protected by Part II or is property which the Government decide they do not want to protect at all, it is most essential that we should introduce some limitation in this Clause to import protection for the residential character of this property.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think anyone could deny that this Clause is rather obscurely worded. It is far better to face the fact than to try to skate round it. On the other hand, one has to consider whether the Amendment would do anything to correct that position. The Solicitor-General has said that this Clause clearly applies to mixed property, that is to say, to property which is partly a dwelling and is residential, and may be also, as to the rest of the premises, a shop or used for some other purposes of occupation.
    230
    I do not agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I think there is some foundation in the Clause for the Solicitor-General's argument because it distinctly refers to property in which the tenant is living or a part thereof. It therefore clearly indicates premises of which a part may be occupied for the purpose of dwelling and another part for some other purpose. At the same time it is perfectly clear that the wording of the Clause might lead to difficulty. I think that the matter would be completely clarified if, instead of inserting the words "residential property" the words "residential property or premises which are partly residential or used for residential purposes" were inserted. That would clearly—
    Mr. George Thomas: It is as clear as mud now.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend understands the Clause, either in its present form or as it would be if amended, but it seems to me that what it is sought to do by this Clause is to say that it is to apply to residential property, for otherwise the term "dwelling" would have no sense or meaning. It is no use the Solicitor-General saying that "residing" is an ugly word. It may be ugly but it is intelligible.
    Mr. John Foster: Has the hon. and learned Member considered the protection given to people who live in shops by Clause 10 (2, b) and would that satisfy him? Does he think that is an answer to the Solicitor-General?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I quite agree, and that, of course, makes it so confusing. Here we have a two-fold classification. One part expressly refers to dwellings, and in the long Title the term "residential property" is specifically used. Although there is provision made for shops and shops only, the first part does undoubtedly refer to property which may be something more than a dwelling—
    Mr. Foster: Not shops only.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I agree. It refers to property which may be something more than a dwelling, and that is where the confusion arises. It is no use the Solicitor-General trying to make out that this is clear, because it is not. I should have thought that the wording of Clause 1 might have been altered to make clear that what is intended is to include pro-

    231
    perty used for residential occupation even where there is another part of the property occupied for some other purpose. It is perfectly clear that the Clause as it stands does not easily indicate that. I think that the proper thing to do would be to import words which would achieve that end. I do not think the Amendment really does that; it is very limited and does not remove the confusion, and I could not support it.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Foster: The Solicitor-General put forward an objection in principle to the Amendment, and his argument was that we want to protect mixed property and the usual mixed property he took was a shop and dwelling accommodation. He said that if the Clause were partly restricted to residential property, it would not give protection to the mixed property which included the shops. But protection is already given under Clause 10 (2, b) to mixed property. I quite agree that it is not quite the same kind of protection. I want to try to convince the Solicitor-General that it is not necessary to have the same kind of protection as we have under Clause 1 for the mixed property.
    I will take an instance of what would happen under this Bill. A gentleman may take a lease of a shop for seven years—I am using the term "take a lease" in the layman's way and not indicating the type of lease—and he is entitled to the protection of this Measure. He goes along to his solicitor to get advice on what protection he is entitled to have. If he has acquired the tail end of a 21-year lease, he gets the protection of Clause 1, but if he has a new lease he gets the protection of Clause 10 (2, b). What is the sense in that? From the layman's point of view he has taken a new lease on a shop, but from a legal point of view he has been assigned a lease of over 21 years under Clause 1. Surely the protection given to shops in premises which consist partly of shops and partly of accommodation is sufficient protection for a mixed tenancy.
    On this side of the House we think that the Government have been very cowardly in bringing forward this legislation instead of facing the problem and giving better protection than they give under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS:
    232
    "Oh."] I know that hon. Members do not like that, but they have refused to face the problem and have put in stopgap legislation which produces even more anomalies in this welter of rent restriction, control of tenancy, rent tribunals and so on, and they make confusion worse confounded by making a purely arbitrary distinction between the two types of leases. If the long Title is observed, it is quite easy. One divides the two classes into residential property and gives them protection under the first part of the long Title. We then look at the second part of the long Title and give protection for the renewal of tenancies of shops and keep the definition in Clause 10 (2, b), and the whole thing is much simpler. Then there is not the overlapping to which the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) referred, and the division is quite simple.
    It was said by the Solicitor-General that the instances given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), were far-fetched. They are not far-fetched, because if this anomalous position is established very important tenancies which involve a lot of money may be continued to the benefit of the tenant. The House will appreciate that this concerns a lease of 21 years. Let us take one where the lease is for 99 years and where there is a big block of offices or flats bringing in anything from £5 to £500 a week. There the ground lease is substantial and the worth of the tenancies of the flats and offices is many thousands of pounds a year. In such a case it is not inconceivable to imagine a tenancy being worth anything between £40,000 to £100,000 a year. The ground tenant can get the benefit of a couple of hundred thousand pounds by moving into one room.
    If the Solicitor-General is convinced that that is possible, would he not think it desirable again—he has one further opportunity I understand of reconsidering the matter when the Bill goes to another place—to take the opportunity of preventing such unjustifiable gain to a tenant just because the wording of this Clause does not differentiate between a residential property and a property which is mixed in the sense of one room and one office or 500 rooms and 500 offices. Surely that is wrong, and is a case for looking

    233
    at the wording again. As I said, there is sufficient protection under Clause 10 (2, b) for the typical case of a mixed tenant, and I quite agree that he should have that protection. Would the Solicitor-General tell the House what he thinks about that?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to Clause 10 (2). Is not the trouble there that that Clause is limited and applies to the actual tenant, or someone in his employment in that particular trade and that that limits the protection?
    Mr. Foster: I do not think so. A tenant in a shop gets protection, as does the typical case which the Solicitor-General wants to have covered.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It would not be as wide as under that Clause, assuming it was made clear that it applies to mixed property like shops and residences. That is much wider.
    Mr. Foster: I think it is wider in the sense that it concerns a member of a family.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is wider, never mind to what extent.
    Mr. Foster: Yes, but that would be a reason for amending Clause 10 (2, b), but it is not a reason for refraining from amending Clause 1.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is a good reason for not substituting Clause 10 (2) for Clause 1.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a fairly lengthy discussion on these three very important words, and even the utterances of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have made no impression on his Front Bench. The arguments against the present wording in this Clause are in my opinion quite overwhelming, and I regret the attitude adopted by the Solicitor-General with regard to our Amendment to make the Clause correspond with what was said on Second Reading. As we have been unable to make any further impression upon him, it is obviously of very little use continuing the debate and we should reveal our opinions in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 236.

    Division No. 68.]

    AYES

    [4.55 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

    Heath, Edward

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Astor, Hon. M. L.

    Cundiff, F. W.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Davies, Nigel (Epping)

    Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

    Banks, Col. C.

    de Chair, Somerset

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

    Baxter, A. B.

    De la Bère, R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Beamish, Major Tufton

    Deedes, W. F.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Bell, R. M.

    Dodos-Parker, A. D

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Drewe, C.

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

    Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Birch, Nigel

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hutchison, Colonel James

    Black, C. W.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jeffreys, General Sir George

    Boothby, R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Foster, John

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Braine, B. R.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lloyd, Rt Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Clyde, J. L

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McKibbin, A.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

    Hay, John

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Maclay, Hon. John

    Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

    Heald, Lionel

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Summers, G. S.

    Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

    Marples, A. E.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

    Maudling R.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Thorp, Brig, R. A. F.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Tilney, John

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Touche, G. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Ropner, Col. L

    Turner, H. F. L.

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

    Russell, R. S.

    Turton, R. H.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Nabarro, G.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Scott, Donald

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. G.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller

    Watkinson, H.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

    Watt, Sir George Harvie

    Odey, G. W.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Webbe, Sir Harold

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Charles (Torquay)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Osborne, C.

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

    Wills, G.

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Storey, S.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Major Conant and Mr. Digby.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Deer, G.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Adams, H. R.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Albu, A. H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Donnelly, D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Dye, S.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Edwards, W. J (Stepnay)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Baird, J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Keenan, W.

    Bartley, P.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Kenyon, C.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Ewart, R.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Benson, G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Kinley, J.

    Beswick, F.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Woolwich, E.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Bing, G. H. C

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Follick, M.

    Logan, D. G

    Blyton, W. R.

    Foot, M. M.

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Boardman, H.

    Forman, J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Booth, A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    McInnes, J.

    Bowden, H. W

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Gilzean, A.

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

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Glanville, James (Consett)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Gooch, E. G

    Manuel, A. C

    Brown, George (Belper)

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

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Burke, W. A.

    Grey, C. F.

    Messer, F.

    Burton, Miss E.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Grimond, J.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Hamilton, W. W

    Moeran, E. W.

    Clunie, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hardman, D. R

    Moody, A. S.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hardy, E. A

    Morley, R.

    Collick, P.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Cook, T. F.

    Harrison, J.

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

    Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Cooper, John (Deptford)

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Moyle, A.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Holman, P.

    Murray, J. D.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Nally, W.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Houghton, D.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Dames, P.

    Hubbard, T.

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

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Orbach, M.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    de Freitas, G.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Pannell, T. C.

    236

    237

    Parker, J.

    Slater, J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Paton, J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Pearson, A.

    Snow, J. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Peart, T. F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    West, D. G.

    Poole, C.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh E.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Porter, G.

    Steele, T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Wigg, G

    Rankin, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Rees, Mrs. D.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

    Reeves, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Richards, R.

    Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Robens, A.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Wise, F. J.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Timmons, J.

    Woods, Rev. G. S.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Tomney, F.

    Yates, V. F.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Vernon, W. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Simmons, C. J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Royle and

    Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "thirty."
    In our discussions on the last Amendment I referred to the Gracious Speech and I quoted the expression used in that speech:
    "ground leases relating to residential property."
    It is quite clear now that the words "relating to residential property" were not entirely accurate; and it would now appear as the Clause stands that the words, "ground leases" are not in any respect entirely accurate. On the Committee stage we endeavoured to insert in this Bill the words "ground leases" and a definition of that phrase—[Interruption.] I am sorry that my remarks appear to cause amusement on the back benches opposite. I do not think there is anything particularly funny about them.
    I was referring to the reply of the learned Attorney-General on that point and endeavouring to remind the House of it. He said it was not practical to find a satisfactory definition of the phrase "ground lease," and so the period of 21 years was arbitrarily selected as the line to be drawn in this part of the Bill. With regard to the definition which we put forward, which had been taken out of an Act of Parliament passed in 1939, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said this:
    "By 1941 experience had shown that the definition in the Act had become completely
    238
    unworkable, and in that year an amending Bill was passed, the definition was repealed and the distinction between ground leases and other leases was abolished for the purpose of the 1939 Act on which this Amendment was modelled.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 739.]
    I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here today. I do not know why he is not present. As he was present on the Committee stage dealing with this, I thought he would be present today. No doubt there is some good reason for his absence. I have not communicated with him, nor am I proposing to engage in a personal attack, but I should have thought it was an occasion on which he might have been present to correct something he told the Committee which was entirely inaccurate.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said on Committee stage—and no doubt it counted a great deal with the Committee—that the definition which we had put forward had been repealed. Well, in fact it has not. It is still on the Statute Book. Why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make that statement to the Committee I do not know. He went on to say that the definition we put forward had been shown to have become completely unworkable. No evidence was advanced for that at all. There is no reported case on that definition to show that in any sense it has become unworkable.
    The implication of what he said was that the 1941 amending Act was brought in because of the defectiveness of that definition. There again, the right hon.

    239
    and learned Gentleman was entirely inaccurate. The reason for the 1941 amending Act was the introduction of the War Damage Act which made the distinction drawn in the 1939 Act between ground leases and other leases no longer necessary to maintain. I am therefore sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here to explain why he made these statements, which in my opinion, are entirely inaccurate.
    We put forward that definition of ground leases and in our opinion it was a very good definition. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman, apart from seeking to meet our argument by making statements which were patently not accurate—and when I say "patently" I should say not accurate when one looks to see precisely what was the position, that definition not having been repealed and still being on the Statute Book even now—did go on to recognise that drawing the line at leases of over 21 years would mean that more than ground leases were caught in the net set by this Bill.
    Views may differ as to the number of leases of over 21 years, which are not ground leases, which are likely to be brought in, but it is becoming not an uncommon practice to let shops and other business premises; Government Departments I believe take leases very frequently on a rack rent over 21 years. That is becoming by no means uncommon. Views may differ as to the number of leases which are not ground leases which will be brought in by the Bill as drafted. We should try to make certain what we are doing by this Measure in this very badly drafted Clause.
    I do not think it in the least degree impossible to provide a satisfactory definition of ground leases—one which would work. Any lawyer has only to look at a document to know whether it is a ground lease or not. I shall not come back to that, but I regret that, in dealing with the definition we put forward, the Attorney-General should have misled the Committee. The Attorney-General was adamant in his refusal to insert a definition, or to insert the words "ground lease" anywhere in this Measure.
    Realising that we could not prevail upon the Government by pursuing that line, we have sought to do the next best
    240
    thing and to amend the Bill by altering the period and making it apply to leases of over 30 years rather than to leases of over 21 years. The reasons for this Amendment are twofold. One reason which should commend itself to the Government is that a period of over 30 years is provided in the Scottish Bill which will be discussed when we have concluded our consideration of this Measure. Why should there be a different period in Scotland? That is one argument. I hope that the Solicitor-General, even without the assistance of the Lord Advocate, will be able to satisfy us why the period should be longer in Scotland than it is in England.
    The second and perhaps the more cogent reason is that I have never heard of a ground lease being granted for a period of less than 30 years. Usually it is granted for a very much longer period. I do not believe that by putting the period up to 30 years we shall be excluding any category of tenancy which this Bill was intended to include under Part I. If we put it up to 30, we shall exclude a considerable number of leases which are not ground leases in any sense whatever and which were not intended to be within the scope of this part of the Bill. I hope that I have made the point clearly. In order to make this Bill apply to ground leases, and to exclude a large number of leases which are not ground leases, I move that these words be inserted.
    Mr. John Hay: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I would remind the Committee that it has been our objective in these debates to improve what we consider to be a Measure which in many ways is extremely unsatisfactory and almost unworkable. This Amendment will make it far easier for people to understand that what is really struck at by Part I of the Bill is the long ground lease. I do not propose to traverse the ground which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has already covered in describing the various ways in which the Attorney-General, on the Committee stage, endeavoured to persuade the Committee that there was no satisfactory definition of a ground lease.

    241
    5.15 p.m.
    I should have thought that a Socialist Attorney-General would have considered the admirable precedent set for him some years ago by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Snowden. In the Finance Act of, I think, 1931, there was a special provision dealing with ground leases. When that Act brought in the Land Tax certain properties were exempted. The sort of properties exempted were those let on leases of 50 years or more. Those were considered to be properties let on ground leases. I should have thought that that example might have been one to which the Attorney-General could quickly have flown if he was in any doubt what was meant by a long lease or a ground lease.
    Our purpose is to improve the Bill. For all practical purposes, there is not a great deal of difference between a lease of over 21 years and a lease of over 30 years. When we bear in mind that most of the cases which it is intended by this Measure to protect—those small people living in what they consider to be their own houses which they have had in their families for a good many years—the likelihood is that most of them will have had very long leases, not of 21 years or 30 years, but often of 99 years. We say, therefore, that it is not often that one finds a property let on a lease of 21 years if it is to be used for residential purposes.
    We want to try to protect the person who is living in what he regards as his own home which he has on a lease. It is very seldom that one finds a property to let on that sort of basis under a ground lease of 21 years. In practice the figure is usually 99 years. We think that 30 years, which would marry this Measure with the Scottish Measure, would be about the right period to make clear what is meant by a ground lease and to make clear that this Bill applies to ground leases. In seconding the Amendment, I urge the Government to think a second time about this matter. I ask the Solicitor-General—realising that the Attorney-General blundered badly on the Committee stage by telling us something which was entirely inaccurate—to say that this Amendment can be accepted.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Those hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this debate have been in perfect harmony with the attitude of the Conservative Party
    242
    purposes of hon. Members on this side. It may be the case that the interests of throughout the debates on this Bill. They have sought to emasculate the Bill. They have sought to cut out, category by category, all beneficiaries from its scope. If this unhappy Amendment were accepted, then another class of person—to the great delight of hon. Gentlemen opposite—would not benefit under this Measure. It is clear that the Opposition are seeking not to extend any benefits. The people to whom the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) referred are already protected by the 21-year limitation. He is seeking to limit the benefit and, in that way, to save more money for the ground landlords.
    Mr. Hay: Nonsense.
    Mr. Thomas: It is obvious that it hurts the hon. Gentleman to have his real motive revealed before the House. It is clear that the game being played by the Opposition is to fight to the last ditch for the ground landlord. I commend them on the obvious sincerity with which they defend the interests of the ground landlords. Many hon. Members opposite have already announced, at various stages of the Bill, their interest in this matter as directors of great concerns which will suffer by its terms. I quite understand that they will not miss a further opportunity of limiting the protection which this Bill will give to people, such as those in my own constituency, about whom I hope to speak on the Third Reading.
    Mr. Black: I think it is usually considered, under the rules and customs of this House, that an hon. Member, who has declared his interest when he has taken part in the discussions in the previous stages of a Bill, is not called upon, on any and every occasion on which he rises to speak, to continue in a kind of parrot-like fashion to repeat the fact that he has an interest in property. Perhaps the hon. Member on the other side will take a little trouble in future, before intervening in matters of this kind, to inform himself as to the customs and practices of this House, and, if he does that, I am quite certain that we shall be able to proceed with the discussion of these matters without foolish and irrelevant interventions.
    We have listened to an unfortunately typical speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). It was a speech characterised by inaccuracy and

    243
    by misrepresentation of the intentions and truth and accuracy are even higher interests than interests of a financial character, and I want to bring back the attention of hon. Members to one or two of the entirely unjustified statements which have just been made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
    He has stated quite categorically that the whole effort of hon. Members on this side has been to limit the scope of and protection afforded by this Bill, and, having made that statement, I will invite him, if he will be good enough to give me his attention, to refer—because it is relevant to this particular allegation—to page 11, lines 35–37 of the Bill, to which there is a subsequent Amendment on the Order Paper, sponsored by hon. Members on this side of the House. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent certain classes of persons being deprived of the protection which this Bill would give them when it becomes an Act. If the sincerity of hon. Members is being called into question, we shall be able to judge of the sincerity of the hon. Member who has just spoken according to whether he accompanies us into the Division Lobby when that Amendment is reached.
    The purpose of that Amendment is to remove the exclusion, which the Bill at present contains, from the protection provided by the Bill, of those persons occupying premises where an interest belonging to a public authority is concerned, and where, in the public interest, a new tenancy ought not to be granted. We are desirous of extending the protection of the Bill to that class of person, who is at present excluded from protection, and I hope that the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman opposite will become clear and be revealed by the manner on which he votes on that Amendment.
    What we are doing here, in the Amendment now before the House, is simply to give effect to what, from start to finish, has been claimed to be the aim and intention of those who sponsor the Bill. All along, the contention has been that this is a Bill to deal with ground leases, and we contend that a period of 30 years and over is a more suitable definition or classification of a ground lease than the existing definition or classification as a lease of over 21 years.
    244
    I will suggest for the consideration of the House that it is an unheard of thing for a ground lease ever to be granted for a period of less than 30 years. The essence of a ground lease is that it is a lease of a piece of ground where an obligation is imposed on the lessee to erect a building, and, as a matter of practical knowledge and experience, no one would ever contemplate erecting a building on a site where the lease was 30 years or less, as it would be impossible for him to get adequate recompense for that expenditure over such a short period as 30 years or less.
    This Amendment, therefore, simply seeks to carry into effect—in an imperfect way, we agree, because we would rather have had a proper definition of a ground lease than the extension of the period over 30 years—what all along has been declared to be the intention; namely, to confine within the ambit of Part I ground leases and only ground leases.
    Mr. Gibson: The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) got rather annoyed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), because he said that nearly all the Amendments which were discussed on the Committee stage and the first two discussed today would have had the effect of reducing the number of people who will be beneficiaries under the Bill. There is no doubt about that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will deny it.
    Mr. Black: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, the statement to which I took exception was not "nearly every Amendment," but "every Amendment."
    Mr. G. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will also excuse me, I am quite prepared to meet him and to say that 90 per cent. and over of the Amendments from the other side were attempts to exclude people from benefit.
    Mr. Gibson: I am not very interested in the discussion between the two hon. Gentlemen. The real point about this Amendment is that it will have the effect, which so many of the Opposition Amendments would have, of reducing the number of people who will benefit under this Bill, and therefore I fail entirely to understand how the Conservative Party, even with the effrontery for which they are famous can say that they are attempting to improve the Bill. They are making it

    245
    worse, and this Amendment would make it worse.
    I am not a lawyer, and I would therefore hesitate to butt in on this argument whether the definition given by the Attorney-General covered ground leases or leases which are not ground leases. All I can say is that the Title of this Bill does not specifically refer only to ground leases, and I am quite sure that, when the Tory Party discussed the matter at their annual conference last year at which a resolution was carried, they meant to try to assist people with long leases, whether ground leases or just leases on the houses themselves.
    We are anxious, and I think the whole House is anxious, to protect the people who have paid for the houses in which they are living, many of whom have raised their families in them, against the danger of being robbed of their houses merely because, by the passage of time, the lease runs out. We consider that handing these people over, however legally it may be done, to the ground landlords is not entirely satisfactory, and, later on, we want to see something very much stronger in the way of protection for leaseholders than is provided by this Bill.
    However, this Bill does give considerable protection, and I therefore hope that the Opposition will cease trying to whittle down the number of people who will derive benefit from this Bill. If they do not, all I can say is that I hope that the Press will take notice of it and that the people of this country will realise that, when the Tory Party pass a resolution about leasehold reform, they really do not mean it.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: A slightly wrong impression might have been given by the remarks which the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has just addresed to the House. It is as well to be clear as to what sort of persons will be excluded by the substitution of "thirty" for "twenty-one." The only people who will be deprived of protection thereby are people occupying property of a rateable value outside the rent restriction limits and who hold that property on leases of between 21 and 30 years. They will be given a protection which is not accorded to persons holding similar property on leases of less than 21 years.
    246
    To take a concrete example, imagine a property of a rateable value of £150 in London. If it is held on a lease of 20 years, the occupier has no protection under the Rent Restrictions Acts and he gains no protection under the Bill. As the Bill stands, if that occupier holds the property on a 22 years' lease, then he will have a two years' extension. That is a quite absurd anomaly, outside the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. Awbery: A man with a lease with 29 years unexpired would not receive the benefit of the Bill, but a man with 31 years would do so. The same principle applies, whatever number of years is agreed upon in a Bill.
    Mr. Powell: On the contrary, unless it can be shown that ground leases—that is, leases which fall outside the Rent Restrictions Acts because the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value—are granted for less than 30 years, which my hon. Friends and I believe cannot be shown, there is no reason for a figure lower than 30 being written into the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: At one stage in the discussion on the Amendment a certain amount of heat began to be engendered in the debate. Probably my hon. Friends on this side and hon. Members opposite will agree that it was rather a relief to our feelings that that should be so with a Bill of this sort, but they will probably also agree that we would make more progress with the examination of the matter if we brought the debate back to an atmosphere more appropriate to a difficult Bill of this sort. That is what I shall endeavour to do.
    I begin by saying that it is, possibly, a little unfortunate for the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to think it right to make a charge against my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General without giving him the courtesy of notice that he was proposing to do so, and then complaining that my right hon. and learned Friend was not here after he had not been given such notice.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I said I regretted that the Attorney-General was not here, because I naturally assumed that he would be here as he dealt with this part of the Bill on the Committee stage. Had I thought for a moment that he

    247
    would not be here, I certainly would have told him of the obvious inaccuracy into which he fell on that occasion. But I do not see that because the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not present for the discussion of a Bill with which he dealt on Committee stage, I should refrain from drawing attention to something which is obviously wrong.
    The Solicitor-General: It is a matter, perhaps, of personal taste, on which our respective views are not quite in accord. It would have been quite easy for the hon. and learned Member to write a note yesterday to say that he had that intention if, in fact, he had it. Perhaps, however, it would be better to draw a veil over the incident, particularly as the charge is not well founded.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Indeed it is.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member says that the charge is well founded. If he will excuse my saying so, it is not well founded. I will refer him to the Sections to which my right hon. and learned Friend was referring and then the hon. and learned Member can judge for himself. I hope that if he thinks I am right, he will withdraw what he has said.
    The Sections in question were Section 13 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, and the definition of a ground lease that goes with that Section is contained in Section 24 of that Act. If the hon. and learned Member would turn to Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941, he would find, in subsection (1), that:
    "The principal Act shall apply to ground leases in like manner as it applies to other leases, and accordingly sections thirteen and fourteen of that Act shall cease to have effect."
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The definition Section is not repealed.
    The Solicitor-General: I was just about to concede that point. In terms, that does not repeal the definition in Section 24, but it does repeal one of, I think, the only two Sections to which the definition Section has reference.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller Mr. Manningham-Buller rose—
    The Solicitor-General: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to complete what I want to say, he can then carry on the argument. Not only is that the case, but when the consolidation Act of 1943 was enacted, that definition of a ground lease was no longer included in that Act, so that although upon a very limited view it can be said that the definition was not, in terms, repealed by the 1941 Act, what the 1941 Act did was to repeal the Sections in the 1939 Act for which the definition was included in that Act, and the definition was not subsequently reproduced in the consolidating Act of 1943. Therefore—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller Mr. Manningham-Buller rose—
    The Solicitor-General: I am not giving way until I have made the point I want to make. Therefore, in substance, it was perfectly true to say, as my right hon. and learned Friend did say, that the definition in the 1939 Act had been removed from the face of existing legislation; that is the effect of what he said. That explanation could have been given by him in person had the hon. and learned Member been so good as to give him notice.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. That, of course, is not what the Attorney-General said on the Committee stage, and it is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman now seeking to put a gloss upon those words. Indeed, the sections to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred—I am grateful to him for doing so—in the 1941 Act make it quite clear that the point I made was entirely justified.
    I will read what the Attorney-General said:
    "By 1941 experience had shown that the definition in the Act had become completely unworkable …"
    I drew attention to that not being the case. Now, mark these clear and unambiguous subsequent words of the Attorney-General:
    "… and in that year"—
    that is, 1941—
    "an amending Bill was passed, the definition was repealed …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 739.]
    The definition was not repealed in 1941. It remained on the Statute Book. The

    249
    reason for the alteration had nothing to do with the definition of ground leases, but was because of the passage of the War Damage Act; and that is easily ascertainable.
    The Solicitor-General: To go on trying to draw distinctions where they really do not exist, in substance at any rate, is not advancing the interests of the House.
    What happened was that Section 13 was, in terms, repealed, and if we repeal Section 13 we are taking away all reason for the existence of the definition. That was followed up by the fact that the definition was not reproduced in the 1943 Act. It is a question as to how one should describe that legislative process but I would put it to the House, if we are really entering into the minutiae of expression, that it is certainly not an inaccurate way of putting it to say that the definition was repealed. At least, it would be perfectly accurate to say—perhaps the hon. and learned Member will give me the courtesy of his attention. At least, it would be accurate to say that it had been repealed by 1943. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would agree to that.
    However, whether that is so or not, I now pass on to the substance of the argument and away from the personal charges that have been made. We have carefully examined this position, as we have done a long time ago, and our researches lead us to think that the statement made by the Attorney-General in opening the Second Reading debate was perfectly accurate. It has not been shown to be in any substantial sense inaccurate, and I would desire to repeat what he said on that occasion. He said:
    "I have been talking all this time about ground leases, building leases. It is very difficult to define them, and the Bill, as a matter of fact, uses the expression 'long leases granted for more than 21 years.' In practice, such leases are almost invariably, if not invariably, building leases. We shall cover by this method of definition everything we intend to protect and it is most unlikely that we shall cover anything else. Leases of houses already built are generally for three, five, seven, 14 or, occasionally, 21 years. Although I have not heard of such a case, there may be exceptional ones where leases of already existing houses extend for more than 21 years. If we did protect an occasional house of that kind, it would be most exceptional and no great harm would be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 382.]
    250
    That is a general statement of the position. It is accurate as far as we are able to ascertain, and if it is accurate it is perfectly satisfactory as it stands. We believe that we give cover and protection in all cases where necessary. If it is the case that exceptional circumstances may creep within the ambit of the Bill, so be it. It means that in exceptional cases we may have given cover where it is not necessary. But that is the exceptional case. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there are other cases. If I heard him aright I think he said that in the case of leases to Government Departments or something of that sort, there might be a long lease at a rack rent.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I may help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I said that it is by no means uncommon in these days to have leases of over 21 years for shop premises and business premises, and quite frequently leases are taken by Government Departments for periods longer than that. I am sure the Solicitor-General will find that that is so.
    The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that it is by no means rare that that should happen. All I know is that our researches do not accord with that. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned business premises and shop premises. Only mixed premises would come within Part I, because the premises would only be within Part I if the tenant or a member of his family lived in the premises. That, I should have thought, would exclude many kinds of premises to which the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring. He simply uses a vague generalisation and makes a very broad statement about it. It is difficult to get to grips with it without having any details, especially as we ourselves, as far as our researches have gone, have not been led to the same conclusion as he has. Therefore, it seems to us that the situation remains as it was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made the statement which I have quoted.
    We bring in cases which need protection. We think that nothing is to be gained by arbitrarily increasing the period from 21 to 30 years. An hon. Member has referred to the Long Leases

    251
    (Temporary Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, where 31 years is the period mentioned. It is a period used for a very different purpose. It is used as a boundary of time beyond which leases are registerable under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857. We have no analogous time period in England, and it does not seem to us that there is any logical or practical reason why, that being so, we should adopt that purely arbitrary extension of a period which does not coincide with the experience which we have had. I hope the House will agree that this Amendment ought to be rejected.
    Mr. J. Foster Mr. J. Foster rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we ought to make progress.
    Mr. Foster: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there has not been a long period of discussion on this Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have discussed this comparatively small Amendment for three quarters of an hour, and we have a great many Amendments on the Order Paper.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Foster: If I may, I will particularly address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to convince you that it is not a small Amendment. The discussion in Committee on the Amendment about ground leases proceeded on the footing that the Attorney-General was intending only to protect people who have a house under a ground lease. That is the answer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). If an Amendment cuts down the number of people protected by the Bill, it is not necessarily bad if the people protected by the Clause as drafted were not intended by the drafters of the Bill to be covered. The Solicitor-General has proceeded also on the same argument, and wants the same thing as we do—namely, only to protect people whose ground leases come to an end and not to protect people who have a rack rent of say 21 years or more.
    The remarks of the Attorney-General on this Amendment in the Committee stage show that clearly. He said:
    "… I said, and subsequent inquiries confirmed me in the view, that we thought the
    252
    test we had adopted in the Bill would, in fact, embrace all ground leases and very little else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 742.]
    That shows that the Attorney-General wanted the Bill to protect ground leases and nothing else. Part of the argument of the Solicitor-General would seem to be that the Bill as drafted now only protects ground leases and that if the Opposition Amendment were carried it would exclude certain types of ground leases. The basis on which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General made their arguments is that they want to protect ground leases and nothing else, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Clapham.
    The question I want to ask the Solicitor-General is this. Has he ever heard of a ground lease—can he give an instance—for between 21 and 30 years? He seeks to throw the onus on us of saying that we have not proved that the Bill would protect people on a rack rent for a period between 21 and 30 years. That is easy to do with mixed property. Anybody who has had anything to do with the letting of shops—I have some acquaintance with that—knows that there are shops which are let at over 21 years; and they are mixed premises at that. So there would be shops on a rack rent, with mixed accommodation, and owing to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's refusal to accept the last Amendment this is another anomaly which creeps in. There are many instances of shops with mixed accommodation which are let at a rack rent for more than 21 years. But let hon. Members produce a ground lease for more than 21 and less than 30 years. I do not think they can do it.
    Mr. MacColl: I could have produced one if I had been given notice. I could have produced my own.
    Mr. Foster: A ground lease?
    Mr. MacColl: Yes.
    Mr. Foster: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will tell us a little bit more about the ground lease. Is he saying that between 21 and 30 years ago his land was not built on, that somebody built on the land and then let it at a ground lease for between 21 and 30 years? I am sure he is wrong about that. I will give him an opportunity to intervene again if he is really saying that.
    Mr. MacColl: The hon. and learned Gentleman heard what I said. I am not submitting myself to cross-examination. I was asked, as were other hon. Members, to give information. I merely give the information that the ground lease under which I hold my house is for between 20 and 30 years.
    Mr. Foster: I think the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. I am sure he is absolutely sincere and that he believes what he says; it is just that he is wrong.
    Mr. MacColl: Where are we getting? The hon. and learned Gentleman challenges us to produce such a lease.
    Mr. Foster: A ground lease.
    Mr. MacColl: A ground lease which does not come within the Rent Restrictions Acts. He starts on the assumption that such a thing is impossible and if we produce one he says we must be wrong. That is an insincere challenge to us because he does not accept our reply.
    Mr. Foster: I said the hon. Gentleman must be wrong because he said he did not want to submit himself to cross-examination. When I gave him an example of what must have happened he did not say, "Yes, it was empty and the house was built." I know he is sincere, I know he believes what he says and I know he has had legal training, but it is very difficult to believe what he says. If he has such a ground lease, then it is an exceptional lease and it does not justify this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has to say that 30 years ago the land was unbuilt on, that a builder built on it and let the building at a ground rent of 21 years.
    Mr. Granville West: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that under certain manors building leases were granted; plots of land were leased upon which the lessee had to build a house; the lease was for 21 years renewable; and every time the lease expired the lessee had to apply for a new lease, which was granted. The lease is, therefore, for 21 years. If the lessee fails to send in his notice at the proper time, then, of course, his lease expires.
    Mr. Foster: That is a perpetually renewable lease.
    Mr. Granville West: No.
    Mr. Foster: It is a perpetually renewable lease under the Law of Property Act. Hon. Members really must consider what they are saying. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has challenged me. Let me issue another challenge. Hon. Members opposite are saying that they know of such a case where there was a plot of land unbuilt on; it was then let to a builder and he had to build a house on it. Even in the times of a Conservative Government, when one could build a good house cheaply, the house would cost, let us say, between £300 and £500. The hon. Member for Widnes says that at the end of the lease of 21 years the house went back to the ground landlord. I do not believe anybody would have built a house on those terms, nor does the hon. Member. I cannot accept that he believes such a house would have been built on those terms.
    Mr. Granville West: May I inform the hon. and learned Member that in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Rev. Llywelyn Williams) large numbers of houses were built under the manor then existing and leases were granted for 21 years renewable up to a period of 99 years. The last lease, which comes under this Bill, is for 21 years, and if the Amendment is accepted it means that a number of people in the area of my hon. Friend will have no protection whatsoever under the Bill.
    Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman say that they have no protection under the Bill at present, whether it is amended or not? Does he agree with me—
    Mr. Granville West: I said that they will have no protection if the Amendment is accepted.
    Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be no protection for these people under the Bill as it stands? He must study the Bill. Even a non-lawyer or a layman must read the Bill, which says "exceeding 21 years." I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to understand that when he says "21 years" it is not the same as saying "exceeding 21 years." Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand that?
    I think this discussion has shown how confused are hon. Members opposite. It has shown that they think there is a house on a ground lease of less than 30 years. I do not see how anybody in their senses

    255
    would build a house and then be willing to lose it to the ground landlord at the end of 30 years, and I appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to tell us what he thinks about it. Does he not feel that some of his hon. Friends are incorrect in their appreciation?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am taking it all sub silentio.
    Mr. Foster: I know that when the hon. and learned Gentleman takes refuge in Latin it is because he wants to be polite to his fellow hon. Members on that side of the House. The point is quite clear. The Government say that they achieve the object of protecting the ground lessee by making the period 21 years, and they agree with us that the object of the Bill is to protect only the ground lessee. I appreciate that a section of hon. Members opposite want to protect everybody who is in a house, whether he is a ground lessee or not, which is why the hon. Member for Clapham speaks on the basis that if there is anything which cuts down the Bill it is bad and he is against it. I understand that point of view, but I do not understand the point of view of the
    people who are piloting the Bill, who agree with us that the object is to protect the ground lessee and the ground lessee only, and then say that 21 years achieves that object and does not bring in rack rents, because they are thus committed to the view that there are such things as ground leases between 21 years and 30 years.
    There may have been a case of a lunatic builder. Let us say that the hon. Member for Widnes was lucky enough to obtain a lease. Obviously, one cannot say that there is not one single ground lease of that sort in England, although in the light of misapprehensions about another property, I am not sure that the hon. Member for Widnes is not also under a misapprehension in this case. The point remains that not only by and large but in the vast majority of cases—I should have thought 100 per cent.—there is no such thing as a ground lease between 21 and 30 years. I ask the Solicitor-General to see whether he can find such leases. If he cannot, let him say so; and that is a reason for accepting the Amendment.
    Question put, "That 'twenty-one' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 191.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES

    [6.0 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Coldrick, W

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.

    Adams, H. R.

    Collick, P.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Albu, A. H.

    Cook, T. F.

    Gilzean, A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Glanville, James (Consett)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gordon-Walker, Rt Hon. P. C.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Grey, C. F.

    Baird, J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Daines, P.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

    Bartley, P.

    Cullen, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grimond, J.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

    Benson, G.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Beswick, F.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hardman, D. R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    de Freitas, G.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Deer, G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Boardman, H.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Harrison, J.

    Booth, A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Donnelly, D.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Bowden, H. W.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Dye, S.

    Holman, P.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Houghton, D.

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Hubbard, T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Ewart, R.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Burke, W. A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Burton, Miss E.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney S.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Carmichael, J

    Follick, M.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Champion, A. J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Clunie, J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Cooks, F. S.

    Freeman. Peter (Newport)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Orbach, M.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

    Keenan, W.

    Pannell, T. C.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Kenyon, C.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Parker, J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.

    Paton, J.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Kinley, J.

    Pearson, A.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Peart, T. F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Poole, C.

    Timmons, J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Popplewell, E.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Porter, G.

    Tomney, F.

    Logan, D. G.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Rankin, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Rees, Mrs. D.

    Vernal, W. F.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Reeves, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    McInnes, J.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wallace, H. W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Richards, R

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    West, D. G.

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

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Royle, C.

    Wigg, G.

    Messer, F.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Moeran, E. W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Melton)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Monslow, W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

    Moody, A. S.

    Slater, J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Morley, R.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

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

    Snow, J. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Mort, D. L.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wise, F. J.

    Moyle, A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Woods, Rev. G. S.

    Murray, J. O.

    Steele, T.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Nally, W.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Oliver, G. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

    Harvey, Ail Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

    Hay, John

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Heald, Lionel

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Astor, Hon. M. L.

    Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Cundiff, F. W.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baxter, A. B.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hollis, M. C.

    Beamish, Major Tufton

    Davies, Nigel (Epping)

    Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

    Bell, R. M.

    de Chair, Somerset

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    De la Bère, R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Birch, Nigel

    Digby, S. W.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,.)

    Bishop, F. P

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

    Black, C. W.

    Drayson, G. B.

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

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

    Drewe, C

    Hurd, A. R.

    Boothby, R.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hutchison, Colonel James

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Jeffreys, General Sir George

    Braine, B. R.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jennings, R.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Foster, John

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

    Gage, C. H.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Butcher, H. W.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton.)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Low, A. R. W.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Clyde, J. L.

    Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    McKibbin, A.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    258

    259

    Maclay, Hon. John

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Studholme, H. G.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Summers, G. S.

    Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

    Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

    Maudling R.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Tilney, John

    Mellor, Sir John

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Touche, G. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ropner, Col. L

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Russell, R. S.

    Turton, R. H.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Nabarro, G.

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Scott, Donald

    Watkinson, H.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Watt, Sir George Harvie

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

    Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Snadden, W. McN

    Williams, Charles (Torquay)

    Odey, G. W.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Wills, G.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Osborne, C.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Storey, S.

    Major Conant and

    Pickthorn, K.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Mr. Edward Heath.

    Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "immediately before the date of expiry," and to insert:
    "on and since the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty."
    This Amendment seeks, quite frankly, to exclude certain persons from the benefit of the Bill, and I challenge hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House to say they ought to be included. Its effect is to require that no person who has started to live in the premises as a tenant in right of tenancy after the publication of the Bill shall be entitled to benefit under this Bill. The whole of the case made by the Government for this Measure, and for the accompanying Scottish Measure, is that it is to protect people who have lived in their houses as their homes—to protect them from being turned out by the wicked landlord on the expiration of their leases at the present time.
    There are a very great number of ground lessees who have not lived in the premises, but have merely collected the rack rents for the premises or parts of the premises. There has already been a reference to those ground lessees who had the advantage of being lessees of large blocks of property—of offices—and who, at the last moment, would reside in them to qualify as ground lessees living in the premises as at the date when the Bill came into operation. There are a great number of other much less financially ambitious ground lessees merely content
    260
    to let the premises at rack rents, and who, for years, have been collecting the rents and nothing more.
    One specific case is worth all the theory on this Bill, of which we have had a great deal. In my post last week there was a letter from a landlady, asking these questions:
    "What are the conditions necessary for claiming the further two years? Must the leaseholder have lived on the premises for any specified length of time? Perhaps I am not very clear. The lease I am interested in expires in June. The holders have been sleeping on the premises for a few nights during the last month only."
    In other words, it is perfectly clear that in this instance the ground lessee has intelligently read the terms of this Bill, and realises that as long as he can qualify on the date on which the Bill comes into operation as a person living on the premises he will automatically get a two years' extension of his lease. All he has to do is to go into occupation of one room, or one flat, and he will continue for another two years to draw the rack rents from the rest of the premises. That person has been referred to as a speculator in the fag-ends of leases. That those persons exist there can be no question, and when this Bill was first thought of I am sure there was no intention to benefit a man or woman of that sort.
    The Bill has been drafted in such a way that it clearly holds out an enormous inducement to every ground lessee who has been living on the rents during these last years to go into occupation of part of the premises himself and thereby continue for the remaining two years to

    261
    collect those rents. All he sacrifices is the rack rent of the room or flat into which he has to go, although he gets the benefit of living there. Now, that cannot be right. It cannot affect the other tenants in the house, because, if the Amendment is accepted, when the lease comes to an end the sub-tenants will be protected, and will be sub-tenants of the ground landlord; they will be no worse off and no better off than they are at present, except that their direct landlord will be the ground landlord and not the ground lessee. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite intend to protect the ground lessee who has been living in the room, whose home it has never been, who all the time has only been collecting rack rents, and who will be given the benefit of this not very large financial advantage for the next two years instead of the ground landlord, or, in the case I cited, the ground landlady.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not believe that a great deal of argument is needed to carry conviction to both sides of the House that this Amendment is necessary. The principle underlying it and the object behind it have already been conceded by the Government in an Amendment which they very wisely, if I may say so, made in Committee when they inserted what is now Clause 3. Under Clause 3, a tenant who benefits by this Bill may not at any time after the expiry of his original lease assign that lease to another person without thereby losing the benefits of the Bill. It was only right that a person should not be able to cash in, if I may so describe it, upon this uncovenanted benefit of an extra two years if he did not himself, for himself or his family, require the protection of the Bill. It was quite unreasonable that a person whose lease ran out in June of next year should in the July be able to sell a two years' lease which he had been given as a windfall by this Bill.
    6.15 p.m.
    It is a necessary and logical extension of the principle recognised by the Government in Clause 3 that they should extend the same prohibition backwards to the date when the provisions of the Bill were known. That is to say, it should be impossible for a person, immediately before the date of expiry of his lease, a week
    262
    or two weeks before, to assign the lease and to get the value of the extra two years' lease created by the Bill. Let me illustrate what I mean by this example. Suppose, in 1945, a person bought the last six years of a lease, and at the end of last year he was fortunate enough to obtain a licence to build, and, taking a rather rosy view, that his house will be ready for occupation in May. In May, when he moves into that new house he has still in his hands, by virtue of this Bill, a two years' lease, which he can sell and get the value of—a two years' lease for which he did not pay in 1945 and of which he has no need. I submit that that is a situation just as unreasonable as that he should be allowed to assign the lease immediately after the date of expiry.
    I suggest that it is only right to insist upon the person who is to benefit from Part I of the Bill having been in residence continuously from the date when the provisions of the Bill were known until the date of the expiry of his old lease when the provisions of the new Clause will take over and come into effect. Therefore, both on the ground of the possible activities of the non-resident lessee, dealt with by my hon. and learned Friend, and on the ground of the resident tenant who is enabled to cash in on an advantage of which he has no personal or family need, it is only just and equitable that this Amendment should be accepted.
    The Solicitor-General: This Amendment does not raise any new problem. We have already rather exhaustively discussed the question whether there should be some qualifying period and I do not think I can usefully add to what has already been said upon that topic. As was pointed out, any qualifying period must, of necessity, be arbitrary. However it is fixed, there will be cases that fall on each side of the line, and in drafting this legislation we have to look at the great generality of cases. I suppose there is very little legislation which is not capable of abuse by some persons, and no doubt this legislation will not form an exception to that general rule.
    Be that as it may, one has to have regard to the interests of the very large number of persons whose interests will be regulated by the provisions of this Bill. Looking, for example, at legislation such as the rent restriction legislation one

    263
    finds that there is no qualifying period of residence, or anything of that sort. It is very likely that the Legislature which put that legislation on the Statute Book had in mind the consideration that any qualifying period must be purely arbitrary.
    When this point was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill it was based largely upon the person who purchases the fag-end of a lease. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), pointed out, we have at least met that. We think we have gone as far as we can go in this case. If one looks at the kind of problem we are dealing with, Clause 3 will cover most kinds of speculation which might be encouraged by the provisions of the Bill, and we think that to go further is simply to be purely arbitrary in this matter and to affect adversely a great many very deserving cases. In those circumstances, we feel that it will not improve the Bill to make this change.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a most astonishing reply from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I am sorry that we should have had such a disappointing one at the same time. It is very difficult to make much progress with this Measure unless some attention is paid to the arguments advanced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not sought to meet the argument which has great weight attached to it. In so far as he has advanced any argument against it, his argument, as I hope I shall show, is completely unsound.
    Let us go back to what this Bill was primarily intended to deal with. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be in agreement when I say that the real intention of the Bill was to give protection to those who had for many years been residing in particular premises and whose leases of tenancies were expiring—to give them protection and to secure that they were not evicted or held up to ransom at this time of acute housing shortage for which the party opposite are so largely responsible. That was the object of the Measure.
    The Leasehold Reform Committee's majority Report, with a view to ensuring that that category of long-standing tenants should benefit and not the speculators in
    264
    "fag-ends"—the people who were trying to get high rents out of sub-tenants—recommended that no one should qualify for protection unless he was in occupation for a period of three years before the law was altered. On the Committee stage, we moved an Amendment in accordance with that majority recommendation, and we were defeated. We are not moving it again. The Amendment which we are moving today is quite a different one. It is to ensure that, while allowing all those in occupation up to the date of the publication of the Bill to benefit under the Bill, they must have been in occupation on and since 20th November, the date of publication, for them to qualify for the protection accorded.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that this point had been met by Clause 3, but that Clause applies only to a sub-letting of the whole of the residential accommodation or to an assignment after the date of the expiry of the lease. Clause 3 does not deal with the point that we are making now. Really, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being singularly ingenuous in seeking to convince us that it does. The case which we are trying to present is the case where the intelligent speculator, the intelligent ground lessee, who has perhaps let the whole of his premises reads this Bill and realises what are the advantages which he can get by turning out a sub-tenant and going to live in the premises himself in one room, thereby getting further rent for a further period of two years from those sub-tenants.
    We say that on and since 20th November we will exclude that particular individual but without affecting the subtenants, and by excluding him discourage other ground lessees from doing the same thing. It will also exclude all those who are speculating and protect all those who have read and not understood the provisions of the Bill. When it comes to someone trying to deal with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), I think that, having regard to his last speech, he is certainly in need of protection and he ought to support us on this matter to ensure that people who are not well acquainted with the terms of this Bill have no advantage taken of them by those who have read and understood it.
    I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he will give further

    265
    consideration to this question. This is not an Amendment which can in any sense be described as a wrecking Amendment or as one which is diminishing the value of the Bill. All that it is seeking to do is to prevent the Bill from being abused, and it is nonsense to advance the argument that any qualifying period is purely arbitrary.
    It is quite clear, in my submission, that if we take the date of the publication of this Bill it is a very sound date to take, and one which is by no means infrequently taken. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, while he may talk easily about the interest of the great majority, it is not to the interest of the great majority of the people of this country that this Bill should become the vehicle for abuse and exploitation, and if these loopholes in it are not stopped up, the Bill will become as unpopular as the Socialist Town and Country Planning Act is at the present time.
    We press the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon this matter. He must improve the Bill by stopping up this loophole, and by doing so he will not be excluding a single one of the category of tenants whom this Bill is intended to benefit. He must agree that that is so. I am sure that he realises it is so, and I press him very strongly upon this point, because in my belief, unless this Amendment is accepted, we shall have considerable abuse of this Measure, and one does not want to see a bad Measure working worse than it need do.
    Mr. Higgs: There is one point upon which my right hon. and learned Friend has not pitched his argument quite high enough. We are discussing on this Amendment who is to get the benefits of the Bill in the case where there is somebody between the ground landlord and the occupant. Is the occupant to have the benefit of the Bill, or is he to be put in the position that some intermediate landlord can push him out owing to his not being protected by the Rent Acts because the landlord has established himself in the house before the lease expired and himself gets the benefit of the Bill?
    I wonder, in these circumstances, whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to protect? Are they seeking to protect the person living in the property
    266
    now, or who was living in it when this Measure was introduced, or someone who comes along afterwards—the intermediate landlord or the speculative purchaser, if he can find a lease which is for sale?
    The point which I make is that the incentive to that speculative purchaser is probably not just the rent for two years. What is the real incentive to the speculator or to the intermediate lessor who is so far not living in the property? The inducement of the lease in front of him is not just to continue to collect the rack rent and to pay out only the ground rent for the remainder of the two years which this Bill covers, but possibly to go on doing that for a very much longer period—perhaps even ad infinitum.
    I suggest that there is a very real risk in cases where there is somebody who is in a position of being able to say, "I can turn out the occupants because I am their superior and they are not protected by the Rent Acts because this is leasehold property, and if I turn them out I can make a profit for myself not only to 1953 but to 1953 plus the probability of such further period as the permanent legislation may give. I suggest that, since my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has quoted a case where an intermediate landlord has discovered this loophole in the Bill, the Amendment should commend itself to the Government. It can keep out no one whom they intend to protect, although it can keep out the sort of people whom we do not often find receiving enthusiastic support from Members opposite.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. J. Foster: It is to be regretted that the Solicitor-General wants to protect a man who acts in this way. Let me give an instance of how a man can act. He finds a number of ground leases, in the sense in which this Bill defines them, of over 21 years which are going to expire, and he gets hold of a man of straw. He buys the end of the ground lease and puts in the man of straw in part of the house, and he does this in mixed accommodation—flats, and so on. If he finds enough of these properties he may make an enormous amount of money, because the ground landlord will not be able to get his reversion as the man will have gone in within the period provided by the Bill.

    267
    If the Amendment is accepted, it will stop the man who can take advantage of this gap. The Amendment will not exclude anyone whom it is intended to protect. There was the Attorney-General's argument against the Amendment on the Committee stage on the three-year period. The argument there was that persons might have paid a premium for an assignment of the tail end of the ground lease genuinely intending to go there for residential purposes, and that it might be hard if they were turned out at the end of the ground lease. The only people who will be hit by this Amendment are those who have taken advantage of this position and have bought or had assigned to them the tail end of a ground lease in order to get the extension of two years.
    Hon. Members must not think the sums concerned will necessarily be small. They can be very big indeed. Owing to the effect of the Bill, the occupation of a proportion of the premises gives protection to the whole of the premises. Suppose that Park West were on a ground lease and the ground lease were expiring within the period in this Bill. It would be possible for someone to get assigned the tail end of the lease, to instal himself in one of the flats, and then to get the extension of two years. The bigger the property the more valuable is the reversion. Some can go into hundreds of thousands of pounds. There could be a yearly
    income of £60,000 to £80,000 a year. That is an extreme case, but there are cases up and down the line.
    The speculator who is astute and is prepared to get hold of a man of straw so that he will not be liable at the end of the period when permanent legislation is brought into force will be able to exploit the community. Hon. Members opposite do not seem to be interested in this. They do not seem to think that it is a wrong thing. The reason is that they are determined not to have the Bill amended. But I appeal to them to realise that they must be wrong. If a speculator is given an obvious loophole, then the Bill should be altered.
    Mr. Molson: I appeal to the Solicitor-General to answer the point put to him since his speech. The main argument he advanced was that the benefits of the Bill should apply to those whom, from the date when the Bill was published, it was his desire to include. He has not told us which category of people in his opinion are meritorious. Will he tell us why he is resisting this Amendment and what category of persons he desires to protect?
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 177.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES

    [6.35 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Adams, H. R.

    Carmichael, J.

    Ewart, R.

    Albu, A. H.

    Champion, A. J

    Fernyhough, E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Clunie, J.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Finch, H. J.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Coldrick, W

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Collick, P.

    Forman, J. C.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Cook, T. F.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

    Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Bartley, P.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gilzean, A.

    Benson, G.

    Crosland, C.A R

    Glanville, James (Consett)

    Beswick, F.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Gooch, E. G.

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

    Daines, P.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Grey, C. F.

    Boardman, H

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Booth, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)

    Bottomley, A. G

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Bowden, H. W.

    de Freitas, G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Deer, G.

    Hardman, D. R

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hargreaves, A

    Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

    Donnelly, D.

    Harrison, J.

    Broughton, Dr. A D. D.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Hayman, F. H.

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Dye, S.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Burke, W. A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Holman, P.

    Burton, Miss E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Houghton, D.

    Hubbard, T.

    Morley, R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

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

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Mort, D. L.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Moyle, A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Mullay, F. W.

    Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Murray, J. D.

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Janner, B.

    Nally, W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jenkins, R. H

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

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

    Timmons, J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pannell, T. C.

    Tomney, F.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

    Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

    Pearson, A.

    Vernon, W. F.

    Keenan, W.

    Peart, T. F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Kenyon, C.

    Popplewell, E.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Kinley, J.

    Porter, G.

    Weitzman, D.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rees, Mrs. D.

    West, D. G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Richards, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Longden, Fred (Small Heath)

    Robens, A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Wigg, G.

    McInnes, J.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, W.)

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Williams, David (Neath)

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

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Royle, C.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)

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

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wise, F. J.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Slater, J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Woods, Rev. G. S.

    Messer, F.

    Snow, J. W.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Middleton, Mrs. L-

    Sorensen. R. W.

    Yates, V. F.

    Moeran, E. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

    Monslow, W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Moody, A. S.

    Steele, T.

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Cundiff, F. W.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Davies, Nigel (Epping)

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    de Chair, Somerset

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

    Astor, Hon. M. L.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

    Digby, S. W.

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Hutchison, Colonel James

    Banks, Col. C.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jeffreys, General Sir George

    Beamish, Major Tufton

    Drewe, C.

    Jennings, R.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Birch, Nigel

    Eccles, D. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Black, C. W.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lindsay, Martin

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

    Foster, John

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. B

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Low, A. R. W.

    Braine, B. R.

    Gage, C. H.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

    McKibbin, A.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Gates, Mai. E. E.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Maclay, Hon. John

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Grimond, J.

    MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

    Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

    Grimston, Robert (Westbury)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Harvey, Air Codre A. V. (Macclesfield)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hay, John

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Heald, Lionel

    Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Heath, Edward

    Maudling R.

    Clyde, J. L.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nabarro, G.

    Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hope, Lord John

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.

    Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Odey, G. W.

    270

    271

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Scott, Donald

    Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian ('Hendon, N.)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Tilney, John

    Osborne, C.

    Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Turton, R. H.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Snadden, W. McN

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Watkinson, H.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Watt, Sir George Harvie

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

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

    Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Redmayne, M.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Williams, Charles (Torquay)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Storey, S.

    Wills, G.

    Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Summers, G. S.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Russell, R. S.

    Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)

    Mr. Studholme and

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed. [King's Consent on behalf of the Crown signified.]

    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any premises to which Part II of this Act applies.
    This is the first of two Amendments to line 18, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we deal separately with them, because they deal with different points. We moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage to try to ensure some clarity and eliminate some uncertainty in the Bill as to its effect. From the speeches made on Second Reading from the Government Front Bench, from a perusal of the Bill itself, and from what was said in the Gracious Speech, we understood that the object was two-fold—to provide some measure of protection, first, for those holding residential property on ground leases, and secondly, for those who occupy shops.
    It is quite clear under the Bill that shop and living accommodation clearly comes within the purview of Part II. I pointed out on the Committee stage that it was possible for a tenancy of a dwelling and of a shop to come under Part I and I indicated that that was likely to cause confusion and uncertainty. The Attorney-General said that he would like to have an opportunity of considering the matter before the Report stage, and, in view of that, naturally we withdrew the Amendment. Since that date the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very kindly sent me a letter expressing his view with regard to that particular point. I think its contents are of such importance in explaining the operation of this Bill that they should be made public, and by
    272
    tabling this Amendment we have enabled the Government to do so. I do not want to prejudice the explanation that the Solicitor-General will give, but as on the Report stage one can speak only once without obtaining the leave of the House, I will, if I may, comment shortly upon the answer that the Attorney-General has given me.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the tenancy of a dwelling house and a shop could come under either part of the Bill. Indeed, some tenancies can come under both parts. If a tenancy is for over 21 years, there will, of course, be automatic extension for two years at the same rent. If the tenancy is less than 21 years and expires within the next two years, Part II applies, in which case the tenant can get an extension on terms settled by the county court. A very important step, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made clear to me in his letter, was that if during the period of automatic extension a landlord gives notice, on the ground of assignment or sub-letting under Clause 3, then in spite of that the tenant will be enabled, although he has assigned or sub-let the whole of the accommodation, to make an application which will bring him within Part II.
    It was not apparent to me when I moved the Amendment on the Committee stage that not only could one particular property come both within Part I and Part II of the Bill, but also that Clause 3 would be used in relation to a tenancy under Part I, when the tenant of the premises, under a lease for over 21 years, was given notice to quit on the ground that he had assigned the whole of his interest or sub-let the whole of the residential accommodation. As I understand it,

    273
    from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter to me, that is the present position under the Bill.
    Indeed, the Solicitor-General, earlier this afternoon, made it clear—it was not made clear in the Second Reading debate—that it is the intention to deal with shops both under Part I and Part II. It seems to me that whatever one may say for or against the Bill, the present position is likely to create all kinds of anomalies. There may be two adjoining shops or two shops in the same neighbourhood, one with a lease expiring in the next two years which may have its rent increased after the man has gone to the county court. The other one, a neighbouring shop, it may be of a competitor and perhaps occupying comparable premises, will have an automatic extension for two years with no increase in rent. As between shops, irrespective of landlords and of competing shopkeepers, that does not appear to be logical or fair.
    I call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman particularly to this point and to the uncertainty which arises, in view of the present position under the Bill, as to whether notice under Part I, Clause 3, will result in possession being given or obtained, and which makes it impossible to plan ahead. I am not at all sure in relation to this Measure, which is only supposed to operate for two years, that there is not a good deal to be said for confining Part I to dwellings and properties let for rent under one long-term lease, and confining Part II to shops with living accommodation let with the shop. That would avoid all overlapping. It would certainly make it much easier for both landlord and tenant, whether of residential property or of shops, to understand the position, it would lead to a reduction of litigation—not always to be discouraged—and I am sure that it would lead to the Bill being easier to operate.
    I hope that I have not taken unduly long in dealing with this point. We put the Amendment forward in the belief that it will improve the Bill, although it may cause the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) to rise to his feet and misrepresent once more the action that we are taking. I am sure that if he understands what I have been saying, he will appreciate the error of his ways.
    Mr. Hay: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The further we go with this Bill the worse it seems to get. We have now an entirely new situation, which I think none of us contemplated either on the Second Reading or on the Committee stage. We now have the letter which has passed between the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in which an entirely new construction is placed upon Parts I and II, as they apply to mixed properties. I have not had the opportunity of reading or of hearing the contents of the letter, but it fills me with amazement to think that the Attorney-General, who appeared very conciliatory on the Committee stage when this point was raised, should say that, so far as the Government are concerned, they are prepared to give a tenant, who may not be a deserving tenant, two bites at the cherry.
    It seems a very odd situation. It is something which ought to have been disclosed to the House at a much earlier stage. I strongly support the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it. If that is to be the situation, we are surely giving an altogether unjust advantage to a tenant. In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and other hon. Members, we on this side of the House are just as much concerned about the position of tenants as of landlords. We have said that there should be a just and equitable balance between the two. We do not like the Bill and the way in which it proposes to do this job, and if it can be improved we seek to improve it.
    The Solicitor-General: I gather that the object of moving the Amendment is to invite the Government to explain the effect of the Bill in certain of its aspects. I am sorry if it has not been clear before, but we certainly thought that in this respect the Bill was perfectly clear. The Attorney-General in his letter to the hon. and learned Member has made clear what the effect of it is. Perhaps I might just quote the relevant part of the letter so that it may go publicly on record. It is this:
    "Part II only operates where the tenancy is due to come to an end within the period of two years, beginning with the commencement

    275
    of the Act. If the tenancy is affected by Part I at all, that is, if it was granted by a long lease of mixed residential and shop property, it will be extended automatically by Part I and will not come to an end within the two-year period, so that Part II will have no application."
    I should have thought, and I would urge upon the House, that that was the clear effect of the Bill. You first look at Part I. When you contemplate the premises in question you ask: "Do they comply with the requirements of Part I?" Axe they, in other words, held on a long lease? Is the tenant, or a member of his family, living in them or part of them? If the answer to these questions is "yes," Part I is applicable, with the result that the lease is extended for two years at the same rent.
    If the lease is extended for two years it follows automatically and axiomatically, that Part II cannot apply to it, for the very reason that Part II can come into application only when the tenancy comes to an end within the period of two years beginning with the commencement of the Act and would come to an end by efflux-ion of time or by the expiration of a notice to quit. Ex concesso, if the tenancy has already been extended for two years under Part I, it obviously cannot come to an end within those two years so as to bring into operation these words which I have just cited from Clause 10, in Part II. Therefore; it is perfectly clear that if the premises fall within Part I, Part II cannot apply to them.
    I gather that that brings about a result which in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite is undesirable and which somehow shocks them. I really do not see why. Suppose the landlord gives notice under Clause 3 on the ground that there has been a sub-tenancy or an assignment. What happens? Part I ceases to apply and the tenancy comes to an end. Then you look to see what Part II does. The new tenant—not the old tenant, if I may take the case of a sub-tenancy—can then apply under Part II. He is then given a tenancy.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says "new tenant," is that really right? The new tenant who comes in, the one to whom the sub-tenancy or assignment is made, has not held under a lease which expires within two years.
    The Solicitor-General: I really am sure about this point. What happens is that the long lease is prolonged under Part I. It then comes to an end, because the lessee has sub-let—to take a simple case—within the two-year period, with the result that the landlord obtains the right to terminate the tenancy under Clause 3. The subtenancy having taken place, obviously a new tenant is in occupation. There is a new tenant.
    7.0 p.m.
    The new tenant has been brought on to the scene by virtue of the fact that there is a sub-tenancy. There we have a case which then falls within Part II, because it is a case of shop premises, the tenancy in regard to which comes to an end within the relevant two years. The result of that is that the tenant of those shop premises can, under Clause 12, if the county court judge thinks it appropriate in all the circumstances to give him a new tenancy, obtain a fresh tenancy for a period not exceeding a year: but, of course, he does not get the new tenancy at anything like the original ground rent; he gets it at a reasonable rent, whatever a reasonable rent is.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is very important, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind my putting a point to him to get it clear. Take sub-letting; on that ground the original tenant is given notice to quit, and the landlord obtains possession. It may be that a sub-tenant has gone into occupation under the sub-lease but that subtenant will not be the tenant of the landlord in consequence of that. That is one point, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with that.
    Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the new sub-tenant can claim under Part II. Is that really right? He cannot claim under Part II unless it is a lease expiring within the two years, and he holds no lease of that landlord. He had a tenancy of his landlord who has been ejected from the property because he had no right to sub-let. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the new tenant can claim under Part II but is that really so, because the new tenant will not be holding under a lease expiring within the two years? He will not be holding under any lease.
    The Solicitor-General: I really think that I am right. What happens? We get the premises and there is a tenant in them. The tenant then assigns or sublets his tenancy to a new tenant. Let us call the new tenant B and the original tenant A. Tenant B goes into possession by virtue of the assignment or sub-letting of the tenancy by tenant A. Tenant B then finds that the tenancy under which he is holding is determined. He is then the tenant of premises the tenancy of which has been brought to an end by notice to quite being given by the landlord within two years.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: But he will not have any notice from the landlord.
    The Solicitor-General: He will not have that, but it will be a case of a tenancy coming to an end by virtue of a notice to quit by the landlord. [HON. MEMBERS: "But not his landlord."] Nevertheless it will be brought to an end; he will stand in the same shoes as the original tenant who sub-let to him and the tenancy will come to an end. That is the effect of the Bill. That is rather a by-product of the original proposition which I was advancing, which was that the effect of the Bill is that Part II applies only in the case where Part I no longer has any application.
    Mr. Higgs: The new interpretation of the Clause which has been given to us has come as something of a surprise. It seems to have come as something of a surprise to the Attorney-General when he looked into the matter after what was said on the Committee stage. It is surprising that the Bill should have got as far as this without people realising quite what happens. From the beginning I have been concerned about the fact that properties could apparently come within both Part I and Part II of the Bill, and it seems that they can still do so. A tenant can not only have the pick of Part I or Part II but, if he is sufficiently ingenious, he can have first the whole of the benefit of Part I and then the whole of the benefit of Part II, one after the other, if his property is mixed.
    It is only by looking into these rather curious aspects that we are able to discover where the Bill takes us. If I understood the Solicitor-General aright, this is what happens. When a tenant comes to the end of his lease of a mixed property,
    278
    Part I will cover him and carry him until the day in 1953 when the Bill runs out. But under Clause 4, if he is careful, he can bring the tenancy to an end on the 364th day of the second year and can then say that his tenancy has come to an end within the period of two years, and toddle off to the county court to get an extension of a further 12 months.
    I do not know whether I am right or whether there is an answer to the instance I have cited. It may be that the Solicitor-General has an answer. But if these points keep cropping up within ten minutes of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), reading out the new interpretation of the Bill, how many more such situations may arise? Surely it would be wise to say that no property should come within both Parts of the Bill, which is all we are seeking to say. As we can do no harm to anybody by saying so, why not let us do so?
    The Solicitor-General: I should like to deal with that point. In the case in which a tenant gives notice under Clause 4, the requisite requirements of Clause 10 would not operate because it would not be a case of a tenancy which:
    "…would…come to an end by effluxion of time or by the expiration of a notice to quit given by the landlord.…"
    It would be a case of a notice given by the tenant, so that in a case of that sort there would be no right on the part of the tenant.
    I should like to correct one thing which I said in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I think I was mistaken about it. What I said was perfectly correct in the case of an assignee but not in the case of a sub-tenant. The assignee would be a person whose tenancy is determined within the meaning of Clause 10 by a notice to quit given by the landlord, that notice to quit being given under the powers conferred on the landlord by Clause 3. The sub-tenant, however, would not have a right under Clause 10 because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly pointed out, it would not be a case of his getting a notice to quit from his landlord. Therefore, the position would be that the assignee would have a right and that the sub-tenant would not.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to say that the House is grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for throwing light upon the darkness created by the obscurities in the Bill. We cannot usefully pursue the matter any further today. However, even now I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the point that we have put foward and, if possible, try to prevent the possibility of the Bill leading to protracted litigation, which only benefits a small section of the community.
    Mr. J. Foster: If the Solicitor-General is to consider this matter, perhaps he will also consider a point which I have to make. Let us assume a continued tenancy of mixed premises where the tenant leases part of the living accommodation. I am envisaging a situation where the tenant of mixed premises—a shop and living accommodation—sub-lets part of the living accommodation and then the landlord gives him notice under Clause 3. Is not that a case where the tenant, being an occupier of a shop under Part II, would be entitled to go to the county court and ask for a year's extension? I think that must be so.
    The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
    Mr. Foster: I see that prima facie the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it is right, but is not that a situation which should be cured? It is contrary to the views of the Attorney-General stated in his letter, because we have the position that the tenant of this mixed accommodation sub-lets under his new continued tenancy. The intention of the Bill is that the landlord should be able to determine his tenancy once and for all, yet, owing to the way it is drafted, the tenant pops into Part II, says, "I am the occupier of a shop; I have been given notice; therefore, I want a year's extension." I am sure the House will allow the Solicitor-General to answer that problem.
    The Solicitor-General: May I deal with that, with the leave of the House? In the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages, the position would be that if the tenant finds that he comes within Part II and applies for a fresh year's tenancy of the mixed premises in question, of course he does not have the
    280
    advantage of getting it at the low rent he was previously paying. Indeed the county court judge, in considering his application, will take into account these circumstances and may refuse the tenancy altogether. Anyhow, if it is decided that the tenant should have an extended tenancy, he has to pay the new rent which is reasonable in the circumstances. So I do not really think that the objection felt by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Clause is well founded. It acts perfectly equitably in the circumstances.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that where the interest of the landlord of a dwelling-house to which this section applies is determined (whether by effluxion of time, act of the parties, or for any other reason) before the expiration of the two years after the commencement of this Act, the tenant who retains possession by virtue of this section shall be deemed for the purposes of and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act to become the tenant on the terms of his previous tenancy of the landlord who would thereupon but for the provisions of this Part of this Act have become entitled to possession of the dwelling-house.
    This is a similar Amendment to the one tabled in the Committee stage which the Attorney-General said he would look at. We put this Amendment down again with the object of clarifying the Bill, and with the intention of embodying in one short proviso the object of the complicated Clause 5—Clause 7 as it now is—and what was Clause 15 and is now Clause 17.
    If hon. Members will look at those two Clauses they will see that they are not only extremely long and complicated, but beyond the comprehension of most people without devoting many hours of study to them. I think I am right in saying that the object of those two Clauses is to secure that as each intermediate lease expires, the reversioner will become the landlord of the tenant under the lease for 21 years. So, if the intervening lease drops out, the tenant in occupation automatically becomes the tenant of the landlord next higher up the chain.
    Although the wording of this proviso may not fit exactly into the drafting of the Bill, it shows a way in which that purpose could be effected much more

    281
    simply and much more clearly. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would look at this point, I have not had the advantage of a letter from him. I want to make it clear that I make no complaint about that. However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us that, having looked at it, he will be able, later, to adopt something on the lines of this Amendment with a view to shortening and clarifying an already complicated Bill.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: We considered this Amendment, but we cannot see our way to accept it. Although it was put down with the laudable object of trying to compress Clause 7, it contains effects which are quite fatal. I will indicate only one of them, although there are five or six. The first is rather a technical point. It refers to "a dwelling-house to which this section applies.…" That must mean a dwelling-house which is the subject of a ground lease extended by Clause 1. But it is a condition for extension by that Clause that the ground lessee or his family should be in occupation of the premises or part of them. The people one is trying to protect in Clause 7 are sub-lessees of the ground lessee. Therefore, the proviso leaves out the very people Clause 7 is trying to protect.
    No doubt all those defects I have referred to could be remedied by drafting, but if we tried to do that we should have a Clause of exactly the same length as Clause 7. Therefore, although we are obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his endeavours to shorten and simplify the Bill, we feel that this effort has not succeeded.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2.—(PROVISION WHERE TENANT HOLDING OVER AFTER EXPIRY OF LONG TENANCY.)
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, after "Act," to insert:
    "but not before the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty."
    Two difficulties were felt over this Clause in Committee. The first was that its provisions might have the quite unforeseen and undesirable effect that where
    282
    a tenancy expiring before the commencement of this Act had been prolonged, not at a higher rent but in consideration of a premium or other payment, that premium would become repayable and the old tenancy would be reinstated by the provisions of this Clause. That difficulty has been removed by the proviso to subsection (4) which was inserted in Committee and which it may be that the House will presently reinsert in the Bill in a different place and form.
    The second difficulty which was felt still remains, and this Amendment aims at removing it. As the Clause stands, any person who is in occupation in continuation of a tenancy before the commencement of the Act is protected both before the commencement and after the commencement by Clause 5 from a notice to quit. Under the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule, even where an order for dispossession has been made, if it has not been acted upon, then it is not put into effect. It seemed to many of us that this was unreasonable where the expiring tenancy had come to an end before the provisions of this Bill were known.
    It seemed to us that from the time when the Bill was published it was reasonable that tenancies expiring after that day, though before the commencement of the Act, should be continued to the commencement of the Act, and that a tenant whose tenancy expired during that period should not be liable to the effects of a notice to quit. As the Clause stands however, provided the former tenant managed to remain in occupation, by hook or by crook, up to the date when the Bill was published, however long beforehand his tenancy might have come to an end, he is still protected.
    This resulted in the inequitable situation that the tenant of an expired lease who had managed to hang on got the advantage of Part I of the Bill, whereas had he acted in a reasonable and decent manner and recognised that his rights in the property were at an end, he got no advantage. It would seem, therefore, that this protection ought only to be given from the time when the Bill, and the intentions of the Government expressed in it, became public property, and that the date of continuation should not be pushed further back than 20th November,

    283
    which is the day on which the Bill was published.
    Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There is little that I desire to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The Clause is an example of retrospective legislation, and without wishing in any way to detain the House by entering into a general discussion on that subject, may I say this is a case of unlimited retrospection. What the Amendment seeks to do is to substitute limited retrospection for absolutely unlimited retrospection.
    My hon. Friend has made clear the apprehensions which many of us feel about the results of the Clause if the Amendment is not accepted. I do not want to detain the House by going over the ground which he has already adequately covered, but I draw attention to the fact that when this matter was under consideration at an earlier stage, the Attorney-General, while, I think, not agreeing with the view we then expressed about the possible results of the Clause, undertook to look into this matter again to consider whether there was not a great deal of substance in the apprehensions which we felt and which, on that occasion, we voiced.
    I hope that the Government will agree to accept this very reasonable Amendment, which, after all, only takes out of the scope of the Clause leases coming to an end at a date earlier than the first publication of the Bill. It seems to us to be eminently reasonable to substitute this limited degree of retrospection for the absolutely unlimited retrospection which is embodied in the Clause in its existing form.
    The Solicitor-General: When we considered the same kind of point during our discussion on the Clause in Committee I indicated what was the object of making this, as it were, an unlimited retrospective Clause. The reasons are these. Once one accepts—as hon. Members opposite do accept, in that their own Amendment has a retrospective effect—that the Clause should have retrospective operation, there is more reason to make it apply to a tenancy which expired long ago than there is to make it apply to one which expired only shortly
    284
    before the commencement of the Measure. Perhaps I may indicate the reasons for this, as I indicated them earlier in our debate.
    Supposing the tenancy of a long lease has expired—say, some considerable time ago—and the ex-tenant of the long lease has remained on, either as a new tenant or holding over at the same rent, then the longer he has been in the premises in that situation—that is, under a new tenancy at the same rent, or holding over without any new tenancy having been formally entered into—the more reason is there, we think, for the tenant to have the relief which the Clause gives him.
    Therefore, the attempt to limit the retrospective operation of the Clause, once one accepts that it must be retrospective to some extent, is greatly cutting down its effect and cutting out from its scope those very tenants who have the strongest claim. It would be leaving in the tenants who can only point to a short period of holding under the new conditions, under the substituted tenancy or holding over, but it would be cutting out from the protection which the Bill confers all those tenants who may have been in occupation for a considerable time under the terms of the new tenancy on the same rent. Therefore, we cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake to limit the retrospective operation of the Clause, as the Amendment seeks to do. These are the reasons which I deployed earlier.
    Of course, we think over all these problems which are raised in the course of discussion, but the more we think over this one, the more we feel confident we are right in saying that once the Clause is retrospective at all, once the retrospective relief is given, then it certainly should include tenants who can say of themselves that they have been in occupation of the premises, or part of them, for a long time back, their long leases having expired some considerable time before the publication of the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General said during the Committee stage:
    "We thought that unless we took the date of the introduction of the Bill we could not find any earlier arbitrary date which would do justice between the parties. We must accept

    285
    retrospection in the unusual circumstances of this Bill, and it seemed to us better not to put any term to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 943–4.]
    That is a rather weak argument. We accept retrospection down to the date of the introduction of the Bill, but neither the Attorney-General nor the Solicitor-General has advanced any argument for going further back than that. It is very easy to talk about tenants holding over for a long time, and that the longer they hold over the more they are entitled to protection. In the vast majority of cases—I hesitate to say all, because obviously one cannot find out—where there has been any lengthy continuance of occupation by the tenant after the lease had expired, it has been by virtue of an implied or express agreement with the landlord. If that has happened, there is no reason to assume that that continued occupation will in any way be terminated.
    One evil attaching to unlimited retrospection is that it would put a premium upon the bad tenant, for whom there are no merits but who is persisting, in spite of attempts made to dispossess him, in retaining occupation of the property. In these days of housing shortage one does not like the idea of anyone being deprived of property, but, at the same time one has to consider the many people who are seeking accommodation. Although one can use the argument about the longer the tenant has been in occupation, the greater the protection he should have, no argument has so far been advanced for giving the Clause an unlimited retrospective effect, and we feel that it should be limited in its retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill.
    I can only conclude by hoping—it may be a faint hope, but I hope, nevertheless—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give further consideration to this matter, because I am sure he dislikes as much as I do retrospective legislation in principle, and we are certainly getting far too much of it from the present Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "in continuation of the tenancy."
    This is a drafting Amendment which paves the way for the next Amendment
    286
    on the Order Paper, which is to collect in two new paragraphs the various requirements which have to be complied with for Clause 2 to operate. If the proposed new paragraphs are included, these words "in continuation of the tenancy" are no longer necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 13, at end, insert:
    "and
    (c) at all times during the period mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph at which any such person was living in the property or the part thereof in question he was living there either not in right of any tenancy or agreement or in right of a tenancy or agreement (whether express or implied) which—

    (i) was at a rent, or in consideration of a payment in the nature of rent, of the like amount as the rent payable immediately before the date of continuation,

    (ii) was not granted, made or renewed for a consideration which included the payment of a premium or of a sum in the nature of a premium, and

    (iii) was such as to expire, or to be capable of being terminated by notice to quit, at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) earlier than the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act, and

    (d) if immediately before the date of continuation the tenant or a member of his family was in right of the tenancy living in part only of the property, then at no time during the period mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection was there in possession of some other part of the property any person not being the former tenant or a person claiming under him or a person holding over after the coming to an end of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of the tenancy."
    In line 25, leave out subsection (4).—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 3.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO DETERMINE CONTINUED TENANCY IN EVENT OF ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after "Act" to insert:
    "and not being an assignment in pursuance of a requirement imposed by the landlord."
    This is an Amendment which I move in order to enable effect to be given to a proposal made by an hon. Friend on the Committee stage that, in the event of a tenant keeping a brothel, or using premises for immoral purposes, certain provisions of Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act should nevertheless

    287
    remain in operation. Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912, gives the landlord the right, where the occupier has been convicted of knowingly allowing the premises to be used as a brothel, either to require an assignment of the tenancy to some person approved by the landlord, or, if the assignment does not take place within three months, to terminate the tenancy.
    If the landlord gives notice that he requires the assignment to be made to a new tenant of whom he approves, it obviously is not reasonable that he should also have the right to determine the tenancy because of that assignment. As Clause 3 (1, a) at present reads it would give the right to terminate the tenancy in the event of a new assignee of whom the landlord approved coming into the property. Obviously that would be most unjust to the new assignee. Inasmuch as Section 5 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912, will still be operative and is not interfered with by the provisions of this Bill, we think it desirable that assignments at the direction of the landlord acting under his rights under Section 5 of the 1912 Act should not give a right to a landlord to terminate the lease as a whole.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "every," and insert "the whole or any."
    If we look at the two paragraphs of this subject we see that the landlord may determinate the tenancy in two different circumstances. The first relates to assignment and the second to sub-letting. To produce this power of the landlord to determine the tenancy by assignment it is only necessary that the tenant should have assigned part of the property of which he is the tenant, whereas in the case of sub-letting it is necessary in order to produce that effect that he should have sub-let the whole of the property. This Amendment relates to this difference between the two approaches in respect of assignments and sub-letting. It goes upon the view that in each case it should be sufficient that the tenant has found himself in a position to dispose, whether it be by assignment or sub-letting, of part of the property he occupies to enable the landlord to terminate the tenancy.
    288
    The main ground of the Bill is to protect tenants in the occupation of house room which they need for themselves and their families and the Government, to judge from paragraph (a) of the subsection, clearly feel that if a tenant finds himself in a position to do a deal in respect of part of the property and to assign it he ought not to enjoy the protection of this part of the Bill at all. The question is whether that should not also apply to sub-letting. In either case the tenant is obtaining a benefit from house room or a part of the property which he himself no longer requires and he is obtaining, whether in the form of a premium upon assignment, or in the form of rent obtained from the sub-tenant, a benefit at the landlord's expense from the extension of two years which this part of the Bill creates.
    Why should there be the difference between the two methods whereby he obtains that advantage, namely, by assignment or by sub-letting? It was argued on behalf of the Government that if sub-letting is placed in the same position as assignment, tenants will not sub-let but will say, "If we cannot get the benefit of the two year's extension by sub-letting we will not sub-let at all" and will continue to occupy the whole of the property and, possibly, housing space for an extra family would be withdrawn.
    That is an argument, as far as it goes, but it only reinforces the contention, which has several times been made from this side of the House, that the Government have been wrong in extending protection to property as a whole instead of extending it to the part actually occupied by the tenant. Had they done that there would have been no difficulty arising and no necessity for the distinction to which this Amendment draws attention. It cannot be argued that it is impossible to extend protection to part only of the property held in the tenancy because it is assumed by paragraph (a) that part only can be assigned and if a part can be assigned, the tenant can be confirmed in the occupation of a part. The Amendment draws attention to an anomaly. It draws attention to an anomaly which has been caused by the Government's failure to restrict the Bill to its true and proper purpose, that of protecting a tenant in the occupation of house room which he needs for himself or his family.
    Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We find it very difficult to understand the reason for the differentiation of treatment between paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Taking a practical view of this matter, as distinct from a legalistic view, both assignment and sub-letting are, after all, devices whereby the occupier of the premises, or the owner of the premises, parts with possession, either of a part or of the whole of the premises and it seems to us to be quite inconsistent and indefensible to make this distinction between paragraphs (a) and (b) and to say that an assignment of part only of the premises is to entitle the landlord to recover possession whereas a sub-letting of part only of the premises is not so to entitle the landlord. We feel that that is a very narrow legal distinction which is not supported by any practical distinction, and that it is a distinction which really cannot be supported.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, dealt with the question of the desirability or otherwise of encouraging sub-letting. I think it will be agreed on both sides of the House that in this period of housing shortage it is desirable that where there are surplus rooms, capable of being occupied, encouragement should be given to making those rooms available to families who are in desperate need of accommodation. My submission is that the Amendment which we are seeking to have incorporated in the Bill is not one which will determine whether surplus rooms are sub-let or not, but will merely determine whether the rooms are to be sub-let by the landlord or by the tenant. Our contention is that surplus rooms will be sub-let in either case, and we can see no justification for giving to the tenant the uncovenanted benefit of receiving a possibly high rent which he may be tempted to charge by sub-letting a part of the premises.
    On the grounds of good estate management it is much better that letting and sub-letting should be undertaken by the owner of the premises rather than by a tenant. A tenant who sub-lets will almost certainly appropriate to himself in full the rent he receives on the sub-letting. Owing to his limited interest in the property he is not likely to plough back the rent or any substantial part of it in repairs and improvements to the property. Conversely, it is invariably the case that
    290
    if the owner of the property is able to undertake the sub-letting he will, having a much greater stake in the property than that of any tenant, have a much greater inducement than would a tenant to plough back a substantial part of the rent he receives each year in maintaining the property in a good state of repair, and in incorporating improvements and up-to-date devices from time to time.
    There is the further point that where the tenant sub-lets he almost invariably does so without making the necessary structural alterations to the premises. He does not put in a separate kitchen, or a separate bathroom, or anything to make the part sub-let into a self-contained flat or maisonette. When the landlord is able to deal with the matter he will, in view of his long-term interest in the investment, almost always carry out improvements such as putting in a separate kitchen and bathroom and separate meters for services for the tenant, and the tenant who gets the benefit of the sub-letting thereby gets very much better premises from the landlord than he would get in the case of subletting by another tenant.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Both the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) have really been re-arguing the case about Clause 1. That Clause applies to premises, even if the tenant lives only in part of them. The House has, by its vote, already indicated that it approves of Clause 1 as drafted, so it is too late to go back and argue that matter now.
    One has to approach this Amendment on the basis that Clause 1 gives protection both in regard to that part of the tenancy which the tenant occupies and in respect of the part which he may not occupy. Supposing one starts from that premise, I understand both hon. Members to accept the view that the tenant should, if he has surplus accommodation, be in a position to sub-let it. Present housing conditions make that desirable. What we have done in the Bill is to give the tenant the possibility of sub-letting if he has spare accommodation. It is said, "You make an illogical distinction between sub-letting and assigning a part." During our discussion of the Bill in the Committee stage, I indicated the reason for the difference. Unless we make a partial

    291
    assignment a ground for a landlord giving notice under Clause 3 we will make it very easy for the tenant to evade this provision of the Measure, because he can sub-let a part and assign the remainder, thereby being in possession of no part himself but, nevertheless, enjoying the advantages which Part I of the Bill gives him.
    It is for that reason that we found, apparently rather illogically at first sight, that it was necessary to make a distinction between sub-letting a part and assigning a part. We said that assigning a part would give the right to the landlord to determine the lease, but we did not want to say the same in regard to the subletting of a part, because we thought that the public interest required—and this is accepted—that the tenant should be able to sub-let a portion of the premises which he does not require for his own accommodation. Therefore, we have drafted the Clause in its present form. If we accepted the Amendment it would be going counter to what is accepted on all sides as being desirable by preventing the tenant from sub-letting part of the premises. For those reasons I hope that the House will agree that this proposed change should not be made, and that the Clause should remain as drafted.
    Mr. Hay: The Solicitor-General has approached the problem of this Amendment from one aspect, but I do not think he has done justice to the argument which we have put forward. We cannot see the sense, logic or justice of allowing a tenant who is given the benefit of Part I of the Bill to make an unjustifiable profit at the expense of his landlord. That is the premise from which we start. The Solicitor-General starts from a different viewpoint.
    We say that if the landlord is to be given the right to bring the whole tenancy to an end if the tenant assigns a part of the premises we cannot see the sense of permitting the tenant to retain, for example, one room in the premises and to sub-let the remainder, possibly, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, at an exorbitant or very high rent. There does not seem to me to be any justification for that. The whole case and argument for this Bill has proceeded on the basis that here is a class of person who ought to have some protection. It has been quite openly admitted by the Attorney-
    292
    General and others that if that involves a little hardship to the landlord they are not really worried about that. But this provision is going a little too far.
    I appreciate the technical argument of the Solicitor-General, but what is being said here is that if a tenant chooses he can retain just one small room in the premises and can make a good profit out of subletting the remainder, while not really living there himself, because there are all sorts of subterfuges and ways round that provision. By doing that he will retain possession for a further two years and will still be in an advantageous position when the permanent legislation comes along, if indeed it does. We do not see that there is any justice in that.
    I do not think that the Solicitor-General can be allowed to get away with the argument he advanced to us just now, and I hope that the House will not let him do so. If there are problems of drafting it is up to the Government, whose Bill this is, to provide wording to remedy the position. I ask the Government and hon. Gentlemen sitting behind them whether they really believe that it is right that a tenant—there will not perhaps be many, but there will be some—should have the right and the opportunity of making a profit at the expense of the landlord, when the whole object behind this Bill is to give the sitting tenant the protection which it is said he ought to have.
    Mr. Awbery: It would be just as much right for the tenant to do that as it is for the landlord to do it. Landlords do it, and have been doing it for many years.
    Mr. Hay: I will not argue the latter part of that contention, because I do not think it is relevant; but if the hon. Member really asks about it, I will point to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said. If the landlord has the right to get back these rooms in the house he would let them again. So the argument about the housing problem not being improved if the tenant is not allowed to sub-let has nothing whatever to do with the case. The landlord will let just as well as the tenant. In the event of the landlord letting he will plough back in the shape of repairs and improvement to the building—which, no doubt, will need it badly—the money he receives by way of rents.
    Mr. Keenan: I have been looking for a landlord like that for a long time.
    Mr. Hay: I suggest that that is what will happen in 99 per cent. of the cases. and the hon. Member knows that just as well as I do. I know that hon. Members opposite have to put up a smoke screen about bad landlords because they think it may do them some good in the country, but they cannot get away with it always. That is why I think this Amendment is one which the Government ought to accept. It is one which, in justice and in fairness, they cannot really refuse. I realise that we are rather late in the day in bringing it forward, but there is an opportunity for these matters to be remedied in another place. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman persists today and says he is not prepared to accept the Amendment I do not know what my hon. Friends will do, but I hope that something will be done in another place to clear up this appalling anomaly.
    Mr. Awbery: Regarding what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said about the tenant who lets part of the house at what the hon. Member described as an extortionate rent, is that not being done today by landlords?
    Mr. Hay: No.
    Mr. Awbery: When a tenant vacates a house now, and the Rent Restrictions Act is removed so far as the empty house is concerned—
    Mr. Hay: No, it is not.
    Mr. Awbery:—then the landlord charges just what he likes.
    Mr. Hay: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House, but if a landlord recovers possession of a house subject to the 1939 Act the rent control is certainly not removed. The hon. Member is 20 years behind the times.
    Mr. Awbery: I am talking about exploitation by the landlord.
    Mr. Hay: That has gone, too. Amendment negatived.

    Clause 5.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "insured," to "for," in line 36, and to insert:
    "and that nothing in paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall apply to the enforcement of any right on the ground that the property or part thereof is being, or has since the commencement of this Act been, used."
    The object of this Amendment is to meet a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The point made by him was that there might be a covenant so framed as to cover an immoral purpose. It might be a covenant against use in a way which constituted a nuisance or something of that sort. My hon. Friend proposed, and we thought it reasonable, that the landlord should be entitled to enforce his right of forfeiture in the event of immoral user, and that is what this Amendment seeks to carry out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "or to extend to any failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property."
    This Amendment is rather different from the one we moved on the Committee stage, which was directed to attempting to solve a particular problem of considerable importance. One of the difficulties in this so-called standstill Measure is to provide, first of all, that a landlord shall not be able to affect the operation of the Measure by enforcing, for instance, a covenant for repair. Everyone recognises that that is something that must not be permitted if this Bill is to operate. On the other hand, while we are preventing that from occurring, there is the grave danger that if we do not leave something available to the landlord, we may in the next two years get a very serious depreciation in the character of buildings through their not being kept in repair.
    Let me put this illustration to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We often hear from hon. Members opposite about bad landlords. They always try to make out—for vote-catching purposes—that every landlord is a bad one, but that

    295
    is not so. There are also bad tenants as well as good tenants. That we all recognise, and I hope I shall not be considered controversial in saying that. Take the case of a bad tenant whose lease is extended by this part of the Bill for another two years. Such a tenant may be bad, not only because he has not attempted to comply with the obligations into which he has entered, but also because, owing to his being unable to get any fuel under our present system—only a little slate now and then—he takes to destroying the staircase and using that as fuel to cook his meals. Or perhaps he takes up a bit of the floor and burns that, or breaks up the whole building. He does not keep the property in repair but actively engages in its disrepair.
    Is there any effective remedy left under this Bill to prevent that from happening? It is all very well to say that under the new Clause its is provided that the landlord can go in and effect repairs at his own expense. That is provided for now as the result of an Amendment made on Committee stage; but it is of no use unless we can change the habits of the tenant; because he will just have another fire and get a bit warmer. The real cure is to have more fuel. I am giving this as an illustration of a defect in this Bill but it is not so very inaccurate in many cases. If hon. Gentlemen will turn their attention from what is, to them, the attractive idea of the bad landlord, and consider the bad tenant they will see that, in its present form, this Bill leaves open a loophole which ought to be closed.
    Mr. Keenan: Cannot that take place now? It does not necessarily follow that, because there is an extension of the period to protect a leaseholder, he becomes a worse tenant.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: It can take place now, and I dare say it has taken place. I merely said frequently, but I do not know Liverpool, or rather that part of Liverpool which the hon. Gentleman represents, as well as he does. Supposing it does take place now, what happens? That property can be put right because the landlord will get possession of it and can get possession; and someone will get the tenancy who will maintain the property in a proper condition. Someone else in the housing queue will step in and
    296
    have a chance of living in a house which has been properly repaired.
    8.0 p.m.
    Under this Bill, if it goes through in its present form, there will be no power to stop the tenant from doing this again and again. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that the landlord has the right to get an injunction against the tenant. It is true that that remedy remains, but I doubt whether in practice it is likely to prove an effective remedy. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will recognise that the safeguards to prevent the depreciation of house property are somewhat inadequate. We are concerned with that. It is in the national interest that property should be kept in good repair. At the same time, we recognise that the landlord must not be given an opportunity to get round this Bill on the pretext of enforcing liability for repairs. That is the other danger. We recognise both.
    What is the solution? I do not think that this Bill contains the solution. I am not sure that this Amendment contains the correct solution, but I am sure that a solution should be found to stop the landlord getting round this Bill improperly and, at the same time, to prevent unnecessary depreciation of house property. During the Committee stage we put forward the solution of making repairs enforceable when they were demanded in accordance with a notice served by a local authority. That had certain attractions, because it did not rest with the landlord to initiate the demand for those repairs. The demand was made by a third party having regard solely to the condition of the property. That suggestion was rejected.
    Now we put forward an alternative method of trying to solve the problem which both sides of the House recognise exists. This method is to take action in respect of the
    "failure of the tenant after the commencement of this Act to do work in conformity with the terms of the tenancy necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property."
    I commend to the attention of the House the words:
    "work…necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the condition of the property."
    That is what we want to do, while preventing the landlord from getting round

    297
    the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, it will be for the landlord to take proceedings, if he thinks that this wording has been infringed by the tenant. But he can succeed in those proceedings only if he establishes the points mentioned in the Amendment; namely, that since the commencement of the Act there has been a failure by the tenant to do work which he has undertaken to do and which is necessary to prevent or arrest serious depreciation in the conditions of the property.
    It seems to us that, having in mind that there is the safeguard of the court having to be satisfied of that before any steps can be taken against the tenant, the insertion of these words would go a long way—we think the whole way—towards securing the objective we want to secure of not providing a loophole for the landlord to get round the Bill, but providing a method whereby when a bad tenant not only fails to repair but, by neglect or active action, leads to the disrepair of the building, action can be taken against him before the expiry of the two years.
    I do not feel at all optimistic about this Amendment, in view of the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in reply to other Amendments; but I am sure that if he gives the matter careful consideration he will agree that there is this defect in the Bill as drafted. I am sure he will realise that we do not want to provide a method of evasion for landlords, and that we are not trying to do that. I hope he will say that he will see whether he can do something to secure that, in the two years for which these leases are prolonged, something can be done to prevent further depreciation.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "We have moved a new Clause to do that"; but that is not enough. Although the landlord may act time and again, if there is the same tenant in the place the tenant may act in the same way time and again. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter, even if he cannot say that he can accept something on these lines at present.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Since the Bill was first presented it has been improved to some extent in regard to the matter mentioned by my hon. and
    298
    learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). In its original form there was no redress of any kind for the landlord for dilapidations which might be perpetrated by the tenant during the two years' extra tenancy granted by the Bill. It might be contended that Clause 6, which was added to the Bill in Committee, meets the point which this Amendment is designed to meet. On examination, it will be found that that is not so.
    Clause 6, which we must consider in connection with Clause 5, certainly enables the landlord to carry out work to arrest or prevent serious depreciation. It enables him to charge the tenant for the cost of that work, provided that the tenant's terms and conditions place upon the tenant the burden of maintaining the property in repair. But, and this is the difficulty, that obligation can only be transferred from the landlord to the tenant, and those sums can only be recovered from the tenant, after the termination of the extension of the tenancy which the Bill permits. Therefore, the landlord who enters upon a property and carries out work to arrest or prevent serious deterioration, may well find himself—and in many cases probably will find himself—after the end of the extra period provided by the Bill unable to recover from the tenant the sums which he has expended.
    There are, even with this Amendment, ample safeguards in the Bill to prevent Clause 5, as amended, and Clause 6 from being used by landlords as a means of evading the intention of the Bill. First, the object has to be to prevent or arrest serious deterioration; second, the court has to be convinced that it is reasonably necessary; and, third, the repair had to be originally a part of the tenant's obligations under his lease. With those three conditions, upon all of which the court can insist, there is no danger whatever that the right to require the tenant to do, or to pay for, essential necessary repairs currently could be used by any landlord as a means of getting the tenant out.
    On the contrary, it is essential that those repairs should be carried out during the period of extension granted by the Bill and that the landlord should not have to undertake them with the risk of not being able to recover his expenditure. It is only if those essential repairs, which the

    299
    tenant is obliged to carry out under his existing lease, are carried out by him or at his expense during the currency of the lease that a great deal of property will be kept in reasonable repair which otherwise would deteriorate and which, otherwise, the landlord would be obliged to allow to deteriorate.
    Finally, I ask why a tenant enjoying the advantages of the extension granted by the Bill should be in a superior position with regard to his duty to repair and to keep in a good state of maintenance by comparison with the tenant whose lease expires a few months later. If a tenant has still two or more years of his lease to run, then he has to fulfil these obligations; he has to maintain the premises in repair or he can be evicted by the landlord. If, on the other hand, it so happens that his lease expires a few months earlier, then he is to be freed from his obligation until the end of the extended period—and at the end of that period it is very questionable indeed whether he will meet such obligations as the landlord can prove against him.
    On the one hand, therefore, this Amendment provides no loophole for a malicious landlord to chisel a tenant out of the protection which it is intended to give him and, on the other hand, it provides the only secure means whereby during the extended period a good deal of property can be kept in the minimum necessary repair.
    8.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: We feel that we have gone far in doing justice as between landlord and tenant. What is the situation? If this Amendment were accepted it might well be the case, and in a great many instances it would be the case, that a tenant would find himself confronted with a very serious, heavy and immediate liability. The result would be that the protection which the Act purports to afford him would be more or less illusory.
    We are considering what is purely a standstill Measure. The Bill operates for two years and the question is: What is the right interim arrangement to make for the purpose of that two-year period? If the property is in a state in which there is danger of serious depreciation, then it is unlikely that the landlord will not already have taken steps about it before
    300
    the two-year period begins. He will have done so if he is apprehensive about the state of his property. I do not wish it to be taken that I suggest that all landlords will want to take unfair advantage of their tenants, but if, on the other hand, he desires to take advantage of his tenant during the two-year period it would be quite easy for him to pick upon a failure to repair which could be argued as possibly conducing to a serious depreciation in the condition of the property.
    Faced with that problem, faced with the problem that we do not want this two-year protection to be only protection in name, and faced with the problem that a great many tenants sometimes have not complied with their covenants, particularly their covenants to repair, what we have done, with the assistance of arguments from both sides during the Committee stage, is to insert Clause 6 into the Bill.
    I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) over-painted the picture which he was trying to draw. He mentioned quite casually, but only casually, that there was the remedy by injunction and he then proceeded to give an instance of a tenant who pulled up his stair-rods in order to light fires. In a case like that it is quite unreal to suggest that the remedy by injunction would not be extremely effective; it would be very effective indeed, and if a tenant disregarded an injunction restraining him from behaving in that way he would render himself liable to very serious consequences indeed.
    It is a wholly unreal picture of the situation to represent the landlord as, during those two years, being wholly incompetent to protect his property. He is not incompetent to do so at all; he can go to the court and, if the kind of action which the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined is taking place, he can ask the court to grant him an injunction to stop it. The court has power to enforce the requirements of its injunction with very stringent penalties. Not only has the landlord that right but, by virtue of the Clause we have inserted, and which at present is Clause 6, he can go upon the premises, can see what repairs need to be done and can do those repairs. He is given the right to recover damages, although, admittedly, his right is suspended. Nevertheless, he has the right

    301
    ultimately to recover damages from the tenant in so far as the tenant has neglected to maintain an obligation.
    I can conceive that that does not go as far as hon. Members opposite wish us to go, but it is quite incorrect to portray the landlord as being subjected to a situation in which he has to watch his property go to rack and ruin and is powerless to take any steps to prevent it. So far from that being the case, he can go on to the property, can ascertain what it is that needs to be done and can do it himself. In due course he can recover the cost from the tenant and, if the tenant proceeds to undo what he has done or proceeds in a wasteful manner contrary to his obligations under the lease, he can go to the court and ask for an injunction. Those are formidable remedies now in the hands of the landlord. I suggest to the House that, bearing in mind that we are anxious to keep the scales equal between the two, we have about hit upon the right dividing line which fairly holds the balance between the landlord and the tenant. For those reasons I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Molson: I can scarcely think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself convinced by his own argument. He has taken an example which we put forward, and the fact that he has accepted it shows that he appreciates that there may be such cases. That is the case of a tenant who is either negligently allowing the property to go to rack or ruin or may even be doing wanton damage to the property. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it is an adequate remedy for the landlord to be able to go to the court and obtain an injunction. He also suggests that it will be satisfactory to the landlord if he is allowed to enter upon the property and carry out the repairs at his own expense, although he will not be able to recover the money from the tenant until the end of the two years during which protection is being given to the tenant under the Bill.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken that example of a person who is either carrying out wanton damage of that kind or is allowing the property to go to rack and ruin. What possible inducement is there to a landlord to enter upon the property and spend money upon repairs which have been made necessary by the wanton damage done by the tenant?
    302
    The Government have repeated time and again that this is a standstill Measure and that they are considering what kind of permanent legislation they should introduce. It is quite plain that some of the back bench supporters of the Government have no intention that the property which comes within Part I of the Bill shall, in fact, revert to the owner.
    Supposing we have the person who carries out this kind of wanton damage. Is it likely that after two years there would be any probability that a landlord would be able to recover from someone of that kind the cost of the repairs which he has carried out to meet the damage which such a tenant has done? We are, of course, dealing, as it is the whole purpose of this Amendment to deal, with the case of the really bad tenant. We are not suggesting that this is the normal case at all; but we are saying that there are bad tenants, and that it is only fair and right and reasonable, and that it is in the national interest, that there should be some adequate remedy against them; and it is, surely, reasonably obvious that, in such a case where the tenant has behaved in this way in the past, he is likely to behave in the same way in future.
    I am astonished that the Solicitor-General should say that he really conceives himself to be holding the balance evenly between tenants and landlords. Surely, in the case of a bad tenant of this kind, the only simple, cheap and effective remedy that can be made available to the landlord is to enable him to evict the bad tenant and to regain possession of his house. If the Government really did desire to hold the balance evenly between tenants and landlords, surely in a case where, as is provided in this Amendment, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the tenant is not carrying out the obligations he entered into, and that the property is deteriorating, as a result either of the tenant's negligence or of his malice—
    Mr. Awbery: The property belongs to the tenant until the lease expires.
    Mr. Molson: That is the most extraordinary statement that we have heard in this debate. Obviously, the property does not belong to the tenant, because he would not be the tenant if the property belonged to him.
    Mr. Awbery: He is the leaseholder.
    Mr. Molson: Yes. His being the leaseholder shows that the property does not belong to him. If the real purpose of some hon. Gentlemen on the back benches on the other side is to use this Bill for the purpose of depriving landlords of their ownership of property, without any compensation it is not the purpose that has been avowed by the Government. It is something entirely different. We on this side of the House are fully aware—
    Mr. G. Thomas: Compensation after 99 years?
    Mr. Molson: This is extremely interesting. What I am asking for in the case of the landlords is reasonable protection for the landlords' property; and I have quoted what the Solicitor-General said, that the Government intend to hold, and believe that they are holding, the balance evenly between the landlords and the tenants. Interruptions that are coming from the back benches on the other side show that that is the very last thing they intend, and that their purpose is to use the Bill—which was introduced for the prime purpose of defending tenants, in a time of difficulty, against unreasonable treatment—for the complete transformation of the law of property in this country. They have admitted it, and are perfectly open about it.
    But I am trying to address an argument to the Solicitor-General. Neither he nor the Attorney-General has suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to expropriate the landlords for the benefit of the tenants. I conclude by making what, I hope, is a reasonable appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to consider again whether, in the case of really bad tenants, adequate protection is given to the rights of the landlords; and I would also appeal to him to consider whether it is not in the national interest that as much as possible of the limited house property in this country should be kept in a reasonable state of repair.
    Mr. Keenan: From what the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, I gather that there seems to be some confusion as to what tenancies really are. I think that that is pretty obvious. So far as I understand the Bill, it covers leases
    304
    falling in, as well as tenancies over long terms, where there is a danger to the tenant and the owner of the property from the owner of the ground lease, when that falls in. This Bill is not to resolve what is to be done about that, as I understand it, but is to give the Government an opportunity to introduce legislation to deal with it.
    The hon. Member for The High Peak accuses back benchers of having certain desires in this connection. I want to plead quite guilty to the worst that he stated about them, because we all know about leases falling in. This goes on all over the country, and it certainly goes on in the Liverpool area, where people who built on land, and who probably occupy the houses now, lose the whole lot of it after 75 years or 99 years. That is one of the troubles. It is not only the owner-occupier who has bought the house or got possession of the lease who is affected.
    There are two different sorts of properties, business properties as well as dwelling-houses, the leases of which are falling in from time to time, and the landlords have not been quite so generous as the hon. Member for The High Peak and others have sought to make out in their treatment of their tenants. I remember that within the last three years the owner of a very fine, old-established business in Bold Street, Liverpool, which had been established 50 or 60 years, had to get out, not because he was not looking after the property, but because the individual who acquired the lease in that part of Liverpool was able to take advantage and get him out and get the good will. There was no compensation. There was not a halfpenny of compensation. It was a case of "get out."
    8.30 p.m.
    I do not think that every tenant has become a recalcitrant citizen or a vicious tenant. Because this standstill arrangement has come into being, it would appear that some of the Amendments at least have been designed to protect the landlord with the clear idea in mind that the effect of this Bill would be that every tenant would pay no regard to the property, and would in effect destroy it. It is not fair to assume that. Of course it is true that even today, some tenants do not treat property in a reasonable way. That is obvious to us all, and it ocours in every city; but it is not for the landlords to

    305
    complain. Landlords have been neglecting property for a number of years. If as a result of this Bill there is, as is suggested, any likelihood of all these awful things being done to the property by tenants and it is necessary to protect the property, not necessarily because it is the landlord's, I am prepared to agree that there is justification for it.
    Mr. Molson: The whole point is that under the leases as they are at present, the landlord has a remedy if the tenant does not carry out his contractual obligations. Under the Bill as at present drafted he cannot enforce those obligations during the extension of two years.
    Mr. Keenan: I have heard the assurances given by the Solicitor-General from time to time, and I think the Government have taken everything into consideration and provided the necessary protection. For that reason, I think we must oppose this Amendment.
    Sir Ian Fraser: I hope I may be excused by the Solicitor-General and other hon. and learned Members if I do not claim to be au fait with the precise text of various Clauses of this most complex Measure. As a layman listening to the arguments, I venture to ask the Solicitor-General whether he can answer one question categorically and clearly, because that would help to define my attitude towards this Amendment.
    Does the Bill remove from the landlord any of the rights he possesses under the lease? There is a relationship between landlord and tenant. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a standstill for two years while the Government think what should be done. The Government may change, and other arrangements may be made. I am not advocating that course at the moment, but if we accept the view that this is a standstill Measure, ought it to prejudge what will be the result of that further consideration? I therefore ask the Government to make quite clear to the House and the country whether during the two years the rights of the parties remain what they are, or whether they are altered. If they are altered, are they altered to the disadvantage of the landlord or to the disadvantage of the tenant? If so, upon what ground or justification?
    306
    There is one comment I should like to make on the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan). He appeared to me to speak with a prejudice in this matter. I do not say that in any offensive way, but he did appear to assume that legislation of this kind can be right only if it is one-sided. He said that the tenant has paid for the property for 99 years. Surely that is not the case. If he has been paying for the property for 99 years, or 75 years, or whatever it may be, the rent he has been paying has been the amount of money required to hire the property for the period, not to buy it. There is a difference between hiring and buying.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Amendment.
    Sir I. Fraser: I was only following the hon. Member for Kirkdale in his muddle-headed argument. I do not wish to pursue it.
    Mr. Keenan: I cannot allow the hon. Member to call what I said "muddle-headed." He does not understand. He has not been here long enough to follow the debate. What he has missed—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is the Report stage and the hon. Gentleman can speak only once on this Amendment.
    Sir P. Spens: I want to raise only one point. On the Committee stage, I was taken to task because I said that the remedy of injunction was not a kind remedy from the point of view of the tenant or the landlord, because to enforce an injunction an order in the High Court would have to be taken and such action would be extraordinarily expensive for everyone concerned; and as we are dealing in the main with small houses and small tenants, it would not be kind to take even a bad tenant—and in 90 per cent. of the cases the tenants are good tenants—to the High Court.
    The answer to that was that I did not know my procedure and that it was possible for a landlord to go to the county court to get an injunction. I have been studying the report of the present Master of the Rolls and his Committee on the procedure of the courts, and when they come to deal with the county court, they point out that one of the difficulties of

    307
    the county court is that it cannot grant an injunction unless there is some other claim in addition to that for an injunction and a money claim.
    When I look at the Bill and I see that every remedy except an injunction is put out of the way, I cannot see how a landlord will be able to issue a writ for an injunction alone and succeed in the county court. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that matter, and if I am wrong and he can assure me that there is a remedy in an injunction alone with no other claim in the county court, I shall be delighted; but if there is not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, I think, the Attorney-General had no right to say that there is any real protection in this matter, if the only remedy the landlord has is to take the unfortunate tenant to the High Court, because by doing so the Government are doing no kindness to anybody, particularly the poor tenant.
    Mr. Higgs: There are one or two points which arise on this question of forcing the landlord, as this Clause may do, to seek a remedy in an injunction where otherwise he would not seek it. After all, the law in this matter, so far, has been run on rules imposed between landlord and tenant. There are some faults on the part of the tenant that we proceed to put right by injunction as a suitable remedy, others which we proceed to put right by action for damages, and others, such as misbehaviour on the part of the tenant, which we have always regarded as being put right by re-entry and re-assuming possession.
    What this Clause does, and what we seek to avoid by this Amendment, is to drift into one channel of remedy for the landlord in all cases, namely, by an injunction. One result is that the court would only grant an injunction in certain cases. On the question of getting repairs done, the courts have repeatedly said that they will not grant an injunction. In the case of stair-rods which were burnt in the fire, the court could not grant an injunction to get them out of the fire and to put them back after they had been burnt. There are many things that can happen in connection with which an injunction is impossible.
    This Clause takes away the rights of the landlord in many respects. It takes away the right of the landlord to recover
    308
    a proportion of the cost of insurance; it takes away the right of the landlord in the event of bankruptcy; it takes away the right of the landlord where a tenant, contrary to his covenant, has altered the property, where a tenant refuses to pay the rates when he has an obligation to pay them; and in a whole host of similar respects.
    We are being very modest in this Amendment. All that we are asking the House to do is restore to the landlord his right to get something done when the landlord's interests and those of the community as a whole coincide. On one matter, even those hon. Members opposite who sit to the extreme left of their party may agree. That is the question of a landlord keeping a house which can be of service to the community, when the rights of the landlord and the rights of the community as a whole coincide. By that I mean that when it is the landlord who is seeking to have a house maintained, then the landlord is doing what the community ought to have him do. In this case, where we have a tenant who would neglect and a landlord who would preserve, surely the community ought to be on the side of the landlord. That is all we are asking the House to do in this case.
    We are being exceedingly careful to make sure that a landlord cannot take advantage, as bad landlords do. I have seen cases where thousands of pounds of dilapidations for past failures have been demanded. That cannot happen, because in this case we give the landlord the right to claim only in respect of dilapidations arising or occurring during the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said that we are weighting the scales on the side of the landlord when we are only providing that a house shall get no worse for the period of the extension. I cannot see how it can be said it is unfair that the landlord should seek to do what the community ought to have done in the interests of us all.
    Amendment negatived.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
    "then—

    (a) in so far as the proceedings are for enforcement of any right of forfeiture or re-entry such as is specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, they shall be stayed except as respects the making of an order as to costs;

    309

    (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, no judgment or order given or made in the proceedings for the payment of damages shall be enforceable until the expiration of two years after the commencement of this Act or the coming to an end of the tenancy, whichever first occurs."

    This Amendment is designed to carry into effect a proposal made by Members opposite in regard to subsection (3), which provides that if proceedings have been brought after 21st November, 1950, they are finally stayed, except so far as the making of an order for costs is concerned. It was pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that that was rather a wasteful way of dealing with the situation, because it really meant that, the proceedings being stayed, the landlord, if he wished to reinstitute them, after the two years had expired, had again to take all the steps he had already taken, with the result that the whole expense of the proceedings was thrown away. That was disadvantageous not only to the landlord but also to the tenant. It meant that whoever had ultimately to pay the costs had to pay the extra amount represented by the proceedings that had been thrown away.
    We are proposing that there should be an interim stay, and that the steps already taken should not be thrown away, but that the proceedings can be resumed after the two-year period has expired. As I intimated, I felt that that was not an unreasonable proposal, and that it was in the interests of both parties to a dispute. In the interval we have considered the matter, and we have put down this Amendment which is designed to carry out the purpose the hon. and learned Member had in mind.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(POWER OF LANDLORD TO CARRY OUT ESSENTIAL REPAIRS.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, to leave out "another person," and to insert:
    "or recovered from the landlord."
    This is merely a drafting Amendment to remove an ambiguity.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say, "Thank you" to the Solicitor-General for this Amendment and for the
    310
    previous one, and to assure him that if he had only accepted more of our Amendments the Bill would have been a much better Bill.
    Sir P. Spens: I should also like to add my word of thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not quick enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the last Amendment, and I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for meeting us on that one, all the more so because it was at my request that the matter was reconsidered. It has improved the Bill quite a lot.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(RENEWAL OF TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, to leave out "be," and to insert:
    "if the landlord so requires be a tenancy of the whole subject of the expiring tenancy, and otherwise."
    This Amendment is to give effect to a suggestion made by the Opposition, which was designed to enable a landlord who required the tenancy, granted under Clause 10 of Part II of the Bill, to extend to the whole of the premises, to be so extended. It was felt that it would not be unreasonable, if a new tenancy for shop premises or residential accommodation were granted, if the landlord so desired it, for it to be extended not to part but to the whole of the premises which were the subject of the tenancy. This Amendment carries out that purpose.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again, I rise to say "Thank you" to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment and also for the very clear and lucid explanation of the object of it, which we feel will achieve its purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 36, leave out from "that," to end of line 37, and insert:
    "where the landlord does not require the new tenancy to be of the whole of the subject of the expiring tenancy, and."
    In page 10, line 5, after "shall," insert:
    "unless the court in its discretion otherwise determines."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 11.—(TIME FOR, AND INTERIM EFFECT OF, APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 10, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Where apart from this section the expiring tenancy would expire by effluxion of time, the landlord may at any time not earlier than four months before the date on which that tenancy would so expire serve on the tenant notice, in such form and containing such particulars as to the provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor by statutory instrument, requiring the tenant within the period of one month from the date of the service of the notice to elect whether or not to make an application under this Part of this Act; and where such a notice is served no such application shall be made in relation to the expiring tenancy after the end of that period.
    During the Committee stage a debate arose as to the time within which a tenant, if he desired a fresh tenancy under Part II of the Bill, could give notice to that effect. As the Bill at present reads, that period is one month. It was represented by hon. Members opposite that one month was quite unsatisfactory. It was felt that a landlord would be put in the situation that, coming near the end of a tenancy, he would not know whether the tenant was going to ask for a new tenancy or not. Hon. Members opposite proposed that the one month should be extended to three months, but most of my hon. Friends disagree with that view, arguing that if the period were extended from one to three months the situation would constantly arise of a tenant, through ignorance of his rights, not realising, before the three months began to run out, that he should make a claim for a new tenancy if he so desired.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), did not take that view. He felt that the landlord would be unfairly disadvantaged if some such provision was not made. What we have tried to do in the period between the Committee stage and today is to try to excogitate a scheme which meets all objections. That scheme is embodied in the new provision which I am moving. It is that not earlier than four months from the expiry of the tenancy the landlord should give notice to the tenant telling him that if he wants to make a claim for a new tenancy he has to do so within one
    312
    month from the date on which he receives the notice from the landlord.
    The result is that the landlord will not be left in a situation of not knowing until the last moment what is to happen, and that the tenant, from his point of view, will get a notice from the landlord which will bring prominently to his attention the fact that if he wants to make application for a fresh tenancy he must take the necessary steps for that purpose within one month of getting the notice. We feel that this scheme does justice between the two parties and we hope that the House will agree to make this change in the Bill.
    Mr. Powell: Hon. Gentlemen who pressed upon the Government at an earlier stage the difficulties of the Clause in its unamended state will be grateful to the Solicitor-General for the Amendment. It has the merit of avoiding the difficulties which we foresaw, that the provisions of Clause 4 would give an extra extension to the skilful and ill-intentioned tenant, and it avoids the difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out at that time. I think that his process of excogitation has had a happy solution, or, as he might more briefly have put it, his lucubrations have resulted in expiscating from his subconscious a satisfactory solution.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12.—(POWER OF COURT TO GRANT NEW TENANCIES OF SHOPS.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in fixing the rent, terms and conditions the court shall disregard any considerations arising from the personal circumstances of any of the parties."
    The Amendment seeks to make a slight change in Clause 12, which enables a county court judge to grant a new lease of shop premises if he thinks it reasonable in all the circumstances so to do. When we were debating what the county court judge should be empowered to take into account, it was the view of the Committee that purely personal circumstances of the applicant or the respondent were irrelevant. It would be, for example, irrelevant to the question whether he should have a new lease, that he has been extravagant and lost his

    313
    money by betting, or something of that kind. Such circumstances should not be taken into account by the county court judge.
    To give effect to that expression of view, we have put down the Amendment. The House will see that it requires the court to disregard any considerations arising from the personal circumstances of any of the parties. The county court judge is therefore required to exclude from his mind purely personal matters, but he may take into account anything apart from them. It is entirely for him to decide what weight he shall attribute to any other circumstances, so that he may arrive at a just conclusion between the two parties.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again I rise to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for meeting a point which was raised by this side of the House. I disagreed with him when he said that he thought it was a small point. It is a very important point. It is very important that we should be able to give guidance to the county court judges who will administer this most difficult Bill as to what they should and should not take into account.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman selected rather an unfortunate illustration—unless, perhaps, he was in Lincolnshire last Saturday—when he talked about people losing money by betting. However, I agree with him that in determining this question no one should take into account the personal circumstances of any of the parties, such as whether they have lost money by betting or have won a football pool. All personal circumstances should be eliminated when considering the question.
    I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reached the same conclusion as we did. Once again I thank him, and I draw his attention to the fact that he could have made remarkably speedy progress with the Bill if only he had listened to the weighty arguments advanced by this side of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 11, leave out lines 10 to 14.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 15.—(APPEALS.)
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "except with the leave of the court or the court of appeal."
    Oddly enough, these words reverse the whole purpose of this short Clause, which begins by saying that there shall be no appeal from any determination under this part of the Bill. I am not sure that, grammatically, they would not be better at the beginning of the Clause.
    There are two points which the House might consider when deciding whether there should be an appeal under this part. Those who will indulge in the benefits of the Bill may find that they are getting as deeply into gambling as both Front Benches seem to be. To come back to a point I made on an earlier Amendment, we were promised that by the end of two years lease-holders who come within the benefits of the Bill at the moment would get something, but they do not know what it will be. In the Black Country we call that "buying a pig in a poke."
    The person who seeks the benefit of the Bill is not merely getting something to maintain him where he is for a couple of years, or less, as has been glibly stated once or twice on the other side of the House; he is buying something which may last him for ever. Consequently, it is not much good the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that we do not need an appeal and that, even if the court makes a decision, it does not matter very much because it merely keeps one person in one house for a few months or kicks out a person who would have to go in a few months' time in any event. That is not the point. The decision which the county court may have to make under Part II may enable the tenant not only to remain for another 12 months in his premises, but to remain there always.
    I hope that we shall not be asked to dismiss the suggestion that there should be a right of appeal because it is not worth while and because the costs of an appeal would be more than the value of a few months of tenancy. Quite sincerely, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway who set store by the Bill will remember that they must have in mind not only what

    315
    the Bill gives but also what will follow. Consequently the rights which the Bill gives need to be defined rather carefully.
    9.0 p.m.
    Let me mention two other matters which may influence them. We have had a number of cases in legislation of recent years where Parliament has embarked on some quite new field—the Rent Restriction Acts are an example—and where we have had to say to some extent that we will leave it to the judges, with centuries of experience behind them, to work out the details. I believe the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Lord President of the Council in the previous Parliament, said something like that about the Representation of the People Bill. When he was asked about the new rules at election time, he rather brushed the question aside by saying, "We lay down the general guiding principles and leave it to the courts to work them out in practice."
    Here we are giving the courts a much wider discretion. Apart from the fact that they must not look at a man's bank balance, we are simply telling them, by the Amendment we have just adopted, that they may look at anything—the colour of his tie, the shape of his head—to decide what it is fair for him to have, With all respect to a very great profession, county court judges are human and, like all human beings, they must vary from one to another and from one district to another. They cannot help that. One of the greatest saving provisions of our law in cases like that is that, although we work out a uniform code, we have an appeal to a higher court in the background all the time. I feel sure that the House should consider whether, in order to secure something like uniformity between the respective parts of the country, which have had such strong advocates in the course of this debate, in order that the Midlands may have the same law as South Wales or London, we ought to have an appeal to a higher court when occasion arises so that some standard may be laid down.
    It ought to be apparent to everybody in this House that we are embarking upon something which will be complicated. It ought to be apparent that this is strange ground. It ought to be apparent that from time to time new situations will arise in which a court of first instance may
    316
    occasionally go wrong. I suggest to the House that in cases like that it is necessary that there should always be a court where a tenant who thinks he has had the wrong end of the law should have the right, if he is prepared to embark on it, to go to appeal.
    I also suggest that hard cases make bad law. In cases under this kind of provision, very often a court is tempted to look at the hardship in a case rather than the law, and to lay down a principle which may subsequently work harshly. That has happened again and again under the Rent Acts. Again and again a decision has been made which works out badly when it is followed in subsequent cases. Happily the courts of this country who get themselves into that sort of mess from time to time have a way of getting out of it. They can go to a higher court. It is only when one has reached the House of Lords that a really impossible situation arises. I say that such difficulties are likely to arise under this Bill and, having regard to all that is involved, I hope the House will not dismiss this lightly.
    Mr. Black: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is really in the nature of a compromise between two conflicting points of view. In our previous discussions the view was put forward quite strongly that there should be no right of appeal beyond the county court in view of the limited scope and duration of the Bill. On the other hand, a great many Members on this side have felt very strongly that it is unsatisfactory, where some important point of law is involved, that it should be impossible for an aggrieved party to take the matter to a higher court. We therefore favour, on the whole, an aggrieved party having a right of appeal in the ordinary conditions under which a right of appeal would normally lie.
    The Amendment is in the nature of a compromise between the two views. It would not confer an automatic right of appeal upon an aggrieved party, but only the right to appeal to a higher court in cases in which the court itself felt that there was a sufficiently important and fundamental point of law involved to justify the court granting leave of appeal to a higher court.
    It seems to me wholly wrong for Parliament to preclude the possibility of an

    317
    appeal to a higher court being made in circumstances in which the court itself felt that, for guidance in similar cases in future, it would be desirable for a particular point of law to be reviewed by a higher tribunal. Therefore, I hope that the compromise element in the Amendment will appeal to those who, perhaps, have previously favoured there being no right of appeal whatever and will lead them to be willing to accept what I venture to suggest is a very reasonable compromise between the two conflicting sides.
    The Solicitor-General: Having considered this matter carefully, we feel that it would be better that there should not be a right of appeal, even with leave. I will give my reasons for saying this. Admittedly, the question is a difficult one and the considerations can be urged with force on each side, but nevertheless what seems to us to be the guiding consideration is that we are, after all, in this matter dealing with a whole variety of comparatively small people; the majority, although not all, will be within that category. There will be larger shop owners, landlords and so on, but there will be a great variety of small people.
    Looking at the matter from the viewpoint of the vast majority of people who will be affected by the Bill, one has to ask whether it is in their interest that the decision of the county court judge should be open to challenge in a higher court and then, I suppose, ultimately in the House of Lords. In looking at this problem, one has to say that if a right of appeal is given to one party, so it must equally be given to the other party; each party must have a right of appeal. The result is that if we give this right of appeal, even with leave, there is the danger that a very large number of people who can ill afford it—
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is legal aid.
    The Solicitor-General:—and who certainly do not want to undertake it, will be faced with the prospect of long, expensive and worrying litigation. Admittedly, the Legal Aid and Advice Act may have some application, but as the hon. and learned Member knows, it has at present been brought only partially into operation, but of course it would apply
    318
    to the Court of Appeal. On balance, therefore, we feel it is best to leave the Bill as it is.
    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), who moved the Amendment, placed great stress upon the desirability of securing uniformity. Of course, that is a cogent argument. It would be a great deal more cogent if we were not dealing with a purely standstill Measure. If we were looking at litigation which was to set a standard of precedence over a long period, which could only be amended or changed by fresh legislation, there would be a great deal more to be said for securing that a court of appeal prescribes some general principles upon which the decision should be exercised, and so on. That is not the case when dealing simply with this two-year standstill Measure. The problems which the courts will have to consider are very largely—I will not say entirely—pure questions of fact, questions of individual judgment and reaction to a given set of circumstances.
    These are matters which are peculiarly appropriate for determination by the county court judge, who will have the parties before him and will have full opportunity of investigating any factors that he thinks material in the realm of fact. In these circumstances, on balance we would prefer to leave the Bill as it is, for the reasons I have given. If we allow a right of appeal, we shall be opening up the prospect of long and worrying litigation to persons who on both sides would probably prefer to have the matter decided once and for all, and in those circumstances I hope the House will agree that this new change will not be adopted.
    Mr. Peter Roberts: One point I would like to put to the Solicitor-General is that as I understand it, he is putting a great deal of responsibility on the county court judge. He will correct me if I am wrong, but at present I understand that an appeal lies from the county court judge to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. If we pass this Clause it seems to be extremely difficult to make the argument that a point of law arises and that seems to be making the county court judge the final arbiter.
    Assuming that this Clause becomes part of the Bill there will be more work for

    319
    county court judges, who are very overworked and extremely underpaid. There was an argument that they were poorly paid because there were people above them who took more responsibility, but here we are putting more responsibility on the county court judges. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered whether, as a result of this Clause, there might not be a suggestion that county court judges' fees may go up in the future?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think this is a little wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Roberts: With respect, my view on this will depend on whether or not a county court judge can do his job properly. At present, he is grossly underpaid—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no doubt that he is, but not under this Amendment.
    Mr. Roberts: I am glad of your support, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on that point, and as that was the main point I was trying to make I will sit down.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Following the pertinent observations of my hon. Friend, which were obviously out of order on this Bill, I would say that I regarded the argument of the Solicitor-General as singularly unconvincing. Indeed, the longer I listened to him the more convinced I was that he had for once picked up the wrong brief and was dealing with the Amendment we moved on the Committee stage, when we moved to delete the Clause entirely. This Amendment gives a much more limited right of appeal. The arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were not directed to the questions at issue.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that in the majority of cases the questions would be questions of fact, and I quite agree with him. A great many of the questions will be questions of fact, but is he really suggesting that even if the Amendment were carried there would be an appeal to the Court of Appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal from a county court judge on a pure question of fact? That, obviously, is an entirely fallacious argument on his part, so we can brush it on one side. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting
    320
    that in the interpretation of this complicated Bill questions of law are not likely to arise? I do not think he can put that forward in view of our discussions here.
    We have all found, on both sides of the House, great difficulty in understanding the precise application of certain parts of the Bill. Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, when dealing with Clause 3, fell into error. If an error on a point of law was made by a county court judge, should there not be a right of appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal? That is the only issue here and hon. Members opposite must not assume—and I hope they will not—that the error in law will always be in favour of the tenant. It may be an error in law which is to the prejudice of the tenant or it may be one to the prejudice of the landlord. The question raised by the Amendment is whether, where there is an error in law, that is to say something which deprives someone affected by this Bill of something which they should have, there ought not to be an appeal, with leave. That is the sole issue.
    9.15 p.m.
    I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that to put forward the argument (that the Government think that, on balance, it would be in the interests of the vast majority that there should be no right of appeal on a question of law, is to state something which really carries not the slightest weight. If we are to have an appeal system, at least have one from the county court, when leave is given only in cases which have obviously gone wrong on points of law and in respect of which it may well be most desirable to have laid down by a higher court a ruling as to the interpretation of this Measure which will be applicable to all the county courts.
    We have made very good progress for some time, during which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proved himself amenable to our suggestions. If he would only say that he would give further consideration to this matter, I am sure that that would meet with the wishes of the whole House, because this matter affects both tenants and landlords in relation to points of law. We should be able to get on much more speedily if he took that attitude, because I feel sure that, on reflection, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that

    321
    his arguments were really directed to the Amendment moved during the Committee stage and not to the one which is now being discussed.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude towards this Amendment, because that attitude is clearly mistaken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman resisted the Amendment on the ground that many small people would be inconvenienced, and he obviously regarded the Amendment as likely to produce greater or more prolonged litigation. I think it is likely to have precisely the opposite effect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the vast majority of cases would turn on questions of fact. That is undoubtedly right, and, in so far as they do so, there will, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has pointed out, be no appeal, even if this Amendment is agreed to, because no leave to appeal will be granted when the question involved is one of fact.
    Therefore, what the House has to consider is the effect of leaving the Clause as it stands or, alternatively, of agreeing to the Amendment, under which the only appeal that will be allowed is an appeal on a question of law. I wish to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the point that, if this Clause remains as it now stands, unamended, it is absolutely certain that there will be divergent judgments by county court judges on questions, of law. Consequently, when a similar question arises, the advisors of the litigants on either side will be entirely unable to advise their clients which way the court is likely to decide, if the matter has to be fought out at length. That is absolutely inevitable, if there are divergent decisions on the same point of law and there is no superior court to say which of those decisions is the correct one.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong when he considers that that uncertainty is in the interests of the small man. No one will be more inconvenienced than small people who find that their legal adviser is unable to advise them how their case is likely to go; because he will tell them, with perfect truth, "There are on this point divergent decisions by county court judges and it is impossible to find out which is right and
    322
    likely to be followed when your own case comes before the court. "If this Amendment is adopted we should in a short time get certainty on all the questions of law on this part of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, on which different decisions by county court judges are possible.
    In the vast majority of cases no right of appeal would be given under this Amendment, were it adopted, but in all the remaining cases there would be the possibility of an appeal, generally on the ground that there was a difficult question of law to decide on which there were divergent decisions by county court judges. The effect of allowing a decision by a higher court would be that the question could then be authoritatively decided; and, far from that being against the interests of the small litigant, it will help him. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision.
    The Solicitor-General: If I may have leave to address the House again, I would say, as I said before, that we think the considerations are very nicely balanced in this matter. I would propose, if the House were agreeable, that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment should ask leave to withdraw upon my undertaking—without giving any commitment as to what I shall do—to give the matter further consideration; so that if we decide that a change on the lines proposed is possible that course may be taken in another place.
    Mr. Higgs: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 16.—(APPLICATION TO CROWN.)
    Sir Austin Hudson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 35, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 39, and to insert "bind the Crown."
    The object of this Amendment is to attempt to clarify the position regarding sub-tenants, particularly sub-tenants under the Crown. As I explained on the Committee stage, there are only a very limited number of tenants of Crown property who are affected. They seem mostly to live in that part of London which I represent and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), who will second the Amendment.

    323
    I am sure that everyone in the House knows what we mean by Crown property and Crown tenants, but I have found that certain people seem to think that I am attacking the Monarch, and that His Majesty must in some way be a bad landlord. But everyone here, I hope, knows that Crown property is under the Commissioners of Crown Lands who, in turn, are supervised by the Government. In fact, when I wrote about some point to the Commissioners, I had a very polite reply from the Minister of Agriculture, who took complete authority to answer the point.
    The reason I have put down this Amendment is to provide an opportunity for the Solicitor-General to report the result of the investigations which, on Committee stage, he promised to make into this point. I realise that the Rent Acts do not apply to sub-tenants of Crown lands and that nothing in this Measure can make them do so. At the same time, it is rather hard to tell these sub-tenants that they had no form of security before and, therefore, they shall have none now. I believe that the direct tenant of the Crown will have his lease extended for two years, provided he has the 21-year lease or over, coming to an end at the appropriate time. I presume that is so, otherwise I cannot see what is the object of Clause 16. But the subtenant appears to be the only person in this class who is not assisted in any way by the Bill.
    The whole object of this Bill is to help those tenants and sub-tenants in long ground lease property where the leases are coming to an end, and to carry on the leases for two years until the Government have an opportunity of introducing permanent legislation in which I believe that they intend to deal with the question of Crown tenants. It seems hard that these Crown tenants should not have the same security as they would have if they had a private landlord. They should be able to carry on for two years just as if they were tenants and not subtenants or as if their landlord were a private citizen and not the Crown or the Government.
    Another point is that by these wider words which I propose, we shall bring in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. This question was raised
    324
    during the Committee stage and the answer given was that both of the Duchies are good landlords and, therefore, there really was not much object in bringing them in. However, sub-tenants there might meet the same difficulties. I do not know whether my wording is correct, but, if it is, I think the two Duchies would be included as well as the ordinary Crown lands which are covered by the original words of Clause 16.
    Mr. Steward: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so in the hope that it will be accepted by the Government and that this will be a first step towards the removal of discrimination and hardship suffered by an unfortunate section of the community—the sub-tenants who are residents of Crown property. As we all know, as the law stands leaseholders of Crown property can evict sitting tenants upon application to the court, and then re-let at extortionate rents or sell, if they think fit.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) said, there are a large number of houses in my constituency which are affected. Some 3,000 are on Crown property, and a number of cases occur every month where new landlords acquire the property and, upon the tenant refusing to pay an increased rent because he cannot afford it, eviction follows. An example was brought to my notice towards the end of last year of a certain person who acquired a number of residues of Crown residential properties, turned out the tenants by process of the law and sold or re-let at increased rents. One of the victims was an old age pensioner who literally could not afford to pay the extra amount. When the new landlord was asked how it was thought possible for this old-age pensioner to pay such an increased rent, in view of her slender income, which was known to everybody, he replied, "I neither know nor do I care." Incidentally, this old-age pensioner had lived in the property for 16 years.
    9.30 p.m.
    I submit that this sort of thing is taking place throughout London and that here is an opportunity for the Government to do something about it. This is an important point: I know of no case where the Crown

    325
    has been plaintiff in an action of this nature. The Crown is always assumed to be a good landlord, and we all know that undoubtedly it is. But often, long after the Crown has granted a 99 years' lease, by sub-demise a succession of landlords arise who are as far removed from the Crown as they could possibly be; and it is nonsense to assume that those landlords are also good landlords merely because they hold their sub-leases from the Crown while, at the same time, assuming that other landlords, equal to them in other respects but not holding Crown leases, are bad landlords.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, has said, on 22nd February the Solicitor-General was good enough to undertake to look into the position of sub-tenants of the Crown, but as I see it, as a very humble layman surrounded by many able lawyers, this Bill does nothing whatever to protect the subtenant of Crown property, who can be turned out at the notice of a week or a month or a quarter merely in accordance with how he pays the rent.
    We often hear from the Government side about fair shares for all. By accepting this Amendment, the Government could put into practice their expressed beliefs and thus ensure the same fair treatment and protection for sub-tenants of the Crown as is enjoyed by sub-tenants of any other property. I appreciate that it may be said that there are all sorts of legal difficulties in the way of bringing about this reform, but it is for the Government to administer justice and to see that justice is done to all alike.
    The Solicitor-General: Whether the argument on the merits of the case is well-founded or not, the fact is that the Amendment would not in any way alter the position of Crown sub-tenants and would not, therefore, achieve what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward), have in mind. The Amendment has an altogether different effect and is really drafting, except that it would of course affect the position of the Duchy. Thus, whether the argument is justifiable on the merits of the case or not does not really enter into the purview of the discussion on this Amendment.
    I turn, next, to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North.
    326
    The position of sub-tenants from the Crown depends upon what Clause 7 does with regard to them. The hon. Member is really concerned with the application of the Rent Restriction Acts to subtenants of the Crown and, as he knows, those Acts do not bind the Crown. In so far as sub-tenants of the Crown are concerned, Clause 7 does not in any way alter the position, nor does Clause 16, which is the Clause which says that this Bill binds the Crown. What Clause 7 does is this: it says that where a mesne lessee's interest comes to an end, the subtenant from the mesne lessee shall for the period of two years have such rights against the head landlord as he would have had if the mesne lessee's interest had continued for those two years.
    We start from the position, therefore, that the Rent Restriction Acts do not bind the Crown and do not protect subtenants from the Crown, and it follows as a result that the effect of the Clause is not to give sub-tenants of the Crown a rent restriction protection which otherwise they would not have had. That, I think, does answer the hon. Member's question, and I think it does also provide the answer to the incidental suggestion that he made, that in order to bring in the sub-tenants of the Duchies, his Amendment should be accepted. Inasmuch as the Rent Restriction Acts will not apply to the sub-tenants of the Crown, I think he will probably agree that there is no point in accepting his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 19.—(SERVICE OF NOTICES.)
    Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 14, line 37, to leave out from "Section," to "shall," in line 38, and to insert:
    "twenty-three of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927."
    This is identical with an Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage and which, I am afraid, owing to a misapprehension about the time, I did not move in anything like the detail I ought to have done, and I now will put the position more clearly, I hope, before the House; and I am fortified by the knowledge that the Amendment has met with a certain amount of sympathy from the Government.
    Clause 19 is that which deals with the question of the service of notices. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925,

    327
    is the sort of omnibus section which is often used by reference in other Statutes. If we want to get regulations for the service of notices, we refer to Section 196, and in a normal Bill I do not think there would be any difficulty or doubt about it that that would be a fairly appropriate section to refer to. However, in connection with this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and I feel that Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, would be the more appropriate section to refer to, because that section similarly governs the giving of notices, but it has certain advantages, in my view, over Section 196 of the Law of Property Act which, I think, make it more appropriate in this particular context of this Bill.
    I do not want to delay the House a long time, and therefore I shall not read, as I might have done, Section 196 of the Law of Property Act and Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, but I should like just to remind hon. Members of what are the principal advantages of the section which I propose to incorporate in this Bill.
    First of all, it is a section in an Act of Parliament which was framed specifically for the purpose of regulating relationships between landlords and tenants, and therefore Section 23 deals only with landlords and tenants, and no other persons are mentioned except landlords and tenants. Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, on the other hand, refers to a large number of other people—mortgagors and mortgagees, for example.
    I think it is important that this Bill, if we can possibly make it so, should be drafted in a way which can easily be understood by the average man, because we are dealing here with people who will often have to make up their minds for themselves as to what the provisions of this Measure mean. Therefore, I think the shorter and far less complicated form of Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act has a great deal to commend it in this context.
    There is another important aspect of the matter, and that is that under Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act permission is given for notices which have to be served to be served on agents for the purpose. In fact, that same provision is not repeated in Section 196
    328
    of the Law of Property Act. Often it will happen, in connection with the Bill which we are now considering, that one party or the other, the landlord or the tenant, will have to give notice to his opposite number, and frequently it will happen—very often, I expect—that the person who gives notice will be the tenant, and he will have to give it to his landlord.
    Often the landlord will be a large property-owning company, an impersonal entity of that kind; therefore, I think it is important that there should be some means whereby the tenant can serve a notice upon an agent, and not have to go round to the registered office of the company, after searching perhaps through Somerset House to find out exactly where that is, and have to hand the notice over the counter, having first assured himself that the person to whom he hands the notice is one duly authorised by the company to receive it. If he can do it by serving under Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act he can serve on an agent and it will be easier for him. Those, very shortly, are the main points in support of this Amendment, which I hope the House will agree to accept.
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: We think the Amendment is certainly an improvement on the Bill. We have pleasure in accepting it, and thank the hon. Gentleman for moving it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, at the end, to insert:
    "but shall include the sale of intoxicating liquor when sold on premises consisting of a restaurant to which subsection (1) of section forty-five of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, applies, and also the sale of meals or refreshments in such premises."
    In Committee I asked the Solicitor-General the reasons why, in dealing with the definition of shops to which the Bill was to apply, there had been some difficulty in drawing the line. An ordinary restaurant where meals are served, but where no intoxicating drink of any kind is served with them, is brought within the definition of the Bill; but where any form

    329
    of intoxicants is sold under a justices' licence, as the Bill stands the restaurant is outside the Bill. Now, in between those two extremes, of the restaurant which serves no intoxicating liquor and the restaurant which has a full licence exactly the same as a public house licence, there are a number of places which serve drinks within the law but not under a justices' licence. They are clubs, bottle parties, and things of that sort. The first thing that occurred to me was that it was very hard to exclude from the benefits of this Bill the restaurant which has the full justices' licence and pays all the dues, but to allow the benefits of the Bill to the bottle party and the club which is set up with no other purpose than that of circumventing the liquor laws.
    I asked what was the reason for that and I was told that it was very difficult, if one was to allow any sort of licensed premises into the Bill, to draw a line, because it was clear, for a number of reasons which are not material to the present purpose, that it was not desired to bring within the Bill public houses in the ordinary sense of the term—taverns, ale houses, or whatever they are called. The difficulty was to arrive at a definition which would include a licensed restaurant, but would not include an ale house, tavern or public house. That being the purpose, and as I understood quite clearly from the Solicitor-General that he had great sympathy with my argument that it was unfair on the licensed restaurant, and that it was only the practical difficulty which led him to resist my Amendment then, I gave a little attention to the question whether we could arrive at a definition which would bring into the Bill a licensed restaurant but exclude from the Bill public houses and taverns.
    The first thing that one finds is that in law one can quite easily separate what is a restaurant from what is a tavern, public house or ale house. That has already been done. There are Acts of Parliament and documents which have come before the courts from time to time which have used the word "restaurant," which have required a restaurant to be separated from a public house, and the courts have had no difficulty in doing it. The present Lord Chancellor had no difficulty at all in the case of Lorden v. Brook-Hitching in 1927. That is the first point, that if we allow the word "restaurant" and allow the businesses to
    330
    which it applies to be brought within the Bill, there is no fear that we are bringing in public houses, because the courts have already had to face that decision and have made it.
    Research went a little further and I came across the Finance Act, 1910, in which effect was given to a decision to reduce the rate of Excise Duty to licensed premises which are either restaurants or hotels which do not exist solely for the purpose of selling drink. Section 45 of that Act provides that licensed premises which are structurally adapted for use, and bona fide use, as a restaurant need pay only a reduced rate of duty. It occurred to us that this is a case where a distinction is already drawn for us in the statute, which we can use here to give effect to removing an injustice which is agreed upon on both sides of the House and to avoid the difficulty of definition.
    9.45 p.m.
    The attractiveness of taking the definition of that Act is that every licensee knows at once whether he is within or without the Act, because all that he has to do is to look at the receipt of the last Excise Duty which he paid, and if he paid the lower rate he is then within the Bill and if he paid the full rate he is outside it. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, where every licensee who may seek to get the benefit of the Bill has become entitled to such a file in his office, it is absurd not to give him the benefit of it and to exclude him because we say that we cannot provide a proper definition.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I think that it is within the general intention of this Bill that premises where a liquor trade is not the primary element of trade carried on in the premises should be regarded as a shop for the purposes of the Bill. The whole problem is to discover the means of drawing a distinction. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that distinction has been drawn in a certain way by the Finance Act, 1910, which is at present applied under Statutory Instrument No. 208 of 1927, which prescribes in the case of a restaurant that the dividing line shall be that three-fifths of the business is concerned with intoxicating liquor.

    331
    I think that the provisions of the 1910 Act and of that Statutory Instrument show that it is possible to find—indeed, it has already been possible to find—a dividing line between the type of premises which should be regarded as a shop and those which should not. I would add that there is admittedly a certain inconvenience in applying to any Bill of this kind dealing with the law of property a definition in the Finance Act, and that if the Government were to express themselves as favourable to the principle of finding a dividing line, it might be more convenient if that dividing line were written into this Bill rather than attach it to the term of the Finance Act which can be altered according to the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from year to year.
    The Solicitor-General: We feel that there is a serious difficulty about accepting the definition proposed. The difficulty arises in this way. Because of various technical reasons, which I will not go into, a great many restaurants have not, in fact, availed themselves of the conditions of Section 45 (1) of the 1910 Act, which accordingly does not apply to them. The result is that if we adopted this definition it would operate entirely capriciously. Some restaurants which supply drink would be excluded and some included, according to whether or not they avail themselves of the provision of that Act.
    On the other hand, we feel that it is somewhat illogical to include restaurants in this Bill and, at the same time, to exclude those restaurants the terms of whose licences apply only to the consumption of liquor with meals. One is the restaurant where one can get a glass of sherry in the foyer, such as the Hungaria Restaurant in London. On the other hand, there are restaurants where drink is served solely with meals and there is no independent provision of alcoholic liquor. I would ask the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment to be so good as to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment upon this understanding.
    While I cannot give any undertaking that any change will be made so as to introduce restaurants of the type I have described, we will, nevertheless, carefully consider between now and the later stages, in another place, whether we can, con-
    332
    sistently with the purposes of the Bill, find words which will bring in those restaurants which stand on the same footing as those within the scope of the Bill. I trust that hon. Members will realise the difficulty of selecting restaurants which stand on the same footing as those at present included and will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Higgs: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    First Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SECTION 2.)
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 16, line 24, to leave paragraph 4, and to insert:
    4. Where, in relation to any tenancy to which section two of this Act would have applied if the tenancy had not expired before the commencement of this Act any order or judgment has been made or given by a court before the commencement of this Act, and has not been executed, and in the opinion of the court the order or judgment would not have been made or given if at the time thereof this Act had been in operation, the court may on application by the tenant rescind or vary the order or judgment in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act.
    This matter was fully discussed and argued during the Committee stage, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman then said that he would look into the point again. The point of the Amendment can be summed up in one sentence. It will not affect the principles of the Bill. It gives some flexibility to the courts. I trust that without further argument the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to say he will accept the Amendment.
    Sir P. Spens: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: I did undertake to consider this very carefully and, having fulfilled that promise quite loyally, I cannot really see any situation in which the change would be of service to any of the parties involved. I think that the Schedule does all that is really necessary. It would simply mean putting the parties to extra expense to have the recourse to the courts without the courts being able to do anything in response to the application made.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In page 16, line 44, leave out "continuation of the tenancy," and insert:
    "circumstances specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act."
    In page 17, line 4, leave out "continuation of the tenancy," and insert:
    "circumstances specified in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section two of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

    Clause 3.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF IRRITANCY, ETC.)
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the landlord's right to resumption of possession or to damages if on application to the sheriff by the landlord the sheriff has decided that, having regard to the circumstances of the lease and the obligations of good estate management and of neighbourly conduct, it is just and equitable that the landlord should exercise his rights."
    In this spirit of sweet reasonableness which prevails, we trust that the Lord Advocate will look with favour on this Amendment. If he can indicate that he will look with favour on it, or that he will consider it sympathetically between now and the later stages, I shall be most happy to resume my seat. He casts a frosty eye on me. I do not wish to detain the House, but surely nothing more reasonable than the proposal we are putting forward could be imagined. I am sure that it would be to the advantage of the tenant far more than anyone else. The Lord Advocate indicated during our proceedings in Committee that a remedy was left to the landlord, but it was the sledgehammer method of interdict. The only result it could have would be the ejection of the tenant from the house. This seems to us to be unnecessarily harsh, and therefore we have suggested the most reasonable proposal that if the landlord applies to the sheriff and the
    334
    sheriff decides that the case is just and reasonable, there might be a case of damages given against the tenant instead of this extreme procedure of throwing him out of the house. That proposal seemed to have a certain amount of sympathy even from Members opposite, and I trust that the Lord Advocate will see his way to meet us.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the arguments on this topic were fully deployed during the Committee stage. We even went to a Division on this point or a point of similar substance. The reason for resisting the Amendment is that we wish to preserve the right of all the tenants during the two-year interregnum when the Bill operates. The interdict process would not have the result of ejecting the tenant from the house, but would be utilised merely to prevent the tenant from continuing a breach of the conditions of the lease.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again by leave of the House and I shall be very short. We might as well conclude this, because there is no use bandying arguments with each other, but I might say that the point was thoroughly disposed of by one of my hon. and learned Friends at an earlier stage. When the Lord Advocate says that the Bill is merely temporary, I would remind him of the French proverb that nothing lasts like the provisional. We have had many examples of the truth of that proverb in the past. I am sure that the Lord Advocate will sympathise with me in the contention that I am making, but I do not believe we shall have seen the end of this matter within the two-year period which is proposed, because rights are being definitely invaded. Perhaps, in another place, it may be that arguments will be deployed still more powerful than those which I have been able to introduce, and with a greater majority to back them. I trust that the Lord Advocate will not be obdurate when the Bill comes back to us from men learned in the law, from the other end of the corridor.
    Amendment negatived.

  ST. ANDREW'S SCHOOL, TOTTERIDGE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: The question I want to raise tonight refers to St. Andrew's School, Totteridge. Although this is a matter that relates primarily to a particular school it may well be of general interest, and I hope in the course of the arguments that I shall bring forward that the general application of the principles involved may become a little apparent.
  St. Andrew's School is a junior mixed infants' school and is an aided school. It is, in fact, the only grant-aided school in the Totteridge district. It was built about 1939 and the school buildings are of a remarkably high standard. It is really a magnificent school. It was designed originally for 150 pupils and it is now regarded by the local education authority as suitable for the education of 170 pupils. Already, the school population is exceeding 170 and it is climbing quite steeply. The number at present is a little over 190, and in a year or two it will exceed 200. The number is moving upward and it is becoming a very urgent matter to provide additional school—
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Mr. Maudling: It is becoming a matter of great urgency to provide additional school accommodation in this area. I will give two examples. In the first instance, accommodation in the school is cramped. In one case at any rate two classes are having to share the same classroom, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, while there is a considerable waiting period of five months, which will probably be extended, before children of five can enter the school.
  The reasons for the overcrowding are, broadly speaking, two in number. The first is the natural growth of the population within the existing area which the school serves. The second is that in this type of area the weight of taxation in
  336
  recent years has forced a number of parents, who would otherwise have paid for their children's education at private schools, to send them to grant-aided schools. For those two main reasons the school is overcrowded. It is not a question of the school trying to perform different functions or serving a wider area. It is the natural growth of the population and the pressure of economic circumstances that cause the school at the moment to be thoroughly overcrowded. It is a matter of some urgency that new provisions should be made.
  There are two ways in which this problem can be met. Either the school can be extended or a new school built in the same district. The local education authority, considering the alternatives, in the first instance were inclined to support the erection of a new school, but, subsequently, they have changed their minds and now the local education authority agree that an enlarged school would be the best solution. I should like for a moment or two to examine the implications of these two alternatives—the extension of the existing school or the building of a new one.
  As to the first of the educational implications, if a new school were built it would be a half form entry school, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would agree is not a satisfactory solution. On the other hand, if the present school were extended to take a school population of about 240, which is generally agreed as the maximum existing school population in this area, that would provide a school unit which would be the right size for a junior mixed infant school in this area. The educational arguments in favour of an extension rather than the building of a new school are very strong.
  Next, there are the economic implications. I am advised by the local education authority that the building of a new school would cost about £25,000 and the cost of the extension would be only £10,000. Of that sum £5,000 would be borne by the managers and the church authorities. Looking at it from the point of view of the national economy, it is the difference between £25,000 and £10,000, and from the point of view of the public purse the difference between £25,000 and £5,000. In these days when estimates are rising and there is the immense need to develop the maximum economy, surely

  337
  it is very important not to spend £25,000 for an inferior article when a much better article, educationally speaking, would be got for £10,000 or £5,000 to the public purse.
  There is the further point of the cost of maintenance. Obviously, it must be more expensive in overheads to maintain two schools to do the job which one school could do. If a new school is built, the public purse will be responsible for not only the interior maintenance but also the exterior maintenance, whereas if the present school is extended the whole of the exterior maintenance will continue to fall on the managers and ony the interior maintenance on the public purse. It is irrefutable that from the economic point of view the extension of the existing school is far better than the building of a new school. I do not think that the Minister will challenge—I hope he will not—that on both educational and economic grounds there are very strong arguments for extending the existing school.
  There is a further point in favour of the extension alternative, and that is local public opinion. A poll was taken by the local ratepayers' association, which distributed a form of voting paper to every household in the district. The returns showed an overwhelming measure of support for the extension of the existing school. The very large number of people who took the trouble to return the form showed conclusively that the great majority of the local people wished to have the extension rather than the new school. The case for the extension, therefore, rests on the grounds of educational advantage, economic advantage and the desires and wishes of the population in the district.
  The attitude of the Minister is that, while he is prepared to approve this school as part of the development plan for the area, he is not prepared to make any grant under the Education Act, 1944, towards the' cost of the extension because, under Section 67 (4) of the Act, he has deemed the extension to be sufficient to represent a new school. As far as I can see, it is entirely at the discretion of the Minister to decide that. He says that he believes the extension to be such as to constitute the construction of an entirely new school and that he is thereby precluded from making any grant whatsoever. That is the point to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention.
  338
  How can this extension represent a new school? The school remains the same entity. It has the same individual and organic life that any school develops over the period of its existence. It has the same buildings and the same site; it serves the same homes; it will draw children from the same district; it will serve children of precisely the same ages, it will provide precisely the same curriculum, and there will be no change in the school managers, the headmaster, the staff or the name of the school. How, therefore, can the Minister argue that in those circumstances the extension proposed to the physical building constitutes the changing of the existing school into a new school? One could raise many metaphysical arguments about when the change of an article produces a new article. In studying philosophy I was always interested in the problem of how long one had to darn an existing sock before the darning constituted a new sock.
  Mr. Logan: Can the hon. Member tell me whether, if the school is not built, there will be accommodation in the neighbourhood for the children?
  Mr. Maudling: No. I was trying to make that point. The school population is already 194, while the accommodation available is suitable for only 170, and the school population will rise over the next few years to about 240. I do not see how in the normal usage of the English language an extension of that kind can be described as changing the existing school into a new school. I hope the Minister will answer that point.
  What are the criteria on which this judgment is based? What is the fact which determines when an extension becomes a new school? After all, a school is a living entity, it has a life of its own, an individual existence of its own. How can a new school come into being unless some radical change is made either in the staff or the numbers or the scope or the type or the curriculum or something that really affects the life of the school itself? On what grounds has the Minister decided that this extension constitutes a new school?
  The consequences of the decision of the Minister are these. He has decided in what appears to me to be his unfettered

  339
  discretion—I cannot see that he is compelled by the Act to decide one way or the other—that this constitutes a new school and that, therefore, he cannot make any grant. He may say that if the local population feels so strongly why should they not, instead of putting up £5,000, put up the whole £10,000? That is not practicable. Five thousand pounds is a large sum of money to raise, and it should be remembered that this school was built as recently as 1939 at the expense of the district, and a very fine and expensive school building it was.
  To raise the whole £10,000, in my opinion and in the opinion of the managers, would not be practicable nor would they feel justified in asking the local public to provide the whole cost of the extension, bearing in mind all the circumstances which I have been trying to explain. Therefore, the result of the decision of the Minister that he cannot make a grant of £5,000 towards the extension of the school will be that a new school will have to be built at a cost of £25,000 to the public purse, national and local combined.
  The Minister may argue that if he were prepared to agree in this case that the extension did not constitute a new school, this would be setting a precedent which would have to be followed in many other cases. I do not consider that to be a good argument. It is only a good argument insofar as the other cases he has in mind are exactly similar to this one. If the other cases he has in mind are not exactly similar, his argument does not apply. If they are exactly similar then in those cases as well he must have this combination of circumstances; that it is educationally desirable to have an extension rather than a new school, that it is economically desirable to have an extension rather than a new school, and that public opinion locally favours this alternative. If those three conditions are fulfilled I suggest that in all other cases as well it is obviously the duty of the Minister to determine that this is an extension, not a new school, and to agree to provide a 50 per cent. grant towards the development.
  To sum up, this is a local problem but one of keen and intense interest to the people living in the Totteridge area and its implications stretch beyond the im-
  340
  mediate neighbourhood. The argument rests on three points: that we have to decide between an extension of an existing school and the building of a new school; that on educational grounds it is better to extend the existing school to a size which will permit a 240—that is a one form—entry rather than to build a new school on a wholly unsatisfactory basis with a half form entry; that on grounds of national and local economy it is better to have a £10,000 extension than a £25,000 new building, and that local opinion has expressed itself strongly in favour of the extension rather than a new building.
  The Minister has discretion under Section 67 (4) to decide whether or not this constitutes a new building. He has so far determined, for reasons which I have not been able to understand and which have not been explained, that this is to be regarded as a new building. The effects of such a decision are that a lot of money will be wasted in producing a new school which the people in the district do not want. If that is the inevitable result of the present legislation it is about time that we had some new legislation.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Logan: A principle is at stake here, and before the Minister gives any decision I should like him seriously to consider the point. This school problem has been a very great problem for many years. I have never spoken to the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and only heard his views as he expressed them a few moments ago, but the principle at issue applies also to schools in other constituencies.
  I believe that the school in question is a Church school and is aided. Those living in the area have a right to obtain education at the school. If there is an influx of children into the area, the inhabitants have a right to have a school to meet their requirements. Therefore, either a State-aided or other school must be provided. The children are already in the district, and for the life of me I cannot understand why a new building has to be put up when an extension to the existing school at a cost of £5,000 or £6,000 would meet the difficulty.
  This problem will come up again at a very early date, and I should like my

  341
  hon. Friend, before he gives a decision, seriously to consider the possibility of granting permission for an extension to an existing school where the demands for education make this necessary. It would take me a long time to deal with the question of education, and I do not intend to do so now. I simply make the observation at this stage that there is something more far-reaching at issue than appears on the surface. I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Barnet, who has raised this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be equally sympathetic.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): The hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) knows that the question which he has raised tonight is a problem which in one form or another has been before us and before the parents and children of his constituency since the beginning of 1949. The hon. Member has been actively interested in the matter by correspondence and by Parliamentary Questions for the last six months. This, therefore, is an opportunity for me to explain to him and to the House why the decision which he questions has been made.
  It is a fundamental principle of the Education Act that, subject to certain special considerations, grant is not paid on the new provision of voluntary schools but is paid on improvements and certain repairs in existing schools. This makes it essential that somebody should decide at what stage the enlargement of an existing denominational school becomes new provision. It is obvious that, although some bodies would like it to be so, all the minor enlargements cannot be regarded as mere additions to existing provision and therefore eligible for grant. If all such minor enlargements could be treated in that way, managers or governing bodies could add two or three classrooms in one year, one or two in the following year, another classroom or two in the year after that, and so on. In the end, they could get a whole school built through a series of minor enlargements—as the official jargon puts it, this "creeping enlargement."
  There is nothing new in the principle which is being questioned tonight. My right hon. Friend is acting upon a prin-
  342
  ciple which has been part of Education Acts since 1918 and, as far as my researches go, possibly as far back as 1902. The President of the one-time Board of Education had all this to decide in certain cases—whether enlargement of an existing voluntary school meant the provision of a new school. Obviously it would be unfair to act upon a rule of thumb or upon a yardstick, and therefore my right hon. Friend takes into account all the circumstances in particular cases. Each case is judged on its merits and not according to a set formula. For example, my right hon. Friend has to consider the extent of the enlargement, and how many classrooms, which in turn depends upon the size of the original school. Other recent additions must be taken into consideration. He must take into account the effect of such enlargements on the character of the school. Such enlargements might change its nature and its purpose, and therefore, would make it absurd to say that it was just an enlargement.
  That is the background from which the Ministerial decision emerges, so we come at once to the particular example about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking tonight, the school at St. Andrew's, Totteridge. The numbers have risen from 75 to a peak of 193 and the school was given aided status on 1st March. 1950.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: For what period?
  Mr. Hardman: The period was from 1939 to 5th February of this year. The proposal is that the school should become a one-form entry junior and infants' school with a full size of seven classes, which means 280 pupils as a total enrolment. The suggestion which was rejected was the proposal of the earlier managers for a new county infants' school to be provided, leaving St. Andrew's to provide for the juniors.
  My right hon. Friend has considered whether the proposal constitutes a new school within the meaning of Section 67 (4) of the Act of 1944. Neither he nor I would dispute that the enlargement of St. Andrew's School would be the most satisfactory solution from the educational point of view and from the point of view of economics, although I cannot agree with the figures which have been given

  343
  the House tonight. I am not prepared to admit that the cost to public funds would be anything like as low as £5,000 and that the difference would be an expenditure between £5,000 and £25,000. My information, given approximately, would point to the fact mat the sum at stake will be considerably more than £5,000 or the gross expenditure of £10,000 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned this evening.
  At the same time, on educational grounds and form the point of view of some economy there is undoubtedly a case, although I am bound to admit that this is not the point of the decision which has been made. My right hon. Friend has to abide by the parent Education Act, 1944. He has to abide by the principles enumerated thereunder, although it is true, as the hon. Member said, that he has full freedom to consider each case on its merits without the use of a formula. I cannot do more than quote the answer already given to the hon. Member on 15th February last. My right hon. Friend said:
  "In determining such questions I take into account all the circumstances, including the proposed increase in numbers in relation to the size of the school, any recent previous enlargement, and any consequential change in the character of the school."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 592.]
  Mr. Maudling: How could he possibly take into account previous enlargements in considering whether the present addition constitutes a new school compared with the present building?
  Mr. Hardman: For the reason I have already given, that previous additions to the school must be taken into consideration. Otherwise, there would be sufficient additions over a period of years to constitute a new school.
  Mr. Maudling: Surely the word "new" in the Act of 1944 means new compared with the status quo in 1944?
  Mr. Hardman: That may be, and I am not prepared to argue the definition of the word "new" as employed in that Act. But in the consideration of this case, we have tried to weigh up, within the responsibility which the Minister has to legislation made by Parliament, the various issues that are at stake, and to take into consideration not only the local
  344
  feeling which my hon. Friend has mentioned but also the consequential change, from the additions that have been made, in the character of the school.
  Again, it must be admitted that it is extremely difficult now, as it has been in the past, to deal with the case of the school slowly increasing in numbers and overcrowding its existing premises and then building to accommodate the increased numbers adequately. But the general principle involved in this case is clearly stated in words used by my right hon. Friend in the Estimates debate of last May, when he said that the fundamental principle of the 1944 settlement
  "was that public money should be available to assist the Churches to provide up-to-date accommodation for the pupils already attending voluntary schools, but that no public money should be available for the provision of new and additional Church school accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1925.]
  It follows, whether this principle is right or wrong, that there must be some way of setting a limit to alterations for which managers or governers receive grant under Section 102. Such means of setting a limit I have tried to explain in dealing with the case that has been raised tonight.
  Mr. Logan: Was that not applicable only to new schools but not to an extension of an existing school?
  Mr. Hardman: No, the agreement reached was an agreement which concerned all denominational schools, and the Minister is, under the Act, bound by the compromise then reached and incorporated in the Act of 1944. If there is to be a change either through administration or amending legislation, it must be a change that affects all denominations and not simply one.
  Mr. Maudling: Does the settlement to which the hon. Gentleman refers limit in any way the discretion given to the Minister under Section 67?
  Mr. Hardman: No. The Minister, as has been pointed out, has this discretion, but he has to consider every case on its merits, and he is obviously limited by what the Act allows him to do. Viewing this case sympathetically, he has come to the conclusion that he cannot accede to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Barnet or of those who from an

  345
  educational point of view, etc., made the point put to the hon. Member in his constituency.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: We have certainly had a very disappointing reply. I should have thought that the overriding reason for the discretion given to the Minister was so that he could take into account the economic needs of the country at any particular time. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's admission that this extension could be brought about with a great saving of money compared with the cost of building a new school would have been the consideration which ought to
  346
  have been at the top of the list of priorities in making this decision. While the Parliamentary Secretary did not agree with the figure of £5,000 as against £25,000 for a new school, he admitted that there would be quite a big difference, if not of the £20,000 mentioned by my right hon. Friend. I should like to feel even now—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.

  CIVIL AVIATION (STAFF, SCOTLAND)
  CIVIL AVIATION (STAFF, SCOTLAND)
  AUSTRIA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  AUSTRIA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  KENYA (REGISTRATION OF PERSONS)
  KENYA (REGISTRATION OF PERSONS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (RESEARCH)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (RESEARCH)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Mexican Canned Meat
  Mexican Canned Meat
  Tea (Increased Price)
  Tea (Increased Price)
  Depot, Eastry (Handling Costs)
  Depot, Eastry (Handling Costs)
  Argentine Pears
  Argentine Pears
  Argentine Chilled Beef
  Argentine Chilled Beef
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  Fresh Tripe
  Fresh Tripe
  Tea (Subsidy Rate)
  Tea (Subsidy Rate)
  CAST-IRON RAINWATER GOODS (REPORT)
  CAST-IRON RAINWATER GOODS (REPORT)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECALLED OFFICERS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RECALLED OFFICERS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Suffield—Sat first in Par-liament after the death of his father.

TREE FELLING LICENCES
2.39 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: 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, of the 1,600 felling licence applications refused by the Forestry Commission during 1950:

(a) How many were withheld in respect of timber which, though mature, could not be licensed within the quota;

(b) How many have been granted as a result of subsequent applications;

(c) How many is it estimated, assuming applications are re-submitted, will have been granted by September 30, 1953.

What is the volume of timber in each case.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRI-CULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the records of licences and applications under the Defence Regulations are not classified in the categories set out by the noble Earl in his Question, and the figures which I shall give are to some extent estimated. Licence applications withheld during 1950 in respect of timber which, though mature, could not be licensed within the quota, totalled 469 and involved 3,855,500 cubic feet. Of these, 297, covering 3,122,900 cubic feet, have been granted this year, and it is estimated that 167 covering 670,700 cubic feet will be granted before the end of September, 1953.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Earl.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 4:
Review of refusal or conditions of licence
4.—(1) Where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence authorising the felling of trees on any land, or grant such a licence subject to conditions, then, subject to the provisions of this section, any person aggrieved by the refusal or conditions may by notice served within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner request the appropriate Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the said Minister under this section; and the appropriate Minister shall, unless he is of opinion that the grounds for the request are frivolous, refer the matter accordingly.
(2) The person to whom any matter is referred under this section shall be selected by the appropriate Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the said Minister after consultation with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of owners of wood-lands and with the Commissioners.
(3) The person appointed as aforesaid shall, after affording to the person at whose request the reference was made an opportunity of appearing before him and of making representations to him on the matter in question and. if he thinks fit or is required by the person who made the request so to do. after inspecting the trees to which the reference relates, make a report on the reference to the appropriate Minister.
(4) The appropriate Minister shall, after considering the report, confirm the decision of the Commissioners in respect of the application, or reverse or modify that decision and direct the Commissioners to give effect to the reversal or modification.
(5) No request may be made under this section in respect of a refusal to grant a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees unless a previous application for such a licence has been refused and the application to which the request relates is made after the following date, that is to say—

(a) where a reference under this section has been made in respect of any previous application relating to the trees, the fifth anniversary of the last such application in respect of which such a reference has been made;

(b) in any other case, the third anniversary of the first previous application relating to the trees.

EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in sub-section (1) after "land" to insert:
"solely or partly on the grounds that the trees are not ripe for felling."
The noble Earl said: I feel in a little difficulty in moving the Amendments to this particular clause because I have so many, and they all, in fact, lead up to the same point. Perhaps, therefore, it will be convenient if I assume straight away that we are discussing the main issue between us. The Amendment with which we are dealing at the moment concerns a very limited aspect of the question, and it is put down on the assumption that other Amendments standing in my name will be approved by the Committee. I assume that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment to this extent: that the appeal machinery, which we contend is, at the present moment, no appeal machinery at all, will be given powers of final decision. We recognise that if the appeal committee or, as we call it in the Amendment, the investigating committee, has powers of final decision at its disposal, it would not be reasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to agree that that Committee should have the power to do anything that would in any way cut at the roots of the quota system. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment to make it clear that anything that is said later applies only to trees that are, in fact, mature. If your Lordships will refer to the list of Amendments you will see that later on we shall be proposing a subsection to define what is mature timber.
Perhaps I may be allowed to do what I said I would do—namely, deal with the whole question of appeal machinery. As the Bill stands at present, there is no provision in it for any appeal at all. There is a reference to a person appointed by the Minister, who will report back to the Minister privately and give the Minister his advice. His Majesty's Government have attempted to go some way to meet us by putting down an Amendment to the effect that instead of only one person being nominated there shall be two, and they are to be nominated after consultation with certain appropriate interests. It would be wrong and unfair to say that the Government Amendment does not represent an attempt to meet us to some extent, but it still leaves unanswered the point that is of particular concern. The Government
66
Amendment still leaves us without appeal to a judicial body, and the purpose of my series of Amendments is to say that there shall be an investigating committee of three, that they shall have power to report to the Forestry Commission, and that their decision shall be final on all points that do not affect the quota. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill provides for considerable powers over the woodland owner, and it is vitally necessary, if we are to secure his co-operation, that he should feel he has a right of appeal to a judicial body. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("land") insert ("solely or partly on the grounds that the trees are not ripe for felling ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): It may not be quite plain to your Lordships, notwithstanding the clarity with which the noble Earl has moved this Amendment, what it is all about. This is really an anticipatory Amendment, and we are in the slight difficulty that we cannot very well discuss this Amendment without discussing two other points. Those two other points are, first, what is to be the nature of the appeal machinery, and, second, what, if any, is to be the measure of compensation which in certain events, it is claimed, should be paid to the owner of trees who is prevented from cutting them down. I will endeavour, without trespassing unduly on the rules of order of this Committee, to deal briefly with this matter in a sort of anticipatory way.
I was in the countryside during this Easter holiday, and I was looking particularly at forests and trees down in the West Country. I confess that I am beginning to get quite appalled—as I have no doubt many of your Lordships are also— concerning the extent to which our trees are being cut down. After all, trees— and in this connection, I mean roadside trees and hedgerow trees—largely constitute the beauty of our countryside, and it is lamentable to see the extent to which, owing to the need for timber and so on at the present time, they are being sacrificed. I do not believe that there is the slightest difference between noble Lords in any quarter of the Committee about that matter. I do not believe there is any difference whatever in the feeling that we have to keep what we can of our trees, partly on the aesthetic ground which

67
I have mentioned and partly because, if by any evil chance we did once more find ourselves engaged in a war, we should have nothing like the reserves of timber which we had in the 1914–18 war or in the 1939–45 war to fall back upon.
For myself, I confess that I am deeply concerned as to whether we are not taking too big a risk in this Bill, as drafted, by assuming that we may cut now our annual increment, because that is the basis on which we are proceeding. Frankly, I wonder very much whether we ought not to make a more drastic arrangement. But it is on that basis that the Bill is drafted. If by the whirligig of time, it should happen—as of course it may happen—that your Lordships who are now in Opposition find yourselves sitting on this side of the Chamber, you will then be in exactly the same position as I am in to-day. When you have to consider what is to be done about financial arrangements with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the obligation to pay sums of money, you may well find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days will be just as rigorous and stern as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of these days. I can only say that in our own interest as taxpayers I hope he is.
Let me say a word about the appeal committee, and make it plain that I am anxious not to discuss this Bill as a Party Bill. I believe it is a Bill which we all have to get through on the best lines, regardless of Party. As to the appeal committee, I am willing to do anything I can to meet your Lordships, subject to this one qualification: the obligation cast by this Bill—the duty of "promoting the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees"—is an obligation cast on the Forestry Com-missioners, but in the last resort that means the appropriate Ministers, because under the new auspices the Forestry Commissioners are now entirely under the control of two Ministers: the Minister of Agriculture on the one hand and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the other. As I have said, that means at least that the Forestry Commissioners must be able to ensure that we are cutting every year nothing more than a fair estimate of the annual increment. It is their obligation.
If we split the country into eleven areas, as is proposed, every area with its own
68
committee and every committee being a judicial body able to pronounce decisions about which trees may be cut and which not, I do not believe there will be the slightest chance of maintaining the necessary limit in the country as a whole. Therefore I consider that the appeal committee must be in the nature of an advisory committee which will report to the Minister, with the final obligation on the Minister. On that point I am afraid I cannot give way. Frankly, I do not believe it is possible to have one common measure applied to the whole country if we let eleven independent sets of people cut at it, as it were, by their decisions. Therefore the appeal committee must be an advisory committee for preserving the appropriate amount of timber: they must report to the Minister, and the ultimate authority must be, as the Bill makes plain, on the Minister or on his Forestry Commission. Having said that, I am most anxious to constitute this appeal committee in a way which commends itself to your Lordships and which is demonstrably fair. If the Amendment which I have put down, and which, as the noble Earl acknowledges, is a real effort to meet your Lordships, needs amendment in this, that or the other respect, I am very ready to amend it. I want to have a body which the woodland owners of this country will feel is a fair and satisfactory body.
May I give you a word of personal warning on this matter? In my young days, when I was in busy practice in the commercial courts, after finishing the day's work in court, we used to go up to the City and. either at the Baltic Exchange or the Corn Exchange, at half past four we used to have an arbitration. I remember particularly the arbitrations we used to have in the early days in the Corn Exchange, on whether grain delivered was in accordance with the sample under the contract. We had a formal, legal inquiry, with experts on one side and experts on the other contradicting each other, and then the unfortunate tribunal had to do the best they could to determine whether the grain delivered was or was not in accordance with the sample. That type of arbitration soon gave way to another. We appointed arbitrators who went and took a sample of the grain delivered and compared it with the sample under the contract. They looked at it in their hands and played about with it for a few minutes of time and then gave a

69
decision. I do not know whether your Lordships know this, but so satisfactory did that system become that in all grain contracts, not only contracts for grain coming to this country, but also contracts for grain going from America, Argentina or Canada to Denmark, there is a clause that arbitration should be in London. That arbitration simply consists of two experts looking at the grain in their hands and in a few minutes coining to a decision, which everybody accepts as a fair and proper decision.
The relevance of that to what I have been saying is this: in setting up an appeal committee, do not let us make it too formal, too legal; do not let us have too many people on it. We should probably do much better with one man who knows his business going to look at a tree than with a body of people who are going to have evidence about it. Subject to that, I am anxious to meet your Lordships in any way I can in order that you may have the sort of tribunal your Lordships think the woodland owners want, and for that reason I have put down an Amendment along those lines.
When we come, at a later stage, to the question of compensation I shall have something to say. Suffice it to say now that I believe it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Party to take on himself the obligation to pay for the value of a tree whenever a licence is refused. That would put him under obligation to pay for trees all over the country, whatever may be the facilities for cutting them down Possibly with regard to certain categories of trees or trees required for certain purposes, something may be done; but that we shall discuss in due course. I hope I have shown your Lordships the attitude I want to adopt about this Bill. As the noble Earl himself anticipated, I cannot accept this Amendment, but when we came to the later Amendment about the constitution of the committee I shall show your Lordships that I am most anxious to do anything I can to give you the sort of committee you think appropriate, always provided that it is an advisory committee and not a committee which can make final decisions despite the Minister, upon whom, after all, we cast the duty of preserving the supplies of timber. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will
70
agree to withdraw this Amendment in order that we may come to grips with this matter on a later Amendment. The Bill has already been much altered by the deliberations we have had, and will be altered further. I realise that when we reach Report stage, when we have the benefit of seeing the Bill in its new form, we shall be able to reconsider any of these points and see whether there is anything further we can do to get near to each other in this matter.
3.0 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much for his reply. I think it would be appropriate if I withdrew this Amendment, without prejudice, but I should like to say one word about it, because though small, the Amendment is extremely important to the point that we on this side want to have established. The noble and learned Viscount made clear, as I had done, that the essential power required by the Government in this Bill to preserve stocks of timber was that the Minister must have the final word. Speaking for myself, I would say straight away that I do not feel able to question that principle. But this Bill goes a good deal further than that. It gives the Government power to insist on application being made for licences before timber can be felled, but it also deals with other matters, such as, for instance, the laying down of conditions for the granting of those licences. The question of felling licences, I agree, is a vital defence power that must be in the hands of the Minister, but it cannot be said that it is necessary for defence that certain conditions should be laid down before that licence is granted. I admit that in many cases it is desirable —for restocking, replanting and so on— that conditions should be laid down, but that is a forestry matter and not a matter of defence. I cannot see any reason why the imposition of conditions should not be made subject to final decision by the appeal tribunal. Again, coming to Clause 7, there is the power of the Forestry Commission to issue felling orders. None of us can say that it is necessary for the conservation of timber stocks that felling orders should be issued, although it may be necessary for other purposes. But there is no reason why that power should not be made subject to final decision by the appeal tribunal.

71
The only relevance of this argument to the withdrawal of this particular Amendment is that these proposed words were meant to make clear that we did not want this power of final decision by the appeal or investigating committee to cover the question of felling licences. Having made that point clear, I feel, from what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that perhaps he is prepared to see the point that I put, and therefore, without committing myself, I gladly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR had given notice to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "a person appointed by the said Minister," and to insert: "an investigating committee appointed." The noble Earl said: I am not sure at what point the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would like to discuss finally the issue I have just raised, as to the powers of the committee. If the noble and learned Viscount will give me guidance, it may not be necessary for me to move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I feel it best that it should not be moved.
EARL DE LA WARR: Then I will not move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a preparatory Amendment to justify us hereafter in appointing the appeal committee which we have had discussed briefly. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("a") to ("under") in line 36 and insert ("committee appointed ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a formal Amendment of the same nature as the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("person") and insert (" committee ")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "shall," and to insert:
"consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by the appropriate Minister; and

(b) two other members selected by the said Minister from a panel of persons
72
appointed by him for the conservancy in which the trees are growing after consultation with the regional advisory committee for that conservancy and with organisations appearing to him to represent the interests of owners of woodlands and timber merchants respectively and organisations concerned with the study and promotion of forestry:

Provided that no Commissioner or person employed by the Commissioners shall be a member of any such Committee."
The noble and learned Viscount said: We put down this Amendment in the hope that it will satisfy your Lordships that this is the right sort of tribunal to have. What we want is an appeal tribunal which satisfies people that they are having a fair deal, and if we can also get a tribunal which works it will be a great advantage. Your Lordships will see how I have constituted this tribunal. If any of your Lordships has suggestions as to its constitution in a different way, I shall be glad to consider them. What I have tried to do is to set out an Amendment which manifestly gives the woodland owner a fair deal. If I can do that, and obtain his satisfaction, then I shall feel that I have done what I set out to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 43, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment. So far as the appeal committee as a body is concerned, the Amendment goes most of the way to meet us. But what I am concerned about is the point that I made on my first Amendment— namely, that this is a body for reporting to the Minister. I think I am right in saying that even under this Amendment it reports privately to the Minister; that the land owner making the appeal does not even see the report, and does not know whether or not the Minister is adopting the recommendations. Even if he did see the report, it is still not an appeal. This is merely an advisory body to the Minister. I repeat that, as regards the constitution of the body, the noble and learned Viscount has met us, but with regard to its power, it remains an advisory body. Before we can express full satisfaction we must ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he can satisfy us on the point of giving it powers as an appeal body.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Quite frankly, I cannot do that. I cannot contemplate a number of executive bodies giving decisions if at the same time the obligation of preserving a supply of timber is to be cast on the Forestry Commission. If that obligation is to be cast on the Forestry Commission, which in effect means the Minister, then in the last resort the Minister must have the power. It is an utterly inconsistent conception to have eleven independent tribunals each making their own decisions, and at the same time casting the obligation upon the Minister. I will gladly consider the point about the woodland owner not seeing the report, but on this particular point—namely, that this body must, in the nature of things, be advisory, because the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister, I have, and shall have, nothing to give. Therefore, I had better "come clean" and tell your Lordships that straight away.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: If it is to be advisory to the Minister, then the Minister must have the decision. But the real point is that unless the Minister is able to keep the number of licences within control, it may be that too much timber will be cut in any one year. I am much more prepared to accept that the responsibility should be the Minister's, rather than that of the Forestry Commission, because after all the Forestry Commission, like everybody else, are to be responsible to the Minister. I am not raising a tiresome point, or a Party point, but, as the Lord Chancellor has truly said, we want to give the land owner confidence that he is getting a square deal. We have had many cases where the real difficulty is not that the Minister does not take an honest decision—I am sure Ministers do take, or try to take, honest and fair decisions—but that the decision is taken and the litigant, if I may so call him, who is in the Minister's hands, knows nothing about it. I believe that a great deal of the difficulty would be met if the Government would agree, first of all, that where a report is made—it need not be published in the sense that everybody should be able to read it—the party concerned should know what is in the report. If the party concerned knows what is in the report, and the Minister's decision is adverse to him, then he will know whether or not it is in accordance with the report. I was going to add that the
74
Minister should state whether he is following the advice of the committee or whether he is turning it down. But at least if the land owner knows what is in the report of this independent advisory committee, he will know whether he has had a square deal.
It would work in this way. Supposing the Minister turned down a very large number of cases, it would then suggest that there was something wrong with the administration. On the other hand, if he allows a considerable number, and turns down only a few, then if the report is shown to the parties that would probably meet the difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble and learned Viscount's undertaking to have the report published—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not quite that. I cannot do that, because I had not considered this point until the noble Earl mentioned it. I will consider it, but I do not want to leave the noble Earl under the impression that I have undertaken anything.
EARL DE LA WARR: I did not mean that. There is so much possibility of agreement between us that I hesitate to say that we disagree. But where the Lord Chancellor seems to be unable to appreciate the point I am making is that he continues to make the case (which we all admit) for the Minister's having final power with regard to the restriction of felling. No one can suggest anything else in days like this. But what the noble and learned Viscount fails to see is that this Bill deals with a great deal more than a restriction of felling. I cannot see why it is necessary for the Minister, in the interests of defence, to be in a position to have the final say as to the conditions—that is, forestry conditions— on which felling licences shall be granted. What are those conditions likely to be? They are likely to be: "If you want to fell that thirty acres of woodland, we will give you the licence, if you replant and if you undertake to manage that plantation in such-and-such a way." That might be a perfectly reasonable request, and in many cases it probably will be. But in some cases the owner may feel it to be utterly unreasonable, and may have a perfectly good reason for saying so. Why must the Minister have the final say on that? Why cannot the owner have the satisfaction of feeling that he can go to

75
a fair-minded investigating body who have the final say? That in no way affects what I may call the defence needs of the country. Again, nobody can contend that an order under Clause 7 to a woodland owner to thin his plantations is in any way connected with the needs of the defence of this country. It is a purely technical order connected with proper and competent forestry. Why cannot that matter go to the investigating committee for their final decision? Why should it go to the Minister? Before we make up our minds what to do about this Amendment, I should like to hear whether the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton— a square to add on those two particular points.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I have not. I have gone as far as I can. I have said that I will gladly consider the possibility of making the report available to the woodland owner, so that he may see how he is being treated. I believe that it is absolutely essential that the last word should lie with the Minister; otherwise I do not see how the scheme will work. I will do everything I can to see that the wood-land owner is conscious of the fact that he is having—to use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—a square deal.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely the two cases are different. So far as I am concerned, the Lord Chancellor has completely convinced me that the Minister must have the last word as to whether or not timber should be cut. If everybody were given a licence, then more timber might be cut in the year than was safe in the interests of national defence. That is why I think the Minister must have the final right. But when it comes to imposing conditions— to say that an owner must replant, or that he must manage some other woodland in a different way— it seems to me that the argument does not apply there at all, because it will not mean that any more or any less timber will be cut. It is a question merely of whether extra conditions are reasonably imposed. I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor could well agree that these tribunals should decide whether the conditions are reasonable, while leaving the Minister the absolute right to refuse permission to cut on the ground that too
76
much timber would be cut in any one year.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will look at the point, because that is the way in which I am trying to conduct this Bill. But Clause 4, if I read it aright, deals with the case
"Where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence authorising the felling of trees on any land, or grant such a licence subject to conditions. …"
I should have thought that this was the point. The fact that the Minister has the right to impose conditions rather extends the area and ambit in which an owner would have the right to fell. If conditions cannot be imposed the Minister or the tribunal may well say: "No, you must not fell." It is just because the Minister has that opportunity of saying: "Well, I am a little doubtful; on the whole, I think you may fell, but if you do fell this thirty-acre wood you must undertake to plant another thirty acres," that permission may be granted. It seems to me that if he can refuse altogether, it follows that he ought to be able to refuse sub modo. It is to the benefit of the woodland owner that he should do that, because it increases the number of cases in which the Minister would grant permission. But I will certainly have this matter looked into further to see whether we can do anything to meet your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I suggest in this difficulty is this. We have no objection to the composition of this appeal committee, and I should have thought that at this stage we might accept and agree upon that. When it comes to the powers of the committee, on which we have serious difficulty, that is a matter which the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to say he will consider before the next stage. As I think the noble Earl. Lord De La Warr, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have said, we are prepared to go a good way to meet the Government as regards the quota; that is obviously a national affair. But as regards the appeal committees we feel strongly that they should be impartial. The Minister will in fact be advised by the Forestry Commission, and therefore I should have thought that it would be fair, and in the interests of good forestry, that this body set up by the Minister should have the final decision in these

77
cases. That is a matter which I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider before the next stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out from ("The") to the end of line 1 and insert ("committee shall—
(a) afford ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: There are several Amendments to page 4 standing in my name. All these Amendments are on the same point, and I suggest that we accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment—at the same time retaining complete freedom to look at the matter on Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("him") and insert ("them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment covers the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("him") and insert ("them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out from ("question") to (" required ") in line 5 and insert—
(" (b) if they think fit or if they are so ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("request") to the first ("the") in line 6 and insert ("inspect ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("trees") insert ("or land").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved —
Page 4, line 6, after (" relates ") insert—
(" and
(c) take into consideration any information furnished to them by the Commissioners as to the performance within the conservancy in which the trees are growing of their duty under section one of this Act, and shall thereupon").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.24 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
"(5) Where a reference has been made under this section in respect of a refusal to grant a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees a subsequent request shall not be made under this section before the third anniversary of the last application in respect of which such a reference has been made."
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Airlie is unable to be here and it falls to me to move this Amendment. In case it is not quite clear from the wording, I should like to make plain what this Amendment sets out to do. What we are concerned about is the delay of three years which must occur before an appeal can be made after the refusal of an application. After the first application for a licence there is no appeal. Then, after the expiry of three years from the date of the first application, there is a right of appeal, with a further right of appeal after five years. It is obvious that applications for a licence can be made as often as a person may wish, but the rights of appeal are limited as above. The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is to give an automatic right of appeal on the first refusal, and thereafter an appeal every three years. The important part of this Amendment is the provision for an appeal immediately on the first refusal. The fact that the existing administrative procedure may be incapable of dealing with appeals against the first refusal does not justify legisla-

79
tion which impinges on the proprietary rights of the subject without the provision of an adequate independent review of administrative decisions which from their nature must be arbitrary. It is this delay of three years with which we are concerned. The difficulty will be caused in part by money considerations. We all work to a long-term plan, and we are carrying out our planting programme and our forestry work on the estate. But the question is, where is the money to come from? Those of us who have not large independent means look to the felling of timber to provide the money necessary for carrying on our forestry operations. The wages of foresters are at present fairly high, and are fixed by the Government: they fall in line with the statutory agricultural wage. It will be a serious problem for estates if the owners are refused a licence and cannot appeal for three years.
I was talking yesterday in Edinburgh to one of our leading men in forestry and estate affairs. He raised the point of the dedication schemes. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government have considered how those schemes will fare, under the existing subsection, in estates where they are looking forward to the cutting of, perhaps, 50,000 cubic feet of timber a year, and planting, out of the money, a large acreage of timber. It seems to some of us that the dedication schemes will be considerably upset, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount can make it clear whether the dedication schemes are controlled by this clause. If so, I hope the Government will be able to give some consideration to the matter of how their operations will be effected. There is a further point in connection with this three years' delay. I have spoken to several factors in Scotland as to how this clause, as it stands, would affect the advice they give to their owners; and it seems to me that the result will be the opposite of that which the Government want to achieve. I think that this three years' delay will lead to a far larger number of applications, and a flood of appeals. If we have to wait three years before we are allowed to make an appeal, after having made an application for a licence, I feel certain that in Scotland our fac-
80
tors will advise us to put in an application at once, even though the timber may not be ready to cut.
The man to whom I was speaking in Edinburgh said: "Anyhow, you have got one, two or three years to wait. If you appeal at once you get rid of that three years' delay." I think that is a real difficulty, and will cause the very thing the Government are hoping to avoid— a flood of applications on appeal. If the Government could do away with that delay of three years, I think it would be a considerable help in avoiding a great number of appeals. That is my considered opinion from what I can discover in Scotland. I hope the Government will be able to consider this matter, and will allow us to make an appeal as soon as a refusal is given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: May I briefly give my warm support to this Amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend? I think he made it quite clear what the result of this Amendment would be. Personally, I cannot see that it is right, that it is even fair, that you can apply for a licence for a proposed felling as often as you please, and yet your rights of appeal are so limited. If I interpreted the noble and learned Viscount rightly, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, it seemed to me that what was giving him so much concern was this: that he was afraid that, if an appeal was allowed at once after first refusal, the Forestry Commission would be so cluttered up with appeals that they would not be able to deal with them. But may I ask the noble and learned Viscount to answer this question? Why do the Government envisage whole-sale appeals in this case? Surely, appeals cost money, and an owner is not going to appeal unless he has a good case on which to appeal. If it is a good case to appeal on, surely it should be sym-pathetically listened to. I believe that it is the exception to appeal in the case of income tax assessments and rating assessments. Are there wholesale appeals throughout the country on income tax assessments and rating assessments? I have not heard of them, and I cannot see

81
why the Government envisage such whole-sale appeals against refusals to fell timber. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will listen most sympathetically to this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is nothing, of course, which is absolutely binding in the three years, as opposed to some other period, but I think there must be some substantial period of delay. The scheme as we have it in the Bill at the present time is this. Although an owner can apply to the Forestry Commission as often as he likes, yet he cannot appeal until after three years. If he has already gone to appeal, and his appeal has been turned down, then the time limit is five years. That is the period of time as at present before he can appeal again. I think, obviously, there must be some limit. We can certainly discuss, if your Lordships so desire, whether three and five years are the right periods of time. I am satisfied, however, that there must be some limits of time. With regard to the number of appeals in the matter of in-come tax assessments, they are probably far larger than the noble Earl realises, though I am bound to tell him that there is a reason why there are so many appeals — they bring about a certain delay which is sometimes rather agreeable to the tax-payer. Their number is legion, but whether they are wholesale or retail appeals, I should not like to say. Certainly, in this case, without some time limit I think it would mean a very large number of appeals, with the result that the machine would be cluttered up; moreover, it would be possible to have an appeal every year about the same trees. Unless there is some limit of time of this sort it will make the whole scheme absolutely unworkable.
With regard to the question which I was asked about the dedication scheme, it is difficult to follow this point at the present time because we have not before us the result of the Amendments to Clause 3 which were accepted on the last occasion. Your Lordships may remember that we accepted in principle an Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. We accepted that, so we may as well look at it again and note its language. It was to this effect:
"Where the felling of any trees to which an; application relates is in conformity with the provisions or conditions of a plan of opera-
82
tions or other working plan approved by the Commissioners "—
that, of course, would embrace a dedication scheme and, perhaps, some other schemes too—
" the Commissioners shall grant a licence unless the appropriate Minister certifies that"
there has been a supervening emergency (I am paraphrasing the words) which makes it undesirable to grant that licence. That provision is already in the Bill, and when we have finished our Committee stage your Lordships will see what the consequence of that may be. I am afraid there must be a limit of time. I may not have the right limit of time in three or five years, but I feel that the initial limit is important. I am quite willing to discuss whether three or five years are right or wrong, so long as there is some substantial limit in the first respect. Otherwise, quite frankly, I am afraid that this scheme may be rendered entirely unworkable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will consider a modification of the five years period. I should like him to bear this point in mind. He rightly pointed out that, under the Amendment already accepted by the Government, schemes of dedication or similar schemes will not require application for licences. The people about whom a good many noble Lords are worried, I think, are the small men. There are a number of these small men who are to a certain extent dependent upon forestry operations for their livelihood. Some of these men may be almost too small to have a dedication scheme, and perhaps even too small to have an agreed scheme. As this Bill is developing in this House, it seems that those people are a little likely to be thrown to the wolves. It may be said that from the national point of view the larger owner is most important, but we have an obligation to these small people as well. If a period of five years is to supervene before these people can make a further request, that is an additional hardship upon them. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Government may feel, after consideration, that they can reduce that period to three years. I fully realise the importance of not having an immense multiplication of such requests, but none the less the interests of

83
these small people have to be taken into account. I hope the Government will take that point into consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will. What I am trying to do is to get this Bill through as an agreed Bill, and I would give a great deal to achieve that. I certainly will consider sympathetically what the noble Marquess has said, though I am convinced that there must be some fairly substantial time, in the first instance.
LORD KINNAIRD: I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will give this matter further consideration. I would point out that he referred to the position if annual powers of appeal were given. My Amendment, of course, would permit an appeal after the first refusal and thereafter an appeal every three years. That is not an annual opportunity. On the understanding that this matter may be considered further, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
3.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I ought to say that we have got ourselves into a rather unusual position with this clause. We have accepted the composition of a committee, but we have not reached agreement over its powers. In the Government's view, as I understand it, all final decisions rest with the Minister, and the committee should be there merely in an advisory capacity. We on this side of the House are in full agreement that questions of the quota must rest finally with the Minister— national interest demands that. But there are other points upon which an impartial committee might in fact be the better final decider.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that before the Report stage the Government would consider the representations we have made. As a result, we have postponed or withdrawn temporarily a large number of Amendments. I want to make it clear that those Amendments are not dead; they are dependent upon the final decision over the main Amendment concerning the powers of the committee; and that is a matter which will have to come before your Lordships again. I
84
suggest that, instead of merely raising these matters on the Report stage in the ordinary way, which would mean an immense multiplication of Amendments, it would probably be preferable if the whole of this clause were recommitted. In effect, it would be another Committee stage, and the result would be entirely dependent upon the decision reached on the main Amendment concerning the powers of the Commission. I think it would be in accordance with the general practice of this House that that should be done.
There is another suggestion I should like to make. We should be glad if the Government could make known to us through the usual channels, so far as it is practicable for them to do so before the date when the matter is discussed again, what decision they have reached about the powers of the committee, because it will be necessary for us, if unhappily there is still a divergence of opinion between the two sides of the House, to put down Amendments on this question defining what we believe should be the powers of the committee. Therefore I think noble Lords opposite should, if they are agreeable, have talks with us and, after consultation with the Ministers concerned, tell us what their view is. Then we should be in a position to take a recommittal of this clause more effectively on the next occasion.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): We will certainly give friendly consideration to what the noble Marquess has said. Of course, it was evident that my noble friend could not pledge himself in advance with regard to the powers of decision of this body. Some of the Amendments have been withdrawn because of the general agreement that the kind of body that has been set up takes the place of the investigating committee that was formerly proposed. It may be that there are questions relating essentially to technical forestry operations which it would be inappropriate for such a body to decide, and there may be other decisions of a different character. But we will give the matter friendly consideration, and I will undertake between now and the Report stage to consult the noble Marquess and his friends about it in the usual manner, and I hope that we shall arrive at some satisfactory arrangement. I should not like here and now to say anything about

85
the recommittal of the clause. I think we had better let that depend upon how we progress in our consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount will realise that practically every Amendment on this particular clause, and on Clause 3 also, has been postponed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I know. I fully recognise the facts. But, of course, a great many of those Amendments were consequential upon the main Amendment. However, we will look at the question on the lines that I have indicated.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Compensation for loss through refusal of licence
5.—(1) Where an application for a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees is refused, any person who sustains loss in consequence of any depreciation in the value of the trees attributable to deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees in consequence of the refusal shall, on a claim made in the prescribed manner, be entitled to recover from the Commissioners compensation in respect of that loss
(2) Claims for compensation under this section in respect of any trees may be made from time to time in respect of deterioration which has taken place since the refusal of the licence or since the last previous claim, as the case may be; but no such claim shall be made after the expiration of one year after the felling of the trees, or in respect of deterioration which took place more than ten years before the date of the claim.
(3) In calculating the amount of any compensation payable under this section in respect of any trees—

(a) no account shall be taken of any deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees which is attributable to neglect of the trees after the date of the refusal of the licence; and

(b) the value of the trees at any time shall be ascertained on the basis of prices current at the date of the claim.

(4) At any time after a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees has been refused, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, give notice to the owner of the trees that they are prepared to grant such a licence either unconditionally or subject to conditions described in the notice; and in any such case—

(a) the Commissioners shall, if an application is duly made in that behalf, grant the licence in accordance with the notice; and

(b) in calculating any compensation payable under this section in consequence of the previous refusal of a licence, no account
86
shall be taken of any deterioration occurring after the giving of the notice.

(5) Any question of disputed compensation under this section shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
3.46 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in sub-section (1) after "refused" to insert:
"and (a) three years has elapsed since the first refusal of an application, and (b) the trees to which the application related are ripe for felling."
The noble Earl said: I approach this clause with the feeling that it is going to be extremely difficult not to get into the same trouble as we did on the last clause, because although there are a number of Amendments in my name and in the names of other noble Lords, they really all add up to the same point. There-fore I would again ask the Committee if I may be allowed on this Amendment to deal with the whole clause, in an attempt to see whether we cannot reach agreement with His Majesty's Government on the main principles involved. As it stands, this clause deals with compensation for loss through refusal of licences. We believe it is impossible to arrive at any fair system of compensation in this matter. My personal feeling is that either the system of compensation will be (as it is in the present clause) completely inadequate for dealing with the real causes of loss to the woodland owner, or that if we try to draft a form of compensation which meets all the possible losses of the woodland owner we may find ourselves putting forward a clause which is unfair to the taxpayers. We believe that the system as it is proposed is wrong in principle. The principle at slake here is whether the private woodland owner should be selected from amongst all other producers of or traders in raw materials, and informed that he alone shall carry the whole cost of national stockpiling.
Let me give the Committee an instance in order to show what I mean. An owner may have a wood that is mature for felling, and that wood may have a value of £ 10,000. It is admitted on both sides that the timber is ripe for felling, but the owner is told that in the national interest he may not fell. He has to leave that timber standing on the ground: he is unable to realise the money; and he is unable to bring his land back into production. I contend that there is no precedent for dealing with national stockpiling on

87
those lines. To suggest that a loss of that character can be dealt with by compensation for deterioration of timber is completely to miss the point. What are the losses to which the land owner is likely to be subjected? First of all, there is the danger of fluctuation in the market. I recognise that it is hard to visualise such a happening during the next short period of time, but it is possible that the market value of timber will fall. It may well be that the owner has urgent need of money—perhaps he has to spend a large sum on improving or developing his estate, or he has a heavy call for taxation purposes, or possibly death duties.
We all know that it has frequently been the custom on estates for the owner to plant in order to provide a reserve to help his son meet death duties. Now he is to be denied the use of that money, and, apart from compensation for deterioration, he is offered, in Clause 6, a loan. I regard that as almost the greatest impertinence in the Bill. Here is a man with £ 10,000 (we have been taking the figure of £10,000 all along, so we may as well stick to it); it is his own money, ready and available for him to use, but he is told by the State that in the national interest he shall not use it. Then the State turn round and say, "But we will lend you the £10,000 and charge you interest." As I say, I regard that as the grossest impertinence.
But this is not only a question of money; it is also a question of use of land. While timber is on land, that land is sterilised, and we know well that when timber reaches maturity the increment virtually ceases. Time after time in years past we have been asked in forestry dedication schemes, and now we are being asked again in this Bill, to improve our methods of forestry and increase the increment from land devoted to forestry. Yet we are denied the possibility of doing so. The fact is that there is only one solution to this problem, namely, that if the nation holds that it is necessary— as I believe it is— that we should stockpile our timber supplies, it should do what it does with regard to all other materials, and that is purchase them. We do not wish to be unreasonable. We are pre-pared—and this is outlined in the series of Amendments which I have ventured to put down—to accept the position that after a licence has been refused, the
88
owner must wait three years. That means that he will be stockpiling for three years at his own cost. I say that that is a minor sacrifice— something which we should be prepared to make in the national interest. I think that most woodland owners would accept that burden. After that, we consider that the nation should purchase the timber and, as soon as possible, sell it, in order that the land shall be brought back into production.
What are the arguments against this? One argument that has been put to me is that if owners knew that the Forestry Commission were going to purchase all mature timber within three years of a licence being refused, they would at once rush to sell. No evidence has been produced to show that this would be so. As a matter of fact, it is most unlikely, and I will tell your Lordships why. If the purchase were to be made by the Forestry Commission, the price would presumably be based on an official valuation. As we all know, when a question of price goes to arbitration the valuer is naturally anxious to be fair, and he puts a moderate and conservative price on the timber. On the other hand, if the timber is put out to tender there is always a considerable chance that some timber merchant will be in a position which will cause him to want it very much. It may be that he needs a special amount of timber for a certain purpose, that he has labour at the time in the particular area, or that some other influence affects the position. A fairly good tender is almost always put in— one which often is slightly above what one would expect to be awarded by an official valuer. There is no inducement, therefore, for owners to rush to force timber into the hands of the Forestry Commission.
Again, it has been said that there is no storage space available. We all know of the shortage of timber stocks in this country to-day. Stocks are far lower than they have ever been before, and there must be storage space in almost every timber yard in the country. To suggest that the principle of keeping bonded stores on private premises and in the hands of private firms is not well known and well established is quite untrue. My view is that the sum involved is likely to be extremely small, but the principle which arises is a very important one. The reason why I think the sum of money

89
will be small is connected with the Question which I put to the noble Earl opposite to-day. To that Question I received what I am sure we shall acknowledge to be a very useful answer when we come to read it, but I must admit that when it was delivered to-day it was as incomprehensible to me as I expect it was to most of your Lordships. As things are, by the end of three years the bulk of the licences that have been refused are cleaned up. And the logic of that is that the amount of timber left to be dealt with under this proposal of mine will be exceedingly small, because there is this three years' gap before anything can be done.
There is one other point which I should like to make. I suppose that the biggest shortage in the timber world at the moment is the shortage of seasoned timber. Surely this proposal gives the country the opportunity to acquire stocks of what it most needs— namely, seasoned timber. I therefore urge the noble Earl who is responsible for this Bill that he should give this proposal his most earnest consideration. I think I am right in saying that the point which is involved is one about which many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber and wood-land owners generally feel most strongly. We believe that in common justice, and also for many practical reasons— it would be of advantage to the Government in building up stocks— the Government should accept the proposals which I have put before the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, after ("refused") insert ("and (a) three years has elapsed since the first refusal of an application, and (b) the trees to which the application related are ripe for felling").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MERTHYR: I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment which I think is eminently fair and just. I feel that His Majesty's Government will have to produce some extremely forceful arguments before the Committee are persuaded that this Amendment is not right. I want only to underline one or two sentences which were uttered by the noble Earl. In particular, I think he made a very good point when he asked why woodland owners are to be expected to stockpile for the nation, without compensation, when in respect of all other commodities,
90
so far as I know, the person who does it is compensated. Secondly, I think the point about the waste of land is extremely important. Is not the Government policy in agriculture and in many other realms to-day directed, and rightly directed, to avoiding waste of land? Are we not being continually urged to employ usefully every acre we own in the interest of the nation—and properly so? But here we are contemplating a complete waste of woodland areas, because, in the case of timber which is over-ripe, it is to be left for three years past the time of maturity; therefore it must be employing land in a wasteful way. If it is said there is no space to store this timber, I would reply that the most wasteful way of all to store it is to leave it standing on the land. If it were cut down and stored on the same land, it would be more economical. To leave it vertical on the land is surely the most wasteful way of storing it. For these reasons, and for the others which the noble Earl has given, I hope that we shall have either an acceptance of this Amendment or the strongest possible arguments showing us why it cannot be included in the Bill.
EARL CAWDOR: I should like to support my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lord Merthyr. They have covered most of the points I could make, but I should like to stress two. First, we feel that the compensation in the Bill for the deterioration in quality is worthless, because it would be impossible to assess it. It involves an impossibility, in that an owner would have to fell at least twice—and I never heard of anybody doing that. He would have to fell at the time the licence was refused, and fell again in, say, ten years' time, when a licence was granted. I can visualise a case in which a woodland owner applied to the Forestry Commissioners for a licence and was refused, perhaps rightly, because the quota was already full. In due course, when there was room for that volume of timber in the quota, the trees would be felled, and might be found to have buttrot. Naturally the owner would say that the trouble had developed in the last ten years. The Forestry Commissioners would say that the buttrot was there when the licence was refused. Who is to decide? It was a late member of your Lordships' House who once described three classes of liars—the liar, the damned liar and the expert witness.

91
I think this would be a case for the expert witness.
The other point is in regard to stock-piling, to which my noble friends referred. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to throw some light on this question; it is not a new one. It was put forward to the Commissioners by some of us who are interested in forestry long before this Bill saw the light. It has always been turned down. We have been told that it was impossible, but we have never been told why. It would interest me, and a number of my noble friends, if we could be told the reason. I do not believe that what we are asking is impossible, and my noble friend Lord De La Warr does not believe it to be impossible he stood up and said so, as did my noble friend Lord Merthyr. It is vital that something should be done or that we should be given very good reasons why it is not possible to give this compensation. I hope we shall hear something from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PORTMAN: I should like to take up the point of stockpiling, not from the national point of view but from the point of view of private owners. We have heard a lot this afternoon about storage space, and about the stockpiling of timber for the use of private owners in the reconstruction of buildings and farm equipment. I can assure the Government that the refusal of licences for felling and the holding of timber in a vertical state is a crime. This matter is crying for attention. The number of buildings that I have seen reconstructed with timber that is unfit for use in work of that nature is abominable. When a private owner applies for a felling licence, there is no reason at all why the regional conservator of private woodlands should not inspect the trees to see whether the owner is making use of properly matured timber. In that way, we could double the national output of really useful timber, and a large number of farm buildings and cottages could be repaired with timber suitable for the job. I can assure your Lordships that there is an increasing demand for timber of this nature. We should save many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a great deal of shipping, if we used in the way we urge the natural resources that we possessed. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider this point very carefully.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to sup-port my noble friend Lord De la Warr. It seems to me that the arguments used by the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Earl Cawdor, cannot be controverted. They are both experts in forestry, and I hope the Government will give the fullest consideration to their expert knowledge on the difficulties raised by the Government proposals in the Bill. Many noble Lords on this side regard the proposals as unfair, and I hope that the Govern-ment will be able to accept the arguments which have been put before them.
EARL BATHURST: I beg to support this Amendment, and all that the noble Lords on this side have said in its favour. It seems that the only reason the Government have for rejecting this Amendment is the need for stockpiling. How long are the Government going to stockpile? If a shortage of a certain type of timber is expected in three years' time, presumably there will be an order now to stop felling; and when that shortage arises, there will be an order to compel owners to fell. As has already been pointed out, stockpiling in a wood is a most unsafe method of storing any type of timber. The only place where timber can be safely stored is in a kiln, after it has been properly seasoned. But if timber has been seasoned, and is in stock, surely there cannot be a shortage. If the Government are contemplating a shortage in fifty years' time, it means that old timber will have to be cut down, in order that new timber can be grown. Yet that is impossible if a woodland owner is unable to fell old trees, whether in short supply now or not. Many land owners have had their woodlands cut as a result of two wars, and their efforts are directed towards restocking, as well as towards preserving timber. If a land owner is unable to secure money to carry out this replanting, there will be a further shortage in fifty years' time, whether the Government stockpile or not. Stockpiling cannot be a reason for not accepting this Amendment put forward by my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for putting in the first Amendment all his arguments against the clause. He saved a great deal of time. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, speaking on the previous

93
clause, stated quite briefly our broad position about compensation as proposed by the noble Earl opposite. All I want to do is, as it were, to fill in the gap by giving a simple reason for our objections to these proposals. It is one simple reason; and I will state it, and leave your Lordships to judge whether in the national interest the objections to these proposals are weightier than the proposals themselves. But first perhaps I may deal with an argument used by the noble Earl, and by several other noble Lords who followed him. They said, if I understood them aright, that this was a case of stockpiling in a particular commodity at the expense of the owner. Their view seemed to be that, owing to present circumstances, the Government have to buy tin, rubber, copper and essential foodstuffs, in order to stockpile in these commodities, and also have to acquire timber. What is being proposed in the Bill, according to those noble Lords, is that in the case of timber the Government are not prepared to pay for it, but are allowing the stockpiling to be done at the expense of the woodland owner.
Is the comparison between the stock-piling of timber and of other commodities that are being and have been stockpiled a fair one? If a licence to fell timber is refused, the woodland owner still has his standing timber. It is mature—and one of the conditions on which the noble Earl insists is that compensation be paid for mature timber—and no doubt after the licence has been refused for the first time another application will be made by the owner later, in order to get per-mission to fell and sell his timber. That application is not going to be refused for a long period of time by the Forestry Commissioners. It is not in their interest that that timber should rot, but it is clearly in their interest that the trees should be felled only when they are mature. So long as they are growing they are increasing in volume, size and value. So what is really happening is that the woodland owner is being asked in the national interest to postpone the felling and selling of his timber. That. I feel, is putting the case quite fairly; and if I put it like that, I think it is obvious what a big difference there is between stockpiling in timber and stockpiling in other commodities. It is really not accurate to say
94
that this business is being done at the owner's expense. All that is being asked of the owner is that in the national interest he should postpone the sale of his Limber until such time as it can be felled in relation to the timber requirements of the country.
I have merely been answering an argument used by noble Lords on the other side, and I will now, quite simply, state our case. Our case is that if we were to offer to pay compensation every time a licence was refused in the three-year period mentioned by the noble Earl, we might be incurring very heavy expenditure.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are saying that we do not want the compensation, but that the Government should purchase.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Earl said that there was a risk, although he did not think it was a large one, that we might be incurring very heavy expenditure. Is that a risk that any Government, whether a Labour or Conservative Government, would be prepared to take at the present time? Is it a risk that would be fair in relation to other more essential financial commitments, such as our commitments under the re-armament programme? That is a question which I should like your Lordships to ask yourselves. Although the noble Earl opposite thinks the risk is slight, I do not think it is unreasonable to take the opposite view. Let me say why. I am not looking at it from the point of view of the ultra conscientious man, but from that of the woodland owner who wants to make money out of his trees. His decision will depend largely on the timber market. Looking ahead, he may say to himself: "The price of timber is high at the present moment, but it will fall later on. Obviously it is in my interest to go to the Forestry Commissioners and ask for a licence, and, when they refuse, ask them to pay me for my timber now. In that way I shall get a better price." If that was the long-term prospect, then I feel that everyone would agree that it would be more than likely that the number of applications for licences would increase considerably. I do not think it is right—I say this with the utmost respect to the noble Earl, because he has such authority on these matters—to compare the number of licences that have been refused and issued in the last three years

95
with the number for which application might be made, and which might have to be refused, if woodland owners were able to receive compensation from the Government for every licence that was refused. That is not the case at the moment, and it might altogether alter the number of licences for which applications were made—and, correspondingly, since the Forestry Commissioners have the duty to maintain a limited amount of felling, the number which they had to refuse. I hope that this vital consideration of how large a financial commitment the Government ought to undertake at this moment will be weighed against the arguments which were put—very fairly, on the whole, if I may say so—by the noble Earl opposite in support of his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not know whether I am more amazed at the morality or the economics of the speech to which we have just listened. I should like to deal first with the economics. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that of course it was right that the Government desired to stockpile tin, copper and sulphur (they have been singularly unsuccessful hitherto in getting their supplies), and that obviously they had to pay for those things. He then went on to say: "But supposing, instead of buying sulphur, we told people to keep it in the ground, is it really said that we should pay compensation?" The noble Earl would certainly have to pay compensation, because the difference, in the case of tin, sulphur and copper, is that it lies outside his control. Whether he wants to buy it, or whether he wants to keep it in the ground, he will have to pay for it, because somebody else will buy it if he does not. But the timber owner in this country is to be treated differently, because he can be controlled. Are the economics altogether different? The man who owns a tin mine, a rubber plantation, or a sulphur deposit, extracts and sells; and by the proceeds of what he sells he continues his operation. Indeed, it is entirely on the proceeds of sale of his extracted or fabricated product that he depends for his future operations and his ability to sell. Is that very different from the case of the woodland owner in this country? He is urged to go on and replant, and he is urged, at increasing wages—I do not complain of that, be-
96
cause I do not think the wages are too high, but it is a costly operation to-day —not only to replant but to retain his woodlands in good condition in the national interest. But where is he to get the money for doing it? He gets the money for doing that exactly as the tin miner or the sulphur owner, by cut-ting his timber and selling it year by year. It is the only way in which he can get it, and it is no answer to put in Clause 7 of the Bill that he is to be stopped selling now, but that he can come to the Government and borrow at 3 or 4 per cent. That really is a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
So much for the economics of the matter; and with the economics I think I have also dealt with the morals of the question. If it is reasonable to pay the producers of other materials outside your control to stockpile, when you require them to do so, or to leave the commodity in the ground, then surely there is an equally moral case for the woodland owner.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: If the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, has he not omitted one very marked difference in the analogy he drew? It is not necessary each fifty years to produce another crop of sulphur.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It takes a million years, because Almighty God has unfortunately given us a very limited amount of sulphur in the world.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: But nature provides the replenishment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What has?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: It is there already.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I really do not follow the late Minister of Supply.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then perhaps the noble Viscount will look at a sulphur mine.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I only wish the noble Lord and his successor had made a rather better guess and had bought some sulphur for this country when sulphur could be bought at half the price it is to-day. I do not think that I should take the Ministry of Supply, in past or present hands, as a very good adviser on

97
either the economics or the morals of the issue we are discussing to-day.
I must say that I think the moral case is on all fours with the economic case. The noble Earl has said that this Amendment would involve tremendous cost to the State. I was waiting all the time for some figures. We are not told that it is impossible to do a thing which is economically sound and morally just, but that it cannot be done because the cost is too great. Well, in very difficult times we may have to accept that. But I have not heard a single figure or estimate given by the Minister. Would the Minister or the Leader of the House tell us how much they anticipate it is going to cost the Government to adopt the principle of this Amendment? I cannot refer to the calculations he has given us, because he has not taken us into them, but this vague remark about enormous cost is very wide of the mark. When the Bill was last in Committee, the Government accepted the Amendment on Clause 3 that there should be a right to a licence (except in a national emergency, with which we are not dealing now) wherever there was a dedication scheme or a scheme of management. There is not going to be any question of compensation payable there. The only case where it can arise, therefore, is where there is no dedication scheme or no planned management and development scheme in force, and that must be, I should think, in a minority of cases. Therefore, the amount which the Government are likely to be asked to pay is much smaller than anything we have been led to suppose.
May I add this? In these difficult times, when, if trouble comes, it will come upon us very quickly, would it be a bad plan for the Government to have a very considerable stockpile of seasoned timber dispersed throughout the country? I should have thought it was just as wise a thing to do as to have a stockpile of those other commodities which we are regretting we did not buy last year, and which we are now having to buy at very high prices. I should have thought it was a thoroughly sound thing. All the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, are valid. But if you are going to have a stockpile it is folly to keep it standing where it deteriorates, instead of cutting it at the right moment
98
and having it seasoned on the ground. It would also be dispersed throughout the country where it is needed, and when trouble came we should have everything to hand and a regular stock of the commodity in the right place. If trouble comes the labour will not be there to cut the timber, and the transport will not be there for the transportation. Adequate supplies of seasoned timber dispersed throughout the country would be a great asset. I am surprised that there is not a clause in the Bill giving the Government power to stockpile an adequate amount. I do not know how long this period of tension is going to last—it may last for years. Having made the initial expenditure, the Government could go on. They could turn it over and buy some more— a perfectly simple operation.
We have been treated only to generalities in answer to the practical arguments which have been advanced from all quarters of the Committee. I beg the Government to look at this matter again, in the interests of national defence and as an economic and moral proposition. I am sure that on reconsideration they will see that 90 per cent. of the merits of the case are on the side of the movers of this proposal, and that only a very small pro-portion is on the side of those who would seek to reject it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene and ask the members of the Committee to apply their minds to what we are trying to do. The main purpose of the Bill is, of course, to conserve our existing stocks of seasoned timber, and, whilst doing so, to be as fair as possible to everybody who is the owner of that timber. We are not in a position of having huge reserves of timber which we can stockpile, as we might find convenient or useful. In the first place, we are seeking to safeguard our supplies of seasoned and good growing timber.
EARL DE LA WARR: Mature timber.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Well, timber becomes mature in the course of time. With great respect to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, there is nothing new about this idea. We are not doing anything which is newly immoral any worse than we usually do. We are not doing anything worse than Mr. Winston Churchill's Government were doing for some time past. This sort of plan has

99
been in operation since 1939. The Bill is trying to put into statutory form something which has been operating for some ten years. That is all it does. What has been happening during these past years is that the Forestry Commission have had applications from people to fell timber; and, as a rule, as we know, sooner or later the application is granted—or is not granted for various technical reasons. But in a considerable number of cases, either for one year, or for two years or longer, the Forestry Commission have not granted the licence to fell. That has been happening—it is happening now. But all this time they have not been asked to pay for the timber, and there is no particular grievance that I know of. Let it not be suggested, therefore, that what is being proposed is something new and extortionate. This is something which has been happening quite peaceably for years, and people who have had their licences refused hope that they will get them before long. If it is good timber no doubt they will; but they have not pressed for immediate payment.
Let us get our minds clear about this point: we are not feeling guilty about it. We are only trying to put into practical form what is now being done, and has been done for some years, without any trouble. We quite expect that in the case of dedicated woodlands, or where there is another scheme of some sort, special considerations will apply. We accept that, and have already embodied something about it in the Bill. We are fully prepared to give friendly considerations to practical suggestions. But it is a fact, so I am informed, that a number of enterprising people—and I do not blame them, in view of the price of timber—are going up and down the country getting sanction or making pro-visional arrangements with owners to fell timber. We have got to safeguard that position in some practical way.
It is not, I think, that the demands on the Exchequer would come in very large numbers from the people who are doing scientific forestry, or who are operating dedicated schemes and so on. But though the demands will not come from those people, they will nevertheless come in multitudes, provided the authorities say in effect, "If we refuse the licence we have got to pay for the trees at once."
100
—or, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr suggests, in three years, a useful suggestion, the spirit of which I fully accept. But if we were to say that when the Commissioners do not grant a licence they are committed to pay outright for the timber, we should be saddling the Treasury with an immense sum which I am certain no Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to paying, let alone a Labour one, because it relates not to the dedicated woodlands and the scientifically managed plantations but to thousands of pieces of woodland, great and small, all over the country. We really cannot ask the Treasury to be committed to pay outright, or even after a three years' interval, for that timber if they do not want it to be felled. The only reason for refusing a licence for matured timber is that we want to safeguard our national supplies. There is no other reason. We are most anxious to consider any practical suggestions, but I am sure that the suggestion now before us is not quite fair. We should be letting the country in for the payment of immense sums of money, for relatively small parcels of timber all over the country— a commitment which it has not been asked to undertake for the last ten years. We have managed peaceably and sensibly without this direct charge, and I think we can be sure that the Forestry Com-mission will continue to uphold sensibly the principle involved in this matter. I ask noble Lords not to press this Amendment. We are perfectly willing to consider anything practical and fair, but we cannot commit the Treasury to a scheme like this. As to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Portman, concerning timber for estate purposes, that is already fully covered in the Bill.
4.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBER-LAND: Having heard the arguments of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee, I think there can be no question whatever of the common justice of this Amendment. I am in entire support of all the arguments adduced by noble Lords in favour of it. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be unfortunate if, at this stage, the Amendment, in regard to which I feel that the disagreement is one not so much of principle as of application, should lead to the loss of the whole Bill. The noble Viscount the Leader of the

101
House said that Mr. Churchill did the same thing. I cannot feel that that is really a strict analogy, or a reason for putting this matter on a permanent footing in Statute form. I suggest, with great respect, that this is a case in which the old adage: "Two wrongs do not make a right" should apply.
I feel that it would be unfortunate if the Bill were lost at this stage through the forcing of this Amendment. It is a Bill which, suitably amended, can, I believe, be of considerable benefit to timber producers in the country and also to the general level of forestry efficiency. What the timber producer really wants is, first, to know that he is going to get a settled forest policy, one which is not subject to continual change; secondly, that his plan of operations, whatever it may be, shall not be arbitrarily upset by the Forestry Commissioners; and, thirdly, that if there is such an emergency in the country that very strict and heavy refusals of licences become necessary, he will not be expected to shoulder the whole financial burden himself and have his woodland plans upset for maybe a generation. I think it is the desire of noble Lords on both sides to create that measure of confidence amongst timber producers. After all, we are expecting them to provide 2,000,000 acres of woodland, and we shall not get it unless we have that measure of confidence.
I suggest that further consideration be given to this Amendment on the lines which have already been applied to the Amendment to Clause 3, which has been accepted; and that this Amendment should apply only to woodlands which are subject to a plan of operations or other approved plan. I feel that along those lines it might be possible for noble Lords to facilitate the passage of the Bill through this House and to help in the solution of a problem which should not prove insoluble.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I support the suggestions made by the noble Duke. As explained by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, there is considerable doubt in the Government's mind as to the liabilities they assume if they take over the buying of timber in the way the owners claim. The noble Duke's suggestion, as I see it, would apply only in those cases in which a certificate of emergency had been given.
102
I may have misunderstood the noble Duke, but that is how I interpret it. I hope that we shall be able to come to some compromise on this point, because it seems to me—and again I agree with the noble Duke—that there will be consider-able advantage in having an agreed Bill. It would be a pity to break down at this point.
LORD SALTOUN: I want to put only one question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I find it difficult to believe that there are such enormous stocks of matured timber in private hands and which are not dedicated woodland that it would lead to vast expenditure by the Treasury. I hope I have not put the point in a discourteous way. It surprised me when the noble Viscount said that, and I should like information upon it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to give further sympathetic consideration to the suggestion which has been put forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland. There is no doubt that hardship will be created by the proposals of the Bill as they at present stand. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said a great deal about compensation, which I think is not strictly relevant to the Amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, said, it is impossible to compensate. That solution is ruled out. You do not know what the market will be at the delayed date. You do not know what the extent of deterioration will be. There are masses of imponderables which are impossible to calculate. Therefore, for that very reason, we have been driven back on this suggestion of purchase by the State of matured timber where a licence to fell has been refused.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that there was nothing new about the present situation, but I am sure he would be the first to admit that the present situation is really a hangover from the war. These regulations were introduced during the war for the very special circumstances of the national emergency. We have had too many of these hangovers. All the Supplies and Services Acts which have been introduced and passed are a continuation into peace time of conditions of war. Of course, we admit that in conditions of war and great national emergency unusual and abnormal things

103
have to be done, but they should not be continued permanently in more normal times. I am sure the Leader of the House would not seriously argue about that. What I think he was really worried about was the expenditure in which the Government might be involved. No doubt he has the Treasury prodding him. I think that argument can be overdone. First of all, there is the Amendment to Clause 3, to which the noble Duke referred, under which in any case owners of dedicated woodlands and woodlands which are subject to an agreed plan get a licence to fell. They will not be the subject of this compulsory buying except in circumstances of a new emergency, because in fact they can sell anywhere. The others, the people who have not entered into a scheme, would, in any case, be rather few. But if the Government are worried about them and really feel that there will be a flood of these small owners pressing to sell, they can avoid that possibility by limiting those proposals of the noble Earl as the noble Duke suggests. They will then be applicable, as I understand it, only to such cases as are covered by the Amendment to Clause 3. I believe that that is a possible way out.
The noble Duke himself quoted one old adage. I will quote another: "Half a loaf is better than no bread." This is half a loaf, both for the Government and for us. I suggest that it forms a favourable basis for a compromise. I do not know whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can give us a definite answer to-day. I do not think we can fairly press him to do so—he may have to consult his colleagues, and so on—but I hope at least for a sympathetic answer. We are ready to try to meet the Government over this matter. We have done our utmost and gone further than many of us like. I hope for a similar measure of cooperation from the other side.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thank the noble Marquess sincerely for his intervention. May I reply to the noble Lord below the gangway, and say that my statement was abundantly correct? The amount of timber that might be involved outside a dedicated or arranged scheme is enormous. It would involve the tax-payer in great obligations. I was impressed by the suggestion of the noble Duke, who, as we all know, is very
104
familiar with this business. It is true that the present plan of operations is, as the noble Marquess described it, a hangover from the war. But it is a hangover that has been working feasibly for five years, so that it cannot be a very unjust one. That is my reflection on that point, though I agree with him that it is correct so to describe it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hangovers may be bearable, but they are never right.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I accept all that, but even then it may depend on the form of the hangover. So far as I understand the suggestion made, it would mean that any payment would be limited first to a period when there was an emergency. What "emergency" means precisely, not being a lawyer I am not prepared to say without notice, although we have a general understanding of the kind of thing an emergency is. Without being committed to any particular explanation of that term, I think the suggestion made is a valuable and gratifyingly limiting one, because the proposal would be limited also, I understand, to cases where the woodlands were dedicated or subject to some scientific or agreed scheme of afforestation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like in this connection to make one point which I did not mention earlier, and which I should like the Government to consider. There may be a limited number of people, the small men to whom I have already referred, who have applied to the Forestry Commission for dedication or for inclusion in some scheme and who have been refused be-cause they are not large enough. I feel that they ought to be given sympathetic consideration.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I accept that. It would be quite fair and right to consider bona fide applications for dedication which are not yet determined. That is perfectly fair. But the vast number of miscellaneous burdens which would be cast upon the Treasury as matters stand at present have to be considered. I understand that the matters it is suggested we should consider are the limitation of any purchase, first, to cases of emergency, and, second, to agreed schemes, dedicated schemes and suchlike. That is a very important advance and a

105
different prospect from the one which I felt confronted me when the noble Earl first spoke. I should want to know what is meant by an "emergency." I should like a little more information about the other point, but I am willing to give that suggestion friendly consideration. Of course, we cannot do what is proposed on the Committee stage; it would have to be on the Report stage, and I will take the noble Lords into consultation. I am not making any pledge except to say that it limits enormously the demand and I will give it friendly consideration without, in saying that, being committed to any definite promise to do anything. All I can do is to consider it in a friendly spirit. I understand there are those two governing and important limitations. I am sure it would be advantageous. I do not in the least wish to impose upon the noble Earl, but on this general understanding, in which the entire bona fides will be observed, perhaps he will be willing not to press his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Again, this really means withdrawing all my Amendments, except possibly one. I think the noble Viscount might again say that he will consider recommitting the clause.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I rather hesitate about a recommittal.
EARL DE LA WARR: Subject to the noble Viscount's hesitation, and also to his undertaking to consider the matter, I think I should withdraw my Amendment, and I will not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.51 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to omit "deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees in consequence of." The noble Lord said: There are still a certain number of woodlands to which this clause applies, and therefore I will move my Amendment. Before doing so, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the assurance he gave me. I feel rewarded for having challenged him in the great comfort he has afforded to me, because there must be more mature timber than I had any idea of. The object of my Amendment is to ask the Government why, if they are prepared to compensate people for the depreciation in the value of trees owing to a refusal to permit felling, they are not prepared
106
to compensate them for all forms of loss consequent upon a refusal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from (" to ") to the second ("the") in line 27.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The diffi-culty I find about the noble Lord's Amendment is exactly the same as that relating to the Amendment which has just been withdrawn by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it might involve the Government in very heavy expenditure. For instance, a woodland owner would be able to claim compensation if the value of his timber at the time the licence was granted was different from its value at the time when the trees were felled. He would be able to look ahead at the prospective value of timber on the market, and if he thought that the value was falling he would be able to insure himself against that by applying immediately for a licence to fell. We should be up against exactly the same financial difficulty as was urged when we asked Lord De La Warr to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I should like to point out that his argument cuts both ways, and I do not think that owners would put their timber on the market at an improper time, in order to secure them-selves in that way. Before withdrawing my Amendment I would point out that this is not really full compensation; it is only partial compensation. And I think the Government must make up their minds to acknowledge that. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2), to omit "but no such claim shall be made after the expiration of one year after the felling of the trees." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has some substance, and I should like to move it. A wood of trees is not always felled in one year; it is sometimes felled over several seasons. Does that mean that we shall have partial claims continually made, or will measures be taken to enable the owner of timber who is felling his trees to make one claim in respect of the whole operation when he has felled the timber. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("be") to (" or") in line 35.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: As the noble Lord has rightly said, the effect of this Amendment would be to allow claims for compensation to be made more than twelve months after felling has taken place. It is difficult to see how this Amendment can serve any useful purpose from the point of view of the woodland owner, because it is obvious, I think, that he ought to be able to decide within twelve months whether or not to make a claim. Indeed, the chance of his making a successful claim would be less if the timber had actually been removed—if the tree had been cut, and the trunk taken away. It would be much more difficult to get the evidence which is required. So I do not think this Amendment is in the interests of the woodland owner.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not intend to press it. I merely point out the difficulty to the Government. It seems to me that there ought to be a provision whereby somebody can say: "There will be a claim in respect of this, but we had better wait until we have cut down all the trees, which will take perhaps two years to do, before making the claim." With those remarks, I will withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2) to leave out all words from and including "or in respect of the deterioration" down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment has more substance. It seeks to delete from the Bill the provision that no claim for compensation shall be made for deterioration of timber which takes place more than ten years before the date of the claim. It might well happen that a man's application for permission to cut his timber was refused, and that he did not get permission to cut his timber for more than ten years. In the meantime the damage had been continuing. I recollect a wood of very fine larch which was beginning to be badly pumped—I do not know whether it has been cut now. It ought to have been cut a year before the end of the war. At that time the rot in the centre of the tree had gone only a short way up from the roots, but had it been left, and had the proprietor failed
108
for ten years to get a licence to cut that timber, the whole of the wood would have been rotten. At the same time I would like to point out to the noble Earl who is to reply that the trees would probably have looked extremely well, because if all the essential parts of the tree had not got a blow, they would have been very good looking. I think that in such a case a claim of over ten years ought to be entertained. I do not see the justice of the limitation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out from ("trees") to the end of line 36.—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not see that there is any injustice to the woodland owner here. Supposing that his licence is refused for a period of thirty years, it is true that he cannot claim in the twenty-fifth year for deterioration which began, say, in the fifth or the sixth year—more than ten years' back. What he can do is to claim compensation at ten-yearly intervals for deterioration throughout the whole period. I understand that there is a practical difficulty on the part of the Forestry Commission in assessing deterioration that has been going on for more than ten years, and I feel that the position of the forestry owner is safeguarded.
LORD SALTOUN: I understand that there would be no difficulty in cutting sample trees. Can the noble Earl tell me whether that is so?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not sure what the noble Lord means.
LORD SALTOUN: You cannot tell how far rot inside a tree has gone unless you cut it down.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I imagine that that would take place if it were a question of assessing deterioration in a tree. Provided that deterioration had not started more than ten years before, the owner would be entitled to compensation.
LORD SALTOUN: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of two Amendments to paragraph (a) of subsection (4), the first being to

109
leave out all words from "shall" to "licence," and to insert:
"subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section three and of subsection (3) of section twelve of this Act, grant a"
The noble Earl said: May I speak on these next two Amendments together? Their object is twofold. As the Bill is drafted, it is obligatory on the Forestry Commissioners to grant a licence on application, which would mean that it would be open to the Commissioners to give notice and so in effect permit the felling if the owner desired it, without consulting the planning authority. We are anxious that in ever}' case where a tree is protected by a tree preservation order, the planning authority shall be consulted by the Forestry Commissioners. We do not want to allow in the Bill anything which would enable a tree which was protected by an order of this kind to be felled without consultation with the local planning authority. The Bill as it stands would have another undesirable effect. If the Forestry Commissioners were to consult the planning authority, and the planning authority refused to agree to the felling, the Commissioners would either have to go ahead and ignore the authority's wishes, or refrain from giving notice about the felling. This would mean that the Commissioners would continue to be liable for any compensation, whereas the reason the tree was not felled was one of amenity, so any compensation that had to be borne ought to be borne by the planning authority. These two Amendments will put right these two undesirable consequences of the Bill as at present drafted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("shall") to ("licence") in line 6 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I beg to move the second of these Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, after ("notice") insert ("if an application is duly made in that behalf.")— (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to make loans on refusal of licence
6. Where a licence under this Act authorising the felling of trees on any land is refused, then if the land—

(a) is subject to a forestry dedication covenant under the Forestry Act, 1947; or

(b) is or in the opinion of the Commissioners will be managed in a manner approved by the Commissioners.

the Commissioners may, if they think fit, make to persons interested in the land advances by way of loan of such amounts, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they may determine.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that in the case of land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant as aforesaid and in respect of which there is in existence a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners advances made by the Commissioners under this section shall be applicable to the whole of the land in respect of which such plan of operations was approved."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that loans should be available under this clause for use in respect of all land covered by a dedication agreement or an approved plan of operations and not only in respect of the particular area of land for which a licence has been refused. I feel that the Government will probably agree that this is a wise Amendment, be-cause it may be that a particular piece of land—I say nothing about trees—may be of little or no value, but a loan is of intense importance, and so it should be allowed to be used on the land dedicated. That seems to me to be a wise provision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course, we entirely agree with what Lord Kinnaird has said. It is eminently desirable that, if a woodland owner wishes, he should be able to use any money he may raise by way of a loan from the Commissioners on the rest of his estate. It should not be confined to the particular area in respect of which a licence for felling has been refused. May I point out that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent the use of a loan in this way? I think the noble Lord can rest assured that the object which he has in mind will be achieved under the terms of the Bill as it is now drafted.

111
Unless he disagrees about the drafting— and I have had very careful consultations on this matter—I hope that he will consider that what I have said is satisfactory.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think what the noble Earl has just said is highly satisfactory. I should just like to ask whether a man can use money lent to him for any function on the estate, including agriculture.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There is no restriction on the purposes for which a loan can be used.
LORD KINNAIRD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment and I thank the noble Earl for his explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.7 p.m.
Clause 7:
Felling directions
7.—(1) If it appears to the Commissioners that it is expedient in the interests of good forestry or for purposes connected with their duty under section one of this Act that any growing trees should be felled, they may give directions to the owner of the trees requiring him to fell them within such period after the directions have become operative as may be specified in the directions.
(2) No directions shall be given under this section requiring the felling of any such trees as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act.
(3) Any person aggrieved by directions given to him by the Commissioners under this section may by notice given within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner request the appropriate Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the said Minister under section four of this Act, and the provisions of that section (except subsection (5)) shall apply with the necessary modifications.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) after "felled" to insert:
"(a) in order to prevent deterioration or further deterioration" in the quality of the timber comprised therein; or
(b) in order to improve the growth of other trees."
The noble Earl said: I think—in fact, I know—that this Amendment will meet the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and several other noble Lords who have shown a keen interest in the matter in question. As the clause now stands, the Forestry Commissioners may make any felling directions if it appears expedient in the interest of good forestry or for purposes connected with
112
the maintenance of an adequate reserve of timber that they should do so. We all agree with the noble Earl and other noble Lords opposite that this power is perhaps a bit too wide and ought to be limited. We are therefore proposing in the Amendment that compulsory felling will be used for two purposes, and two purposes only—first, to prevent mature trees from rotting and, second, to enforce thinning of any plantations in order to make sure that trees are able to grow properly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("felled") insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I must say that this amply meets our point of view, and I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (1), after "period "to insert, "being not less than two years." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simple: it is to ensure that anyone who is given a direction to fell shall have ample time to dispose of the crop that he is ordered to fell. That seems to be only common justice. I am not an expert in timber selling, but I understand that it is reasonable to allow an owner this period during which he can seek a reasonably good market for the product that he has to sell. In the case of the sale of thinnings, very considerable difficulties may arise, because the private woodland owner's thinnings will be in competition with the immense quantity produced by the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commissioners are beginning to have large acreages of conifer plantations ready for felling, and the private owner, being a small man compared to the Forestry Commissioners, will be in competition with this near-monopoly, and may be unable to find an economic market for his timber unless he lives in or near a coal-mining district where there is a continuous demand for pit-props. I hope the Government will agree to look into this matter, to see whether they can accept an Amendment on these lines.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after (" period") insert ("being not less than two years").—(Lord Hylton.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree with the noble Lord that an owner should

113
be given reasonable time to carry out a felling direction, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands. I am much obliged to him.
LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add to sub-section (1):
"Provided that, in considering whether to give any directions under this subsection, the Commissioners shall take into account the interests of agriculture and the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house and any representations made by the regional advisory committee for the conservancy in which the trees are growing."
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, described to-day how felling directions are to be circumscribed. Previously we had considerable doubts whether the interests of agriculture, in the way of agricultural shelter belts, had been properly considered, and whether the amenity and convenience of farmhouses and dwelling houses had been protected. Noble Lords who live in the North and are familiar with the rigorous climatic conditions there realise that shelter belts are essential as protection for both livestock and homesteads. If timber is removed by a felling direction, grave danger will be occasioned to the occupiers of holdings in the neighbourhood. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give some assurance that this point will not be neglected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said proviso."—(Lord Hylton.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for this Amendment. On the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said he would like to look at this clause to see what could be done to protect parks and private grounds. I think this Amendment would do something to give the necessary protection. We should also like to see the interests of agriculture carefully considered before any felling directions were issued. I would make this suggestion to the noble Lord: we would accept this Amendment as it stands if the noble Lord would be prepared to leave out the last three lines from the word "and," for this reason: that we do not consider it in the
114
least necessary that a reference to representations of the regional advisory committee should be included. Of course, the views of the regional advisory committee will be taken into account, and we do not feel it is necessary to include that point in the Amendment.
LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his assistance in this matter. Noble Lords will realise that these felling directions are a new conception, and it is important that all interests shall be properly protected. The protection of the amenities of houses and agricultural buildings is vital to the countryside. As regards the final three lines about the regional advisory committee, may I say that I am not wedded to this proposal? I thought that point could come in here because felling directions are the kind of thing that would probably be put before the regional advisory committee by the people affected, and we thought that any representations made by those committees should be given due weight. Perhaps the noble Earl would be willing to look at this matter before the Report stage to sec that they are not excluded.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am willing to do that, but I am sure the noble Lord realises that what the Amendment says is that the Commissioners shall take into account any representations made by the regional advisory committee, and does not say that the Commissioners shall consult the committee. If that is what the noble Lord wants, he has not covered the point in these words. If the advisory committee are consulted, certainly their views would be taken into account, and that is all the noble Lord is saying in this form of words.
EARL DE LA WARR: I take it that the noble Earl would accept this Amendment if it were worded that "the Forestry Commissioners shall consult the regional advisory committee." I think there is something in this part of the Amendment, because it is important that the regional advisory committees should be a reality and given something to do. There are excellent voluntary bodies all over the country which are tending to fall out of use because they have nothing to do. In this case we feel that when instructions are given to a private woodland owner, it would be much better, not only for the protection of the woodland

115
owner but for strengthening the hands of the Forestry Commissioners, if those directions were given after consultation with a body of this kind. That would put the committees in much the same position as the agricultural executive committees when a farmer is given a direction. Once a direction has been before the regional advisory committee, I cannot believe that a woodland owner would not then be willing to carry it out. If he did not, he would not receive much sympathy from his neighbours. I suggest to the noble Earl that even if he feels that he cannot accept these words now, he should undertake to consider them between now and the Report stage. Or possibly it would be easier if we put in the Amendment now, on the understanding that the Government desire to retain to themselves the liberty to reconsider the matter.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I feel that there is a difference in the proposal contained in the actual wording of the Amendment and the suggestion referred to, that the Commissioners should always consult the advisory committee. That is not what is suggested by the Amendment. What is suggested is a sort of safeguard to the owner who feels that he may have been aggrieved. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said, if the owner knows that the Forestry Commission have heard his objections through the regional advisory committee, and he still gets a direction to fell, he would probably have no reason to feel aggrieved at all. I hope the noble Earl will consider accepting this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to add a few words, because the noble Viscount has reminded me of the reason why we put the Amendment in this form. It was because we felt that probably the bulk of the directions that were given by the Forestry Commission would, in fact, be agreed to by woodland owners, and we did not want to bother anybody to go any further. We felt that it was only where there was disagreement that the woodland owner should put his case to the committee. It would be carrying matters rather far to say that on all occasions, in regard to any direction, even though the woodland owner agreed to it, the committee must be consulted.
LORD HYLTON: The noble Earl opposite will see the way in which our minds are working. We are anxious that these felling directions should in as many cases as possible be agreed with the owners, without appeals, and we thought that consultation with and the representations of the regional advisory committees would be valuable for this purpose. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has pointed out that when a direction to crop is issued there are consultations with the agricultural executive committees. We hope that these forestry felling directions may be dealt with in much the same way. I do not know whether the noble Earl can meet us any further on the point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We agree entirely with what most noble Lords have said about the importance of consulting the regional advisory committees in suitable cases. Some cases, where agreement between the owner and the Commissioners about the felling is patent, would not be suitable, as the noble Earl has just said, but no doubt others would be. But I think the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment does not refer to consultations with the regional advisory committees, but merely says that their views should be taken into account when expressed. We do not think that that is necessary. However, if the noble Lord feels that, from the point of view of drafting, it is necessary, I will gladly accept it, and perhaps look at it again with him between now and the Report stage.
LORD HYLTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl. If any difficulties do arise and the drafting is not considered suitable, perhaps the noble Earl will either improve it himself or let us know, and we will improve it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is an Amendment which I know will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. Its object is simply to exempt trees in dedicated woodlands from compulsory felling directions. I am sure everyone will agree that such compulsory felling directions are unnecessary in the case of woods which are managed, by agreement with the owners, according to the principles of good forestry. We therefore propose in this respect that dedicated woodlands shall be exempt from that important provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("or of any trees on land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant under the Forestry Act 1947").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.25 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (2):
"or of any trees standing on land held inalienably by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty."
The noble Earl said: I do not think it is necessary to detain your Lordships long on this Amendment. I speak not just as a member of your Lordships' House but as the Chairman of the Estates Committee of the National Trust. Therefore, although it is not a personal interest, I have an interest that I should perhaps declare. As your Lordships know, these houses and lands are handed over to the Trust with the special idea of preservation. Although we try to administer our woods according to the principle of dedication, I think it would be difficult, as there are special problems attaching to their being handed over, for them to be put under a dedication scheme—certainly that applies to the lands that are held inalienably. I would therefore ask the noble Earl to consider this Amendment with regard to their exemption from this clause. It was suggested that we should ask for exemption under Clause 3 —that is, exemption from the need to apply for a felling licence—but I did not think that would be right. I do not see any reason why we should not be subject, just like anybody else, to the need to procure licences for fellings. But on some of these properties there are wonderful trees which might be regarded by the Forestry Commission as mature for felling but which it would be a national tragedy to fell. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to meet me on this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD WINSTER: I should like in two or three words to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. The Amendment refers to lands which have been handed over inalienably to the National Trust as places of historic interest or natural beauty. It is to the words "or natural
118
beauty" that I address myself. I am sure that all noble Lords can think of many landscapes in which the beauty rests wholly upon the trees, whether they grow naturally or whether they have been planted by an owner. That being so, I feel that it would be rather harsh if an outside body could come in and order the felling of trees upon which the natural beauty of the land and the landscape depended. By his acceptance of the previous Amendment the noble Earl showed himself sympathetic to the idea lying behind this present Amendment, and I hope that he may go further and accept this one.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I also should like to support this Amendment, which is supported by the County Councils Association. It seems to me that we sometimes come down to this House in a certain frame of mind, and express concern about the actions of certain owners and local authorities, and we then set up bodies which are designed to protect amenities. We then come down in another frame of mind, and undermine what we have done previously. Having encouraged the setting up of this body, I feel that we ought to trust them. I think I am right in saying that there are some emergency powers that could be used by the Forestry Commission if the National Trust did something of a quite extraordinarily foolish nature.
LORD HYLTON: I should like to sup-port this Amendment, principally for this reason: that in this Bill as drawn the Forestry Commission are not mentioned as being particularly interested in amenity. In fact I think it has excluded any words about amenity. If that is so—and there may be good reasons for it, about which we shall be told later—then it is important that the Forestry Commission do not impinge upon the National Trust property, which of course has been inalienably made over to the nation for the protection of historic buildings and natural beauty. If the Forestry Commission do not wish to be considered interested in amenity, they cannot wish to be involved in National Trust property. As the noble Lord opposite has said, this Trust exists for the protection of natural beauty; I think that must be quite clear.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I feel that perhaps there is some misunderstanding

119
on this clause. It has been suggested by all noble Lords who have spoken that if the Forestry Commissioners had this power to fell trees on land owned by the National Trust, the power would be used to fell trees which were part of the scenic beauty in particularly lovely beauty spots —trees which have been preserved as part of the National Trust property for that very reason. I can assure noble Lords that the Forestry Commissioners have no intention whatever of felling any trees which are part of the scenic beauty of some area owned by the National Trust. But, of course, as your Lordships know, the National Trust is a very large land owner, and has extensive woodlands. It has been suggested that the National Trust should be exempted under this clause. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment said that they would be subject to licensing for felling; that they ought to be asked to apply for licences in the ordinary way if they want to fell trees. In the same way, presumably, conditions should be attached to their licences about replanting, and nobody objects to that. Is it not a little illocical, therefore, to object to something else which is in the interests of good forestry?
Noble Lords will have observed that the powers of the Commission in relation to felling are limited to thinning plantations and to cutting down trees which are beginning to rot. Surely, plantations on the properties of the National Trust might well be thinned. Let us hope that they will be thinned voluntarily. I have no doubt that that will happen as a general rule, because the National Trust will wish to manage their woods in the interests of good forestry. But if they did not do so, there should be some power to make certain that the young plantations are managed in the interests of good forestry. That is all that this clause sets out to do. I can assure noble Lords that the Forestry Commissioners would not insist on felling any tree which was of value from the scenic point of view, and also that they would consult with the National Trust about any felling proposals which arose in connection with one of their properties.
EARL DE LA WARR: I realise that there is no disagreement at all between us as to what should be done. But the
120
trouble about being a reasonable Minister is that one thinks that everybody who comes after him is also going to be reasonable. We are delighted to have the noble Earl's assurances, but we know that if they carry his present chiefs they certainly do not carry their successors. I think it was a little unfair of him to use against us the fact that we had not asked to be excepted from other parts of the Bill. There is no reason at all, for the purposes of amenity, why we should be granted exemption from having to apply for felling licences. If we want to fell trees which could be preserved it is right that we should have to apply for licences, and I cannot see any reason why we should be excepted from conditions of replanting and so on, if we did obtain those licences. But when it comes to giving an outside body—and particularly a body not associated with the amenity questions, as the Forestry Commission are not—power to compel the felling of trees in these properties which have been picked out for special reasons from the properties of the United Kingdom, then it becomes a very heavy responsibility. The matters with which we are dealing are very long-term matters, and I ask the Minister to meet us on this point.
LORD WINSTER: Would it help if words such as "felling in the interests of good forestry" were inserted? I agree that the Amendment as drafted is rather wide.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hesitate to use the word "inalienably" again because it always beats me, but as your Lordships may know, we have two types of property, one of which is alienable, and which can be sold. That is nearly always the least important property from the point of view of amenity and natural beauty, and therefore we have excepted that land from this Amendment. All we have asked for is the exception from the clause of the inalienable land.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the necessity of thinning on properties owned by the National Trust. He did not refer to the other category of trees which have to be felled in order to prevent deterioration. I am not very familiar with the National Trust properties, but I think it probable that a considerable number of trees which

121
they wish to preserve for beauty purposes are deteriorating. Perhaps he could agree that in respect of that category the National Trust could be exempted, whereas they could still be subjected to the provisions of the clause with regard to thinning their young plantations.
THE EARL OF LiSTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken, because this is a matter about which we all wish to keep open minds. Many different and interesting considerations have been urged in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment. I should like him to allow us to look into the matter again, in the light of what has been said, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We should like to meet his difficulty and, at the same time, be sure that he shares our desire to safeguard the interests of good forestry.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that is reasonable, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to add to subsection (2):
"or of any trees standing or growing on land comprised in a park."
The noble Earl said: This point was alluded to earlier in the Bill, and from something the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said, I had hopes that the Government might be willing to accept this Amendment. I think the Lord Chancellor also gave me hope. The point is that earlier in the Bill I suggested to the Committee that parks should be exempted altogether from this rigid control by the Forestry Commission, because they so greatly affect the amenities of the owner of the whole property and of the mansion house. In reply to that suggestion, the Government pointed out that there were some parks where there was a real danger of fine trees being cut, simply because the owner could not afford to keep them, and that in the interests of timber preservation it was necessary to maintain some measure of control, even in. parks. I submit, however, that that point does not apply to the question of compulsory felling orders. It would surely be a drastic interference with the amenities of any owner living on his property if he were ordered by the Forestry Commission to fell trees in his
122
own park which he wanted to keep for purposes of beauty; and the amount of timber involved here would be very small indeed. I hope the Government will allow owners to keep their parks beautiful, and to preserve them as they have been accustomed to for generations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("or of any trees standing or growing on land comprised in a park ").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think we all have the same object in mind. We certainly do not want trees to be felled in private parks attached to houses when they obviously serve a scenic purpose. I had hoped that the Amendment we have just accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because it means that the Forestry Commissioners will be obliged to give due consideration to the amenity value of trees standing in private grounds before any felling direction can be given. The difficulty—as, I think, was mentioned at an earlier stage—about accepting an Amendment such as that now moved by the noble Earl to exempt parks is that they include a very large quantity of tim-ber—for instance, the national parks set up under the National Parks Act, and the very large parklands in Scotland which, although attached to the estates, do not form part of the grounds of the mansion. If we were to exempt all parks, in the same way as churchyards, orchards and the like, we might lose control of a very large quantity of timber indeed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We on this side of the House fully realise the difficulty mentioned by the noble Earl. We all know of parks which are surrounded by woods, where it is difficult to tell exactly where the park begins and ends. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, or any of us means to include more than what forms part of the amenities of a mansion, or other private or public open space. I feel, however, that there is a danger, in our zeal to promote the interests of forestry and to secure complete uniformity, that we may tend to go too far. Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example. During the War, near where I was living, alongside a Roman road there were two or three acres of land where remains of Celtic fields were clearly visible. They had not

123
changed since ancient times, and they were almost unique in that part of the country. In their patriotic zeal—although it made no difference to the food production of the country—the county agricultural committee had the land ruthlessly ploughed up; and all the signs of Celtic agriculture disappeared. I have no doubt that other noble Lords could multiply such instances.
There are similar instances in the sphere of forestry in which it is the amenities not only of the owner but of the public also, as well as the beauties of our country, which are concerned, and where the same type of thing which I have mentioned could occur. I will give a personal example. In my own park, I have a wood —not a very large one, I suppose: about twenty or thirty acres—of oak trees. All these oak trees are between 400 and 500 Years old. They are past their prime, but they are still very fine trees, and I have no doubt that some would consider they ought to be cut down. Some time ago, in connection with projects of my own, I called in a great forestry expert, and I took him round and showed him these trees. He was torn between the interests of good forestry and of the preservation of this rather unusual wood. Eventually he came down on the side of preservation. He said to me "You will not see another wood round here as ancient as this." That is the sort of thing which, I suggest, ought to be preserved. I do not say that the Forestry Commission would not agree, but there ought to be some protection against the possibility of that type of woodland being entirely sacrificed to the interests of commercial forestry. I would ask the Government, if they cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment in its present form whether they will not try to think out some form of words which might achieve the object which I am sure we all have in view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I reply at once? I agree very largely with what the noble Marquess says. This point really arose on the last Amendment; it is the same sort of point as that adumbrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. The difficulty about accepting the word "park" is that one cannot possibly define a park. A park can embrace purely commercial woodland, which ought to be conducted and
124
managed in the ordinary way. We should all desire that the power of the Forestry Commission should apply in such cases, notwithstanding that the woodland is in a park. We should all agree, on both sides of the House, that where we are dealing with the sort of park mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which possesses scenic or historic value, or is remarkable for its age or appearance, or is unique in any other way, these powers should not apply. The trouble is to get a definition; we all want the same thing. I will investigate this matter between now and the next stage, to see whether I can get some sort of definition. I cannot accept this Amendment, for the reason I have given: that I am unable to define "park." The term may include purely commercial woodland without any æsthetic or historic value—an ordinary, "common or garden" plantation which needs to be thinned in the ordinary way. If I can devise some method of differentiating between these two things I shall be able to give the noble Earl what he is asking for, without giving away a point which he does not want—applying these restrictions to an ordinary commercial plantation just because it happens to be inside a park.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Will the Lord Chancellor consider using some such words as "attached to a house in private ownership" or "attached to a messuage or mansion house "?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think those words will do. You may have a private park with commercial woodland on the periphery. But we will see what we can do. The last thing the Forestry Commission want is to go to a land owner and say of a tree or private wood: "Go and cut that down." They do not want that power, and it would be ridiculous to try to exercise it. The problem now is to find the right words.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his conciliatory reply. In view of what he has said, I do not propose to press this Amendment at this stage, but I hope that he and the Government will be able to meet us on this point. I would ask him to bear this in mind. It is not merely a matter of trees of particular beauty or of great historic interest, such as those to which the noble and learned

125
Viscount referred, but of the affection of the owner for them, which may be purely sentimental and of a nature that perhaps may not impress the Forestry Commission. I suggest that we ought to deal tenderly with points like that, because, after all, this is a man's home, and even a land owner has some rights left in this bureaucratic age. In a place where he was born, brought up, lives and, generally speaking, carries out a vast amount of unpaid work, I submit that some respect should be paid to his feelings.
I know the noble and learned Viscount has no desire to violate those feelings at all, but I submit that in drafting an Act of Parliament we ought to protect such a man. Thirty years in another place and ten years here have made me suspicious of the argument which the Lord Chancellor has just used, that this is the last thing the Forestry Commission would ever wish to do, and that they are not the sort of people who would ever want to do such a thing. We can all agree about that. But we are here drafting an Act of Parliament which is going to be on the Statute Book for a large number of years. We do not know by whom this Act of Parliament will be administered ten, fifteen or twenty years hence, or longer. I would remind the House that even to-day there are cases, of which one constantly reads in the newspapers, of powers which were conferred on His Majesty's Government in war-time circumstances which are now, rightly or wrongly—I am not arguing that point— being used for entirely different purposes from what was originally contemplated. So if we want to protect an owner in a matter of this sort, and I think we ought to, I submit we ought to put it in the Bill.
A further point is the extent of these parks. I am not talking about national parks but the parks referred to by my noble friend behind me, the parks which are part of a man's home and which are all marked in the Ordnance Survey as parks. I have never heard before that there was any difficulty in identifying them, but I take it from the Lord Chancellor that that is the case. I suggest that it ought not to be impossible to find a definition which does mean the type of park we have in mind. I hope the Government will labour to achieve that result. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved, to add to subsection (2):
"or of trees planted or required to be retained for the purposes of amenity or shelter."
The noble Lord said: Here is another difficulty of definition. This refers to amenity or shelter. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, partly dealt with this point when he referred to agriculture, but I should like to say one word about the sheep country. There are all sorts of problems up there. The difficulty is to define what is a shelter belt and what is not. Some-times a whole wood instead of a belt will be a shelter, and it will be advisable to cut half a wood at a time. There might be a difference of opinion between the Forestry Commission and the farmer as to whether half a wood should be cut instead of a whole wood. Will the noble Earl consider possibly as a useful thing whether an appeal to an agricultural committee with regard to these farming questions would be a useful thing? I should be glad if he could give it some consideration, because I think the need for shelter is a real one. We do not want to be in the hands of people who look at trees only from the point of view of timber. If we can have some further thought given to my Amendment with regard to shelter for animals, along with the previous Amendment brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which the noble Earl is considering, I shall be grateful. I think it would be worth while. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Kinnaird.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMP-BELL: I should like briefly to support this Amendment, especially with regard to the point of shelter in open hill country, where it frequently is not until the trees have reached timber size that they give effective shelter. If those trees are clear felled, it may be seventy to ninety years before new plantings provide their shelter value and the land can again be fully stocked.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure noble Lords will realise that my other self, which is concerned with agriculture, has listened with great sympathy to what has been said on the subject of the importance of shelter to agricultural land. I think that both noble Lords will agree that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord

127
Hylton, goes a long way to meet the point. In accordance with the terms of his Amendment, the Forestry Commissioners will have to take into consideration the interests of agriculture before issuing felling directions. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, suggested that some outside body concerned with agriculture should be consulted in matters of this kind. We will certainly address our minds to that point, to see whether anything can be devised. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that his Amendment as it stands at the moment would not be suitable for inclusion.
LORD KINNAIRD: I quite agree. Perhaps on Report stage we can consider it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Any directions given by the Commissioners under this section shall contain a statement of the grounds, upon which they are given."
The noble Earl said: I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that, when a felling direction is issued, the owner should know the reason for the issue of the direction. He may want to appeal against it if he feels that he has been treated badly by the Forestry Commission, and will want to know why. This Amendment makes it obligatory for the Commissioners to notify the owner of the reasons why they issue a felling direction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendments to Clause 4, so I think I should move it as those Amendments were accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("a") to ("under") in line 38 and insert ("committee appointed").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Obligation to purchase land in certain cases
8.—(1) If any person to whom directions are given under this Act claims that compliance with those directions would involve him in a net loss after taking into account any benefit arising therefrom in respect of other trees of which he is the owner, he may by notice given in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period request the appropriate Minister to acquire his interest in the land affected by the directions.
6.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved in subsection (1) to omit all words after "period" and to insert:
"offer to sell the trees affected by the directions to the Commissioners."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises a point of considerable importance. The Bill as drafted says that if any person feels himself financially injured by the directions of the Forestry Commission, he may require the Minister to acquire his land. Surely, that is not the right solution to the problem. In the first place, an estate may be greatly injured by taking out of it small or large woods, so that the property is no longer in a ringed fence. It may also very much interfere with the amenities of an estate if a wood which has previously been grown for its beauty is to be converted into a scientific plantation of conifers. Also, I should have thought that from the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture, this was a most inconvenient way of dealing with the problem. I should have thought the last thing the Government would want was to own a large number of small, isolated plots of land, which are dotted all over the country. Therefore, from the practical point of view, this seems to me to be a very bad way of dealing with the particular problem.
But a much greater issue than that is raised here—namely, who is to pay for stockpiling. As I understand the Bill, if an owner is told, in the interests of the State, either to fell or not to fell his trees, and he can prove to the Minister that he is financially injured thereby, surely the right and proper way to deal with the matter is for him to be compensated at such a figure as an impartial tribunal may award. So far as I am aware, in every branch of life, if somebody is injured financially by the State or any other party,

129
for reasons which entail that this injury must take place—for instance, if a road or a railway is being driven through his property—the injured person is compensated financially. My Amendment seeks to enable the injured person who has not been allowed to fell his trees, because the Government wish to stockpile them and keep them for national purposes, to call upon the Government to buy the trees. Surely, there is no difficulty about the Government buying the trees and cutting them down and storing them, in the same way as they are at present, I hope, storing aluminium, copper and all other materials which may be required in a national emergency.
In that connection, I should like to mention that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, just published, on the Forestry Commission states that the National Coal Board are keeping only a two-and-a-half month's supply of pit-props. That seems to be very inadequate stockpiling on the part of the National Coal Board in present circumstances. I hope that the authorities are not going to try to pass the whole cost of stockpiling timber on to the land owners. It is a national obligation, and if people are not to be allowed to run their estates as the financial requirements of the estates dictate, then clearly they ought to be compensated by the Government. This may be a matter of fundamental importance to many estates. It may be that the owner of property is required to find a heavy sum in death duties. That is not his fault. The only way for him to raise this money, and to keep the estate intact, may be to fell some perfectly mature timber. If he is not allowed to sell that timber in the course of ordinary marketing, surely he ought to be allowed to call upon the Government to buy it. If the Government say, "We do not want this timber to pass to the trade. We do not want it to be consumed. It would unduly deplete our national reserves of timber," the man in question should be in a position to fall on the Government themselves to buy and store the trees. Otherwise, what is he to do?
I am aware that there is provision in the Bill for loans—I do not think they are free of interest—by the Government to an owner. That may not get over the difficulty, however, because, after all, the
130
loans suggested in the Bill are entirely at the discretion of the Government. It seems to me to be elementary justice to say that if a man is not allowed to manage his property as a business proposition, and to do what the dictates of financial prudence and, ex hypothesi in this case, good forestry require, because of some overriding national reason, then he should be compensated financially by the State. And in the case of refusal of permission to fell, the only way the State can compensate him is by themselves buying the trees and felling them; otherwise the whole of his forestry programme may be upset. The Bill is not only preventing the owner from felling, but is preventing him from replanting in the proper rotation. Therefore, I do hope that the Committee will give very careful consideration to the point embodied in this Amendment. I ought to add that there is a similar Amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and Lord Kinnaird which, so far as I can make out, covers the same point. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill says that that Amendment is preferred by the Government to mine, I will not press the point, but I hope that one of the two Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out from ("period") to end of line 3 and insert ("offer to sell the trees affected by the directions to the Commissioners").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I take some encouragement from what the noble Earl said at the end of his remarks, in connection with the next Amendment. As that Amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, deals with the same subject, perhaps I may deal with both at the same time. The object of this clause, as the noble Earl I know will agree, is to safeguard the interests of the woodland owner. That is why it was inserted in the Bill. The purpose is to save the woodland owner from financial loss as a result of a direction to fell his trees. Under the clause as it stands, he can compel the Minister to buy his land if he insists on the felling direction in spite of the calculation that the owner will lose money. I believe the suggestion of the noble Earl is that the owner should be able to compel the Commissioners to buy his trees instead of his land. I think that

131
might suit some owners, but others might prefer selling their land to selling their trees. I suggest that we might be able to agree on an Amendment on the lines of the next one, that standing in the names of Lord Airlie and Lord Kinnaird. What we should like to see—I think this is what both they and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, would desire—is that the woodland owner should have the option of obliging the Minister, if he persists in his felling directions in the knowledge that they would involve the owner in financial loss, to purchase either the land or the trees. If the proposal is acceptable to other noble Lords, we will try to draft something suitable before the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am certainly prepared to withdraw my Amendment on that assurance, but I should like to put this to the noble Earl. Surely the Amendment in the names of Lord Airlie and Lord Kinnaird is a very simple one. What is the harm of putting it into the Bill? If it is thought that it could be improved later, that could be done during the Report stage. So far as I can make out, the Committee are postponing a great deal of their work until the Report stage. I have never been present during a Committee stage of a Bill when so much was referred to the Report stage as has been referred in regard to this Bill. The intention of our procedure is, surely, that we should amend a Bill in Committee, and then if, later on, it transpires that the work is capable of improvement, that can be done on the Report stage. To push nearly all our Amendments on to the Report stage will mean in effect that we shall have a second Committee stage and no Report stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We are all agreed that we want to save the time of your Lordships, and I venture to suggest that my proposal would save more time than the proposal of the noble Earl. I suggest that the wording of this clause will need to be "tinkered with" quite a lot, and that it should be redrafted and submitted to your Lordships at the Report stage.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The whole clause?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the redrafting will affect a considerable
132
portion of the clause. If agreement is reached on the new drafting, the clause will, of course, be taken very quickly. On the other hand, if the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and Lord Kinnaird is accepted to-day, we shall have to discuss that before getting on with the redrafting of the clause. I think that my proposal would save the time of the Committee.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: I find the wording to subsection (1) difficult to understand. It appears to contain a reference to thinning woods. At the present time the owner can readily sell his thinnings. During the war, however, I found that thinning was something which no one could afford to do. It was impossible to sell thinnings, and they involved considerable expense. I believe that the time may occur again when the losses referred to in subsection (1) may become very common. However, as I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is willing to redraft this clause, if the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, approves, I will not move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I confess that I am rather in the dark as to what are the Government's intentions with regard to redrafting Clause 8. I was hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would speak earlier on this, otherwise I should not have intervened. I understood him to say just now that the Government would submit Amendments to Clause 8 which would involve a large measure of redrafting of the clause. Is that so?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I make the position plain? I think it is generally acceptable. I am advised that the whole clause would need considerable redrafting; the wording would have to be "tinkered with" quite a lot in order to carry out the object, if these particular circumstances arose, of making the woodland owner free to offer the Com-missioners either his land or his trees.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am obliged to the noble Earl. All I wish to say further is this. I should like to express my appreciation of the way the noble Earl is viewing this point, but, surely, in the circumstances the clause would have to be recommitted. We cannot make an Amendment of that size on the Report stage without sacrificing the purpose for which the Report stage was intended. We shall be presented with a long new draft, the meaning of which will possibly not transpire until it has been fully discussed in Committee. Unless it is taken in the Committee stage, we shall not have a chance of having second thoughts about it, which is what the Report stage exists for.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly see that the noble Earl's view on these points is conveyed to my noble friend the Leader of the House. It will be considered in relation to other matters which have also been suggested as being more proper for recommitment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl whether he intends to cover the case which frequently occurs, in which the ownership of trees and the ownership of land are different. I presume it is the intention to cover such cases.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Enforcement of conditions and directions
10.—(1) If any works required to be carried out by conditions of a licence are not carried out in accordance with the conditions, the Commissioners may give notice to the owner of the land requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such time as may be so specified for remedying the default; and if after the expiration of the time so specified any steps required by the notice have not been taken, the Commissioners may enter on the land and take those steps, and may recover from the person to whom the notice was given any expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith.
6.20 p.m.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved in subsection (1), after "may" where that word occurs a fourth time, to insert "after consultation with the regional advisory committee." The noble Lord said: Clause 10 deals with the enforcement of conditions
134
and directions. Among the powers given to the Forestry Commissioners is the power to enter into land when conditions have not been carried out. That is a very wide power and, I think, a novelty. The suggestion in this Amendment is that, as the Government have accepted the conception of regional advisory committees, they should clothe those bodies with some flesh. The Amendment proposes that the Forestry Commissioners should consult the committees before taking the steps outlined in Clause 10. I think that would be an improvement in this Clause, since the powers given are to be somewhat dictatorial, and any action by which the regional advisory committees can oil the machinery might help both the Forestry Commissioners and the owners of land affected. I do not need to say anything more, because the proposition is a simple one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the regional advisory com-mittee ").—(Lord Hylton)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is clearly an important and difficult point. We are all concerned about what should happen if there were a difference of opinion between a woodland owner and the Forestry Commissioners concerning the fulfilment of the conditions attaching to a licence. What has to be decided is whether or not these conditions have been carried out. In his Amendment the noble Lord suggests that the regional advisory committee is the right body to help the Forestry Commissioners to decide this question fairly, and asks that they should be consulted before entry on the land by the Forestry Commissioners to do this work. Whether or not we find a suitable body for this purpose, I think the regional advisory committee are not the right body for the job. In the first place, they were probably consulted by the Commissioners about what conditions should be attached to the licence, and secondly, if the Forestry Commissioners were obliged by Statute to consult the regional advisory committee about every single case that arose, the committees would have so much work of a detailed routine nature to carry out that it would be difficult for them to discharge the more important aspects of their responsibilities. I will certainly give this matter careful consideration between now and Report stage and see what we can do,

135
but I do not feel that the proposition of the noble Lord meets the point we should all like to meet.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What is to happen in a case where an owner has claimed that the direction of the Forestry Commissioners has been carried out? Suppose that the direction is that the plantation should be thinned. The owner might say it had been properly thinned, and the Forestry Commissioners might hold that he had not thinned it enough. Is that not the sort of point on which the view of the regional advisory committee would be valuable? If the Forestry Com-missioners are required by law to enter into a man's property and take the drastic action mentioned in this clause, surely it is going to help their work very much if they can get local backing. I confess that the more I consider this Bill, the less do I see how it is going to be administered. We have created this vast bureaucracy which is to plant 2,000,000 acres of their own and have these powers over all other woodlands in the country, some 3,000,000 acres—a centralised body sitting in London, though of course with their regional officers scattered over the country. I cannot conceive how they can function in matters of this sort unless they take local informed opinion with them, and I hope the regional advisory committees will be brought in wherever there is a real issue. I am sure it would pay the Forestry Commissioners. Even if they had to deal with an unreasonable land owner, it would be much better that a local committee should be consulted and express their opinion. If they sided with the Forestry Commissioners, that would enormously strengthen the hand of the Commissioners. If they sided against the Forestry Commissioners, then there would be prima facie cause for thinking the Forestry Commissioners had possibly made a mistake. Even the Forestry Commissioners are not infallible, and I suggest that wherever there is serious friction it is always better to get a second opinion.
I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that the local contact work carried out by the agricultural executive committees is a wonderful and notable thing. None of the agricultural programmes of the Governments, during war time and post war, could possibly have been carried out if it had not been for that
136
close local co-operation between the agricultural executive committees and the farmers. The same questions will inevitably arise in forestry. I hope the noble Earl will look more kindly on the regional committees in this matter.
EARL DE LA WARR: I appreciate that the noble Earl has said that he will consider this matter before the Report stage, and of course we are pleased to hear that, but I cannot help feeling it is a little frightening that it should be necessary for the noble Earl to say he cannot accept this Amendment straight away but must consider it. It seems to me surprising when I think of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I should have thought that when there were difficulties the first thing a wise conservator would want to do would be to call in the regional advisory committee and solve the problem with the help of experienced local opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that if every case were referred to the committees, they would be overloaded with detailed work; but will there really be so many cases of disagreement? I do not think so. On the whole the Forestry Commissioners are reasonable in the requests they make of woodland owners, and I think woodland owners are extremely reasonable in their response. I do not think disagreements are going to be so numerous. There are far more farms than forest estates and it is possible for every agricultural direction given to farmers to go before the agricultural executive committees, so that when the farmer gets his orders, though he may or may not like them, he knows that they have been given by a body of land owners and farmers and other representatives of agricultural interests.
I do not imagine that the noble Lord will want to press the Amendment in the light of the undertaking given by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but I trust that this matter will receive serious consideration. I feel that not only the reaction of your Lordships is at stake here, but the reaction of woodland owners in the country. As has so often been said during our discussions, these schemes will not work unless you have the average good woodland owner behind you. You can have him behind you, but you must consult him and his representatives.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Earls, Lord De La

137
Warr and Lord Selborne, for what they have said, and for the tacit support which they have received from other noble Lords. I will certainly consider this point more thoroughly and carefully in the light of the views that have been expressed. What we want is to find a way to bring the parties together by mutual agreement, or by the acceptance of the view of some outside body which they both can regard as being fair and reasonable. I will certainly look at the matter again in that light.
LORD HYLTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his assurance. He made two points which I should like to mention. First, he said that these matters might be referred to the regional committees. That is only a pious hope at the present moment, and I do not think we can rely upon the fact that that will be done by the Forestry Commission. Secondly, he hoped that the committees would not be given too much work. The experience of all these committees is that they are given too little work to do. If the noble Earl will arrange for them to be given more work, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated. In view of the re-marks of my noble friends, Lord De La Warr and Lord Selborne, and of the assurance given by the noble Earl opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD moved, after sub-section (2) to insert:
"(3) Any question arising under this section whether there has been a breach of any of the conditions of a licence shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1947."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes that the question of whether works and conditions have been carried out should be referred to arbitration. The Amendment would bring the clause more into line with the existing arbitration provisions in the case of disputes as to dedication agreements. In view of what my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, said just now about agreement and the benefit of consultation, I feel sure that this Amendment would tend to assist in a satisfactory solution of any dispute. Many people think it is wrong that the Commissioners should be in a position to direct that certain works be carried out, or allege that there is a
138
breach of the conditions of the licence, without any provision for an independent review. This point has already been discussed, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment covers a point that has already been raised—namely, the question of how to settle differences of opinion about the carrying out of conditions attached to a licence to fell. I will go into it in the same way. I am informed that there is no exact parallel, as I think the noble Lord suggested, between what he proposes and the provisions in the Forestry Act, 1947 There are considerable differences, and we cannot hope to bring the two things into line. However, I will look at the matter in the hope of being able to find some way of satisfying all noble Lords who are concerned with this point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether we can have an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to provide that there shall be some appeal on this specific issue as to whether the directions of the Forestry Commission have, or have not, been carried out. The question of whether a wood, for instance, has been properly thinned, properly drained, or whatever it is, is something on which there can be two opinions. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, said. It is wrong in itself that what I have described (and I do not withdraw the term) as a bureaucratic body from Whitehall should be able to order people to do this, that and the other, on their own property, while not taking any of the financial risk and with no question of appeal. If the noble Earl can give an assurance that it is the desire of the Government that on an issue of this sort there should be some tribunal which could decide between the owner and the local forestry officer, that would make me much happier about the noble Lord withdrawing his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I rather suspect that this point is covered by the discussion on appeals that we had on Clause 4. If the Lord Chancellor would say that that is so, I think it would meet the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is misapprehension in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about this matter. As this is drafted, if any works required to be carried out are not carried out, then certain results follow. The noble Earl seems to think that all the Forestry Commission need do is to assert that the conditions have not been carried out, and then they can go ahead. His Majesty's courts are always with us. If a tribunal is not provided, you can bring an action before the courts and say: "These people are going on my land on the ground that I have not carried out certain conditions. I assure you that I have carried out those conditions." The real question is not whether this matter is in the hands of the Forestry Commission. It is not. The real question is whether we shall have His Majesty's courts of justice deal with this matter, or some other domestic tribunal, advisory body, regional council, or whatever you like. It is a complete misapprehension, if I may say so, with great respect, to think that the Forestry Commission, merely by asserting a thing, can establish that it has or has not happened. What I understand the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to say is that he will consider this point in conjunction with the other matters, to see whether this arbitration method, the regional advisory council method, or some other method of that sort is the appropriate one to adopt. There obviously must be some method.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his remarks. May I say to him: Thank God we still have the Law Courts!
LORD KINNAIRD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Penalties
11.—(1) Any person who fells any tree in contravention of the provisions of section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or twice the sum which appears to the court to be the value of the tree, whichever is the higher.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the Commissioners under section ten of this Act, any person who, without reasonable excuse—

(a) fails to comply with directions given to him under this Act requiring him to fell any tree; or

140

(b) fails to take any steps required by a notice given to him under the said section ten, other than steps which he is not entitled by virtue of his estate or interest in the land to take,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in sub-section (1), after "tree" to insert "or trees." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is rather a difficult one, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will not be too severe with me if I am incorrect in my understanding of what it really means. As I see it, the clause as it stands means that if you fell one tree you are liable to a fine of up to £50 or twice its value, and so on, up to the number of trees you fell; that is to say, if you fell 100 to 200 trees you are liable to a maximum penalty of 100 or 200 times £50—the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong. If it means what I think it means, it seems to me that a perfectly innocent person, or one who intends to be innocent and is carrying out his forestry operations properly, but has made the mistake of not getting his licence in time, may incur a heavy fine. I do not wish to protect the person who deliberately breaks the law, who deliberately fells trees without proper regard for forestry considerations or without regard to stocks of timber and so on; but there are many occasions when people who are conducting their forestry operations as seriously as they can have to get on with their thinning owing to changes in the weather. They cannot finish planting or things of that sort, and there are times when they want to get on with thinning as quickly as possible. It is not always easy to receive a reply to applications for a licence. Indeed, we were told that it was unreasonable to expect an answer to an application for a felling licence within two months. That arose on one of the earlier clauses in Committee. Whether or not two months is reasonable is perhaps neither here nor there, and while I agree that everybody should accept the necessity for applying for a licence for thinnings, as for other fellings, there are possibilities of making a mistake, and the fine here proposed seems very considerable indeed.
It is possible, in a normal thinning operation in quite a small area, to fell 200 or 300 trees, and fifty times that would be a very large sum. One would think

141
that in a case such as that twice the value of the trees was perfectly adequate, and enough of a deterrent to stop anybody doing it wilfully. I believe that there may be some difficulty in defining where the felling of one tree begins and the felling of a group of trees ends. You may fell one tree at one side of the park, which is one offence, and next week you may commit a similar offence on the other side of the park. If in fact you are felling a plantation in the middle, is that one offence or a hundred offences? I move this Amendment, hoping to obtain some information and suggesting that, if the clause means what I think it means, the penalty can be much too severe. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, after ("tree") insert ("or trees").—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My understanding of this matter—rather newly acquired—is that the penalty is exacted in respect of each tree. That is what I understand the noble Viscount suggested. Consequently, if you cut down 100 trees you could theoretically suffer 100 penalties. But let us see whether this Amendment alleviates the position. It does not overcome the difficulty by putting in the words "or trees." The same situation still arises, and you may still be mulcted 100 times. I think there are two things to be said about these figures. First of all, if we do get people deliberately breaching the law, it must be regarded, in view of the seriousness of the position, as a very serious matter. If we find somebody deliberately breaching this law, it is right and proper that the penalty should be serious, because he is going to make a great deal of profit at present prices, and therefore there ought to be a severe and heavy penalty. The other thing is this. Let it always be remembered that these fines are maximum fines, and are subject to the discretion of a court of law. In customs cases, for instance, a man by breaching the customs law renders himself liable to enormous penalties; but the justices apply the existing law with good sense and in fact the frightful consequences do not follow. I maintain, first, that there ought to be a penalty which can be imposed in appropriate cases and which will be a real sanction and a real preventive against these things being done. The
142
courts will then apply that penalty with reason and discretion, as does a count of justice, and see that the punishment fits the crime. With regard to the particular point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made, the mischief with which he seeks to deal is not in the least alleviated by putting in the words "or trees." For that reason, I should be sorry to accept this Amendment, and equally I should be sorry when we come to the next Amendment if we were to reduce or mitigate the penalty.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the Amendment would not fulfil the purpose intended. I think that there is a very grave danger in the Bill as it stands of a land owner rendering himself liable to an enormous fine by pure inadvertence, either on his part or on the part of his woodman. Just consider this sort of issue which must often arise. A land owner orders that a certain wood should be thinned, in the ordinary and proper course of forestry operations. He takes the view that these trees are probably all less than three or six inches in diameter, whatever the diameter may be. It is possible that with a measurement as fine as that, the woodman may have misunderstood what part of the wood was to be thinned, and might thin trees which were slightly bigger. The land owner might suddenly discover that several hundred trees had been cut which were a fraction over the prescribed diameter, and, therefore, he would be liable to an enormous penalty. I do not think it is enough to say: "Well, the court would never impose such a penalty in a case of that sort." In the first place, the judge may not be learned in forestry. A technical point of that sort may appear altogether different to a layman than it would to anyone experienced in forestry problems. Secondly—and I think one can say this without any disrespect to His Majesty's judges—one frequently hears of hard cases where men have been fined in respect of such matters as building licences or exceeding the speed limit when they have to get to an important public function. That is a very frequent case. A man is trying to get to an important public function, or to carry out some important work, and exceeds

143
the speed limit. He is hauled up before the magistrates and he may suffer quite a severe fine. Everybody says: "Well, that is very bad luck." I am not saying that that sort of thing can be avoided, but I submit that in drafting our Acts of Parliament we ought to try to prevent a case of that sort.
I should like to make this suggestion to the noble and learned Viscount, and perhaps he will consider it before the Report stage. Could we not have a proviso to this clause which says that the felling of more than one tree in the same wood should be the same offence, providing in fact that if more than one tree is felled without permission in the same wood that shall not be a separate offence for every tree? Other-wise, through sheer carelessness or inefficiency on the part of the forester or the woodman, you might get a case where a man was liable to a very heavy fine in respect of hundreds of small trees which were slightly bigger than the prescribed diameter and which had been cut down, perhaps quite honestly, in the course of an ordinary forestry operation. I should like to ask the Government whether they cannot consider treating cases of that sort in units of a wood rather than units of individual trees. I agree that we have also to deal with the case of individual trees. There may be an individual tree which is not in a wood, but when it comes to woods—and the great majority of trees are in woods— then I suggest the wood is the unit and the offence should be limited to that particular wood. I have no objection to making the fine relate to the amount of timber that has been cut down or sold, but the amount of timber that is cut down or sold in achieving an operation such as I have mentioned should be a smaller figure than £50 per tree. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider, if he will, whether we could not regard the problem from the point of view of the wood being the unit rather than the tree.
LORD RAGLAN: I own a few small woods. The more I listen to this debate to-day the more frightened I become. I am fast coming to the conclusion that any person who has the temerity to engage in forestry is a very rash man indeed.
6.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not see how it could be done on the basis of a wood. I do not see how we can define where one wood begins and another ends: there is no clear unit. Suppose an owner has the misfortune to cut down a number of small trees in his wood, to the number of a thousand. What, in that event, does the noble Earl want? Does he desire that the fine should in such a case be based as though the owner had cut down only one tree? Obviously not. Then the fine must be based on the principle of twice the value of the trees. In this case the owner would have to pay twice the value of all the trees he had cut down. The figure would be the same in either case. I do not follow the noble Earl's point but I will read in tomorrow's Hansard what he has said, and if I can understand what at present I do not understand, I will certainly consider the matter. But at present I do not see what difference the Amendment would make.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My point is that it may in fact be one offence, but as the Bill is drafted it is treated as a thousand different offences. The one offence may be the result of carelessness, on the part of the land owner in giving directions, and on the part of the forester in carrying them out. It may be one offence, but if it is treated as a number of separate trees it could be a very serious matter indeed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be one offence, or it may be a thousand offences, but the total penalty for the one offence is the same penalty as the sum total for the thousand offences, because in each case it is double the value of the trees. Whether the owner is ordered to pay £100 or 200 units of ten shillings does not seem to make much difference. However, I will, as I say, look at the point to see whether there is any sub-stance in the noble Earl's point.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, both for telling me that my Amendment does not achieve its object and for what he said about it generally. I agree that the bad offender needs to be fined heavily; but a person who carries out what may be a sound and proper operation such as thinning may yet land himself in heavy penal-ties by carelessness on his own part or on

145
the part of his head forester. He may, in fact, incur a fine of £50,000 for a thousand trees, each worth only about fifteen shillings, I am sure that this provision will operate unfairly. However, in view of the noble and learned Viscount's promise to look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "fifty" and insert "twenty-five". The noble Viscount said: This is another Amendment of the same kind. The fact that the last one which I moved did not find favour with the Committee makes me all the more hopeful that this one may be accepted. The extreme risk which a person might run could be mitigated by reducing the £50 fine to £25. In the case of valuable timber which may be felled by a man who is deliberately trying to evade the law, and who is concerned not with timber but with making money, then twice the value of the trees would be a considerable sum. But it is in the case of a man felling timber which is not in itself valuable, and which probably ought to be felled, that I think the reduction from £50 to £25 would provide a penalty which more nearly meets the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("twenty-five").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD KINNAIRD: I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said. To those of your Lordships of a mathematical turn of mind, it may seem curious, since the object of the Bill is to maintain reserves of growing timber, that for felling a tree a person should be liable to a maximum fine which is half the maximum fine for failing to fell a tree. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whether he does not think the fines should be reversed in view of the object of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to repeat what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said about the importance of having a large maximum penalty as an effective deterrent—and this is a maximum. The magistrate or other judge would be able to use his discretion, and of course he would not dream of imposing the maximum if he thought it unfair or unreasonable. But it is important to have a maximum of
146
fifty pounds to deter people from cutting trees without a licence. I hope the Committee will agree with me on that point.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope the public will take notice of what has emerged from the Government Bench during the last few minutes. If I may take the example which the Lord Chancellor gave, a man may be liable to a fine of £50,000—£50 per tree for 1,000 trees cut in the process of thinning a wood, each of them slightly above the prescribed diameter. It may be an act of carelessness by the land owner or by his forester, but I submit that it is not within reason that Parliament should render a man liable to a fine of £50,000 for what may be simply a piece of carelessness in estate management.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or £25,000.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Or £25,000. That is why I think all these points hang together. But just taking a tree and saying "£50" or "£25" is not really the right way to deal with the matter. The Lord Chancellor has kindly said that he will consider whether the whole problem cannot be dealt with in what I call units of woods. He pointed out that there might be a difficulty in defining what a wood is. I have learnt to-day that you cannot define a park and you cannot define a wood. I should not have thought that our draftsmen were so impotent; I should have thought it was perfectly possible to define "woods." They are defined in the Ordnance Survey. They are all shown.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Shown, yes.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should have thought it would be possible to find words that defined a wood. I suggest that the offences should be dealt with in terms of woods. Once you start taking individual trees you get into those astronomical figures. What the noble Lord behind me said is true: you are not going to encourage people to become foresters in that sort of way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is nothing to do with defining "woods," but is a question whether, instead of "£50" we should put in "£25." In order that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may sleep in his bed. we will consider whether or

147
not we can accept the substitution of those smaller fines. All I want to do is to get some sum which is going to be a serious deterrent to anybody who is setting himself out to breach the law. I hope that the good sense of the justices will not exact exorbitant or astronomical fines. Even if the sum were £25 for an offence, that offence might happen through a perfectly genuine mistake. Knowing what I do of the justices, I feel sure that exorbitant fines will not be imposed.
I have said that I will look into this matter and, if the noble Viscount will trust me, I will certainly see that these figures are considered. All I want to do is to see that a penalty is left which is sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent. If the noble Viscount will only trust me in this matter—it will be a great pity if we have a controversy at this time of night —I do not think he will regret leaving it in that way. I ask him not to press his Amendment now and, without pledging myself definitely, I think I shall be able to give him what he wants on Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I want to repeat that I have no intention in this Amendment of reducing the penalty so that it is not sufficiently severe, but it is the incidental person or the inadvertent person that I want to protect. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This is an Amendment which really has an opposite sense to those I have just been suggesting to your Lordships. It gives a little longer time in which proceedings can be taken. It seems reasonable, in view of the difficulties in detecting offences of this sort, that there should be a possibility of taking proceedings some time after an offence has taken place. The Amendment is not intended to protect the person who has broken the law; indeed, it should be easier under it to proceed against him. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("fifty").—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: TO save the time of the Committee, I will say that we are perfectly prepared to accept this Amendment and also the next one standing in the noble Viscount's name on the paper.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I must apologise to the Committee because, while moving the former of my two Amendments to page 8, line 35, I have spoken on the latter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I have just spoken on this Amendment. I understand that the noble Earl is willing to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
("() Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may be instituted within six months of the first discovery of the offence by the person taking the proceedings, pro-vided that no proceedings shall be instituted more than two years after the date of the offence.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (DEFENCE PURPOSES) BILL
7.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

FALKIRK BURGH EXTENSION &c. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; to be printed: and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.