Sitting of 30 January 1951

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Malayan Battalions
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many Malayan battalions have been formed; and how many British officers and men are serving with them.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): Four battalions of the Malay Regiment have been formed. As already announced, His Majesty's Government are now prepared to meet the cost of raising two further battalions. Between 150 and 200 British officers and men are serving with the Malay Regiment.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what limits the number of Malayan battalions that can be formed? Is it the number of British officers and N.C.O.s available, is it money, or is it the policy of the Colonial Office, the Colonial Government—or what is it?
    Mr. Strachey: I think it is a combination of those factors, and it is considered that it is best to form them battalion by battalion rather than to attempt to go too fast.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that the most suitable type of officer is serving with these battalions, and can he say what arrangements there are to attract the right type?
    Mr. Strachey: I saw some of these battalions when I was in Malaya in the summer, and I formed a very high view of the British officers serving with them. The arrangement for their remuneration
    692
    and conditions is worked out between us and the Colonial Office.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the length of service of British officers with the Malay Regiment? Is he considering the present period of service and appointment?
    Mr. Strachey: All those things are kept continually under review.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What volunteer or territorial formations are there in Malaya now?
    Mr. Strachey: That is a question which I think ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

    Married Quarters, Suez Canal Zone
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters are now available in the Suez Canal area; how many are under construction; and how many it is proposed to start building in 1951.
    Mr. Strachey: There are now 942 married quarters available; 320 are under construction and it is proposed to start building a further 250 in the financial year 1951. The majority of these quarters are of temporary construction.
    Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the present negotiations, with the Egyptian Government, which are of course very important, are not holding up in any way the construction of proper married quarters for the British troops now in the Suez Zone?
    Mr. Strachey: These quarters are under construction.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these married quarters are all concentrated at Fayid, or are other parts of the Canal included, such as Moascar?
    Mr. Strachey: These are overall figures but the majority are in Fayid.

    Barracks (Coal Supplies)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for War why coal supplies in barracks were drastically cut after Christmas.
    Mr. Strachey: Before Christmas, the War Office instructed Commands to take all steps necessary to conserve fuel supplies but to ensure that a reasonable standard of comfort was maintained.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Secretary of State ensure that when these cuts are made the troops will be assured that they will not always appear to be the first to have to take them?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly. I am very concerned that they get adequate supplies.

    Voluntary Enlistment (Age)
    Mr. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War what voluntary engagements are open to men aged 35 years or more, with pervious experience, in the Army.
    Mr. Strachey: With the exception of applicants for the Royal Army Educational Corps, bandsmen and special tradesmen in the Royal Signals, the upper age limit for enlistment as other ranks on normal Regular Army engagements is 30 years. But men over that age with former service may be accepted for enlistment as special cases. Released officers over the age of 35 years, other than retired Regular officers in receipt of retired pay, may apply for re-employment in all arms except the Royal Artillery. The age limits vary as between different arms, but the average is 45 years.
    Mr. Low: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a look at this matter recently, in view of the importance of having men of experience to help to build up the strength of the Army?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, and we are making more and more of these special cases.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that age limit must apply in terms of rank? There must be senior officers over that age who would be of infinite value to the Service.
    Mr. Strachey: As I have said, we make no rigid rule and we can make special cases for individuals who may be of service.
    Brigadier Head: Would the Secretary of State consider looking at this matter again because, in view of expansion and the shortage of manpower, there are a large number of older men who would
    694
    like to come back to the Army very much and would do the job perfectly well and who would free others for a more active rôle.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these older men with previous experience—senior N.C.O.s and warrant officers—are discouraged from coming back because he can offer no assurance that they will be given their old or similar rank in a short time?
    Mr. Strachey: I think it must be a question of the individual case. I do not think we could give an overall assurance.

    Postings (Notice)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for War how long notice is normally given to soldiers before they are posted from one station to another.
    Mr. Strachey: Wherever possible, at least two months' notice of posting is given. Shorter notice may be given when officers and other ranks are posted from a holding unit to more permanent duties or where they are posted as a result of operational necessity or on compassionate grounds.
    Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently two N.C.O.s who had their families living with them were posted from Germany back to this country at only five days' notice, and does he think that that is a reasonable amount of notice?
    Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars.

    Troops, Korea
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to secure that the 29th Infantry Brigade, fighting in Korea, has adequate medical supplies.
    Mr. Strachey: The brigade sailed with its full scale of medical equipment and two months' maintenance stocks. In addition, No. 29 General Hospital, established in Japan, was provided with two months' maintenance stocks for the British forces in Korea as well as two months' stocks for its own maintenance. A further four months' maintenance stocks for the whole force in Korea and

    695
    Japan were despatched to No. 29 General Hospital early in December and will now be arriving. Further medical maintenance of the force will be taken over by Far East Land Forces.
    Mr. Turton: Why were units of this brigade sent up to the forward area without proper medical supplies, so that early in December, when the troops were suffering from severe wintry conditions, no supplies were available for the treatment of pleurisy, bronchial diseases or frost-bite?
    Mr. Strachey: My information does not confirm that statement, but if the hon. Member will let me have particulars I will look into them.
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether the British troops in Korea are organised as one formation under a British commander; whether there is a balance of the different arms; and whether the force is self-contained with its own supply and technical services.
    Mr. Strachey: The British troops in Korea are not organised as one formation. The 29th Brigade is a self-contained fully balanced force with its own supply and technical services. The 27th Brigade requires certain tank, engineer and administrative assistance, which is provided by the United States forces.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Would it not be far better if the British Forces were under one command, organised in one formation, and is it not detrimental to efficiency that they should be dependent on the supply services of another nation? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter afresh, as it is one of very great importance to the troops?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly we will consider it, but the hon. and gallant Member knows how this has arisen. The force sent from this country specially for the purpose is, as I have said, a self-contained force. The other force came from Hong Kong at the urgent request of the United Nations Supreme Commander and consist of two infantry battalions.

    Constabulary (Recruitment)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the
    696
    industrial demand for labour, he will increase the maximum age for War Department Constabulary recruiting.
    Mr. Strachey: These age qualifications are already being relaxed to some extent. I think it is desirable that exception should continue to be made on the merits of each particular case.
    Mr. Remnant: May I take it from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are at least a considerable number of men over the age of 45 who are very suitable for this constabulary and wish to take up that occupation'?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

    Regular Officers (Half Pay)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for War how many Regular officers are now on half-pay; and on what basis the half-pay rate is calculated.
    Mr. Strachey: The half-pay system ceases on 31st March next. There are now only 42 officers, all of them sick, on half-pay. The rates are in most cases half the rates of full pay in force prior to 1946. The only exceptions are field-marshals not holding full time appointments, who will remain on half-pay.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the Minister aware that, according to my information, the rate is based on the 1940 Royal Warrant and that there are certain ranks today on half-pay who are receiving, in effect, something like one-fifth or less of the full pay rate, and although this will last for only another month or two, will the right hon. Gentleman look into such injustices as are being done?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

    Medical Standards
    Mr. Redmayneasked the Secretary of State for War in what degree the acceptable medical standards differ as between National Service recruits and Reservists recalled.
    Mr. Strachey: A National Service recruit must reach the general medical standard of Grade II of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, under which he would be fit to serve in the lines of communication anywhere in the world and, in addition, be up to the particular

    697
    medical standard of the arm of the Service to which he is posted. Regular Reservists, on transfer to the Reserve, must be up to the medical standard required for entry into their arm of the Service. The acceptable medical standards for recall of Regular Reservists to meet a particular need may, however, be above the minimum standard, as in the case of the recall of Regular Reservists for Korea, where all men were required to be fit for employment in full combatant duties in any part of the world.
    Mr. Redmayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that Reservists who are recalled, in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement, even for 15 days' training, are given adequate medical examination as to their present fitness without regard to their past medical category, whatever that may have been?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, there will be a medical examination.

    Motor Mileage Allowance
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to make an announcement about mileage allowances in view of the further increased cost of petrol, oil and tyres.
    Mr. Strachey: The rates of motor mileage allowance for Service personnel are similar to those paid to civil servants. I am informed that agreement on new rates has now been reached and these will be notified to all concerned as early as possible.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter was first raised in June, that it has taken many months to get the answer, and that the prices of petrol, oil and tyres have gone up again in the last month?
    Mr. Strachey: We must await the announcement of the new rates, which I understand will be made very soon.

    Ex-Officers (Re-employment)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War why retired officers of field rank and considerable experience in Royal Army Ordnance Corps duties who are desirous of returning to employment in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and Anti-Aircraft Command depôts are
    698
    being notified that the only posts open to them in the command are those of labourer; and whether he will amend the present instructions to enable retired officers with up-to-date knowledge of their duties and experience to be employed during the present expansion of the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Strachey: There have been difficulties in finding suitable posts for these ex-officers. The War Office is, however, examining all establishments with a view to increasing the number of appointments which may be filled by ex-officers in a civilian capacity. In addition, ex-officers (other than those in receipt of retired pay) are eligible, subject to certain conditions, for the grant of short service commissions.
    Mr. Baker White: In that case can officers who have made application, but who have been refused in the manner indicated in my Question, now make application again?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly, Sir. We cannot, of course, give a guarantee in individual cases.

    Dried Milk, Hong Kong
    Sir Edward Boyleasked the Secretary of State for War if he will ensure that supplies of national dried milk are made continuously available in Navy, Army and Air Force Institute canteens for the wives of soldiers serving in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Strachey: This matter is causing concern. The manufacturers have been unable to supply national dried milk in hermetically sealed tins. If, therefore, it is not sold within 14 days of arrival in Hong Kong, illness may result. I am taking the matter up with N.A.A.F.I. and with my right hon. Friends the other Service Ministers and the Minister of Food with a view to an approach being made to the manufacturers.
    Sir E. Boyle: While thanking the Minister for his reply and entirely appreciating the difficulties, may I ask him to bear in mind that this is a matter of some importance, as young children are very allergic to changes in their staple diet?
    Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree with the hon. Member.

    Class Z Reserve
    Mr. E. Martin Smithasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange that no man on Class Z Reserve, at present studying for examinations, will be called up until such examinations are over.
    Mr. Strachey: Provision will be made for any recalled Z and equivalent Reservists to apply for postponement of recall on grounds of hardship. Due consideration will be given to the cases of those studying for examinations.
    Mr. Smith: May I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter early consideration, because these men are potential technicians and specialists, and even a fortnight's delay may make the whole difference to their future career?
    Mr. Strachey: We will certainly take that into earnest consideration.
    Mr. Remnant: Will apprentices, during their apprenticeship, also be included in that special consideration?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another question and one which will concern my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for War what purpose the questionnaire recently sent to Class Z Reservists is intended to serve.
    Mr. Strachey: I can perhaps best answer this Question by quoting from the form. Paragraph 2 of the form reads:
    "The object of asking you to supply this information is to enable the Ministry of Labour and National Service to consider the question of your availability for recall should the need ever arise. It is important that you should complete this form correctly and return it promptly failure to do so may mean that you will be regarded as available for recall whatever your occupation may be."
    Mr. Alport: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received full returns from that circular which was sent out, and whether it was sent out to all men on the Class Z Reserve or, if it was only sent to a portion of the men, whether that indicates any particular liability for call-up?
    Mr. Strachey: The response has been extremely encouraging, and a high
    700
    percentage of the forms has been completed. In answer to the other question —no, not all Z Reservists receive these forms, and the receipt of them is no particular indication.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this questionnaire included a question asking the Class Z men whether they wished to be called up?
    Mr. Edward Heath: Where the forms have been completed, is it proposed to allocate the Z Reservists to particular regiments and to tell them which units they will have to report to on mobilisation?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

    Tinned Foodstuffs (Contracts)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the contracts for tinned foodstuffs for the Army and Royal Air Force have been placed with Welsh firms.
    Mr. Strachey: During 1950, Welsh firms received approximately 5½ per cent. by value, of the contracts for tinned foodstuffs placed by the War Department for the Army and Royal Air Force.

    Prisoners of War, Korea
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has received any notification as to how many of the 14 officers and 217 other ranks reported missing in Korea are prisoners of war; who is the protecting Power; and whether representatives of the protecting Power have yet visited such British prisoners of war and reported on their condition;
    (2) how many prisoners-of-war camps in Korea, containing British troops, are known and marked as such to prevent bombing; whether Red Cross clothing and food are being sent; and whether any letters have been received from the men concerned.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that any of the missing in Korea are prisoners of war.
    Mr. Strachey: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions in answer to Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 20.
    Later—
    Mr. Strachey: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in reply to Questions 18, 19 and 20.
    No official information has been received that any of the British forces in Korea are prisoners of war, but a Chinese news agency has given the names of two Royal Marines claimed to have been taken prisoner. The next of kin have been informed in each case. Since then, the Chinese Press has reported a North Korean Army communiqué for 12th January last as saying that 472 men of the British Forces, which exceeds the number of missing, have been taken prisoner. There are therefore some grounds for belief that a considerable proportion of the missing are alive in enemy hands.
    As the House is aware, we have no information about the conditions under which United Nations forces taken prisoner are held. In July, the North Korean authorities, in response to an approach by the United Nations, said that their Army was strictly abiding by the principles of the Geneva Conventions in regard to prisoners of war, and in August and September they despatched two lists of prisoners, giving the names of 110 United States troops, to the International Red Cross Committee in Geneva. No further such lists have, however, been received.
    Requests by the United Nations and by the International Red Cross Committee that representatives of the Committee should be allowed to enter North Korea have so far met with no success. The Chinese Government have adopted the attitude that the matter is one entirely for the North Korean authorities.
    Further representations in regard to these matters are now being made in Peking. Efforts are being made at the same time to secure the transmission of mail to and from United Nations prisoners of war and the passage of relief supplies to them, and attempts are being made through national Red Cross Societies and through the normal international postal channels to achieve the same result.
    The Supreme Commander of the United Nations forces in Korea has announced that he is following the Geneva Conventions in regard to prisoners of war and wounded and sick. The United Kingdom Government have informed the North, Korean authorities that they will
    702
    observe the undertakings entered into on behalf of the United Nations forces by the United Nations Commander-in-Chief, and arrangements have been made to ensure that British troops comply with the Conventions. Representatives of the International Red Cross Committee have been sending to the North Korean authorities reports on camps for North Korean prisoners in South Korea, and have been issuing relief supplies to these prisoners. Lists of North Korean prisoners are being sent by the United Nations to the International Red Cross Committee for transmission to the North Koreans.
    Our efforts to obtain information about, to secure relief for, and to communicate with, British prisoners will be continued without relaxation and, in the event of any material change in the situation, I will inform the House.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Secretary of State say, first, when the International Red Cross made its last inquiry about British missing, and secondly, whether, in view of the renewed hopes which the right hon. Gentleman expressed that some of the missing men may still be alive, he would ask the International Red Cross to resume its inquiries?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. They have continually made these attempts, and a representative of the Committee got as far as Tientsin at one moment, but was turned back. The inquiries are now going on, both from the British Red Cross Society and the Chinese Red Cross Society and through official channels in Peking, and we shall pursue these as long as we possibly can.
    Mr. Keeling: I said the International Red Cross.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those of our men who were prisoners in Japanese hands during the last war all say that, of all the guards they most dreaded, none were worse than the Koreans, and, therefore, will he lodge the strongest protest with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make quite clear to the North Koreans that they must abide by this Convention?
    Mr. Strachey: I think my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing his utmost through his representative, the British Chargé ďAffaires at Peking.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Has the Secretary of State any explanation to give of the apparently high proportion of officers to men amongst the missing?
    Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.
    Mr. Oakshott: In the figure of 472 which the right hon. Gentleman has given, was there any distinction between officers and other ranks, or were they all grouped together?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. This figure must be incorrect, because it is a larger figure than the total number of missing.
    Miss Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the names of the two marines, and does he think it might be wise, from the point of view of the other parents and relatives, if the names were known?
    Mr. Strachey: I think that is a question for my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Air Commodore Harvey: In any discussion regarding a possible truce in Korea, will the Government make it quite clear that one condition must be that we should have full information and be given complete satisfaction regarding the safety of these prisoners?
    Mr. Strachey: I am sure that will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Have the Government made any proposals for an exchange of prisoners?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I have given the entire account of what has been done so far.

    Training Depôts (Instructors)
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will indicate the source from which instructors will be provided for the training depôts which are being formed in place of the training battalions which are reverting to field formations.
    Mr. Strachey: The group infantry training centres which have been set up are staffed mainly by the battalions of the infantry group concerned, wherever possible on a proportionate basis.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many N.C.Os.
    704
    are being "milked" from the battalions which are being formed, in order to provide instructors at the training depôts they have just left? Is he aware that more than a year ago I suggested this would happen, and will he consider calling for volunteers as instructors from those who were instructors in training depôts during the war and are now in civilian life and could be called back to perform this task?
    Mr. Strachey: There are, of course, two burdens on the Army. There is the training burden and the formation of these active formations, and they do conflict to some extent, but both must be attended to.

    Married Quarters (Training Depôts)
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War what provision he is making for the housing of married families who will be vacating married quarters in the vicinity of the newly-formed training depôts.
    Mr. Strachey: The present policy is that no family of a serving soldier will be required to move until alternative accommodation can be provided.

    Light Multiple Mortar
    Brigadier Prior-Palmerasked the Secretary of State for War whether a light multiple mortar similar to the one used by the Germans in the recent war is in production, or contemplated.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. It is considered that the single type weapon is more satisfactory.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the greatest burdens that the infantry soldier had to bear during the war was the German multiple mortar which was invulnerable to artillery fire? Will he reconsider this decision, because this weapon is very cheap to make and is most effective?
    Mr. Strachey: My technical advisers strongly feel that the single type is the most satisfactory, but the hon. and gallant Member should not consider that that is the only provision which is being made.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY

    Car Mileage Allowance
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of State for War what estimated saving will be achieved in one year by reducing the car mileage rate for members of the Territorial Army from 3½d. a mile to 1½d. a mile where public transport is available.
    Mr. Strachey: There has been no such reduction in the car mileage rates for members of the Territorial Army. As from 11th December, 1950, motor mileage allowance at the rate of 1½d. a mile was authorised for members of the Territorial Army who used their cars for journeys between their residence and the Territorial Army centre when public transport was available. Prior to that date no allowance for this purpose was admissible.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the Secretary of State aware that certain units have just received instructions on these lines and that it is exceedingly discouraging to those for many of whom time is the essence of the contract, and will he make sure that if the order has been sent out it will be reconsidered?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This was a concession and an extension by which this mileage rate was given for journeys for which there was previously no allowance at all.

    Uniform Allowance
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War why an officer, on joining the Territorial Army, is paid no uniform allowance unless there has been a break in his service of at least one year; and whether he will arrange that an officer on joining the Territorial Army receives uniform allowance, thus encouraging young officers to join the Territorial Army immediately on release after National Service.
    Mr. Strachey: Officers who join the Territorial Army after a break in their commissioned service of less than one year are deemed to be still in possession of all the outfit they need. I can see no grounds for authorising the grant of uniform allowance in these cases.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the effect of that order is that a large number of officers who
    706
    would join the Territorial Army directly on conclusion of their National Service wait for a year, or possibly more, and sometimes reconsider joining at all?
    Mr. Strachey: It would be very difficult to make a grant under a break of one year.

  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for War what troops of Polish origin, formerly commanded by General Anders, are at present quartered in the United Kingdom; what function they perform; and what plans are in hand for their future employment.
  Mr. Strachey: Since the disbandment of the Polish Resettlement Corps on 30th September, 1949, no troops of Polish origin have been in existence in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Nabarro: In view of the Prime Minister's statement on defence yesterday, would it be the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage the recruitment of trained soldiers of Polish origin and their being allowed to make a contribution towards national defence in this country?
  Mr. Strachey: That is an entirely different question.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Subsidence, Cheshire (Compensation)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when his local inquiry into the question of considering compensation for subsidence in Cheshire, due to brine pumping, will take place.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton): I cannot hold a local inquiry until I have received an application under the Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1891.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Owing to the widespread anxiety which is being felt all over Cheshire on this question, could the Minister use his influence to have this inquiry held as soon as possible, particularly so that the question of retrospective compensation can be gone into?
    Mr. Dalton: I am only waiting for the local authorities to apply. Under this Act, either the local authorities or private property owners can apply, and until they apply I can do nothing.
    Mr. Vosper: As this is a matter which affects many and varying interests, and local authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman use his offices to secure an agreement between them in order to alleviate a sense of injustice which exists at the moment?
    Mr. Dalton: My information is that the local authorities are conferring. As soon as they reach a conclusion, or any of them wish to make an application, I will consider it.
    Air Commodore Harvey: When an application has been made, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that those affected, the poorest people of all, shall not suffer?
    Mr. Erroll: May an aggrieved tenant make application?
    Mr. Dalton: I have already said that a property owner or a local authority can apply.

    Slums (Demolition)
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will gather and publish statistics regarding the number of slum dwellings demolished during each of the five years ended 31st March, 1950, and in future years.
    Mr. Dalton: I propose to ask local authorities for a single return covering the period 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1951, and for annual returns thereafter.

    Memorandum (Chartered Surveyors)
    Mr. Blackasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has considered the memorandum, of which a copy has been sent him, issued by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and entitled, "Defects of the Town and Country Planning Act and the Remedies": and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Dalton: I have already adopted some of the suggestions in this memorandum, and am considering the others.
    Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports of new town development corporations bear out the memorandum to the extent that they show that the compensation provisions of the Act are likely to cause serious hardship, and what does he propose to do about that?
    Mr. Dalton: I am considering the other suggestions.

    Compulsory Purchase, Salford
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the Salford Corporation are likely to receive approval to the compulsory purchase of the Salford Authority Area No. 1 Regent Road.
    Mr. Dalton: I hope very soon

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Building Apprentice Schemes
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Works if, in order to avoid confusion and delay, he will simplify the procedure for obtaining approval for the establishment of building apprentice master schemes by reducing the number of Departments and interests which have to be consulted.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): I am not aware of any confusion or delay due to procedure in the treatment of these cases, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I will be very glad to look into it.
    Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that before a scheme can be got going it is necessary to consult three Government Departments, two organisations connected with the building industry and at least three departments of the local authority, and that an attempt to launch one in Wembley last year involved six months of vigorous correspondence before a refusal was obtained?
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, I know, but, in regard to the last part of the supplementary question, there were already schemes in operation there. A considerable amount of taxpayers' money was involved, and we did not think that another was justified.

    Building Licences (Cinemas)
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Minister of Works how many licences for rebuilding damaged cinemas were issued by his Department during 1946 and 1947; and what was the aggregate value of these licences for each of these two years.
    Mr. Stokes: So far as records, which are not quite complete, show, only one licence was issued in these two years to rebuild a war-destroyed cinema at a cost of £20,000.
    Mr. Stevens: The Minister says that the records are not complete. Would it be possible to give figures when the records are complete? Why are they not complete?
    Mr. Stokes: I can only give information to the best of my ability. We cannot have armies of people keeping these records. I am quite satisfied that not more than one cinema was licensed.

    Government Offices (Fuel Economy)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Works if, in the interests of fuel economy, he will give instructions 'that all corridors and passages in Government offices should only be lit by 30-watt or other low-power lamps.
    Mr. Stokes: The standard of illumination in the corridors of Government buildings is being reduced to the lowest level compatible with safety. The hon. and gallant Member's suggestion will be followed wherever appropriate, but the change-over may take some time to effect.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister look particularly at the new offices of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which have caused a great deal of adverse comment from people in the locality?
    Mr. Stokes: That office has only just been opened, and they have not quite settled in.
    Captain Duncan: What are the dangers lurking in passages in Government offices?

    Houses (Sheet Copper Roofs)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Works how many houses have been or are being built by his Department with sheet copper roofs at Hawkhills, near Easingwold; what is the average total cost of these houses; and what part of the total cost is attributable to the sheet copper roofs.
    Mr. Stokes: Six houses have been built with sheet copper roofs at Hawkhills, near Easingwold. Four similar houses are in course of erection there. The average total cost per house is £1,645. The cost of sheet copper roofing is estimated at £52 per house.
    Mr. Turton: Is it not a scandalous waste of a very scarce metal at present, and will the Minister look into this matter and also into his policy, in order to conserve metal?
    Mr. Stokes: I have already done that. There are just four houses more on this estate. I have been in touch with the Minister of Supply, who agrees that these should be completed. Probably no more such houses will be built.
    Mr. Vane: Will the Minister agree that Westmorland slate is cheaper and better?

    No. 2, Park Street
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Works in how many places his Department is selling liquor to the public without a justices licence.
    Mr. Stokes: None, Sir. The administration of Park Street falls to me personally as Minister in charge of Government hospitality.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his official capacity he is selling drink to the public at any place other than No. 2, Park Street?
    Mr. Stokes: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Works when notice of intention to apply for a justices licence for the sale of liquor at 2, Park Street, was given; and when the application is to be made.
    Mr. Stokes: Having regard to the uncertainty on the future use of the premises, no application is being made for a justices licence at the present time.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What has caused the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind since, on 7th November, he informed one of my hon. Friends that he proposed to use Crown immunity only until he could apply for a licence in February?
    Mr. Stokes: I do not differ from what I said then, but the trouble is that the future has become more uncertain.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Among those uncertainties, does the right hon. Gentleman number the possibility that the justices might not give him a licence?
    Mr. Stokes: No, Sir.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is probably personally liable if there is misconduct at these premises?
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works what proportion of the Prime Ministers and their staffs, respectively, who came to London for the Commonwealth Conference were lodged at 2, Park Street.
    Mr. Stokes: In accordance with longstanding practice, these visitors were accommodated in hotels.
    Mr. Keeling: Does not the failure to make use of 2, Park Street show a certain lack of confidence in its amenities?
    Mr. Stokes: Not at all. We followed the usual procedure with regard to these distinguished visitors. I think it is a pity that they should be drawn into this controversy.

    Palace of Westminster (Paintings)
    Mr. Gilbert Longdenasked the Minister of Works if he will have the frescoes in St. Stephen's Hall and the Lobbies of the Palace restored and refreshed before the Festival of Britain.
    Mr. Stokes: There are no frescoes but only paintings on canvas, either in St. Stephen's Hall or the Lobbies of the Palace. I do not feel the programme of cleaning and repair already arranged needs any special adjustment for the Festival of Britain.

    Government Offices (Building Licences)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works in how many of the licences granted in London during the past year for Government office accommodation he has decided that building will not be proceeded with; and what is the total value of licences so deferred.
    Mr. Stokes: None, Sir. Once a licence has been granted and the developer has made his arrangements, I think it would be unreasonable to cancel it, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend, despite the Prime Minister's warning yesterday that there will have to be some cuts in the civil building programme, that these licences, amounting to £3.8 million in the last year, are to be proceeded with, no matter what cuts are imposed in other directions?
    Mr. Stokes: No. That will, of course, be watched, but I do not propose at this moment to interfere with licences that have already been granted.
    Miss Bacon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer contradicts one which he gave me a few weeks ago in respect of a building in Leeds? On that occasion he said that although a licence had been issued, permission would not be granted to proceed with it.
    Mr. Stokes: I think my hon. Friend is not quite correct. What I said was that although it had been agreed that this building should go up, no licence would be issued until the building situation with regard to housing had improved in Leeds. I do not deviate from that at all.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs disclosed by my right hon. Friend, and the curious sense of priorities there seems to be in this direction, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Building Materials
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Works what estimate he has made of the increased requirements of the building industry for building materials on the introduction of incentive payments under

    713
    the new bonus scheme on a national basis; and how far he estimates that these materials will be available.
    Mr. Stokes: It is impossible to forecast precisely the effect of the new incentive payments scheme, but I have called for a production from the principal building materials industries for which I am responsible, that would provide for a substantial increase in requirements.
    Mr. Murray: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to give the information when he obtains it?
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, I will do my best if my hon. Friend will put down another question.

    Property (Requisitioning)
    Mr. E. Martin Smithasked the Minister of Works whether his plans for requisitioning of property in the event of an emergency have yet reached the stage when the owners of these properties have been informed; and in how many cases this has been done.
    Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. As a matter of normal routine my Department's plans are brought up to date from time to time, but this has not involved discussion about requisitioning with the owners of property. In the circumstances the second part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Member for Grantham has had his house requisitioned but has not had any official intimation?
    Mr. Stokes: No, Sir. I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?
    Mr. Stokes: Certainly, if the hon. Member will send me particulars.

    Statutory Instruments (Publicity)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Works what steps are taken to inform the trades and industries affected when a new Statutory Instrument, which makes a substantial alteration to the previous regulations, comes into operation.
    Mr. Stokes: It is my practice in such cases to make a statement in the House, to issue a notice to the Press and to communicate specially with the main organisations concerned.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that last November the Transport Commission did not know that Statutory Rule and Order No. 1641 of 1947, which controlled the prices and haulage rates of bricks, had been revoked in May, 1948?
    Mr. Stokes: I thought I was being asked about new orders, not about ones, that had been revoked.

  KASHMIR DISPUTE
  Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister if, following on the recent Commonwealth Conference, he proposes to make any further personal efforts to influence a settlement between India and Pakistan over the question of Kashmir.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Kashmir dispute is on the agenda of the Security Council and is likely to come up shortly for discussion there. The United Kingdom Government are now considering, in the light of the recent informal discussions with Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London, what instructions they should give to the United Kingdom representative on the Council. I am, as always, ready to do whatever may be possible to facilitate an agreed settlement of this question.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the Prime Minister realise that if this dispute goes much further, there is a very real danger of war breaking out between these two Dominions? Would he care to make a statement on what took place in his efforts to settle this matter so that the public may have some idea of who is standing in the way of a settlement?
  The Prime Minister: In reply to the first question I would say that I have always been conscious of the dangers that might arise out of this dispute if it was not settled. My reply to the hon. Member's second question is that it is quite obvious that it would be improper for me, as one Prime Minister, to make a statement about informal discussions with other Prime Ministers.
  Mr. Drayson: Does the Prime Minister intend to brand any party as an aggressor in this matter?

  ATOMIC ENERGY (ANGLO-AMERICAN ARRANGEMENTS)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the relationship of equal partnership between America, Britain and Canada over the development and use of atomic energy still subsists.
  The Prime Minister: As I stated in the course of the debate in the House on 14th December, there was a war-time partnership between the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada for the development of the atomic weapon. By agreement between the three Governments, the nature of these war-time arrangements has not been revealed on grounds of public policy. The position of the United States Administration in many of these matters is now regulated by legislation enacted in the United States since the end of the war, and the war-time arrangements have been modified accordingly. But partnership between the three countries for certain purposes in the atomic energy field continues.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1945 President Truman himself recognised that this relation of equal partnership then existed, and may we not be assured that that relationship of equal partnership, which subsisted in 1945, still exists today, in 1951?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply—
  Mr. Blackburn: I did.
  The Prime Minister: —I said that the partnership between the three countries for certain purposes in the atomic energy field continued.
  Mr. Churchill: There was an agreement about this in the war, and now that that agreement has been, as I understand, revoked by the Prime Minister and the Government, is there any reason why its terms should not be stated in public?
  The Prime Minister: That would be a matter which would have to be agreed with the United States Govt.
  Mr. Churchill: Yes.
  The Prime Minister: I could inquire into that, but at the present time I am
  716
  precluded by that agreement from announcing what those arrangements were on the grounds of public policy as agreed with our co-signatories.
  Mr. Churchill: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will inquire from the United States Government whether there are any reasons why the war-time agreement should not now be made public?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to inquire. I would like perhaps to have a word with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. It is, as he knows, rather complicated and rather delicate.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent statement by the Leader of the Opposition that this country has not the secret of the atomic bomb? If this is so is this equal partnership?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that statement.
  Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether I am to understand that for the first time in history we are bound by treaties which have not been published?
  The Prime Minister: This was not a treaty.
  Sir H. Williams: Surely, the definition of a treaty being an agreement between this country and another country, it must be published in peace-time, otherwise it is not valid?
  Mr. Churchill: The point I was venturing to make is that the treaty—or not a treaty the agreement—had been revoked, not that it had been maintained and kept in secrecy. It has been revoked, and having been revoked I do not see why the secret should not be revealed.
  Mr. Blackburn: I understood the Prime Minister to nod his head. Do we understand that the treaty has in fact now been revoked?
  The Prime Minister: I have tried to explain twice that there was no treaty—it was a question of agreement. That agreement—[Interruption.]—there is a great deal of difference between an agreement and a treaty. There was an agreement, but the agreement has been changed and altered and new agreements have been made.

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  Mr. Nigel Fisherasked the Lord President of the Council if he will consider displaying large maps of London in prominent places for the help and guidance of visitors to the capital during the Festival of Britain.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not consider that any action to this end by the Festival of Britain Office is needed, since I am glad to say that London Transport Executive are to display two large maps at all stations and in bus shelters during the Festival of Britain. One, entitled "Visitors' London," will show places of interest, including Festival activities and well-known buildings. The second will show all the transport services in the Central London area.
  Brigadier Thorp: Will those maps take the place of the present notices telling people to go to the West End to see the lighting of the shops?
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Lord President of the Council what precautions are to be taken against power cuts at the Festival of Britain.
  Mr. H. Morrison: None of the nationwide activities which will make up the Festival of Britain from May to September are likely to be impeded by power cuts.
  Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that His Majesty's Government guarantee that there will be no power cuts from May to September of this year, or does it mean that special power supplies and facilities are available for the Festival of Britain which would not ordinarily be available to industrial electricity consumers?
  Mr. Morrison: The first part of the supplementary question should obviously be addressed to the Minister of Fuel and Power. The answer to the second part of the question is that no special arrangements have been made but the timing of the Exhibition is such that it is most unlikely that we shall experience power cuts.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Home-Grown Tobacco
    Mr. Vaneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state his objections to permission being given to the
    718
    British Pioneer Tobacco Growers' Association and similar bodies to shred leaf grown by their members.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): Yes, Sir. As tobacco grown in the United Kingdom is liable to Excise Duty of £2 16s. 5½d. per pound, its growth and manufacture must be strictly controlled. In April, 1948, my predecessor decided to allow amateurs to grow small amounts of tobacco in gardens or allotments for personal consumption without payment of duty, and towards the end of 1948 he agreed to extend the concession to cover co-operative "curing." It was, however, made clear to the two growers' associations that this was the absolute limit of the concession.
    One of the bodies concerned, the National Amateur Tobacco Growers' Association, is satisfied with the concession in its present form. But since 1949 considerable pressure has been exerted by the other body, the British Pioneer Tobacco Growers' Association, for a still further extension of the concession to include co-operative "shredding," which differs essentially from curing in that it is process of manufacture. If allowed, this might result in manufacturing operations on a substantial scale and go far beyond the limited and amateur character of the original concession. The extension proposed would mean that in effect the Association would be entering the commercial field and would have, there-for, to accept the same liabilities as other manufacturers with whom they would be competing.
    Finally, I must point out that there is no particular reason to encourage tobacco growing as a desirable use of land, labour and fertilisers which, from a national point of view, could be more usefully employed in growing food. The loss of revenue which would follow any large extension resulting from a further concession to tobacco growers would, moreover, far outweigh any saving in foreign exchange.
    Mr. Vane: In view of the very large amount of foreign exchange which is now spent on importing tobacco into this country, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that such concessions as he may make to this body or similar bodies should at least be reasonable? Does not he really think that the present concession,

    719
    which allows growers to have up to 25 lb. per head per annum cured without payment of duty and at the same time prevents these bodies from shredding tobacco—which is a difficult thing to do at home—is really very unreasonable and is worthy of review?
    Mr. Speaker: This is an argument and not a question asking for information.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I should have thought the hon. Member could have seen from the answer I gave to his original Question that I did not think that the practice of the Government was the least unreasonable in this matter. It is a question of drawing the line somewhere. We have given a large and substantial concession amounting in value to something like £70 per head, and I do not think we should go beyond that.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider making cuts in national expediture and in grants to local government to offset the increasing cost of rearmament.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would ask the hon. Member to await my Budget statement for a review of the effect on our finances of the additional expenditure on defence.
    Mr. Watkinson: May I ask whether we are to take it that in the intervening period between now and the Budget the Chancellor has closed his mind to any possibility of economy in the national Exchequer?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir; that would be quite wrong.

    Income Tax
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend to employees generally the same freedom from assessment to Income Tax upon benefits in kind or cash allowances in lieu as he extends to coalminers, who are not assessed upon free coal or cash substituted for free coal.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In general, the value of benefits in kind received by an employee (other than a director or senior executive) is not assessable to tax unless the benefits are convertible into money. In this respect accordingly, the miner is treated the same as other employees. The exemption from tax of cash allow-
    720
    ances paid to miners in lieu of free coal is a concession introduced during the war as part of a scheme to save coal by encouraging miners to accept such allowances instead. This concession has not yet been withdrawn, but I am afraid I could not agree that it should be regarded as a precedent for concessions in other fields.
    Sir J. Mellor: What is the difference in principle between one cash allowance and another? Why not treat all alike?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained that, except in this one instance, they are all treated alike.
    Sir H. Williams: What is the reason for the discrimination between directors and high executives and other people?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is obvious that in the case of personal incomes of, for instance, more than £2,000, which is the dividing line, there is no question of any hardship arising.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Chancellor aware that anyone who envies the miner his concession can get it himself if he takes the necessary steps?
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that personal remuneration made to nonprofessional stockholders' representatives for their services in connection with the transfer of the electricity companies to the British Electricity Authority has been held to be subject to tax; and if, in view of the fact that they were casual payments of a non-recurring nature, he will reconsider this decision.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The liability to Income Tax of these payments is a question of law which falls to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts. If the taxpayers concerned are not satisfied as to their liability, it is, of course, open to them to appeal against their assessments to the appropriate body of Commissioners.

    Gold and Dollar Surplus
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. OSBORNE:
    53. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the dollar trading surplus between the sterling area and the dollar area, inclusive of the United Kingdom for 1950.
    Mr. Osborne: May I point out that the words "inclusive of" which appear in the Question should be "exclusive of"? I apologise for the error.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid that makes a substantial change. I will, if I may, answer the Question as it appears on the Order Paper. The total net gold and dollar surplus of the sterling area in 1950 was $804 million. An analysis of this will appear in the Balance of Payments White Paper in due course.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Chancellor what is the figure exclusive of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

    South African Company (Share Issue)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he refused to permit United Tobacco Companies (South) Limited, incorporated in the Union of South Africa, to offer to shareholders in the United Kingdom one new share for three held at a price substantially below market value.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The decision was based on the advice of the Capital Issues Committee, who were not satisfied that the proposed issue would be in the national interest.
    Sir J. Mellor: What possible harm could have been done to the United Kingdom economy had this offer been made and accepted?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is not the practice to disclose the reasons on which the advice of the Capital Issues Committee is based in such cases.

    Death Duties
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases within the last two years of companies, which are controlled companies within the meaning of Section 55 of the Finance Act, 1940, it has been found on the death of the principal shareholder that the value of the assets of the estate, exclusive of shares in the company, has been insufficient to pay the Death Duties upon the whole estate.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Stevens: Does the Chancellor agree that there have been a large number of cases of this kind, and that, where Death Duties have had to be provided from the sale of shares, in many instances it has meant the break-up of the business concerned?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I have no information to that effect.

    Israel (British Business Claims)
    Mr. Frederic Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any understanding was reached with the Israeli authorities in regard to the settlement of British business claims against the Israeli Government when the negotiations for the release of Israel's blocked sterling accounts were conducted.
    Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. It is not our normal practice in making agreed releases from sterling balances to attach conditions regarding their use.
    Mr. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that arrangements such as this should be reached with the Israeli authorities, while business house claims are still left outstanding after two and a half years?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No doubt the Israeli Government will be well aware of the importance of meeting these claims as soon as possible.

    Pound Sterling (Value)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and at what level, does he plan to achieve stability of the pound sterling.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The value of the pound sterling in terms of the dollar and other foreign currencies is stable and I see no reason why it should not remain so. If the hon. Member is referring to the value of the pound in terms of commodities, he should surely be aware that the decline in this is very largely due to the higher prices of our imports and that these have to be bought in world commodity markets which are not within our control; the hon. Member is no doubt also aware both of the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to secure international action to deal with the problem and of the policies to combat inflation internally so success-

    723
    fully carried out by my predecessor and which to the best of my ability I intend to continue.
    Mr. Osborne: As the internal purchasing power of the pound has dropped from 20s. in 1945 to 15s. 10d., does not the Chancellor think that some special steps ought to be taken to protect holders of National Savings Certificates and people who save their money?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think this is a question of special steps: it is a question of general policy.
    Mr. Maudling: Is the Chancellor satisfied that the present system of fixed parities is really in the best interest of the country at present?

    Savings (Interest)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to attract more small savings, if he will increase the rate of interest paid on National Savings Certificates and deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Bank.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The interest paid on any particular issue of National Savings Certificates is fixed at the time of introduction of that issue and cannot be altered subsequently. I see no reason to alter the rate of interest paid on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Bank; it is already very generous having regard to the facilities for withdrawal offered to investors.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the great falling off in small savings, does not the Chancellor think that an extra bit of interest would help him to get more savings?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the hon. Member will await a reply which I am to give to a further Question on this subject.

    Electricity (Capital Expenditure)
    Captain Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allocations of capital to be spent in 1951–52 for the generation and distribution of electricity have been made to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the British Electricity Authority, respectively.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Economic Survey for 1951.
    Captain Duncan: When will that be published?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Probably in March.

    Dividend Limitation
    Mr. Blackasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the response by companies to his request that dividends should not be increased; and what further action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am informed that, according to a recent study, although gross profits increased by 9 per cent. and the proportion of companies making dividend increases has grown, the total distribution by way of ordinary dividends, which was, incidentally, just over 10 per cent. of gross profits, went up by only about 3½ per cent. in 1950, as compared with 1949. This suggests that over the year as a whole, a substantial measure of restraint was still being exercised. But there has undoubtedly been a tendency in the last few weeks to increase dividends, and I am keeping a close watch on the situation.
    Mr. Black: With a view to encouraging companies not to increase their dividends, is the Chancellor willing to make it clear that, if any statutory limitation is imposed, it will not operate in such a way as to be to the disadvantage of those companies which have voluntarily kept their dividends level?
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is a hypothetical question.

    Marshall Aid and Defence Expenditure
    Mr. F. Longdenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will supply the sum totals of Marshall Aid as granted to Britain in every separate year from December, 1945, to December, 1950, as well as the sum totals of expenditure on our Armed Forces in the same separate years.
    Mr. Gaitskell: For the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the Balance of Payments White Paper (Cmd. 8065). E.R.P. Receipts for the calendar year 1950 amounted to 706 million U.S. dollars. With regard to the second part of the Question, this information is not available by calendar

    725
    years. For figures on a financial year basis I would refer my hon. Friend to the Appropriation Accounts and Estimates.
    Mr. Longden: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the figures to which he has referred bear out the statement by the American Senator Tydings that Marshall Aid is largely military expenditure?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member had better study the figures first; then perhaps he would draw his own conclusions.

    Hire-Purchase Facilities
    Mr. Maudlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing danger of inflation, he will take further steps to restrict the provision of hire-purchase credit facilities for consumer goods.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Both the Capital Issues Committee and the banks are continuing to give full co-operation to His Majesty's Government in seeking to ensure that financial facilities for hire purchase are not increased. I am considering whether any further action is desirable.
    Mr. Maudling: Is the Chancellor aware that it is very difficult in practice for the banks to exercise restraint of this kind, and will he consider introducing regulations on the lines of the American Regulation W?
    Mr. Gaitskell: According to my information, the banks have been very successful in carrying out the policy which we asked them to carry out. This is a difficult and complicated matter and I shall require to consider all these points very carefully.
    Sir H. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman pass on that information to the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Council?

    Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds
    Mr. Dryden Brookasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about National Savings.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. The Eighth Issue of National Savings Certificates and the current issue of 2½ per cent. Defence
    726
    Bonds will be withdrawn from sale at the close of business tomorrow. On the following day, Thursday, 1st February, new issues of Certificates and Defence Bonds will be on sale.
    The new Ninth Issue of Savings Certificates will cost 15s. per unit and will increase in value to 20s. 3d. in 10 years. This is equivalent to a rate of £3 0s. 11d. per cent. per annum compound over the 10-year period compared with a rate of £2 13s. 2d. on the current Certificate. The growth in value will be free of Income Tax. The maximum permitted holding of the new issue will be 500 units, costing £375, in addition to any permitted holdings of earlier issues.
    The new Defence Bond will bear interest at 3 per cent. per annum as against 2½ per cent, on the current issue. The-Bonds will he repayable at par on the interest date next following 10 years after the date of purchase. There will be no alteration in the existing limit on holdings of Bonds which is £2,500 of any issue, or combination of issues.
    Full details of these new securities are being issued to the Press this afternoon. The rearmament programme announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister makes it all the more necessary that there should be the greatest possible volume of savings. I hope that small savings will be stimulated by the more attractive terms of these new Certificates and Bonds, and that they will be purchased by the public in large quantities.
    Mr. Osborne: If the Chancellor is not prepared to give the higher rate of interest of £3 0s. 11d. per cent., against £2 13s. 2d. per cent., on the old issue, does he not see that people can sell the old issue and re-invest in the new? Why not give the new rate on the old and stop all this nonsense?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We cannot alter the rate of already existing Certificates.
    Mr. Norman Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give abundant notice to potential subscribers for these securities that, although the securities may appreciate in financial terms, they will certainly, whichever party is in power, depreciate in real value, because of the inflation which is inseparable from rearmament; and is it not really time that interest and repayment were tied to the cost-of-living index, so that we can have honest finance, and

    727
    not the sort of finance which we on these benches—[Interruption.] Is it not time that we had a savings campaign that hon. Members on this side would not be ashamed to advocate?
    Mr. Gaitskell: It is, of course, an essential part of the policy of combating inflation and preventing increases in prices that we should have the maximum amount of savings, and I would rely upon all hon. Members to give their fullest possible support to our policy. There is no party issue at all in this matter.
    Mr. Maudling: Is not the Chancellor aware that, in present conditions of rising prices and heavy taxation, it is better to increase the premium on redemption rather than the current rate of interest?
    Mr. Gaitskell: These are matters which, naturally, are very carefully considered by our financial advisers. I think that the terms I have read out this afternoon are really very attractive when compared with the previous terms.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the Chancellor's announcement nevertheless mean a retreat from the cheap money policy so flaunted to the House and the country by his penultimate predecessor?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I should not agree that it is a retreat from anything. It is well know to all hon. Members that the rate of interest on all long-term securities is rather higher than it was four years ago.

  CIVIL SERVICE (EQUAL PAY)
  Miss Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the granting of equal pay in the Civil Service.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer the hon. Lady to my reply to her on 23rd January, to which at present I have nothing to add.
  Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in considering this matter, that the British Electricity Authority has now negotiated an agreement for the payment of the rate for the job to senior administrative and technical staff, and as a nationalised industry has
  728
  given the lead, will the Government consider doing the same for its own employees?
  Mr. Gaitskell: We will take everything into account.

  INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY GROUPS
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what international commodity groups have been set up in accordance with the proposals of the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and France; which of these groups are already functioning; and what action they have so far taken;
  (2) what is the official title of the committee linking the proposed international commodity groups; and what is the competence of this body.
  Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in devising a scheme for the international control of raw materials vital for armaments.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Discussions are proceeding with the United States and French Governments on the details of the scheme for the setting up of international commodity groups for some of the more important scarce materials. But I have at present nothing to add to the announcement made on 13th January by the Governments of the United Kingdom, U.S.A. and France.
  Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend at least say what is the proposed structure of these groups and whether there will be governmental representation as well as representation of producers and consumers?
  Mr. Gaitskell: It is, I think, contemplated that the representation in every case would be governmental.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Chancellor make it clear that the Commonwealth should be fully consulted?
  Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, Sir.
  Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in view of the action of the United States Army last week in making bids for the Argentine

  729
  export surplus of meat as against our own bids, meat ought to be included as one of these commodities?
  Mr. Gaitskell: These commodities are supposed to include raw materials, not foodstuffs.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In making appointments to these groups, will the right hon. Gentleman consider having someone who has experience of the non-ferrous metal industries?
  Mr. Gaitskell: Naturally, that will be considered.
  Mr. Edelmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is the British representative on the committee linking the proposed international commodity groups and what are his qualifications.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The United Kingdom representative on the Raw Materials Central Group to be established in Washington is Viscount Knollys. He is a man of wide experience both in public service and business.
  Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the T.U.C., like the F.B.I., were consulted before this appointment was made, and will there be a representative of organised labour on this group?
  Mr. Gaitskell: It is not our practice in matters of personal appointments to disclose who is consulted before such appointments are made.

  DEFENCE PROGRAMME
  The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker. I desire to make a short statement.
  In response to requests which the Government have received from both sides of the House, I am arranging that the statement which I made yesterday on the increase and acceleration of our defence preparations should be presented to Parliament as a Command Paper. This is being done in order that copies may be available in a convenient form for Members who wish to send them to constituents.
  I have taken the opportunity of including in this version of the statement one additional passage, which by an
  730
  oversight, for which I apologise to the House, was omitted from the text of the statement as I made it. This passage should have been included in the section of the statement which dealt with the economic implications of the new programme, and would have made it clear that to achieve the programme we shall have to re-impose many of the controls used during the war.
  Allocations of some raw materials have already been introduced; others will probably be necessary to ensure that defence needs are met. Some less essential production, especially for the home market, will have to be reduced, or stopped, by limitation of supply orders and the prohibition of certain end-uses. Factory and storage space will be requisitioned where necessary. These steps will be needed in addition to the exceptional measures which, as I told the House, may have to be taken if circumstances require it as the programme develops, in order to ensure the availability of labour.
  Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his reply to questions asked on his statement yesterday will be published in the White Paper?
  The Prime Minister: I think not. The statement itself will be issued, but clearly I could not reproduce the whole Parliamentary discussion on questions.

STRATEGIC MATERIALS (EXPORT)
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): With your permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement. I regret to inform the House that in my oral answer yesterday [Col. 574, OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951] to a supplementary question concerning the shipment of strategic materials, I unintentionally misled the House in one particular. It relates to rubber. Although we keep a close watch on the movement of rubber, we do not, in fact, subject natural rubber to export control on purely strategic grounds. I apologise to the House.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not ask questions on a personal statement.
Mr. Thorneyeroft: I was about to preface my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that as this is a personal statement, clearly no one could cross-examine on it, but it did affect a Question which I put down yesterday, and I was about to ask, as this is a matter of considerable gravity affecting our relations with our Allies whether we could have an assurance that some Member of the Government would make an authoritative statement on this important matter before long.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, the way is now open to put down Questions on the matter. Before the statement was made, it could be said to have been fully answered, but now, as I say, the way is open for Questions on the subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING LONG TENANCY WHERE TENANT IN OCCUPATION.)
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "granted," to insert "by a ground lease."
I think that anyone who has studied the Amendment Paper, certainly any layman, will react with a certain amount of consternation to some of the Amendments which have been put down, but, so far as this Amendment is concerned, I submit to the Committee that it is a fairly simple issue. Its object is to confine Part I of the Bill to ground leases, and I submit that there is a good case for seeking to do that by reason of what has been said on this subject.
We on these benches agree that there is a certain problem to be dealt with and that the termination of ground leases at a time of housing scarcity involves very considerable hardship for the persons concerned. We have said before that we think that in the majority of cases landlords are acting reasonably so far as the ground lessees are concerned, but it must be admitted, and cannot be disputed, that legally, ground lessees at the present time are very much at the mercy of a landlord should he choose to be rapacious.
A family may have been living for some time as ground lessees of premises, and there undoubtedly will be a covenant to repair. Therefore, the landlord may find it possible, by threatening to enforce that covenant, to exercise very considerable pressure upon the tenant so far as the terms of renewal are concerned, and, ultimately, the tenant may find himself in the street and, in present circumstances, without the opportunity of getting on to a housing list. That being so, we agree that there is a problem and that action should be taken to meet that problem, but there is a difference of opinion as to what is the correct method of dealing with it.
We on this side of the Committee believe—and later I hope that there will be

733
an opportunity of discussing our alternative proposition for dealing with this situation—that we have a simpler and more effective method than that contained in this Government Bill. The point that I am seeking to make is that the problem is the problem of the ground lessee. I think that was conceded in the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 6th December last because he then referred to the King's Speech at the opening of this Session of Parliament and quoted a passage from that speech as follows:
"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, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 369.]
In the course of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in dealing with the work of the Leasehold Committee, said:
"It was agreed "—
he was referring there to the work of the Committee—
"that in the case of ground leases and the leases of certain business premises falling in now or in the immediate future, something ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December. 1951; Vol. 482, c. 375.]
I again emphasise the words "ground leases."
When he came to consider the proposals of the Bill, 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 the 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.]
If I understand that, he was putting forward two reasons for not confining this Bill to ground leases. He was suggesting, first of all, that there was a difficulty over the definition of a ground lease and, secondly, he was suggesting it
734
was most unlikely that there were any leases of over 21 years, except building leases. As far as the first of those arguments is concerned we, in putting forward this Amendment, are also suggesting that we should incorporate in this Bill a definition of a ground lease similar to that in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, where a ground lease was defined in terms which I think will satisfy even hon. Members opposite. Section 24 of that Act says:
"Ground lease' means a lease at a rent (or, where the rent varies, at a maximum rent) which does not substantially exceed the rent which a tenant might reasonably have been expected, at the commencement of the term created by the lease, to pay for the land comprised in the lease, excluding any buildings, for a term equal to the term created by the lease."
I suggest that that is a perfectly satisfactory definition of a ground lease and that it disposes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first argument. With regard to the second point—the fact that there are practically no leases except building leases for a period over 21 years—one must rely to a certain extent on information supplied to one, and I am told that that is not the case. I am told that there are a considerable number of leases at a rack rent for longer than 21 years, and that that is particularly so in London.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that he does not particularly want to include such leases, but he thinks there are so few of them that no real harm would be done. But if there are a considerable number, it would be really an anomaly to cover them by a provision of this sort. Any further control or restriction as applied to premises let at a rack rent should be very carefully considered. If I understand the jungle of the Rent Restriction Acts correctly, such premises are already subject to them, even though let on long leases, and any extension beyond the Rent Restriction Acts should be considered very carefully. This, in fact, is a piecemeal extension of a certain type of long lease and, therefore, undesirable. I commend this Amendment because it is meant to define a ground lease, and because there will be a certain number of long leases which will be brought within Part I of the Act, which I do

735
not believe the Government wished to bring within that part.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am afraid I am not in a position to accept this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) introduced his observations by some general remarks, perhaps I might be permitted one or two general remarks at the same time. I am afraid the expression I have just used, "I am not in a position to accept this Amendment," is one I am likely to have to repeat a good deal during the course of our proceedings. I do not mean by that, for a moment, that we shall not listen very seriously to all arguments raised.
Mr. Leslie Hale: On both sides. If my right hon. and learned Friend is going to listen to arguments it might be a courtesy to listen to them before he gets up to deal with any Amendment.
The Attorney-General: I thought that if I indicated the general position at the beginning, it would be helpful, not only on this Amendment but on others. We have a great number of Amendments and we have already given all of them really anxious consideration in as impartial a way as we have been able to do. We have had to see whether certain Amendments would improve the drafting of the Bill or, in the case of Amendments which went further, whether they would improve the scheme of the Bill.
But, as at present advised, we have been forced to the conclusion that many Amendments—I do not say this one which is concerned more with drafting—would involve fundamental alterations in the whole concept of the Bill. They would convert what is intended to be a standstill Measure, preserving the status quo until we are able to introduce permanent legislation, into something quite different, which would substitute for existing tenancies statutory tenancies, subject to different conditions, which would create all sorts of vested rights both in the tenant and the landlord and, for this reason, would hopelessly prejudice a final settlement. It is for that general reason that we have had to take the view—as at present advised, because we shall
736
listen to whatever arguments may be brought forward—that we cannot accept the Amendments.
Mr. Pickthorn: May 1 ask whether the general matters just mentioned by the Attorney-General will be open to debate?
The Chairman: Not the whole question, but I rather understood that the Attorney-General was making preliminary remarks having reference to the particular Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope we shall be able to deal with general remarks when we come to the Question that the Clause stand part.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I suppose it follows that when we come to address the Committee on this Amendment we shall be in order in making preliminary remarks?
The Chairman: Many hon. Members already take advantage in that way, but, of course, such remarks should strictly be related to the Amendment and—if I may reply to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)—to the Question that the Clause stand part.
4.0 p.m.
The Attorney-General: I thought it might be of assistance to the Committee on both sides if I explained sincerely and seriously that we have given the greatest consideration to all Amendments, that we have studied the speeches made on Second Reading and that, as far as we could, we have had a number of real and substantial Amendments put down in the name of the Government to meet many of the points raised. I do not want it thought that we are taking an obstinate attitude in which we are not prepared to consider improvements to the Bill. I admit that when I saw the list of Amendments as a whole brought down to me on Sunday afternoon, I was reminded of the words of Mr. Ogden Nash who, I am credibly informed, once said:
"An ordeal of which I easily tire
Is that of having a lease expire.
When leases expire one wish I have got
Is to be a landlord and live on a yacht."
Having made that preliminary observation—which I hope hon. Members will

737
accept in the spirit in which I intended to make it—that we have thought a lot about all the Amendments which have been put on the Order Paper—I now give my reason for rejecting this Amendment. I dare say there would be room for a certain amount of merely theoretical discussion as to the merits of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral. The conclusive reason for rejecting it, as for rejecting a number of others, is that in practice it just cannot be made to work. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, I dealt with the matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. I took the view then —and I am afraid that further study compels me to adhere to it—that it is not practicable to find a satisfactory definition of a ground lease.
The hon. and learned Member and those in whose names the present Amendment stands have done their best to do it by copying out the definition, as indeed the hon. and learned Gentleman said, which was contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1939. That was an Act which was inevitably prepared somewhat hastily in order to give effect to the recommendations of a Committee presided over by Mr. Andrewes Uthwatt, as he was then. The Committee recommended that, for the purpose of that legislation, a distinction ought to be drawn between ground leases and other leases, and this definition was inserted. I think there is no secret about it—the definition was inserted with considerable misgiving by those who were responsible for both the recommendations and the legislation at the time.
By 1941 experience had shown that the definition in the Act had become completely 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. The Lord Chancellor, then Lord Simon, said in another place on the Second Reading of the amending Bill that it was an extremely difficult thing to get a satisfactory definition of what a ground lease was, that there were infinite variations and that one could not by legal definition draw a line between what was a ground lease and what was a rack-
738
rented lease. When the then Attorney-General, Lord Justice Somervell as he is now, introduced the amending Bill into this House he said much the same thing.
One can see the difficulties the moment one looks at the Amendment itself. The definition which is proposed is:
"ground lease,' means a lease at a rent… which does not substantially exceed the rent which a tenant might reasonably have been expected, at the commencement of the term created by the lease,—"
perhaps 97 years ago—
"to pay for the land comprised in the lease, excluding any buildings, for a term equal to the term created by the lease."
Let me, in a moment, point to the obvious difficulties of deciding what that sum would be, to the enormous opening it gives to litigious controversy involving delay, expense and anxieties.
What does "substantial" mean? The hon. and learned Gentleman did not explain that. If the hypothetical rent would be £2 a year as a ground rent, must the actual rent be £2 10s., £3, £4, £5, or must it be in order substantially to exceed the hypothetical rent? Is no guidance to be given on that? Is the county court judge to be allowed to decide in each particular case what is a substantial excess? If he is, we shall get wide variations in the administration of the Act on that first leg of the definition alone.
Then one gets the litigious difficulties —the practical considerations which would involve endless expense, the employment of lawyers—a thing I do not want to discourage—the employment of valuers—a thing which does not appeal to me so much—the occupation of endless time in the county courts and perhaps the Court of Appeal, in deciding what valuation a present day valuer ought to put on the market rent at a time, in many cases, nearly 100 years ago. How, as a practical matter, can a valuer reach any reasonable valuation of what might have been a hypothetical rent 100 years ago?
The rent which a tenant might have been expected to pay at that date depends on so many circumstances—the state of the property, the surrounding physical conditions, the economic circumstances of the neighbourhood; and one cannot see how, without enormous research, a valuer would be able to express any use-

739
ful opinion on these matters on which a court would be justified in deciding a figure. Today we may have a house which is in the middle of a building estate, with all the roads laid down, with drainage, shops and all the modern amenities and facilities. But 99 years ago that cottage might have been in an isolated part of the country. It is exceedingly difficult to know how one is to arrive at a valuation in those circumstances.
Then there is the point that the definition requires that valuation should be based on the hypothesis that buildings were excluded from it. Does that mean that the tenant is supposed to be taking a rough piece of land, an area of rough land? Or is it a prepared site for a house? All these would be matters of investigation more for the social historian than for a member of the Architects and Surveyors Institution. On these practical difficulties this Amendment is sunk, as it must be sunk, because we cannot lay down rules in regard to this practical problem which would apply properly in every case.
But even if one could solve these practical difficulties, the Amendment still fails to give the right legal definition for what is normally recognised as a ground lease. It excludes what is usually called, I think, the improved land rent, and hon. Members who are solicitors or conveyancers will be much more familiar with these matters than I am. For example, there is the case where A, the freeholder, lets the land to B, the builder, at what is a true ground rent for the land alone. B puts up the house and then does one of a number of things. He may assign the land for a capital sum so that the occupying tenant continues at a true ground rent, or he may be content with a smaller capital sum, a kind of premium, and then have an annual income, in a larger rent, to reward him for his labours. In that case he will be sub-letting at a rent which will fall far short of the rack rent but which will possibly be considerably in excess of the true ground rent.
On the other hand, there may be cases where the owner of the leasehold of a long-standing house—a house which has been in existence for a long time—chooses, instead of sub-letting at a rack rent, to raise capital on his lease by sub-letting at a large premium and a very small
740
annual rental. The rent may be low enough to come within the definition proposed in the Amendment, but no one would regard where a premium had been paid as being a kind of transaction which created a true ground rent. For all these reasons, and many other practical difficulties, we were forced to the conclusion that there was no hope by definition of confining Clause 1 of the Bill to ground leases.
But I said, and subsequent inquiries confirmed me in the view, that we thought the test we had adopted in the Bill would in fact embrace all ground leases and very little else. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that he thought there were a considerable number of houses which would be caught by Clause 1 although they were not ground leases at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has adduced no evidence of that, and in the nature of things it may be difficult to adduce evidence. I am not making any complaint on the point.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) did produce a printed lease for 21 years or more, but we thought from our inquiries—and the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to say if this is wrong—that that kind of lease, which, in any event, on our information, is a very rare thing indeed, would only be granted in continuation of a true ground lease and as a matter of history, the number of cases where a true ground lease has come to an end and a long lease granted in continuation of it has also come to an end must be very small indeed. We think the case, in any event, is a very rare one, and that, in practice, the definition that we are using will wily catch a very small number of cases where the house has already been built when the land was let. If it does, there will be no harm in that.
Many hon. Members on both sides of try Committee, I think, think this protection ought to apply to the lease of a house which had already been built. Some, I think, wanted to go much further still. If—and again I believe the cases will be very infrequent indeed—we do catch houses of that kind no great damage will be done to the parties involved. But we think that in practice it will be found that our method of defining those houses to which the Bill would apply is one which will only catch the ground leases,

741
and will achieve in practice what the hon. and learned Member for Wirral and what hon. Members on this side of the Committee desire this purely temporary Bill to achieve.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will feel that there is a little discourtesy in a Minister's intervening at the opening of the discussion on a very important Bill, and that on the first Amendment, while commencing to define at once the ground and ambit of our endeavour, the Committee should have to listen to a Ministerial speech before anyone on the back benches supporting the Government has had a chance to express any views on it at all. You will appreciate, Major Milner, that there is a moderate discourtesy from two points of view, and I venture to submit to you that in calling a Minister to reply to the debate at once—an exceedingly difficult task in that respect—is not in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite out of order in making those latter observations. Moreover, my experience of the practice of Committees is that it is of great convenience to both sides of the Committee if the Minister responsible gets up at the early stage of a discussion on an Amendment to indicate the Government's view.
Mr. Hale: You ruled that I was out of order, Major Milner. May I venture to submit to you respectfully that no Member of the Committee is ever out of order in submitting with respect to the Chair that some Ruling of the Chair is not in accordance with the precedents or the practice of the Committee? With respect, I put before you that in my respectful submission I was well within the rights of a back bench Member in doing that; and if I am right, then I am well within my duty.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I really cannot accept that. The Chair has complete discretion in these matters. It naturally pays regard to tradition and precedent, and so forth, but the Chair must always reserve complete discretion, and I do not think it is within the competence of the hon. Gentleman to make any comments on the action of the Chair.
Mr. Hale: I am much obliged—
4.15 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I be allowed to say on that point of order that we entirely support your view, Major Milner? I have had much longer experience of the Committee, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, than has the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), and certainly it was the normal pre-war practice, and it was the continual practice, found to be to the convenience of hon. Members of the Committee, for a Minister to get up early in the discussion on an Amendment to give a sort of general view of the line to be taken. I am sure that we deprecate this criticism. We appreciate the action that the Attorney-General has taken, and we deprecate any criticism.
The Attorney-General: I hope my hon. Friend will acquit me of any discourtesy in the matter. I did think, this being the first Amendment, that it would be useful to Members on both sides of the Committee if I indicated the Government's views, as at present advised, in regard to it. I did not do it with any desire to curtail debate. I thought it would be helpful if we made the general position clear on this particular Amendment. I certainly did not wish to curtail the debate or to preclude any hon. Member having a chance to speak.
Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. There is really very little between us in this matter. No one would for a moment dissent that, on the proposition put by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), we should have an early indication of the Minister's intentions. I submit, however, that it is not out of order for a back-bench supporter of the Government to wonder why a Minister should say, "We have reached a certain decision" when he means presumably this side, before anyone on this side has had a chance of partaking in the deliberations and of submitting our points.
The point that I was going to make was that at this stage no back bencher, Liberal, Labour, or, indeed Communist—and, in this matter, perhaps, it does not matter so much which he is—at this stage no back bencher had taken part in the discussion and submitted points for consideration before a final conclusion was reached by the Committee. Therefore, I was submitting that it would have been

743
very convenient from our point of view if we had taken part in the discussion at any earlier stage. I certainly acquit my right hon. and learned Friend of any discourtesy. He would never be capable of it. He is normally the soul of courtesy and consideration.
Having said that, I would add that there is very little between me and my right hon. and learned Friend on the case he put. I agree with it. But I still venture to suggest what I ventured to suggest in an intervention on Second Reading. I was unfortunate enough not to catch the eye of the Chair on Second Reading, although 15 or 16 criticisms were made of me in the course of the debate. I should like now to put it on record, because I have been submitted to some public criticism, as a former Chairman of the Leasehold Committee and for two and a half years a member of the Departmental Leasehold Committee, for not defending my views in the course of the debate, that, as for a day or two before the debate there had been a heavy posting of names and it was impossible for the Chair to indulge in the dexterous catching of foreign bodies—
The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Committee Chair, because, of course, no communication whatsoever has been addressed to the Chair by any Member in regard to this debate—to my knowledge.
Mr. Hale: I was only trying to explain —and I was trying to do so in a pleasant fashion—the reason why I did not reply then to criticisms made of me during the Second Reading. It was that I did not have the opportunity, although I was here. I do not make any complaint about it, because many Members who knew more about it than I did wanted to speak. However, I think it is right that I should make it clear now, in view of the fact that I have been submitted to public criticism, why I am glad to have an early opportunity to clear up the point.
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral is much more lucid and understandable and moderate in his expressions when speaking from the bench to which the heirs of Parliamentary Private
744
Secretaries belong than when he speaks from the bench for heirs-presumptive to Ministers. During his speech today he made quite clear when moving the Amendment one or two points. He said, I thought—and I approach this Clause from this point of view—that in proposing to insert the words "by a ground lease "he was trying to make a serious endeavour to clarify the Clause which, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, I have expressed doubts about ever since it was drafted. I sincerely am worried about the wording of the Clause. I am told that this concatenation of words does include every ground lease, and is designed for that purpose. I had supposed that the hon. and learned Member was trying to clear something up, but he made it clear that he was, in fact, moving the first of a series of Amendments, and taking the first of a series of steps, to wreck the Bill.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Nonsense.
Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Member says "nonsense." If I should not be out of order I would summarise what the effects of the Amendments would be to Clause 1. I should take an opportunity of doing it in the course of the day. If the hon. and learned Member had said that there are not many houses let on a 21-year lease, I should have agreed with him. In my experience, there are not. My experience is limited to industrial parts of the country, and it may very well be that in Westminster there are. He went on to add, surely very naïvely, that after all, as he understood it, a lot of those were protected by the existing Rent Acts. Does he really suggest that he has ever heard of a lease of 21 years of residential premises of a rateable value of less than £100 in the metropolis and of £75 in the country? Of course he does not, and I certainly never have heard of it.
The next Amendment on the Order Paper, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner)—in page I, line 8, leave out "exceeding twenty-one "and insert" not less than fourteen "—is designed to reduce the period of this lease and to increase the ambit—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. Surely, in what we have been

745
told are preliminary observations, it must be out of order to discuss the next Amendment.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, of course, knows that that is so. His remarks must be related in the main to the Amendment under discussion, although I have so far allowed him a great deal of latitude.
Mr. Hale: May I repeat the last two sentences, to which I understand objection has been taken? I said that there is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West, an Amendment designed to increase the ambit. Surely that is material when we are discussing reducing the ambit. I have not made any comment on that Amendment, nor said whether or not I agree with it. I have only pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral would make my hon. Friend's Amendment quite impossible, and I should have thought that was eminently material. I am sorry if the ambulatory nature of my oratorical gait has annoyed the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I have tried to deal with what I think is a fundamental attitude to this matter at the outset, and to say some things which I shall have to repeat in the course of our deliberations.
This is the first of a series of Amendments designed to take more and more people out of protection; it is the first of a series of Amendments which the hon. and learned Member dare not put before the people down in South Wales, or other places where this problem is acute; it is the first of a series of Amendments which make it quite clear that if ever a Tory Government came into office there would be no hope whatever of any satisfactory permanent legislation on this subject.
Sir Patrick Spens: First let me challenge the last statement of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). This Amendment is not intended to try to bring a whole lot of people outside the protection of the Bill. This Bill was introduced as a Bill to protect ground leases, whatever that phrase means, and this Amendment is proposed for the purpose of trying to define those who are to be entitled to protection under the Bill.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Would the hon. and learned Member give way?
Sir P. Spens: No, not at the moment. "Ground lease" is a very well-known legal phrase. Ground leases were a very common occurrence up to 100 years ago. Ground leases almost invariably developed out of a building scheme on an estate. They were the leases of the various plots of land on which houses were to be built. The rents were apportionable to the size of the plot and did not include anything in respect of the building which the builder was going to put up on it.
Of course, the rent of the various plots varied with the size and siting of the plot; the rent for a corner plot would be somewhat higher than the rent of a back plot, but the rents and the proportions of the rents can all be quite easily historically ascertained. There is no question of a court having to go into what is the rent of these building sites. The building scheme is there; the rents will be known, and those houses in the scheme entitled to protection will be known. There cannot be the slightest difficulty whatever in any part of the country in ascertaining which are the premises and what are the ground rents being paid in respect of the original ground leases on which ground rent is paid.
The Attorney-General went on to the next stage where very often there are what are called improved ground rents that is to say, the builder having built, sometimes let the premises for a year, or even a day, less than the whole extent of the ground lease for a somewhat higher rent and pocketed a premium or something. If improved ground rents are intended to be included in this Bill there is not the slightest difficulty in doing so. Historically that also would be quite easily ascertainable, and I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise a definition which would include improved ground leases.
In going beyond that we get to the stage of premises which are let at substantially higher rents, either rack rents, or something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "]—I gather it is the intention of some of the party opposite, if they can, to include in this Bill improved rack rented or highly rented premises. I gather that the hon. Member for Oldham,

747
West, would like to see that too. I do not know what the justification is.
Mr. George Thomas: Put them all in.
Sir P. Spens: The hon. Member says Put them all in." It would be perfectly simple to say that there is to be a complete standstill for all leases coming to an end in the next two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There we are. That is what hon. Members opposite want, but it is not what the Government introduced into the House. That is not what the Government said they were going to do. They said they were going to do something very different, but their back benchers come along and say they want a great deal more, and judging by the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in which the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Janner), seeks in page 1, line 8, to leave out "exceeding twenty-one" and to insert "not less than fourteen," they intend to attempt to do it.
I suggest that our Amendment is merely an attempt to define, and to define accurately, the category of leases which are to be given protection under this Bill. This is not a Bill for a standstill for all leases coming to an end within the prescribed period, or that have already come to an end. That would work the most gross injustice on all sorts of people, and as between one neighbour and another. In those circumstances, I submit that the Bill must be confined to ground leases, and a proper definition given. I have not the least objection to including what the hon. Member for Oldham, West, referred to as improved ground leases as well as the original ground leases. That might very well be fair, because there are long leases running on for the best part of 100 years. That is quite easily definable, and can be dealt with when we get to the definitions. I submit that it is necessary to include these words in this Clause.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Janner: Let me say at once that the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) is quite right; there are a number of people who regard long-term leases—which is what this Bill is intended to deal with; not ground leases at all, but long-term leases—as being
748
legitimately ripe to be extended so that the tenants shall not be thrown out, irrespective of whether they be members of the so-called working-class or of the middle-class. I think that hon. Members opposite had better think a little before they start offering suggestions for restrictions of this Measure because they may become answerable for their error to many hundreds of thousands of people in the country who are in peril at the present time of being turned out because their long leases are coming to an end.
I am in a sense sorry, too, that my right hon. and learned Friend did not wait a little before replying. I do not say that he was wrong in speaking when he did, although I think, with respect, that he was a little hasty, because some of us have suggestions to offer with regard to this Amendment which might even have the effect of making the closing statement of the Government a wider one than that made by the learned Attorney-General.
The object of the Amendment, as has already been very rightly stated, is to restrict to the minimum the extension of long leases. The idea of using the words "exceeding 21 years" is something about which I am not at all happy. It means that the Bill does not even cover the 21-year lease, which, in all conscience, is long enough to be called a long lease and which is described by the Committee who investigated this matter as being a long lease.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: What does it matter about the terms of a lease? Is not the whole question limited to the right of the person in possession remaining in possession as a result of the shortage of housing accommodation at the present time?
Mr. Janner: I would gladly accept the eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend, and perhaps, at a later stage, he will carry that point further, if he is in order. The length of term used in the Clause itself is in my view all too limited and does not bear any further restriction. May I point out to the learned Attorney-General that the idea of a 21 years lease not being extended is indeed a heavy burden for those holders of long leases to bear.

749
I am not using words that have not been used in the course of the inquiry. The actual words used by the Committee When dealing with certain leases were "as long as 21 years" which implied that that was a very long lease. Now the Opposition are trying to curtail this to below 21 years and to houses let at a rent which is not in excess of two-thirds of the rateable value. I have the privilege of being one of the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, although I rarely agree with him and he will find that what he wants to do now will exclude from the protection of this Bill those who are living in his own area who have long leases, many of them of 30, 40 or 50 years, and some as long as 99 years.
I think that in the circumstances we ought to make it clear in this Committee, that is, those of us who feel the same as I do, that we are strongly opposed to any limitation of the period referred to in the Bill and we are strongly opposed to the suggestion that only ground rents should be covered, which is the sense in which the Opposition have put this Amendment. We hope that not only will the spokesman for the Government offer pacifying explanations, but that he will go very much further and say determinedly to those who want to throw people out of their homes when their leases have expired, that we shall not allow them to do so.
Mr. Donald Wade: My "preliminary observations" will be very brief and I hope relevant. I think it is clear that Part I of the Bill is intended primarily to deal with ground leases, but the point which we have to keep in mind is that this is a "standstill Measure," to use the expression used by the Attorney-General. It is an attempt to maintain the status quo between the landlord and the tenant until legislation of a more permanent nature is introduced.
What we want, and the sooner the better, is the reform of our leasehold law, an overhaul of the Rent Restriction Acts and important changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act. In the meantime, this is only a stop-gap Measure. I think that it is clear from reading the Report of the Leasehold Committee—the minority report as well as the majority report—and from listening to the Second Reading
750
debate on this Bill that the permanent legislation, which we hope will eventually be introduced, will cover more than ground leases.
All that we are attempting to do now is to maintain the status quo until this legislation of a more permanent nature is introduced. This Measure now before the House may involve some injustice, but I think that it would involve more injustice if we did not maintain a standstill while we were waiting for legislation of a more permanent nature. Therefore, as regards this Amendment, I suggest that —quite apart from the practical difficult ties—it would be a mistake to accept it.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has indicated that he will not accept this Amendment. As he indicated in very polite terms, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), indicated somewhat more vigorously, this is part of a thought-out series of Amendments which are opposed to the whole fundamental conception of the Bill. This Amendment is part of a series of Amendments which, as my hon. Friend said, are wrecking Amendments. It would in fact have been far more appropriate if the Opposition had voted against the Second Reading of the Bill.
I limit myself to this particular Amendment. I shall make some more general observations when we come to a later Amendment. Clearly, there are difficulties in defining a ground lease. So far as I know, the only Act which contains a definition of a ground lease is the one which the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) mentioned. The practical difficulties in applying that definition have already been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), indicated that it would not be too difficult to have the evidence of building schemes. Not every ground lease falls within a building scheme, as he knows perfectly well; and he must know, as I know, the difficulty of establishing the existence of a building scheme, when, for instance, one is trying to establish the application of restrictive covenants dependent upon a lease. He knew from his practice, as I

751
know in my practice, the difficulty of establishing evidence of this kind. The Rent Restriction Acts are the basis of the Amendments the Opposition have put down, but the Rent Restriction Acts do not contain a definition of "ground lease."
If the definition the Opposition are bringing forward is accepted, it will still exclude from protection a number of people already excluded from the Rent Restriction Acts. It would not fill up the gap in the Rent Restriction Acts which it was the purpose of those who signed both the majority and minority reports to fill. The Rent Restriction Acts excludes from protection tenancies under two-thirds of the rateable value. There is a precedent for the Government's action which shows the difficulty of finding a definition of "ground lease." In the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920, precisely the same course was taken that has been adopted by the Government in this case. In that case power of enfranchisement was given; it was not limited to ground leases, but applied to all leases over 21 years.
The difficulty, as here, was to provide a working definition of "ground lease." Perhaps it may be that they also had in mind that if a lease is granted for more than 21 years, it is not an ordinary transitory occupational tenancy but a lease which gives a much more substantial interest in the property, and that in a substantial interest of that kind protection should be afforded which was not given in the case of ordinary short-term occupational leases. For these reasons. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is not accepting the Amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. John Hay: The Committee will have been extremely interested in the four speeches we have heard from Members opposite. The Attorney-General began by telling us point-blank that, while he was prepared to listen to all the arguments we might put up on the various Amendments, he thought it most unlikely that he would be able to accept many of them. That was rather an unpromising beginning. We then had the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), who was able to make a Second Reading speech on the Amendment,
752
something which has been frequently done before, but seldom so badly.
Then the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), told us that we had put down these Amendments with the object of wrecking the Bill, the same view also being expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas). Our position was made perfectly plain on Second Reading. We consider that this is a very bad Bill. We do not deny that there is a problem—the Leasehold Committee itself has said that there is a problem. We think, however, that this is a very bad way of dealing with it, and the whole purpose of these Amendments is to try and improve the Bill. I should have thought that Members opposite, who are just as concerned as we are for the protection of tenants who will find themselves in difficult conditions if their leases run out, would have been just as interested as we are in trying to improve the Bill.
This Amendment is a very simple one. The Attorney-General, when introducing the Bill, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has pointed out, referred constantly to the Bill as being intended to deal with ground leases. I will not repeat all the quotations, but if the intention of the Government was to introduce a Bill to protect the tenants of premises held on long leases that were falling in within the next two years, then "ground lease" is a very adequate and usual term to use.
The point has also been made that the definition we are proposing is not a satisfactory one. The Attorney-General picked a number of holes in that definition and said that it was "thoroughly unsatisfactory." I suggest that if the Government were prepared to accept that definition, it could be left to the courts to decide what is a ground lease, which is a procedure that is not unknown in statutes. As we were reminded on Friday last, there is no definition in any of the Rent Acts of a statutory tenancy, except in the notes. Yet everyone knows what it is. Similarly, most lawyers and courts would know what was meant by "ground lease." Our intention in these Amendments, many of which I hope we shall be pressing in the Division Lobby, is to improve the Bill. If the Govern-

753
ment have adopted an intransigent attitude and their minds are completely closed, then I say "Thank Heaven" for another place.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was rather interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) about improving what he describes as this "bad" Bill. If I follow him correctly, the method he proposes to apply will merely make matters much worse. I quite agree that this is an inadequate Bill. I have never had any doubt about that. I also agree that Clause 1 is far too limiting. With Clause 1 in the Bill, it does not entitle the Attorney-General to describe this as a "standstill" Measure. That is just what the Bill is not. It is undoubtedly a standstill Bill in respect of what are termed long tenancies.
I should have thought, although it might be justifiable to include such tenancies merely on the grounds that at this time all tenancies ought to be safeguarded, that if it is a question of selection, these are the last of all tenancies that ought to have protection at present. It is a misuse of the English language to say that this is a standstill Measure.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) appears to have made himself believe—I doubt whether, in fact, he does believe it—that this Measure was intended to cover only ground leases. I suspect he said that to indicate that the Government had gone beyond what was promised or what legitimately ought to have been done. I find it very difficult to accept that proposition seriously. We have only to look at the title of the Bill to see—
The Chairman: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will make some reference to the Amendment.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I thought I was doing so when referring to ground leases, to which the Amendment, although I am not quite sure, alludes. Having stated how erroneous is the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Kensington. South (Sir P. Spens) I will leave the point.
I hope the debate will not be made obscure, and that the difficulty about this
754
Clause will not be hidden by a technical discussion on ground leases. As I have already stated, the Clause is sufficiently limited without doing what this Amendment seeks to do. Although the Clause as it stands is limited, it does include leases on terms exceeding 21 years. The Opposition Amendment, which indicates how much they want to bring relief to tenants, goes out of its way to get that limited measure cut down to ground leases.
Is the hon. and learned Member for Wirral, who moved the Amendment, and those who support it, asking the Committee to make the Clause even more inefficacious than it is at present? The Clause represents to us the absolute minimum. It does not embrace the most urgent cases which ought to be dealt with —those which come between houses that are protected by the Rent Restriction Acts and the protection that is given here. Tens of thousands need relief in this respect and are not touched at all. Yet hon. Members opposite have put down an Amendment which will virtually destroy the essence of this Clause.
Mr. Charles Williams: It would be very helpful to the Committee if the hon. and learned Gentleman could say what he means when he uses the phrase "ground leases," which he has done several times.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member is doing exactly what I said the Opposition were doing, but I will try to give him an answer to his question. It is very difficult, and it would be very unsatisfactory to try to give a definition of "ground leases." It would be very much better to refer to "a lease and a ground rent" and if the hon. Gentleman wants a definition of "a ground rent" I will give it to him. It is a rent less than a rack rent.
Mr. L. Hale: Not necessarily.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: As my hon. Friend says, not necessarily. That shows the difficulty of giving it a definition. Generally speaking, and substantially, that is what is technically known as a ground rent. I agree about the difficulty. That is why it is absolutely impossible to give a meticulous definition of a ground lease. In my submission, the Clause ought not to be cut down any further.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Hon. Members opposite have called this a wrecking Amendment. It is, of course, well within the knowledge of the Committee that hon. Members who are more concerned with the electoral aspects of a Measure than with the specific merits, generally describe useful and constructive efforts to improve the Bill before the Committee as "wrecking Amendments."
The position seems to be that there is a gulf between the attitude of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and some of his hon. Friends who have spoken on this Amendment. Their position is quite clear. They say, "We do not like this Amendment because, in our view, a long lease or a medium term lease at a rack rent should, in any event, be within the Clause. "That is not my understanding of the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He has said that so far as the Bill as drafted is concerned, he is advised that it will include all ground leases and very few others. He has also said that it is impossible to define a ground lease. In that case what definition had he in mind when he satisfied himself that the Clause will include all ground leases, if it is so difficult to define? Would he tell the Committee?
Mr. Janner: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that one himself. A lease is a lease whether it be a ground lease or a rent lease.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I always felt that if I listened long enough to the hon. Member opposite, he would enunciate one simple proposition with which I felt I could agree. He now says that a lease is a lease. I do not disagree that a lease is a lease. What we are here concerned with is the definition of a "ground lease" and the Amendment deals with a ground lease. Our view is that the Clause should confine its protection to occupying ground lessees and we seek to ensure that the language of the Clause should adopt that intention.
I am not very impressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that a definition of a ground lease is impossible. It may well be so in the case of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, but the reason for changing the law there was the difficulty
756
of defining ground leases, because for the business of that Act it seemed right to the legislature that there should be no difference between ground leases and ordinary leases. That Act was concerned with matters far different from those with which the Committee is concerned today.
Finally, might I suggest—and it really reinforces what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens)—that it may be difficult to define" a ground lease. "As is said of the elephant, it is difficult to define but easy to recognise. I do not believe that, in practice, the words "ground lease" if written into the Clause would create much difficulty in distinguishing it and in confining the protection of this Clause to those particular people.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The wide range that this debate has covered on what is, after all, a very simple and, I should have thought, easily understood Amendment is not surprising. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), made a few preliminary observations which, I thought, were not such as to encourage the business of the Committee to be expeditiously conducted. Yesterday, in putting forward a Bill, he said it was better to hear a case argued rather than consider it merely on paper. He has told us that he has considered all the Amendments that have been tabled and has reached a conclusion upon them already. In spite of that we shall persevere in the hope of pursuading to him that our Amendments are well founded.
I think it is important to bear in mind that the line which the right hon. and learned Gentleman took in answering the Amendment was quite different from that of other hon. Members opposite who spoke against it. His argument was solely that it was impossible to define a ground lease accurately. He did not suggest for one moment that the intention of the Measure was to apply it to all leases. He rather indicated that it was an unfortunate accident if a long lease at a rack rent happened to come within the embrace of Clause 1.
The Attorney-General: I did not say it was unfortunate.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not use the word, I know, but the impression he gave to me was that it was bad luck that it had to be swept into the net because he could not define a ground lease.
I was extremely surprised, after hearing that argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, by the observations of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). He first of all protested at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's giving his views. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did so, and I hope that in later debates he will give us his views at an early stage, thus assisting the debate and helping us to reach a conclusion at a greater speed.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, made a speech which was both offensive and inaccurate. It is hard to tell whether it was more offensive or more inaccurate. It was offensive to my hon. and learned Friends and inaccurate in describing the Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. Other hon. Members have described the Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. May I remind them that, in seeking to insert the words "by a ground lease," the Amendment is merely seeking to put into the Bill the very words which were in the King's Speech? The hon. Member for Oldham, West, and his colleagues will find, if they refer to the King's Speech, the very passage quoted on the Second Reading by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is the passage:
"My Ministers have under consideration the reform of the law relating to leaseholds, and meanwhile Measures will he introduced to provide for the continuation for a short period of ground leases relating to residential premises."
Nothing there about leases at rack rents, but purely about ground leases.
Mr. L. Hale: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would much rather finish what I am saying before I am interrupted. The hon. Gentleman has been here for part of the debate, but he has not been here for the whole of it. I am trying to deal with—
Mr. Janner: He was here when he was speaking.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman was here when he spoke, I agree. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), has made a
758
record by making two accurate remarks on the same day.
There is that reference in the King's Speech, but nothing there about rack rents. Indeed, one has had to wait until today to see the attack developed by hon. Members opposite not only on ground landlords but on all classes of landlord. That emerged perfectly clearly today. It is absolute nonsense to describe an Amendment as "wrecking" that is really seeking to insert into the clause the words, "by a ground lease," the very words which appeared in the King's Speech in relation to this very Measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that it was the main object of the. Bill that it should apply to ground leases, and to ground leases only. He cannot deny it, in view of his Second Reading speech. It is complete nonsense to describe, this Amendment in that way. We will deal with other Amendments when we come to them.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: It is not merely so described because of the words of the Amendment, but because of those words in conjunction with the whole scheme of Amendments introduced by the Opposition.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am dealing with this Amendment. It stands by itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have understood the other Amendments if he thinks that this Amendment should be taken in conjunction with them. It is quite separate and is merely intended to put in words which are contained in the King's Speech, to improve the drafting and to improve the Bill. That is why we put the Amendment forward.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
Mr. L. Hale rose—
The Chairman: Mr. Hale.
Mr. Hale: The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, (Mr. Manningham-Buller) promised to give way to me on a statement he made that I had been inaccurate and offensive, and to do so at the termination or conclusion of the point he was making. I take it that he has now given way, and that is why I have insisted upon the concession which the hon. and learned Member now makes for me to intervene.

759
He accused me of being offensive, and he went on to comment on the fact that, with a broken arm, I left the Committee for two minutes during a two hours' discussion. That comment was not very kind or considerate. He accused me of saying something which I did not say. I said that the Amendment was the first of a series of Amendments to Clause 1 and that the whole effect was designed to wreck the Clause, and sentence by sentence to remove a whole lot of people, more and more people, out of the protection of the Clause. That statement I categorically repeat.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Had I known that the hon. Member only wanted me to give way for the purpose of repeating the same inaccurate observations I should not have given way. It does not encourage me to give way again. I shall deal with the Amendments as we come to them. By the end of the debate, if the hon. Gentleman attends, he will no doubt realise that our Amendments are not wrecking Amendments but designed to improve an extremely bad Bill. The hon. Gentleman has sustained an injury. I was not aware he had done so. I know he has his arm in a sling, but that might be attributable to many causes. If the fact appeared in the Press, I did not notice it.
Mr. Harrison: He has not got his head in a sling.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not yet. This Amendment stands on its own, and is not interlocked with other Amendments.
The Attorney-General: Not with the definition?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That comes later. The only question we are considering now is whether the words "by a ground lease" should go into Clause 1.
The Attorney-General: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously asking the Committee to take the view that we could work the Bill with the words "by a ground lease "in Clause 1, but with no definition of what was meant?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: We shall have plenty of opportunity of amending the definition if we do not seek to do so before we reach it. In spite of interrup-
760
tion, I am trying to get to the point at issue. All that we desire here is the insertion of this simple phrase. All the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman against the insertion of this simple phrase were simply based on the point that a ground lease was impossible to define. That is the sole basis on which he put his argument. I am only going to deal with his argument, and shall not seek to deal with the arguments of his supporters that the whole Clause should be vastly extended. I shall deal with his argument in this way: I think it is nonsense to suggest that practitioners such as lawyers and valuers are not able to recognise the vast majority of ground leases immediately they see them. It is nonsense for him to suggest that the insertion of these words would lead to a vast amount of litigation.
Everyone knows what a ground lease is. I am very doubtful—I come back to the interruption just now by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—whether it really is necessary to insert any definition whatsoever of the term, because a ground lease is something which is easily recognisable by all who have to do with leases. After all, there is a document in existence which can be seen, and the lease usually indicates whether it is a ground lease or not. Therefore, I think that any defect in the definition contained in an Amendment which we are not discussing does not rob this Amendment of the force and merit which is behind it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did all he could to emphasise these imaginary difficulties. It is equally difficult to define a pile of stones, but everyone knows what a pile of stones is and the same is the case with ground leases.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not think there would be many leases exceeding 21 years at a rack rent to be embraced by the Clause. I differ entirely from him on that. The Clause, with its harmful effects, will catch a number of long leases at rack rents, and the real beneficiaries of that embrace will be the categories to which my hon. and learned Friend referred in his Second Reading speech. I am sorry that the Government should have adopted this attitude to the first of a series of Amendments intended to improve this very bad Measure, and in view of their attitude we shall have no alternative but to carry this matter to a Division.
Mr. C. Williams: I have been trying for some time to say something about the Amendment. First, I want to say, as shortly as I can, how shocked I was at the Attorney-General's opening speech. I have read the King's Speech with great care. The subject of ground leases is one in which people all over the country have been extremely interested for a very long while. Having read the King's Speech, and realising that someone must have given legal advice on this matter, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to give us a simple definition of the lease.
Whether one is the Government or a private individual, if a lawyer is giving one advice and is incapable of doing a comparatively simple thing, it is never a bad thing to change the lawyer. That was why I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) if he could do any better. I found that the second lawyer on that side who, I hoped, would be able to give a valuable opinion—I have listened to his views on the law of the House for four or five years and I have no reason to suppose that he is any worse than any
other lawyer on that side—was incapable of giving me a clear definition. He used the trick so often used by those who do not know what they are talking about. He ran along a side-track about some form of rent.
It is a very great pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman barged into the debate before he had really heard more than one excellent speech and before he had any idea whatever what hon. Members on his own side of the Committee were thinking. I hope that in the circumstances he will realise that he is doing a great injury to the Bill by coming here so ill-prepared that he cannot even define what is meant on the first Amendment. It would have been quite easy for him to do it. I am glad to see that he realises that every word I have said about him is thoroughly well deserved. He has not been serious with either the Government or the Committee in the part he has played this afternoon.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 276.

Division No. 16.]

AYES

[5.16 p.m.

Alport, C. J. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Glyn, Sir R.

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

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

Gridley, Sir A.

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Colegate, A.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Arbuthnot, John

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

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

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

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

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

Astor, Hon. M.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Baker, P.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hay, John

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Head, Brig. A. H.

Banks, Col. C.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

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

Baxter, A. B.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Heald, L. F.

Bell, R. M.

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Heath, E. R.

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Cundiff, F. W.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Birch, Nigel

Davidson, Viscountess

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Bishop, F. P.

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Black, C. W.

de Chair, S.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

De la Bère, R.

Hollis, M. C.

Boothby, R.

Deedes, W. F.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Bossom, A. C.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Hope, Lord J.

Bower, N.

Donner, P. W.

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Drayson, G. B.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Drewe, C.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Braine, B.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Dunglass, Lord

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

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Duthie, W. S.

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

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Eccles, D. M.

Hurd, A. R.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Fisher, Nigel

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

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

Fort, R.

Hyde, H. M.

Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.

Foster, J. G.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Butcher, H. W.

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

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

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

Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)

Jennings, R.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Galbraith T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown)

Carson, Hon. E.

Gammans L. D.

Jones, A (Hall Green)

Channon. H.

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Churchill. Rt. Hon. W. S.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Nutting, Anthony

Storey, S.

Langford-Holt, J.

Oakshott, H. D.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Odey, G. W.

Summers, G. S.

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Sutcliffe, H.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Lindsay, Martin

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

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Linstead, H. N.

Osborne, C.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Pickthorn, K.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Powell, J. Enoch

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

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

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Tilney, John

Lucas, P. B. (Brentlord)

Raikes, H. V.

Touche, G. C.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Rayner, Brigadier R.

Turner, H. F. L.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Redmayne, M.

Turton, R. H.

McAdden, S. J.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

McCallum, Maj. D.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Vane, W. M. F.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

McKibbin, A.

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Vosper, D. F.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

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

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Roper, Sir H.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Ropner, Col. L.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)

Waterhouse, Capt. C.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Russell, R. S.

Watkinson, H.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Scott, Donald

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Marples, A. E.

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Marshall, O. (Bodmin)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Maudling, R.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Mellor, Sir J.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Wills, G.

Molson, A. H. E.

Snadden, W. McN.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Soames, Capt. C.

Wood, Hon. R.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Spearman, A. C. M.

York, C.

Nabarro, G.

Spens, Sir P (Kensington, S.)

Nicholls, H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon R. (N Fylde)

Nicholson. G.

Stevens, G. P.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Nield, B. (Chester)

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

Brigadier Mackeson and

Noble, Comdr. A. H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Mr. Studholme.

NOES

Adams, Richard

Chetwynd, G. R.

Finch, H. J.

Albu, A. H.

Clunie, J.

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

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Coldrick, W.

Follick, M.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Collick, P.

Foot, M. M.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cook, T. F.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Awbery, S. S.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Ayles, W. H.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Bacon, Miss A.

Cove, W. G.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Balfour, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford S.)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.

Crawley, A.

George, Lady M. Lloyd

Bartley, P.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Gibson, C. W.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Gilzean, A.

Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Benson, G.

Daines, P.

Gooch, E. G.

Beswick, F.

Dalton, Rt Hon. H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

Darling, G (Hillsboro')

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Bing, G. H. C.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Grenfell, D. R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Blenkinsop, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Boardman, H.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Booth, A.

Deer, G.

Grimond, J.

Bottomley, A. G.

Delargy, H. J.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Bowden, H. W.

Diamond, J.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bowen, R.

Dodds, N. N.

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Donnelly, D.

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Dye, S.

Hannan, W.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hardman, D. R.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Edelman, M.

Hardy, E. A.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hargreaves, A.

Brown, George (Belper)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Harrison, J.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Burke, W. A.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hayman, F. H.

Burton, Miss E.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

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

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Herbison, Miss M.

Carmichael, James

Ewart, R.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Fernyhough, E.

Holman, P.

Champion, A. J.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

764

765

Houghton, Douglas

Moeran, E. W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Hoy, J.

Monslow, W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F.

Hubbard, T.

Moody, A. S.

Sparks, J. A.

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

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Morley, R.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Morris. P. (Swansea, W.)

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

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

Stross, Dr. B.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Mort, D. L.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Moyle, A.

Sylvester, G. O.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Mulley, F. W.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Janner, B.

Murray, J. D.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Jay, D. P. T.

Nally, W.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Neal, H.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

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

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Jenkins, R. H.

Oldfield, W. H.

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

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Oliver, G. H.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Orbach, M.

Thurtle, Ernest

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Padley, W. E.

Timmons, J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Tomney, F.

Keenan, W.

Pannell, T. C.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Kenyon, C.

Pargiter, G. A.

Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Parker, J.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

King, H. M.

Paton, J.

Viant, S. P.

Kinley, J.

Pearson, A.

Wade, D. W.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Peart, T. F.

Wallace, H. W.

Lee, F. (Newton)

Poole, Cecil

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Popplewell, E.

Weitzman, D.

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Porter, G.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Lindgren, G. S.

Proctor, W. T.

West, D. G.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Pryde, D. J.

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

Logan, D. G.

Pursey, Commander H

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Rankin, J.

White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

McAllister, G.

Rees, Mrs. D.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

MacColl, J. E.

Reeves, J.

Wigg, George

McGhee, H. G.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Mack, J. D.

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Wilkes, L.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

McLeavy, F.

Richards, R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

MacMilian, M. K. (Western Isles)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

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

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

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

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

Mann, Mrs. J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)

Manuel, A. C.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Wyatt, W. L.

Mellish, R. J.

Simmons, C. J.

Yates, V. F.

Messer, F.

Slater, J.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Mikardo, Ian

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mitchison, G. R.

Snow, J. W.

Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The next Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 1, line 8, leave out "exceeding twenty-one," and insert" not less than fourteen," in the name of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is out of order.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order. I respectfully submit, Sir Charles, not only that this Amendment is not out of order, but that you should accept it because it relates specifically to the subject matter of this Bill. I want to explain, as briefly as I can, why I say that. We have just defeated an Amendment which attempted to restrict the scope of this Measure to ground rents and to ground leases. In fact, the Measure deals with long leases, and I submit that the question of what is a long lease is not within the discretion
766
of the Chair so far as a question of order is concerned, but is within the direct right of debate in Committee.
In strengthening that argument, may I say that the Bill itself refers, in its Title, to making
"temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property against the coming to an end of long leases …"
It does not refer to building leases; it does not distinguish between a building lease and an occupation lease. It refers to long leases. I would ask hon. Members to bear with me for a few minutes, because this is extremely important—
The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps it will assist the hon. Gentleman is I tell him that I ruled the Amendment out of order because it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Janner: I am trying to show that it is not beyond the scope of the Bill. May I say why? The Bill does not deal specifically with building leases, although building leases are included. It does not deal with occupation leases solely. It deals with both. That is why I said, a few moments ago, that everyone knew what a lease meant. A lease means a tenancy agreement for any period above three years. Once a tenancy is granted for three years or more it becomes a lease. In my contention a lease of 21 years is a long lease. In fact, the committee that sat on this matter, when referring to 21 years, used the words "as long as 21 years," implying that that is a very long lease. I submit that 14 years is a long period. Three years is the minimum and 21 years for occupational leases is very lengthy. In those circumstances, a lease of 14 years is a long lease, and I ask you to accept the Amendment, Sir Charles, as being within the scope of the Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot agree that it is.
Mr. L. Hale: Further to that point of order. I apprehend that the Ruling you have given in this matter may cover later Amendments on the Order Paper, Sir Charles. May I draw your attention to two points? First, I understand that there is no Financial Resolution in connection with the Bill because it does not involve any expenditure, and, therefore, there is no limiting factor as far as a Financial Resolution is concerned. Second, there are Amendments at the end of the Order Paper which are designed to amend the short Title of the Bill and, therefore, designed to extend the scope of the Bill, which, I understand are in order and may be the subject of discussion.
5.30 p.m.
I venture, with respect, Sir Charles, to associate myself with what my hon. Friend said about the meaning of the words "long lease" and to call your attention to the wording of the short title of the Bill, and not to the Explanatory Memorandum, which has no legal or binding effect. The short Title is:
"To make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property against the coming to an end of long leases, and for the renewal of tenancies of shops; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
768
Certain Amendments to the short Title, if they are called, would tend to extend the scope of the short Title considerably by adding offices and business premises, and so on. But, even as the short Title is drawn, I respectfully submit that there is nothing in it to exclude leaseholders for 14 years. Although this matter is controversial, I believe that lawyers on both sides of the Committee would submit that a lease for 14 years is a long lease—almost unusually long in connection with many classes of property—and that in the words "long lease" a leaseholder for 14 years certainly has a right to be considered for inclusion.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am not, of course, a lawyer but I take the best advice available and it is to the effect that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. I must, therefore, rule accordingly.
Mr. Janner: May I make one further statement on that, Sir. Charles? While you may have been so advised, surely it is open for you to take a different point of view if convinced that that point of view is right. May I say, with respect, that it is a very serious matter indeed to many hundreds of thousands of residents who hold long leases—as long as 14 years which are terminating—that their case should not be dealt with in a Measure which deals with long leases—not with building leases solely, which is a very different matter. A 99-year lease may be a building lease. We have just decided that the Bill deals with occupation leases which are over 21 years. One day over 21 years thus becomes a long lease and, according to your Ruling, 14 years is to be considered as a short lease. I am concerned with what other lawyers say, of course, but I think, Sir Charles, that if you asked the lawyers in the Committee at present they would regard an occupational lease of 14 years—which the Bill covers quite definitely—as being a long lease. Even a 21-year lease with a right to determine at 14 years is a long lease. So I ask you, Sir Charles, if you will be good enough to reconsider this matter because, if the Amendment is not proceeded with at this stage it will destroy what many of us in this Committee consider to be the main reason for the introduction of this Bill.
The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to appear disrespectful, but I stick to the advice I have had already.
Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "two," and to insert" five."
This is an innocuous Amendment. It is really only a matter of small detail and of no great principle, but it means a great deal to a large number of people. I understood from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill, that the Government were hoping to introduce shortly a comprehensive Measure to deal with the whole leasehold problem, and the two-year standstill proposed in the Bill is intended to prevent hardships to large sections of the community pending the introduction of that piece of legislation.
Presumably the major legislation will have a provision in which it repeals the temporary legislation we are discussing this afternoon. I suggest that, whenever the major legislation comes, it does not matter whether the period of standstill is two years or five years if it comes within that two-year period, because it will then take over the protection of this Bill for the remainder of the two-year period and will protect those people from suffering hardship under the present leasehold law.
So I submit, first, that it does not matter whether the period of standstill is two or five years from the point of view of the Government if they really mean to introduce this major legislation within a short period, and I ask the Government whether my right hon. and learned Friend can give any further assurance as to when the Government intend to introduce comprehensive legislation dealing with this matter. Secondly, so far as the ordinary leaseholder is concerned—the man in the street who is on the receiving end of this Bill—two years is very different from five years. Speaking for myself—and many other hon. Members here will feel the same—if I have five years of security in front of me I feel much more certain about the future than with two years, which is a very short space of time, and gives one little opportunity of planning one's life ahead.
So from the point of view of ordinary human beings facing the sword of Damocles in the way of the ending of this leasehold legislation, it will considerably increase the fears and apprehensions
770
of people if there is only a two-year and not a five-year standstill. One can never tell what the future will hold politically. Some of the party opposite might be in power, and we have seen their attitude on leasehold reform during the Second Reading of this Bill and during the Committee stage this afternoon. To sum up, I submit that in principle it is a very small change and that in practice, although it is a small change from the point of view of the Government, it is a great change so far as ordinary people in their homes are concerned.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I have listened to the speech commending this Amendment, but I feel that to some extent the proposition is artificial. Most hon. Members will agree with me that, whatever is written into this Bill, it is extremely unlikely in practice to put a term to the operation of the Bill. If it is so, it would be against all precedent of post-war legislation. One almost loses account of the number of Measures introduced as temporary Measures by the present Government that have turned out to be permanent or semi-permanent. For example, Section 7 of the Building Materials and Housing Act, which was to operate for four years, is now well on its way towards its extended period of eight years. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, which was supposed to end at the end of 1947, is still going strong—and is even spawning other Bills, so strong a hold has it taken on its position on the Statute Book.
So I cannot help feeling that this Bill, which is supposed to last for two years, may—at any rate if the present Government is in power—go on for a good deal longer in practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but it is a slipshod way of legislating to commend Measures to the House as temporary Measures, and then to allow them to go on from day to day as a kind of permanent legislation without bringing them to an end or making any provision for doing so.
I hope that this Bill will not last for five years. If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) wants to know why I do not support it, I have been saying what I think will happen if this Government remains in power and this Bill goes on the Statute Book. For myself, although I do not oppose the

771
principle of having a standstill Measure, I do not think that it ought to be extended beyond the two years. What the hon. Member is doing is inviting the right hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat the errors already committed with regard to the other Bills I have specified. I am sure that the Attorney-General needs no encouragement. He is quite likely to extend the operation in any event without having encouragement on those evil courses from hon. Members opposite. If this is a standstill Measure, let us confine it to two years in order that permanent legislation may be enacted at an appropriate time thereafter. Do not let us start by saying that we are going to extend the operation of piecemeal legislation.
Mr. G. Thomas: I am not a lawyer and therefore, perhaps, I ought to apologise because our Amendment is so clear and straightforward that everyone can follow it. The argument should also be straightforward, for the only people who would really object to the extension of this security for the "small" householders and leaseholders are the ground landlords or those with their own special interests. I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will feel it possible to give to people an assurance that the short period of two years will not be the limiting factor. The Government may well require longer to produce the comprehensive Measure which shall emancipate the property owner from the grip of the finance corporations and so on. My hon. Friends and I have put down the Amendment from a spirit of sweet reasonableness because we believe that it will help the Government in their purposes.
Mr. Molson: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), has commended the Amendment to the Committee on the ground that it will be of assistance to the Government because he does not think they will be able to make up their minds in the course of the next two years. The Attorney-General dealt with this matter in the Second Reading debate, and said:
"… we thought it right to choose a period of two years for this standstill Measure, because we felt that the period of uncertainty and of inconvenience, or perhaps even hardship, ought to be reduced to a minimum, and because we believe that by the end of the two years we should be reasonably
772
sure of having permanent legislation ready to take the place of this interim moratorium Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 374.]
Far be it from me to intervene between the Government and their supporters, but it is a serious reflection when one finds that after all the experience which the hon. Member has had of the Government to which, on most issues, he has given his loyal support in the last six years, he does not think that they will be able to carry out their expectation of coming to a final conclusion within the next two years.
It may be that there has come into the mind of the hon. Member the same doubt which was made apparent for almost the first time from the benches opposite, in the speech today of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). For a long time we were given to understand that there was no shadow of doubt and no lack of confidence on the part of hon. Members opposite that they would continue to be responsible for the Government of the country for a long time to come. The speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke indicated that he would like to extend the period of this interim Measure because he was apprehensive lest the permanent legislation should be introduced by a Government of a different complexion which would be succeeding the present Government in the near future.
Mr. Donnelly: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to misquote me. I thought I said that it was not that we on this side had any doubt but that some people in their houses had doubts—and that was the only reason—in view of the fire-eating orations of hon. Members opposite.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Molson: That must be even more serious. Apparently it does not matter to the Government what are the expectations of hon. Gentlemen now occupying the benches opposite; what is far more serious for them is what the voters of the country are thinking, and it is, naturally, satisfactory to us to know in what direction the hon. Member for Pembroke thinks people's minds are apt to go.
We on this side most strongly oppose the Amendment. If all the Amendments which we propose in order to restrict the

773
harmful effects of the Bill are to be described from the benches opposite as wrecking Amendments, then when hon. Members on the other side themselves propose Amendments which are intended to extend the pernicious operation of the Bill beyond what was indicated in the King's Speech and in the speech of the Attorney-General in introducing the Bill, we might describe their's as exclusive Amendments designed to expand the scope of the Bill far beyond what was intended.
It is sufficiently serious that when a lease which has been entered into by the two parties is coming to an end at the agreed time, the legislature should step in and quite arbitrarily give to the tenant protection in the occupation of that house for two years.
Mr. G. Thomas: Why?
Mr. Molson: I cannot, while discussing this Amendment, go at length into the objections. I endeavoured to state them in my speech on Second Reading and I hardly think, Sir Charles, that you would wish me to repeat my Second Reading speech in dealing with the present Amendment.
One perfectly obvious reason why that course is open to objection is that the occupation by these tenants is protected for an additional period, while they are at the same time relieved of the obligations which they undertook—for example, for the purpose of maintaining the premises in a proper state of repair—when they entered into the lease. Therefore, whatever may be the justification for a brief standstill period, during which time the Government are expected to collect their thoughts and to prepare the long-promised permanent legislation, it would be unfair and unjust to the landlord, and unfair and unwise treatment of the tenants, to extend this standstill period from two to five years. It would also have the harmful effect of being a perpetual temptation to this Government once more to procrastinate and not to make up their minds.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am rather surprised that any Member on this side should have moved an Amendment of this kind. I say that because to my mind the effect of the Clause is so unfortunate that the idea of perpetuating it for even a day beyond the period already named makes
774
it very difficult for me to accept that proposition from any hon. Friend of mine. I should have thought that the period of two years was serious enough without extending it. As it is, the provision leaves quite a large body of cases in a state of hardship and uncertainty. I do not think anybody denies that, or that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would seek to impugn that proposition. Therefore the idea that the period of hardship and uncertainty should be extended would not be acceptable to me for a moment.
A further reason why I cannot appreciate the suggestion that has been made is that we are not dealing with some sort of unknown field, some unexplored ground. These matters have been explored over and over again. There have been one committee after another—the Ridley Committee and the last Leasehold Committee—and all the matters that are in issue here have been examined and considered and recommendations have been made and the whole position has been crystallised. That is one of the reasons why I profoundly objected to the limitation and inefficacy of the Clause. Not only did it seem that the ground had been explored, but the urgency of the situation was such that this Clause should have been made considerably wider in scope.
For anyone to say that the period of two years should be extended to five years is merely inviting the Government to do nothing over this standstill for five years instead of for two years. Even the Attorney-General has not indicated that he desires to have any such period. What he has said is that the standstill is intended to buy time. It is hoped during the next two years that provision may be made to enable the Government to bring in a Bill which, in my submission, ought to have been brought in now. There is no economic reason as far as I can see why this ought to be delayed. No dollars are in issue here and there is no question of manpower or of materials involved. The situation is such that there is no impediment whatever to a more adequate Bill being brought in. It must therefore logically follow that there could be no justification whatever for extending this period.
Mr. Weitzman: In spite of the learned words of my hon. and learned Friend the

775
Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) I think this a very reasonable Amendment and I suggest that the Committee ought to adopt it. I am very suspicious of the unanimity among those opposing this Amendment and I think there is considerable force in the suggestion that if unfortunately there were a change of Government we might suffer seriously. If the period were extended to five years that would be a safeguard against any alteration being made in that direction.
What are the objections to this Amendment? Apparently the objection is that it may encourage the Government to delay in bringing in legislation. Surely the Government can make up their minds in regard to that. If in fact legislation is brought in the increase of the period from two years to five years will make not the slightest difference. On the other hand, the five-year period would be a safeguard. I suggest that five years is not too lengthy a period.
It is all very well for my hon. and learned Friend to say that the ground has been cleared and that there has been the Ridley Committee Report and other reports, but one should look at the words in those reports. Take, for instance, the Report which is the basis of this Bill. One sees the different reports issued by way of majority and minority reports. It is absurd to say that the ground has been cleared. The field of the law of landlord and tenant is a most complex field. Everyone would agree that there are a great many amendments which require to be made. They must necessarily take a considerable time and any Government would have to spend a great deal of time in preparing a Bill to deal with all the evils which have to be remedied in that field. I suggest this is a reasonable Amendment which the Committee ought to adopt.
Brigadier Medlicott: If this Amendment is pressed to a Division I should find myself with some reluctance compelled to vote against it, because I have some feeling of sympathy with the motives behind it. It cannot be correct to say that the law of landlord and tenant has been crystallised. There is no subject whatever upon which there is greater confusion than that which exists over the whole field of that law. I think
776
we need to look at this problem purely from the point of view—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I heard something said about the law of landlord and tenant being crystallised. I never said any such thing. What I said was that the issues on which the Bill is a standstill have been inquired into by numerous committees, that the ground had been well explored, that there was no economic impediment today and therefore there was no reason for any further delay.
Brigadier Medlicott: I am very glad to be supported and, if necessary, corrected on that point. In fact, the issues outstanding in regard to landlord and tenant are far from being crystallised, and I think we need to look at this Bill, and this particular part of it, purely from the standpoint of how much time is required to enable the Government to bring in a good Bill, one which will see justice done to to both sides.
I should have thought three years would have been a better proposal, because during the next two years we shall have a lot of other things to think about in this House, and, as on all sides it must be admitted that this problem has baffled a satisfactory settlement for scores of years, I think it a little inconsistent if we on this side of the Committee now pretend that it could be done in five minutes. We need at least two years and it would be with some reluctance that I would have to vote against this Amendment.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am much obliged to and much in agreement with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). I certainly understood my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) to say that the law had been crystallised, but if he did not say that he said every stone had been turned and every avenue had been explored, and all relevant circumstances taken into consideration, and the decks were cleared for action. I understand he says that in respect of the Ridley Report and, presumably, of the Report of the Committee on Town Holdings which reported in 1899 and which went further than this Bill.
There is one small technical difficulty with which I find myself confronted and for which I seek your guidance, Sir. It is that there is a precisely similar Amend-

777
ment to Part II of the Bill and it is quite clear that a decision on one would govern both Amendments. We cannot introduce a temporary Measure whereby provision is made for protection to one kind of interest for five years—
Mr. John Hay rose—
Mr. Hale: No, I was told that the Opposition would not give way and therefore I must reciprocate. I could put this point in regard to business premises, but can only put it with less accuracy with regard to the premises we are discussing. People are pressed to take decisions about leasehold property considerably in advance and are offered renewal terms long before a lease expires and provisionally we are consulted about propositions for renewing leases which have three or four years to run.
6.0 p.m.
A landlord comes along to the lessee and says, "Very well you can have 21 years renewal if you pay 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. more rent and if you agree now." That man has to make up his mind and in order to make up his mind on the question he has to take a lot of relevant facts into consideration. He has to make up his mind whether this Government will remain in office in two years time and whether they will produce legislation in that time. That is a serious point, because in "The Times" three days ago I found the report of a case in which I was apparently concerned, although I never heard of it, in which the Court of Appeal were being asked to read this Bill before it was passed, see what its implications might be when it was passed and see if they could give protection to tenants pending its passing. Counsel engaged by the firm of which I am a member was not called upon to answer that, and therefore did not come into the matter.
Difficult practical considerations do arise in these circumstances, and we have put down this Amendment with one point in view. Here I find myself agreeing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester, and, therefore, am a little doubtful whether I am right. If my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to give a full assurance to the House that he is now in a position to say that a full and comprehensive Bill designed to effect a full measure of reform can definitely
778
be introduced within two years, then there is no reason whatever why we should ask for an extension of five years, and we shall not wish to press the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend told the House that it was the Government's intention, but in remarks which he made on the first Amendment he did also say that the Parliamentary draftsmen had had difficulty in drafting this short Measure.
The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friend is asking me to intervene, I would say that I certainly did intend to give that undertaking, and give it now, subject to the unlikely eventuality that this Government might not be in office at that time. But, taking the view which I myself feel, subject to that possibility—that this Government are in office in two year's time—it is our intention and hope to introduce a Bill. The committee is established and I see no reason to think that we shall not be able to introduce the Bill.
Mr. Hale: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, and on the basis of that assurance I should be willing, as I feel my colleagues will be, to withdraw the Amendment.
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see the Amendment to Part II of the Bill to which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) referred.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad that we shall not be pursuing this debate much longer because it has all been obstructive. The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing that he did not say on Second Reading.
Mr. Donnelly: In view of the undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "immediately before," and to insert:
"during the three years immediately preceding."
It is obvious that hon. Members opposite are very touchy about this extremely bad Bill. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) imposes his ordinance about not giving way I think he will suffer much more than other

779
people; it will be much more a deprivation to him than to those who seek to interrupt him if such a practice should be observed. He described this Clause as a curiously un-understandable concatenation of words. That was his description of Clause 1. When remarks are made about Amendments of ours being designed to wreck the Bill, it makes one suspect that hon. Members opposite are very touchy about the Bill, and that those remarks are made solely to bolster the morale of a disintegrating party.
This Amendment is designed to restrict those who will benefit under the provisions of Clause 1 to those who have been in occupation or living in the premises for a qualifying period of three years. The obvious remark that this is an attempt to restrict the application of the Bill will at once be made. I agree that it is; it is an attempt to prevent people who have bought the fag end of building leases from benefiting by this Bill. I see no reason whatever why a person who has bought the fag end of a building lease, knowing perfectly well at the time when he made the contract that the lease was coming to an end on a particular day, should benefit as against the unfortunate reversioner, who may have done what the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) described as planning ahead, and made a bargain with someone else on a perfectly clear basis that at a certain time he was to get possession of his own property. A reversion is just as much property as is anything else.
In order to hold the scales of justice evenly as between the occupier and the reversioner who is expecting to enter into possession, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to require that occupation should have been for a minimum period of three years. It is fair to put into the Clause the provision contained in this Amendment because there are no "just exceptions" prescribed in Part I of the Bill. Hon. Members who have attempted to study this problem will know that as a rule, whenever it is sought to alter the law of landlord and tenant and to give tenants further rights, a number of "just exceptions" are included which enable the landlord to defeat the rights being given to the tenant. Under the Rent Restric-
780
tions Acts there are certain "just exceptions," particularly under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.
In our discussions in the Leasehold Committee and the many reports of all sorts that came forth from that Committee, there was reference to this matter of "just exceptions." In a Supplementary Note about residential premises, signed by five members of the Committee—I refer to paragraph 10 of the Supplementary Report on Security of Tenure for Residential Tenants signed by Mr. Reddaway, Miss Alford and the hon. Members for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) and Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale)—they said that they were not advocating a qualifying period because they were recommending that if the landlord could satisfy the tribunal that he wanted the house for his own possession or for the possession of one of his children, he would be able to defeat the application of the tenant for an extension of his tenancy.
In Part I of this Bill there are no "just exceptions" whatever by which this standstill could be defeated, however great the need to defeat the right of the tenant in order to carry on with some scheme of re-development, however much the reversioner may wish to enter into possession himself. Even though on a "greater hardship" test the reversioner could easily satisfy the court that he was more entitled to possession than the man who has bought the fag end of the lease, under Part I as it stands at present that individual has no chance of getting possession at the end of the lease. It is for that reason that I think it fair and right to put into the Clause the qualifying period proposed in the Amendment.
I know the Attorney-General, in his Second Reading speech, said that the reason why the Government, after consideration—one infers from that that he thought there was a good deal to be said for a qualifying period—decided against a qualifying period was because it would have to be an arbitrary period. I agree, that is inevitable. It might be argued that the qualifying period should be five years rather than three years. There would be anomalies, there are bound to be, but I am suggesting that on the whole greater justice would be done by stipulating a qualifying period, and I suggest three years.

781
It is not a question of attempting to wreck the Bill but of certain bargains having been made on very definite assumptions—bargains the fulfilment of which is interrupted by this Bill. At the outset the whole of the pressure was applied on behalf of those who had for a long time been living in certain premises and who were now to be put under unfair conditions in making a new bargain with their landlords. As I have said before, I have real and genuine sympathy with people who are in that position, and who may have to come out at a time of housing scarcity. But when we come to the person who has gone in for only two years, knowing well that at the end of the period he would have to give up the occupation of those premises, I suggest that the greater hardship may very well be on the reversioner.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to support the Amendment, which has the effect of implementing one of the recommendations of the majority report of the Uthwatt Committee. I notice that the Attorney-General himself regards the argument for an Amendment on these lines as, in his own words "not unattractive," though he felt himself obliged to reject it, on the basis of the arbitrariness of the figure of three years. To that point I shall return in a moment. The Minority Report rejected the proposal on the ground that it introduced a distinction between the protection given to lessees at rack rents and the owners of ground leases. I think that difficulty can also be dealt with.
There are two main reasons which have been held to justify Parliament in modifying the contract between landlord and tenant in the case of long leases. The first of those reasons is to alleviate the effect of improvidence. The second is to alleviate the effects of the sudden fall in the value in money, and the increase in the relative scarcity of housing accommodation which we have experienced during and since the war.
It was particularly upon the first of these two reasons—namely, the situation of a leaseholder who had made no provision for amortisation, and who found himself taken by surprise by the discovery that the house which he supposed his own would in fact revert to the landlord—that the Solicitor-General placed most emphasis in his Second Reading speech. He
782
reiterated again and again in argument with my hon. Friends his assertion that the great majority of leaseholders had come so to regard the houses in which they live as their own property that to be confronted with the falling in of the lease was a catastrophic situation.
That difficulty cannot possibly apply to a person who bought the fag end of a lease which had only three, four or five years to run. He knew exactly what he was doing and he paid the current market value for what he was getting. He knew the house would revert to the landlord at the end of three, four or five years, and he decided that the sum which he was paying for it was worth what he was getting. So it is unreasonable to extend the protection of this Bill to persons who are not in the position of a tenant who, or whose family, have long habited the same house.
Now I pass to the second argument urged in justification: that this protection, like rent restriction generally, should be afforded to mitigate the increased housing scarcity and the fall in the value of money. That might apply to persons who have been resident in the same house since before the war. It cannot apply to a person who has, since the war, in conditions of scarcity and with a devalued currency, bought the fag end of a lease.
Therefore on neither argument can I see grounds for protecting tenants who have only been tenants in post-war conditions. If we include them and give protection to them we are in fact giving them more than they bought. They bought three, four or five years; we are giving them five, six or seven years. We are conferring upon them an uncovenanted benefit for no reason of justice or equity.
6.15 p.m.
It may be urged that the argument I have just put forward is an argumentum nimium probans; that we have here an Amendment which requires a three years qualifying period whereas my argument would require at least a five or six years qualifying period. Consequently, it may be argued that protection should be withdrawn from tenants who bought expiring leases since the end of the war, and therefore the period should be five years. I agree there is a certain force in that argument, but not very much.

783
Let us consider the position of the person buying in 1945 a lease due to expire in 1951 or 1952. I will not make any hypothesis as to which party he voted for at the General Election in 1945. But he would be aware that the party which got into power in 1945 was one which had pledged itself to deal with the housing scarcity by 1950. He might well feel therefore that the conditions prevailing when he had to re-accommodate himself upon the expiry of the lease would be more or less normal. I would say therefore that it is not arbitrary—
Mr. Harrison rose—
Mr. Powell: If I may conclude my argument, I shall willingly give way. It is not arbitrary to fix this period at a shorter one than five years; because it was only as time went on, and as the effect of this Government's policy became evident, that a person purchasing the fag end of a lease must have realised that the conditions when it expired would be much the same as—if not worse than—those when he bought it. Therefore, I suggest it is logical for us to withhold protection only from tenants who purchased a lease in or after 1947, 1948 or 1949 as the case may be.
Mr. Harrison: The hon. Member mentioned that in 1945 one party only specified or pledged themselves to deal seriously with the housing problem in five years—
Mr. Powell: I did not say that.
Mr. Harrison: I should like to know which party gave that pledge?
Mr. Powell: I think the hon. Member mistook my point.
Mr. Harrison: I am sorry.
Mr. Powell: My argument was that a person purchasing the fag end of a lease in 1945, and having regard to the promises and undertakings of the political party which was then in power—and would probably remain in power for the next four or five years—was faced with quite a different prospect from that confronting a person purchasing a lease two or three years later. Therefore it is reasonable to withhold the protection of this Bill only from persons who were purchasing the fag end of leases with their eyes open, not
784
merely to the fact that the lease would expire in 1951 or 1952, but also to the devaluation of our currency and the continued failure of the Government to deal with the housing shortage.
Mr. Gibson: I hope the Government will reject this Amendment, if only for one of the reasons given by the mover himself. He said that it restricts the beneficiaries under this Act. That means that a large number of people will face eviction and will probably be evicted at the end of a short lease. I think that the House on Second Reading agreed in view of the situation in those days, that we ought to do what we can to prevent families being turned out on to the street without a home. Members of the Opposition, sometimes with a very involved kind of argument, are quite prepared to see a large number of people—one does not know how many, but obviously a very large number—who may be subjected to eviction and their families turned on to the street, with no redress at all.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Would the hon. Member deal with the position of the reversioner who has planned to enter into occupation of the house? Does he suffer any hardship?
Mr. Gibson: The position is that, generally speaking, the reversioner already has a home to live in and can continue there. I thought that it was the poor families who are being evicted that we were so anxious to help when we had the Second Reading debate. As I expected, hon. Members opposite are finding all kinds of peculiar reasons for whittling down the effects of this Bill. The whole idea is that we should protect the interest of people at present in houses and prevent them from being evicted while this House is dealing with comprehensive legislation and trying to bring some order out of the jungle of law which now surrounds landlord and tenant. Somebody said that the field of landlord and tenant law was clear. I am not a lawyer, and the more I read about it, the more of a jungle it seems.
The sooner we make a really comprehensive effort to bring order and understanding into the law on this subject the better it will be for the people. In the meantime, we must prevent people being evicted merely because their lease has run out. This Amendment stands con-

785
demned because in the words of the mover it will seriously restrict the number of beneficiaries, and I hope that the Government will reject it.
Mr. Wade: When discussing an earlier Amendment I suggested that all these Amendments must be considered in the light of the fact that the Bill is a standstill Measure. We are waiting for legislation of a more permanent nature and we do not wish those who are to benefit from that legislation to be put at a disadvantage by the delay. That, I think, we must accept; but there is a limit to which one should apply that principle. I do not think that the man who had bought the tail end of a lease—to change the expression instead of saying, "the fag end"—will be the kind of man who will be evicted with his family or that he will really suffer great hardship. I appeal to the Attorney-General to accept this Amendment. It seems to be reasonable. I should be satisfied with even less than three years, but I accept that period as a compromise. I urge the Government to accept what I think is a reasonable Amendment.
Mr. Harrison: I wish to call attention to the comment made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), about the man who had bought the tail end of a lease, and also to the assumption of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), that there could be no possible hardship in a case of that description.
Mr. Wade: It is a matter of degree of hardship. I said that I did not think that there would be great hardship in the case of a man who buys the tail end of a lease.
Mr. Harrison: That is a purely hypothetical assumption by the hon. Member. There is just as much likelihood that there will be considerable hardship in an instance like that, as in one where a man has held a lease for a long time. Let us consider a man who served in the last war and who wanted a house when he came home. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral suggested that there was no compulsion in this tail end purchase being made. I suggest that the special conditions existing at that time imposed on the purchasers of these leases considerable compulsion.
786
There was a considerable amount of compulsion behind the purchase of residential property during this period which it is sought to exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In view of that, we should be ill-advised to accept this Amendment which would limit the people who will benefit under this Clause. We should assume that those who bought these tail end leases during this special period were very often compelled to do so, and that they would suffer a greater hardship than people who have held their leases for a longer time.
Mr. Hay: I have listened to this discussion with a certain amount of amazement. Of all the Amendments which we have put down to this Bill, I thought that this was the one probably more than any other that would appeal to hon. Members on the back benches opposite. After all, during the Debate on the Second Reading it was from those very back benchers, some of whom have spoken in the debate on this Amendment, that we heard so much about the hardship caused through long leases coming to an end. We had a speech from the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) explaining how in his constituency various people had come to him with hard cases. As I understand this Amendment, those sort of people are adequately covered.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) made it clear that what we had in mind was the sort of person who, whatever the compulsion that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), had in mind, whatever compulsion they may have been under, nevertheless purchased the tail end of a lease with their eyes wide open. They knew that at the end of that term their lease would come to an end and they would have to strike a fresh bargain with the landlord. It is that sort of person who is also covered as well as the hard cases, the people whose families have lived in a house for many years. It is that sort of people who will be the beneficiaries under this Clause as it stands.
I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been the first to say that this is a good Amendment because it gets rid of the sort of individual who has not really a deserving case. I am waiting to hear what the Attorney-General has to say about this.

787
So far, his comments on previous Amendments have not given me any great reason to hope that he will change his tune on this one. I urge him to have a look at this point. It is a good point which the House, whatever decision we come to now, ought eventually to accept by way of incorporation in Clause I.
Mr. MacColl: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will advise the Committee to reject this Amendment. It is a most plausible and cynical Amendment. I could understand the logic of fixing a term of 10, 15, or 20 years which would exclude everybody except the bona fide long-term resident. To fix a term of three years appears to be completely devoid of any logical consistency. People who bought their leasehold four years ago are no more long-term residents than the person who has been forced to buy the tail end of a lease because he had no other alternative. When one hears hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about people doing this sort of thing with their eyes open, one feels that one is back somewhere in the 19th century listening to a defence of the exploitation of labour because people had entered into a wage contract and need not have done so if they did not want to.
Anybody who has any kind of contact with the situation in a great many of our towns knows that the unfortunate person who is looking for a house has no alternative whatever. If a house is empty he goes along and he may find that, through no fault of his own, it is on a long lease. He may try to get the ground landlord to give some kind of undertaking that the lease will be extended, and he may be told that nothing can be done because no decision has been made about the future of the property. He is then faced with the alternative of leaving the house or taking on the lease with all the repairing obligations involved for what, through no fault of his own, is a short period. I should have thought that was the kind of person who does require protection under what is a purely temporary and interim Measure.
6.30 p.m.
Therefore, it seems to me that to extend this protection beyond the three years has nothing at all to be said for it. The argu-
788
ments advanced in favour of it, plausible as they are, apply to long-standing tenants, but what the Amendment will do will be to affect a body of people who are caught by the housing shortage and who can neither get the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts nor of this Bill. To do that would be most cynical treatment of a very hard-pressed body of tenants.
Mr. John Foster: I ought. I think, in my first speech to the Committee on this Bill, to declare an interest in this matter, since I am a director of a company which has a certain amount of ground rents. One of the classes of people to be protected by the Bill as it now stands is the speculator, who exists in fairly large numbers, who buys the tail end of a lease, occupies part of the house himself and sub-lets the rest of the house at a very big profit rental.
Mr. Janner: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what he means by speculators? If this Bill protects the tenant and occupier, which is what it is intended to do, it protects him and also the sub-tenant.
Mr. Foster: I quite agree. I know from my experience—not in connection with the company with which I am associated, but in another connection—of one street in London where there are a good many people who have bought the tail ends of leases, and, in some cases, have been paid to take over these leases in other words, far from buying at a price, they have received money in order to acquire the lease, and they occupy part of the house and sub-let the rest at what is to them a very satisfactory profit rental. If they are in that position, they will be protected by this Clause, because their ground leases, which were expiring during the two year period permitted by the Bill, will be extended by two years.
I submit to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that the object of this Bill is to prevent hardship caused by the expiry of long leases. Involved in that, necessarily, must be the arguments raised on the other side of the House on Second Reading—arguments for which I have a great deal of sympathy—and I agree that some addition to this Measure is necessary, but the words immediately preceding this Amendment negative the basis of the Bill.

789
I see that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) looks puzzled. I may be short-sighted, but he looks puzzled to me. I should like to enable the hon. and learned Gentleman to understand the point. If the Bill provides that hardship caused by the expiry of long leases should be remedied, it obviously means hardship caused to tenants who have been there for a considerable period of time, because, otherwise, there is no difference in principle between the man who buys the tail end of a lease with about three years to run and the man who enters into a new lease of three years. The latter is in exactly the same position from the point of view of the scarcity of houses.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: It does not matter what sort of a lease it is, whether it is one of these long-standing ones or not. Is not the real point that, at the time the lease expires and he is still there, he should not be ejected?
Mr. Foster: All I am saying is that that argument could also apply to the man who comes in and makes a new lease. His lease expires, perhaps immediately, and he is then subject to the disabilities of the housing shortage.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is not the typical case which this Bill seeks to protect.
Mr. Foster: An hon. Member opposite has said that most of those people are protected by the Rent Acts. An hon. Member who spoke from a back bench opposite said that there are large numbers of people who bought the fag ends of leases and who are the people whom we want to protect. On the whole, from my experience, the people who buy the fag ends of leases are people who want to speculate in the last few years, because there are certain potential liabilities which are inherent in the lease or are operative against the tenant or owner of a long lease, and, in the present state of the law, it is not always possible for these purchasers to know where the liability is.
I find that this type of speculator is very common, and hon. Members opposite will find that, having passed this Bill in its present form, they will be enriching a class which does not deserve enrichment, and it may
790
well be that somebody who bought the end of a long ground lease with certain liabilities attached to it, but who himself has no means of discharging them, will have received an extra bonus.
I therefore ask the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, even if he does not accept the argument which I have put forward, if he will, between now and the Report stage, have some statistics investigated. It is easy enough to do, and they will help to prove whether I am right or wrong. If he will have an investigation made into the ground leases with three years to run which have been bought by that type of person, I think he will find that many of these people are of the type that I have described. If he did so, would he still be in favour of this Clause? If my argument was correct, would he still be in favour of limiting the Bill to the words immediately preceding? I should have thought not, but, if he agrees with me on that hypothesis, it is a question of investigating and discovering the actual facts, and it may well be that one's own experience tends to deal with the matter in general, rather than in the particular. I do believe that the Committee would be making a mistake in passing a Clause which would protect the speculator owning the end of a long lease, and would also be giving protection to people who are undeserving of it.
The Attorney-General: If the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) will furnish me with any statistics which would tend to support the point of view which he has put forward, I will certainly consider their effect, but, as at present informed—and we have sought to obtain as reliable information as we can about these matters—we do not think that the speculator really enters into the consideration of this Bill at all.
We have to approach this Bill from the point of view that there is hardship if anyone who is occupying premises is turned out of what has been his home, even if only for three or four years, in the existing circumstances of the market. I shall come back to this point about speculators in a few minutes, but I suggest for the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be a very foolish speculator indeed who bought the fag end, say, three years, of a long lease on which only liabilities were accumulated.

791
I have not had a great deal of experience in the property market, but I must say that such experience as I have had has never introduced me to a single individual who has thought that buying the fag end of a long lease on which a heavy repairing covenant is imposed would result in any great financial benefit. What usually happens with speculators is that they get rid of their interest as quickly as they can, and, if I may use a vulgarism, pass the baby on to someone else. It is that baby which we are going to protect by this purely temporary Measure.
Mr. Foster: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be interested to know that in one single street in London—I am speaking now from memory—there is, first of all, a lady living on Poor Law assistance who was given the houses because of this heavy liability. She receives £150 a year in Poor Law relief, and she has no means with which to discharge her liability. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester are too simple; they do not realise that all that is needed is a man of straw to whom can be given the fag end of a lease.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: To me, that is no news.
The Attorney-General: I do not see that the extension of the tenancy of the occupant, the man of straw, who has been passed the baby is going to assist the speculator in that case at all. The speculator has already removed himself from the picture and has left the premises, on the hon. and learned Gentleman's own hypothesis, in the possession of a man of straw. I do not see how the provisions of this Bill are going to assist that most reprehensible form of speculation, in which, I am quite sure, the hon. and learned Gentleman's company never engages at all.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments, some of them, as I can see, not unattractive, in regard to this Amendment, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept them. Its effect would clearly be to exclude from the benefit of this Measure, at a time when there is still a great shortage of houses, a number of people who quite fortuitously, so far as the reversion was concerned, happen to have been in occupa-
792
tion for a period of three years or less. If it could have been said that their possession of only a three-years' interest in the lease was something which had been due to action on the part of the reversioner, and that an extension of the period of the lease in those circumstances would alter the position of the reversioner to his detriment, then I could understand that there would have been something to be said for this argument.
But that, of course, is not the case; it is a pure matter of chance, so far as the reversioner is concerned, whether at a given moment the interest in the premises is held by a lessee who has been there for three years or for 30 years, and it really seems to me quite impossible—
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd rose—
The Attorney-General: May I finish—to put forward any argument which has any real merit in favour of the reversioner from that point of view.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the position of the person who has purchased the reversion, say, in the last five or six years?
The Attorney-General: The position, of course, would be the same again. The premises at that time would have been in the possession of somebody who would be entitled to qualify under the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, and it would be perfectly fortuitous, so far as that person is concerned, that the tenant had only been in occupation for three years. That is one of the difficulties that arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not, in fact, appreciated the effect of his Amendment in that respect.
I agree that if one takes the case of a reversioner who had only purchased two years before the expiration of the lease, then he might benefit from the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, but those cases are not common, so far as we can judge, and they do not, in our view, afford sufficient reason for departing from the basic principle of this temporary Measure. I say the "basic principle," and I want to put forward my grounds for opposition to this Amendment on matters of basic principle rather than on technical arguments.
6.45 p.m.
There is a technical argument about this Amendment which goes, I should think,

793
much further than the hon. and learned Members opposite intended it to go. For instance, it would cover the case of the tenant at the end of the tenancy who had inherited the property within the last few years, but one need not trouble with that kind of case because it could be put right by an Amendment which hon. and learned Gentlemen could put down, and we could deal with that kind of case in that way.
The Amendment itself is being resisted because, in our view, having given great consideration to it both on Second Reading and now, there is really no logical or consistent case to be made out for it. When I say that, I do not forget, as hon. Members opposite pointed out, that the Leasehold Committee—and I think also those who signed the supplementary report—contemplated that there might be a qualifying period for the legislation which they thought might be right. It is also true that the Leasehold Committee thought it would be proper to introduce a system of just exceptions entitling the reversioner to recover in certain circumstances, but the views expressed by the Leasehold Committee and by those who signed the supplementary report related, of course, to permanent legislation.
I can concede at once that if this were a permanent Bill—and we shall have permanent legislation within a period of two years—we should then have to give, and shall give, grave consideration to the question of a qualifying period. But this Amendment is not consistent with the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to preserve, in order that they may get the benefit of the long-term legislation when it comes along, tenancies which satisfy two qualifications—the first, that they belong to a class of tenancy with which the long-term legislation will certainly have to deal, and the second, that there is a need for immediate action in regard to them in order to prevent people from being turned out into the streets in the meantime.
We cannot convince ourselves that there is any logical argument which would make the three-year test proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in whose name this Amendment stands relevant to those two main qualifications for our permanent legislation. I could well have understood any argument put forward on the ground that the protection ought to be given, and ought only
794
to be given, to those tenants who had been in occupation of their homes for a long period of time, and who had gone into occupation of them, in the first instance, when circumstances were quite different from what they are today, when rents were low and when there was not the same difficulty in obtaining alternative accommodation as there is at the present time. That was the kind of argument which on Second Reading I said had a considerable attraction. I must admit that at that time it had a considerable attraction for me, but it appears to have had no attraction for any other hon. Members on either side.
If that were the argument for inserting a qualifying period, we should then have to make that period date back to 3rd September, 1939, and I can see a logical case for saying that there would be no protection under this legislation except in the case where the tenant had gone into occupation before the war expecting, when his interest came to an end, that he would find it equally easy as it was then to find alternative accommodation at the same sort of rent. But this Amendment does not achieve that kind of result at all.
This Amendment introduces the arbitrary period of three years, which is obviously much too short to cover a case where there has been some considerable change in the circumstances between the time the tenant went in and the time of the expiration of his lease. And however logical it might have been to defend the other Amendment, going back to the period before the war, it is quite obvious that if one had the longer period in the existing circumstances it would cause intolerable hardship to a very large number of people.
I hope I am not departing from the Rules of Order here, Sir Charles, and if I am I know you will stop me at once, but I venture to think it is a little difficult to consider the matter apart from the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), and his hon. Friends, to substitute for Clause 1 a scheme which substantially applies the Rent Restriction Acts legislation to the type of properties with which we are dealing here. If I may say so, I think I am not out of order in saying that that Amendment suggests that the

795
grudging sentences in which hon. Members opposite have so far referred to Part I—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. It seems to me a great pity that in a prolonged discussion, and towards the conclusion of the debate on this particular Amendment, the Attorney-General comes to discuss an Amendment, which as far as I know, has not been selected, called or moved and of which there has been no explanation as yet.
The Deputy-Chairman: I do intend to call it. Perhaps we can discuss it when we come to it.
The Attorney-General: If you please, Sir Charles, I want to pursue—
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If the Attorney-General is about to indicate he proposes to accept that Amendment it might affect the course of debate.
The Attorney-General: I regret to say I was not proposing to indicate that. I was about to indicate that I thought that Amendment seemed to form part of a scheme—and I am not going to use any opprobious epithet—which will alter the whole concept of this Bill and would take out of the protection of this Bill, as would this Amendment, a very large number of people we consider are entitled to at least this temporary protection.
I come back to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich. We heard a good deal on Second Reading about the position of speculators who purchase fag ends. During the discussion in Committee today it has not been so much the case of the speculators we have heard about as the case of the person who purchased with his eyes open a three years' lease, intending to occupy the premises himself for three years but knowing that at the end of that period he would have to vacate it. That is the case which more frequently occurs in practice, but whilst hon. Members opposite may make what they can out of the fact that in these cases these purchasers of fag ends of leases have had their eyes open, it is also fair to say they have had their hands tied very largely.
They have not been purchasing in a market in any sense free. They have been forced to acquire premises very often at premium rents or on conditions
796
in the highest degree uneconomic. We think that in the circumstances of this matter, it is not unjust to allow these persons the additional protection which this Bill provides, so as to enable those tenancies which are long tenancies, long ground leases let at ground rent, to come within the scope of the permanent legislation, whatever that may be, when we introduce it in two years' time.
That is what this Clause is intended to do—to protect the occupying tenant. I do not think that in providing that protection to the occupying tenant it will give the slightest protection to the speculator, but I do not mind very much if, in an occasional or rare case, a speculator is protected if, in fact, in most cases we give proper protection to the occupying tenant. Nor do I mind very much if an occasional case where a reversioner has purchased his reversion within the last two years and 51 weeks—because that is the only case in which any question of hardship can arise—intending to go into possession himself, greater hardship is caused to him than to a sitting tenant.
I am quite satisfied that in the mass of the cases the balance of hardship will be the other way. I was trying to find some form of words to describe it—the global hardship in these cases will undoubtedly be on the part of the sitting tenant rather than on the reversioner. That being so, we find it impossible to insert into this Bill a provision which would disqualify a tenant who had only occupied for two years and 51 weeks, and would qualify a tenant who had occupied for three years and one week.
That seems to us a completely illogical and arbitrary line to take, and as it is manifestly impossible to take the only logical qualifying period—3rd September, 1939—we think the best course is to introduce no qualifying period at all in this Bill, which will maintain the status quo, and to consider the question of a qualifying period in connection with permanent legislation.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In a few words in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I must say I find his argument singularly unconvincing and unsatisfactory. We have heard a great deal about the possibility of large numbers of tenants being affected, but I think it is common ground between us that none of

797
us wants to see the tenant who has lived with his family in a house for many years thrown out on the streets where that house would come within the limits of the Rent Restriction Acts.
But when we go beyond that and deal with people who have just gone into the house a week or so before, and anyone who has gone in within less than three years, I must say that in comparing their claims for the extension of a lease with the other party I do not think that the balance is at all where the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry, but I think the Committee want to come to a decision.
A very strong case exists for the person who has been there a long time. But take the case of someone who wants to live in the house himself—the reversioner. I am sure there are plenty of cases of a man who has spent many years with his family there on the basis that he will get possession of the house when the lease runs out. Under the Bill that man, who has made those plans, will have the occupation of his own house postponed for two years if, a week before the existing lease runs out, a speculator or someone else has the fag end of the lease. There is no provision in the Bill for dealing with cases of greater hardship under this clause. That is one of the difficulties.
7.0 p.m.
The Leasehold Reform Committee recommended this three-year period, and I must say, in view of the arguments advanced, that it is reasonable to insert it in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not aware of speculators in the fag ends of leases. I think he will find many people who are aware of such speculation and the clause as it stands will benefit those people to a considerable extent. It is all very well to say—and, indeed, I recognise that there is force in the argument which hon. Members opposite have used repeatedly in the debate—that because of the failure of the late Minister of Health's housing policy the pressure on accommodation is so great
798
that people have been forced to buy the fag ends of leases in order to live in the property, even though they would live there for a matter of only two years.
That argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), and it has been advanced by other hon. Members opposite. It was made quite clear by them that economic pressure, due to the housing shortage, which again, was due to the failure of the Socialist housing policy, caused people to take the short end of leases.
Mr. Gibson: What about the Tories?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said we should go back to 3rd September, 1939, and use that period, not the three-year period, as a time when people could go from one house to another and obtain houses without difficulty. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said; he said that a strong argument could be advanced on those lines. We might have adopted it, but we have not. We have adopted the period of three years put forward in the Report, and we have done so for two reasons. One is that we want to eliminate the speculator. Hon. Members opposite want to assist the speculator and the black marketeer.
The other reason is that we believe that by letting people take over a lease within a month of its expiring and giving them an extra two years' protection we shall be doing a great deal of hardship to many people, often of small means, who have made their plans and perhaps given up their former occupation with the intention of going back to live in the house which is their property. Hon. Members opposite have revealed in the debate and throughout the whole of the discussion on the Bill that they have no regard for the sanctity of contracts or for people keeping their word. For those reasons, and in view of the attitude adopted by the Government in this matter, we shall be forced again to divide the Committee.
Question put, "That the words 'immediately before' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 232.

Division No. 17.]

AYES

[7.3 p.m.

Adams, Richard

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mikardo, Ian

Albu, A. H.

George, Lady M. Lloyd

Mitchison, G. R.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Gibson, C. W.

Moeran, E. W.

Anderson, A (Motherwell)

Gitzean, A.

Monslow, W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Moody, A. S.

Awbery, S. S.

Gooch, E. G.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Ayles, W. H.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Morley, R.

Bacon, Miss A

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Baird, J.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morris, P. (Swansea W.)

Balfour, A.

Grey, C. F.

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

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Bartley, P.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Moyle, A.

Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Mulley, F W.

Benson, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Murray, J. D.

Beswick, F

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Nally, W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Neal H.

Blenkinsop, A

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

Blyton, W. R

Hamilton, W. W.

O'Brien, T

Boardman, H

Hardman, D. R.

Oldfield, W. H

Booth, A

Hardy, E. A.

Oliver, G. H

Bottomley, A. G.

Hargreaves, A.

Orbach, M.

Bowden, H. W.

Harrison, J.

Padley, W. E.

Bowen, R

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hayman, F. H.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

Pannell, T C

Brockway, A. Fenner

Herbison, Miss M.

Parker, J.

Brook, D (Halifax)

Hewitson, Capt. M

Paton, J.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Hobson, C. R.

Pearson, A.

Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

Holman, P

Peart, T. F.

Brown, George (Belper)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Poole Cecil

Brown, T. J (Ince)

Houghton, Douglas

Popplewell, E.

Burke, W. A.

Hoy, J.

Porter, G.

Burton, Miss E

Hubbard, T

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershir W.)

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

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

Proctor, W. T

Carmichael, James

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Pryde, D. J

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Commander H

Champion, A. J

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rankin, J

Chetwynd, G. R

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Cocks, F. S

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Reeves, J.

Coldrick, W

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Collick, P

Janner, B.

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Collindridge, F

Jay, D. P. T.

Rhodes, H.

Cook, T. F

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Richards, R.

Cooper, J (Deptford)

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

Robens, A.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Jenkins, R. H

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Cove, W. G.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Crawley, A

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

Cullen, Mrs. A

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Daines, P.

Keenan, W.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Kenyon, C.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Darling, G (Hillsboro')

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

King, H. M

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Kinley, J.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Davies. Harold (Leek)

Lee, F. (Newton)

Simmons, C. J.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Slater, J

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lever, N. H (Cheetham)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Deer, G.

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

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

Delargy, H. J

Lindgren, G. S.

Snow, J. W

Diamond, J

Lipton, Lt.-Col M.

Sorensen, R. W

Dodds, N. N

Logan, D. G.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F.

Donnely, D

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Sparks, J. A.

Driberg, T. E. N.

McAllister, G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Dye S.

MacColl, J. E.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

McGhee, H. G.

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

Edelman, M

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

McGovern, J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N (Caerphilly)

Mack, J. D.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Sylvester, G. O.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

McLeavy, F

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Ewart, R.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Fernyhough, E

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

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Field, Capt W. J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, I. R (Rhondda, W.)

Finch, H. J.

Manuel, A. C.

Thomeycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

Follick, M.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Timmons, J.

Foot, M. M.

Medlicolt, Brigadier F.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mellish, R. J.

Tomney, F.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Messer, F

Turner-Samuels, M.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.

800

801

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Viant, S. P.

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

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Wallace, H. W.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

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

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

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

Weitzman, D.

Wilkes, L.

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Wilkins, W. A.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Yates, V. F.

West, D. G.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

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

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.

NOES

Alport, C. J. M.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Mellor, Sir J.

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Gammans, L. D.

Molson, A. H. E.

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Arbuthnot, John

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Glyn, Sir R.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

Gridley, Sir A.

Nabarro, G.

Baker, P.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Nicholls, H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Nicholson, G.

Banks, Col. C.

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Nield, B. (Chester)

Baxter, A. B.

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

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Bell, R. M.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Hay, John

Nutting, Anthony

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Oakshott, H. D.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

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

Odey, G. W.

Bishop, F. P.

Heald, L. F.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Black, C. W.

Heath, E. R.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Boothby, R.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Osborne, C.

Bossom, A. C.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Bower, N.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Pickthorn, K.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Powell, J. Enoch

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Hollis, M. C.

Price, H. A (Lewisham, W.)

Braine, B.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Hope, Lord J.

Raikes, H. V.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Rayner, Brigadier R

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Redmayne, M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Remnant, Hon. P.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.

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

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Butcher, H. W

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

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Hurd, A. R.

Roper, Sir H.

Carson, Hon. E.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Ropner, Col. L.

Channon, H.

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

Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Hyde, H. M.

Russell, R. S.

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

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Colegate, A.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Scott, Donald

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

Jennings, R.

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

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

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Cranborne, Viscount

Kaberry, D.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Snadden, W. McN

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Soames, Capt. C.

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Langford-Holt, J.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Cundiff, F. W.

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

Stanley, Capt Hon. R. (N Fylde)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stevens, G. P.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lindsay, Martin

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

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Linstead, H. N.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

de Chair, S.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

De la Bère, R.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Storey, S.

Deedes, W. F.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Studholme, H. G.

Digby, S. Wingfield

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

Summers, G. S.

Donner, P. W

Low, A. R. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drayson, G. B.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Drewe, C

McAdden, S. J.

Teeling, William

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Dunglass, Lord

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

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

Duthie, W. S.

McKibbin, A.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

Eecles, D. M.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

MacLay, Hon. J. S.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Fisher, Nigel

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Tilney, John

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Touche, G. C.

Fort, R.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Turner, H. F. L.

Foster, J. G.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Turton, R. H.

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

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Marples, A. E.

Vane, W. M. F

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

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Maudling, R.

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

802

803

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

While, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Wood, Hon R.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

York, C

Watkinson, H.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Wills, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Major Wheatley and Mr. Vosper.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "expiry," to the end of line 18, and to add:
"a tenant has been residing in a dwelling-house (the rateable value of which immediately before the date of expiry did not exceed

(a) in the metropolitan police district or the City of London, one hundred pounds; and

(b) elsewhere seventy-five pounds;) on the property in right of the tenancy, the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1939, shall for a period of two years beginning with the commencement of this Act apply to that dwelling-house, provided that in relation thereto—

(i) for any reference in that Act to any specific date or to the commencement or to the day before the date of the commencement or to the date of the passing or to the beginning of the date of the passing of that Act there shall be substituted a reference to 'immediately before the date of expiry';

(ii) the rent payable in respect of any period after the date of expiry shall be the rent payable therefor immediately before the date of expiry or a rent equal to the rateable value thereof immediately before the date of expiry (whichever shall be the greater);

(iii) subsection (7) of section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, section five of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1938, and the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, shall not apply;

(iv) no order or judgment for the recovery of possession or for the ejectment of a tenant shall be made or given by reason of—

(a) the determination in any manner of any tenancy of the dwelling-house other than the tenancy whether contractual or statutory under which the tenant is in occupation thereof, or

(b) any failure by the tenant to comply with any obligation to repair or keep in repair the dwelling-house unless the tenant in breach of any such obligation has not complied with any notice served by the local authority under the Public Health Act, 1936, or the dwelling-house is not in the opinion of the court in a reasonable state of repair owing to the neglect or default of the tenant;

(v) this section shall not apply to any premises to which Part II of this Act applies."

I gather that it would be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discussed the remaining Opposition Amendments to this Clause, Sir Charles.
The Chairman: I think that that would be for the convenience of the Committee.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Before dealing in detail with the Amendment I should like to make it clear—it is very difficult, because of the noise, to try to put forward a concise argument upon this matter, but I shall, of course, do my best, although, with the conversation that is going on, it is a little disconcerting—that by our series of Amendments we are seeking to put forward two alternative schemes for the revision of this Measure, and that, in our view, both of them lead to improvement, simplification and clarification. There is a feature common to both these schemes. Let me say, in passing, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite wrong in saying, in relation to the last Amendment, that it was bound up with this series, because it was not.
7.15 p.m.
The common feature of both these schemes is this: that instead of looking, as the Bill does, to the existing tenancies, and saying, "Whatever that tenancy is it shall be extended two years automatically," and instead of getting into a great tangle, as the Bill does, in relation to sub-tenancies and sub-sub-tenancies, we have taken the simple course, in both our schemes, of looking, first of all, at the premises which are being occupied, and saying, "If those premises are a dwelling-house"—and I am dealing, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow, with the feature common to both schemes—then the tenant of that dwelling-house shall have his possession protected."
That is under both alternative schemes we are putting forward. We are, therefore, giving—and to understand these rather complicated Amendments it is necessary to bear this in mind; and I hope I am making it clear—protection to each tenant in occupation, instead of extending tenancies. We think that that really results in a much simpler way of achieving what the Bill seeks to achieve. That is the feature common to both schemes.

805
The first scheme is that set out in the Amendment which I have moved. That, in itself, is a very complicated Amendment. The first thing I should like to say about it is, that it is a very important Amendment. I know it makes a considerable change, but before I deal in detail with the Amendment I should like to make just a few general observations. Anyone listening to the Second Reading debate, and, in particular, to the speech of the Solicitor-General, would have thought that the case for the Bill was that there are a large number of people who honestly think that the houses they live in are their own in spite of the fact that they are paying and have paid rent for those houses, and that the case for the Bill was that because they believe that—quite wrongly—they then should be relieved of the obligation of keeping their word, and have their tenancies extended. That is complete nonsense—just as much nonsense as the exaggerated statements of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) were shown to be during the Second Reading.
Mr. G. Thomas: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his usual courtesy—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Thomas: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will have some patience he will find that the inaccuracies of his hon. Friends will be disproved before the end of the debate.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I find it very difficult to accept that statement as being likely to be true. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to prove anything in that respect. Legislation based on that sort of misrepresentation and exaggeration is, of course, bad legislation and this Bill is a bad Bill, fraught with harmful consequences.
There is this common ground between both sides of the committee, that we on our side have always recognised, and recognised now, that due to the housing shortage, for which the party opposite are so responsible, it is an anomaly that a tenant living in a house the rateable value of which would bring that house within the Rent Restriction Acts should not have the protection of those Acts merely because, either by succession or by purchase, he has become a ground lessee.
806
We think that is wrong. We also think it is wrong that sub-tenants of ground lessees who for many years have been considered to be protected by the Rent Acts, and who since the decision in the Knightsbridge case have been held to be without, should be outside and not protected. I am sure the Committee will agree that at least that category of people should be protected. Indeed, all that members of the Leasehold Committee agreed that the protection of the Rent Acts should be extended in that fashion. The Government are disregarding their views today.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: No.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is no use the hon. and learned Member saying "No," in view of the last speech made by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, because this is only a standstill; they are not being brought within the Rent Restriction Acts, as the Leasehold Committee recommended. The Government are disregarding the views of the Leasehold Committee in that respect. They could have implemented the recommendations of the Leasehold Committee in that respect a considerable time ago; they were asked to do so in November, 1948. We think it is time that the Rent Acts were revised, and there is much more urgent need for that than there is for the Bill. I suspect that the reason why hon. Members opposite are not tackling that is because they do not think it is a vote winner but a vote loser, and they think wrongly that this Bill is a vote winner. When those Rent Acts are revised tenants and subtenants under ground leases should be dealt with in common with the tenants of other premises the rateable value of which brings them within the Rent Restriction Acts. By this Amendment we seek to give those tenants that protection which we think they should have, and which all the members of the Leasehold Committee in November, 1948, thought that they should have.
It is not uninteresting to observe that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), speaking on Second Reading, said:
"I welcome Part I of the Bill, and it should be borne in mind—and I am very glad my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General emphasised it in opening the debate—

807
that this is not so much a temporary Measure as an interim Measure. It is something to hold the position until further legislation is brought in."
Then mark these words:
"I do not conceal from hon. Members for a moment that I should have much preferred to have seen a permanent Measure brought in at this stage. I should have preferred,"—
mark this, also—
"as the hon. and learned Member for Wirral suggested, and as we all recommended, that the Rent Restriction Acts should have been immediately applied to ground leases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 413–4.]
Our Amendment, which I will explain in detail in a moment, seeks to secure the immediate application of the Rent Restriction Acts to ground leases of premises which come within the rateable limits of the Rent Restriction Acts.
Mr. Janner: The hon. and learned Member has been a member of committees which have been considering the Rent Restriction Acts for many years, and the very point he is now making has been introduced as an Amendment to those Acts. Why did not he and his party support them at that time?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not follow that interruption. I do not think I have been a member of any committee—perhaps fortunately—which has had the terrible task of considering the Rent Restriction Acts, so I do not think the premises on which the hon. Gentleman bases his question at all well-founded. As to the relevance of the question to my argument, I do not see it.
What we are doing, at the first opportunity we have had since the war of carrying out the recommendation made by the Committee in 1948, is seeking to implement that recommendation in the Bill. I imagine from what has already been said that the Government will oppose it. I hope that if that position arises we shall at least have the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, who said he would much prefer that the Rent Restriction Acts should be immediately applied to ground leases.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes, I said that. I should prefer permanent legislation introduced immediately. What the hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to do was to read the next sentence. If he had done
808
so he would have followed my argument. The words he quoted were:
"I should have preferred, as the hon. and learned Member for Wirral suggested, and as we all recommended, that the Rent Restriction Acts should have been immediately applied to ground leases."
Then, if the hon. and learned Member will read on, he will find these words:
"I should have preferred, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, prefers, to have seen the minority Report on leasehold enfranchisement introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 414.]
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I dare say the hon. and learned Gentleman has many preferences, and I do not want to try to give an exhaustive list of them. I do not think that the passage he complains I did not read has any bearing at all upon this point, because in his Second Reading speech he specifically said that he had two preferences. One was that the Rent Restriction Acts should be immediately applied to ground leases, and the second was that the minority Report on leasehold enfranchisement should be introduced. He stated those two preferences, and in that order. He is now getting the opportunity of supporting an effort made to introduce the first of them.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not really as dense as all that. As he knows, the effect of what he is now saying is to imply that the only choice is between this standstill scheme and a Rent Restriction Bill on the lines to which I have just referred. That, of course, is not the position. The position is that this standstill Bill holds the way open for general leasehold enfranchisement. If this series of Amendments is accepted it shuts down completely on leasehold enfranchisement being introduced for people who hold leases at present.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: If that was the view the hon. and learned Gentleman held, I cannot think why he did not express it in his Second Reading speech instead of expressing the other view, which, I think, is a wrong view.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Why?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: For this reason: that whatever is done in this Bill it can be altered if it is desired to bring in such a hare-brain scheme as leasehold enfranchisement.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Hare-brain?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That was the word I used. The hon. and learned-Gentleman cannot get away from the fact that he said specifically, when discussing the Bill, that he would have preferred to see two things: first, the Rent Restriction Acts immediately applied to ground leases; second, the introduction of the minority Report which he signed. What I am saying to him is this—and I do not think I am being in the least unfair to him—that if he supports our Amendment we are giving him the opportunity of securing the first of his preferences.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: And keeping the standstill on leasehold premises.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not in the least; that does not follow. That is one of the worst instances of a Chancery non sequitur I have heard for a long time.
7.30 p.m.
Having disposed, I hope satisfactorily, of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I come back to the terms of the first Amendment. The Committee will see that the first part of it sets out the same provisions with regard to rateable value as are contained in the Rent Acts. The effect of that, of course, will be to bring within the scope of the Bill all dwelling-houses held under ground leases within the limits set out by the Rent Acts. It excludes, of course, ground leases of houses above those limits, but the Attorney-General said, in moving the Second Reading, that the Bill, in the main, deals with small houses; and, in the main, this Amendment covers the same ground.
The proposal contained in the Bill as it now stands will, of course, create a new anomaly, because tenancy of houses outside the Rent Restriction Acts limits held under ground leases will be getting protection when tenancies of smaller houses outside the Rent Restriction Acts on a rack rent will not be getting any protection at all. So, by enlarging it in respect of ground leases, a further anomaly will be developed which will result in some hardship. I hope that I have made the position clear to the Solicitor-General. It is a little involved.
The Solictor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I would sooner the hon. and learned Gentleman repeated it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I say that by going above the Rent Act rateable limits in the case of ground leases the Government are creating an anomaly in respect of those houses above the limit. They are giving protection in the case where that type of house is held on ground lease, but there is no protection where it is held on a rack rent. That is creating an anomaly which will lead to difficulties and hardship; I am sure of that.
Indeed, no case has yet been made out for extending the protection above, what I will call, the Rent Act level of houses. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we should not interfere with contracts entered into and relieve people of the obligation of keeping their word unless it is clearly established beyond doubt that it is right so to do. That is the first point which I desire to make in relation to the Amendment.
The second point covered by the Amendment is that the protection which is brought within the Rent Restriction Acts exists for two years from the commencement of the Act. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there was an error in the typing, and that it is from the commencement of the Act and not from the commencement of the Bill. It is our view that the tenant of such houses as would be brought within the purview of the Rent Restriction Acts should be dealt with in common with other rent restricted tenants when the Rent Acts are revised. Paragraph 1 of the Amendment is designed so that protection begins on the expiry of the lease. That is purely drafting. Paragraph 2 is the one to which I would draw the Committee's attention. It is set out there that
"the rent payable in respect of any period after the date of expiry shall he the rent payable immediately before the date of expiry or a rent equal to the rateable value thereof immediately before the date of expiry (whichever shall be the greater)."
That may give rise to comment from hon. Members opposite. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), is at least aware that that is taken straight from a provision of the Rent Acts. The Rent Acts themselves provide that where the rent is less than the rateable value, the rateable value shall be the standard rent. I hope that I have the attention of the hon. and

811
learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), because when he said, in his speech on Second Reading, that these houses should be brought within the Rent Acts, he must have been meaning, as I understand it, for all purposes. The mere statement of bringing them within the Rent Acts would import this particular provision; but rather than mislead the Committee we thought it right to put that down so that people should know what the effect would be.
Part II of the Bill provides for an increase of rent. That the Government have done. The Attorney-General, in his Second Reading speech, said:
"It may be said that it is bad enough, when the lease falls in, that the landlord should be prevented from getting possession, for a certain number of years, but it is worse still that he has to allow the tenant to remain in occupation at an out-of-date rental."
He went on:
"One need not deny that there is some force in that argument, and that there may be cases of hardship."
Later, he said:
"It seems to us that there were weighty reasons why these hard cases, if they exist, should not lead us into the establishment, for this purely temporary period, of any elaborate machinery for increasing the rent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 383.]
It would appear that, while recognising the hardship existing in a lease made 90 years ago, at the rent fixed then, under modern conditions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejected any suggestion for increasing the rent under the Bill not on the ground that an increase would be morally wrong or ethically wrong, but on the ground, which has great force, that in a Bill for a two-year period it would be quite wrong to set up elaborate machinery for increasing the rent. I agree; it would be quite wrong for a two-year period. It would also be quite wrong to make every person affected by Part I of the Bill have to go to a court to have the rent determined. We feel that the standard set by the Rent Acts is a standard which can be accepted as a fair and accurate standard. After all, the rateable value was assessed in 1934, and the rateable value will be below the rack rent, provided that we can overcome one objection.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, on Second Reading, based his opposition
812
to this matter, if my recollection is right, on the ground that this difficulty could not be overcome—that is the difficulty with regard to the tenant's liability to repair under a ground lease which, of course, is much larger than it is if he is a tenant under a rack rent. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he put forward that argument, overlooked the effect of Clause 5, which made those obligations for repair an enforcement.
At any rate, we have sought, in this Amendment, to provide for that point in this way. We say, in paragraph (a), that
"no order or judgment for the recovery of possession or for the ejectment of a tenant shall be made or given by reason of—
(a) the determination in any manner of any tenancy of the dwelling-house other than the tenancy whether contractual or statutory under which the tenant is in occupation thereof."
That covers the case where there is an intermediate tenancy. The second part deals with the repair, namely, that
"no order or judgment for the recovery of possession or for the ejectment of a tenant shall be made or given by reason of—
(b) any failure by the tenant to comply with any obligation to repair or keep in repair the dwelling-house unless the tenant in breach of any such obligation has not complied with any notice served by the local authority under the Public Health Act, 1936, or the dwelling-house is not in the opinion of the court in a reasonable state of repair owing to the neglect or default of the tenant."
Here, again, we have sought to provide that the tenant will not be completely relieved from all obligation of taking care of the premises he occupies. I do not think anyone would want that. But we do not want him ejected for non-fulfilment of the obligations contained in his ground lease. Possession can only be obtained if he does not comply with a notice served on him by the local authority, or it can be found to the satisfaction of the court that he has really been guilty of waste.
Let us consider for a moment what the position will be, as this is an alternative scheme that is worthy of consideration. The ground lessee will be in much the same position as the ordinary tenant of a rent-restricted house. His possession will be secure, and his liability under his covenant, while he remains in possession on this extended tenancy, will be precisely the same. Therefore, we think that

813
there is a lot of force in the argument we are putting forward. We believe the scheme in this Amendment has the great advantage that it keeps us out of the tangle of tenancies and all the difficulties in regard to Clause 5, by looking solely at the question from the point of view of whether there is a dwelling-house on the property and any part subject to a ground lease. If that dwelling-house is occupied, the tenant has just the same protection as under the Rent Restriction Acts. If the Amendment is accepted, a great deal of Part I becomes surplus and unnecessary, and a great many complexities are avoided.
We have made our position clear and have said that we want to do this. We made it clear at Blackpool, and in the debates on the Gracious Speech and on the Second Reading of the Bill. Here is a constructive policy to apply to this class of tenants that we recognise should have something done for them. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, was in favour of this, and, of course, it is an easy matter to treat these tenants in the same fashion should the Rent Restriction Acts be further continued. I hope I have not taken too long in explaining the first scheme.
I now come to the subsequent Amendment, which seeks to leave out the second "the" and to insert "a." That is to provide the very thing I have suggested in relation to the second scheme. I said that it was a common factor. It is "a" tenant when under a sub-tenancy and a sub-sub-tenancy. Then we seek to omit the phrase "a member of his family." I know that the phrase is in the Rent Restriction Acts, but it is a vague phrase, and already it has led to a considerable amount of litigation. It may lead to more litigation, so we suggest, although we are not wedded to our definition, that "tenant" in the definition Clause should be so defined as to include the categories of the members of the family to whom it is wished to give protection. In a two-year Measure of this sort, one of the last things we want is to have litigation forced upon one or the other. That is the reason behind our Amendment.
7.45 p.m.
In regard to the fourth Amendment, I see no reason why we should not use the usual test of residence, rather than the
814
words "is living" which are capable of being misunderstood. Taken together, the Amendments leave out the rent restriction scheme, but provide instead that a tenant residing in a dwelling-house or property the subject of a ground lease shall have protection for the period specified in the Bill.
I hope I have made clear the two schemes we have been working on and are now putting forward. I hope I have been able to satisfy Members opposite who have been only too keen in the debate to use harsh language about our Amendments, describing them as "wrecking Amendments," that here we are putting forward a constructive proposal, which has the advantage of being preferred by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, to meet a difficulty, an anomaly, which we recognise to exist, and that we are seeking to meet it in a much better way than under the Bill.
Mr. MacColl: It seems to me to be very difficult to discuss the Amendment and remain within the confines of order. I imagine that whether or not this was to be a permanent solution to the problem of leasehold, or a temporary Measure was settled on Second Reading, and that we now have to discuss the Amendment on the assumption that this is a stop-gap Measure. I cannot see any reason on that basis for a large-scale alteration of the terms of these tenancies, when we know that there is to be reconsideration of the whole issue in two years' time and it may be that a large-scale programme of leasehold enfranchisement will be adopted.
Perhaps I might join in the interesting exegesis by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), of what he said and what the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said he meant, by giving a further quotation. My hon. and learned Friend also said:
"It is a matter of very considerable difficulty to apply the Rent Restriction Acts to ground leases, because it involves changes in the whole nature of the lease from a ground lease into an ordinary occupational, controlled rent tenancy. That involves changes in the position with regard to covenants; it means recasting the whole of the lease and fitting it into an entirely new setting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482, c. 414.]

815
I cannot see how there can be a case for launching out on an operation of that character on the assumption that the whole thing has to be reviewed again in two years' time. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Rent Restriction Acts were out-of-date and that they require revision. I entirely agree with him, but it seems an odd thing, that before the Acts are reviewed, we should proceed to anchor a whole new category of classes to the Acts already in many ways requiring very careful revision.
Take the simple point of fixing the rents on the basis of rateable value. My view is that it would be an excellent thing if controlled rents generally could be attached to the rateable values provided those values were a fair assessment of the value of the property. When the new valuation to be made in 1953 comes into operation we can see if it is possible to assess the practicability of some such procedure. But the idea of starting today in 1951 to anchor rents to rateable values, which vary widely from place to place and not only from town to town but from street to street, does not seem to be the proper solution.
There is the case of London. It does not come under the 1925 Act but still comes under the 1861 Act—or did until the new Act was passed—which means, in effect, that there has been no review of London rateable values since 1935. I should have thought that one of the major defects in the Rent Restriction Acts at the moment is that they lead to such widespread variety of valuation for similar properties. Therefore, to propose to anchor the rents to a yardstick which already is hopelessly out of date in what is a temporary Measure seems to me to be a proposition which should not be seriously considered at all.
Mr. Foster: How would the hon. Member answer this argument of a constituent: "Why did you oppose a Conservative Amendment which gives me greater protection than the Government Bill"?
Mr. MacColl: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be assuming that no constituents of mine will ever support me who has a rateable value above the level of the Rent Restriction Acts. The Conservative Amendment, would in fact, exclude some of the lessees above the Rent Restriction Acts level. Thus it becomes
816
a form of class distinction against people who happen to have a house which 15 or 16 years ago was valued over £100 in London or lower in the provinces. I think my constituents would find it difficult to understand the logic, the reasoning or the justice of my argument if I anchored myself to that kind of criterion.
The beauty of this Bill—I am one of those who think it is a wise and sensible Measure—is that it faces the situation that there is a wide variety of values. What to do about them is an ultimate solution to this difficult problem. Different views have been expressed on this side of the Committee. I hold different views, for instance, from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), on leasehold disenfranchisement. These questions have got to be settled. The fact that the Committee which sat for a considerable time on the problem produced varying reports is, itself, an indication of the complexity of the problem.
Therefore, if we are to face this situation what is required is a stop-gap Bill making the minimum alterations on what is in existence. It is far more sensible to say to someone, "You have had a ground rent for 99 years. We are going to increase that to 101 years until we reach a final solution of this problem." That is an understandable approach which can be accepted by them. I do not think they will understand such an approach as this: "The Rent Restriction Acts are out of date and have to be revised in some way in the future. Nevertheless, in the next two years we are going to have a completely new shuffle of covenants and rents and we propose to anchor them to these obsolete Acts. We shall then have to consider a final solution to the problem." It seems to me that this Amendment is not a wise attempt to improve a temporary Bill. It is an attempt to produce a permanent solution of the problem which has not been thought out, and were it the subject of a debate, which it is not, it would be open to the most devastating criticism.
Mr. Black: It seems to me to be difficult to accept the argument that because the Bill, if passed into law, would operate for only two years the Committee should be satisfied to accept an unfair and unjust solution of the prob-

817
lem with which it deals rather than the superior and much more just solution which, I submit, is outlined in the Amendment. We are really dealing, in this Amendment, with two main questions. The first is what classes of occupiers of property should have the benefit and the protection of this part of the Bill; and, second, what should be the rent payable by the tenant who has the benefit of this protection.
In regard to the first question it seems to me to be very difficult to understand why a tenant holding a ground lease on a property which is outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts because of its rateable value, should be protected under the Bill, although the tenant of a similar property holding on a short lease at a rack rent is afforded no security in respect of the tenancy. That seems to me to be an indefensible proposition. We can only justify including within the scope of the Bill properties which by reason of their rateable values are outside the provision of the Rent Restriction Acts if it can be demonstrated that a very strong case exists for their inclusion. In my submission that case has not been made out. Indeed, no serious attempt has been made to make out such a case. It is a fact that the great majority of residential properties both in London and throughout the country come within the rateable limits of the Rent Restriction Acts.
Mr. Janner: No.
Mr. Black: The great majority of residential properties come within the scope of the rateable values laid down in the Rent Restriction Acts and the number of properties outside those limits must, indeed, be a very small percentage of the whole. I say that no case has been made out for the inclusion of these larger properties with rateable values outside the limits of the Rent Restriction Acts and I think this is not disputed. It is not irrelevant to refer, in this connection, to the memorandum prepared about the Bill by the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute, a professional body which, quite obviously, has vast experience in dealing with properties of all kinds. The memorandum of the Institute records this opinion:
"The Institute is not aware that any need has been shown to protect the occupying lessees of properties which are outside the rate-
818
able limits of the Rent Restriction Acts after the expiration of their leases."
That is an opinion with which Members may or may not agree, but it has at any rate the merit of being the opinion of a body with very wide experience of problems of this kind and probably with far more information at its disposal than is at the disposal of any Member of the Committee.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Member, as an experienced property owner, tell me whether it is not a fact that exorbitant premiums are being asked right through London and throughout the country for houses which are outside the Rents Acts, and that hundreds of thousands of people are without homes because they cannot pay them?
Mr. Black: I do not for one moment accept that statement as having any correspondence to the facts of the case. While taxation continues at its present level the number of people who can afford to pay a rent in excess of the limits of the Rent Acts suffers a severe diminution year by year.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does the hon. Gentleman really tell the Committee that there is no widespread exploitation in rents for houses that are outside the Rent Restriction Acts?
Mr. Black: I contend that there is no general evil here to an extent sufficient to justify the inclusion of this type of property within the scope of the Bill, and that the suggestion that there are hundreds of thousands of cases of exploitation of properties with rateable values above the limits of the Rent Acts has no kind of correspondence whatever to the facts. In my judgment, there is every justification for excluding from the scope of the Bill the comparatively few properties that are outside the limits of the Rent Restriction Acts.
The second point with which the Amendment deals is the rent to be paid by a tenant who has the benefit of the protection afforded by the Bill. Here, I submit, there is every justification for a rent being imposed equivalent to the rateable value, in cases where the rateable value is in excess of the rent reserved under the lease. On this point I would refer briefly to the opinions of two other

819
professional bodies with very great experience of this problem. First, I would refer to the evidence given on behalf of the Council of the Law Society, to the Departmental Committee on Leaseholds. When evidence was given on behalf of the Council of the Law Society to that committee, the possibility of temporary legislation was put to the representatives of the society.
Mr. Leslie Hale: May I ask what document the hon. Gentleman is quoting from, where he got it, how it came into his possession, and who supplied him with it?
Mr. Black: It was supplied to me by a member of the Council of the Law Society. I think, therefore, that I am quite justified in accepting the information as correct. On that understanding, I give it to the Committee and I accept responsibility for it.
The Council recommended that, in the event of such legislation being introduced, the rental should be fixed at a fair market value, eliminating any scarcity value. That was the opinion of the Law Society as to the rent to be paid in the event of there being temporary or stop-gap legislation to extend ground leases for a limited period only.
The Royal Chartered Surveyors' Institution have also submitted a memorandum on this matter. I do not think that the case for the charging of a rent equivalent to the rateable value can be better stated than it is in this memorandum. This is what it says:
"The consequence is to grant to the lessee, at the expense of the lessor, up to two years' further enjoyment of the property at a low rent even though in many cases the lessee will have bought an unexpired term of short duration at an appropriate price, expecting the lease to run out at a pre-determined date. The lessor will have purchased the reversion on similar expectations. There will be numerous cases where Death Duties will have been paid, mortgages arranged and many other transactions entered into on the understanding that the lease would expire at the agreed date. If the purpose of this provision is to grant the lessee security of tenure, it seems to the Institution that a more equitable result would be achieved by continuing the lease at a fair market value. If, in the absence of a better solution, it is necessary to adopt rule-of-thumb methods, it would not be unreasonable for the rents to be related to the rateable value or the Schedule A Assessment of the premises."
So we have here the opinions of the two great professions concerned with the
820
land and the law relating to the land. The opinion of the Council of the Law Society was that a fair rent should be paid, excluding scarcity value, and the opinion of the Royal Chartered Surveyors' Institution was that if a rule of thumb method were required of reaching a fair rent, to take the rateable value for the purpose would be reasonable in the circumstances. It seems to us on this side of the Committee that to limit the scope of this part of the Bill to those properties coming within the Rent Restriction Acts and to require, where the rateable value is in excess of the rent reserved under the expiring lease, that a rent equal to the rateable value should be paid in the future instead of the rent reserved under the lease, is a fair and reasonable proposal which should not be objected to by tenants who have the great benefit of the protection afforded by the Bill.
The point has been made, and it should be emphasised, that in practically every case the rateable values in force at present were fixed in 1934, at a time when conditions in the property market were vastly different from the conditions in force today. They were fixed at a time when rental values were very much lower than rental values today. I think that it will not be seriously disputed that the rateable values fixed in 1934 were, in the majority of cases, a good deal less than the rents prevailing at that time.
In suggesting, therefore, that a rent equal to the rateable value should become the new rent where it exceeds the rent reserved under the expiring lease we are taking a low pre-war estimate of the rental value of the premises concerned. No question of scarcity value enters into it at all, or of adding on anything for the alteration of the value of money, or of giving effect to the obviously altered conditions to the detriment of the tenant which have come over the property market since 1934. I submit that in accepting that method by which the rent should be fixed, we are adopting a standard against which no reasonable tenant should have any valid objection.
Mr. MacColl: Would not the hon. Member agree that it is also true that the discrepancies between rateable value and the market rent have varied from house to house, and, therefore, that would be adopting as a criterion a measure which would

821
be much more unfair in some cases than in others and create in the minds of tenants a feeling of injustice?
Mr. Black: If it be a fact that there are small discrepancies—
Mr. MacColl: Not small; wide.
Mr. Black:—between the rateable value of one comparable house and another, how much greater are the discrepancies between the rents reserved under the expiring leases. If the purpose of the Committee is to reach some kind of uniformity, the worst possible basis to adopt is to carry on the tenancy at the rent reserved under the lease.
Mr. MacColl: The purpose of the Committee at the moment is to preserve the status quo, and it is no argument to introduce new anomalies as a substitute for the old anomalies. The purpose of the Bill is that we accept the existing situation with its anomalies until we can bring it to rational standards. The argument of the hon. Gentleman is not that but in favour of the introduction of another equally anomalous standard which is not the one to which people are used.
Mr. Black: It is not the purpose of this side of the Committee to preserve the status quo, and we are, therefore, proposing a method containing the very minimum of discrepancies which it is possible to secure. The discrepancies involved in the selection of rateable value as the basis of the rent to be paid during the two years would be small and inconsiderable compared with the discrepancies which will exist if the Bill is carried into law in its original form.
The Solicitor-General: I thought that it might be of help to the Committee if I intervened at this stage in order that I might indicate generally what the attitude of the Government is to the Amendment. The Government's attitude is that, the Bill being intended purely as a standstill Measure, it would be incompatible with its purpose to introduce such a radical change as proposed. I would in that connection like to reiterate and adopt as my own argument the arguments which were so forcibly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I want to supplement in some respects what he said, but before I do so I should like to say something to the
822
hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller).
The hon. and learned Gentleman made certain incidental claims for the two alternative schemes which he put forward. In the first place, he said that it could be claimed for them that they obviated the need for the elaborate mechanism of Clause 5. With great respect, that claim is one which he is not entitled to put forward, for this reason. The first Amendment contains in line 7 the words "in right of the tenancy," and the effect of those words, so far as we have been able to ascertain after study, is that the only protection which is given by the Amendment is to the tenant immediately under the ground lease. That is a defect not merely of the first Amendment but also of the alternative series of Amendments in which the alternative scheme is embodied.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also made the further claim that the proposal was much superior to our own for the reason that it embodied a definition of the word "tenant" which was clear and specific in its terms and was superior to the terminology which we had used when referring to the tenant's family. There again, with respect to him, he has made a claim on behalf of his own proposal which also cannot be borne out. The definition which he has introduced into his Amendment is, I submit, quite defective, and it would have many effects which I am sure he does not intend. I will give an example of one.
The Amendment would result as follows. If the tenant is alive, no other person's being in residence could enable the benefits of Part I of the Bill to be obtained. For example, if the tenant had been out of the country for some time, such as on war service in Korea or because his job took him to a part of the world climatically unsuited to his family, there would be no protection for the tenancy under which he provides a home for his wife and children. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that a definition which has that result is not satisfactory for the purposes of the Bill, and I am quite sure that that was not intended.
We have incorporated by implication into the terms of our Bill the precedents

823
and judicial decisions which have gone a long way to embodying a clear conception into the words "the tenant's family" as they are already used in existing legislation, and we feel, despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that our Bill is in that respect far superior to the draft which he proposes in his Amendment. Those are, therefore, respects in which, I submit, his claims cannot be substantiated in his proposals.
I now return to the observations with which I began my remarks when I referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes. This is, and it was put forward on Second Reading and was accepted during the course of Second Reading as, a purely standstill Measure designed to bring about a moratorium. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said it was not his view of the Bill that that was its purpose. All I can say is that his hon. Friends did not divide against it and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General clearly explained to the House that that was the object of the Bill. He so endeavoured to support it in argument, and it is plain upon the face of the Bill that that is its primary purpose. I can only say that now to suggest that the purpose of the Bill is the wrong one is really to re-open the major issue which was decided by the decision of the House as the result of the Second Reading, against which the Opposition did not divide.
If one starts from that position, that this is purely a standstill Measure, I submit that it is quite unsuitable to make the very drastic changes in the existing situation which would result if either of the alternative proposals contained in the Amendments was accepted. To begin with, they would have the result of substituting a statutory status of irremovability, for want of a better expression, which is the result of the existing rent restriction legislation. What the Bill in its present form does is to continue the existing tenancy. In that sense it does in a very real way prolong the existing situation. If one substitutes for a prolongation of the existing tenancies this conception of a statutory tenancy under the Rent Restriction Acts it will be a great deal more difficult to draft the permanent legislation when that comes to
824
be proposed to the House. Surely much more formidable objections—
Mr. Hay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman elaborate that last point? I should be very interested to know why he says that the bringing into force of a statutory tenancy, as we suggest, will make it so much more difficult to draft the permanent legislation. I should have thought that it would have made it far easier.
The Solicitor-General: Because it fundamentally alters the status of the tenant and puts an end to the existing tenancy, substituting an altogether different situation. Therefore, any permanent legislation, if it is to relate to the existing situation, has to undo that change of status. But there are more formidable objections. The effect of the changes would be this. They would only protect the tenant in respect of that part of the tenancy of which he is in occupation. As the Bill stands, it gives protection in respect of the whole subject matter of the whole tenancy. The new changes would reduce that protection to a protection solely in respect of that portion of the premises which the tenant could be said to be occupying as a dwelling-house on the property. That is a very substantial change.
I am not for the purpose of this argument expressing any opinion one way or the other as to the merits or demerits of the proposal that ultimately as a part of the permanent legislation which is enacted the rent restriction system should be incorporated. That may or may not be a good proposal; I refrain from expressing any opinion about it. But supposing that it ultimately transpires to be desirable that the whole subject matter of the tenancy should be the subject of protection in the permanent legislation, if the protection during the interim period has been whittled down to that part which is in the occupation of the tenant, it clearly means that one has got to undo the whole of a new situation which will have been enacted as a result of the Amendments, and restore a situation which it will be very difficult to get back to. That is the second objection in the way of incorporating these schemes in anything which is in the nature of a standstill Bill.

825
There is a further difficulty, which is this. If one takes premises, the subject of a tenancy, and gives protection only in respect of a portion of those premises, then one has to re-write the covenants of the lease under which those premises are held. At the moment the tenant is bound by a covenant which extends to the whole subject matter of the tenancy. If the protection is now to be relegated and confined to a portion of that subject matter, then it follows as a matter of logic that one has virtually to re-write the terms of the lease as between the protected tenant and the landlord. That again is an object which is wholly beyond the compass in any satisfactory sense of a moratorium Measure. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree that there would be great difficulty, so long as we adhere to the purpose of prolonging the situation for an interim period, in bringing into the scope of protection any such radical changes as would result from this process.
I submit that those objections are sufficient in themselves, but to go further than that and change the existing rent to the previous rent or rateable value, whichever is the higher, is a further step along the same path. One does not know what rent the permanent legislation will fix as the appropriate rent to be paid in any continued period of tenancy, but to adopt the proposal which is contained in the Amendments is in effect to pre-judge that issue in favour of the existing rent or rateable value, whichever is the higher. That again is taking a premature decision when one is trying to enact an interim Measure. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree that the proposals are objectionable from that point of view.
I should like also to say this. The proposals limit the protection solely to premises within the rent restriction scope. As has been said, broadly speaking the Measure is designed to deal with the small type of house, but there is, at any rate, some reason to suppose that the middle class type of dwelling also may stand in need of the operation of this Measure. Some of my hon. Friends in the course of this debate have reminded the Committee of that fact. This proposal would, as a preconceived and prejudged matter, limit the protection to the rent restriction limits, and therefore again in effect would prejudge something which
826
must remain open for decision at a time when the final Measure is conceived and elaborated and put upon the Statute Book.
I hope the Committee will agree, for the reasons which I have given, and which I thought it might be for the convenience of the Committee to give at an early stage in the debate, that these proposals are unsuitable to the purpose for which the Bill is designed. I hope, therefore, it will be agreed that general discussion of the merits or demerits, from the long-term point of view of applying the rent restriction legislation, is irrelevant and immaterial to the object which we are trying to achieve by the present Measure, and I hope the Committee will agree that neither of the Amendments should be accepted.
Mr. Foster: It is a curious spectacle to see hon. Members opposite refusing to give protection to a very large proportion of the people aimed at by the Bill as drafted, and raising the argument "Oh, well, the Conservative Amendment does not protect the middle class home." Let us assume that this argument is right in this respect, that it excludes what an hon. Member opposite called the middle class home. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to give protection to people within the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts, surely the way to meet that is to amend our Amendment. It cannot be an argument against our Amendment, if our Amendment is right in principle, that it excludes somebody else. If it is right in principle for the people within the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts it ought to be adopted for them.
What is important in this Amendment is that it gives better protection to a large number of people than does the standstill part of this Clause. I know hon. Members opposite do not like this, but it is true. I asked the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) what he would say to a constituent who asks, "Why did not you give me the better protection provided by the Conservative Amendment than is provided by the Government Bill?" It is probably within the memory of the Committee that the hon. Member's answer was, "I could not agree to that Amendment because it leaves out some other people." His constituent was supposed to be satisfied with that answer. But, of course, he would not be satisfied.

827
The object of the Amendment is to do the best possible in this stop-gap Measure. It is not an argument against doing something that is good to say that this is a stop-gap Measure particularly designed to preserve the status quo, whether that has a good or bad result. The Solicitor-General will notice that there are many Clauses here that preserve the status quo. There are Clauses about covenants which do not preserve the status quo. There is a lot of good and bad in those Clauses, but we will come to that later.
8.30 p.m.
My point is that the Government think that it is not right to preserve the status quo. They do not do it in this Bill. The object of the Bill, which, on both sides of the Committee, we agree is a stop-gap Measure, ought to be to provide the best stop-gap Measure possible. The hon. Member will not satisfy his constituents with the argument, "Oh, well, we are just maintaining the status quo." What a principle for the Socialist Party. "Let us keep the status quo at all costs. Do not let us improve the status of people whose status could be improved by a good Measure."
A point which hon. Members opposite do not appreciate, and one which they will not like when they do appreciate it, is the fact that the great majority of people who will be within the scope of this Bill will have a better tenure, will have their position improved—
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: In what way?
Mr. Foster:—in that instead of being given a two-year standstill protection they will be given the permanent protection of the Rent Restriction Acts.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: No. The Bill provides it for two years.
Mr. Foster: The Bill provides it for two years, but after then it will not be possible to leave those people outside the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts.
The Attorney-General: What the hon. and learned Member is seeking to do, as he has now frankly said, is to provide, by what he still describes as a stop-gap or temporary Measure, a complete bar against any permanent solution of this problem involving perhaps leasehold enfranchisement or consideration of the
828
position as it exists today. That is what he is trying to do—to wreck the proposal which is the whole basis of the Bill.
Mr. Foster: I was assuming that leasehold enfranchisement is out of the question. I understand that the Attorney-General comes down on the side of leasehold enfranchisement.
The Attorney-General: No, I did not say that, and the hon. and learned Member knows that I did not say it. What I said was that the hon. and learned Member is seeking to preclude any possibility of leasehold enfranchisement or of any extension of the existing leases being considered with regard to their existing terms. He is seeking to substitute for a stop-gap Measure what he regards, but we do not, as a satisfactory, permanent solution.
Mr. Foster: Let us assume that the Attorney-General desires leasehold enfranchisement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am entitled to assume anything I like, and it would be a bad day for free speech if I were not so entitled. I assume it because the Attorney-General, if his argument is worth anything, thinks that leasehold enfranchisement is worthy of very serious consideration with a view perhaps to adopting it. There is no reason why these premises could not be marked or distinguished in some way so that if, in permanent legislation, it is decided, contrary to what I believe will be the case, to take these houses out of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and give them to the tenant, if such an extraordinary Measure were passed—[Interruption.]—it is quite possible to distinguish between one sort of rent restricted property and another, there are registers and other kinds of machinery.
The point from which hon. Members opposite will not get away is that the Bill is improving the lot of these tenants by giving them a tenure under the Rent Restriction Acts. I agree that it is unlikely that there will be leasehold enfranchisement or that these tenants will get better protection than they do by the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), when discussing a previous Amendment said, "Look at the uncertainty, look at the negotiations which have to be entered into many years in advance." Here, the tenants concerned get the protection of the Rent

829
Restriction Acts, and they know that they will get nothing worse than that, that they cannot get any less than the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts, and they know that they can negotiate from that position.
Hon. Members opposite try to argue that this is merely a standstill Measure to preserve the status quo. It is not, therefore it all comes back to what excuse do they give to their constituents for not giving them proper protection?
Mr. Janner: It does not.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Member says it does not—
Mr. Janner: Indeed it does not; it is nonsense.
Mr. Foster: The Attorney-General says, "Well, you are going to raise their rents." But I do not believe there are any tenants—or only a very small number—who believe, if they are paying £1 a year for a house and their lease comes to an end, that it is not right that they should pay at least the rateable value—the rateable value taking into account the fact that repairs are on the side of the tenant.
The Attorney-General, on Second Reading, put forward, as one of his objections, the statement that if these leases were put under the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts then the tenant would be paying a greater rent than is justified by his repairing covenant. He probably meant that if it is restricted to the rateable value that takes care of that point. Rateable value is calculated with reference to the assumption that the tenant pays all repairs. Therefore, rateable value is the rent which is the minimum fair rent. No rent below that would be a fair rent, because it would be lower than a rent calculated in 1935 on the tenant paying all the repairs. So we get the position that under this Amendment there is an intelligible and a fairly uncomplicated provision—compared with some of the Amendments in this case—which puts all the ground leases and the rateable leases neatly within the scope of the Rent Restriction Acts.
It is true that the Government seemed to intend a great sweeping Measure to reform all the Rent Restriction Acts, and leasehold reform, and to do all these things. But we know very well that it
830
has been one of the besetting sins of the Government that they always refuse to decide a thing now. The Solicitor-General spoke as if it was a thing that had suddenly appeared. He did not want to argue the merits or demerits of a particular proposal; as to whether it was right to keep the bigger homes under rent restriction or not. He did not know what were the merits or demerits. Why has not he thought about it? There have been years to think about it; and it is quite possible after a couple of days of argument back and forth in this House, for the Government to come to a decision about it. We do not believe in the status quo if it is not a good status quo. We believe in progress. Hon. Members of the party opposite, the moment they get into office, seem unable to decide anything. They always seem to be waiting for something more to happen, and it is usually something unpleasant for the country.
The objection to this ought to be on principle, and not, as the Solicitor-General says, "I cannot decide whether it would be right to put a thing under the Rent Restriction Acts or not. Perhaps it would or perhaps it would not. I do not want to decide. I want to act on the assumption that this is preserving the status quo." I would like to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Is it right, or wrong, in principle?" There are some hon. Members opposite, I know, who take the view that where there is to be a long ground lease, at the end of the ground lease the tenants would get the houses for nothing.
I do not agree with that point of view, but I understand it. They at least have an argument against this because they say, "We believe in that and we do not think putting it under the Rent Restriction Acts is the right solution." But it is not for the Solicitor-General to say, "I cannot decide." When I asked whether he is in favour of leasehold reform he said I must not assume that. Why does he not declare himself? Why does not he say, "Is this the correct solution by and large of the problem of these people?"
If it is the right solution, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be in favour of it even in a standstill Bill. There is no reason why the Government, when they bring in a standstill Bill, should

831
not bring in one which is as good as possible. For these reasons I ask the Committee to re-examine the arguments of those who say that this is a satisfactory solution, and I ask those who believe that it is to vote in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Janner: I say at once that the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) is perfectly right in asking for a categorical reply to some of the points he has made. I see some hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches who, no doubt, have read and digested the book of their great leader. There are many of us who feel that there should be a Measure of leasehold enfranchisement. There are some of us, including myself, who believe that after a leaseholder has built premises it would not be fair for him to have to pay what is the rental that can reasonably be expected from a tenant who occupies a house which a landlord has built.
It is a simple proposition. We consider that the time will come when the lessee should be, and will be, entitled to claim as of right that which he has created with the help of his fellow men in a community, and that the landlord who has done nothing for 50 or 100 years to produce that value should not have a benefit to which he is not entitled. There may be people on this side of the Committee who do not agree with what I have said and there may be a considerable opinion on the opposite benches. I submit to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), that if they establish here and now the principle that a rental should be charged which is different from the ground rent which is being paid at present, they are in fact doing what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said. They are pre-judging issues and are not giving the House an opportunity of deciding what they want to do with leaseholds.
There are numerous of my hon. Friends who, knowing circumstances in certain districts—South Wales, for example—feel exactly the same as I do on these matters. They do not want to be excluded at a later stage by being told that already the principle of what rent has to be paid has been established. Every time anyone on the opposite benches starts to talk about the question of rent restriction, or of standstill orders of or protecting tenants, the first point they talk about is the sanc-
832
tity of contract. Of course there is a sanctity of contract; but if the contract is in itself unholy, there is no sanctity about it.
Mr. Hay: Who is to decide whether a contract is unholy?
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Janner: That is precisely what I wanted to say. Hon. Members opposite, when considering the various Rent Restriction Acts, have always held that the fundamental principle of those Acts is "any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding," because there was an unholy contract which prevented people from being protected in their homes and from paying rents which were reasonable. It is in almost the first few lines of the Acts of 1915 and 1920. Hon. Members on the opposite benches have never questioned that. Nevertheless, they come here on every occasion when we are dealing with the question of the protection of tenants and the protection of lessees and try to make out that we on these benches are destroying something which is like the laws of the Medes and Persians—indestructible or unalterable. Of course, the whole point of protecting the tenants is to remedy evils which have been created owing to laws which are out of date and which do not meet the necessities of the times.
Now I want to say a word or two with regard to the arguments that these provisions are going to afford a better protection to the lessee than those proposed in the Bill itself during the two years, and I know a little about the Rent Restriction Acts. Apart from the argument that it will go on longer—and, of course, it will go on longer than the two years, as has already been pointed out—the fact of the matter is that there is only one real difference which it is suggested would be covered by this particular provision or either of the two sets of Amendments. It is that, according to the Bill as it stands, any tenant of a long lease is protected, but, according to the Amendment now proposed, only those tenants who are covered by a rateable value of £100 in London and £75 in the provinces.
It is no good saying, as the hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to say a moment ago, that that can be amended in the course of the Committee stage, because this is fundamental to this Bill.

833
If we do anything different by amending the Amendment in the name of the Opposition, obviously we shall be changing the Rent Restriction Acts. [Interruption.] Of course, we shall be, because we shall be introducing into the Rent Restriction Acts a rateable value in excess of the rateable values with which the Acts deal; and, secondly, we shall be making a fundamental change.
I should agree to that. I should be happy if hon. Members would say that tomorrow they would ask the Government to introduce a proposal whereby the rateable values in respect of which protection is given should be increased, and I should be the first to support it. That would be justifiable, and we on these benches would be happy to join in. In consequence of that, it is perfectly obvious that this Amendment places the tenant in a much worse position, because he might have to pay 15, 20 or possibly 50 times the rent he is paying at present as ground lessee. That is the factual position.
Let us now go one step further. I cannot understand any hon. Member who has his eyes and ears open and reads any newspaper at all, and particularly the advertisements in any paper, suggesting to this Committee that tenancies of houses above £100 rateable value are easy to get and that they are so few in number that it does not matter a hang about the people who rent them. I want to know how many hon. Members in this Committee have been placed in a position in which they have been compelled to pay very large premiums in order to move into flats the rateable value of which is above the rateable value that is protected.
May I say—and I speak with some emotion on this—that I found myself in a house, the rateable value of which was, I think, £103. I had been in that house for 14 years when the company which owned the two houses, of which my maisonette formed part, decided to sell with the valuable asset of a portion of the premises being available with vacant possession. I did not feel inclined to agree to that. It was in Paddington, and things are happening there apart from other matters. I did not feel disposed to buy two houses in order to have a maisonette on one floor for myself. Therefore, I got in touch with the landlord and said, "I have been here for 14
834
years; I hope I am not too bad a tenant. I try to pay my rent regularly on the very meagre salary that one receives as a Member of Parliament, and would you be good enough to let me remain as a weekly tenant until such time as I can find another place?" The landlord refused, and said that I must go out on Christmas Day.
This is a typical example of what happens in London. The result was that I had to look for another place for which I had to pay a much higher rent. What was more, not being able to have the weekly tenancy of my previous maisonette, I had to stay in a hotel with my family for some weeks pending my new accommodation being put into a proper state. In addition to that, the maisonette I left is still empty, and therefore people are being prevented from having that accommodation.
I tell the Committee this because I feel that the step being taken here in, respect of properties of a rateable value in excess of £100 is something of tremendous importance throughout the length and breadth of this country. I hope that hon. Members opposite will take a word of advice from me, and, as I said earlier, I would advise them to be very careful before they place constituents of theirs who are not at present in houses of a rateable value of less than £75 in the provinces and £100 in London in jeopardy, particularly if they happen to be leaseholders who have regarded those leaseholdings as their homes.
I hope that we shall have an end to this type of Amendment when we come to the Rent Acts, and that is the point at which, of course, hon. Members opposite are driving. They want a Rent Act amendment which will enable higher rents to be charged and difficulties placed in the way of the tenants. They are anxious to have that. I am anxious to have a fresh Rent Act in order to keep people in their homes and in order to give them reasonable rents. But this is not the time to deal with that. We are here discussing leaseholds, and this is a stop-gap Measure for leaseholds, and is limited to that.
Mr. Higgs: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) is anxious at this stage to emphasise that this is a stop-gap Measure for

835
leaseholds. I hope that before we pass from the Committee stage there will come a time when we shall pin down hon. Members opposite, particularly those who sit on the back benches, and really find out what it is they are after. When my hon. Friends on this side, at an earlier stage, moved an Amendment the purpose of which was to try to limit the effect of the Bill to what most of us understand to be leaseholds, the hounds were in full cry in the hope that they might extend this Measure by making it apply to a number of types of tenancy which are very far from what we understand to be leaseholds.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Who were the hounds?
Mr. Higgs: The hon. Member has the advantage over me.
I had thought that in this Amendment, or in the alternative which appears later on the Order Paper, we had hit upon a method of standstill which would be the nearest approach to the genuine article. We are told by the Solicitor-General that one objection to our proposal is that it might disclose the hand of the Government. I had hoped it would have been common ground with hon. Members on the back benches on both sides. I cannot understand the objection to doing something now which possibly may be the same as the final remedy when it comes to permanent legislation.
Apparently there is something wrong in doing that, although the Committee may have noticed that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, seemed to envisage a permanent remedy suspiciously similar to the remedy provided by the Bill. I see he indicates assent. It has been stated that one objection which applies to this Amendment is that if the Bill were amended in this way only that part of the premises—property which is the subject of a lease—used for residential purposes would be protected.
Here we come to one of the points where I think the Bill may go even further than some people imagine it to go. We have sought to move an Amendment, for instance, to impose a qualifying period. Has it occurred to hon. Members that something like the following may arise? There may be a tenant of a factory, a large warehouse or a place
836
like Wembley Stadium or, indeed, the Albert Hall. He might have a lease on such a place as that for 21 years or more and that lease may be due to expire next Christmas. As I read Clause 1, he can get another two years if he takes a camp bed there on Christmas Eve.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member is now dealing with a factory or warehouse. It does not come within the scope of this discussion at all; it cannot possibly come within Part I. There is a special provision in Part II for shops.
Mr. Higgs: The hon. and learned Member has apparently appreciated my point. I was seeking to argue that, as the Bill is drafted, such premises do come under Part I, that it is wrong and that, therefore, the Bill should be amended. As I read Clause 1—and the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are there and perhaps will show whether I am wrong—if I were the tenant of a place like the Albert Hall and my 21 years' lease expired next Christmas, if I were permitted to go there on Christmas Eve and camp for one night I should be living there immediately before the determination of my lease under Part I of the Bill. Without some such Amendment as this I cannot see how I am excluded from the Bill.
9.0 p.m.
Again, under the Bill it seems to me that if I am the holder of a long building lease, and if I do not occupy the premises but let them to a tenant, there will be a great temptation on me to seek, by some means or another, to obtain possession of the premises during the last few days. That is to say, if I pay a ground rent and collect a rack rent—an attractive proposition which is not, perhaps, profiteering, but is very near it—there would be a great incentive for me to seek to obtain possession.
If Clause 1 is not amended in some way such as that which we propose, it is possible that we shall find that the effect of the Bill is the opposite to that which some hon. Members have claimed—namely, that it will result in tenants being put into the streets by unscrupulous middlemen, that much-hated class, who will seek to take advantage of the Bill in the last few days of the currency of their tenancy. Although I am not wedded to the solution based on rateable

837
value I suggest that a solution must be found. Perhaps even better is an Amendment, to which we shall come later, by which the Bill will be made to apply to those people we intend to help but will not harm them in some circumstances instead of helping them, and will not by accident or mistake apply to a whole collection of people occupying property which is right outside the intended scope of Part I of the Bill.
Mr. Weitzman: As I understand it, the Amendment endeavours to provide a long-term remedy. I gather that, first of all, it desires to restrict the provisions of Clause 1 to premises the rateable value of which comes within the Rent Restriction Acts. I should like to reiterate what has been said by some hon. Members, that there is a great grievance on the part of many people with regard to residential premises where the rateable value is outside the Rent Restriction Acts. I challenge hon. Members opposite to try to secure a flat or residential premises in London the rateable value of which is over £100. I am certain they will find that they will be charged an exorbitant rent and a high premium and that it will be exceedingly difficult for them to obtain premises of any kind except on stringent conditions as to rent and premium. That is the first objection to the Amendment—that it is necessary to deal with premises which are outside the rateable limits to which the Rent Restriction Acts apply.
I want to add another word of objection to the Amendment. It has been said that if we apply the wording of this Amendment the tenant will be in a better position than he would be under the Bill. I would point out that, according to the Amendment, the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts apply for the period of two years and, apart from paragraph (iv), which deals with certain grounds upon which no order for ejectment or for the recovery of possession shall be made, the other provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts especially as to possession apply.
Supposing there were premises held upon a ground rent, a lease of £10 per year, and supposing the Rent Restriction Acts apply in the two years in the way the Amendment seeks, the result would be that during those two years the landlord of the premises could bring an action for possession upon any ground laid down in the Rent Restriction Acts other
838
than those set out in paragraph (iv). That would be demonstrably unfair and it is, therefore, ridiculous for anybody to suggest that a tenant would be in a better position under this Amendment than if he merely had a continuation of the period of the holding, paying simply the ground rent which he paid before. On that ground alone it would be ridiculous to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Hay: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) because he has introduced to the Committee one of the topics upon which I wish to say a word or two on the Amendment. Before I proceed with the point which he had in mind I should like to say a word about this question of rent. A big part of our Amendment is concerned with that matter. We take the view—and I think it is only fair—that if a ground rent was fixed perhaps as long ago as 99 years it is quite unfair that the landlord, who has been expecting to get the reversion of the premises when the lease expires, should now be compulsorily saddled by Act of Parliament with at least two and possibly—we do not know—more years' occupation by the tenant at a rent which is long out of date.
When most of these ground leases in the middle of the last century were granted we all know that the amounts being charged for rent, and which were fixed, were probably something approaching the fair market price in those days; but, obviously, today a rent of £10 a year—as, I think, the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, has just suggested—is completely absurd by present-day values. That is why I think that the suggestion is right which is contained in our Amendment, namely, that the yardstick—if I may use the expression, so beloved by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl)—which we are to apply should be the rateable value, for the reason so lucidly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black).
I think, therefore, that what we have to do is to look at the matter from the point of view not only of just the tenant; because, remember, there is another party to the contracts which we are varying by the Bill. There is the right and the position of the lessor also to

839
be considered, and that brings me to the point which the hon. Member who has just sat down was talking about. He came out with what I thought was a startling proposition. He said that if, in fact, a tenant were to be given a rent restricted tenancy—a tenancy within the Rent Acts—that would be most unfair and very hard on the tenant. I forget the exact words he used, but that was the impression, at least, that his words had on me.
Mr. Weitzman: What I said—and I hope I made it clear—was that it is wrong to suggest, as was suggested on the other side of the Committee, that if tenants were allowed to remain in under the terms of the Amendment they would be in a better position. I suggest that they would be in a far worse position.
Mr. Hay: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has made it quite clear.
Let me go on to explain why I think the tenant would be in many ways in a better position, and why also the landlord would be in a fairer position than he would be if the Bill went through without Amendment. Take the grounds of possession that the hon. Member mentioned. Under the Rent Acts there are a number of grounds upon which a landlord can obtain possession of the premises from the tenant if he goes to court. Provided always that it is reasonable to make an order the court will make an order on some of these grounds.
First, if the landlord has alternative accommodation available for the tenant. Apply that situation to what we are considering in the Bill. The tenant has to have a roof over his head. We all agree about that. If the landlord has alternative accommodation for him, why should it be unfair and unjust to the tenant that the landlord should be able to get an order on the ground of alternative accommodation? Second, if a tenant falls into arrears with the rent, or commits some other breach of contract. That is another ground for possession. I suggest that their is nothing very wrong about that. If, in fact, the tenant of the premises which we are considering in the Bill falls in arrears with the rent I do not think that even the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, would say that he should be entitled to stay indefinitely.
Mr. Weitzman: The hon. Member seems to miss the point. I was not dealing with the point whether it is fair or unfair. I was merely dealing with the proposition put by someone on the other side of the Committee that the tenant would be in a better position. Obviously, he would be in a much worse position than the hon. Member is saying.
Mr. Hay: I wish the hon. Gentleman would contain himself a little longer. I am dealing with the problem; I am not trying to shirk it. I am approaching the problem from two angles: first, whether it is fair or not to the landlord; second, from that the hon. Member has just put to me. I shall come to it in a moment.
Another ground on which possession would be accorded to the landlord would be the commission of annoyance by the tenant on the premises—if he is guilty of annoyance to the other residents, or also if, by any chance., he commits waste on the premises. These points were mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend when moving the Amendment. I do not think anybody would deny that a tenant who is guilty of acts of nuisance and annoyance to other residents in the building or in adjoining property, or commits waste to the premises, should have an order for possession made against him.
Similarly, the tenant himself may wish to give some kind of assignment of the statutory tenancy which he has. If our Amendment is carried, and if the Bill goes through with the provision of the statutory tenancy superimposed the tenant will not be able to assign. I think that this right, which the Government, by their own Bill, wish to give to a tenant, should be a purely personal right. I do not agree that just because a tenant happens to be the occupying tenant when the lease falls in that lease should automatically be extended. I think he ought to be given a personal right of occupation such as that which is the status of a statutory tenant under the Rent Acts. I do not think that there should be any assignment of any period of extension which we grant by this Bill to any particular tenant. That deals with the problem from the point of view of whether or not our proposal is fair to the landlord.
I now turn to the other point which was raised just now in an intersection by the hon. Member for Stoke Newington

841
and Hackney, North. We say that the tenant who is given a rent restricted tenancy, is in an infinitely better position than the tenant who merely has his lease extended by the Bill, for the simple reason that being given such a tenancy under the Rent Acts is a far greater privilege and a far greater protection to him. He is far better off than under the provisions of this very cumbersome and extremely complicated Bill. I doubt very much whether the Government, although they are very sanguine about it, will be able, within two years, to introduce this comprehensive Measure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has gone on record this afternoon in very hopeful terms about it, but, frankly, I am beginning to wonder whether or not the Government will bring in a comprehensive Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It seems to me that they have had a perfect opportunity by now.
It has taken them so many months to make up their minds to bring forward the particular mouse with which we are concerned today. How many years will it take them to make up their minds to bring in a far more comprehensive and larger Measure, as they say they are to do? All sorts of things will intervene, and although we are told piously that this Bill is only a temporary Measure to preserve the status quo, I can see that this Bill will, like the poor, always he with us. I believe that it would be far better to have a go at this problem now in the way we suggest, extend the operation of the Rent Acts to these people who ought to be protected, and solve the whole problem at one fell swoop.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I think the observations of the hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), have been faithfully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), and I propose to comment, very briefly only, on certain propositions which have fallen from hon. Members who preceded the hon. Member opposite. First, let me say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), for hurrying back to be present when I make a very short comment on his speech. I only hope that his digestion has not suffered from his zeal and fair-mindedness. I should hate to have his indigestion laid at my door.
842
I shall not pursue the hon. Gentleman into the unhappy saga, which he related to the Committee, of his own personal difficulties, but shall take him up solely on one point of more general interest, and that is when he referred to what he called "unholy contracts" and attacked the preoccupation, as he seemed to think it, of certain hon. Members on this side of the Committee with the sanctity of contract. I can well believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that any undue preoccupation with the sanctity of contract is obsolete, reactionary and probably deviationist, but he is wrong when he craves in aid the Rent Restriction Acts themselves as giving support to his contention.
It is quite true, of course, that Section 1 of the 1920 Act does refer to "notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary," but what is provided there is that any agreement to the contrary which takes place after the Act shall be excluded.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Janner: That is not so. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman saying that, because I am sure that he knows the Rent Restriction Acts very well. I think that he must be suffering from indigestion. I am sure that he will agree that what this says is that the amount of such rents shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, be recoverable, if they have already been made. That is a repetition of the 1915 Act which by this Act was repealed.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The Rent Acts make irrecoverable anything above the standard rent fixed by the Rent Acts. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is to go back to the origins of ground leases and to condemn contracts entered into then, which is a very different thing from the operation on contracts of the Rent Acts. The hon. Gentleman is going far beyond anything which has been done by the Rent Acts when he asks for that principle to be brought into effect with regard to contracts entered into so very long ago.
The next objection about which I wish to say a word is the objection made. I think, by the Solicitor-General and others that the effect that this Amendment would substitute a portion of the tenancy for the whole tenancy. In other words,

843
it would substitute a dwelling-house. The right hon. and learned Gentleman found certain difficulties in that. I should have thought that the Amendment is there in line with what is the real object of the Bill, which is to protect residential property, and residential property only. It is, in fact, so defined in the long Title to the Bill, which says:
"To make temporary provision for the protection of occupiers of residential property."
In my submission to the Committee, the Amendment sticks with scrupulous closeness to the real object of the Bill in seeking to give protection to property which is occupied as residential property only.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the effect of the Amendment would make it more difficult to enact permanent legislation. It is conceivable that it might make it more difficult to introduce a Measure for wholesale leasehold enfranchisement. It might make it more difficult to make a permanent Act continuing tenancies on a ground rent, but one is entitled to assume that if the Government intended to do any of these things they could have done them now. We on this side of the Committee take the view—at least, I personally take the view—that the report of the majority of the Uthwatt and the Jenkins Committees has, in fact, disposed of the argument for any comprehensive system of leasehold enfranchisement.
The last point on which I wish to comment is this: It was stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that it was wrong to introduce a new rent even though the prolongation of the ground rent might give rise to anomaly, because that would depart from the principle that the Bill is merely a standstill arrangement, and if we on this side of the Committee were going to depart from that principle we ought not to have acquiesced in the Second Reading of the Bill. That is the substance of the point that was put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Widnes.
The principle of the Bill, accepted on this side, was that there should be a standstill in regard to the protection of residential occupants in possession. The fixing of the rent was not part of the principle. It seems anomalous that we should prolong
844
or perpetuate a ground rent which has become, in effect, a rack rent tenancy on expiration of the original ground lease.
It was argued by the hon. Member that there were considerable discrepancies in rateable values. The argument comes rather ill from a supporter of the Administration which, only this week, has postponed the coming into effect of the new valuation lists under the Local Government Act, 1948, for a further year, these valuation lists being designed, among other things, to iron out the discrepancies in rateable values.
I think the hon. Member will agree that even if there are discrepancies in individual cases, it is a very fair test to take in this respect. Owing to the circumstances of war, and so on, it was necessary to suspend the quinquennial review and consequently rateable values date back to 1935 outside the Metropolis and to 1936 in London. As a result they are at a rate considerably lower than might be the economic rate at the present time. In that sense they are definitely favourable to tenants, and, therefore, not inappropriate to a Measure of this sort.
Mr. MacColl: The point about suspension bears out my argument. It is not the fault of the Government that it was not until 1948 that any attempt was made to rationalise rateable values. That could have been done before. The fact that it has taken the new machinery so long to get any kind of coherence out of the chaotic rateable values is surely a very good answer.
Mr. Walker-Smith: The short answer is that the Government came into power in 1945 and did not pass the Act until three years later. Two alternative dates, April, 1952, and April, 1953, were provided for the coming into force of that Act, and the Government have chosen the later date rather than the earlier.
Mr. Powell: I want to refer briefly to one of the many important points that have arisen in connection with this Amendment, namely, the rateable value limits to which many Members have referred. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), pointed out that the Bill creates a new anomaly, in that it affords protection to tenants outside the rateable value limits of the Rent Restriction Acts if they happen to be tenants

845
under a ground lease and not otherwise. I have been astonished to hear Member after Member opposite defending and justifying that anomaly.
Parliament decided in 1939 that the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts was justified only up to certain rateable value limits. There has been unlimited opportunity since 1945, opportunity afforded in particular to the present Government, to increase these limits, if it was considered that an increase was justified and thought that there was hardship on the tenants of houses of rateable value above £100 in the metropolis and £75 in the provinces. The Government had only to come to the House with a two-Clause Bill to produce that effect at any time since 1945. They have not done so. They have not introduced such a Measure, and it is very strange to find in 1951 that the necessity of such protection, albeit in the case of ground leases only, is being advocated with such fervour.
There is an obvious deduction to be drawn. We are now six years from the end of the war and one would have anticipated that those six years would have seen a gradual improvement in the housing situation, and that we should have, at least, come within sight of the time when we could begin to reduce the upper limit of rent restriction as the relationship between supply and demand adjusted itself. The fact that in 1951 hon. Members opposite are starting to put forward the argument that rent restrictions limits should be extended, and that protection is needed for further classes, is an indication that over the last six years scarcity has become worse and not better. It is well worth taking note of that admission.
The Attorney-General: I hope that the Committee will soon feel that it will be able to come to a decision on these not unimportant Amendments. I do not say that at all by way of complaint, because the Amendments are perhaps some of the more fundamental of those which have been put down by hon. Members opposite. Indeed, it has long been apparent on this side of the Committee, and I do not doubt on the other side as well, that hon. Members opposite have been having second thoughts about what they might have said but did not say on the Second Reading of the Bill.
846
I make no apology at all for not being in a position now to say what I think should be the final and permanent solution of this most difficult and complex problem as to what should happen at the termination of long leaseholds. Many different views have been expressed about it on both sides of the House and in all parties. The practical difficulties of solution are enormous. Indeed, the Committee of experts which was established to study this problem, took over two years before presenting any report, and nobody can say that even after that not inconsiderable period of time they reached any unanimous conclusions.
It is inevitable that in the preparation of proposals for the formulation of policy and in the actual drafting of whatever Measure is eventually to be presented to the House, a considerable time must be taken up. Indeed, as I understood it, some hon. Members opposite—I am not including in this the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) because he was on a different point—thought two years not enough time to give sufficient study and consideration to the formulation of policy and to draft the Bill to carry that policy out. I do not think that. I think we shall succeed in doing it, but it would have been quite impossible for any Government except one, which was prepared to adopt the wholly unsatisfactory expedient proposed by hon. Members opposite, to present to the House a long-term and permanent solution of a problem, which has in the past baffled so many committees and so many political parties.
When this matter was discussed on Second Reading—and I think it is only 15 Parliamentary days ago—I said this:
"Firstly, we do not know what rights the occupying ground lessee may enjoy under the new permanent legislation. All sorts of things have been suggested in regard to him. Some think he should go on as before; some that he should have the right to a new lease hut still at a rent for the ground alone, although at a rent which reflects the present value of the ground, which would be higher than the value 90 years ago.
Another view is that, failing agreement between the lessee and the landlord, the lessee should be brought within the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts and have a new rent for both the ground and the house rent fixed by some tribunal. That is a suggestion worthy of consideration in the long-term solution, but it is greatly complicated, as the majority Report points out, by the covenants and the problem

847
of repairs, about which I shall say something later on. It really involves re-writing the whole lease."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482; c. 379.
I pointed out the difficulties then and I point them out again now.
9.30 p.m.
Because of those practical difficulties, the choice before the Government, any Government, and the House of Commons was to wait until permanent legislation was ready for presentation to Parliament, while day by day and week by week tenants were being thrown into the street, deprived of any chance of benefiting from the permanent legislation whatever shape it took; or to introduce a stand-still until permanent legislation had been worked out. We thought, and the House thought —and hon. Members opposite did not divide against it—that the proper course was not to attempt permanent legislation at this stage but to introduce standstill legislation. Now, hon. Members opposite, having second thoughts about this matter and having failed to vote against what was manifestly a stand-still Bill, are seeking by a scheme which is frankly a scheme of wrecking Amendments, to make the Bill achieve a permanent solution which they have now made up their minds they would like to achieve, but which hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not prepared to support.
We cannot agree with the view that the long-term permanent solution is to bring these premises within Rent Acts protection. That is where there is a complete social and political cleavage between both sides of the Committee. We think that there is a fundamental distinction between giving statutory protection under Rent Acts legislation to tenancies of houses which were let as houses at rack rents in the first instance, and the case of premises which were let as ground without houses on them at a rent for the ground alone, and where the tenant or his predecessor in title has built the house which now exists. We do not think that a further complication of Rent Acts legislation—heaven knows it is complicated enough already—by trying to bring premises of this kind within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts is the proper way of dealing with a problem which, we feel, is fundamentally different from the problem affecting the houses covered by rent protection legislation.
848
The Amendments which are being proposed from the other side of the Committee would put out of consideration altogether the possibility of leasehold enfranchisement. In saying that, I am not expressing any final view myself whether leasehold enfranchisement is desirable or practicable. It is a matter on which different views are held, I beliece, in all three political parties. I know that one time—perhaps here I may he doing the Liberal Party an injustice —the Liberal Party did come out solidly in favour of leasehold enfranchisement. They may be of that view now.
There is certainly a case worthy of careful consideration in favour of leasehold enfranchisement, but the solution proposed by these Amendment would put that case entirely out of consideration. They would exclude from the protection of permanent legislation a not inconsiderable number of so-called middle class houses. The great majority of the letters which I have had about this legislation have come from people who occupy that type of house outside the protection of the Rent Acts, and who may well deserve some protection under the permanent legislation which we contemplate introducing. I take note in that connection of the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), that we ought perhaps to consider raising the Rent Restriction Acts limits in all cases. We shall certainly not lose sight of that possibility.
The Amendments would do not only that but would put finally out of consideration what, after all, remains a fundamental question between us, whether the landlord should be entitled to these ground leases, whether he should be entitled in future to what would substantially be a ground rent or perhaps a ground rent based on the present values of the ground or whether he should be entitled to a rack rent. The proposal would entitle him once and for all to treatment on a rack rent basis. It would expose the tenants of these houses, which have been built by themselves or their predecessors in title, to eviction for various causes which it might not be right to consider in permanent legislation. As at present advised—I am not expressing any final conclusion as to what the permanent legislation should be—in this

849
standstill legislation we do not feel inclined to adopt any of these expedients.
Finally, I must say that I was not very much impressed by the argument advanced so eloquently by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who tried to persuade the Committee—I hope he will try to persuade his constituents when the time comes for him to seek their franchise at the next General Election—that the proposals put forward by the Opposition would be more beneficial to the tenants than our own proposals will be. Under the proposals of the Opposition the tenants would find their rent immediately jumped up, they would find their leases in regard to their repairing and other obligations completely re-written without their consent, they would find themselves at the risk of eviction on a number of grounds which do not exist today, and they would find abolished for ever the hope some of them still retain of eventually becoming, as some of them already think they are, the owners of these houses in which they have lived as their homes and which were built by them or their predecessors. These Amendments would completely wreck the basic purpose of the Bill, and we on this side of the Committee find ourselves bound to vote against them.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not think the Committee would want me to go in great detail into the technical matters raised in these rather lengthy Amendments, but there are one or two general issues which have emerged from the debate upon which it is right that I should comment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given voice to two of them. The first is the suggestion that the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the Amendments is different from the view they took during the Second Reading debate. I shall not subject the Committee to a reading of the speech I made on that occasion, but I submit that the action which we have taken is completely consistent with that speech. We gave qualified approval to Part II of the Bill which adopts an entirely different principle for a standstill from Part I, and we said again and again that Part I was full of anomalies and obscurities and would need a great deal of amendment in Committee. I ended by saying:
"…Part I … is full of anomalies, injustices and obscurity. We believe that some action
850
is necessary. We are ready, as I have indicated, with our proposals. We propose … to give the Bill a Second Reading, and to seek in Committee to make it match more nearly the needs of the people at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1950; Vol. 482. c. 409.]
That is exactly what we have sought to do in the Amendments.
It is suggested that these are wrecking Amendments. It is as though, when there is a proposal to tinker with a roof and put a patch on it, someone comes with a proposal to put on a new permanent roof and that is called a wrecking proposition. The Solicitor-General saw fit to object to our proposals on the ground that they were too radical. That is a remarkable ground of opposition for this Government to put forward, but it may very well be true. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) made a very interesting contribution in which he said that he was against leasehold enfranchisement. I was delighted to hear him say that because the attitude so far of some of his colleagues seems to have been that if one is against the sacred doctrine of leasehold enfranchisement one is some sort of Fascist beast. I was glad to hear him say that he was against it.
He put forward the point that we were seeking to put into a temporary Bill a permanent solution. That is a very fair comment. If the suggestion was that the proposal to give the protection of the Rent Acts to these people was only temporary and was to run for only two years, I doubt very much whether I should be in favour of doing it, because the purpose of the Opposition is, within the framework of this Bill, to seek to iron out an anomaly which every member of the Leasehold Committee admitted existed.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) incorporated in the minority Report which he presented with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) a proposal to extend the Rent Acts to these people, and coupled with that a scheme for leasehold enfranchisement. The argument put forward that if this remedy which we propose is adopted, it is completely inconsistent with the idea of doing anything else should that be necessary is shown by the terms of that minority Report to be complete nonsense.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Not at all.
Mr. Lloyd: I am quite right in my recollection that in the same Report in which the hon. and learned Member suggested the extension of the Rent Acts to these people he also put forward a scheme for leasehold enfranchisement. It is true that that scheme would not appeal to many advocates of leasehold enfranchisement. It was, nevertheless, a sort of emasculated leasehold enfranchisement.
I suggest that the Solicitor-General's comment is wholly wrong. We believe it to be necessary to iron out these anomalies and to give to these people the same protection which other people in a similar kind of accommodation have, but that is not at all inconsistent with further and other steps if need be. I should have thought it perfectly easy, should the Government so decide subsequently, to deal with this same category of people in a different way, in other words give them the right to purchase their freeholds. I am not in favour of doing that.
I think that a proper permament solution is to give the protection of the Rent
Acts and at the same time to put in the law some of the more non-controversial measures in regard to delapidations and improvements that were recommended almost unanimously by the Leasehold Committee. This is a perfectly consistent constructive suggestion, completely in accord with what we said on Second Reading. I was right when I said that we would seek in Committee to make the Bill match more nearly the present needs of the people. To put forward seriously the suggestion that there must be a standstill agreement to enable the Government to make up their mind is complete nonsense. The truth is that the party opposite are fundamentally divided about how to tackle this problem. They have no definite programme to put forward, and this Bill is a funk Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to this Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 230.

Division No. 18.]

AYES

[9.46 p.m.

Adams, Richard

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Albu, A. H.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Gooch, E. G.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Cove, W. G.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Crawley, A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Awbery, S. S.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Grey, C. F.

Ayles, W. H.

Cullen, Mrs A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Bacon, Miss A.

Daines P.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Baird, J.

Dalton, Rt Hon. H.

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Balfour, A.

Darling, G. (Hilrsboro')

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bartley, P

Davies, Ernest (Enfield E.)

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Benn, Hon. A. N. Wedgwood

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Benson, G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hamilton, W. W.

Beswick, F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hannan, W.

Bing, G. H. C.

Deer, G.

Hardman, D. R.

Blenkinsop, A.

Delargy, H. J.

Hardy, E. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Diamond, J.

Hargreaves, A.

Boardman, H.

Dodds, N. N.

Harrison, J.

Booth, A.

Donnelly, D.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Bottomley, A. G.

Driberg. T. E. N.

Hayman, F. H.

Bowden, H. W.

Dye, S.

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regit)

Bowen, R.

Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.

Herbison, Miss M.

Bower, N.

Edelman, M.

Hewitson, Capt. M

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hobson, C. R

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Edwards, Rt Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Holman, P

Brockway, A. Fenner

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Houghton, Douglas

Brooks, T. J (Normanton)

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

Hoy. J

Broughton, Dr A. D. D.

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

Hubbard, T.

Brown, George (Belper)

Ewart, R.

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

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Fernyhough, E.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Burke, W. A

Field, Capt W. J

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Burton, Miss E.

Finch. H. J.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

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

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

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Carmichael, James

Follick, M

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Foot, M. M.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Champion, A. J.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Chetwynd, G. R

Freeman, J (Watford)

Janner, B.

Cocks, F. S.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Jay, D. P. T.

Coldrick, W

Gaitskell, Rt Hon H. T. N

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Collick, P

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

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

Collindridge, F

Gibson, C. W.

Jenkins, R. H.

Cook, T. F.

Gilzean, A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Murray, J. D.

Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Nally, W.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Neal, H.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

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

Strauss. Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Keenan, W.

O'Brien, T.

Stross, Dr. B.

Kenyon, C.

Oliver, G. H.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Orbach, M.

Sylvester, G. O.

King, H. M.

Padley, W E.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Kinley, J.

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

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Lee, F. (Newton)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Pannell, T. C.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Pargiter, G. A.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

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

Parker, J.

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

Lindgren, G. S.

Paton, J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Peart, T. F.

Thurtle, Ernest

Logan, D. G.

Poole, Cecil

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Popplewell, E.

Tomney, F.

McAllister, G.

Porter, G.

Turner-Samuels, M.

MacColl, J. E.

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire. W.)

Ungoed-Thomas, A. L

McGhee, H. G.

Proctor, W. T.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

McGovern, J.

Pryde, D. J.

Viant, S. P.

Mack, J. D.

Pursey, Commander H

Wade, D. W.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Rankin, J

Wallace, H. W

McLeavy, F.

Rees, Mrs. D.

Weitzman, D.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Reeves, J.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

West, D. G.

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

Rhodes, H.

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

Mann, Mrs. J.

Richards, R.

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Manuel, A. C.

Roberts, A.

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

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wilkes, L.

Mellish, R. J.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Wilkins, W. A.

Messer, F.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Willey. F. T. (Sunderland)

Middleton, Mrs. L

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

Wiiley, O. G. (Clevelans)

Mikardo, Ian

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mitchison, G. R.

Royle, C.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Moeran,. E. W.

Shackleton E. A. A.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Monslow W.

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

Moody, A. S.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

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

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Morley, R.

Silverman. S S (Nelson)

Wnterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Simmons, C. J.

Yates, V. F.

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

Slater, J.

Mort, D. L.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Moyle, A.

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

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

Mulley, F. W.

Snow, J. W.

NOES

Alport, C. J. M.

Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

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

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

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Colegate, A.

Gage, C. H.

Arbuthnot, John

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

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Gammans, L. D.

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

Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Baker, P.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Gates Maj. E. E

Baldwin, A. E.

Cranborne, Viscount

Glyn, Sir R.

Banks, Col. C.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Gridley, Sir A.

Baxter, A. B

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Bell, R. M.

Crowder, F P (Ruislip—Northwood)

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Cundiff, F. W.

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

Bevins, J R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Cuthbert, W. N

Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

Birch, Nigel

Davidson, Viscountess

Hay, John

Bishop, F. P.

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Black, C. W.

de Chair, S.

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

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

De la Bère, R.

Heald, L. F.

Bossom, A. C.

Deedes, W. F.

Heath, E. R.

Bower, N.

Digby, S. Wingfield

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Donner, P. W.

Hicks-Beach, Maj W. W

Boyle, Sir Edward

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

Higgs, J M C

Braine, B.

Drayson, G B

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Drewe. C

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Duncan, Capt J. A L

Hollis, M. C.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Dunglass, Lord

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Duthie, W. S

Hope, Lord J.

Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

Eccles, D. M

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A.

Fisher, Nigel

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Butcher, H. W.

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florense

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Fort, R.

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Carson, Hon. E.

Foster, J. G.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Channon, H.

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

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

854

855

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

Molson, A. H. E.

Spens, Sir P (Kensington, S.)

Hurd, A. R.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Stevens, G. P.

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

Hyde, H. M.

Nabarro, G.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Nicholls, H.

Storey, S.

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Nicholson, G.

Stuart, Rt. Hon J (Moray)

Jennings, R.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Summers, G. S

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Sutcliffe, H.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon, L. W.

Nutting, Anthony

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Kaberry, D.

Okshott H. D.

Teeling, William

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Odsy. G. W.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Kingsm M, Lt.-Col. W. H.

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir K.

Thompson, K P (walton)

Langford-Holt, J.

Ormsby Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

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

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

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

Osborne, C.

Thornton-Kemsley. C N

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Lindsay, Martin

Pickthorn, K.

Tilney, John

Linstead, H. N.

Powell, J. Enoch

Touche, G. C.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Price, H A. (Lewisham, W.)

Turner, H. F. L

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

Turton, R. H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Raikes, H. V

Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

Rayner, Brigadier R

Vane, W. M. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Redmayne, M.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Wakefield, E B (Derbyshire, W.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

Walker-Smith, D C.

McAdden, S. J.

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Waterhouse, Capt Rt Hon C

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Watkinson, H.

Mackeson, Brig. H R

Roper, Sir H.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

McKibbin, A

Ropner, Col. L

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Maclay. Hon. J S

Russell, R. S.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Ryder, Capt R. E. D.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Scott, Donald

Wills, G.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir W

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Wood, Hon. R

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

York, C.

Marples, A. E.

Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Snadden, W. McN.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Maudling, R.

Soames. Capt C.

Mr. Studholme and Mr Vosper

Mellor, Sir J.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir Patrick Spens: I beg to move, in line 18, at the end, to add:
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 he 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.
I rise to move a very uncontroversial Amendment put down for the purpose of getting information under Clause 1 as it now stands, and, if necessary, for safeguarding the position. The simple case is where a long lease has been granted out of the freehold, and where the property is in the occupation of a tenant who is protected. In that case, it is quite clear that, during the extended two-year period, the landlord or reversioner is the freeholder, but, in the far more common and complicated case, where a building lease has been granted out of the freehold,
856
and out of that lease a further lease for an improved ground rent has been granted, and out of that lease an occupational lease for over 21 years, and one or more of the superior leases is going to expire during the two-year period for which occupation is extended, who is or becomes the landlord of the occupying tenant? We believe that, as each of the intermediate leases expires, so the next reversioner becomes the land-lord, and, if all the intermediate leases expire before the two-year period is ended, the tenant will find himself the tenant of the freeholder.
That we believe to be the scheme of the Bill, and it was thought that Clause 5 set out to do that, but Clause 5 has been completely re-worded in a manner which I confess gave me a very severe headache on Sunday in attempting to understand it. It may be that Clause 15 is now the possible answer to it, but, at any rate, we understand that that is the position, and we suggest that this Amendment is the simple way of making it clear to everybody—to the layman as

857
well as to the abstruse conveyancers in Lincoln's Inn. I therefore ask the learned Attorney-General to accept the proviso to Clause 1 in the simple language in which we have drafted it.
The Attorney-General: The answer to the Amendment so pleasantly proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman is, as he expected, Clause 15.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is a rather unsatisfactory answer, for this reason. Clause 15 is much longer than this proviso, and I think myself it would improve the Bill if we had the wording which is now suggested. All I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to do is to say that he will look at this point again, because I think our wording is an improvement on Clause 15 and also an improvement on Clause 5 in its original form. I do not understand the revised version as yet.
The Attorney-General: We will look at it.
Sir P. Spens: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in line 18, at the end, to add:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any premises to which Part II of this Act applies.
This simple Amendment has been put down for the sake of clarity. As I understand the Bill, a dwelling, where it is in conjunction with a shop, in the case of a shop with living accommodation above, will always come within Part II of the Bill, but I do not think it is so very clear. I think, where we get property—
It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

KINGSTON VICTORIA HOSPITAL
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
10.3 p.m.
Mr. Black: I desire to raise on the Adjournment tonight the case of the Kingston and Malden Victoria Hospital. May I say how pleased I am to see the Minister of Health here in person this evening, and to express the hope that on this first intervention on his part in this matter he may be able to give some satisfaction over a question which deeply concerns the people in the neighbourhood surrounding the hospital.
I do not want to spend a great deal of time in dealing with events before 1st November last, because the case of this hospital has been before this House on more than one previous occasion, but since our earlier discussions a new situation has arisen since 1st November. I wish to say a word or two about events prior to that time, but to concentrate the main part of what I desire to bring to the notice of the House on events subsequent to 1st November. The Kingston and Malden Victoria Hospital is about 50 years old. During the whole of that period it has been a small general hospital of the cottage hospital type with beds available to general practitioners practising in the neighbourhood, and I think I can safely say, without fear of contradiction, that the hospital has enjoyed very high esteem in the district which it has served.
Some considerable time ago a proposal emanated from the regional hospital board whereby this small hospital would lose its independence as a separate hospital and, under a reorganisation of the hospital service in the district, become a gynaecological unit attached to the larger Kingston Hospital nearby. This proposal was accompanied by an offer to the general practitioners using the hospital of the use of the old Surbiton Cottage Hospital in place of the accommodation they were enjoying at the Kingston and Malden Victoria Hospital.
I am not competent to express an opinion on the suitability or otherwise of the alternative accommodation offered, but it is regarded as quite inadequate by

859
the doctors concerned and there is other eminent medical opinion to support the view that it is not an alternative that could be seriously considered. After this matter had been under discussion for a long period, notice was given to the hospital authorities that no more patients were to be received after 1st November last, with a view to the hospital being closed not later than the end of November last. That order was not complied with by the doctors or the hospital authorities.
I am not here to argue the legal niceties of the issues involved, except to say that there are many cases in history in which the instructions of superior officers have been ignored, sometimes with very beneficial results, to mention only the case of Nelson placing his telescope to his blind eye. Whatever the legal niceties of the position may be, the action of the doctors and the hospital staffs has been condoned by the regional hospital board, which has continued to pay the salaries and the running expenses connected with the hospital.
The proposal whereby this much esteemed local hospital would lose its independence has been the subject of the most intense indignation by all kinds and conditions of people. I want to mention quite briefly, under three heads, the strength of the opposition to this proposal. Under the medical head, the proposal has been criticised strongly by the British Medical Association, by the Surrey branch, of the British Medical Association in all its five divisions, and by a unanimous expression of condemnation by the medical board of the hospital. The Surrey Executive Council for the General Practitioners' Service has expressed its objection and has asked to have the opportunity to be heard by the regional hospital board, but has received no reply to that request. There has been condemnation also by the General Medical Services Committee, representing all general practitioners in the National Health Service.
Under the heading of objection by hospital authorities, I would mention that the proposal was originally objected to by the Group Management Committee, and the subsequent acquiescence of that Committee was only obtained by the failure to reappoint to the committee four members who were among those most strongly
860
opposed to this proposal, including the Chairman, and the substitution for them of four other persons who, apparently, were willing to acquiesce in the proposal of the regional hospital board. The proposal is also opposed by the House Committee of the hospital and by the Consultants and Specialists Committee, representing hospital staffs in the National Health Service.
Under what I would describe as the head of objections by the general public, there is an equally impressive catalogue of objections to which to draw attention. The borough councils of the two local authority areas served by this hospital have expressed their objection, not on one occasion but on several occasions, and that objection has been sustained by the various shades of political opinion represented on those borough councils. Not long ago a public meeting of protest was held which must surely have been one of the very largest public meetings ever held in the locality, because the largest hall available was crowded to suffocation and a number of people endeavoured to listen to the speeches in the street outside, there being no room for them within the confines of the building.
A petition has been organised locally dealing with this matter and is to be presented to the House at a very early date. That petition indicates a most impressive and almost overwhelming support on the part of the general public in the area in its objection to the proposals. The Press, both local and national, has shown the greatest possible interest in the fate of this hospital and has been almost unanimously opposed to the proposal to which I am objecting tonight. In fact, we have here almost the position of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board versus the rest of the world, so strong, so unanimous and so complete is the objection on the part of all other sections of the public.
There are one or two general points which I would desire to clear up with a view to removing any possible misapprehension which may exist. I want to make it perfectly clear that the objection to the proposal whereby this hospital would lose the status it has enjoyed for about 50 years is not an objection confined to the members of any one political party, nor is it actuated in the slightest possible degree by political motives.

861
This objection is not one held and advanced by people who are opposed to the National Health Service and who are desirous of seeing that service inconvenienced or brought into a condition of failure, but is an objection sustained by people of all shades of political opinion and urged upon the attention of this House and of the Minister by people who are genuine and sincere friends of the National Health Service—people who are most anxious that the efficiency of the service and the public regard for the service should not be impaired by the carrying further into effect of the proposal against which I am speaking here tonight.
It is only right that this point should be made quite clear—that this is not a political matter and that the objection is brought forward not by those who do not favour the National Health Service but by those who genuinely desire to see its well-being preserved and extended. I should have thought that since this matter was last debated in the House the case for the retention of this hospital on its present status had been greatly strengthened by developments in recent months.
I do not profess to be an expert on medical and on hospital matters but, if I understand the present position correctly, the strongest possible pressure is being placed upon maternity cases not to occupy hospital beds, unless there is an overwhelming reason why they should do so, because of the very great and grave shortage of beds available for the more serious cases of a general kind. I should have thought that the recent outbreak of influenza and ill-health generally, and the resulting difficult situation in the hospital service, would tremendously have reinforced the argument which has been advanced in the House that this hospital should be maintained as a general hospital and should not become a gynaecological unit attached to a larger hospital outside.
Now I come to my final point, and it is this: what it is that I am asking the Minister to do at this particular juncture regarding this grave problem. Let me make it plain that I am not asking him now to over-ride the decision of the regional hospital board. In my view it would be unfair to the regional hospital board at this stage for me to ask him to
862
do that; and I think that it would probably be agreed that, if he were to act in that way at this stage, on the basis of any ex parte statement made by me tonight, it would be regarded as though he were coming to a judgment on this matter without having given due weight to all opinions. What I am most strongly urging upon the Minister is that he should agree to set up an independent and an impartial inquiry into the whole matter; and that the person conducting that inquiry should give an opportunity to all shades of opinion to be represented and to be heard.
I think I can go so far as to say that if such an independent and impartial inquiry were held under satisfactory conditions those who are at present defying the orders of the regional hospital board, and the great mass of bodies, local and national, who are opposed to this proposal, would be prepared to agree in advance to accept and abide by the findings of such an independent and impartial inquiry. In making that suggestion I do not think that I am asking for anything which is unreasonable, or anything which the Minister ought not to be willing readily to grant.
I beg of the Minister not to determine this matter out of hand on what I would describe as mere prestige considerations. I beg of him not to take the point of view that this matter has gone so far already that, right or wrong, the regional hospital board must be supported. It would be a tragedy if a serious mistake were to be made, to the indignation of public opinion, and to the disquiet of those who are genuinely concerned in the future of the National Health Service, just because the Minister was unwilling to appear to withhold his support from the regional hospital board.
An independent and an impartial inquiry would, I suggest to the Minister, be a suitable step to take. It would give satisfaction to all the parties who feel keenly and intensely on this matter, and it would have a good prospect of resolving the impasse which at present exists between the hospital authorities on the one hand and the regional hospital board on the other.
I, therefore, make two alternative requests to the new Minister tonight. First, I hope that he will say that he will agree to set up the independent

863
and impartial inquiry for which I have asked; but if I have failed to carry him completely to that length with me, then I would beg of him not finally to close his mind on this issue until, in a few days' time, the Petition is presented in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).
It would be wrong, I suggest, that this matter should be decided in a manner unfavourable to the petitioners before the Petition has been presented, and has received the consideration which is its due. So I ask the Minister to do tonight the big thing, the reasonable thing, the generous thing—to accede to the proposal that an independent and an impartial inquiry should be set up without further delay.
Sir Ian Fraser: I only want to say that this situation is parallel to that in Morecambe where the Victoria Hospital and all who are associated are in exactly the position described by my hon. Friend. There are also 20 or 30 other towns in which this situation exists. Will the Minister therefore answer, not merely the local plea that has been made but the wider issues involved?
10.21 p.m.
Mr. Messer: There is not time to argue this case. I regret very much that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) used up so much time that he prevented any real reply even by the Minister. I rise so that the Minister shall know that if he concedes what is requested he will have trouble from one end of the country to the other. The hospital regional boards have been set up for the purpose of planning the Health Service. I can understand that in this particular part of the country emotion has been aroused. What does not strike the hon. Member and his colleagues, and indeed the local people, is that as a result of planning there is an addition to the available beds. They can only see this hospital.
Anybody at a town meeting can point to his little cottage hospital and describe it in terms that would wring tears from the eyes of the stone statues in the ground: "This is not a thing of bricks and mortar. This is the embodiment of
864
years, of generations of the spirit." One knows just how emotion can be aroused. I plead with the Minister to let the regional boards get on with their job. If he does not there is no justification for their existence. If they cannot plan the Service, believe me the Ministry of Health cannot: they are not in a position to do so.
10.22 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) said there was intense indignation about this matter in the district he represents, but fortunately he did not show any tonight, and I was glad to receive his assurance that there was no political bias involved. He told us that there were people of all shades of political opinion who were disturbed by what they heard at public meetings at Kingston and in the neighbourhood, and shared his views. I dare say there are.
Equally, on the other hand, I am sure it is perfectly clear to him that the proposals of the regional board have not been drafted by the Labour Party. No doubt if we troubled to inquire—which we never do—we should find that on the regional board among those who have drawn up the scheme there are also people of varying political views. We must therefore discuss this matter tonight in a completely dispassionate manner as far as party politics are concerned.
There have been, I believe, two debates before on this subject and a great number of Parliamentary Questions, and I therefore thought it right that I should myself take a hand in the matter as soon as possible, particularly because it seemed to me that there was a general problem involved as well as the particular problem of this hospital. That there is a general problem involved has been made abundantly clear in very succinct speeches from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer).
I take it we are all agreed that we are in favour of a National Health Service. We may have different views as to the way in which it ought to have been developed, and so on, but we are in favour of a National Health Service. The hon. Member for Wimbledon certainly said that he was. If we are in favour of a

865
National Health Service, I presume we are also all in favour of a regional organisation for the hospital service. That was proposed by every commission and body which, before the National Health Service was started, inquired into the hospital service as such. Everybody thought that it should be regionalised, and it was for this purpose that regional boards were established under the National Health Service Act—to advise the Minister and to plan the hospital services in every region so that within any given region all the various specialties which might be expected there in the different hospitals might be co-ordinated and provided in the most suitable way for the good of the whole of the people in that region.
I think we are agreed that that was the job of the regional boards. To set up a regional board to ensure that the specialties in every given part of the region shall be available to all the citizens in that region inevitably means some re-organisation. Re-organisation of that kind is bound to affect some of the smaller hospitals which cover the wider range of specialties and yet have very few beds and perhaps lack other facilities. Such hospitals in every one of these schemes had to give up some of these specialties or become a unit for one speciality only in order that one adequate unit might be available in every committee group. That is the essence of the planning of the regional boards. The regional boards have done that and consequently the functions of this particular hospital have had to be changed.
I think that we ought to realise that any regional board undertaking this job must inevitably here and there encounter local susceptibilities. We must realise that in any region a change of this kind is part of the general plan for the better service of the public. I am sure that the board is not doing it in any spirit of feeling that a general practitioner hospital in itself is an undesirable thing. The regional board does not think that, the Minister of Health does not think it, and his advisers do not think that. There is no bias or animus against a general practitioner hospital as such.
What has happened in Kingston is that it has been found by the regional board that there is an outstanding need there for a first-class gynaecological unit. There are, I am told, nearly 300 women on the
866
gynaecological waiting list, and this list cannot be cut down until the scattered gynaecological facilities are centralised and improved. It is not a fair argument to introduce into this general question of how best to provide gynaecological treatment in this area the particular effect of the influenza epidemic of today. When there is an influenza epidemic and certain people are in danger of life they should, of course, be taken into hospital as quickly as possible, and that is being done. But we are planning now not for an influenza epidemic. This plan is drawn up to meet the long-term normal situation.
I am quite sure that the regional board has considered this very carefully, and I do not see why I should reject their opinion that the scheme could not be worked without making use of the exceptional facilities of the Kingston Victoria Hospital to create there this gynecological unit. It is needed and that is the place to have it because it is close to the general Kingston Hospital with its equipment, specialised skill and so on. It is unfortunate that that plan should mean that particular patients will no longer be able to use this hospital, but there is no doubt that its facilities and 44 beds will be better used for this purpose than in an attempt to deal in such a small compass with all aspects of medical and research work. That is the expert opinion, and it seems to be the proper one. That seems to me to be right.
Proper safeguards for the general practitioners using the hospital at present are preserved under this scheme; they are not to be cut off from hospital work altogether and the Surbiton Annexe, as it is called, and it is perhaps an unfortunate name—
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: An unfortunate building!
Mr. Marquand: Perhaps it is an unfortunate building; but the name given to it and the fact that it has been a pour building in the past must not lead us to suppose it must always be like that.[An HON. MEMBER: "It ought to be a gynecological unit."] It is obviously not suitable for that; it is a mile away from the general hospital where all the facilities are available, but cottage hospitals all over the country are miles away

867
from the general hospital, and this Surbiton building could be a satisfactory building for a cottage hospital.
If the general practitioners in Kingston who have been making use of the Kingston Victoria Hospital will lend their assistance and give us their co-operation and suggest what are their requirements in the Surbiton Annexe, we shall be very pleased to have their views and observations. I hope that I am wrong but I think they have appeared to refuse to offer their advice but I hope they will come forward and co-operate in the provision of a satisfactory building there. If they will co-operate I can assure them that in addition to providing this building in which we hope to give all reasonable assistance for the general practitioner, facilities for general surgical work in Kingston will be offered so that all the patients who would have gone to the Kingston Hospital will be properly catered for in the Annexe or in other hospitals in the group.
I have examined a little chart which has been prepared for me—and I wish sometimes that one could do in the House what one did in the university and have a blackboard to give demonstrations—and I think this chart will show the hon. Member for Wimbledon and his hon. Friends that among the six or seven hospitals in the area of the Kingston group, there will be 226 beds under the new scheme as compared with 203 at the moment. At present there are 81 maternity beds, compared with 102 under the scheme, and whereas there were 37 gynaecological beds there will be 41.
Apart from the increase in beds there will be the increase in facilities. This not a large number of beds to assign for gynaecological work and I am sure nobody in the House is ever going to suggest that gynaecological work is unimportant or that there should be here and there a number of beds without expert care and the necessary facilities. Let hon. Members remember the discussions we had in this House about analgesia and let us see that all facilities are provided for gynaecological and special types of maternity work which require the services of a specialist.
868
I have been asked to set up an inquiry but I really do think that hon. Members will agree there has been ample inquiry. Full attention has been drawn by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in Adjournment debates in this House to the whole subject, and questions have been answered. The Minister of Health and his Department, and the regional board have gone into the whole matter. There is here a conflict of opinion, no doubt, but there could be no advantage in further inquiry. We know all the facts, and have to take action on the basis of those facts.
If there are people in Kingston, and there evidently are, who do not know all the facts which I have available here, I shall be only too glad to make more information available about the scheme than I can do in the short space of time at my command to-night. I have only about half a minute left, and I would say that if hon. Members would like to bring a deputation to meet me, and allow me to explain the scheme in greater fullness, and show how it will work to the benefit of the people, I will gladly do that.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold up action until that is done?
Mr. Marquand: I am not talking about a general deputation on the work of the regional hospital boards, Certainly not. We are dealing only with this particular hospital and locality.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold up action until he has received that deputation? Otherwise the offer is valueless.
Mr. Marquand: The only action going on is work on the Annexe to make it into a general practitioners hospital. But we are not prepared to hold that up. However, if any hon. Member is not satisfied with the information which I have been able to give in a matter of 10 minutes, I am perfectly willing to receive a deputation.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Appeal Costs
  Appeal Costs
  New Towns
  New Towns
  COAL BOARD OFFICES, DONCASTER
  COAL BOARD OFFICES, DONCASTER
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Savings Advertisements (Newspapers)
  Savings Advertisements (Newspapers)
  War Damage (Claims)
  War Damage (Claims)
  Secretaries (Pay)
  Secretaries (Pay)
  Report to Women
  Report to Women
  Rubber Boots (Tax)
  Rubber Boots (Tax)
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Taxation (Statistics)
  Taxation (Statistics)
  Christmas Cards (Tax)
  Christmas Cards (Tax)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Harvesting Scheme
  Harvesting Scheme
  Inland Revenue Officers
  Inland Revenue Officers
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Import Prices
  Import Prices
  Census of Production
  Census of Production
  Electrical Generators (Export)
  Electrical Generators (Export)
  Japanese Textiles, Tanganyika
  Japanese Textiles, Tanganyika
  Stopped Parcel
  Stopped Parcel
  Board Supplies
  Board Supplies
  Workers, Dumfriesshire (Transport)
  Workers, Dumfriesshire (Transport)
  Hire Purchase
  Hire Purchase
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  Exports to U.S.S.R.
  International Trade Organisation
  International Trade Organisation
  Tinplate Exports
  Tinplate Exports
  Essential Commodities (Control)
  Essential Commodities (Control)
  Sulphuric Acid
  Sulphuric Acid
  Salt, Cheshire
  Salt, Cheshire
  Strategic Materials (Export)
  Strategic Materials (Export)
  Pottery Industry
  Pottery Industry
  Film Finance Corporation
  Film Finance Corporation
  Raw Materials (Yugoslav Purchases)
  Raw Materials (Yugoslav Purchases)
  Natural Rubber
  Natural Rubber
  Import and Export Prices
  Import and Export Prices
  Tariff Conference, Torquay
  Tariff Conference, Torquay
  COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE)
  COST OF LIVING (COMMITTEE)
EMPLOYMENT
  National and Local Government
  National and Local Government
  Agricultural Workers, Kent
  Agricultural Workers, Kent
  CLASS Z RESERVISTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION)
  CLASS Z RESERVISTS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION)
SCOTLAND
  Physiotherapists (Report)
  Physiotherapists (Report)
  Tuberculosis Patients (Swiss Sanatoria)
  Tuberculosis Patients (Swiss Sanatoria)
  Calf Subsidy
  Calf Subsidy
  Salmon Fishing Hours
  Salmon Fishing Hours
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (DOCTORS)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (DOCTORS)
  MID-WEEK SPORT
  MID-WEEK SPORT
  HONG KONG (CHINESE HOUSES)
  HONG KONG (CHINESE HOUSES)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Vaccinations, Brighton
  Vaccinations, Brighton
  HOUSING (MINING AREAS)
  HOUSING (MINING AREAS)
  FOOD TRADES (TINPLATE ALLOCATIONS)
  FOOD TRADES (TINPLATE ALLOCATIONS)
  Immunisation
  Immunisation
TRANSPORT
  North-East England
  North-East England
  Street Lighting
  Street Lighting
  TRAWSFYNYDD RANGE, WALES (EXTENSION)
  TRAWSFYNYDD RANGE, WALES (EXTENSION)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (REVENUE)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (REVENUE)
  TELEVISION STATION, WALES
  TELEVISION STATION, WALES
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CLAIM)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CLAIM)
  LEASEHOLD REFORM COMMITTEE
  LEASEHOLD REFORM COMMITTEE
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  THE PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON DEFENCE
  2.35 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount the Loader of the House a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister's Statement on Defence in another place can be made available in a convenient form to members of this House.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am glad to tell the noble Marquess that the Statement has been printed in a White Paper, which I think will be available this evening.

  AUSTRALIA AND CONFERENCE ON FAR EAST
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask whether His Majesty's Government are sponsoring any proposal whereby Egypt and not Australia would be represented at a Conference to discuss the Far East.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, His Majesty's Government are not sponsoring any proposal in this sense. They did support the adoption in the First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations of the Cease Fire Committee's supplementary report embodying the Committee's "principles" for a settlement of Far Eastern issues. It will be recalled that the last of these "principles" provided that a body should be set up including representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, United States, Russia and the People's Government of China. It did not exclude the addition of representatives of other Governments.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I am greatly relieved to hear that His Majesty's Government are not committed to a proposal which I understand to be of Pekinese origin. May I express the hope that if any enlargement is contemplated the interests of Australia in Far Eastern matters will be borne in mind?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the interests of Australia will be borne in mind. As a matter of accuracy, I should like to say that the suggestion that the Committee should include Egypt was not originated by China. It was first mentioned by Sir Benegal Rau on December 12 in a speech delivered to the United Nations on the second resolution of the Asian Powers.

  PLAIN-CLOTHES POLICE ROAD PATROLS
  2.39 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to a statement by the Chairman of the Oxfordshire County Council on January 2, 1951, regarding the employment of road patrols by plain-clothes policemen; and whether they have any statement to make with regard to it.]
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the statement in question received consider-able publicity, as has the experiment involving the use of plain-clothes motor patrols for the purpose of checking reckless and dangerous behaviour on the roads which is being undertaken in Oxfordshire. While the measures taken by the police to prevent and detect breaches of the law arc primarily the responsibility of chief officers of police and do not require Ministerial approval, in view of the present appalling toll of road casualties the Ministers concerned are in sympathy with any experiment such as this which has as its object the prevention of dangerous driving and the detection of that small minority of selfish and reckless motorists who at present disregard the law.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, while sympathising entirely with the object of the experiment, may I ask whether the attention of the Home Secretary has been drawn to the evidence which the Chief Constables' Association gave before the Alness Committee in 1938, in which they said that the only suggestion they could put forward at that time was for an increase in the police forces generally, to keep the men as much as possible on the roads, to make them as mobile as possible and to have them in uniform and in open cars so that they could be seen for great distances, and, further, that if the saloon type of car were used there ought to be an indication on the cars that they were police cars? The noble Lord will remember, no doubt, that the Alness Committee, having considered the whole question, turned down the suggestion which is now being tried out, and recommended the use of police officers in uniform. I should also like to ask the
  4
  noble Lord whether he does not think that it would be far better and more economical to have policemen on motor bicycles than to have them in cars. Motor cycles can get through traffic where a car would be held up.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no doubt that the facts taken by the noble Earl from the Report of the Alness Committee are accurate, but I would point out that much has taken place since 1938. It is hardly possible in these days of increased rearmament and shortage of manpower to increase the number of policemen who can patrol the roads. Those facts must be taken into grave consideration. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking upon this experiment with sympathy, and that sympathy is not of an idle character. To-day a meeting of chief constables is being held in London and my right honourable friend is consulting that body upon the matters raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, surely the noble Lord is of opinion that two individual motor-cycle patrols in uniform could cover twice the area of two constables in a car, and therefore the question of man-power does not arise.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, both my right honourable friend and the chief constables concerned are fully aware of the matters mentioned. I would remind the noble Marquess, however, that his question hardly arises out of the original Question.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord realises that the experiment which the noble Earl is criticising is receiving great support in Oxfordshire and in the provincial Press, and, so far as can be judged, from public opinion.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that that view is not shared by the City of Oxford?

  PENICILLIN (MERCHANT SHIPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  TRANSPORT (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).

  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (SUNDAY OPENING) BILL
  2.44 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL, OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Sunday opening of exhibitions and gardens]:
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) after "Sunday," where the word occurs a second time, to insert "in the year 1951." The noble Viscount said: I have put down this Amendment to Clause 1, limiting its operation to the present year, 1951, largely in order to ask for information on what is contemplated after the Festival is over. I believe that there are expressions in the Statutes that have been passed which suggest that the Festival should last for six months. As we know, extensive alterations are being made—constructions of various kinds—in preparation for the Festival. I am more particularly concerned with what may be intended in the future in the part of Battersea Park which is being taken over for the Festival, including the Fun Fair. It is one thing to take an area in Battersea Park and make alterations for those purposes if they are to be only temporary, but quite another if it is intended that the new constructions should then remain and be used after the period of the Festival is over.
  There is no more beautiful park, certainly south of the Thames, than Battersea Park: it has a charm and quality of its own. But we agree that for the time being some forty acres should be considerably altered for the purposes of this celebration. I learn from more than one quarter that there are people who are much concerned to know what it is intended shall be done with these constructions when the Festival is over. On looking in the Act of Parliament, I do not find any clear indication about the matter. The original Act was not made to cover only a temporary period; on the face of it, the provisions are permanent. Of course, if under some arrangement there were to be a continuance of the Fun Fair,
  6
  whatever that fun might consist of— switchbacks, roundabouts, and so on— the character of the park would, to say the least of it, be considerably interfered with, and I believe that many people living in the neighbourhood would feel most anxious.
  I am sure the Lord Chancellor when reading the Daily Herald this morning-— which, of course, every good Socialist does before breakfast—will have noticed that on the front page, in addition to the information about defence, there is a well displayed article: "Two Bears Shot at Fun Fair." Apparently a bear named Stalin, a forty-stone Russian bear, and his mate got loose at Huddersfield and ultimately had to be destroyed. If I lived in a building overlooking Battersea Park and it was contemplated that these new constructions were going to be continued in the spirit of a Fun Fair, I should feel a little concerned. I do not think it is a case where I need disclose any personal interest, but I may tell your Lordships that when I was a young mart and I was first married I lived in a flat facing Battersea Park, and many times have I wheeled my eldest child in a perambulator in those sylvan glades. Therefore, I have a sort of nostalgic-interest in this matter.
  What I should like to know—and I feel it would be in the public interest that it should be stated—is what is contemplated as to the future of the considerable constructions which are being made in connection with the Festival and, more particularly, the Fun Fair in Battersea Park. I appreciate that I may not be strictly within the rules of order, but I am more within those rules than I should be if I had not put down this Amendment. I would point out that 100 years ago when there was the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, all signs of it were removed from Hyde Park after the Exhibition was over, although the main structure, as we all know, was moved to Sydenham as the Crystal Palace. I do not desire to do more than secure such information as the Government are prepared to give. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 6, after ''Sunday" insert "in the year 1951 ".—(Viscount Simon.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I am not sure that the learned Viscount is strictly in order, but

  7
  we lawyers have a doctrine which we call the cy près doctrine, and I think we can fairly avail ourselves of that doctrine in this case and assume that he is in order. The noble and learned Viscount is concerned to know what is the position with regard to the year 1952. There are no present plans for the continuance of the Exhibition in 1952. Of course, the whole situation is so uncertain and so obscure— we see through the glass so darkly at the present time—that I am not in a position to assert positively that the Exhibition will not be open in 1952, although I can say that there are no present intentions so to open it. But it is possible, of course, that the Exhibition will be such a success in 1951 that a popular clamour may arise, and the noble Viscount may be pressing me—or whoever is Lord Chancellor in those days—to continue the Exhibition in 1952.
  I think I can give him this satisfaction, however. Before we did anything in that connection, both Houses of Parliament would be most fully consulted. I think I can go further than that. I think I am right in saying that legislation would be necessary to open in 1952, because, not under this Act (which is merely an Act dealing with Sunday opening, and mitigates the rigour of the Sunday opening laws in certain respects) but under the principal Act, with its complicated provisions about an approved day and an appointed day, the buildings in Battersea Park have to be removed within a certain time. If we sought to continue in 1952, we should have to seek the appropriate powers. The position relating to the Gardens in Battersea Park, is laid down in Section 3 (1) of the Festival of Britain (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, which requires these to be reinstated as part of Battersea Park "as soon as may be after the appointed day," which is defined as six months after their opening. As regards the rest of the Festival, the position is not clear, but that is not a part in which the noble and learned Viscount is interested.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I had looked at that section. The noble Viscount quoted subsection (1), but subsection (2) goes on in this way:
  "If it appears to the County Council that it is desirable that any buildings or works erected or carried out for the purposes of the
  8
  gardens should be retained for the benefit of persons resorting to Battersea Park, the Council may agree with the Company (upon such terms (if any) as to payment as may be specified in the agreement) that the buildings or works shall be so retained."
  My question really was not addressed to the issue whether or not the Festival will be continued, but whether or not the Government contemplate that the constructions which are being made will remain to be used after the Festival is over, with the idea, I suppose, that they might provide some form of pleasure or interest. If that were done to any serious extent it would entirely change the character of that part of Battersea Park, and to my knowledge the matter is one which greatly concerns some people living in the immediate neighbourhood.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I have not the Act before me. My recollection is that there is another section also which deals with the matter. All I can say at the moment is that there is no present intention, and if it is felt hereafter, in the light of other circumstances—which, Heaven knows, is quite impossible to foresee at the present time —that it is desirable to do something of this sort, then both Houses of Parliament will be fully consulted before we decide.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for giving this information. I put down the Amendment for the purpose of asking for such information as could be given. Although I think the matter is still rather obscure, and some people may be left in a rather anxious state, probably the better course for me would be to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (4) to insert as a new subsection:
  "(5) For the purposes of the Shops Act, 1950, the place where any exhibition above referred to is being held, and the festival gardens so referred to. shall be treated as falling within the description 'gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university' in sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the said Act (which sub-paragraph relates to the sale on Sunday at the places therein mentioned of guide books, postcards, etc.)."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I am sorry to say that there is a clerical error in the Amendment as printed on the Paper. Some of your Lordships may have noticed it. In the last line but two there is a reference to sub-paragraph (b); that should be sub-paragraph (I). We recently passed the Shops Act, 1950. That Act contains a Fifth Schedule, and as we have so recently passed it, I have no doubt that all your Lordships bear it in mind. It provides that, for the purposes of the Shops Act, 1950, you may have a limited sale on Sundays, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act. The sale permitted is of guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs. Now where may these things be sold under the Shops Act? First of all
  "at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university."
  Secondly, they may be sold
  "at any other gallery or museum, or any place of natural beauty, or historic interest, or any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or aquarium,"
  if the local authority certify it to be desirable.
  It is certainly the fact that we do desire to sell on Sundays guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates and souvenirs, as we could under the Shops Act if the festival gardens were a "gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument." To make the matter perfectly plain, therefore, we propose to insert this Amendment, which is to the effect that
  "For the purposes of the Shops Act, 1950, the place where any exhibition above referred to is being held … shall be treated as falling within the description 'gallery, museum, garden, or ancient monument.…' "
  The effect of this Amendment is not to enable us to sell all sorts of things, but to enable the authorities to sell guide books, postcards and so on. To clear up that obscurity I beg to move this Amendment the effect of which, as I have said—and I want your Lordships to understand it—will be to make it possible to sell that limited range of articles on a Sunday, notwithstanding that this is not strictly a museum or exhibition of that sort within the meaning of the Shops Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed.

  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  2.59 p.m.
  EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to call attention to the problem of road accidents as a whole, with special reference to road improvement and maintenance; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to bring before your Lordships' House once again the problem of road accidents, with which not only this but every country is faced, and which has apparently baffied authority not only here but also abroad. It was only a relatively few days ago that the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, told us that ho was at his wits' end on the subject.
  As those of us who follow this question know only too well, Committee after Committee have sat and reported. I have a young library of their Reports here, and if the noble Lord is still at his wits' end after this debate perhaps he may find a few hints and tips among them. One of the extraordinary features of these Reports is that they seem in the main to have been ignored. The police have done their best and have furnished statistics, and so has the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I do not think any of us can ever be sufficiently grateful to that great Society for its magnificent and public-spirited campaign on behalf of road safety. Other bodies interested, such as the Pedestrians' Association, have all done their best and brought all their best counsel to bear, but still the problem seems to remain as intractable as ever.
  When I was at school I was taught that all men are fallible, and it seems to me that we are perhaps up against nature in trying to deal with this problem. But whatever the problem may be, I person-ally refuse to despair or adopt a defeatist attitude. I think it is a problem for which there is possibly no single cause. It is a problem which obviously can be attacked from many different angles, and in order to get it into focus I want to mention to the House certain relevant factors

  11
  as I see them. First of all, every country is affected by this problem of road accidents in greater or less degree. It is not exclusively a motor vehicle problem. All classes and types of road users are subject to accidents and cause them. No one uses the highway with the idea of causing or being concerned in an accident. About 80 per cent. of the accidents that occur are probably avoidable. My own view is that heedlessness, lack of imagination, lack of consideration for other road users, general bad manners, and bad judgment are probably the main causes. The law and its administration can have a great bearing upon this matter. Then, again, the design and lay-out of our highways is a powerful contributory factor. Road maintenance is another. There is the problem as I see it, and no doubt your Lordships would be able to add many other factors.
  Now for the size of the problem. In 1938, with slightly over 3,000,000 vehicles on the roads of this country, 6,643 people were killed. In 1949, 4,473 people were killed—I am leaving out the numbers of the injured because these figures become too big to impress—at a time when there were over 4,000,000 vehicles on the road. Your Lordships will see. therefore, that slightly over 2,000 fewer people were killed when there were over 1,000,000 more vehicles on the road and an increase in the population over the intervening period of 2,500,000. When considering these figures, another point to remember is that since the war there has been practically no road construction, and the minimum of maintenance has been undertaken. Furthermore, the number of road users is increasing. One thing I always dread when I read about it in the Press, as one does sometimes, is the demand for a people's car. If a people's car became a real production success for the industry, I tremble to think what the state of the roads might be. We have been told by Mr. Jones in his most able Report on the actuarial side of road accidents and road safety generally that road accidents are costing the country over £100,000,000 a year on present figures. Can we possibly go on affording such a frightful loss, such a toll of accidents and suffering and all that goes with them? Can we afford to allow the problem to continue on present lines
  12
  if there is anything that we can do which can reduce it?
  One other circumstance has to be remembered when considering the problem of road accidents. It has always seemed to me to be a terrible disaster, that everyone considers this problem purely from his own point of view. The motorist argues against the cyclist; the cyclist argues against the motorist and the pedestrian; and the pedestrian argues against the motorist and the cyclist. Cannot we bury the hatchet? These arguments get us nowhere. Cannot we all try to join together and have one almighty push to see whether we can do something and bring some effective pressure to bear upon authority with the idea of making an impression on the terrible figures that come to us month by month? Whatever our situation may be, we can look only to the Government of the day to help, because they are the only people who can really do anything.
  What I want to know is whether His Majesty's Government to-day are really in earnest on the subject of road safety? I have no doubt that the answer will be "Of course they are," and, "What a silly question to ask!" At the same time, if they are, why have most of the recommendations of the Alness Committee been ignored? Why have the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety which reported so recently as 1947 been treated as they have? Why has not more been done to bring those recommendations into effect? I submit that so long as the Government delay giving effect to the recommendations of these expert Committees, so long do they put a premium on bad judgment and lack of consideration all round by all road users. Drivers of vehicles, pedal cyclists and pedestrians are all, as we know, to blame at times. But only the fellow who drives the motor vehicle is subject to the full rigour of the law. Ought we not to say for a start that all road users have rights but that all rights carry responsibilities, and whether one is a pedestrian— and we are all pedestrians at times—or a pedal cyclist, or a driver of a motor vehicle, one must be held responsible for one's actions and for what one does? If a pedal cyclist does something which creates a dangerous situation, he ought to hold the responsibility for it, and the

  13
  same should go for a pedestrian or anybody else.
  If that theory of equal rights and equal responsibilities is accepted, is it wise to allow pedestrians to wander about on the highway and ignore the various safety measures, such as warning signs, crossing places, guard rails, traffic signals and footpaths where they exist? I only ask a. question: I am not putting it down dogmatically that we should not. I say: Is it wise? In the same way, is it wise to ignore the recommendations of the Alness Committee, backed up as they were by the Committee on Road Safety, and not extend the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 22 of the Highway Act of 1930 to include pedal cyclists? Those provisions to which I have referred have regard to dangerous driving, failure to report an accident, and so on. It has been recommended by perhaps two of the finest Committees that were ever set up, but nothing has been done. And every day the danger continues.
  Is it wise to ignore the recommendation that a police constable in uniform should have the power to stop a pedal cycle if it becomes necessary? At present he has no Dower to do it. Ought we not to say that, where cycle tracks exist, pedal cyclists should be required to use them? All these things have been recommended by Committees but nothing has been done. Could not we do something to improve the administration of the law?—and here I speak with great diffidence, in the presence of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I am wondering, and I have wondered for a very long time, whether the jury system is really adequate for road conditions. My reason for saying that is that one frequently reads reports in the newspapers of serious cases arising out of road accidents, and these cases appear to be so differently dealt with by courts in various parts of the country. There seems to be no sort of equality of administration.
  In litigation connected with the sea, which perhaps I know a little better, cases are brought before maritime courts where the judge, or whoever is at the head of the court, is assisted by nautical assessors. Might there not be some advantage in sitting up some sort of system like that with reference to road accidents? I understand that the police
  14
  frequently complain that they do not get support from the various benches. If that is true, surely that is a terrible indictment of our present legal system. The police say that it is almost no use their bringing serious offences before certain tribunals in this country, as they cannot have the cases adequately dealt with, with adequate penalties imposed. If that is so, I do submit that there might still be something to be said for the idea of traffic courts, where it would be possible to codify, and, I suppose, make more uniform, the administration of the law so far as road accidents are concerned.
  I know that nobody agrees with me on this point. I know that the Committees to which I have referred do not agree, but at the same time I hope that we shall not altogether lose sight of the possible advantage of it. Another point, a suggestion of my own, not referred to by Committees, is whether we should strengthen the Highway Code, and give it a greater force. Such a course has been suggested many times in your Lordships' House, by many speakers, but could we not do something about it? We have a really magnificent Code for the use of the highway as a whole, and I feel that we could give the Highway Code a little more force than it has at present. I think that might be an advantage.
  I now come to the question of roads, which is one with which I am particularly anxious to deal. The design and lay-out of our roads is a matter that is obviously of the first importance. Notwithstanding the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the subject, it is a matter of very great importance. The fact is that we are trying to make the road system of a bygone age adequate to our modern needs. I could quote Ministers on the subject, but I do not want to weary your Lordships or take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. I think it is really axiomatic, and I am sure that everybody agrees, that the question of making our roads adequate to deal with the volume of traffic that they now have to carry, in view of our vastly larger population, is of first importance. What has been the policy of the Government with regard to roads? For many years, in both Houses of Parliament, the policy of the Government has been criticised, because it appears to have been one of just

  15
  tinkering and patching—a bypass here, leading to a bottleneck somewhere else— and trying to make the traffic fit the roads, instead of the roads fit the traffic. That policy goes a long way back, to a time long before His Majesty's present Government assumed office.
  I feel that we need to tackle this problem to a far greater extent. Look at the condition of our roads to-day. With the possible exception of the road between Liverpool and Manchester, and the road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, there is no main road throughout the country, so far as I know, adequate to carry the traffic using it to-day. If anybody thinks that that is too sweeping a statement, let him ask any lorry driver of experience what he thinks of the conditions on A5, the Watling Street, particularly the stretch from Markyate to St. Albans. I am sure that many of your Lordships know this stretch of road as well as I do. To go along it by night is an absolute nightmare. It is the most fearful thing to try to do. There is no question of being able to use any headlights. There are lines of lights, like a great military convoy that never seems to come to an end, coming towards you in the opposite direction. You may see the vehicle in front of you, and you may want to pass it. It may be going very slowly, but to attempt to overtake it is almost certainly courting disaster. It is dangerous to make any attempt so to do. The same conditions apply to the Southampton Road, between Camberley and Basingstoke, to the Great North Road, and to another road that I know very well—the road from Bristol, through Worcester, to Kidderminster, Bridgnorth and beyond. On all those roads, which I am sure many of your Lordships know as well as I do, the state of affairs is perfectly appalling.
  We know that two of the most potent factors in the causation of accidents are road intersections and traffic congestion. Traffic congestion I have referred to, and I now come to road intersections. So much could be done with such a very moderate expenditure in dealing with road intersections—for instance in the way in which they have been dealt with in the county of Oxford. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will support me in welcoming the magnificent way in which the road intersections have been dealt with by the county surveyor of Oxford, but I will come back to that in
  16
  a minute. Traffic conditions on the roads that I have referred to are appalling by day, and are literally a nightmare by night. There is one problem that can be tackled. Motor-ways have been recommended by various Committees that have considered the problem. One authority after another, and one Committee after another, have recommended them, but the first motor-way has still to make its appearance. I know we shall be told that such things cannot be afforded, but remember that motor-ways have been found necessary by other countries—notably France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Holland and the United States; we are almost the only country in the world that does not possess them. Many of these countries are no better off than we are, and they certainly do not raise the same huge amounts in taxation from motor vehicles that we do. I will come back in a minute to the actual figures with regard to taxation. In practically all these countries that I have mentioned, you will see fly-over bridges, fly-over systems in regard to the treatment of road intersections, and you will also see road tunnels, which are of enormous help in the relief of road traffic congestion, thereby reducing the chance of accidents. We have not one here.
  What has been the contribution of the Government in regard to this matter? The Government have clamped down on road maintenance to the extent of 20 per cent., and the amounts that are now being allotted to the various highway authorities in the country for road maintenance are just absurd. Lancashire has been cut down to £6,000 a year, and 14,000 accidents are occurring each year there. In Warwickshire, the very heart of the motor industry, road maintenance has been cut to £5,000 a year. I know that in both those areas there is a feeling that the Government are not treating the problem seriously and that something must be done. I hope the Government will be able to explain to us why it has been possible to do only so little so far. We shall be told that the country cannot afford the expenditure. Is that really a convincing argument when one thinks of the millions of pounds that have been laid out on ground-nuts and similar enterprises, civil aviation, and such things as the Festival of Britain, about which we were talking just now? In practically

  17
  every organ of the Press yesterday there was a paragraph that the Festival of Britain, both in Battersea Park and on the South Bank, is going to cost a great deal more than was ever anticipated. Money can be found for projects of that sort, but money does not seem to be forthcoming for the very important things that can save life and prevent injury on the roads.
  The argument that we cannot afford it does not seem to me to be very convincing. Remember that in 1950 approximately £106,500,000 was raised in motor taxation, and in the three years 1946 to 1948 inclusive £252,612,000 was raised. Yet it is said that we cannot afford this expenditure. The road expenditure for the same period appears to have been something like £181,000,000, which leaves a balance of at least £70,000,000 which has gone elsewhere. Since then a further £206,000,000 has been raised. The argument that we cannot afford these things does not carry a great deal of weight. I know that we are on the threshold of a terrific rearmament scheme. We all know the possible implications of that in regard to money and all the rest of it, but it must be remembered that these enormous sums are being raised from the motor world, and motorists are being told that nothing can be done to make the roads adequate for traffic which is to use it. We have at present the second most heavily trafficked roads in the world—16.9 vehicles to the mile. What is going to be the position when and if the day dawns when the people's car arrives? My Lords, I submit that it is vital to look ahead. We are often told that ours is a Government of planners. No doubt they are planning well ahead. I am sure that the present Minister of Labour after his broadcast the other night would not deny the truth of the assertion that it is vital to look ahead. For heaven's sake, let us look and plan ahead in this business!
  Now I should like to come to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, himself. I was delighted when I heard that the noble Lord had received his important appointment. I have had the pleasure of knowing him for many years in the motor world and I thought we were going to have somebody who knew the thing from both ends. But on November 15 last the noble Lord made a speech in which he forecast that 5,000 people would be killed and 250,000 people
  18
  were going to be injured in the next twelve months. He recommended more "courtesy cops," and I entirely agree with him there. He said that he was convinced that road conditions were not a major factor in road accidents. My Lords, what an astonishing statement to come from anybody who, as I know, has given such thought to the matter as has the noble Lord! It so happened that on the same day in another place a Member of Parliament was questioning the Minister on the subject of a fatal accident which occurred in Newcastle. The Member said that the authority was refused permission to install traffic lights, which might have helped. The Minister in reply said:
  "I am advised that the best solution for conditions at this junction would he to improve the lay-out."
  The Minister does not seem to agree on that subject with the noble Lord opposite. As everybody knows, if the lay-out of a road intersection is improved, the cause of accidents may well be removed. Surely that is worth considering.
  The noble Lord went on to say that we could not afford motor-ways, fly-overs, pedestrian tunnels, and that sort of thing. I suggest that that argument is entirely unconvincing. Before the war a motorway between London and Birmingham was estimated by the chief engineer of the Ministry of Transport to cost about £6,000,000. Without turning a hair, we have laid out millions in regard to groundnuts in South Africa. Surely it is as important to provide for our people at home as it is to go into such enterprises overseas, especially when such huge sums as I have mentioned are being taken from the people concerned. Then the noble Lord went on to say that without doubt the carelessness of pedestrians was the principal factor in the road accident problem. I do not know about that. The noble Lord says that, but I am not sure that that is the case. I should say that the right way to look at it is that it is a lack of consideration amongst all road users towards one another, and if one could only get more harmonious conditions on the road that would help more than blaming one class of road user more than another.
  If the noble Lord's forecast of the toll of the road is correct, why has he ignored so many of the recommendations of these great Committees which have been sitting? I have referred to Colonel

  19
  Bennett, the County Surveyor of Oxfordshire. Before the war he obtained permission from the county council to improve four or live of the major roads going through his area, and the result was that he was able to reduce fatal accidents by 100 per cent., and the total of all accidents by 76 per cent. How can the noble Lord say that dealing with the roads does not reduce accidents? He knows the figures and he knows what happens just as well as or better than I do. The views of Colonel Bennett were lately put forward in a very notable correspondence that took place in The Times. Colonel Bennett was backed up by the President of the County Surveyors Association and by the County Surveyors of Warwick and Lancashire, and, still more notably, by the late Chief Engineer of the Highways Department of the Ministry of Transport. I should like to ask the noble Lord. Lord Lucas, when he comes to reply, to explain what he meant. I am sure his words do not really mean what they seem to mean, and I am sure he will be able to give us a very good explanation. But I hope that he will be able to remove the impression that his attitude with regard to this road question is one of complacency.
  I want now to ask a number of specific questions. First: What have been the total grants to the Road Fund for the last five years? I may say that I have taken the precaution of notifying the noble Lord that I was going to raise these matters, so I expect he will have been able to obtain the information which I seek. My second question is: What have been the total receipts from all forms of motor taxation for the last five years? Third: What is the total mileage of trunk roads for which the Minister of Transport is responsible? Fourth: What has been the amount spent annually on their improvement and maintenance for the last five years? Fifth: What is the amount considered necessary by local authorities to carry out necessary road works in their area and the amount authorised by the Government in each case? Those are five specific questions which I should like to put.
  Further, I should like to ask the noble Lord this: What have the Government done to implement the recommendations of the Alness Committee that an experi-
  20
  mental motor way should be constructed, that cycle tracks should be constructed and their use made compulsory; that flyover bridges and tunnels should be provided and that level crossings should be bridged or tunnelled? With regard to the last recommendation, may I say that there are estimated to be some 4,500 level crossings in this country and 1,400 of them are on classified roads. That indicates the size of that particular problem. Again, what have the Government done to implement the recommendation of the Alness Committee that crossing beacons should be illuminated and guard rails provided? In this connection, I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something about the Hammersmith experiment, particularly in regard to guard rails. I did not give him notice that I was going to raise that point but no doubt he has the information in his Department and can obtain it for us. Yet another recommendation of the Alness Committee was that street lighting should be made uniform. I suggest that uniformity is most necessary. In the United States of America there has been a reduction of 75 per cent. of night accidents by the adoption of a scheme of uniform lighting. Everyone of experience in this country knows that few things connected with the roads vary more than street lighting. One frequently passes from pools of light to areas of total darkness. It is indeed difficult under all conditions at night to pick out the strolling pedestrian who only too often is wearing a dark costume or a dark overcoat. Does the noble Lord not think that we should make some effort to bring a little uniformity into our lighting system? I submit that this may be very well worth while.
  Again, the Alness Committee recommended that wood blocks should be covered with non-skid material. This also is a step which is well worth while. Several local councils—all praise to them —have done this but, nevertheless, there are still far too many places where wood blocks remain unfaced with non-skid material and they constitute a constant danger to road users. I could take the noble Lord to many places in London where that applies. Yet again, the Alness Committee recommended that commercial vehicles should carry twin rear lights. There are many little points contained in those suggestions which the noble Lord could bring into

  21
  effect without, I should imagine, too much difficulty. At any rate, can he tell us now if anything has been done to implement these recommendations of the Alness Committee?
  Next as to the recommendations of the Committee on Read Safety. What has the Government done to implement the recommendations of that Committee that accident investigation and review should to undertaken by the police, engineers of the Ministry of Transport and highways authorities working together, that driving tests should be made compulsory following the suspension of licences for serious offences, and that certain actions by pedestrians should be made offences. No doubt the last recommendation probably referred to the use of crossing-places and the like. We are going to hear all about that tomorrow. What have the Government done about the other recommendations? What have the Government done to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety that police should have power to stop pedal cycles and that Sections 11, 12 and 22 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, should be extended to include them? Why has that suggestion apparently received no consideration at all? Another recommendation of this Committee was that vigorous action should be taken to remedy bad or inadequate road conditions. Look what has happened: reduction of the road maintenance and road improvement grant, in some cases literally to vanishing point.
  Still another recommendation by the Committee on Road Safety was that those responsible for planning should have regard to the principle of segregation of traffic and classes of traffic. That reference used to concern cycle tracks for pedal cyclists and footpaths for pedestrians. But that was only in the first instance. It also relates to other road users. Could not something be done in that way to help? It has beer found to be beneficial in every other country where it has been tried. Another question is whether it would not be possible to extend the one-way system of traffic which now exists in many towns. Could the principle not be extended to some of the major roads where those roads run anything like parallel? There are roads parallel to A5, and anything that can be done to improve present conditions on A5 will be well worth doing.
  To sum up what I have said, I would say that the Government do not appear to me to have their hearts in the treatment of this problem of road accidents. They do not seem to be going flat out to try to stop them. Recommendations of various authorities and various Committees appear to be largely ignored. Little or no regard appears to be paid to the experience of other countries. The money raised from taxation in the motor world seems to be taken for all sorts of other purposes, such as the Welfare State and the enterprises to which I have referred. May I finally venture to suggest that if the noble Lord is at his wits' end, many of us are at the end of our patience with regard to the whole matter and we do not intend to see it treated with the same complacency. I therefore propose to move:
  That the Minister of Transport should make a return to Parliament of the schemes for road improvement, and new roads recommended by him as considered necessary to meet present and future requirements, being either trunk roads or classified roads, and specifying in respect of each scheme

  (1) The approximate estimate of cost.

  (2) Whether any and if so how much progress has been made.

  (3) The name of the highway authority responsible, and

  (4) The time which will normally be required to complete the work.

  I do not want to be dogmatic about this matter, and if the noble Lord is not able to accept that Motion as it stands I am ready to make any reasonable amendment in it. But I do want some assurance that we are going to get somewhere, and to get something done. I move.
  Moved—
  That there be laid before the House a return of the schemes for road improvements, and new roads considered by the Minister of Transport to be necessary to meet present and future requirements, being either trunk roads or classified roads and specifying in respect of each scheme:

  (1) The approximate estimate of cost;

  (2) Whether any and if so how much progress has been made;

  (3) The name of the Highway Authority responsible; and

  (4) The time which will normally be required to complete the work.—(Earl Howe.)

  3.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting and well-informed speech from the noble Earl. It began with a very moving recognition of the seriousness of

  23
  the issue with which we are engaged, and repeated appeals that there should be an all-round effort. That is a very happy phrase, but what we really want is something practical done. And when it came to practical remedies my noble friend appeared to think that the main thing was reconstruction of the roads, and alteration of their layout and so on. I am afraid that I do not feel very much attracted by that programme, which is concerned principally with making the roads more useful for the traffic which uses them—that is to say, to make it possible for motorists to drive faster and faster on the roads which exist. I cannot help feeling that it is not the condition of the roads that is the real difficulty. It is the way in which the roads are used that causes the very serious conditions which we have to face at present. I was very much interested to hear the quotation which my noble friend made from some remarks of Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in which, as I understood, he said that he did not think it was the condition of the roads which was the main cause of road accidents.
  There is no doubt that this is a very serious matter. Though I am not going to attempt to describe at any length, or to deplore, the evil we are discussing this afternoon, it is indeed a very serious one. It is nothing more or less than the death and mutilation of thousands of our fellow citizens, many of them being children innocently, even if in some cases it may be unwisely, using the highways of this country. Some of the victims are in cars or wagons, and a large number of them are on their feet. This evil, which was not unknown in my youth—a long time ago—has been enormously increased by the coming of the motor car, and that is something the noble Earl and his friends must recognise. There is no doubt that the numbers are prodigiously increased. In one way this is curious, because a motor car ought to be under the complete control of the driver, which was not always the case where horse carriages were concerned. Moreover, the brakes of a motor car are more easily applied and are more effective than were those of carriages or wagons in the past.
  The one point, so far as I know, which produces the immensely greater danger
  24
  with the motor car, both for the occupants and for other users of the highway, is the speed at which it travels, taken with its great weight. As I am not going to advocate the direct limitation of speed, I need not elaborate that proposition. I mention it merely because it is one of the elements in the problem before us. My noble friend described various plans which had been suggested for coping with this evil and asked, as he was entitled to do, why they had not been fully put into employment. One of these, from which much was hoped, as I remember very well, was the classification of roads, some being allotted to fast-moving traffic from which other traffic was excluded, very much after the precedent set by the railways. On the railways the line is a monopoly of the trains, all other members of the public being, in principle, excluded. From the point of view of saving the other traffic from the dangers of the railways, this has been very successful. It depends on the absolute exclusion of all except the railway traffic. Where there were level crossings, to which my noble friend made some reference, they were under strict control. Other traffic was allowed to use them, subject to that control, but in point of fact crossings have been very largely abolished. It seems doubtful, to put it mildly, whether any such plan could be rigidly applied to motor cars. Even if the fast roads were kept for them, there would still be other roads where all the difficulties of controlling traffic would arise.
  One improvement, to which my noble friend referred and on which I desire to support him, might be extended. Sidewalks, like those in towns, might be much more generally insisted on wherever there is a considerable car traffic on the roads. I know that people say that pedestrians do not use them. I can only reply that, so far as my observation goes, that is not the case. At first, no doubt, there was a tendency for people to go on walking on the highway, but after people got used to the idea of sidewalks they will be increasingly used. After all, they nave the strongest motive to use them—people do not want to be killed. But this is a small remedy and leaves the evil largely unaffected.
  As to that, the first thing is to restore supremacy of the law, and I venture to

  25
  press this on my noble friend. That is the principal condition of our liberty and good government; and that means that there should be only enforceable traffic laws, which, when they have been broken, should be rigidly enforced. For this reason I personally have arrived at the conclusion that the thirty miles per hour limit is of doubtful advantage. In fact, as my noble friend knows perfectly well, it is very generally disregarded. If any of your Lordships doubts that statement, let him drive along any suburban road coming into London, tell his driver to stick absolutely to the thirty miles per hour limit and let him then notice how many cars overtake and pass him. That is a deplorable fact, though I do not pretend that it always increases the danger. As motorist speakers are constantly, and rightly, saying, the thirty miles per hour may be much too fast in certain cases, and may conceivably be safe in others. The right rule seems to be that one must not drive faster than is quite safe.
  In any charge of careless or dangerous driving, no doubt the pace of the car may be very important. That is one of the reasons why I have always urged that it should be a rule for a speed indicator to be fitted on the back of every car, so that the world may see, and witnesses may swear to, how fast a car is going. I have heard it said that there are mechanical difficulties in the way of this; that an indicator could not easily be seen, and would be troublesome to keep in order. I venture to reply, with some confidence derived from experiments, that there is nothing in any of these objections and, if the Government wished, they could easily satisfy themselves on the subject. The real objection to the proposal is that it would make reckless driving more obvious and, therefore, more difficult. Therefore, I venture to suggest that the thirty miles per hour limit should be abolished, and that in its place notices should be erected warning motorists that they were approaching a part of the road which, owing to population or other similar circumstances, requires specially careful driving; I would add to the already existing prohibition of careless driving a phrase indicating that undue speed is, or may be, an element in that offence. I am sure that to maintain the thirty miles per hour limit as it is does
  26
  no good, and tends only to bring the law into contempt, which, as I have said, is a serious matter.
  Some few months ago a man wrote to the Press to say that he had driven a motor car for fifty years without serious accident, and that he had always ignored the laws as to speed. That is a statement that the writer did not intend to obey any law of which he did not approve—an attitude of pure anarchy. I do not suggest that other motorists would agree to this statement in its full extent, but I do say that it represents a point of view not uncommon with motorists. They hold that it is a desirable thing to drive a motor car as fast as they can; they love to recite how little time they have taken to drive a particular distance; and they explain with glee how they have raced and defeated some other cars on the road. I have heard them do it, and they contemn altogether the law on this subject. I do not mean that they consciously drive to the danger of other people—I do not think they do—but I do mean that many of them drive arrogantly and recklessly to the common danger, and persist in that course with knowledge of its effect.
  I feel that this is a serious matter. Why has this attitude to the law been adopted? It is not common generally to English people. Most of us do not share Mr. Bumble's well-known opinion that "the law is a hass"—or, if we do, we nevertheless obey it. Why then this exception? So far as I can see, the reason, at any rate in part, is simple: the sanction to the law is practically non-existent. Not long ago a man was charged before a bench of magistrates with dangerous driving, and to their surprise he pleaded guilty. They, in fact, were disposed to regard it as a good joke —so, at least, I gathered from the report in the paper—as, indeed, from one point of view, it was. Here was a man who had admitted that he had driven in a dangerous manner a machine capable of inflicting death. But he treated it as a matter of no importance. What was the result? He was fined some small sum of money—probably not in itself a very great increase in the normal working cost of the car. In any case, it may have been, and probably was, paid by the insurance company. In effect, the case showed that there was no real penalty for dangerous or careless driving. The only penalty is

  27
  a small money fine, which may be covered by insurance; and that is all, unless there be some specially outrageous features in any particular case. That is a result which can only bring the law into contempt.
  Yet the remedy is not easy. To send all heedless or reckless drivers to prison is not a practical plan, nor one which I should recommend. The people concerned are not criminals, but they are unfit to drive a motor-car in a populous country. The proper remedy, surely, is to deprive them of their licence to drive. On a first offence the licence might be suspended for six months, and if the offence were repeated the suspension would be longer. It may be said that the courts already have this power. That is true, but they seldom exercise it. My contention is that suspension should follow conviction for reckless or dangerous driving as a matter of course, unless there are some very unusual or exceptional circumstances. People like the man who boasted that for fifty years he had habitually broken the law ought not to be allowed to drive a car; and he is only an extreme case of the consequences of the present position.
  We have been told to-day that a step is being taken for the enforcement of the law by the creation of plain-clothes detectives. That is interesting as an acknowledgment that the law is now constantly broken. But the step will not be effective if it results only in the infliction of a small money penalty. Whether the change I recommend would require legislation I do not know. My noble friend seems to think that a good deal might be done by administration, and it is possible that we could proceed administratively in this matter. But, in any event, I submit that mere lamentation or adjuration is perfectly useless and rather offensive. Do not let us be like the Walrus, and deeply sympathise with the oysters whom we allow to be eaten; the matter is too serious for that. The present position tends to undermine that supremacy of the law on which all our freedom depends, besides causing deep grief and suffering to many innocent persons.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to
  28
  be congratulated on bringing forward this Motion. We have had discussion on a number of similar Motions over the years in which he and I have sat in Parliament together, and I am sure that they all help, if for no other reason than that such publicity as his Motion will receive may assist in the education of the general public and do something to break down the apparent lawlessness which the friends of the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, display. I have only a few simple suggestions to make. I assume that, when he comes to reply, my noble friend Lord Lucas will tell us whether it is intended to introduce legislation to carry out some of the recommendations of the Alness Report and the two departmental Reports which have come under consideration. I suppose that something will be done by intensified propaganda, something by local by-laws and the like. But I am sure that my noble friend will agree that action is needed, and I do not think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has exaggerated the seriousness of the situation.
  As I have said, the three suggestions I have to make are quite simple, but two of them do not appear in any of the Reports which I have seen. I have driven, not for fifty years, but for over forty years, and the only accident which I have had for many years, which was not serious, was caused by a dog running loose on the road. But I have seen a great number of narrowly averted accidents due to this same cause. In my view, the allowing of dogs to roam freely in built-up areas should be made an offence. It is a dangerous proceeding, and since it endangers the life of the dogs it is also cruel to animals. The natural instinct of the motorist is, of course, to avoid an animal on the road. If he has strong enough nerves and determination he will drive straight on, and perhaps avoid an accident. But in avoiding the animal he may be involved with a pedestrian or another vehicle. The carelessness of people, and their heartlessness in allowing their dogs to stray about in towns and villages where there is heavy traffic, is really extraordinary, and something should be done about it. There is no doubt that that is one cause of accidents. I have some admirable notes sent by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which was referred to and, quite rightly, praised by the noble Earl.

  29
  In the summary of the most recent statistics showing the causes of road accidents I see that in 1949 animals were responsible for no fewer than 3,431 serious accidents. And that a great many of those were caused by stray dogs in built-up and crowded areas, there is no doubt whatever.
  The other matter is very controversial, but nevertheless I think it deserves consideration. I believe that the use of wireless receiving sets while cars are being driven is open to very grave doubts, on the grounds of safety. I do not see how they can do other than distract the driver. We did quite well without them during the war, and I should like to see them banned again. Drivers of cars which are fitted with radio sets might be allowed to use thorn when stationary, on picnics and that sort of thing, but when a car is being driven, and when all attention is needed, I think a radio receiving set is a distraction and a danger. I suppose the installation of television sets is not contemplated. That would be even worse.
  The third proposal that I have to make is not really controversial, although it is bound to lead to a good deal of argument, as it has already done in the Alness and other Reports. That is with regard to the prohibition of the taking of alcohol by men who are driving, or who are about to drive, motor vehicles. This is a most serious matter, and I venture to agree with both the noble Earl and the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that in a great many cases the penalties imposed by benches of magistrates for the offence of dangerous driving, or of driving under the influence of drink, are too low. This is a matter with which it is difficult for the Government to deal, but I should have thought that some good propaganda work could be done, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor, in his instructions, could draw attention to what is felt by many people as being a misuse of the law.
  I suggest to your Lordships that the question of drinking while in charge of cars requires special treatment. I would draw your Lordships' attention, and the attention of my noble friend, to what has been done with great success for many years in Sweden. The Swedes are a convivial people, and their native drinks are potent. Many accidents there were caused
  30
  through drivers being drunk or under the influence of drink—there is a great difference in the two, but it is important in considering this matter. Both are potential dangers. Anyone now involved in an accident in Sweden who is found to have been drinking alcohol the same day—for example with his last meal—is subject to the most severe penalties. Inquiries are made as to where he had his last meal; evidence is taken as to what was served in the way of alcoholic drinks, and I believe that blood tests are taken. The taking of blood tests is a controversial matter, I know, and I do not press that particular point. Anyway, the man has to prove that he has not had alcohol before the accident, and if he cannot the punishment is severe—nearly always imprisonment. Drivers in Sweden do not drink until they finish driving. When I was in command of a man-o'-war at sea, I made it a rule that once the anchor was up no drinks at all were to be taken by the officers—and we did not go at the speed the motorists do to-day. I think that is a very good rule for drivers of cars. Men in Sweden who go out at night to a dinner party take their wives with them. Of course, the wives do not drink, and they drive the cars home. At any rate, the statistics, which are quoted, I believe, in the Appendix to the Alness Report, have shown that the tightening of the law in Sweden has been followed by a very substantial reduction in accidents. We are a much more heavily "motorcaned" country than Sweden, and I do not think—though we understand the reasons—that we have spent as much on our roads recently, in comparison, as the Swedes have. But I commend that example of this Scandinavian country to your Lordships and to my noble friend. As I say, I presume that legislation will be introduced, but perhaps something could be done in the meantime by means of propaganda.
  I agree with everything which was said by the noble Earl with regard to the neglect of the roads in this country. We know the reason for it, but it is most deplorable. I understand on very good authority that even the maintenance is not being continued to an extent which will prevent the roads from falling to pieces in a comparatively short time. That is most serious. It is not a matter of simply improving the roads, as the noble Viscount suggests, so that the

  31
  motorist can go faster. It is a matter affecting the efficiency of the transport of the country, and also the safety of all users of the road. I hope the noble Earl's Motion will produce good results.
  LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain one point which was not quite clear to me? Does this ban on alcohol in Sweden come into force only if there is an accident, or can the police stop anybody and ask whether he has had any drink?
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think so. It is against the law in Sweden to drink any alcoholic liquors at all if you are driving or intend to drive a car.
  4.8 p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl has brought this matter once again before the House. I think that the more we debate this problem the more we are likely to bring before the country as a whole the really ghastly tragedy of the roads. Far too often we accept the present position as something which cannot be avoided. Every month there are something like 20,000 people either killed or injured on the roads—that is to say, the population of a large market town is either killed or injured on the roads month by month. If one-tenth of those casualties had occurred in a month on the railways, in the air or in the mines, what an outcry there would be! Members of Parliament would be asking questions; special committees would be set up and there would be agitation throughout the whole of the country to try to bring the evil to an end. But during these last years, month after month these tragedies have been taking place on the roads. It has been calculated that in forty years over 200,000 people have been killed on the roads and 5,000,000 injured.
  One of the accusations which we bring against a totalitarian State is that it disregards the life of the individual. Month by month in this kind of way we disregard the lives and the safety of the individual. The noble Earl who introduced this Motion said that 80 per cent. of these accidents were avoidable. He said that with a full knowledge of the subject, and I think there can be no stronger indictment of the present position than that it should be said that 80 per cent. of these deaths
  32
  and mutilations on the road could be avoided. A horrible feature, of course, is the very large number of young children who are killed on the roads. It is not only the death of the children that we deplore but the anguish which is brought into home upon home by the killing of small children. The waste of human life in this way is terrible. I agree with the noble Earl that it is no good putting all the blame on one class or regarding one set of the users of the road as responsible for all the accidents. There are pedestrians who are responsible; there are cyclists who are selfish. But I cannot say I agree—I am not sure if this is what the noble Earl meant—that there is equal responsibility on all the users of the road. Surely the person who has a lethal weapon, a weapon which can kill people on the roads, has a far greater responsibility than the pedestrian or cyclist who is much more likely to injure only himself if there is an accident.
  It is difficult to know what is to be done. Various suggestions have been made. I thought that some most interesting and original suggestions were made by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I find myself in agreement with most of the suggestions which were made by the noble Earl and I must say I felt considerable discomfort when he asked a large number of questions about why this and that recommendation of the Alness Report have not been carried out. I can quite understand the answer to the main recommendations—that the national difficulties and the need for economy make it almost impossible to carry out drastic changes in the roads. Here perhaps I might add that I am not quite certain that improved roads always mean safety. The noble Earl referred to the motor-ways on the Continent. I must say that when I have been travelling on one of those motor-ways and the surface has been damp, I have felt far from secure in the car. Sometimes I have felt much more secure travelling fast in a car over our much criticised roads than on those highly polished and sometimes very dangerous motor-ways. But, of course, it would make a great difference if the whole of the road system of this country were altered. That is a matter of time. It is a long-term policy and not one which can be carried out at once. What we really want to know is what can be done at once to reduce this appalling death roll on the road.

  33
  I am sure the noble Viscount who has recently spoken was right in saying that we need better footpaths. Often there are long tracts of road on which there are no footpaths at all, and it ought to be possible to make a number of footpaths to give safety to pedestrians without going to the expense of making new roads. I am doubtful about some of these great propaganda campaigns. I wonder very much if the pictorial advertisements which at one time looked at us from all the hoardings really did very much to reduce casualties on the road. There was the ghost woman, an interesting enough picture, but I wonder whether she reduced casualties by a single one. I must say that I felt it rather unnecessary to see her portrayed in the underground railways, the one place where I felt tolerably secure. I do think, however, that there is the greatest value in the education given to children in the schools. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the value of careful teaching about road safety given to children. Neither do I think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of the Press, the radio and the cinema again and again drawing attention to the dangers of the road.
  Here I will touch on a controversial point. I am prepared to support the experiment of road controls with police not in their uniforms. We had a minor debate on that matter in this House before we came to the major debate, and I understood there were considerable differences of opinion on it. It is an experiment, but it is one worth trying. Like most English people, I dislike the idea of police being disguised to try to find out whether some petty regulation or other has been broken; but this is quite a different matter. Here we are dealing with human life, and on the one side of the balance one has the uneasy consciences of a number of people who are probably breaking or thinking of breaking the road laws, and on the other hand are the lives and safety of the users of the road. I hope, therefore, that this Oxford experiment will be given a really good chance. If it fails then let it be abandoned, but if the fact that it is known that there are police on the road not in their uniforms makes for greater safety in driving, then I hope that the experiment will be tried elsewhere.
  I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said about the enforcement
  34
  of law. It is no good having a large number of laws which are neglected. By neglect the law itself is brought into contempt. I would not urge that those who have been convicted of dangerous driving should necessarily be sent to prison, but I am certain that such a conviction ought to be treated very much more seriously than it is at the present time. In 1949 3,955 drivers were found guilty of reckless and dangerous driving, but in that year only 233 were disqualified. More of those probably ought to have been disqualified. If the offence seems to be a minor one, let there be merely a suspension of the licence for a few months; but if the offence was a serious one leading to the loss of life, or if there has been a repeated suspension of the licence, then disqualification ought to follow for a very much longer period. A local paper (I think it was a Norfolk paper) reported mat it came out in court that a man who had been convicted of some rather minor offence—not having a light, or something of that sort—had 115 previous convictions for road offences. That just brings the whole law into contempt, and it makes those who are inclined to be reckless on the roads think that it does not matter very much and that probably they will get off with a warning or some slight fine. The whole subject ought to be treated much more seriously than it is at the present time. Public feeling, I believe, is gradually rising, and when the extent of the horror of the slaughter on the roads is once realised, public opinion will, I am certain, be prepared to support various changes in the law and a much more drastic application of the existing law against road offences.
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will feel indebted to the noble Earl who set down this Motion to call attention to this matter which is undoubtedly causing great concern in the country generally to-day. There is no doubt that a tremendous effort to reduce road accidents has been made by many public bodies during the last few years, and I would say not least by His Majesty's Government. The fact remains, however, that we are still a long way from making any substantial reduction in the appalling figures which are reported year by year. Many ideas have been put forward and tried out from time to time

  35
  and probably most of them have contributed in some measure to preventing the number of accidents from being even greater than at present. I suggest, however, that we have not really got down to the fundamental basis of the cause of accidents.
  First there is the failure of the human element and the different reactions of different people in an emergency; and, secondly, there is the state and condition of the track on which road vehicles run. The human element is, of course, the most difficult to deal with, but we can and do place a certain check on this element by driving tests, speed limits, education and so on. However, this appears to have comparatively little effect. Of course, we might try the method employed in Brazil. There is a road in Brazil from San Paulo to Santos which descends a long steep hill with a number of hair-pin bends, and at the bottom there is a big notice with a skull and crossbones and a warning in Portuguese:
  "At the bottom of this hill is a cemetery specially reserved for motorists who are too rash."
  The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, suggested that a wireless set might interfere with the driver and distract his attention. I should rather think it might be the other way round, and wireless might help to keep the driver awake. I know it does with me.
  It can be argued that inconsiderate driving is responsible for many accidents, but that is certainly not the whole story, because it applies to only a small and reckless section of the community. Other members of the community undoubtedly contribute their share to accidents. As was suggested by the noble Earl who introduced this Motion, all sections of the community should get together and sink their differences to see what can be done. There is little doubt that if it were possible to fence in our roads like railway tracks, the accident figures would become almost negligible; but that, of course, cannot be fully carried out. On the other hand, fencing or the erecting of guard rails in limited areas has been carried out with great success, and I cannot help feeling that this system of guard rails and fencing could be extended much more than has been done at present, especially at dangerous corners and, what is more important, at comparatively limited expense.
  LORD STRABOLGI: Would the noble Lord explain that? Does he mean to fence the roads in the rural districts, or only the roads in built-up areas?
  LORD TEYNHAM: I was referring only to the built-up areas which are, I think, the only parts where it would be at all practicable. In the built-up areas and the shopping streets it would be quite impracticable to cordon off large sections of streets with iron fencing, but I see no reason why this should not be done in certain areas where the accident figure is shown to be high. Surely it would be possible to arrange means of access to shops, and so on, by a removable bar, which could be removed for purposes of trade vans, the stocking up of trade premises and so on. The pedestrian public would, of course, be able to cross the road with convenience only at certain places where gaps had been made available. That would prevent the possible necessity of compulsion which, as we know, is envisaged in certain quarters at present.
  I would point out that an excellent modified example of fencing with galvanized piping is to be found outside South Kensington underground station, where I believe the number of accidents has been greatly reduced. In this case there is no removable bar, and I do not suggest that a removable bar is necessary in that particular area. In other areas, however, where the road is straight and there are many shops, a removable bar would be necessary. I do not think it can be denied that the condition of the roads in the built-up areas and outside must have a material effect on road accidents, and that improved road conditions would increase road safety. I believe we are all agreed on that. I do not think it is generally realised that in this country there are more vehicles per mile of road than anywhere else in the world. I think the noble Earl who introduced this motion said the figure was 16.9. I have a figure given me of as many as 22 per mile. No wonder our out-of-date roads are congested and accidents reach such terrible figures.
  Through the good offices of the Ministry of Transport, I was recently able to visit the Government Road Research Laboratory and was much struck by the excellent work which is being carried out down there. I believe it is the opinion

  37
  of the workers there that nearly 50 per cent. of all accidents could in fact be prevented by the removal of ordinary road defects, and a figure as high as 70 per cent. by modernising road lay-out. Those figures give one a great deal about which to think. During the last few years, I believe improvements have been carried out on five major roads, with the result that at certain points fatal accidents have been almost entirely eliminated and accidents involving serious injury reduced by about 76 per cent. Cannot we have more of those improvements and save life and injury by a propressive plan of reconstruction and modernisation of the roads? In these days of financial stringency and rearmament, it is obviously impossible to expend all the money we should like to on the roads; but I feel that His Majesty's Government should have a plan for improving bit by bit all the dangerous road sections which must be well-known to them. I am convinced that then we should certainly have an improvement in the accident figures.
  It is vitally important that we should keep our roads in good condition, not only to prevent accidents, but because in the event of war our roads will be of the utmost importance. If they are allowed to deteriorate too far, immense sums will be required to bring them back to their proper condition. It is false economy to spend too little on our roads. The expenditure is a premium which we mast pay for saving life and keeping the industrial activity of the country at its highest pitch. There is no doubt that road safety education is also having a considerable, beneficial effect, and the Royal Society, for the Prevention of Accidents has been doing and is doing excellent work in that direction. A children's safety campaign was carried out last year and I believe that for the first ten months of last year child deaths were considerably reduced. I am sure the most reverend Primate will be glad to hear that this figure was a record low total of 766, and showed a reduction of 9 per cent. over the figures for 1949. Of course, this is all to the good, but it does not go far enough. I understand that this year a campaign for road courtesy has been introduced. I am sure that road courtesy is of the utmost importance and, if really carried out by all the road users.
  38
  would reduce the accident figures to a negligible quantity.
  To sum up, I should like to put forward briefly these suggestions. First, there should be a real combination of the work of the road engineer, the police, the propagandist and the educationist, and. a start should be made on the modernisation of our roads, as recommended in the various Government Committee Reports, with special reference to the Alness Report. We all realise that everything cannot be cone at once, but we should like to be assured that road defects will be progressively eliminated. Also, I should like to see a further development of the system of mobile police patrols, or "courtesy cops" as we have known them in the past. Moreover, I think encouragement should be given for the establishment of more school patrols. I am afraid I cannot agree with the most reverend Primate with regard to the employment of plain clothes police in cars, because I think such a practice is alien to our way of life in this country. In fact, such a scheme was rejected by the Alness Committee, and it certainly is not employed in America. I was glad to hear from His Majesty's Government at Question Time that this proposal is under consideration by the Minister of Transport, and I trust it will not be supported.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): If the noble Lord understood that, he was quite in error. It is nothing whatsoever to do with the Ministry of Transport.
  LORD TEYNHAM: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but I thought that the matter was under discussion.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With the Home Office.
  LORD TEYNHAM: With the Home Office: I am much obliged. I also hope that the Ministry of Transport will give careful consideration to the fencing of dangerous streets, as is already carried out in certain areas, together with provision for trade loading and unloading at those protected spots. I am convinced that if this fencing is well thought out and put up in the right places, it will have a tremendous effect. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider that this debate

  39
  as far as it has gone has been most useful, and that they will feel able to accept this Motion.
  4.31 p.m.
  LORD ELTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made a very comprehensive speech, and I am sure that we shall all have agreed with a great deal of it. Personally, I was particularly interested in his appeal for a more comprehensive and impartial view of this desperate problem—the end of the tradition of the pedestrian always blaming the motorist, the motorist blaming the cyclist, and the cyclist the motorist. Lord Howe will not remember the probably never knew) that before (he war there was formed a body with precisely that purpose —namely, the Road Accidents Emergency Council, of which I had the honour to be chairman, and which included representatives of a great many national organisations and a number of great trade unions who were concerned about this matter and anxious that it should be viewed from a citizen's rather than a propaganda, standpoint. I am afraid that we did not succeed in effecting very much, and I recall the name of that now defunct body at this moment only because one of the chief reforms for which we pressed the Alness Committee was the use of plain-clothes police patrols, about which I hope to say a word in a moment.
  Apart from that, I am afraid I cannot say that I agreed with what I took to be the general bias of the speech made by the noble Earl, with his usual geniality and eloquence, or with his views as to the first and most urgent steps to be taken to mitigate this appalling tragedy. But at least we are, I think, all agreed that there is a tragedy. I myself feel compelled to use even harsher terms; for I suppose that the conscience of every age has a blind spot in respect of the scandals and abuses to which it has grown accustomed by long usage. We look back with incredulity and horror at the complacency with which our ancestors tolerated the climbing boy chimney sweeps, the children of eight working twelve hours a day underground in the mines, or even the early Victorian slums. Each of them was a scandal, a tragedy and an abuse, which was, nevertheless, defended by contemporary opinion as the inevitable price which had to be paid for progress. In fifty years' time I have little
  40
  doubt that posterity will look back with even greater incredulity and horror on the comparative complacency with which over the last forty years public opinion has accepted a total of casualties on the road which now reaches 200,000 killed and 5,000,000 injured. I do not suppose there is a single member of your Lordships' House sitting in the Chamber at this moment who cannot think of some relation, friend or acquaintance slaughtered on the roads.
  My Lords, if we can rid ourselves of the myopia which fails to see fully and plainly the abuse to which it has grown accustomed, surely we must realise that the time has come for more drastic measures. We can all admit that better roads, as to which Lord Howe spoke as persuasively as he always does, must mean safer motoring up to a point—but only up to a point, because drunken or reckless driving will mean death even on the best roads. The railways have admirably laid out tracks, but if there were a sufficient minority of drunken engine drivers or engine drivers who regularly ignored the official regulations, then surely we should see the death-roll on the railways very soon beginning to rival the death-roll on the roads. Even if better roads alone could be relied on to reduce the casualty list to civilised proportions, in our present financial straits, and with all the rival claims of rearmament, how can we expect a sufficiency of better roads in the foreseeable future? By all means let us get what we can; let us get such minor safety improvements as are possible. But, meanwhile, let us not forget the undeniable fact that adequately careful driving can eliminate accidents even on inferior roads.
  Up to a few weeks ago, there was a bend on a road down which I drive each way three or four times every week in the year. One could drive round that bend with complete safety if one took the elementary precaution of reducing one's speed for about one hundred yards to forty miles an hour. Not long ago a driver attempting to negotiate the corner at upwards of sixty miles an hour, was involved in a fatal collision. Since then the corner has been "ironed out" at considerable expense, and all is well— until somebody tries to negotiate the corner at eighty miles an hour. But all would have been well even while the corner was there if drivers had taken the

  41
  precaution of reducing their speed to forty miles an hour. We cannot expect to be able to perfect every stretch of road on which a reckless driver may come to grief. What we can and must do is to try to eliminate the reckless driver himself. For there can be no shadow of doubt that the prime contribution to road accidents is the reckless driver. To take a reductio ad absurdum, if every car proceeded at the pace of a tortoise there would be no slaughter on the roads. But of course it is not necessary to argue from a reductio ad absurdum. If every driver drove like the highly trained police patrols, at extremely high speeds where high speeds are safe, but with extreme caution where caution is necessary, then too the roads would be safe.
  With all due respect, it is not difficult to avoid accidents. I imagine that sitting in this Chamber at this moment there must be a dozen or more of us who have been driving for thirty or perhaps forty years, upwards of 20,000 miles a year, often at pretty high speeds—and at this point perhaps your Lordships would wish me to touch wood—but without an accident. To point to one obvious contrast to what the ordinary respectable citizen can manage in the way of road safety, every year a number of persons are killed by undergraduate drivers at the Universities. I remember one young man, the speed of whose driving was notorious amongst his friends, who during his three years at the university killed two different people, on two separate occasions. I must say that it passes my comprehension how anyone can doubt that the first task of anyone seriously determined to reduce the present slaughter is to take effective steps to eliminate reckless driving. I am thankful to say that one county authority, my own home county of Oxford, has begun on a modest scale to attack the problem with the determination and the vigour which it needs
  The county authorities had been shocked, as well they might have been, by the rapid increase in road casualties in their area—680 in 1949, 978 in 1950. Last October the casualties on the most lethal stretch of road, that between Oxford and Thame, were so formidable that the chief constable decided to try the experiment of placing a uniformed policeman every 50C yards along that stretch of road. While the road was so patrolled,
  42
  there was not one accident. And mark this, my Lords: there had been no road improvements. If there were awkward corners before, there were awkward corners still. If there were greasy surfaces before, they were still there. If there were bad road junctions, the bad road junctions were the same. But drivers knew that they were under observation. They drove with caution, and there was not a single accident. Of course one cannot have a uniformed policeman every 500 yards all over the county, still less all over the country, and so, most wisely, the county authority decided to begin to use a few— I am afraid a very few—plain-clothes police patrols, briefed to ignore minor irregularities, and even minor infractions of the law, by the great respectable majority of motorists, and to concentrate on what the chief constable very properly called "wicked driving."
  After all, the lethal drivers are a very small minority of motorists. By the lethal driver, I mean not the man who has an occasional aberration, but the drunken driver or the man who will take his risk and gets away with it, maybe, fifty times in succession (often he is a very skilful driver), and on the fifty-first kills his man. At present, that type of driver, the lethal driver, knows that if no uniformed "speed cop" is reflected in his driving mirror he can drive as he pleases, and with complete impunity place the respectable majority of motorists and his fellow citizens in general in peril of their lives. But in Oxfordshire at present, so long as, and in so far as, it is known that plainclothes police patrols are abroad, the potentially murderous driver is likely to drive with greater caution. So far, I understand on the best authority, the experiment has proved a startling success. It is reducing accidents, and I earnestly beg the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate to tell us that His Majesty's Government are going to watch this experiment with the closest attention.
  It is to be remembered that the experiment is both partial and local. Not many patrols can be about, and it may well be, therefore, that the wicked driver, knowing that there are not many patrols about will feel that it is worth taking a risk. It is also a local experiment. It was understood at one time that it was to be extended to Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, but I am sorry to say that the

  43
  chief constables of those counties seem temporarily to have cold feet. At the moment, apart from Birkenhead, this experiment is going on only in Oxfordshire. And so it may well be that long distance drivers passing through the county may be quite unaware that such an experiment is in progress and, therefore, may not know that there is any new motive for caution on their part. Finally, of course, it is clear that the experiment cannot possibly be a success unless it is supported by genuinely deterrent sentences in the courts—at least substantial suspensions of licences for dangerous driving, and at least substantial sentences of imprisonment for drunken driving and manslaughter.
  For myself, with many others. I have no shadow of doubt that if it could be known all over the country that plainclothes police patrols were about, and that all over the country the courts were determined to impose serious sentences for serious offences, then in the space of twelve months we could halve the casualty list and subsequently halve it, and halve it again. For those of us— and our numbers are increasing—who are so convinced, it is agonising year after year to see time go by and nothing effective done to prevent the shadow of bereavement reaching home after home which might so well have been spared. I know, for there has been plenty of indication of it in your Lordships' discussion this evening, that the Oxfordshire experiment will be met with opposition and criticism, just as the reforms which put an end to nineteenth century abuses to which we now look back with incredulity all met with criticism and opposition at first.
  I should like to say, apropos of what the noble Earl said at the very beginning of this debate, that he astonished me by saying there was opposition to this experiment in Oxford. He may be right. But I spend a lot of time in Oxford, I read the Oxfordshire news-papers, I meet a good many Oxford people, and that is not my impression. However, that is not an important point. What is more important is that a great deal of opposition will, I am afraid, come from the two great motoring organisations, which incidentally have not canvassed their members, and which ought surely to be the first to support any
  44
  measure to curb reckless driving, which naturally brings discredit on the great majority of respectable drivers.
  It is also said—it has been said two or three times this evening—that the Alness Committee reported against the use of plain-clothes police patrols. As I said just now, plain-clothes police patrols were urged upon them by the Road Accident Emergency Council, and we thought at the time that the reason why the Committee came down against them was that just at that time there had been the so-called "Lancashire Experiment," which had met with startling success. There, as your Lordships may remember, the chief constable had flooded with large numbers of uniformed police some of the Lancashire roads where the accident rate had been highest, and this had resulted in a rapid decrease in accidents. The Alness Committee recommended the extension of that use of uniformed police. Of course, with the present shortage of man-power it is quite impossible to flood all the danger areas of the country with uniformed police, and the great merit of the use of plain-clothes police patrols is that, owing to the knowledge that somewhere the invisible policeman is about, the deterrent effect of one non-uniformed policeman is about twenty times as great as that of one uniformed policeman, whether in a car or on a bicycle.
  I remember hearing a famous motor manufacturer say that the use of plain-clothes police patrols was un-English. Lord Teynham, who has just sat down, said that it was contrary to the English way of life. I suppose that in the last resort it depends to some extent on how seriously one expects these patrols to diminish this terrible casualty rate. But the police could never cope with crime without plain-clothes police. No one calls it un-English when a plain-clothes policeman is used to curb the activities of the burglar and the murderer. Yet in terms of human suffering all the burglaries and murders of the year rolled into one are a mere bagatelle compared with the casualties on the roads. Any one of us may go home this evening and find that wife or child has been killed or mangled in a road accident. And if the taking of steps to mitigate by means of plain-clothes police this ubiquitous tragedy is un-English, then I can only say that English

  45
  history, with its long and splendid tradition of humanitarianism, is something which I at least have grievously misunderstood.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has read the letter in The Times, from the Chief Constable of Oxford, dated October 19? if he has not seen it, I have a copy here which he can see.
  LORD ELTON: I have not seen that letter; but I was referring to public opinion at the moment, not in October.
  LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question about something of which I am not sure? How are these plain-clothes policemen mounted, on motor-cycles or in cars?
  LORD ELTON: I understand that they are in cars. If there is occasion to stop anyone, they take off the mackintoshes they are wearing, and are then seen wearing uniform when they stop motorists.
  4.51 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, when I first took part in a debate on road safety in your Lordships' House, it was as long ago as December, 1937. It seems to me that since then, with the exception of the war years, we have returned to the fray at least once a year, and sometimes more often. We are confronted to-day with the sad circumstance that, in spite of the work of the Alness Committee, and of the subsequent Committee in 1947, we are back to where we were thirteen years ago, with the same number of killed and injured—6,000 killed, and 200,000 injured —on the roads. Furthermore, it seems to me that the situation is likely to get worse. This problem, intricate as it is, is obviously interwoven with that of the whole road system. It is all nice and fine to sit down and to get wise out of books, to sit surrounded by a mass of statistics, and then to arrive at one or two illuminating conclusions, such as that the accident rate for children goes up from January to May, or that three-quarters of the casualties happen in daylight, or that the police should be in plain clothes.
  We have had an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the subject of plain clothes or uniformed
  46
  police. I have no comment to make about that matter, other than to say this: that one glimpse of a "copper" in uniform must have a more salutary effect than seeing one without, whatever anybody may say. The noble Lord contended that if everything went at a crawling pace there would be no accidents. That is an interesting thought, but I am not at all sure that it is quite logical. An interesting piece of information, if we can believe it, was given in a letter which recently appeared in the newspapers, signed by someone who called himself "A well-known K.C." He wrote that in 1870 nearly 300 people were killed in London by cabs and carts. Now there are 140 deaths in three months, which is about 500 a year. Allowing for the increase in area and population of London in the last eighty years, I wonder whether the streets are much more dangerous than they were in Victorian times. I make this point not to be complacent in any way but in order to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that if no one would be killed if everything went at a crawling pace it is surprising that, when the maximum speed was that of the horse. 300 people were killed in the streets of London every year.
  I do not propose to deal with the details. We who have lived so closely with the problem for so many years are conscious of the fact that it is a big one. All the details have been sifted, time and time again, by the Alness Committee and by the subsequent Government Committee. I do not think it is the slightest use anybody attempting to attach blame in any one direction. It has already been said this afternoon that all users of the road, whether on feet or set upon wheels of any number or description, must accept responsibility. I am prepared to confess that my inclination.; to take a risk are infinitely greater when I am on my feet than when I am in charge of any vehicle. Words by the million have been spoken and written about this matter, and I implore your Lordships this afternoon to join me in vowing not to become fogged by the mass of detail with which we are surrounded. Whenever a discussion takes place on road accidents, so great is the temptation to quote the last incident that happened to you on your little bit of road, or to suggest the latest brain-wave you have for curing some detail or which will

  47
  contribute to the cure of the problem, that we emerge at the end of the debate in nothing more than that despair which comes from confusion. I have by me the book which was mentioned by Lord Howe, containing the reprint of some fifty letters which appeared in The Times between June and November last year. All are interesting and contain a mass of details which are helpful, but I do not think that they get us very far.
  The fundamental thing about the whole road question is apathy; not the apathy of the citizen, because he is not apathetic, but the apathy which has existed in high Government circles for years and years. Our leaders have robbed the Road Fund in such a way that the two words are little more than a mockery. Members of the present Government can sit back and say "I told you so," because the leaders to whom I refer are those of years long past. One can imagine, the eyes of a succession of Chancellors of the Exchequer gleaming as they contemplate these perennial windfalls. When the first debate on road accidents took place before the war, in 1937, I think, the Chancellor in that year took something like £50,000,000, or three-quarters of the Road Fund. That sort of attitude is infectious. It is the sort of attitude that must go. If we do not want this state of affairs on the roads to continue, there is only one way to cure it—a real upheaval, starting at the high level I have mentioned. The first effort that must be made is one which comes from the quarters where the funds are disbursed.
  I should like to put my point a little more lucidly, and in plainer English, by simply asking this question: How much money do the Cabinet consider should be spent on not killing 6,000 people, and not wounding 200,000 people, every year? It is a terrible thing to have to contemplate a question of this sort, but there must be some sum of money that is applicable. Admittedly—and we know it only too well in these days—funds are not available for all the things for which one would like them, but I suggest that this is a matter of the greatest importance, and even if we are now rearming we are still killing 6,000 people every year. So I come to the rather gloomy thought that, if we are told that what we are asking is quite impossible, we then
  48
  have to resign ourselves more or less to the continuation of what is happening now. And, in addition to the appalling death roll, we have to resign ourselves to increasing paralysis of the road system on account of the congestion which goes hand in hand with the accidents, and also the ever-worsening condition of the roads themselves, which was rightly described by my noble friend Lord Teynham as a terrible contemplation, having regard to the importance of the road system in the defence of the nation. It seems to me that those are the simple facts that we have to face. I should like to elaborate my point even a stage further by saying this. Supposing that a vast tract of land, perhaps in the Midlands, had become devastatingly infected in such a way that it threatened the health and lives of 250,000 people living there: I wonder what sort of upheaval there would be in Cabinet circles, and to what lengths the Cabinet would be prepared to go to purge the land and rid it of that danger?
  The truth is that the rot has been going on for too long, and everyone has become used to it. The other day I asked a friend what he suggested, and his prescription was: Reduce the percentage of fools using the road, and cause the remainder to have all their accidents in Downing Street. At the risk of being thought somewhat flippant, I feel that he was thinking more or less on the right lines. All I would say, in conclusion, is that the prescription is known. I believe that the time has passed for trying to deal with the details. Let those in command make up their minds once and for all how high on the list of "must be dones" this subject comes, and how high a priority it should be given. At the present moment the whole matter is being trifled with, and so long as the Minister of Transport is the perpetual "poor relation" I cannot see how we shall ever get to the root of the trouble.
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should first like to express my apologies to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in that owing to a board meeting I was unable to be present when he made his opening speech in this debate. I shall keep your Lordships for only a few minutes, and I intend to raise only one specific point. It is one that I have considered putting down as a special Question, but I feel it

  49
  is appropriate to include it in this debate. I understand that it has been touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but I should like to elaborate it a little further. The specific point I have in mind is the rear lighting of heavy vehicles. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I travel many thousands of miles a year on business, both in this country and on the Continent, and sometimes—I hope only when conditions permit it—I travel fairly fast. I believe that the greatest anxiety felt by any driver in this country is of the danger of suddenly seeing in front of him a heavy vehicle, either stationary or moving quite slowly, which is improperly lighted. That danger does not exist to anything like the same extent in France and other Continental countries, or in America. In those countries it is regarded as a great danger, which causes a large number of fatal and serious accidents, and the backs of their heavy vehicles are fully illuminated. Low down, indicating the width of the vehicle, are two lights, and the top of the load is also illuminated on either side so that the whole of the vehicle is outlined in a frame of four red lights—and some have lights additional to those. Therefore, you have a complete outline of the back of the vehicle, and you see at once if it is a large monster in front of you, and take the necessary precautions.
  What have we in this country? The regulations state that the vehicle shall have one light, either in the centre or on the offside of the vehicle, and that the light must be visible for a reasonable distance. To begin with, it is very difficult to define what is "a reasonable distance." Even supposing that the one light is of reasonable power, as often as not it is very low down—in fact, I think the regulations say that it must not be more than three feet six inches from the ground—and often it is covered in mud. On a crowded road, with vehicles moving perhaps in convoy, it is almost impossible to keep the rear light clear of mud. I feel that the regulations should be altered to something on the lines of the Continental and American regulations to which I have referred. That would mean that a trailer of a vehicle would also have to be illuminated in the same way.
  Another frequent cause of accidents is that a heavy vehicle has stopped by the roadside in order that the load may be
  50
  secured or shifted; the driver has opened the rear doors or dropped the tailboard, and the one red rear light is obscured. The regulations should be so framed that that one rear light should not be obscured in those circumstances, and, if necessary, additional lights should be provided which should be alight and visible when that light is obscured. I mentioned just now that the only thing stated about the single light is that it must be visible at a reasonable distance. I believe that experiments have been carried out in this matter, and that it is considered that the glass of these lights should cover at least four square inches and that the power of the bulb should be somewhere between five and seven watts. There must be some positive regulation about the light; it must not just be said that it shall be visible at a reasonable distance.
  I think that the suggestions I have outlined are the minimum compatible with safety, but there are. of course, other things which can be done. During the war the Royal Air Force adopted one small palliative. They had painted on the back of all their vehicles a white disc, with a red reflector in the middle. That is a good thing, but it does not go far enough. I understand that the motoring organisations are preparing a report on the subject of vehicle lighting, and I am sure that their views will be awaited with interest and that the Minister will, in due course, give full consideration to them. Apart from that, I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Transport himself is considering revised regulations for the lighting of vehicles. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, could say something about that matter and indicate when any proposals on the subject are likely to be laid before Parliament. That is the one point I wish to make to-day. I will end by repeating that I am quite sure that a great number of people are killed and injured because the regulations in this country do not make adequate provision for the rear lighting of heavy vehicles.
  5.12 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, in a very few moments I think we and the road users at large hope to hear when the new Highway Code will be completed. May we hope that the Minister has it completed in time for the many visitors we expect for the Festival

  51
  of Britain? The further question which we expect and hope to be answered to-night is: Does he propose to put legal liability on pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike? A point which was touched upon by all speakers, and which I can repeat on behalf of many professional commercial drivers, is to pay a great compliment to the teachers in the schools. Could this work be carried on? I am of the opinion that the children are the least dangerous users of the roads. I think the able-bodied man is probably the second safest, but no statistics tell us how the housewife comes out of this matter. I cannot but believe that the present day rations of those who have to feed entirely at home is not conducive to mental alertness. Further, I entirely approve of the "courtesy cop"—the motor-cycle police—so I wonder whether further sums could be spent on having more of them, as opposed to these detectives to prevent crime on the roads.
  From the motor industry's point of view,. we feel very strongly that more cars should be diverted to the home market and some of the old cars swept off the road. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, if only one life can be saved by a constructive suggestion it is all to the good. I cannot believe that our present Minister of Transport and those in authority cannot at once rule against turning against traffic in big cities. It is not allowed in any other big capital, so why should it be allowed here? As was mentioned in another place, there is also the crawling taxi-cab driver who need not stop if he is summoned. The taxi-cab driver is a great driver, but there are two points against him: first, that he is continually turning out against traffic, and, secondly, that when he is going home he need not pick up a fare when he is crawling. Surely he could put a glove over his flag, as they do in other capitals. Accidents have been caused through these faults. The Minister of Transport seems to lay great stress upon running his buses on schedule. He will run a train from London to Coventry which, for some inexplicable reason, on a perfectly clear day will run twenty minutes late. The buses, however, have to run on schedule, irrespective of the traffic, the density of the fog or anything else. Therefore, either one misses one's appointment through a
  52
  crawling bus, or some poor old lady breaks a leg getting on or off when not enough time is given to stopping. Surely that state of affairs could be altered with the stroke of a pen. I should like to know whether filtering by cyclists and coming up on the near side of stationary traffic is to be legally forbidden in future.
  Further, there is the question of car parking. Anything that takes a driver's eye off the road tends to cause accidents, and parking signs all tend to cause accidents. The car-parking rules are now so difficult to understand that the visitor to London has to look around for places to park. For instance, in the West End one sees notices: "Car parking forbidden from 11.30 to 7 p.m." I wonder how many of your Lordships are aware that you can still be summoned for obstruction if you want to buy a shirt before 9.30 in the morning and you park your car outside the shop. I hope all these matters will be properly explained in the new Highway Code. One is not allowed to park a car in certain places—for instance, Finsbury Circus, where twelve places must be reserved for taxi-cabs and where no taxicab has been seen parked since 1938. I believe there are many smaller points which could be remedied at once. The Government car parking spaces in London are rapidly becoming permanent daylight garages. They have their regular users, and the visitor to London has little chance, especially in the height of the London season, of getting into such parks. The estimate of taxation due from the motorist as a whole in 1951 is, I believe, £218,000,000, and the sum which it is estimated will be spent on the roads is £60,000,000. Last year 75,000 men were employed on the roads, and that number has been reduced to 55,000. Finally, since 1928 161,500 people have been killed on the roads and 3,700,000 injured. In the last five years we have had one Minister of Transport. Surely he can help us to remedy these awful facts.
  5.19 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords who have already spoken in this debate in congratulating my noble friend Lord Howe on the way be has introduced this very important matter. I beg to support all the steps he has recommended to lessen fatal accidents—all accidents in fact—and may I stress one point which will help towards the desired end of greater safety?

  53
  It is that all motor vehicles and people on foot on adjacent pavements, footways or crossings should always drive or walk on the left—and not only when another car or passenger approaches from the opposite direction. I suggest that the dreadful harvest of fatalities is the result of our failure over all the years since we have had motor vehicles accurately to assess their great potential and to plan to use them efficiently and with safety.
  The main solution of this trouble, of which so much has rightly been said to-day in your Lordships' House, I suggest lies in the laying down of motor-ways. My noble friend Lord Howe in his interesting speech stressed the need for these long recommended motor-ways which, as he pointed out, we have not yet seen. My suggestion is that the roads of to-day should be left substantially as they are, being, of course, efficiently maintained, and that an immediate programme for the construction of motor-ways should be put in hand at once. We should, I suggest, ultimately need some 2,000 miles to serve Britain—a point which has come out in different statistics that have been reported to your Lordships' House from time to time. If we put in hand such a programme, there is yet time to save the amenities of our attractive countryside from more ribbon development, our lovely villages from noise and peril, and our townsfolk from slaughter and interminable delay.
  The motor-way, as your Lordships will remember, is for mechanically propelled vehicles only. It avoids all towns and villages, being connected thereto by service roads open to all forms of traffic. It absorbs twelve acres to the mile, providing two 25-foot concrete roads separated by a grass verge. They can be laid over the least valuable land. Would the noble Lord he Minister in his reply tell your Lordships when the construction of such motor-ways may be envisaged? As one of the speakers, I should like to say how much I appreciate the patient hearing the noble Lord has given to all that has been said in this debate. I hope he will be able to give us some hope for the future, in view of the fact that the cost of the average article we buy is to some 70 per cent a transport charge.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not given notice that I wish to speak in this debate, but
  54
  I intervene for only one moment as ore who spoke on this matter several times before the war. And as one who has taken a great interest in this problem, I should like to congratulate Lord Howe on moving this Motion to-day. Much as I should like to see motor-ways provided, I think it is quite impossible to do that at this juncture. We have so much to do in the rearmament programme that we simply cannot spare the labour or material. So whatever we do now, our short-term policy must be one of trying to cut down the number of accidents. I think much more could be done fairly reasonably, and that it should be done at once.
  One of the reasons why I have risen to speak is to enlarge on a point made by Lord Gifford about the inadequacy of lighting on heavy vehicles in this; country. I think that we ought to provide better lighting on heavy vehicles, The other day I very nearly had a bad accident when I just avoided a big lorry that was drawn up at the side of the road, with its lights completely smeared over. I saw it in time and managed to swerve. 1 think these vehicles ought to have at least two lights on them, though some hold the view that, if there were one light on either side of the vehicle, drivers following might think there were two vehicles and drive into the middle of the lorry. I think there ought to be two or three lights grouped together in the middle, as they have in the United States of America.
  The other point I wish to mention is that most of these accidents happen in built-up areas, and I should like to see more uniform lighting there. A good deal has been done since the war to provide better lighting, but it is a question also of adequate grants to local authorities. If I am not mistaken, local authorities are given for trunk roads a 75 per cent. capital grant and maintenance grant, but some local authorities have very long stretches of these main roads through their territories, and they cannot afford to find the other 25 per cent. I think in those cases where big arterial built-up roads are concerned local authorities ought to be granted 100 per cent. of the cost of lighting. In my view, a great deal more could be done at the intersections of roads, because, as Lord Howe has rightly said, that is where a great many accidents occur. Many

  55
  more guard-rails could be put up, and probably fly-overs or tunnels could be constructed. If that cannot be done, at any rate we ought to have many more traffic lights at intersections. About three months ago on the Great Cambridge Bypass I saw an awful accident. The sun was very low, and at a crossing where, so far as I could see there were no traffic lights, a bus and a small car had come into collision. Things such as I have suggested do not cost a great deal of money, and they ought to be done as soon as possible.
  In some cases, land has been bought in built-up areas and I think a start ought to be made to widen some of those roads, especially those like the Great Cambridge By-pass, where all the land was bought and where in many cases there was enough land to enable the necessary widening to be done. So far as I can see, no attempt has been made in the last five years, even where the land was available, to widen these roads. Take for instance, the Great North Road, between Baldock and Biggleswade. There are many places there where the land was bought before the war, but no attempt was made to widen the road, even before this rearmament programme was on top of us. That road, being the Great North Road, takes a tremendous amount of traffic. I should like to see much more drive applied to this problem. We could do more in these ways which would not cost too much money; and where land is already available the making of a start in widening the roads would be encouraging. We need better illumination at dangerous cross-roads and in built-up areas.
  5.28 p.m.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I gave notice that I was going to speak and, as usual, most of the notes that I made about what I wanted to say have had to be torn up, because the points have been adequately dealt with by other noble Lords. There is one point which has not been mentioned, and which ought not to be new to the Government, though I have never heard one word about it when I have been talking to others. I think it is generally admitted that traffic on the roads is one of the main causes of accidents. If one removed traffic one would not have any accidents. Traffic conditions, frustration of drivers, congestion, those conditions very largely produce acci-
  56
  dents, because they make people accident prone. People get into bad tempers, and do things they would not otherwise do. They sit behind a lorry for a long time, and eventually they get fed up and go past it just at the one moment when they ought to be sitting tighter behind it than ever. That problem is dealt with in America scientifically.
  I should like to refer the noble Lord who is to reply to the Report of sessions at the Road Safety Organisers' Course of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents held last May. In that Report is a most interesting article by an American. If I take one short quotation from it I think it may be helpful. He makes this categorical statement:
  " Saving lives in traffic is already almost an exact science, and is becoming more of one every day. Its principles are now so well known that traffic engineers can go into any city and tell, with startling accuracy, just what percentage of reduction can be made in traffic fatalities if the engineers are given a free hand.
  They made such a prediction about five years ago when they went to work in Los Angeles, then one of the most dangerous cities in the country in which to use the streets, as it is now one of the safest. They predicted that they would be able to cut the fatalities 40 or 45 per cent.; the figure for the first year was 41.7. They made a similar prediction about a year ago when they went to work in Chicago. It was said that traffic accidents would come down about 50 per cent., and a year later almost exactly that figure had been achieved. They have accomplished the same thing in Detroit and many other places."
  That is something that has been done, and I should be interested to know how many trained traffic engineers, men who have gone through a course in traffic engineering, as apart from road surveying, there are in this country; and, more particularly, how many there are at the Ministry. I think it is obvious, if one reads the whole of that Report, that we should get the trained traffic engineer on the job, first of all to examine the particular problem and then to examine the district to see how he can divert unnecessary traffic from a bad area and so reduce the traffic strain. That is something that could be done fairly economically.
  The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that there were roads parallel to the A5. I admit that all the way through the last war, when I was working up at Fenny Stratford, I never dreamed of coming down A5. I came down by Leighton

  57
  Buzzard and Hemel Hempstead. In that way, admittedly, I was using a narrow road, but I was avoiding the appalling amount of traffic that was running up and down A5 at a tremendous rate. There is another minor item to which I should like to draw attention, and that is this. Whereas we cannot segregate traffic in this country, we can do something to get it running at more regulated speeds than it is at the present moment. I am sure that one of the troubles on the road to-day is the existence of a dual speed limit for heavy vehicles. Some are allowed to go at 20 miles per hour, and others are allowed to go at 30 miles per hour. I remember that a good many years ago, when Mr. Hore-Belisha was Minister of Transport, he went for a ride up A5 in a lorry at night, and he said: "One thing I noticed about the driver was that he was exactly like Jack Hobbs: he wanted to get out of the 20's as soon as possible."
  It is undoubtedly a fact that the 20 miles-per-hour limit vehicles are practically never driven at that speed. Personally, I am thankful for it, but it does have this effect. The 30 miles-per-hour fellow comes along behind, he sees the 20 miles-per-hour fellow doing 30 miles an hour and says: "I ought to be going faster," and up he goes to 40 or 50 miles per hour. If there were a level 30 miles-per-hour limit for all that traffic, it would greatly simplify the job of the police. If they had only one speed limit to work on, they would not have to look at the tail end of a lorry and make up their minds whether it had a 20 miles-per-hour sign there or not They could get on with their job, and the incentive to higher speed among the lighter vehicle drivers would be abolished. Such a step would obviate a vehicle which is capable of doing only 40 miles per hour "flat out" crawling past the man who is doing 32 or 33 miles per hour, thereby blocking the road for Heaven knows how long. And in the end it would save a great deal of irritation among lorry drivers, as well as among ordinary drivers. If I may make those two suggestions: that we should get trained traffic engineers and use them and bring lorries down to one speed limit instead of two. I hope that I shall have achieved something.
  5.36 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I commence my attempt to reply to the noble Earl by adding my
  58
  congratulations and gratitude to all the expressions of that nature which he has received for moving this Motion? He has done it in his characteristically pungent manner, with courtesy and fairness, except in one particular case to which I will refer in a moment. I think I could also say, if I may, with respect, that the contributions to this debate by other noble Lords have been on such a high level that it is about the best debate upon this terrible subject that I have heard since I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House. I am sorry that the noble Earl had to drag in the one hackneyed expression—that is, when he accused me of complacency. My worst enemy has never accused me of that.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am quite ready to withdraw my remark.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Earl took me to task very severely —I make no complaint; I am very glad he did—because when I was speaking to the Press I expressed the opinion that road conditions were not a major factor in causing road accidents. I repeat it— they are not. It is a fact; it is the truth; but perhaps I had better make sure that the noble Earl and I are talking about the same thing, because I make a very sharp distinction between road conditions and traffic conditions. The statistics which we have at the Ministry of Transport to-day are compiled in the most scientific manner which we can devise from reports by the police. When they dissected 146,736 accidents in 1949, they came to the definite conclusion that road defects were the primary factor in 1,226 cases, which is less than one per cent. There is a great difference between road conditions and traffic conditions. Eighty per cent. of road accidents happen in built-up areas, and all the panaceas that I have heard suggested, desirable as they would be, such as building huge new roads, would not affect that to such a large degree. It would affect it, I agree, because it would relieve congestion, as the noble Earl wishes to impress upon us. When my right honourable friend the Minister was talking about the case of Newcastle, which the noble Earl cited, my right honourable friend was not contradicting me. He was referring to traffic conditions.
  The only other point on which the noble Earl was, I think, slightly unfair, was when he said, or implied—I do not

  59
  think he quite means it—that in the same remarks which I made to the Press, in quoting figures as to how many pedestrians were involved in accidents, I sought to lay blame for all the road accidents upon the pedestrian class. In every public utterance I have made I have tried to say very plainly that this problem will never be solved if it is turned into a class struggle between one type of road user and another. It never will. I remember saying in a debate in your Lordships' House that unfortunately there is still a dividing line between those who ride in motor cars and those who curse. Unfortunately, that is true. We shall never solve the problem while the pedestrian blames the motorist and the motorist blames the cyclist. Do not despise police figures; they are unbiased, and after investigating somewhere in the region of 200,000 accidents a year for many years the police must have gained some experience. I would rather have their figures than those of the special pleaders for this or that form of road construction.
  EARL HOWE: Can the noble Lord say how he reconciles that statement with the experience of the county surveyors, and particularly Colonel Bennett?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am coming to the county surveyors. It is on the tip of my tongue because I happen to have been browsing through the Alness Report, and I saw a statement given in evidence before the Alness Committee by a certain county surveyor as to what he thought was the cause of certain accidents—road conditions. There was a head-on collision on a single carriage way, and of course in his opinion road conditions were to blame for that. Had there been a second carriage-way there would not have been an accident, as the other vehicle would have been travelling on the other road. So road conditions were to be blamed for that accident. Such is the exaggeration of some special pleaders! I am not going to argue that if we could relieve congestion it would not reduce accidents. Of course it would. I was very interested to listen this afternoon to what I thought was one of the most balanced speeches I have heard upon this problem, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I thought it was a realist's speech. I was rather amused that the one county which is always held up by the
  60
  noble Earl, Lord Howe, as being so up-to-date in its road works for reducing accidents, is the very county where the chief constable has now to try this experiment to reduce the appalling number of accidents. His Majesty's Government are watching that experiment with a great deal of interest. Although I may have some personal views about it, there is one thing I am quite prepared to do— to condone this experiment if it will contribute one per cent. to the alleviation of one of the greatest social scourges we are facing to-day. I am afraid that whatever principles I might have about plain clothes policemen would fade into insignificance if their use proved to be a major contribution to solving the problem.
  My Lords, if we could carry out all the plans we have, if we could modernise our road system and make it fit to carry the traffic as we should like to see it carried and as we think we should have to do if we had an ideal world in which to plan our road system for the next thirty years, the cost would be astronomical. There are not many people who realise the cost of modern road construction. To construct a 22-feet single carriage-way would cost anything from £50,000 to £100,000 per mile; a dual carriage-way would cost anything from £100,000 to £250,000 per mile, and where substantial bridge works and fly-overs are concerned it can cost £300,000 per mile. May I give your Lordships an example? The Swanley by-pass, 1¾ miles in length, will cost £250,000 per mile, because there are three bridges and two roundabouts. Our new motor roads, to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, referred, are estimated to cost from £150,000 to £160,000 per mile. The approximate total cost would be £120,000,000 for 809 miles of road—and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, asked me when they are going to be started. My reply to him (and it is not meant to be facetious) can only be that the last thing I am is a crystal gazer. I do not know when they will be started, but I doubt whether it will be within such a number of years as really makes it worth while my talking about it this afternoon. Since the war we have spent £300,000,000 upon the roads of this country. Sixty-one bridges have been completed, at a cost of £345,000, and the effect upon our roads has not been very great; they have absorbed that money like so much blotting paper.
  LORD WOLVERTON: Could the noble Lord break down that figure into arrears of maintenance and new works?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am coming to that point in a moment. Please do not read into anything I say a claim that road improvement is unnecessary. I do not deny for one moment that we should improve our roads in the interests of the country. Our industrial and commercial future demands it. A pilot census that we took last year shows that the traffic on our roads has increased by about 7 per cent. over pre-war levels. Some of it has increased substantially, and in some cases there has been a decrease. For instance, commercial traffic has increased by 60 per cent.; buses and coaches by 35 per cent., and, as a point of interest, horsedrawn vehicles have decreased by 71 per cent. I shall be very grateful when the decrease is one of 100 per cent. But although these figures have altered by the percentages I have given, the weight of vehicles and the weight of loads has increased enormously. One of the great problems that has also confronted us is the shifting of traffic. In the case of some roads, the number of vehicles has increased by over 50 per cent. as against pre-war figures. On Road A 50, near Shrewsbury traffic has gone up by 55 per cent. Between Edinburgh and Leith, it has gone up by 56 per cent., and along Western Avenue, just outside London, it has gone up by 66 per cent.
  My Lords, the principal roads are not so strong as they used to be, and to-day the good surfaces of our roads are rather deceptive, because since 1938 the foundations of some main routes have not had the attention that we think is desirable. But what of the future? What are the chances of securing major road construction? What are the chances of our doing some of the things we had planned to do—the construction of the 809 miles of new motor roads; the conversion of some 2,900 miles of the 8,200 miles of trunk roads to dual carriageways; the widening and realignment of single carriageways; various bridges and tunnel works —I quote as an example the Lower Thames Tunnel to cost £6,000,000? What of the replacement of the Conway suspension bridge, at a cost of more than £500,000? If we could have the finance to do that, or to start on those schemes,
  62
  within three months we could start new works and improvements to the value of £17,000,000; in twelve months another £34,000,000 worth; and within two years another £64,000,000 worth. That is a total of £115,000,000. And those are mostly trunk road works. In addition, there are special roads, sanctioned under the Special Roads Act which went through your Lordships' House last year, for which the figure is £120,000,000. Then there is the Severn Bridge, with the largest span in Europe—3,300 feet—and for this with its immediate approaches the figure is between £10,000,000 and £12,000,000. For its Scottish counterpart the Forth Bridge, the probable cost is in the region of £7,000,000. This all adds, up to £260,000,000. That is what is desirable.
  But what is the other side of the story? If noble Lords will look at the Civil Estimates—Class VI for the current year, page 152—they will see that the money made available to my right honourable friend for roads is some £26,000,000. Expenditure by highway authorities will be of approximately the same amount. As my noble friend knows, in respect of trunk roads my right honourable friend is responsible for 100 per cent. of the cost. On Class I roads he gives a grant of 75 per cent.; on Class II roads, of 60 per cent., and on Class III roads of 50 per cent. There are 8,236 miles of trunk roads—the noble Earl asked me for that figure. There are 19,545 miles of Class I roads, 17,705 miles of Class II roads, and 48,582 miles of Class III roads. And so we have £50,000,000 for our trunk and classified roads for the current year. Therefore the expenditure, if it works out fifty-fifty, if the local highway authorities' expenditure is the same as the Ministry's expenditure, totals some £50,000,000. Incidentally, noble Lords may like to know, also, that there are 90,000 miles of unclassified roads, so it means that the total road mileage of our country is 184,000 miles. And we have £50,000,000 for all this for the current year. Of this total, £43,000,000 will be spent on maintenance and £4,000,000 on work in progress, leaving £3,000,000 for new works, research and experiment, including police patrol vehicles, which cost us about £330,000. Of this £3,000,000—if I may make a further dissection—we shall spend £1,000,000 on trunk roads, and

  63
  £2,000,000 will go on grant-aided works of highway authorities. And that will be the expenditure on new works, when we have, at a most conservative estimate, £17,000,000 of work on which we could start in three months.
  LORD SANDHURST: May I interrupt for a moment to ask the noble Lord what the contribution from the motorist was during the same period, and why he should have to pay both as a motorist and as a ratepayer?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will deal faithfully with that point when I come to it. What I have just given your Lordships, is the bare, hard arithmetic of this problem. It is no good burking that issue. Out of the capital investment programme my right honourable friend has, for the current financial year, £26,000,000 to do all the work that he can on his trunk roads and give grants to local highway authorities. The noble Earl asked me the same question as that which has just been put by Lord Sandhurst—what were the total receipts from motor taxation over the last five years? The total vehicle taxation—and this includes vehicle taxation and driving licences—amounted to £250,300,000. Purchase Tax brought in some £86,000,000, but that figure is only an estimate. I cannot give an actual figure which can be guaranteed as accurate. Hydrocarbon oil duty amounted in all to £299,100,000. So the total for the five years, if you take all these things together, is £635,900,000. Many noble Lords have made the point that, since all that money has been contributed by the motor vehicle user, why is it not all spent on the roads? That idea cannot hold. It is an unrealistic approach to this problem. You might just as well argue to-day that all the money raised from smokers by tobacco duty should go towards the improvement of tobacco. That proposition would be just as realistic.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: NO.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: All right, noble Lords say: "No." Borrowing from the Road Fund started during the 1914–18 war and it was in 1926 that the —if I may so describe him without offence —arch robber of hen roosts, who is the present leader of His Majesty's Opposition in another place, threw over all idea of
  64
  having a Road Fund. And others have plundered it since. Finally, such a pass was reached that before the last war the Road Fund did not exist at all. By Section 33 of the Finance Act of 1936, specific revenues ceased to be allotted to the Road Fund. Revenue from motor vehicle taxation has, in fact, been paid into the General Exchequer since April 1, 1937. The Road Fund exists only in the Civil Estimates, and by passing the Civil Estimates Parliament allocates a specific sum for the current financial year for road expenditure. As I have told your Lordships, the Road Fund stood for this year at some £26,000,000. All the facts are given in an admirable document—I got some of mine from it—published by the organisation presided over with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I would counsel the British Road Federation to stop talking the nonsense they do about "raiding the Road Fund." There is not one to raid and they know it, because they have with great detail explained why there is not a Road Fund.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The noble Lord has just referred to the Road Fund being robbed by another person.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Because it was robbed until the poor, wretched thing did not exist at all. It consists only of grants for road purposes made once a year by Parliament in the Civil Estimates. I hope the noble Lord will persuade his friends not to spoil the otherwise admirable work they do by repeating this fiction. I do not know why they waste time and paper on it.
  The next question the noble Earl asked was: what have been the total grants to the Road Fund over the same period? The amount is £102,400,000. He also asked whether a return can be furnished showing the amounts asked for by each local authority for carrying out necessary road works in its area, and the amount approved in each case. I have no reliable figures, and I hesitate to give the noble Earl figures which are not reliable. Over this period many local authorities have asked for what they thought they would get, while others have asked for more than they needed in the hope that they would get at least some of it, so that estimates of the total amount do not mean anything at all. The noble Earl

  65
  asked what is the estimated figure for arrears of road maintenance covering the country as a whole since 1939. It is impossible to give a figure, because the amount is cumulative. Perhaps I can answer by saying that the volume of maintenance work per mile carried out during the last year has been at about 60 to 70 per cent. of the pre-war standard. That is not a good guide, because modern machines, such as the Barber Greene machine, can do a greater volume of work with a lower man-power, and if I try to give him a figure it would not serve the noble Earl's purpose.
  The noble Earl then asked what is the mileage of trunk roads for which the Ministry are now responsible. I have already given that figure. Then he asked what is the amount which has been spent annually on trunk road improvement and maintenance during the last five years, and how do these figures compare with those for the period 1934–39. Improvement and maintenance of trunk roads have taken £36,300,000. I cannot compare that with the period 1934–39, because, until the Trunk Roads Act of 1936, there was not such a thing as a trunk road, and under the Act of 1946 the trunk road mileage was nearly doubled. So there is no comparable figure. The noble Earl also asked: What steps have the Government taken to implement certain recommendations of the Alness Committee? We have taken every practicable step to implement those recommendations. We have not been able to implement them in any way which called for increased expenditure, nor which meant the imposition of any more regulations.
  One of the recommendations of the Report to which noble Lords have referred this afternoon is that there should be a central authority for street lighting. We have every sympathy with that recommendation. At the present time the Ministry of Transport are the central authority, but their responsibility extends only to the approval of expenditure on street lighting schemes. Where these schemes are carried out on trunk roads to the Ministry's standard, the Ministry contribute 50 per cent. of the cost, but this comes out of the £3,000,000 to which I have already referred. I agree that uniform street lighting will never be a fact until we have an effective central authority, but that needs legislation and, I
  66
  would suggest, somewhat controversial legislation. Above all, it means money.
  A further question asked by the noble Earl was whether the Government would say what steps towards improvements and improved maintenance have been carried out on Al, A5 and the Southampton Road since they came into power. The day-to-day maintenance of the 374 miles of Al trunk road between London and Edinburgh has cost £1,823,343, a cost per mile per annum of £975. The A5 trunk road, with 255 miles between London and Holyhead, has cost £1,193,996, or £936 per mile per annum. The London—Southampton road, trunk roads A30 and A33—it is only 63 miles, because it starts outside London and, as in the other cases, does not include the county borough stretches—has cost £405,706, which is £1,288 per mile per annum. Capital expenditure over the same period has been on Al, £847,918; on A5, £173,475; and on the Southampton road, £90,010. The noble Earl's final question was what steps the Government have taken to eliminate "black spots." We have done everything we can out of the total expenditure of £3,000,000. Of course, we can, and do, progressively eliminate "black spots" when we can deal with them in maintenance schemes, but the majority have to come out of capital expenditure.
  The alternative Motion suggested by the noble Earl was:
  "That the Minister of Transport should make a return to Parliament of the schemes for road improvements and new roads recommended by him as considered necessary to meet present and future requirements, being either trunk roads or classified roads, specifying in each case or scheme: (1) the approximate estimate of cost; (2) the time which would normally be required to complete the work; (3) whether any and, if so, how much progress has been made, and (4) the name of the highway authority responsible."
  I should be only too happy to do this exercise, but the noble Earl does not give me any basis on which to work. What does he mean? Does he want me to go on the assumption that money is plentiful and that there is no capital investment programme; on the assumption that the labour is there and we have no rearmament programme, and that steel will be available? Or does he want me to go on the assumption that I shall get next year the same amount as I received this year? If the noble Earl wants all this,

  67
  he must tell me his conditions. When I have finished it will be totally unrealistic. At the present time the resources of this country in man-power, money and materials are used to a high percentage of their potential, and there is no large reservoir from which further demands can be met. To-day all the resources of the nation are deployed—so far as it is in the power of the Government to deploy them—in what the Government feel are the best interests of the country. Am I to assume that I can have all the steel I want taken out of the rearmament programme? Am I to assume that I can have all the man-power I want to do what the noble Earl wishes, and need pay no attention to the requirements of the Armed Forces? Am I to assume that I can have all the money I want from the capital investment programme? If so, who is going without?
  To-day we are faced with this hard, incontrovertible fact: that in the wisdom of His Majesty's Government the amount that can be spent upon the roads of this country is decided by Parliament every year for the ensuing financial year, and any exercise that I could do, interesting though it might be, and waste of my officials' time though it would be, would mean nothing. If it would mean that we could get the money, materials, manpower and everything else, I would not mind doing it; but it would not mean a thing. Therefore, I am forced to the conclusion—I say this most seriously to your Lordships—that, so far as I can see, for some years to come we cannot expect any great road improvement and in making any assessment of what we can and must do to eat into this dreadful problem of road accidents we must accept the pattern of our road system, by and large, as it is now. We will do the best we can.
  I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, and the most reverend Primate, that we must get this problem in proportion. Desirable though these highways, trunk roads and motor roads are, and road enthusiast though I be, I cannot feel that they are going materially to diminish the road casualty lists. As the noble Earl said when he opened this debate, 80 per cent. of the accidents in this country could be avoided by greater care, courtesy and consideration for other people. Therefore, I have been driven
  68
  to the conclusion that for any major reduction of road accidents in the future we must look to influencing the conduct of road users. How are we going to do that? I have given this problem intense study while I have held the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and I have come to some firm conclusions. The greatest single deterrent to road accidents would be a greater enforcement of the existing law. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, was quite right in saying that the law of this country as it affects road usage has been brought into contempt. The reason is simple. Owing to post-war man-power conditions, the police force has been under-manned. If I asked many noble Lords in this House, and people outside, whether they could tell me what vehicles are allowed to travel on the roads of this country to-day at over thirty miles per hour, I wonder how many could answer correctly. I put the question to one of the highest legal luminaries in the land the other day, and he could not answer correctly. Only a vehicle constructed solely for the use of passengers, carrying no more than seven, including a driver, with pneumatic tyres, and not having a trailer, can travel at over thirty miles per hour—in other words, what we regard as a private motor car. As the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil said, going about our roads to-day one would think there was no such thing as a speed limit.
  I am in a difficult position. There is an old axiom that the Executive does not dictate to the Judiciary. I have no authority—I am glad that I have not— to tell magistrates how to do their job But there is one thing I feel that I can say: that if we in this country believe that punishment for wrongdoing should be a deterrent to wrongdoing, then the punishment must be severe enough to be a real deterrent. All the facts show that it is not. One has only to study the Home Office returns to be appalled at the contempt with which the law is being treated. It is no good cluttering up the Statute Book with more regulations when those that are already there cannot be enforced. There is no law or rule to deter the pedestrian from crossing a highway; a pedestrian can even ignore the policeman's hand. The cyclist can hardly be touched by the law. However, we are hoping in the course of time by amendment to various Statutes to be able to get

  69
  over that difficulty. Another great factor, in my view, is the need for more police on the road. But it is no good putting more police on the road to bring offenders to the courts of justice unless when they are brought there justice is done. I am all in favour of the "courtesy cop." I do not want the average man treated as a criminal. There is a great difference between driving without due care and attention and driving dangerously. The lapse, the occasional carelessness, I would treat far differently from the case of the habitual offender who drives dangerously, negligently and recklessly all the time— and there are some. I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that propaganda for adults is no good. Propaganda and education for children has had a very good effect, but I do not think the money spent on poster advertising, and so on, is well spent, because it has no effect on adults.
  Many other points have been raised, but I know that noble Lords will forgive me if at this late hour I do not go into them all. I will promise to have them studied. I was interested in Lord Gifford's suggestion that the solution to one of the dangers was to bespatter rear lights round vehicles. Does he realise what the cost would be? It is an easy thing to do with new construction, but it is not so easy to get every existing vehicle which is on the road fitted with the lights that he suggests. I hope that he will turn his attention to how he can bespatter some of the pedestrians with rear lights. I do not know exactly where he would put them, but pedestrians are some of the most difficult road users to pick out on country roads at night time.
  LORD GIFFORD: I accept what the noble Lord says, but why could we not have a regulation that every vehicle built after a certain date should have this lighting?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That would not solve the problem.
  LORD GIFFORB: It would solve it gradually.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What we are looking for is a short-term solution. As your Lordships have said, this threatens to be such a problem; it is going to cause so much public resentment that we shall have to do something about it. I cannot expect the noble Earl
  70
  to be satisfied with my answer, but perhaps he will have some sympathy with me in the battle we have to fight without very much powder and shot. He can rest assured that we shall do everything we can, within the limited resources allowed us by the country's requirements to-day. I hope that we shall have everybody's support, on the lines which I believe the House will accept: the establishment of greater deterrents to those who will not give courtesy and consideration to others.
  6.22 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to everything which has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He has given me a reply which, in effect, is a negative reply to every suggestion that has been made, either by myself or other speakers in the debate. He has used the argument which I confidently expected him to use: "Of course we cannot expect to spend more money on the roads at the present time, and we have just got to put up with it." Up to a point that argument is, of course, devastating and complete, but only up to a point. When we are told that over £600,000,000 is being taken from the motoring world, the people from whom you are taking the money are quite naturally going to ask: "What are you doing with it?" They also know that road conditions and road design—notwithstanding anything the noble Lord has said—play a great part. We realise perfectly well that we cannot expect to have a motor-way from London to Birmingham. Though it would cost, on pre-war figures, £6,000,000, it would cost to-day as much as a Brabazon aeroplane, in which no member of the public will ever fly. The Government will cheerfully lose large amounts of money on all sorts of schemes, but, of course, they cannot give us a motor-way. Up to that point we quite understand it. But when you are taking £600,000,000 from the users of motor vehicles, is it really a sufficient answer to tell them that they cannot have more than £26,000,000 a year back? I want to see the figures the noble Lord has given us, because however quickly one may try and write them down, one cannot be sure they are right.
  Short of the construction of motor-ways, the most reverend Primate asked this afternoon, "What can be done at once?" Short of motor-ways a great deal can be

  71
  done at once, at any rate in the country, and I am talking mainly about country roads. There is the question of road intersections. I asked the noble Lord to say something about Colonel Bennett, and what he has done in Oxfordshire. I think the noble Lord said that it was a notable fact that this experiment in plain-clothed police was going to take place in that very county where road intersections had been made so very efficient. But the noble Lord did not seem to me to pay sufficient attention to the point that when Colonel Bennett was allowed to improve the road intersections in the area for which he was responsible, he reduced fatal accidents by 100 per cent. and all other accidents by 76 per cent. Those figures were given in a letter which he wrote to The Times about last October. The Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Transport did not spring to life when that letter was written, so I suppose we can presume that the statement was reasonably accurate. Colonel Bennett is supported by others of his colleagues, notably in Warwickshire and Lancashire. Therefore, I suggest that there are things which can be done which will not cost what a motor-way would cost, but which may have a considerable effect on road casualties, observing that 60 per cent. of road accidents take place at road intersections. If the sight line at these road intersections can only be improved, the accident referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be avoided.
  With regard to pedestrians, what the noble Lord said on November 15 was followed up by a further statement in a Press conference which he gave on December 13. He is reported to have said that the vast majority of road accidents were due to lack of courtesy, lack of consideration and impatience, and that the greatest offender was the pedestrian. In November he made a more or less similar statement. As to this experiment in plain-clothed patrols in Oxfordshire, will the noble Lord give us a comparison between the results of what is being achieved or otherwise in Oxfordshire and what was achieved by the institution of "courtesy cops" in Lancashire? The resultant reduction of accidents in the area for which the late Sir Archibald Hordern was responsible was most striking, and in order to be able to judge of the present experiment in Oxfordshire one would like
  72
  to know how it compares with the experiment which was started in Lancashire.
  With regard to the figures the noble Lord gave us relating to the Road Fund, and things of that sort, he said that the Road Fund no longer exists. Of course, we know that; but the fact remains that the Government are taking £635,000,000 and are spending £102,000,000 on the roads. Therefore, I suppose the answer to the motoring world is: "You cannot have more than £26,000,000 a year because the rest of it is required for experiments."
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps some of that might go to rearming the country.
  EARL HOWE: It might, it is perfectly true; but when we read in the papers that our Festival of Britain is going to cost more, and it comes out of the general pool of cash, we realise that, notwithstanding the need to reduce casualties, the Government are losing a great deal of money in other directions, and the motoring world must try and put up with it. As to the return for which I asked at the start of our proceedings, the noble Lord asks if I will tell him on what basis. I thought my questions were fairly direct. I wanted to know whether he would give a return to Parliament of his schemes for road improvement and new roads recommended by him. That is all we ask for. We want to know what things he considers necessary to meet present and new requirements for either trunk roads or classified roads. Surely that question was a simple one to answer. We merely want to know what the noble Lord thinks is necessary.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Supposing we did that; supposing we said that we want £250,000,000, which is the figure that I gave to the noble Lord just now for all those things, that would not get us the £250,000,000.
  EARL HOWE: Oh, no.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What is the good of going through a laborious exercise like that for no good? It is not realistic when you have done it.
  EARL HOWE: We want to know just what is the leeway on the road system at the present time. That was the object of all this inquiry.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHTLWORTH: If the noble Lord would be good enough to read my speech, he will see that I have told him. It is in my reply.
  EARL HOWE: As I have tried to explain to the noble Lord, it is very difficult to hoist in astronomical figures at the pace at which the noble Lord had to read them, and it is impossible to write them down. I cannot follow the precise implications of all those figures until I have had an opportunity of studying them. The object of my Motion was simply to try to find out how much is wanted; how much, in the opinion of the Minister, is necessary for our roads; and how long it would take to do all this work, leaving out reference to the rearmament programme. We fully realise —naturally, every sensible person does— that in these days one cannot expect to
  74
  spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds on improvements of this sort, but one can expect that a little more will be spared than is being spared now. We know perfectly well that the whole road system of the country is deteriorating, and that eventually our successors, or somebody, will have to spend a very much larger sum of money than they would have had to spend if it had been possible to maintain the roads up to the condition in which they were. I do not think we can take this matter very much further, this evening, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before seven o'clock.