Sitting of 31 January 1951

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

    Waiting List
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General what is the number of outstanding applications for telephones at the latest convenient date; and what is the estimated number of new subscribers to be provided with private lines during 1951.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): The waiting list numbered 540,143 on 31st December, 1950. During 1951 we expect to connect about 390,000 subscribers, including new applicants for whom local plant is available.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the figure has risen from 200,000 at the end of the war, and does he not think it would be a good thing if the Post Office put first things first, cut out some of the frills and concentrated on a telephone service which will help the productive efficiency of the country?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. and gallant Member may know that 92 per cent. of the Post Office expenditure is now concerned with telephones.
    Mr. Gerald Williams: Does "private lines" here mean party lines?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir.

    Facilities
    Mr. Proctorasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to make a further statement upon his efforts to improve the telephone facilities by connecting more than two subscribers upon a single line.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. The problem is a very complex one and the study now being made will take some considerable time to complete.

    London—Venezuela Service
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Postmaster-General why it is impossible to telephone to Caracas, Venezuela, from this country in view of the fact that it is possible to do so from New York.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Negotiations for the extension of the London—New York service to Venezuela are already in progress and I hope that service will be available from this country in the near future.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it causes considerable loss and inconvenience to commercial firms who are not able to get through on the telephone? As it is possible to get through from New York there seems to be no technical reason why we cannot get through from London.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That will depend entirely on the commercial undertakings on the opposite side of the Atlantic cooperating with us and agreeing to these facilities.

    Orkney and Shetland
    Mr. Grimondasked the Postmaster-General whether he is now satisfied with the radio-telephone link between North Ronaldshay and Sanday.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. It is hoped that the first public telephone kiosk on North Ronaldshay will be provided in a few months' time.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give any further information as to when the island of Skerries, in Shetland, may expect a telephone link.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The equipment for this link has been ordered.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it may be received, and whether there is now any general shortage of equipment for this sort of service?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot get a firm date from the firm with whom the order has been placed.

    Directories
    Mr. Henry Brookeasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, although the accidental omission of a subscriber's name from the telephone directory must cause 12 months' inconvenience to a private person and financial loss to a business firm, the telephone regulations deprive the subscriber of any claim against his Department in respect of the error; and whether he will amend these regulations so as to ensure that telephone subscribers who suffer through his Department's mistake are not debarred from establishing a claim for redress.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We cannot agree to pay compensation in these very rare cases but every effort is made to minimise their effect, e.g., by distributing the subscriber's correction notices at Post Office cost, and by specially recording his number at directory inquiry bureaux.
    Mr. Brooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the Government are justified in obliging members of the public to sign away their rights in matters like this before connecting them with the telephone service?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The directory is published conditionally. This condition is on the front of the directory and it is on the agreement. We do all that we can to see that the issue is correct, and it is very rare that there is an omission.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Postmaster-General what is the weight of the telephone directories annually distributed; and what is the weight of the old ones annually collected by his Department and sold for re-manufacture as paper.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: About 10,000 tons. About 80 per cent. of old directories are recovered by the Post Office. The remainder largely go into local salvage.
    Mr. Keeling: As the Post Office does not collect many old directories, including my own and those of other hon. Members, and as many local authorities do not collect waste paper at all, is the Postmaster-General doing anything to reduce the substantial gap between the two figures?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have said that we collect 80 per cent. of the old directories—
    Mr. Keeling: But two thousand tons not collected.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We collect 80 per cent. of 10,000 tons. We cannot compel everybody to give up their old directories. We would not take steps to get everybody to give up their old directories. Many subscribers want to retain them and they are allowed to do so. In areas where there is no collection of salvage we insist upon collection as far as we can, but where we are informed that the local authorities collect salvage we do not take this action.

  POST OFFICE

    Communist Leaflets
    Mr. John Rodgersasked the Postmaster-General how copies of Communist leaflets came to be inserted in a package delivered in Sevenoaks on Friday, 22nd December; and if he will take steps to prevent such occurrences in the future.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Detailed inquiry has failed to throw any light on this most regrettable happening, and there is no evidence to show that these leaflets were inserted by any Post Office employee.
    Mr. Rodgers: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the leaflets demanded the immediate recall of troops from Korea and described the Prime Minister as having sold out British interests? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it reflects badly on the morale of his Department, and has he taken any steps to find out how many Communists there are in the Post Office?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As I said, a detailed examination has been made and there is no evidence to show that the leaflets were put in the envelope during the time it was in the charge of the Post Office. Apparently, no Post Office employee can be shown to be guilty of this occurrence.
    Mr. Rodgers: This package was despatched from the Conservative Central Office and it cannot be suspected that it was subject to Communist interference there. Therefore, the only time during which the Communist leaflets could have been inserted was during transit through his Department.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No matter from what office the package was sent, I give the assurance to the House that so far as we can find out no Post Office employee was responsible for inserting the leaflets.

    Festival of Britain Stamps
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General how many special commemorative stamps and at what values, are being issued in connection with the Festival of Britain.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Two special postage stamps of the 2½d. and 4d. denominations are being issued to commemorate the Festival of Britain. New designs of the permanent 2s. 6d., 5s., 10s. and £1 stamps will be put on sale at the same time.
    Mr. Freeman: As these stamps will have an advertising value throughout the world, will they be on sale at the earliest possible moment? If so, can my right hon. Friend say when that will be?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. They will be on sale on 3rd May.

    Telegrams (Rural Areas)
    Mr. John Rodgersasked the Postmaster-General why his Department accepts telegrams for rural addresses not connected to the telephone and then delivers them by post the following day.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Anyone handing in a telegram in the late afternoon is warned of the possibility of non-delivery that day. The telegram is accepted on this understanding and is delivered by post only if it reaches the distant end too late for delivery by hand.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that his Department does warn people that these telegrams will not be delivered if people are not on the telephone. I have evidence here that that is not so. Will the pre-war system of delivery be restored, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that instructions are issued that people are not charged 1s. 6d. for a message which could be delivered for 2½d.?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Adequate instructions have already been issued, but if the hon. Member knows of any case in which he believes these instructions have not
    874
    been carried out, and will let me have the particulars, I will look into the matter. I have been pressed from both sides of the House to let sub-postmasters close offices much earlier and, on the other hand, to arrange for delivery of telegrams much later.
    Mr. G. Williams: How many post offices or sub-post offices are there without facilities for delivering telegrams?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Most of them have facilities for delivering telegrams up to 6.30 p.m.

    Press Telegrams (Delay)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dissatisfaction at the length of time it takes for communications to and from various parts of the Commonwealth; that the average time for the transmission of news messages on the first Test Match from Brisbane was over three hours and the second from Melbourne from four to six hours; and what efforts are being made to improve the services.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 24th January. The delays in news messages about Test matches were mainly due to the bad operating conditions with which the Australian authorities, in common with ourselves, were faced.
    Mr. Dodds: Can my right hon. Friend say whether understaffing and wage dissatisfaction is affecting the efficiency of a service that is vital in war and in peace?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The delay in this case was due entirely to atmospheric conditions in the Southern Hemisphere.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this news was not delayed because its dangerous character was likely to lower the national morale?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: So far as the Post Office is concerned, we delivered the news as soon as we received it.
    Mr. Deedes: Apart from the cricket scores, which are very important, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is also a rising number of complaints from commercial undertakings which are

    875
    suffering most serious losses from these delays? All the evidence points to serious internal chaos in his Department as well as sun spots. Will the right hon. Gentleman find out what is wrong?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board is meeting today for the purpose of considering this question. It is really a matter for them, but when broadcast transmission is impossible for as much as 12 hours at a stretch it is bound to cause delays in reception at this end.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Postmaster-General in view of the delays in the transmission of news to and from Commonwealth countries, what steps he is taking to improve this service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) on 24th January.
    Mr. Fisher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to his earlier answer on this point, this service has now been taken over by his Department, and is, in fact, less efficient than when it was run by Cable and Wireless? What does he propose to do about it? Will he give Press messages some degree of priority?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he had been in the House when the Cable and Wireless Bill was discussed, he would know of certain international considerations, which decided what terms should be applied to describe this company. It has been split up in many ways. Various Colonies and Dominions have taken their share and I am responsible only for the part at this end. In view of the enormous increase in traffic which there has been I am unable to trace any decrease in efficiency.
    Brigadier Rayner: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the "part at this end" to which he referred has been nationalised?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I must appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite on this point. This matter was referred to before the debate on the Bill. Because of difficult negotiations in other parts of the world, it was decided that this should be an independent firm nominally
    876
    under the Post Office, but that it should not be described in the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has described it.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Can the right hon. Gentleman possibly deny that this service is nationalised, in the same way as other public corporations which are described as nationalised?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Various parts of this service have, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, been transferred to the Colonies and Dominions, but the part that is here is under our control and comes under the Post Office.
    Captain Crookshank: As the right hon. Gentleman does me the courtesy to ask me what I think, I can assure him that we consider this service to be a nationalised service, under his general control, and also recognise that it has been a complete failure.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that nationalisation comes into this Question.

    Registered Letters
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider putting up notices in all post offices drawing the attention of the public to the regulations governing the registration of letters that registered letters should be sent in the official envelopes provided by the Post Office otherwise money compensation cannot be paid, and that only £5 can be claimed for the registration fee of 4d. in the event of a registered letter being lost.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Despite the wide publicity already given to these regulations I propose to act upon the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

    Postmen (Recruitment)
    Mr. H. A. Priceasked the Postmaster-General what are the normal avenues of recruitment of permanent and temporary postmen. Respectively; and what steps are taken in each case to establish the probity of candidates.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Permanent and temporary postmen are normally recruited through the Ministry of Labour and National Service. References are required from each candidate and are taken up by the Post Office.
    Mr. Price: Is not it a fact that at least during the Christmas rush temporary

    877
    postmen are engaged without references? Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as being satisfactory?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The difficulty of getting personnel for the Christmas rush is very great indeed. We take what we can get and apply such checks as we can in the time available to us.
    Mr. Harry Wallace: Has the Postmaster-General any reason to doubt the efficiency of the method of recruitment or the honesty of the people who serve in the Post Office?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I can see no alternative method of dealing with the problem.

    Late Evening Collections
    Mr. Proctorasked the Postmaster-General if he is now able to announce the date upon which the 8 p.m. collection of letters in Eccles will be inaugurated.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The facility was introduced on Monday last.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Postmaster-General when late evening postal collections will be introduced into London.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Late evening collections will be introduced in the London postal area on 19th February provided unforeseen difficulties do not arise.

    Radio Press Services
    Mr. Harry Wallaceasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his decision to allow certain news agencies to operate multi-destination radio Press services, he is now satisfied that such a transfer of work is giving a satisfactory public service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have every reason to believe that the transfer has resulted in satisfactory service.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in view of the worsening situation, that this arrangement is still
    adequate?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a facility which the Press require and, by and large, the fact that they want more of it indicates that it is going very well.

    Officers (Retiring Age)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that in spite of the worsening of the manpower position it is possible for his Departmental heads to refuse to grant to a healthy and efficient officer an extension of service after the normal retiring age of 60 and to deny any officer so treated the right of appeal to the Postmaster-General; and if he will make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office, following general Civil Service practice, retains fully fit and efficient officers who wish to stay after 60, provided retention is in the interests of the service. For all but the most senior grades the final decision is devolved on the regional directors or heads of Departments.
    Mr. Gammans: Does that mean that the man himself has no appeal to the Postmaster-General, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Post Office really wants men to stay on after the age of 60?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: All employees of the Post Office have a right of appeal to the Postmaster-General in any circumstances. In many areas we certainly do want men to stay on. In other areas, where we have a surfeit, it causes dissatisfaction among the staff if staying on holds back promotion.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: If such appeals are made to the Postmaster-General, will he deal with them personally or will they be dealt with by an underling?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: They are seen either by myself or the Assistant Postmaster-General.

    Air Mails
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General at what rate does he pay British Overseas Airways Corporation for the carriage of air mail on long haul services.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The rates range from 143.16d. to 190.89d. per ton-mile.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is the Postmaster-General aware that these rates compare unfavourably with those of other

    879
    large air lines, such as the American air lines, and will he look into the matter? Why should he make a profit out of it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I only want to say that I pay twice as much for the carriage of mail as is being paid for the carriage of freight or persons. In the circumstances, I think that I am giving a fair price for the service we get.
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Postmaster-General what are the arrangements for conveyance of air mail parcels to European countries; and whether he is satisfied that the limited publicity given to this scheme is sufficient to inform the public of the facilities available.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Excepting Portugal, air parcel mails to European countries are forwarded by services of the British European Airways Corporation. All available means of publicity are employed to bring these facilities to the notice of the public.
    Mr. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while these parcels can be handed in at any post office at rates which compare favourably with other freight charges—inclusive of Customs clearing charges and matters of that kind—the only advertisement is a very small notice in certain post offices? Should not there be better information given to the public generally and to business people in particular?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I had better make the facilities known to my hon. Friend. Ninety-seven thousand airmail leaflets dealing with this subject are sent to head post offices every month. Press notices and broadcasts are made, and chamber of commerce and Board of Trade journals throughout the country carry advertisements relating to this service.

    H.M.S. "Theseus" (Mail)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Postmaster-General why a cablegram handed in on board H.M.S. "Theseus" in an operational area on 15th December last was not delivered in Hill Head, Hampshire, until 29th December; and what was the longest period taken by prepaid mail from England to reach this ship.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The telegram was delayed in delivery because of an error
    880
    in the address. Air mail normally takes four days for delivery to the British Fleet Mail Office in Tokyo. Surface mail normally takes about six weeks.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction in this ship due to the very long delay of some weeks in the delivery of mail to the ship, and of the resentment felt by next-of-kin at having to put 6d. stamps on mail?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not aware of that. My responsibility is to get the mail to the British Fleet Mail Office at Tokyo. I do that within four days.
    Captain Ryder: Would the Postmaster-General say what telegram facilities exist for communication with H.M. ships?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: A new service is to be started on Monday, with a new cable code. I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of that.

  BROADCASTING

    Interference
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received a reply to his representations to the Soviet Government about their radio transmissions affecting the British Broadcasting Corporation's Home Service programme.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 29th January.
    Brigadier Rayner: Has it been established yet whether the Russian stations are within the Copenhagen Convention area; and is not it a fact that France and Spain have both collaborated to remove this interference and that the Soviets are being as unhelpful as usual?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It has not yet been ascertained that the transmission is within the Copenhagen Convention area. The Russians require technical information about any interference there has been in order to see what they can do about it.
    Mr. Spearman: Is it not a fact that in the North-Eastern area—
    Mr. Speaker: There is a later question dealing with the North-Eastern area.
    Mr. Woodasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has made on the subject of interference to radio reception to the North-East coast; and with what result.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 14th December and 29th January. I understand that the B.B.C. are seeing what they can do to eliminate the interference on the northeast coast between their European Service and the Light Programme.
    Mr. Wood: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great deal of time has elapsed since I last asked about this interference, and can he undertake to give a definite answer in the very near future about those representations which have been made?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have already reported to the House about interference from Spain. The adjustments within the Copenhagen plan which would be necessary to deal with those two programmes would take some time.
    Mr. Spearman: Is the Postmaster-General aware that at Scarborough on Sunday last, as often before, the B.B.C. musical performance was completely ruined by bad reception due, apparently, not to foreign interference and distortion but fading transmission? Will he make such changes in the B.B.C. as will ensure greater efficiency in future?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no authority to make any changes at all in the B.B.C. That is a matter that the House has passed to their control, but I certainly will make representations in accordance with the complaint of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Wood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give a definite answer to this question?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I will inquire from the B.B.C. when they can let me have a final answer.

    Old Age Pensioners (Wireless Licence Fee)
    Mr. Nigel Fisherasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider issuing wireless licences at a reduced rate to old age pensioners who live alone.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinsonasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered a petition signed by 450 old age pensioners in the borough of Ilford and forwarded to him by the mayor of Ilford, asking that sympathetic consideration be given to their request that the charge at present made for broadcast receiving licences be reduced by half in so far as old age pensioners are concerned; and how far it is his intention to meet their wishes.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooperasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received regarding reduced wireless licence charges for old age pensioners; and what steps he proposes to take in this connection.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have received a number of representations from organisations and individuals suggesting that broadcast receiving licences should be issued to old age pensioners either free of charge or at a reduced rate. After careful and sympathetic consideration, the Government regrets that it is unable to accept the proposals either in relation to all old age pensioners or any section of them.
    Mr. Fisher: Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again, bearing in mind that these old people have very few pleasures, and that to many of them, I refer particularly to those living alone, the wireless is a great source of companionship and pleasure? A pound is an expensive charge in these days of rising costs. Could not he look at this once again, rather more sympathetically?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have looked at the matter as sympathetically as I can, but there are widows, and sick and unemployed persons on the same level of incomes. We could not make this concession to old age pensioners unless we gave it to the others, and in bulk a very large sum is involved.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Camps (Heating)
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen have been sent on leave owing to lack of fuel for heating at their camp; and how many are at present on leave for this cause.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): No airmen have been sent on leave this winter because of lack of fuel at units. Four hundred airmen at one unit may, however, be sent on leave tomorrow as a result of a fuel shortage. Emergency stocks are being sent immediately to the station concerned, and it is hoped that they will arrive in time to make this step unnecessary.
    Mr. York: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am constantly meeting men up and down the country who tell me that they have been sent on leave for this reason? Further, is he aware that somewhere between 400 and 600 men from Moreton-in-the-Marsh training station are to go on leave for a month in the near future? Does it make sense to call up 250,000 reservists while sending on leave men from training establishments?
    Mr. Henderson: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give me any particulars that he has. I have consulted every R.A.F. command in the country, and the information I have given to the House is that which I have received. Moreton-in-the-Marsh is the case to which I referred in my original reply. The men have not gone on leave and if fuel reaches the camp tomorrow, as it is expected to do, they will not go on leave.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Russell.
    Mr. York rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the answer was quite comprehensive.

    Recruits (Shaving)
    Mr. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Air why recruits enlisted under the National Service scheme are instructed not to use brushless shaving cream.
    Mr. A. Henderson: No such instructions are given to recruits.
    Mr. Russell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the instruction was given in one instance of which I have given him particulars? In any case, does not he think that it is a waste to issue shaving brushes or to compel recruits to buy them when they do not use them?
    Mr. Henderson: There are many hon. Members in the House today who have served in the Forces and they are well
    884
    aware that compulsory items of kit have always included a hair brush, a tooth brush and a shaving brush.

    F86 Aircraft
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Air for what reason he is equipping the Royal Air Force with F86 Sabre aircraft from the United States of America.
    Mr. A. Henderson: No decision has been made to equip the Royal Air Force with F86 aircraft, though a proposal of this kind is under examination. These aircraft would be additional to our own jet fighters, which are being produced under the Government's rearmament programme.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is not the fact that this proposal is even under consideration either tantamount to a slight on the British aircraft industry which can very easily produce aeroplanes which, in the opinion of many, are just as good; or, failing that, a reflection of the vacillation and indecision of the policy of the Government in rearming this country?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I endeavoured to make clear in my reply that these aircraft, if they are received, will be in addition to all ordered under our programme.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: In that case, would not we have enough without them?
    Mr. Henderson: It is a matter of opinion as to whether one has enough of anything.

    Flying Boat Fighters
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied that sufficient priority is being given to the development and production of the flying boat fighter SRA1.
    Mr. A. Henderson: There is no R.A.F. requirement for this type of fighter, and the question of priority does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet about the defences of Hong Kong, where the airfields are threatened with artillery bombardment, and that fighters of this type might provide a very desirable means of defending bases of that kind?
    Mr. Henderson: I have taken the best Service advice available to me in my official position, and it is not considered that this type of aircraft has any utility to the Royal Air Force.

    Auxiliary Transport Squadrons
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will create more Auxiliary Air Transport Squadrons by issuing aircraft now in storage to firms able to service and operate these aircraft on behalf of his Department.
    Mr. A. Henderson: It is hoped to form three more auxiliary squadrons of this type as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

    R.A.F. Regiment
    Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Air what is now the strength of the Royal Air Force Regiment; and whether it is his intention to increase the size of this unit.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The strength of the Royal Air Force Regiment is about 5,000. The question of an increase in size is under consideration.
    Commander Maitland: Is the Minister satisfied that the aerodromes in the east of England are properly protected against airborne attack, and can he tell the House whether any ex-members of the Royal Air Force Regiment will be included in the proposed call-up?
    Mr. Henderson: The latter part of that question raises an entirely different matter, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it on the Order Paper. In regard to the first part, again, it is a matter of opinion as to whether anything can be properly defended. What I can say is that, within the limits of the establishment of the R.A.F. Regiment, we are satisfied that it is sufficient and able to do the job it has to do.
    Commander Maitland: How can it do it with 5,000 men?
    Mr. Henderson: I want to be quite frank with the House. All the 5,000 men are not deployed in this country—
    Commander Maitland: That makes it worse.
    Mr. Henderson: —but, after all, there are other forms of anti-aircraft defence, and Anti-Aircraft Command have to be considered.

    Staging Facilities, India
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Secretary of State for Air what staging facilities are afforded by the Government of India for aircraft carrying service personnel proceeding to the Korean theatre of war.
    Mr. A. Henderson: As there has been no occasion to ask the Government of India for these facilities the question does not arise.
    Sir R. Ross: Is not this the most direct route to Korea, and have not provisional arrangements been made with the Government of India? If not, ought they not to be made?
    Mr. Henderson: There is no need to invite the Government of India to afford these facilities, because the transport planes land at Karachi and go on to Ceylon, and there is no need to stop at any intermediate station.
    Sir R. Ross: Do not planes of the United Nations land in India, and have they not permission to do so?
    Mr. Henderson: That is not the Question which the hon. Gentleman asked.

    Soviet-built Aircraft
    Mr. P. B. Lucasasked the Secretary of State for Air how many Soviet-built YAK-25 fighters have been identified over Korea; and whether he is yet in a position to make a comparison between the performance of this aircraft and the MIG-l5.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None." It would not be in the public interest to answer the second part.
    Mr. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that there is growing concern about the development of Russian jet fighter and bomber aircraft, and will he take an early opportunity of making a full statement on the subject'?
    Mr. Henderson: All I can say is that Russia is not the only country developing the most advanced types of aircraft.

    Western Powers (Liaison)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Air what liaison exists between France, Great Britain and the United States of America concerning radar and general air force matters.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The daily contacts between Royal Air Force, United States Air Force and French Air Force staffs in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western Union defence organisations provide ample means of liaison on Air Force matters. In addition, there are the British Joint Services Mission in Washington and the Air Attaches at the appropriate embassies. French and Royal Air Force officers are among the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, Air Forces Western Europe.
    Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman completely satisfied that all is well with this organisation and that decisions are made? Are not things going far too slowly?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I think things are going extremely well in this organisation.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    B.O.A.C. Strike (Loss)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what was the loss sustained by British Overseas Airways Corporation as a result of the strike of electrical workers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Beswick): British Overseas Airways Corporation estimate that their net loss was of the order of £360,000.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether an inquiry has been made into this unofficial strike, and, if so, can the report on it be placed in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Beswick: Inquiries were going on all along with a view to ending the strike, but there has been no official report upon them.

    Brabazon Aircraft
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the Brabazon is not to be used as a commercial airliner.
    Mr. Beswick: The Brabazon project was undertaken for experimental purposes, and with a view to possible use on trans-Atlantic services. As the result of a review of recent developments, it now appears that the commercial requirements for this and other long distance routes can be met more economically by other British aircraft which will be available in the future.
    Mr. Williams: Does this mean that this aircraft will never earn a penny? If so, is it the intention of the Government to write off this sum at once or over a number of years?
    Mr. Beswick: The meaning of the answer is what it says.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not a fact that the Government knew this at least 12 months ago? Are they not aware that they are merely repeating another nuts scheme, and that the best thing to do is to cut it right out?
    Mr. Beswick: No, it is not a fact that the Government knew it 12 months ago. There are a number of factors, including the development of new aircraft, about which we could not be certain 12 months ago.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware that the experience gained by those building the two Brabazon aircraft was worth the money we spent upon them?
    Major Guy Lloyd: Could they not be used for carrying groundnuts back from Africa?

    Aircraft Communication Services
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has yet collected the evidence to indicate what broadcast sources are interfering with British aircraft communication services in South-East England and the Midlands.
    Mr. Beswick: The evidence shows that the main broadcast source concerned has been the Daventry (Overseas) Service, but other B.B.C. short-wave broadcast stations have also been responsible to a

    889
    limited extent. The interference is due to an harmonic of the transmitted frequency and as soon as this was established the B.B.C. took immediate measures to effect a remedy. Reports from pilots show that some improvement has been effected. Technical staff from my Ministry are at present collaborating with the B.B.C. engineers with the object of eliminating the interference altogether.
    Sir Herbert Williams: Has the harmonic in question been transferred to the Cabinet?

    Princess Flying Boat
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are now his intentions with respect to the Princess flying boat.
    Mr. Beswick: The requirements of rearmament have necessitated a review of work on the development and production of civil aircraft, including the Princess flying boat. No final decisions about the future of the Princess flying boat have, however, yet been reached.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that five or six aircraft of this type can carry as many troops as the "Queen Mary" or "Queen Elizabeth," without the construction of any docks or runways whatever, and will the hon. Gentleman make sure that no prejudice in high places against the employment of flying boats will be allowed to blind them to their possibilities?
    Mr. Beswick: There is no prejudice in high places against this boat, and the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raises is one that is being studied carefully at the moment.

  SPAIN (ARMS EXPORT BAN)
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider removing the ban upon the export of any arms and military equipment to Spain which we do not ourselves require.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): No, Sir.
  Mr. Fisher: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Spain has a very well-trained infantry force, which if also
  890
  well-equipped, would be an invaluable asset in the defence of Western Europe, and, if necessary, in the defence of the line of the Pyrenees? If and when we have such equipment available, will he reconsider the matter?
  Mr. Younger: I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, earlier this week, gave the view of the Government on a supplementary question similar to that which the hon. Member has asked.
  Commander Noble: Will our Ambassador in Spain make it quite clear to certain sections of Spanish opinion that we have no intention of leaving Gibraltar?
  Mr. Younger: That does not arise out of this Question.
  Mr. John Hynd: Will the Minister bear in mind the very serious psychological consequence that will be felt throughout Western Europe if he accedes to the request made in the Question?
  Mr. Younger: We are very well aware of it.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: In view of the important position which Spain occupies on the communication lines of Western Europe, has the Minister of State consulted the Minister of Defence to find out how long it would take to prepare the defences of Spain to bring them into line with the defences of Western Europe?
  Mr. Younger: There have, of course, been the fullest consultations, but if there were any military equipment of the kind in question available there are many other Powers which have prior claims upon it.

  WAR DAMAGE CLAIM, SHANGHAI
  Mr. G. R. Howardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long it will be before the claim of Lieut.-Commander Selby, Royal Navy, which has been registered as Claim No. 2282 with the War Damage Office in Shanghai, will be met; and by whom.
  Mr. Younger: As regards that part of Lieut.-Commander Selby's claim which arose in Hong Kong, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 23rd February, 1949, in which it was stated

  891
  that no compensation in respect of general war damage is being paid from Hong Kong Government funds. As regards the part of the claim which arose in China, the Government of China have refused to accept liability. Whether the Government of Japan, under the peace treaty, are to be obliged to pay general compensation is still under examination.
  Mr. Howard: In view of the fact that this claim has caused considerable hardship to Lieut.-Commander Selby, and several others, would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government could meet it and then try to get the money out of the Japanese afterwards? Failing that, could not the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Minister of Food to stop the importation of Japanese pilchards until claims like this are met?
  Mr. Younger: I do not think that Japanese pilchards come into this Question. We have done our best to give advice to Lieut.-Commander Selby, and there is one possible avenue, a Board of Trade scheme, which we are at present exploring. I could not go into the general question raised by the hon. Gentleman's supplementary.

  AFRICA (AIR CHARTER COMPANIES)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the now recognised importance of air charter companies, especially in the under-developed areas of Africa, equal advantage of tax-free petrol and lubricating oil can be given to them as to Government-subsidised airlines.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): This is a matter for the decision of the colonial Governments concerned, and I am not prepared to intervene.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the discriminatory action taken against these companies, whose usefulness is now generally recognised, could not the right hon. Gentleman at least point out privately the present practice, which has led to the elimination of a lot of them?
  Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I have considered the matter carefully and I am not
  892
  prepared to intervene. If this advantage were given to charter companies, they would develop the most profitable routes, and I am convinced that there has been too much of that already.
  Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that any route which begins to look profitable is collared by the airways corporations?
  Mr. Griffiths: I am concerned that this matter should be arranged in the best interests of the territories concerned.

  COUNTY COUNCIL STAFFS, DURHAM (UNION MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether, as the result of his conversations and correspondence with the Durham County Council, he now has been able to ascertain whether the procedure of demanding from its employees evidence of membership either of a professional association or a trade union is still being carried on.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) on Monday, 29th January.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week the Lord President of the Council said that he had no information at all on this matter, and is it not essential that the two Ministers who answer in the House on this issue should co-ordinate their intelligence?
  The Prime Minister: It is completely co-ordinated, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he wants to put another Question it should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning and Local Government.
  Miss Irene Ward: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government have stated quite categorically that they are opposed to the action of the Durham County Council, they will now consider repealing the last Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, so that they may take legal action against the Durham County Council?

  INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (RADIO TALKS)
  Mr. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the suggestion of giving to the nation, personally, a weekly radio talk on the international situation during the present world tension.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be advisable.
  Mr. Hamilton: While appreciating some of the difficulties involved in the implementation of a suggestion of this sort, may I ask if my right hon. Friend would not agree that nothing but good could come from its implementation?
  Air Commodore Harvey: While appreciating the Prime Minister's difficulties, may I ask if he would ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour if he will oblige?

  NEWSPRINT (RAW MATERIALS)
  Mr. Storeyasked the Lord President of the Council what steps he has taken to institute research into new raw materials for newsprint.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have been asked to reply. In 1948, the Panel on Imports Substitution made a comprehensive survey of raw materials for papermaking and recommended the increased use or straw. Newsprint suppliers were asked to consider the possibility of using this for newsprint. The Research Association of the British Paper and Board Industry, which receives Government support through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, is continuing to study a number of possible raw materials both indigenous and from the colonies for paper manufacture. Several suitable materials are known, and the problem of providing additional supplies for newsprint manufacture is an economic matter of supply, rather than a technical one.
  Mr. Storey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special attention to the recent work of the Caribbean Commission in the use of bagasse as a raw material for newsprint and boards, and consider asking the Colonial Development Corporation to put down experimental plant in the West Indies for this purpose?
  Mr. Wilson: Bagasse is one of the raw materials to which I have referred, but it is considered by those who have been working on it, and by the industry, that it would be a very expensive form of raw material to manufacture.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Instead of spending money on an expensive form of manufacture, would it not have been better to have kept our word with Canada?

  ARMED FORCES

    Korea
    Mr. Shurmerasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the comparatively small number of British troops engaged in Korea, he will consider relieving the troops of 29th British Brigade and returning them to Europe.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is much concern among the wives and parents of the men who have borne the brunt of the battle since last August? In view of the small number involved, would he not agree that there are some others who could relieve them, and thus give them a chance to come home?
    Mr. Henderson: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The 29th Brigade only arrived in Korea in November.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us any news about the health of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence?
    Mr. Henderson: I understand that my right hon. Friend is progressing very satisfactorily.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the great anxiety caused to relatives of all men in the formations concerned by reports from Korea which appear in the British Press showing the possible number of casualties sustained by British formations, no indication being given of the units involved nor of the accuracy of the estimate: and if he will at once

    895
    request United Nations to issue instructions to Force Headquarters in Tokio that all such information should be withheld until the next-of-kin have been informed.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in answer to Questions by my hon. Friends the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) on 23rd January. I hope that these new Press censorship regulations will go some way towards preventing such reports in the future, but the matter will be carefully watched.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Defence whether he will allow newspapers not exceeding four ounces in weight to be sent by air mail to His Majesty's Forces serving in Korea at concessionary rates.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Newspapers may already be sent by air to the Forces overseas as first-class mail, which goes at concessionary rates. It has now also been decided that second-class mail, which includes newspapers, may in future be sent by air to all members of the Forces stationed outside Europe at the rate now in force for the Middle East, namely, 3d. per half ounce, and arrangements to put this concession into effect will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in spite of that concession, it will still mean that a national daily newspaper, weighing four ounces, sent under the concessionary rate to Korea, will still cost 1s.? Does he not still consider that an excessive rate?
    Mr. Henderson: I should like to look into that point.

    Reservists (Pay)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence what steps he is taking to secure that employers make up the pay of reservists recalled to the Forces.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on 28th November last to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare).
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases, at any rate, the British Electricity Authority is not making up the pay of recalled Reservists, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to exercise the powers vested in him under the Electricity (Nationalisation) Act to secure that this Authority acts in the way that decent employers act?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman may take it that all these matters are under consideration. A statement will be made in due course.
    Sir H. Williams: Will such payments be treated as gifts or expenditure which is exempted from taxation?
    Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of private employers do not make up the pay of such men?

    Air Parcels (Postage Rates)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the wide discrepancies in existence, he will initiate the principle of similar air parcel postage rates for all men and women in the Services, irrespective of where they may be stationed.
    Mrs. Hillasked the Minister of Defence if he will consider the principle of allowing all parcels sent by air mail to troops stationed abroad to be at the lowest uniform rate of postage possible.
    Mr. A. Henderson: These suggestions are under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and his Service colleagues, but, as they would be very costly, there may be difficulty in giving effect to them.
    Miss Burton: While appreciating that at the moment we do not want to involve ourselves in a lot of additional expense, may I ask if my right hon. and learned Friend will consider including in this category the men stationed in Korea who are in what I might call a temporary garrison? Those in other stations are there permanently and it is, therefore, easier, in their case, to make arrangement for long-term gift parcels.
    Mr. Henderson: I think I may say that that factor will be taken into consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: What would be the cost?
    Mr. Henderson: Several hundred thousands of pounds.
    Mrs. Hill: Will the Minister bear in mind, when considering this matter, that the relatives of these men do not have any choice as to where they are sent, and that it is extremely expensive for them to send small gifts out to their men in such Far Eastern parts as Korea.

    Irish Republic Personnel (British Courses)
    Sir R. Rossasked the Minister of Defence how many officers and other ranks of the defence forces of the Irish Republic attended courses at British Service establishments or were attached to British units for instruction during the past year.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Thirty-eight, Sir.
    Sir R. Ross: In view of the granting of this privilege of military training to the Government of the Irish Republic, ought they not to be very glad that when other countries are engaged in the defence of civilisation in Europe they are granted similar facilities in the most appropriate place?

    United States Forces, U.K.
    Mr. F. Longdenasked the Minister of Defence if he will give the figures of the strength of the three arms of the United States military Forces, respectively, now stationed in Britain.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The United States has about 1,500 naval, 15,000 Air Force, and 25 Army personnel in this country.
    Mr. Longden: How long is this humiliating occupation likely to last?
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend will not expect me to accept his comment. They will be retained here as long as it is necessary in the interests of common defence, and until an effective system of collective security has been established.
    Mr. Eden: Are not all welcome who freely come and freely go?

    Class Z Reservists
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Defence if he will take immediate steps to give protection to all Class Z Reservists
    898
    who may be called up, similar to the case, details of which have been sent to him, where hire-purchase liabilities are still outstanding and cannot be met out of Service pay.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Class Z Reservists are to be called up for 15 days only. They will receive regular rates of pay and allowances, together with a bounty of £4, and it is not considered that special steps are necessary to deal with civil liabilities such as hire-purchase, etc. Men who wish to appeal against call-up on compassionate or other grounds will have an opportunity to do so.
    Mr. Osborne: Surely the Government cannot guarantee that 15 days will be the longest period for which Class Z Reservists will be called up, and in case they are called up for longer periods would not the Minister safeguard their homes and the little businesses they have acquired?
    Mr. Henderson: I should have thought it would be far better to take the cases on the basis that where there are compassionate grounds appropriate action will be taken.
    Captain Ryder: In view of the fact that some Service men will be called up for considerably longer periods, will the Minister hear in mind that this represents a very serious hardship for certain persons?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, but I should make clear that the bulk of these Reservists are called for only 15 days.
    Captain Ryder: I am asking for consideration of the cases of those who will be called up for a longer period.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Defence in what manner and on what date the information that a proportion of the Class Z Reserve would probably be called up was officially conveyed to the Press.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The only official statement to the Press was issued on 29th December by the Ministry of Defence. This read as follows:
    "Reports published today giving details of the calling up of Z Class Reservists are incorrect. For some time, various proposals for the re-training of reservists have been under consideration. No decisions, however, have as yet been taken."

    899
    This was the line taken by the Ministry's information officers in replying to all subsequent inquiries. No corroboration was offered to any of the numerous reports purporting to give details of the proposals then under consideration.
    Commander Maitland: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that many newspapers have referred to these reports as officially inspired—for example, the current issue of "The Economist"? Does he not agree that however it was that this whole question leaked out it was one of the most disgraceful acts of non-leadership of which this Government has ever been guilty?
    Mr. Henderson: I think the hon. and gallant Member is using very exaggerated language, in view of the statement I have made. We ale not responsible for unauthorised statements that appear in newspapers, and I have already indicated to the House that the first statement that appeared in the newspapers was prior to any information having been given by anyone in the Ministry of Defence.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord President of the Council last week, in reply to a question, by inference seemed to suggest there had been a leakage by a civil servant? Can he assure the House that no such leakage took place?
    Mr. Henderson: I should like to see what the Lord President said before I comment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend make the necessary investigation to find out how and when this highly confidential information was first unofficially communicated to the Press?
    Mr. Henderson: We would very much like to know, but it is not easy to find out.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is the Minister aware of the obviously inspired statement in "The Star" newspaper that the Cabinet took the demands of the Service Ministries and then halved them?
    Mr. Henderson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask me to explain every statement that appears in the newspapers.
    Mr. George Thomas: Since this information reached the Press, obviously from a very small circle who knew it was being discussed, would my right hon. and learned Friend consider advising the appointment of a Select Committee, with power to send for persons and papers?
    Mr. Henderson: I can only say that the statement which first appeared in a Sunday newspaper was so largely inaccurate that there is some doubt whether it could have come from an authorised source.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Labour why he was so offensive to the newspapers last week with regard to comments on something which has been the subject of discussion for over a month?

    Atlantic Treaty (Defence Production Board)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Defence what is the rôle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Rearmament Board; who are its members; to whom do they report and who gives decisions; how often they have met; and at what intervals it is intended that they should meet.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The general objective of the Defence Production Board is to achieve the maximum production of military equipment in the most efficient manner, at the least cost and in the shortest time to meet the military material requirements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The names of its members will, with permission, be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The board reports to the North Atlantic Treaty Defence Committee and is also in close touch with the council deputies. It is for member Governments to decide how far it is possible for them to implement its recommendations. The board has met twice this month and is meeting again on Friday. In the near future it is likely to meet every two or three weeks.
    Mr. Teeling: While thanking the Minister for giving such a detailed description of what they hope and are proposing to do, may I ask if, in his temporary position as Minister of Defence, and in addition to what he said in reply to me as Secretary of State for Air, he does not feel that this organisation, though

    901
    very nice on paper, is actually doing very little so far and that many people are very dissatisfied with its progress?
    Mr. Henderson: It is possibly doing much more than the hon. Gentleman realises.
    Following are the details:
    Belgium, Monsieur Henri Janne; Canada, Mr. E. W. T. Gill; Denmark, Major V. K. Laursen; France, Ingenieur General L. Kahn; Italy, State Counsellor E. Santoro; Luxembourg, Monsieur A. J. Clasen; Netherlands, Dr. P. Schoenmaker; Norway, Colonel J. Christie; Portugal, Colonel L. Pina; United Kingdom, Sir Harold Parker. K.C.B., K.B.E., M.C.; United States, Mr. W. L. Batt.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    German Mutton
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Food whether he has yet completed negotiations with the West German Government about sending mutton to this country.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I am looking into the possibility of buying meat in West Germany, but before any negotiations could take place, the Government would have to be satisfied that meat could be imported from that country without danger to animal health here and that methods of inspection and slaughtering are up to the standards we require.
    Brigadier Rayner: If, as I understand, the meat is available, how does the Minister reconcile this availability with the frequent expression of opinion by his right hon. and hon. colleagues that when rationing is done away with in Germany the mass of the people there will go hungry?
    Mr. Webb: I recollect being pressed from all parts of the House to try to find meat in every possible place. That is what we are trying to do. At the same time, we have to take account of the risk to our own animal health. We have already had dangers arising from fowl pest and we have to take care.

    Australian Beef
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the quality of Australian beef being supplied under the bulk purchase agreement, he will allow
    902
    normal trading to be resumed, with appropriate price variations according to grade, so that more good quality meat may again be shipped to Britain.
    Mr. Webb: Grade for grade there is little, if any, difference between the quality of Australian beef shipped to-day and that received before the war. I have no reason to think that there would be an improvement in quality if private trading were resumed.
    Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that so long as we do not engage in competitive trading when buying beef we shall be given merely the leavings of the Australian trade, including a great quantity of low-grade carcase meat not fit to be distributed in the weekly ration?
    Mr. Webb: As the hon. Member knows, the Australian Government is very anxious that we should conduct our relations there with the Government or with the buying and selling producer boards which the Government recognise there. We are now engaged in working out long-term plans to deal with this problem and this will inevitably involve entering into arrangements with those buying and selling boards.
    Mr. Harrison: Would not the result of the course advocated by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) be a considerable increase in price for this type of meat?

    Branded Margarine
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he will now consider a return to branded margarine; and if he will now end the rationing of all margarines.
    Mr. Webb: I have examined the possibility of reintroducing branded margarine very carefully in recent months but have had to conclude that such a step is impracticable at present, in view of the uncertainty of supplies. As for rationing, I am afraid that I shall not be able to consider ending it until edible oils and fats are more plentiful.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister not aware—I hope he can hear me—that there is no practical reason why margarine should not be de-rationed? Is it not a fact that there are adequate supplies of margarine so as to enable it to be de-rationed forthwith?
    Mr. Webb: I think the whole House is glad to hear the hon. Member again. I am quite safe in saying that at the moment it is quite impossible to accept his proposal.
    Mr. De la Bère: I shall have to challenge the right hon. Gentleman again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Lord President of the Council if he has anything to tell us about the order of business tomorrow?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will agree when I say that we are glad to see the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) back again, and we hope his health is now completely restored, as indeed it would appear to be.
By arrangement through the usual channels the debate tomorrow on the coal shortage will occur on an allotted Supply Day on the Motion. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," to which the Motion already standing on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, be moved as an Amendment.
[That this House deplores the contrast between Ministerial promises of adequate supplies and stocks of coal and the present shortages, which have inflicted great hardships in the home and threaten widespread industrial dislocation and stoppages.]
Mr. Speaker: In connection with the announcement just made by the Leader of the House, I must make a short explanation. The Order passed by the House on 7th November last forbids notices to be given on going into Committee of Supply until the first Thursday in February, that is to say, tomorrow. That Order was not meant, I am sure,
904
to prevent the procedure envisaged in Standing Order No. 17, but was intended only to refer to notices on first going into Committee of Supply on the three Service Estimates and the Civil Estimates. For these notices a Ballot will be held tomorrow.
I have, therefore, directed that the Amendment proposed to be moved by the Opposition shall appear in that form on the Order Paper tomorrow, and perhaps I should say that we will look into it before another Session so that the Sessional Order is put right.
Sir Herbert Williams: On a point of order. Are we not infringing the rights of Private Members by the announcement which you have just made, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: No, I should have thought not at all—not a bit. I am not harming the rights of Private Members in any way whatsoever. I am quite certain of that.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
  War Pensions and Allowances
  Brigadier Head: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February, I shall call attention to war pensions and allowances in relation to the continued rise in the cost of living, and move a Resolution.
  Milk Marketing Board
  Mr. York: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February, I shall call attention to the future of the Milk Marketing Board, and move a Resolution.
  Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February. I shall call attention to the desirability of raising the speed limit for heavy commercial vehicles to 30 miles an hour, and move a Resolution
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONG LEASES (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish. Standing Committee.—[The Lord Advocate.]

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
Considered in Committee. [Progress 30th January.]
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUATION OF EXPIRING LONG TENANCY WHERE TENANT IN OCCUPATION.)
Amendment moved [30th January], in page 1, line 18, at end, to add:
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any premises to which Part II of this Act applies.—[Mr. Manninghain-Buller.]
3.36 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Just before the Committee rose yesterday I moved this Amendment which is designed to clarify the operation of the Bill. I think it will be agreed that the first part of the Bill is meant to apply solely to dwelling-houses, although the expression "dwelling-house" appears nowhere either in Clause 1 or Clause 2. Part II of the Bill is primarily designed to apply to shops, but under Clause 8 where a shop is let with living accommodation, whether the living accommodation be above the shop or quite separate from the shop, Part II would appear to apply.
It therefore seems to follow that a dwelling-house could come under either Part I or Part II, and there is no provision in the Bill as yet to provide that where a dwelling-house is let with separate lock-up shop Part II shall apply in preference to Part I, or Part I in preference to Part II. If the Bill is left in its present form it will mean that where a dwelling-house is let with a separate lockup shop there is considerable doubt whether Part I does or does not apply to that dwelling-house. Under Part I there is an automatic extension for two years. Under Part II there is an extension for a year at a time.
906
I think it is desirable that, so far as possible, in this very bad Bill we should eliminate grounds for litigation and eliminate uncertainty, and make everything as clear and as simple as possible. I think it is the intention of the Government to provide that Part II shall apply to the exclusion of Part I in cases where a dwelling-house is let with a shop. I think that is the intention of Clause 8. If that is the intention of Clause 8 and of Part II of the Bill, it is very desirable to make it clear that to that kind of tenancy Clause 1 does not apply.
The object of this Amendment, therefore, which is tabled for clarification, is solely to remove doubt, although it might be described by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), if he were in his place, as a wrecking Amendment. It seeks to ensure that it is clear to those who have to rely upon this Bill that where a shop is let with a dwelling-house, whether the living accommodation be on top of the shop or be separate from a lock-up shop, then Part II of the Bill applies and not Part I.
The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for the way in which he has elucidated the purpose and meaning of his Amendment. I do not want to give an answer straightaway to all the criticisms he made, for I should like an opportunity of considering the matter before the Report stage. If, in view of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, we think that any Amendment is called for, we shall put one down. If we do not put one down I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman before the Report stage is reached and then, if he is still of the same opinion, he will have an opportunity of putting an Amendment on the Paper.
We do not think that the difficulties to which he has alluded today—I think others were mentioned yesterday—will arise in practice. The extreme case which was put yesterday was that of a man who bought the fag end of a lease of the Albert Hall and put a camp bed in the Hall. The question was whether that would be a case of living in a dwelling. I do not think the court would have very great difficulty in that case, but it was one of the extreme examples which was

907
given in order to reduce the proposition to an absurdity.
The points put by the hon. and learned Gentleman today are more significant but, as far as I can understand the matter, from listening to what he said, it seems to me that the case where there was a dwelling-house and a shop involved in the same premises—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: And the same tenancy.
The Attorney-General: Where there was a dwelling-house and a shop held under the same tenancy, that case would come within the operation of Part I of the Bill, by which the tenancy would be automatically continued.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Automatically?
The Attorney-General: Where the dwelling-house is occupied by the same tenant as the shop, the tenancy is automatically continued; the tenancy is a single one and we could not have an application for a renewal of part of it and an automatic renewal of the remainder. If it is a tenancy of premises in which a person is living, then the whole of the tenancy is continued under Part I. It is not a new tenancy created, but the existing tenancy is continued for a further two years. It is, however, perhaps profitless to discuss the matter at length now, for I have undertaken that I shall look into the position to see whether it is necessary to clarify it still further.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that he will at least consider this Amendment. This is a little progress on the announcement which he made at the beginning of our Committee stage yesterday, and I therefore welcome it; but I must say that I was more than surprised by the observations which he made in reply to my comments, as I think he will be when he comes to give the matter further consideration. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I do not want to prolong this debate, but I want to draw his attention to the fact that what he has said has made it clear beyond doubt that there is a complete overlap between Part I and
908
Part II. If we look at Part II, Clause 8 (2) we see:
"This section applies to a tenancy the subject of which—

(a) consists of a shop, or

(b) consists of a shop and of living accommodation occupied wholly or mainly by the tenant or by a person who is employed by the tenant …, or

(c) includes a separate part which consists of a shop."

I think the Government have tabled an Amendment in relation to that.
Where we have a dwelling-house let under a tenancy which includes a separate part, which consists of a shop, then obviously Part II will apply to that dwelling-house and shop and then, under the remainder of Part II, there can be an extension of that tenancy covering both classes of property. It is clear that under the Bill as it stands Part II will apply to that case.
Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, in answer to me, that it is equally clear that Part I will apply to the dwelling-house where the dwelling-house is let with a shop. That is just the difficulty we are seeking to avoid because we say, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, that if it is left in doubt as to whether it comes under Part I or Part II or indeed if the dwelling-house let with a shop comes under both parts of the Bill, then that will give rise to a considerable amount of friction, controversy, dispute and possibly employment of lawyers.
Mr. Gibson: They will not mind.
The Attorney-General: I do not want to prolong this matter, but it is really much simpler than the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think. Under Part I. if the occupier of premises, which are in part a dwelling-house and in part a shop, is a ground lessee, then this tenancy does not terminate but is continued automatically for the period of two years, and in that case the tenant comes under Part I. If, on the other hand, he is not a ground lessee, he will qualify to come under Part II, if and only if his tenancy expires. He will come under either one or the other; he cannot come under both. If he is a ground lessee he has the more satisfactory result of coming under Part I without any necessity of application to the court, having his tenancy extended for a

909
further two years. If he is not a ground lessee, his tenancy will not automatically be extended but will come to an end; and when it comes to an end, and because it comes to an end, he will have it renewed by application to the court. I think it is really quite all right.
Mr. Higgs: I am not quite sure that it is so simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have us believe. When he refers to a ground lessee under Part I he means of course, a tenant who has had a lease of 21 years or more. The dividing line would seem to be, therefore, that if one has just finished a 21-year lease one is bound to come under Part I, and, of course, Part I is automatic. If one has had a lease of less than 21 years one is under Part II and, therefore, would have to go to the courts. The only point which occurs to me at once is that somebody who is just finishing a 25-year lease may feel that his remedy under Part II would be very much more advantageous to him. He may get very much better conditions out of the county court than the two years which the Bill would give him.
The Attorney-General: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is under a misapprehension. The man cannot get more than one year's extension at the first application and he cannot make more than two applications, so that the maximum he can possibly get is an extension of two years—and perhaps at an increased rent. The position under Part II is very much less favourable than that under Part I. I do not think it is very profitable to discuss the matter further, however, in view of the undertaking I have given that I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman in order that the matter may be cleared up. I hope he will reconsider the matter in the light of what I have said.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it would be a good thing if no further discussion took place on the Amendment now. I shall await his letter with interest and I hope that, if necessary, the required clarification will be made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Janner: I want to raise two points with regard to this Clause that I hope the learned Attorney-General will consider between now and the Report stage. The first is, I think, a very important point which ought to be put right. The term which is used in the Clause,
"… a tenancy … for a term of years certain, being a term exceeding twenty-one years. …"
is a little difficult, and will create hardships in the event of a person's having had a longer lease which expires, and who, not having left the premises, has been granted a lease for a shorter period less than 21 years. He will be deprived of the remedy which I am quite certain it is intended to give him.
Let me give the illustration of a case which has been brought to my notice. I think it illustrates the position very clearly. I have a letter which says:
"It is a question whether this Clause protects landlords who have already, on the expiry of their long lease of 21 or more years, been forced by the ground landlord to accept a short lease or a shorter lease of seven years on the exorbitant terms and conditions laid down by the said landlords, or most of them. I may give you one instance only of many I have knowledge of in London and in Wales. In this case the landlord is a widow."
This may interest our friends on the other side of the Committee.
Mr. John Hay: Why exactly?
Mr. Janner: Because they concentrate on the injustice to be done to the poor widow. The letter goes on:
"… a widow who still resides in the house for which she paid £1,500 for the 23 years unexpired that was unexpired of the 99 years' lease at a ground rent of £9 a year. She also spent over £1,000 to make the house habitable early this year. To avoid eviction solely she accepted an enforced short lease of seven years to date from the expiry of the 99 years' lease on 25th December, 1949. She has also to pay £125 rent a year plus all rates on top of other exorbitant terms and conditions. At this moment she is spending over £800 in repairs and redecorations inside and outside the house. Similarly"—
and this is what happens if there is no protection—
"she is committed under this short lease to spend another £300 or so in three years' time and a further £300 or so in six years of the seven years' lease. Thus in the seven years she will have incurred a total expenditure of £2,275 under duress of the ground landlord or he turned out without any place to go to. That is more or less the fate of countless thousands, as you know better than I."

911
It is highly important that we should know whether, in a case of that description, where a landlord has power over his tenant on the termination of a lease, be is going to be prevented from exercising that power in the manner that has been indicated in this particular case. I hope that we shall have either an explanation of that term used in the clause, or that we shall have an Amendment.
The other point I want to make is this. It is very interesting to hear today the confirmation of the point that we are not dealing with ground leases. Of course, we are not dealing with ground leases. We are dealing with long leases, and I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would be good enough to tell us whether there is a definition of the term "long lease" anywhere, other than what we are going to decide upon today or in the next few days, and whether he will consider whether a lease of 21 years and a day is a long lease while a lease of 21 years is a short one. Because it is rather material in this Bill to know that, in consequence of the fact that there are a large number of people who hold leases for 21 years and ought to be protected.
I cannot for the life of me see that a lease of 21 years and a day should be a long lease while a lease of 21 years and, say, a minute should immediately become a short lease. It is a little bit far fetched, and I hope that we shall be told that the term "long lease" really means what it says, and that it is something in the neighbourhood of 21 years and over.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), in the point he has just been making, except to say that it seems to me that if the lady to whom he was referring paid £1,500 for an unexpired term of 23 years she knew exactly what she was at if she was properly advised, and knew what she was contracting to buy. If she has now to pay a rental of £125 a year, that does not compare unfavourably with the rental which she was previously paying. That was a bargain which she entered into willingly. In those circumstances, personally I do not see that there is any reason why a law should be brought in of general application. It may well he
912
that the reversioner in that case is worse off than the lady who has been the tenant. I submit that that is a totally different case from that of a person who has been a ground lessee at a ground rent for many years and has not purchased the unexpired residue of a lease.
I agree that we do look at these things from a different point of view. I think it is quite clear from what happened yesterday that the point of view of hon. Members on the other side of the Committee is that of looking at the matter purely as a question of votes—and I quite agree that they will be in great need of all the votes that they can get before very long. But the important matter is to do justice between the parties and to preserve a balance.
In view of the misrepresentation of our attitude, which has already taken place in the Committee, I do just want to consider for a moment Clause 1 as it has now emerged. It is put forward as an essential part of a standstill arrangement. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) gave his opinion of the description of it as part of a standstill arrangement. He said, after dealing with the complications of the Clause:
"It is a misuse of the English language to say that this is a standstill Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January. 1951; Vol. 483, c. 755.]
So we start off with what is described as a standstill arrangement by the Government being described in those terms by one of their own supporters.
Then, as it is supposed to regulate for two years the relations between landlords and tenants, one would have thought it should have been comprehensible. What did the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) say about Clause 1? The actual words he used, I noticed, were not fully reported in HANSARD. He described it as a "curiously un-understandable concatenation of words." The words "curiously un-understandable" do not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Are the Government actually suggesting that it is a good thing to bring in a curiously un-understandable concatenation of words to regulate these very numerous relationships between landlords and tenants?

913
4.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has put forward the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to today about the possibility of misunderstanding arising from the use of the word "living" not "residing," and how it would be possible for a person with a long business lease to bring himself within the provisions of this very curious, un-understandable concatenation of words.
Our case, without repeating any of the arguments used yesterday, is that this Clause will protect the speculators in the tail ends of leases. It will protect a man of straw who has been put in to avoid liability under a repairing covenant and to reap a rich reward of rack rents from sub-tenants. It will also benefit the individual tenant who is obstructing development and is able to exact a large price before permitting a scheme of development to go forward. It will protect a person who will seek to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove referred to yesterday. Its obscurity will certainly be an advantage to the legal profession.
Apart from those arguments, the main argument against Clause 1 is that it will do nothing to help landlords and tenants to come to terms with one another. By our alternative proposal, not only did we give protection to those people who we have admitted need protection under the special circumstances of today, but by giving to the tenant this right to a rent restricted tenancy we also supplied a very substantial inducement to the parties to come to terms.
What I should have thought everybody on both sides wanted was that these long leases should be renewed upon reasonable terms. If a landlord knows his tenant has the right to a rent-restricted tenancy, that is very much greater incentive to him to come to reasonable terms. It is common ground that in most cases landlords come to reasonable terms. It is to deal with the exceptional bad case that action is necessary. It is because this Bill and this Clause do nothing to help the parties to come together that I think it is very bad in principle quite apart from it being very obscure in its wording.
Mr. Gibson: Before we part with this Clause there is one point I should like
914
to call to the attention of the Government. Incidentally, I support this Clause, not because I think it will necessarily bring me more votes but because I think it will induce a greater sense of justice in the minds of a large number of people. To my mind, it is not sufficient to take the Shylock attitude that because a contract has been entered into it ought to be carried out to the last drop of blood. If necessary to natural and human justice it ought to be altered, and because of that I think this Clause is good and I shall support it.
Yesterday we heard a great deal about the fag ends of leases, and I want to call the attention of the Government to the speculating that is going on nowadays in connection with the fag end of leases. There are also many local authorities who, in their public duty, have obtained compulsory purchase orders for land on which they are building, but although they have served notice to treat they have not, for various reasons, yet been able to complete the whole of the purchase and will not therefore be owners of the actual tenancy, although they may sometimes be owners of the land. In such a case the sitting tenant has the right, as I understand it, to stay on for two years, or—and this is what I am most afraid of—the existing circumstances enable blackmailing compensation to be claimed from the local authorities who have obtained the compulsory order. I ask the Government to look at that between now and later stages of the Bill in order to try to cover that point.
My own local authority is very concerned about this, because owing to it being a Socialist local authority it has been extremely busy since the end of the war in getting through a large number of compulsory purchase orders in and around London. It would be unfair that the rate-payers of London should be mulcted of heavy compensation because something happens under this Bill as a result of the exploitation of these fag ends of lease by completely unscrupulous people. I ask the Government to give an undertaking to look into that between now and the later stages of the Bill.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle should also apply in the case of a well managed private estate?
Mr. Gibson: Yes, if they were involved in the same circumstances to which I have referred.
Mr. Henry Brooke: The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has just undermined a large part of the case for this Bill which has been made on the other side of the Committee. He has put forward a perfectly genuine point on behalf of local authorities. He and his colleagues have apparently never until this moment grasped that exactly the same point can be put forward on behalf of every ground landlord who has a sense of responsibility. So much of the case to which we have been listening has been based on the twin assumptions that all ground landlords are rapacious and all occupying lessees are deserving. I do not think for one moment that hon. Members opposite really believe that, but that is the political case with which they have backed this temporary Bill.
For that reason—and I can say this with absolute truth—this was one of the questions which, before the hon. Gentleman spoke, I myself was anxious to put to the Attorney-General: Precisely what effect does the Bill have upon these local authorities which have purchased property with the certain knowledge, before this Bill came along at any rate, that the leases would expire at the time when they wished to redevelop the land? I am one of the small band of Members taking part in the discussion of this Bill who are not lawyers, and it is extremely difficult for us to understand, so I apologise for putting these questions.
Secondly, would the Attorney-General explain to us exactly what happens under this Clause in the case of a man, whether a speculator or otherwise, who some years ago bought a lease of a large house, with the intention of living in a small part of it himself and letting off the remaining rooms, making a good profit out of the arrangement? He will have carefully calculated these things, for as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) said yesterday, there are people who are up to all the tricks in these matters; he will have carefully calculated that by this procedure he would be able to get back all and more of the original premium he paid for the lease.
916
So far as I can understand the effect of this Bill, it will put still more money into that man's pocket; he will have the advantage of control of that house for an additional uncovenanted period of two years; he will be paying perhaps quite a small ground rent and drawing his rack rents, and making a thoroughly good thing out of it. Is that the Government's intention? If not will they re-examine the Clause to see whether they can introduce any safeguard? Although the point was raised repeatedly yesterday, no kind of assurance was given us that that unfairness would be met.
Thirdly, what about the non-occupying lessee who, seeing this Bill coming along, is at this moment before the coming into operation of the Bill in a position to assign the remainder of the lease to an occupier at a price higher than he could get for it from anybody else? Is it the intention of the Government that this Clause should put additional profit into the pocket of a man in that position who so far as I can judge has no compassionate or other title to be given financial advantage?
Lastly, will the spokesman for the Government explain precisely what is going to be the position under this Clause where the occupier at the date of the commencement of the Act, taking advantage of the Clause, proceeds to move out and hand over the right to occupy this accommodation for a further two years to someone else who hitherto has had no interest in the property? He will thus be able to draw very much more money than he could possibly have expected, but for this Bill. In all these cases, as the Clause is drafted, it seems to give assistance to people who have no claim whatever to that type of assistance, and, if I am right in these contentions, it strikes me that this Clause remains a bad Clause.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Sitting on this side of the Committee, I regret very much that I have to agree that a good deal of the criticism which has just been made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and other Members who have spoken on this matter is more than justified. It is because I am sitting on this side that I desire to say, quite frankly, why I do not accept Clause 1 of this Bill as it is the sort of inadequate Clause which ought not to have been put

917
forward. In my view, the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) rather got the wrong end of the stick about this matter; rather than attract any votes I should have thought that this Clause might be calculated to do the very opposite.
I agree with him, as I said before, that this is not a standstill Measure at all. It seeks for some unknown reason to safeguard only long tenancies. Why these in particular should have been selected is absolutely incomprehensible to me; because what it means is that preferential treatment is given to these long tenancy cases, which it might be justifiably said ought to be included, but, at the same time, nothing like the emphasis of urgency is put upon those cases, which ought to be placed upon them, which are outside the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts, and which are undoubtedly causing accumulated hardship.
Why the Clause to that extent was not made comprehensive I do not know. Certainly all the data is there and all the inquiry has been made, and it seems to me that the various committees who have examined the matter have laid out in the clearest possible way the immediate material for building up a much better Clause than this one. As a matter of fact, one of the criticisms of the Clause is that it has proved itself entirely insusceptible to Amendment. When I looked at the Amendments on the Order Paper to this particular Clause, I took the view that it was impossible to amend this Clause because it is far too limited and narrow and nothing that we can do by way of Amendment, except by wholesale reconstruction, can possibly put it right; and because no sooner do we introduce one particular item, than we are putting emphasis on something else which is left out. Therefore, the Clause is quite insusceptible to Amendment.
I cannot understand the Government's hesitation in this matter. They have had all the material before them. Why they have shirked—I want to be quite frank about this—the plain duty which undoubtedly fell upon them at this time, having regard to the fact that it was in 1945 when the Ridley Committee made their report, I do not know. Why this hesitation, I cannot understand. When I look at the Clause, I can only say that it is a flaccid and immature offspring of
918
vacillating conception. It is the more surprising when one thinks of all the criticism that we on this side have made, and rightly made, and still make about the position of premiums. It is an absolute scandal that premiums are still allowed to be taken for leases over 14 years. There is not the slightest attempt in this Clause to make any provision for that practice going on at the present moment. Why, I cannot understand.
4.15 p.m.
Take another indefensible position. Rents, of course, are frozen. The rents of houses are protected but not the selling prices. Why the Government has taken no step to deal with this situation concerning selling prices of houses is another matter that I cannot understand. Again, in the Ridley Report, the Labour Members at that time made it clear that, in their view, local authority houses ought to be brought within the Rent Restriction Acts. I cannot understand why this is not being done. This Clause is a very plausible Clause so far as it goes, but unfortunately it does not go anywhere much. Therefore, because of these many reasons—one could go on criticising this Clause interminably and with the fullest justification, having regard to the history of the attitude of the Labour Party itself—I very much regret that the Government have put forward a Clause of this description.
Mr. Charles Williams: I have listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and I congratulate myself that yesterday I had the wisdom to praise him as a lawyer of rather higher standing than the Attorney-General, because it has been obvious to me, as a layman and not a lawyer, that every word which he said about this Clause—that it may be plausible etc., but that it is not a practical Clause dealing with the affairs of today—is true. I congratulate him on having come round to the position which many of us on this side of the Committee, and most people in the country, have come to for some time now—that the Government, in this Clause, as, indeed, in the whole of the Bill, are just doing a little patch-work legislation, because they have neither the courage nor the ability to go forward and handle the big problems which confront them.

919
I wish only to raise two points which were mentioned earlier by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee. I appreciate the fact that local authorities in their schemes for building new houses have many needless difficulties to overcome, and I deeply regret that the Government have under this Clause added one more needless difficulty to the local authorities. The other point which I wish to emphasise is that where we have development on right and sound lines, and lines of which probably hon. Gentlemen on the other side, as well as hon. Members on this side. would approve, we have now this Clause, making that development in the interest of production and housing needlessly hard.
I think it is lamentable that in a debate on what, I think, is probably the principal Clause of the Bill, we should have had an attack on the Government and all sorts of nasty things said about the Government on this Clause—things which I in my kindness would not like to put quite as strongly as they have been put, because I am not a person given to extreme language, and also, not being a lawyer, I am more kind-hearted and more inclined to realise that the frailties of the Government are not really their own fault, but are almost entirely due to the fact that the Government have not the slightest idea where they are going. They are using merely catch phrases, but catch phrases will not solve any of the great human problems we had hoped to see solved by this Bill.
Mr. Keenan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on his return to our discussions. We have missed him quite a lot lately.
Mr. Williams: I would point out that I was present yesterday. If the hon. Member means that I ought to have been more active, I would remind him that we now have a very strong Opposition.
Mr. Keenan: I do not know whether the qualities of the hon. Member will improve as time goes on, which is a matter we must leave for his colleagues to decide.
I am very reluctant to take part in a debate which seems to have been the
920
monopoly of lawyers, but I wish to point out that the Bill we are discussing is not, as some Members seem to think, a Bill to introduce leasehold reforms. I would also point out that we have taken all yesterday and one hour today to discuss the first 12 lines of the Bill, and that Clause 1 has not even yet been passed. I can understand the anxiety of those interested in property, which naturally applies to most legal men. The fact is that this Bill is a standstill order for two years, until such time as legislation can be introduced to remedy the evils about which we have been hearing so much.
I am quite aware that the Clause does not go far enough. Like other Members. I have had many difficult cases brought to my attention. Some 20 years ago the ground landlord, Lord Derby, sold his property in Bootle for about £1¾ million to the Covent Garden Estate Company and they sold the leases to anyone who wanted to buy them. Some very extraordinary people acquired these leases, some of whom are not very public spirited. I remember an agent coming to me to complain about what was going on and to ask when the House of Commons were going to do something about the matter.
The case I wish to mention concerns a man and his wife of about 75 years of age. They depended for their livelihood on some 12 small houses that had been taken over from the Covent Garden Estates Company. This old couple were faced about two years ago with having to pay some £400 or £500 to put the property into repair before it was handed over, or to pay the owner of the lease over £3,000. They did not have the money to buy the property or to carry out the repairs.
I am surprised that Members can defend this sort of thing. I want to see it stopped, and I believe that the Bill will remedy the position. I hope that we shall see legislation introduced in due course to tackle this problem. In this instance, the ground landlord had received £1¾ million for doing nothing. Industry and builders had developed the area, and all the ground landlord did was merely to acquire the land before development took place. It is to protect people from this sort of vicious system that this standstill order has been introduced, and I do not see that anyone has any grounds for complaint or criticism in regard to the Bill.
Mr. Hay: I hope that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) will forgive me if I do not deal with all the ramifications of his observations. I can only say that I think it a pity that he did not vote with us yesterday when we sought to insert the words "ground lease," as most of his complaints seem to be connected with ground leases.
Mr. Keenan: I was particularly anxious that the Government should not give way on that, because I wanted the Bill to be all-embracing.
Mr. Hay: I leave that subject to the judgment of the hon. Member's constituents. I was particularly struck by his remarks on the length of the discussion and the lack of progress with this Clause. Can it be denied that we are perfectly entitled to point to the many discrepancies, mistakes and blunders that have been made in the drafting of the 16 lines of the Clause? Every Amendment we have put down, and every one has been refused by the Government, has been intended, as I said yesterday, to tidy up the Clause.
It seems something of a habit for me to find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I am wondering whether this is due to him or to me. I consider that some of the criticisms he brought to bear on the Government were fully justified, and I hope that he will join us in the Lobby if this Clause is pressed to a Division. There is no excuse for the hon. and learned Member not understanding the reasons that lie behind the Clause. We have heard a lot about a standstill order, but what the Government are trying to do is to get votes, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has already said. The Government cannot make up their mind to grasp this nettle of leasehold enfranchisement. What they are trying to do is to buy a little time at the expense of the landlord. In other words, this Bill has been introduced to give them time to make up their minds. That. I think, is really what it is all about.
4.30 p.m.
The same remarks apply to Part I. They do not care if they buy time at the expense of the landlord. On the Second Reading the Attorney-General said that this Bill frankly would cause hardship to
922
the landlords, but he did not seem to mind. Nobody on the other side of the House has shed any tears about the matter. They seem to think that right is on one side only, upon the side of the tenant. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) put the position very concisely by saying that on the other side of the House they consider that all landlords are rapacious and all tenants deserving. It is all wrong, and hon. Members know it is all wrong.
In Clause 1, I see the fine Italian hand of the Lord President of the Council, whose name is affixed to most of the Government's Amendments on the Paper. I always wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to turn into a legal reformer. I notice that he has not appeared at any of our discussions either today or yesterday. If he wants to win another election he wants to get as many votes as he can, and by bringing in these people who are dissatisfied in South Wales and in other parts of the country, whether they have ground for their complaints or not, he thinks that his chances will be improved. That is what is behind Clause 1, and that is why amongst other technical reasons this Committee ought to reject it.
Mr. Weitzman: I was amazed at the contribution made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I only intervene in this debate for the purpose of saying that I do not think that any lawyer on this side supports the view put forward by my hon. and learned Friend. What that view amounted to—and I want to take up the time of the Committee on it for a moment or two—was that my hon. and learned Friend felt that a great many things ought to have been done in this Clause. Everyone knows that although my right hon. and learned Friend may take the view that the law of landlord and tenant has been crystallised, in the debate yesterday—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: My hon. and learned Friend is misquoting me, and there is no possible excuse for doing it. It is perfectly clear in HANSARD what I said. I did not say what my hon. and learned Friend said I said. What I did say was that the questions raised by the Ridley Committee and the Leasehold Committee had been thoroughly and well

923
explored, that all those matters had been crystallised, and there was, therefore, no impediment to the Government including them in the Clause.
Mr. Weitzman: I withdraw what I said and substitute exactly what has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend, which was to the effect that these views have been crystallised, and it has been made perfectly clear where we stand with regard to the law of landlord and tenant according to the Ridley and other Reports. My view is—and I think it will be the view of all thinking lawyers—that before the Government can bring in any measure dealing with the necessary reforms in the law of landlord and tenant a great deal will have to be done.
What is it that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester desires? He desires that we should wait until that should be done—that we should wait for some months or a year or two before a Bill is brought forward for discussion in this House. I suggest that what we are effecting by this Clause is a perfectly proper thing. The Government have said that they are not ready with the necessary reforms and, therefore—
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does my hon. Friend realise that it was six years ago that the Ridley Report was issued?
Mr. Weitzman: The Government, I have said, have made what is, in my view, a reasonable suggestion and endeavoured to effect a very proper step. It is impossible today to put before the House a Bill which deals with all the necessary reforms with regard to the law of landlord and tenant. A great deal has got to be considered. Surely in those circumstances the proper step to take is to put the Clause in the Bill as drafted and to pass it as an Act of Parliament so that the status quo is preserved and hardship in existing cases is alleviated.
Why, therefore, should there be any complaint on the part of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester? I do not know. The Clause may not go far enough. I should like to see it go very much further in many directions, but in the meantime the Government can study this matter and then we can have a Bill dealing in detail with the whole problem. For the present
924
we should see that the interests of tenants are protected on the lines set out in this Clause.
Mr. Higgs: The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), complained about the nature of this Clause, and two points occur to me which support this argument. I hope they will be considered by the Attorney-General; indeed, they may have occurred to him already. The first is this—the date upon which this Bill will come into operation eventually depends, presumably, on the accident of the date of the Royal Assent, and since Clause 1 provides for a period of exactly two years from that date, the end of the protection which the Bill affords also depends on the accident of the date of the Royal Assent.
Has it occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether that is right, and what consequences may flow if the protection which this Bill affords should come to an end on quarter day exactly, or the day before or the day after? Since we have passed the period of two years in Clause 1, we ought to consider making some specific provision as to the date on which the Bill will come into operation, and the date upon which the protection which it affords will cease. I think it has emerged from the discussion—and this is no party point—that the intention of this Clause is to embrace every kind of tenancy which may possibly be the subject of the permanent legislation. It is also possible that when the permanent legislation comes in, it will not cover exactly the same classes of property as are now covered in this Clause. Therefore, for some property the protection under this Measure will end. That is the first point about which I wanted to ask.
The other point also may well have occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would arise, for example, in the case of ground leases which expire in June next. A ground landlord may have entered into a binding contract to sell or grant a new tenancy to somebody who is going to occupy, or expects to occupy, on 30th June. The contract which has been made may be of such a nature as will enable the purchaser or new tenant to bring the landlord to court. If this Bill prevents specific performance it may allow a claim for damages.

925
Has that situation been contemplated, because hon. Members on both sides who practice as solicitors realise the position? People who buy houses have to plan ahead. A has bought a house or entered into contract to buy a house on 30th June, and he will have contracted to sell his own house to B and B to sell his to C. So a whole sequence of moves is held up, with consequent hardship on a succession of people, because one person who has to move first is unable to do so. Have the Government considered the situation which would arise in the case of somebody who, before he knew what the provisions of this Bill were, had entered into a binding contract to dispose by way of sale with vacant possession a house or tenancy, which he had then the right to assume would fall in on a date subsequent to the coming into operation of the Bill?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I feel sure the Committee will agree with me that we have had a very useful discussion on the question whether this Clause should stand part of the Bill, and after listening to the debate one fact has emerged—the longer hon. Gentlemen opposite have to consider this Clause, the more signs there are of dissatisfaction with it in their ranks. First of all, there is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). He is quite obviously extremely dissatisfied with this Clause.
Mr. Janner: I want it extended.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: He thinks that it is entirely inadequate. I heard no word of praise from him. Then there is the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who made an extremely courageous speech, having regard to the side on which he sits, based on sound sense, in so far as it consisted of criticism of the Government for the way they are facing the task of revising the Rent Acts, and, indeed, the way they are shirking for another two years dealing with the problem which confronts any Government after the report of the Leasehold Committee. I entirely share the view put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) with regard to the Clause. I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee in repeating his well-founded observations, but I want to draw
926
attention, as shortly as I can, to one or two criticisms.
The first criticism is a matter of drafting. I hope that the Attorney-General will say that he will give serious consideration to the alteration of the language of the Clause by the insertion of the word "residing" instead of "living," and, secondly, by the insertion somewhere in the Clause of a reference to "dwelling-house." While it is common ground between us that the intention of the Clause is that it should not apply to occupants of dwelling-houses, the word "dwelling-house" does not occur anywhere in the Clause. Nevertheless, the objections to the Clause go far deeper than that and cannot be remedied by any drafting Amendments, although the Clause can be slightly improved.
In spite of the speech which he made on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) has at last perceived some of the evil consequences of the Clause. He may not have perceived that those evil consequences might apply also to other landlords than local authorities. The Committee have heard a great deal today from those benches about preventing mass evictions, but we heard the voice of the hon. Member for Clapham complaining because local authorities—he referred to a Socialist local authority—who have gone in for compulsoriy purchase on a wholesale scale will, in consequence of the Bill, be unable to evict the people who are living in those houses which have been compulsorily acquired.
Mr. Gibson: That was not the point I was mentioning at all, but that the new circumstances would give an opportunity for excessive compensation to be paid in cases where a site must be acquired.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: This may be somewhat outside the limits of the discussion, but if a Socialist local authority is compulsorily acquiring, it is doing so presumably with a view to securing possession, which means the present occupants ceasing to reside there and moving out. We may use the word "eviction" or not, but let us use a colourless expression and say that they will be dispossessed of occupation. The hon. Member for Clapham is at last perceiving that the Bill will stop local authorities pursuing that course for a further two years, unless they can make a bargain with the present occupants. In the making of that bargain, the hon.

927
Member perceives, landlords, whether local authorities or landlords by purchase, may be held up to ransom.
That is the very point that we were putting from these benches yesterday. It applies not only to cases where the local authority as landlord, but to cases where any other landlord, is seeking to secure possession for some purpose which is in the public interest. He, too, may be held up to ransom and will be unable to do anything in the way of redevelopment and improvement for two years. That is one of the harmful effects of the Bill.
Those effects do not stop there. I am not going to refer to the many other objections that we have made, but just to take the case where the landlord has been waiting for a lease of a big house to fall in, with a view to its conversion into a number of flats providing more accommodation. That is something which I should have thought would be welcomed by hon. Gentlemen opposite in view of the great and acute housing shortage which is so largely the result of their policy. That sort of conversion cannot take place. It will be held up for a further two years. There is no provision under the Clause whereby, however desirable it may be, on the part of a local authority landlord or of a private landlord, fresh housing accommodation can be created by putting many families into one large house where one family is living now. If the Bill is passed in its present form, there is no possibility of that being done. We think that that situation is wrong.
4.45 p.m.
I hope that the Attorney-General will say, when he replies, that between now and the Report stage he will not only reconsider the drafting suggestions that I have put forward but will consider inserting some provision whereby a landlord, whether a private or a local authority landlord, can secure possession in cases where it is made clear that the purpose for which that possession is desired is the increase of housing accommodation available to the nation.
I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with one other point. Under the Clause as it now stands, the whole of the ground lease is extended for two years automatically. It may be that the tenant under that ground lease is living in only a portion of the property which is subject to the lease. Why should
928
not the lease only be continued so far as he is concerned and with regard to the part of the house in which he is living? As the Bill now stands, the whole of the property is affected and he will have a further two years in which he can draw rack rents from sub-tenants.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give consideration to all these points. When we find lawyers disagreeing on the other side of the Committee, we can rest assured that the Clause is incomprehensible, vague and bad.
Mr. Messer: Lawyers would not get a living if they did not disagree.
The Attorney-General: We have had a long, I do not say a too long, discussion on the first Clause of the Bill. A number of points have been raised, some of detail, by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I will try to deal as faithfully as I can with the majority of those points. First, I would like to say that, whatever the discussion may have done, it has reassured me in the belief that the Clause is a good Clause and that the Bill is a good Bill. Some hon. Members have said that the Clause does not go far enough. There is a lot to be said for that point of view. Other hon. Members have complained that it goes much too far. I do not think that there is so much to be said for that point of view. In the face of that conflict of opinion, I cannot help thinking that we have been wise in taking a middle course in a Bill which does not pretend to lay down a final solution of the problem with which we have to deal.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) put forward what seemed to me to be a curious criticism, if criticism it was, of the Clause and of the Bill as a whole. He made the suggestion that the Bill would attract votes in the country. I am not sure that the fact that a Bill will attract votes in the country is necessarily a ground for condemning it as a bad Measure. I certainly think that the Bill will command considerable support in the country, not because it remedies grievances—although a Bill which remedies grievances is in itself very likely to be a good Bill and for that reason alone to command support—but because it at least paves the way to providing a greater measure of social justice in these difficult matters. The electors of the country approve of social

929
justice, and therefore they tend to support any Government which brings in legislative Measures designed to promote that end. That being my view, I reject the hon. Member's criticism on that ground, and I shall proceed to try to pick up some of the more detailed points raised by hon. Members about the actual terms of Clause 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), asked about the case where an original lease for 21 years or more had expired before the commencement of the Act and the tenancy had been continued. If the tenancy was continued on the same terms as before, then the case will fall within the protection of the clause which we are. I hope, about to consider. If, on the other hand—I think this was the case which my hon. Friend had in mind—after the expiration of the original lease a new lease for less than 21 years was negotiated, the case would not be covered.
I have no doubt that there may be many hard cases of that kind. There may be many cases where tenants have been compelled, owing to the shortage of housing accommodation, to enter into agreements for leases on onerous terms. They have had to submit to them because there has been no alternative. Some of those cases will be covered by the rent restriction legislation and some will perhaps be covered by the provisions of the 1949 Act, but I am bound to concede at once that some will not and that they will not get protection under the Bill. We did not think that in this Bill, which creates a standstill in regard to a particular type of tenancy and which was only and fundamentally designed to cover the case of the long ground lease, it would be possible to rewrite these more recent tenancies and bring them within the scope of the Measure.
My hon. Friend also referred to the definition which we have in practice adopted in the Bill of what is to be regarded as a ground lease. There is a long lease and there is a ground lease. We think that in practice the two things will turn out to be the same in all but a very few exceptional cases. My hon. Friend asked whether a lease for 21 years and one day would be a long lease and a lease for 21 years minus one day would be a short lease. The answer is that the lease for 21 years and one day will be
930
along lease and the lease for less than 21 years will not be a long lease within the meaning of the Bill.
Whether it will be a short lease within the meaning of some other enactment, I cannot say, but the point which my hon. Friend makes would arise in exactly the same way and with the same apparent force whatever line we took. If it were five years or 50 years, we should get the marginal case of a day on one side or the other coming within or without the definition we had chosen. I am afraid that one has to accept that in this kind of legislation. It is an inevitable criticism, for what the criticism is worth.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does that correspond roughly to the difference between the ground lease and the ordinary occupational tenancy?
The Attorney-General: I think so. As far as we can judge, that corresponds fairly with it. We think it would be very unusual to find a case of a lease for more than 21 years which is not a true ground lease in the sense that we have been understanding it.
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Henley raised some criticism on the drafting of Clause 1. So did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). It is always extremely easy to criticise the drafting of Bills, particularly when they deal with inevitably complex subjects such as this. I must confess that in the days when I occupied the happily irresponsible position of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral, I indulged in a good deal of criticism of that kind myself. [Interruption.] That was when I was appearing as counsel in the courts.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant as a back-bencher.
The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I did not have that privilege.
Mr. Frederic Harris: It would have done the right hon. and learned Gentleman good.
The Attorney-General: While it is always easy to poke fun at the draftsmen and to criticise the drafting of a

931
Bill, I must confess that since I have occupied my present position and tried my hand at drafting, I have realised what an extremely difficult and expert task the drafting of legislative Measures is. I should have thought that the Bill was as clear as any Bill dealing with so complex a subject could be made by the most expert of a class of very expert people, the Parliamentary draftsmen who serve the Governments of this country.
I was surprised at the criticism which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester advanced against the Bill in this connection. He said that the Clause was not susceptible to amendment. I should have thought that that was very good commendation of the drafting and that it pointed clearly to the conclusion that the drafting of the Bill was the best that could be done and that all the legal ingenuity on both sides of the Committee had not been able to suggest any improved form of words. I will not discuss the interesting theory which my hon. and learned Friend developed about "vacillating conceptions." I am not quite sure what it meant.
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that the Bill would protect speculators in fag-ends and other unmeritorious persons. We had a good deal of speculation about speculators in fag-ends when we were discussing Amendments to the Clause yesterday. It is possible that in a few cases such speculators might exist and that they might obtain some benefit from the provisions of the Bill; I do not know, although I confess that I thought they existed mainly in the ingenious imagination of the Opposition. Whether the Clause will here and there protect an occasional and ingenious speculator is a matter which does not concern me so much as the fact that it will give protection to a very large number of obviously meritorious and deserving tenants. It will protect those who cannot be satisfactorily protected by the alternative proposal put forward from the other side of the Committee that these cases should be brought within some ill-thought-out and ill-defined but emasculated variation of the rent restriction legislation.
5.0 p.m.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), the hon. Member
932
for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put various questions with regard to the position of local authorities. If a local authority bought a house, whether compulsorily or not, in the expectation that the occupancy would fall in, their position under this Bill would be that the occupancy by the local authority would be deferred by two years, just as in the case of any other purchaser of premises in that way; subject, however, to this, that the local authorities have certain requisitioning powers, and they have been placed by Parliament in that matter in a totally different position from the individual owner. Parliament has thought fit to decide that it is in the public interest that local authorities, but not individual owners, should be given certain requisitioning powers in connection with housing purposes and other matters. I have used the phrase "local authorities," but technically the position is that the requisitioning powers are delegated to the town clerk. In such cases it may be possible, if the proper case arose in connection with any particular premises, for the town clerk to requisition the remaining leasehold interest in the house.
The hon. Member for Hampstead raised another case about the speculator, who has become so familiar in the course of our discussions here but who we rarely 'meet in practice, who bought the fag end of a lease, occupied part of it and sublet the rest at exorbitant rents. The danger of that kind of case would be largely met by the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1949, which, as the hon. Member knows, now permits the tribunals, in the case of any post-1949 lettings to fix the new standard rent at what they consider to be in all the circumstances a reasonable figure.
Mr. H. Brooke: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman excuse me for interrupting? I was not in my argument suggesting that the rents were necessarily exorbitant, but was saying that, having regard to the amount of the premium which the leaseholder had originally paid for the lease, the fact that the lease was now to be extended would enable him to make a very good thing out of drawing the rack rents for a further two years.
The Attorney-General: I would have thought not, because the rent would be controlled and the tribunal, in deciding what would be a fair rent, would no doubt have regard to all the circumstances of the case. Moreover, in regard to premiums there is also in Section 2 (1) and (3) of the 1949 Act—I agree it applies to post-1949 cases—a prohibition of premiums in the case of premises within the Act, whether the lease is up to 14 years or over.
Then the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) followed. The hon. Member has no doubt the great pleasure and advantage during his speeches of seeing the faces of hon. Members upon this side of the Committee. I confess that it is always a matter of regret to me that the hon. Member for Torquay is not able to see the faces of the hon. Members on his own side of the Committee when he makes his contributions to our debates; but, on reflection, I am not sure that it would make the slightest difference. I feel sure that even if he were to see the manifestations of dismay on the faces of his hon. Friends, he would none the less not deny himself the pleasure of listening to his own voice.
Then the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) asked a question about the duration of tenancies which were extended under Clause 1, and whether the position was that the tenancy comes to an end within the currency of the Bill. It is the fact that it would be extended by a period of two years as from the date of the Royal Assent; and, as the hon. Member pointed out, that date might not coincide with a quarter day. Similarly, if a tenant has beep holding over, although his tenancy had expired before the commencement of the Bill, his tenancy—subject to the provisions of the Bill in connection with the matter which we shall come to discuss—would be extended by a period of two years as from the date of the Royal Assent, and that date is less likely to be quarter day. However, I do not think that any inconvenience or difficulty is likely to arise in that because, when we get to the final legislation, we shall have to pick up these cases in one way or another, and in tidying up the position the quarter day point will certainly not be overlooked.
934
The hon. Member also asked me a question about the effect of the Bill, when it becomes law, on contracts which have been concluded for the sale of premises with occupation. The law about frustration of contracts is a difficult branch, and I would like to see the terms of the particular contract before expressing any opinion upon what the final effect of the Bill would be. The general opinion in frustration is that the loss lies where it falls, but I would like to look at each contract rather than try to answer hypothetically a general question on the matter.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not seeking to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point, but may I suggest for consideration that it would perhaps be desirable to put something in the Bill to deal with that situation so as to avoid, if possible, litigation between vendor and purchaser?
The Attorney-General: Although I am a lawyer, I am in favour of anything which avoids unnecessary litigation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, bearing in mind the wide variety of contracts which may have to be considered, would be so good as to suggest to me any kind of provision on those lines, I will give it serious and sympathetic consideration. I will go further and say that even if he does not make any suggestion himself, we will consider the point. However, it is a difficult one to deal with by legislation in advance because there are such a wide variety of circumstances which may arise in the case of such contracts.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, also raised two or three drafting points. He asked whether we would introduce into the Bill the expression "dwelling-house." That expression was embodied in one of the Amendments put down from the benches opposite which we discussed yesterday. The definition which hon. Members opposite used was not one that would have achieved its purpose. They define "dwelling-house" as having the same meaning as in the Rent Acts; that is to say, premises let as a separate dwelling. Now "let as a separate dwelling" will not do for the purposes of this Bill, firstly because when the ground lease was created there was presumably no dwelling there at all. That was the whole point of the ground lease. It is that kind of

935
lease that we are attempting to cover. I am not making a technical point; it is a substantial one.
The second difficulty is that we are deliberately covering the case where the ground lease, although it was a building lease and contemplated the erection of a building, also had on it at the time other premises. We are intending to cover those other premises. If, however, we eliminate the words "let as a separate dwelling" in the definition of the hon. and learned Member, we are left only with the word "dwelling"; and there is really no definition of "dwelling." Anything is a dwelling in which a person happens to dwell at the time. However, I realise the point which the hon. and learned Member has in mind. We will certainly look at it, but it is not quite as easy a matter as would appear to the hon. and learned Member. To me, at first sight, there is a similar difficulty with the use of the word "residing." I am not sure that there is really any different legal connotation in "residing" from the word which we have in the Bill—namely, "living"—but we will look at that point also.
The final point which the hon. and learned Member put to me was whether we should amend the Bill to enable possession to be obtained where there was some scheme for rehousing and in matters of that kind. I have covered that to some extent by referring to the requisitioning powers of local authorities. We have, of course, given a lot of study to this point—it is not unattractive—when considering the form of the Bill. We came to the conclusion that within this temporary standstill Measure the difficulties were so great that it was really impracticable to make any special provision beyond that which already exists under the requisitioning powers.
I return to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), with whose remarks I had considerable sympathy. The Bill, as he pointed out, is intended to be a standstill on leaseholds, but it is not intended to reduce Parliament to a standstill. I hope therefore, that we shall now be able to allow the Clause to stand part of the Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I hope that the Committee can now come to a decision.
Mr. C. Williams: I shall not be very long, Sir Charles, but this is the Committee stage and I have spoken only once on the Clause. I have a duty to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said about me. I made certain remarks on the Clause, but he, on the other hand, said something about me. I do not in the least object to it, because he has said it now about 20 times. What I should like him to do is to say something novel.
On a very important Clause such as this when we have a reply such as that to which we have just listened, which does not meet the points raised concerning local authorities in any way whatever, it is a very great pity that, in a Bill which most of us, at any rate, want to get through with reasonable speed, we are subject to these tragically slow and blundering speeches from the Attorney-General. I hope that we will be allowed to have a more competent authority to whom we can put our points on the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROVISION WHERE TENANT HOLDING OVER AFTER EXPIRY OF LONG TENANCY.)
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2. line 4. after "Act," to insert:
"but not before the twentieth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty."
I am sure that the Committee will be glad, after our fruitful but somewhat lengthy discussion on Clause 1, now to turn its attention to an equally complicated and, perhaps, almost as unsatisfactory a Clause—Clause 2. I conceive, I hope, correctly, that the object of the Clause is to provide for the case where a tenant is holding over after the expiry of his tenancy and to bring him, if he is still residing or living on the premises, within the scope of Part I—
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General indicated assent.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: —that is to say, to ensure that just because his lease has fallen in quite recently, he should not

937
be deprived of such advantages as this Measure gives him. I hope I have stated fairly accurately what I believe to be the object of the Clause, although I have put it shortly. If I am wrong, I hope that I shall be corrected. If that is the object, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the Clause goes far beyond that object if it is read with paragraph 2 of the First Schedule.
I can put the position most easily and shortly by giving an illustration. The Clause, of course, has a retrospective effect. It has to be considered with reference to paragraph 2 of the first Schedule. This illustration should make clear, as I understand, the position under the Bill, a position which is quite different from the objective of the Clause, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed I had stated at least fairly accurately. Supposing there is a ground lease which expired, say, 10 years ago and the same tenant or a member of his family is still in occupation of those premises although that lease expired 10 years ago, and, of course, not against the landlord's wishes, but with his desire, because, contrary to what one would have imagined from so many speeches opposite, it is to the landlord's interest to have the premises occupied and—this ought to be emphasised—to keep a good tenant.
Supposing that on the expiry of that lease, 10 years ago, a fresh agreement was entered into between that landlord and that tenant, and both parties were happy and content with the terms of that fresh lease—I am not dealing with the period of the lease, but with a fresh lease—
The Attorney-General: On different terms?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: Yes, on different terms—where both parties were agreed, where there was no element which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) would class as exorbitant—many renewals take place without any indication of excessive increases, although with an increase of rent; in my illustration, the tenant, realising that his ground lease has expired, realising that what he has agreed to has happened, has willingly accepted a fresh lease, on fresh terms, and is in occupation with his landlord's consent. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, would try to make
938
out that that was a very remarkable case, but it is not.
What is the position regarding that case? How is it affected by the Bill, with the tenant living there happily for the last 10 years? On looking at paragraph 2 of the First Schedule, one sees that
"The continued tenancy"—
that is to say, any tenancy where the tenant continues in occupation after the date of expiry—
"shall he treated as having effect, and as having had effect, in substitution for any other tenancy or agreement (whether express or implied) by virtue of which the former tenant or a member of his family remained in occupation of the property. …"
The effect, as I understand, will be that directly the Bill becomes law, from the date of continuation—that is, the date of expiry of the old lease, 10 years ago—the Bill begins to operate in place of the agreement which has been freely and voluntarily entered into.
The Attorney-General: Perhaps I may intervene to save time. That would not be so in the case which the hon. and learned Member postulated. If the new tenancy, on the new terms created 10 years ago, raised the rent, that case would not be brought within the protection of the Bill. As the hon. and learned Member will see from subsection (4, a) of the Clause, it is only where the tenant is
"living there in right of a tenancy or agreement (whether express or implied) at a rent, or in consideration of a payment in the nature of rent, of the like amount as the rent payable immediately before …"
that the tenancy continues. Where, on the other hand, the landlord and tenant have entered into what may be a perfectly fair agreement for a new tenancy at a new rent, that tenancy will go on and the Clause will not bite at all.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is what I think would be achieved. If that is right, and I hope it is, I do not see what paragraph (2) of the First Schedule does, or is intended to do. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain this because it is a real difficulty. The First Schedule has to be read in conjunction with this Clause, but under the First Schedule it is quite clear that, provided there has once been a ground lease, provided that the tenant carries on, provided that it is an agreement after the expiry

939
of the ground lease, under that paragraph of the Schedule that agreement is set aside whether it be for a like rate, an increased rate or on different terms.
Therefore, I thought the illustration I was putting forward was equally applicable whether the new agreement increased the rate or not. In paragraph 2 in either case the fresh agreement entered into will be set aside. That is why, following on my argument I say that this Clause, having regard to paragraph 2 of the Schedule, has a far wider retrospective effect than it intended because there is no date excluding cases where ground leases have expired many years ago.
Under the Clause anyone is brought within its ambit if he is holding over with a fresh agreement from his former ground landlord. It seemed to us that to avoid these difficulties the best thing to do was to specify a date, limiting the retrospective effect, and we put down this Amendment for that purpose. We are not wedded to a particular date, but we feel that something should be done for clarification. It is obviously right, according to the structure of the Bill, that where the lease has expired since the presentation of the Bill, although the Bill has not become an Act, the retrospective effect should be carried back to cover that class of case. That is why we have put down the Amendment to cover leases expiring after 20th November, 1950.
Unless some alteration is made to paragraph 1 of the First Schedule—and there is no Government Amendment down to that—I say with some confidence to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when he has to interpret that paragraph in relation to subsection (4) either that paragraph of the First Schedule is meaningless, or if it means anything, it has an effect quite contrary to the objective of this Clause which as the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed, was the objective which I endeavoured to outline. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory explanation.
The Attorney-General: I think there is a misunderstanding about the first point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). Assuming that the new lease entered into 10 years ago,
940
although possibly differing in other terms, was at the same rental as that which applied hitherto, the Bill would bite and the old tenancy would revive. The paragraph in the First Schedule is necessary in order that there shall not be a double application under the old tenancy, which is revived, to pay whatever it is, say, £20 a year, and under the new tenancy, entered into 10 years ago, another £20 a year. It is really a technical and purely drafting point and I do not think it has the effect which was apprehended by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the first instance.
Mr. John Foster: If a 99 years' lease were extended 50 years ago on payment, say, of £1,000 penalty, is not that affected by the Bill so that the rent for the next two years is not paid but counted against the £1,000 under paragraph 3 of the Schedule? Am I right, or wrong?
The Attorney-General: No, I think that is not so. The point which the hon. and learned Member has just put would be caught by the Bill on the 50 years' lease, the second lease, as it would be a lease of more than 21 years and would, therefore, come within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Foster: If it were 19 years ago would it apply?
The Attorney-General: It might apply to a lease entered 19 years ago if the tenant were still in occupation.
Mr. Foster: It is important to get to know what the Bill does. If, 19 years ago, someone paid £500 to extend a 99 years' lease, assuming that the ground rent was £20 a year, he would not have to pay anything for the next two years?
The Attorney-General: That would be a case where a new agreement had been entered into, and it would not arise at all.
Mr. Foster: But the rent is the same.
The Attorney-General: Yes, but the premium is taken into account.
Mr. Foster: Under paragraph 3 of the Schedule? That is the point of my question.
The Attorney-General: I think it has exactly the result which I said it has, that it is taken into account and it takes that

941
kind of tenancy outside the scope of the Bill. It is, as it were, apportioned over the period as an addition to the rent. That is what I said and I think it is right—
Mr. Foster Mr. Foster indicated dissent.
The Attorney-General: Well, we will look into it and see who is right.
Mr. Foster: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), appears to agree with me.
The Attorney-General: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will be gratified to know that his view of the law, which I think is incorrect, is none the less supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
The other point, which is substantial from a different point of view from that raised by the hon. and learned Member, is that the Bill is retrospective and that it might be a useful thing to fix some period to the extent of the retrospection. It is perfectly true that on both sides of the House we look jealously at any legislation which has a retrospective effect. We considered the question of whether the Bill should be retrospective at all and, if so, to what extent, before we framed the Bill in its present terms.
We knew, even before this Bill was presented, that a great many people were anticipating that some legislation of this kind would be introduced, and a great many people, with the consent of their landlords, with the acquiescence of their landlords, at any rate without their landlords taking any steps to dispossess them, remained on with the intention, perhaps, on both sides, that they should be covered by the scope of the Bill. That being so, and once the principle of retrospection at least to the date of the introduction of the Bill—which is what the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, had in mind as that is the date he has put in his Amendment—is accepted, there seems to be no objection in principle to retrospection being extended.
The longer the landlord has allowed his tenant to remain in possession on the same terms as under the old ground lease the better is the case for giving that tenant a further two years' protection. We thought that unless we took the date of the introduction of the Bill we could not find any earlier arbitrary date which
942
would do justice between the parties. We must accept restrospection in the unusual circumstances of this Bill, and it seemed to us better not to put any term to it.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The discussion of this matter so far has, with the exception of the Attorney-General's closing remarks, related to the case of a voluntary understanding between landlord and tenant. I wish to point to the case in which there is no such voluntary understanding, and to argue that the unlimited retrospection which is provided by the Clause as it stands has the effect of placing a premium on non-compliance and obstruction. I read Clause 2 in conjunction with Clause 4 (3) which states that any proceedings instituted after 21st November, 1950, but not disposed of before the commencement of this Measure shall be stayed, and with paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, which prevents the execution of any court order which has not been complied with.
What will be the effect of those three provisions taken together? If a tenancy came to an end, say in July, 1950, and if the tenant, recognising that his rights as against those of the landlord were at an end, vacated the premises, he does not secure the advantages of the Bill, whereas if he forced the landlord eventually to take him to court, and the proceedings had not been brought to an end or the order made by the court had not been executed by 21st November last, he will gain the full advantage of his recalcitrance. I suggest that that is an unreasonable result.
There is a logical ground for making the limit of retrospection the same as the limit of protection provided in Clause 4 (3). Parliament has thought that from that date tenants should be protected against the effect of legal proceedings. To that date there should be retrospection. In the same way, before that date, all owners of expired leases should be placed in the same position, whether the premises have been vacated or not.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sure that the Committee, at least some Members, desire to get on with the Bill. I am not sure about the hon. Member for Leicester. North-West (Mr. Janner).
Mr. Janner: I want to make the Bill better; the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to destroy it.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would suggest that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will give further consideration to this very important point, and, in particular, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), as well as to those put by me, and let us know, perhaps before the Report stage, the result of that consideration, we might leave further discussion of this difficult point until the Report stage and proceed with our consideration of other proposed Amendments to the Bill. I say that in spite of the accusations thrown out by some hon. Members opposite about wrecking and obstruction.
The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his suggestion in a very generous way. I am not sure whether the motive behind it is that he appreciates that this discussion cannot be carried on with success by his side of the Committee. We will certainly look at the matter in the way he suggests, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should look at the Amendment which the Government have put down to a later part of this Clause, in line 42. I think that he will find that any ambiguity there may be in the matter is cleared up by that Amendment.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have looked at that Amendment, but I do not think that is the case. What is required is an Amendment to the First Schedule, but no doubt the Attorney-General will have an opportunity of considering that.
In view of the way in which the Attorney-General has responded to my suggestion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out "living," and to insert:
"holding over and residing."
Those of the Committee who have read this Clause will, I think, agree that it is very difficult to understand. Subsection (1, a) brings within the scope of the Bill those cases where
944
"immediately before the date of continuation the tenant or a member of his family was living in the property or a part thereof in right of the tenancy."
That is the first condition which the tenant has to satisfy to come within the provisions of the Bill. But when one reads on one sees that under subsection (1, b) the person has to be living there "in continuation of the tenancy." That is a technical phrase because it is sought to define it later. But the tenant will not be living there in continuation of the tenancy at all, he will be living there after the tenancy has expired. He will be doing what most of we lawyers know and describe by the phrase "holding over." I cannot see why that should not be the phrase used in the Bill, particularly as it is used in one of the Amendments tabled by the Government.
When one considers what is the meaning of "in continuation of the tenancy" it will be seen that it is defined by Clause 2 (4) as being confined to meaning either someone living there:
"in right of a tenancy or agreement …"
In many holding over cases there will be no tenancy or agreement. It may be that no agreement has been reached or the person may be living there otherwise than in right of a tenancy. Taking those two provisions together they mean that anyone who goes on living in his house after the lease has expired is living there in continuation of a tenancy which has already expired.
I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he can avoid a great many difficulties if he uses the words "holding over," perhaps subject to one qualification which, I admit, I do not think is covered by our Amendment. That is that we wish to cover the case where there is a "holding over" notwithstanding an effort made by the landlord to recover possession. I concede that in that respect our Amendment is defective. I ask the Attorney-General to say that he will give consideration to the use of the phrase contained in the Amendment, which is commonly known by lawyers, subject perhaps to that slight alteration or addition.
Mr. Janner: I hope that the Attorney-General will not agree to this Amendment in spite of the blandishments of the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). The

945
hon. and learned Member takes objection to our attempts to make the Bill more extensive by suggesting that that is obstruction. On the contrary, we on this side of the Committee are doing our best to bring within the fold of this Bill as many people as we possibly can. It is a pity that we cannot bring in more people than we can.
The term "holding over" is not the appropriate term when a tenancy is continued as it is intended to continue a tenancy under the Bill. If there is any waste of time it is this quibbling that is resulting from the various Amendments put forward which have no substance in them at all, and I hope that the Attorney-General will resist that kind of Amendment.
Mr. Gibson: As a simple man, I cannot for the life of me—and I am sure that thousands of other people cannot—understand the difference between living in a place and residing in it. I would he glad if someone would explain to me what is the legal difference.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not propose to seek to take up time in defining that for the hon. Gentleman who describes himself—I fear inaccurately—as "a simple man." I would not have applied the word "simple," but it is his own description. The real point about this Amendment, other than defining the question of "residing" as opposed to "living" is the use of the simple phrase "holding over," which is a well-known phrase.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I can deal with the matter in a few sentences. "Holding over" means a trespasser. The whole point of the words is to say that a person is living illegally in the property. There is no difference between "living" and "residing." There is, however, a great difference by using the words "holding over," which would certainly affect the position of the occupier. The Clause is quite clear. It applies to people living in a property in continuation of the tenancy. That is a perfectly clear and acceptable phrase. The whole object of the Amendment is to try to put the occupier in an unhappy position in law by using words that imply that he has no right to be there.
The Attorney-General: This Amendment raises two points, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale). has
946
said: the substitution for "living … in continuation of the tenancy" the words, "holding over and residing." I think that hon. Members opposite have a subsequent Amendment to delete the words "in continuation of the tenancy." So far as the first point is concerned, the comparative merits of "living" and "residing," I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), who, whether simple or not, is certainly a sensible layman in these matters. I do not think there is really any legal significance in the difference between the two phrases, but I promise that we will look at them and so I will say no more about that aspect of the matter. The real point here is the substitution of the words "holding over … in continuation of the tenancy."
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has criticised the Clause as being complicated. I would concede that it is complicated, and inevitably and necessarily so. The expression "holding over" looks very attractive and simple at first sight, because it is two words in place of, I think it is, six. But it gets rid of one complication in the Bill at the cost of creating another and of causing considerable uncertainty as to what class of continued tenancy—if I may go back to our phrase—it is on which the Bill will really bite.
The expression "holding over" is used in at least three different senses. First, in the case of holding over without any statutory right, as in subsection (4, b) of our Clause as we have introduced and got it now. That is the correct use of it, as I understand it. It is used, secondly, where there is an occupation under an implied extension of the expired tenancy, based on the conduct of the party, the implied rent and other terms being the same in the expired tenancy, and the duration of the implied tenancy being a matter for argument but probably resulting in an annual tenancy. Third, it is used to cover the case of agreement which is implied from conduct where the terms may be different from those of the original tenancy.
It is very doubtful whether that last case would be caught at all by the words used by the hon. and learned Member. As for the second case, that is very frequently referred to as holding over.

947
giving rise to an annual tenancy, but the courts might well say that is not caught here by the expression of the hon. and learned Member. The only one we can be sure about, until the matter has been the subject of some litigation by the courts, would be the first one, and that is not as wide as we intend it to be.
For that reason I do not think I can accept the Amendment. I have met my hon. Friend by saying that I will look at his point and satisfy myself that there is a valid objection, but I do not think we can either insert an Amendment now or promise ourselves to put down an Amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: From recollection I think the expression "holding over" certainly covers the first two categories mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of the second, I should have thought there was no doubt. It is a convenient phrase which the Government themselves are using in a later Amendment and it is, I think, covered to a large extent by what is meant by the very complicated wording here. But we will not prolong the discussion on it now, tempted as I am to explain to the simple layman why we put down the words. In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from first "the," to "family," in line 14, and to insert:
"former tenant or a member of the former tenant's".
This is a drafting Amendment. We have a subsequent Amendment to page 3, line 3, which inserts a new subsection (6) which defines the expression, "the former tenant." The use of this expression in place of the longer phrase,
"the person who was the tenant immediately before the date of continuation."
does, I think, make the Bill a little simpler and should facilitate the drafting of the further Amendment we have in line 42.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 41.
Subsection (4) defines those who are concerned with subsection (1, b). It sets out in two parts a definition of what is a person living in the property or part thereof in continuation of the tenancy. The words which we ask the Committee to leave out of this Clause are subsection (4, b) which indicates that a person who was living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement is to be considered as a person living in the property in continuation of the tenancy.
This is not the same point we have just been discussing in connection with the last Amendment. It is of a slightly different nature. We fear that this subsection as drafted would cover not only the sort of person described in the subsection and the earlier Amendment as a tenant who has been in occupation but is "holding over"; whether the use of those words is in the sense we intend it, or the three senses in which the Attorney-General used it. That sort of person is not the only type of person covered by subsection (4, b). As we read it that subsection would cover all sorts of other people as well.
For example, there is the person who is on the premises as a trespasser pure and simple, with no right at all. If some part of the property, not necessarily the whole, became empty and some squatter broke in and actually took up residence there, under subsection (4, b) he would be covered. I know that it is a rare likelihood, but it is not too small a point that we should not spend a few moments on it. If this wording is not altered, we cover not only the tenant who has remained in occupation of his house on the expiration of his lease some time back and whose tenancy is continued by the Clause, but also a trespasser—a person who has no right at all to be on the premises.
The words are clear in their natural meaning. In the ordinary meaning I suggest that the words:
"… living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement"
can only mean some person living there who has never had any right or any tenancy of any kind. We also seek to delete the last three words of the subsection,

949
"and not otherwise." I cannot see any reason at all for those words. Subsection (4) defines people who are living in property in continuation of a tenancy. First, there is a person living there in right of a tenancy or agreement. Secondly, there is a person living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement. Then the subsection says, "and not otherwise." What otherwise there possibly could be, I do not understand.
I hope I do not incur the wrath—I will not say the just wrath—of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), by raising this matter. It is a good point, and I hope that the Attorney-General will realise that possibly the wording is not right and that it might be improved. I hope that he will accept the Amendment.
Mr. MacColl: I should like to follow what the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said. I have long given up any attempt to understand the meaning of the words in this subsection or the words in the Government Amendment which adds to it. One may take it that nobody who is not an exceedingly experienced conveyancer will ever get any kind of meaning out of it. For that reason, it is important that the layman should understand precisely what the law is intended to be. The hon. Member for Henley used the word "trespasser." It is desirable to avoid the use of that word.
Mr. Hay: I think I said, "Trespasser in the true sense of the term," meaning somebody who had got in with no right at all. I distinguished it very carefully from the sort of person who has been there in the right of a tenant and who might possibly be called a trespasser, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) said.
Mr. MacColl: That was more or less the point. I should not have said that the meaning attached to the word by a lawyer is not the true meaning. The ordinary man in the street understands by "trespasser" what the hon. Gentleman called a squatter. I should like to be clear whether he is or is not covered by this exceedingly complicated rigmarole of words.
One wants to be clear that the person who is called a trespasser by lawyers when they want to bully him but who thinks he has a reasonable right to be living where he is living is covered—that is, the man
950
who has not got that right because of some technical defect, while the squatter is not covered. That is what I thought was the intention. I should be very grateful if we could be told in simple language what precisely is meant by this Clause.
Sir Patrick Spens: Subsection (4, b) must be read in connection with paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. One must realise that not only does it include a deliberate trespasser and squatter, but it even includes someone against whom an order of the court has been made to get out but which in fact, has not been executed. Not only does it go against the ordinary law in every way: it even goes to the length of setting aside and making null and void an order of the court telling some deliberate trespasser to get out.
I hardly think that hon. Members opposite, who have shown sympathy for all sorts of people in possession, will say that they desire that someone who has no serious right to be there, and against whom an order of the court has been made but not executed, should have another two years' possession of somebody else's property. If so, we shall know where the Socialist Party stand.
Mr. Gibson: We are not justified in altering the wording of this Clause in the way suggested. It would have the effect, to use a phrase which has already been used, of reducing the number of beneficiaries under this Bill. We are not entitled to do that merely because there may be an odd criminal who is not carrying out some order of the court, or an odd squatter here and there. That is not true of London. There are a few squatters still in our parks, but before we started to turn them out under this Bill, I should want to know a good deal about the circumstances.
The whole purpose of the Amendments put forward by the Opposition is to whittle away the objects of this Bill. That is what this Amendment would do by reducing the number of beneficiaries, although the argument has been supported by reference to people who may have an order against them or who may have been squatting. I have not yet come across a squatter in a privately owned flat. Squatters are usually found in municipal flats.
Mr. John Foster: The Socialist Party protects burglars.
Mr. Gibson: We leave that to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Foster: A burglar goes into a house and finds it empty for the weekend. He brings his family in to live there and the ground lease comes to an end at the right time. Yet he can stay there for two years. I dare say the Socialist Party may want to protect burglars; but we do not want to give them the protection of this Bill. I imagine that the Socialists got all the burglars' votes, though I do not think there would be much advantage in that.
Seriously, I appeal to the simple layman. Is he really as simple as that? Does he really want to protect burglars when, by an Amendment, we can exclude them? Or does he say, "No, we must not lessen the scope of this Bill. The Opposition are trying to deprive certain beneficiaries of their protection under this Bill and, therefore, we want to leave burglars in."
Mr. Donnelly: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that burglars should not have a home?
Mr. Foster: And does the hon. Gentleman say that burglars, when they discover a better home, should be entitled to change it and then claim the protection of this Bill? If he does, he is making a nonsensical point. If burglars are protected, I ask the Attorney-General to adopt some form of words which will not protect them.
Again I appeal to the simple layman. I ask him as a simple layman—and I join him here—whether the last sentence does not sound to him to be nonsense. I ask the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) also. The words are:
"he was then living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement, and not otherwise."
Mr. MacColl: The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to me as a simple layman. Goodness knows, I do not look like a lawyer, but in fact I am one.
Mr. Foster: I hope that the Attorney-General will not be satisfied with this wording. He knows what trouble can be made in the courts with a phrase like this. It must be nonsense to have the word "otherwise" eight words before the words "and not otherwise." I should like him to give an answer whether or not that is right. I think the Solicitor-
952
General is going to deal with this Amendment, and I would point out that he must read the whole thing down to the full stop, and he will find that, near the end, we have an "otherwise" and a "not otherwise" so close together that it must be nonsense.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: We are all very much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) for his exposé on the position of burglars in regard to this Bill. I do not think that we need take such an extreme case as that, but it is very difficult to understand this Clause. Indeed, I should be very surprised to find anybody who did understand it.
The position, as it occurs to me, is that the Clause seems to have left the door wide open for something like this. Anyone who occupies a house at present can simply invite somebody else to go and stay there, and then, in a few weeks' time, they themselves can clear out and allow this other person to do something with the house which would amount to exploiting it. If these words are left in the Clause, it is perfectly clear that somebody can come from abroad and stay for three months, and that that person will be the person who is living there.
What these words mean is somewhat difficult to interpret, but that is what it means. [Laughter.] I am not surprised that hon. Members are laughing over this, because the wording is ridiculous. There is no question that it does mean that anybody can be brought into a house, either as a guest or deliberately for the purpose of exploiting the house. It is clear that this free and elastic terminology will include a person who is absolutely undeserving of any of the benefits sought to be conferred by this Bill. Unless the Solicitor-General, with some ingenuity which I cannot imagine at the moment, can give a different definition of this Clause than the one which has already been stated, and clear away the confusion and indeed the dangers that beset it, then I think he should tell us that he will reconsider this matter, and may I suggest further that he would do well, on reconsidering it, to eliminate it entirely.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I do not think that the apprehensions which so many hon.

953
Members have expressed regarding this Clause have any foundation at all. If I may have the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), I cannot refer to a burglar, for the simple reason that the person who is referred to in subsection (4, b) must be either the tenant or a member of the tenant's family.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: But he may be a burglar.
The Solicitor-General: He may be, but draftsmen cannot be expected to provide for all sorts of rare contingencies. It is scarcely worth while taking up the time of the Committee by arguing such a fanciful suggestion.
What the Clause is designed to do is this. Subsection (4, a) deals with the case where, the long lease having expired, there is a fresh holding at the same rent. Subsection (4, b) deals with this kind of case. There is a tenant, or a member of the tenant's family, living in the premises under the terms of the long lease, which then comes to an end, but the tenant does not immediately go.
The sort of situation which might well arise in these circumstances, and the one which the draftsmen had in mind in this particular context, is that the ex-tenant stays on, and one may assume that there are negotiations proceeding between him and the landlord for a fresh lease or tenancy. Technically, when he is staying on—there having yet been no new contract as between the parties concerned—he is, in law, a trespasser. There is no other way of describing his position than as a trespasser in law. When the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), in moving the Amendment, asked the question whether, as a matter of drafting, this technically includes trespassers, the answer is that certainly it does. That is what the wording is designed to do, and it certainly brings about that result.
The short answer to the arguments which have been addressed from both sides of the Committee as to the possible effect of this Clause is to be found in the limitation in subsection (1, a)—the limitation that the person who is in the premises, whether under the terms of a new contract or without any contractual right to be there, must be either the previous tenant holding over, or some member of the family of the previous
954
tenant. Therefore, it is quite fanciful to suggest in that particular case that a burglar might come in, and that is not likely to happen in more than one case out of 10 million; that is about all.
The question is whether, in those circumstances and as matter of substance, we are right in so framing the provisions of the Clause. Our object in this standstill Measure is to preserve the status quo, and we feel that, when we find a situation in which a tenant is holding over, in those circumstances it is right to perpetuate the situation for the two-year period in order that permanent legislation may be introduced to deal with that case. That is the reason the Clause is framed in that particular way. Once he has gone out of the premises, of course, it is impossible in practice to restore the position to what it was before, but we have taken the view. on the merits of the Clause, that where we have a previous tenant or member of his family still there, probably because negotiations are still going on, this Clause should apply and he should be given this extended tenancy, which will keep him in possession during the interim period for which the Bill provides.
It is not as if the tenant is allowed to live there rent-free, because the effect of Clauses 1 and 2 is that retrospectively a tenancy is created—that is to say, the original tenancy subsisting under the long lease is prolonged in respect of any period that may elapse during the negotiations—but he is liable to pay the same rent as he was paying before. Whether or not that is the appropriate rent is another matter, which we have already discussed on the first Clause. If it be assumed that the view which the Government have taken and which the Committee have accepted is right—that the pre-existing rent is the proper rent—the so-called trespasser is placed under an obligation to pay that proper rent. That is the substance of the matter.
I confess that one would have to tax one's ingenuity to think of a case in which there was an unmeritorious trespasser, and there could not be many, because the person has to be either the tenant or a member of the ex-tenant's family. There will be a very limited number of such cases, though conceivably there may be some, but as a matter of definition it is quite impossible to exclude the rare and unusual case, such as the case where we

955
might have a person in the premises as a trespasser under subsection (4, b) who has no reasonable grounds for being there at all. We therefore thought that, as the vast majority of cases would be cases such as I have described, and as it is not possible, as a matter of drafting, to exclude the rare and unmeritorious case, it is better to leave the Clause as it is, providing, as it does, that a person who is technically in the eyes of the law a trespasser may be given protection as the person who will be staying on when the negotiations have gone a little further. That is the case we make with regard to that position.
May I deal with one or two questions that have been raised concerning the drafting? The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked what is the effect of the words "and not otherwise," with which subsection (4) concludes. They have effect with regard to this case. They exclude the case of a person who is staying on under the terms of the new tenancy not at the same rent, and who, therefore, does not come within subsection (4, a) and—
Mr. L. Hale: Why? Would it not be better to eliminate subsection 4 altogether? Why this restriction on people who have had to pay a bit more to get in?
The Solicitor-General: May I deal first with the question as a matter of drafting? My hon. Friend's question goes entirely to the merits, and we have already given reasons why we think that undesirable; but, as a pure matter of drafting, it deals with the case of a person who is not staying on under a tenancy of the same rent, but who has a tenancy, and who is therefore not affected by subsection (4, b) either.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich, I really do not see what his difficulty is. Subsection (4, b) talks about a person who is
"living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement,"
and "not otherwise" refers to all persons who do not fall within paragraphs (a) or (b). There is no difficulty about it. I think that if one analyses the language with any degree of attention, he will find that the drafting as it stands is perfectly
956
satisfactory to achieve the purpose, if the Committee agree with that purpose. If they agree that the purpose is a proper one, then the Clause certainly achieves it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), asked me a question which, of course, goes entirely to the substance and the root of the matter; but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained during the Second Reading debate, he thought that when there had been merely something of the nature of a completely new contractual—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. If it was out of order to discuss the question of the effect of letting at an increased rent during the course of an earlier Amendment, it surely cannot be in order, I submit, Sir Charles, to discuss it on this Amendment?
The Deputy-Chairman: It might be better if the debate were confined strictly to the Amendment under discussion.
The Solicitor-General: Perhaps both my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, and myself are to blame with regard to this. I think my hon. Friend would agree that it is not strictly germane to this Amendment.
Mr. L. Hale: With all respect, I venture to submit, Sir Charles, why I think it is germane. The Amendment seeks to leave out half of this Clause. If that is done, it will leave some people excluded, and not others. Therefore, in my submission, it is entirely relevant to the discussion. The whole question of who should be excluded arises on this Amendment, and indeed it falls to be discussed on the next Amendment if you decide to call it, Sir Charles.
The Deputy-Chairman: I am in some difficulty. I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in order, but if he is not, perhaps he will take care.
The Solicitor-General: Whether in order or not, I have already given the answer I desired to give, even if you rule me out of order in proceeding further, Sir Charles.
Those are the reasons why I ask the Committee to say that the Clause should stay as it is and to reject the proposed Amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must say that I am not in the least satisfied with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. In the first place—and I think I have the support even of hon. Members opposite for saying this—this is an extremely badly drafted Clause, confusing, complicated and vague. As to the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to achieve, I said some time ago that the tenant waiting for this Bill ought to be included within its scope, even though the landlord had given him notice to get out. That is one thing, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has himself admitted that this Bill goes much further than that. It is all very well for him to laugh at the suggestion of a burglar, but may I put this case to him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that the wording is such as to cover trespassers who are not trespassers in the sense that they continue to hold over against the will of the landlord; but the case with which he did not deal was that put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that the effect of the First Schedule, read in relation to this Clause, is to provide that anyone against whom a court order has been obtained to leave premises will, notwithstanding that court order, be given, by virtue of this subsection, an extended tenancy for two years. We think that is quite wrong, and in our view, therefore, these words ought to come out and space be left, if necessary, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman before the Report stage to table a further Amendment for the purpose of carrying into effect what is the intention of the Government, and nothing more.
Mr. L. Hale: I am sorry to continue this discussion, but there are two problems of importance in connection with this matter, one of which ought to be put at once. My view, and the view, I am sure, of my hon. Friends and of those who signed the minority Report, is that an English family have a right to a home. That is a right which predominates over the question of rent or any other interest at all. The right of a family to a home belongs to the burglar's family as well as to any other family, and we are trying to protect their occupancy of their homes.
958
During the Second Reading debate, we had a reference by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to brothels. We now have references to a burglar. It would therefore be right to say that in our view the Englishman's home is his castle, and that in the view of the Opposition it is his brothel. That sort of thing is unreasonable, unfair and indelicate, and ought to be dealt with.
I want my right hon. and learned Friend to consider, between now and the Report stage, whether subsection (4) is necessary at all. As I understand it, this Clause means that if anyone went into the fag-end of a long lease and had to agree to pay a little extra to do so, not merely had to pay the ground rent to the landlord but also had to pay something to the tenant who went out—and this is the final effect of this Clause and the Amendment next on the Order Paper—then he is to be excluded from protection merely because he was forced to pay a hit extra. My right hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, but I shall be glad if he will explain. I am talking about subsection (4, a) of Clause 2.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who keeps on repeating his Second Reading speech, which gets worse and worse each time, is now devoting his speech to subsection (4, a) which is right outside this Amendment. This Amendment refers to subsection (4, b), and I suggest that he might reserve his observations until we discuss the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Hale: A callow and rather childish reference to somebody's speech is not a point of order. Surely, we are entitled to discuss the effect of the Clause if half of it is eliminated, and that is the proposal to which I am directing my observations at this moment. Of course, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious that I should speak again, I can say it all over again on the next Amendment. The matter is raised now by this Amendment, and I would urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to consider this. I see no reason why we should eliminate from the protection of the Clause tenants who have had to pay more either by way of premium or in extra rent. They are not paying it

959
to the landlord, but to the outgoing tenant. It may be that the outgoing tenant is even reasonably justified in charging a premium because he may have to pay a premium elsewhere. It is stated perfectly clearly in paragraph (a) and in the next Amendment on the Order Paper.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: No.
Mr. Hale: If there is one thing I will not do in this House, it is to take my law from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).
Mr. Hay: Until the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale) spoke, I thought we had a very good humoured and friendly discussion of this Amendment, which we felt would greatly improve the wording of this Clause. I am very sorry, indeed, that the hon. Member should have chosen to make such unpleasant remarks as he has made and should have tried to persuade some of those on the benches behind him, who might have felt there was something in our argument, that it should be defeated because the English family is entitled to a home. That sort of remark should have been made to the present Minister of Labour and National Service. We on this side have made it frequently.
The lengthy explanation which the Solicitor-General gave of his reason for rejecting this Amendment was not entirely satisfactory. He tried to tie Clause 2 (4, b) with Clause 2 (1), but I did not quite follow him, because the reference in the whole of the Clause is to two sorts of people. Firstly, the words
"tenant or a member of his family"
are used, and again we get the use of this word "person." If the Government had in mind to cover by Clause 2 (4, b) the position of the tenant who was "holding over," to use the non-technical expression, and negotiating with his landlord for a new lease, it would have been far easier to say "tenant" throughout the Clause; but it keeps on referring to a person,
"then living there otherwise than in right of any tenancy or agreement."
I think those words mean what they say. It may be all very well for the Solicitor-General to try and explain the exact meaning the Government give to these words, but as a Committee we should rely upon the sort of view a court would take of the words when they come to be legally interpreted. As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) said, we have to try to make it intelligible to the layman, and frankly I do not think it is intelligible.
I was very sorry that the Solicitor-General did not deal with the very important point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). Let me relate my hon. and learned Friend's remarks to the situation the Solicitor-General envisaged. He drew a picture of a tenant, having come to the end of a lease remaining in the premises and negotiating with the landlord. Suppose that tenant was not granted a new lease. Let us assume he had been an extremely bad tenant and the landlord did not want him to continue and that actually the landlord had a court order against that tenant. Under this Clause, as it stands, that court order can be set completely at variance. A bad tenant would be able to continue in the premises and an unwilling landlord would be saddled with him.
That sort of situation could arise, as well as the point with regard to the trespasser, with which I dealt in my opening remarks, and the fanciful point of the burglar which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) put not very seriously to the Committee. I am sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be satisfied and will press the matter to a Division.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 243.

Division No. 19.]

AYES

[6.25 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Ayles, W. H.

Benson, G.

Adams, Richard

Bacon, Miss A.

Beswick, F.

Albu, A. H.

Baird, J.

Bing, G. H. C.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Balfour, A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Barnes, Rt Hon. A. J.

Blyton, W. R.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Bartley, P.

Boardman, H.

Awbery, S. S.

Benn, Hon A. N. Wedgwood

Booth, A.

Bottomley, A. G.

Hayman, F. H.

Pearson, A.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

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

Peart, T. F.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Herbison, Miss M.

Poole, Cecil

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hewitson, Capt M.

Popplewell, E.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hobson, C. R.

Porter, G.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Holman, P.

Price, M Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Proctor, W. T.

Brown, George (Belper)

Houghton, Douglas

Pryde, D. J.

Brown, T J (Ince)

Hoy, J

Pursey, Commander H

Burke, W. A

Hubbard, T

Rankin, J

Burton, Miss E

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

Rees, Mrs. D.

Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reeves, J.

Callaghan, James

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Carmichael, James

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Champion, A. J.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Rhodes, H.

Chetwynd, G R

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Richards, R.

Clunie, J

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Robens, A.

Cocks, F S.

Janner, B

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Coldrick, W

Jay, D. P. T.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Collick, P

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Collindridge, F.

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

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Cook, T. F

Jenkins, R. H

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

Cooper. J (Deptford)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Corbet, Mrs F K (Peckham)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Royle, C.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Crawley, A

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Silverman. J. (Erdington)

Crosland, C A R

Keenan, W.

Silverman, S. S (Nelson)

Crossman, R H S

Kenyon, C.

Simmons, C. J.

Cullen, Mrs. A

King, H. M.

Slater, J.

Daines, P

Kinley, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Dalton, Rt Hon. H

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

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

Darling, G (Hillsboro')

Lever, L. M (Ardwick)

Snow, J. W.

Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N)

Lever, N. H (Cheetham)

Sorensen, R. W.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

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

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lindgren, G S.

Sparks, J. A.

Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

Lipton, Lt -Col. M

Steele, T

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Logan, D. G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Deer, G

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J

Delargy, H. J

McAllister, G.

Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R (Vauxhall)

Dodds, N. N.

MacColl, J. E.

Stross, Dr. B.

Donnelly, D

Macdonald, A. J. F (Roxburgh)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Driberg, T E. N

McGhee, H. G.

Sylvester, G. O.

Dye, S

McGovern, J

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt Hon J C

McInnes, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edelman, M

Mack, J. D.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

Edwards, W J (Stepney)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, I. R (Rhondda W.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Thurtle, Ernest

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Timmons, J.

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Tomney, F.

Ewart, R

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

Turner-Samuels, M.

Fernyhough, E

Mann, Mrs. J.

Ungoed-Thomas, A L

Field, Capt W J

Manuel, A. C.

Vernon, Maj. W F

Finch, H. J

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Viant, S. P

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

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Wade, D. W.

Follick, M

Mellish, R J

Wallace, H. W.

Foot, M M.

Messer, F

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

Forman, J. C

Middleton, Mrs. L

Weitzman, D.

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Mikardo, Ian

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Freeman, J (Watford)

Mitchison, G. R.

Wells, W T. (Walsall)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.

Moeran, E. W.

West, D G.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Monslow, W.

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

George, Lady M. Lloyd

Moody, A. S.

While, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Gibson, C. W

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

While, H (Derbyshire. N. E.)

Gilzean, A.

Morley, R.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Morris P. (Swansea W.)

Wilkes, L.

Gooch, E. G

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

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)

Mort, D. L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Grenfell, D. R.

Moyle, A.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Grey, C. F.

Mulley, F. W.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Murray, J. D.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Nally, W.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Neal, H.

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

Grimond, J.

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

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

Hall, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Oliver, G H

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Orbach, M.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

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

Padley, W E.

Wise, Major F. J.

Hamilton, W. W.

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

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Hardman, D. R

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Wyatt, W L.

Hardy, E. A.

Pannell, T. C.

Yates, V. F.

Hargreaves, A.

Pargiter, G. A

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Harrison, J.

Parker, J

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paton, J

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

962

963

NOES

Alport, C. J. M.

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Nicholson, G.

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Glyn, Sir R.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Arbuthnot, John

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Nutting, Anthony

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Oakshott H. D

Astor, Hon. M.

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Odey, G. W.

Baker, P.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Banks, Col. C.

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Baxter, A. B.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hay, John

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

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

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Heald, L. F.

Pickthorn, K.

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Heath, E. R.

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

Bishop, F. P.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Black, C. W.

Higgs, J. M. C.

Profumo, J. D.

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Raikes, H. V

Boothby, R.

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Rayner, Brigadier R

Bossom, A. C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Remnant, Hon. P.

Bower, N.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hollis, M. C.

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hope, Lord J.

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Roper, Sir H.

Braine, B.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Ropner, Col. L

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Russell, R. S.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

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

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hurd, A. R.

Scott, Donald

Bullock, Capt. M.

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

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

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Burden, Squadron Leader F. A

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Butcher, H. W

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Jennings, R.

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Johnson, Howard S. (Kentptown)

Snadden, W. McN

Carson, Hon, E.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Soames, Capt. C

Channon, H.

Kaberry, D.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

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

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

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

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

Langford-Holt, J

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

Colegate, A.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Stevens, G. P.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

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

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lindsay, Martin

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

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

Linstead, H. N.

Storey, S.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

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

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Summers, G. S.

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

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Sutcliffe, H.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

Teeling, William

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

Low, A. R. W.

Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

Cundiff, F. W.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

Davidson, Viscountess

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Thornton-Kemsley, C N.

de Chair, S.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Deedes, W. F.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Turner, H. F. L

Digby, S. Wingfield

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Turton, R. H.

Dodds-Parker, A D

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Donner, P W.

McKibbin, A.

Vane, W. M. F.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Drayson, G. B

Maclay, Hon. J S

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

Drewe, C.

Maclean, F. H. R.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarty)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C

Dunglass, Lord

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Watkinson, H

Duthie, W. S

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Eccles, D. M.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Webbe, Sir H. (London)

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Erroll, F. J.

Marples, A. E.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Fisher, Nigel

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

Fort, R.

Maudling, R.

Wills, G.

Foster, J. G.

Mellor, Sir J.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Molson, A. H. E.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Wood, Hon. R.

Gage. C. H.

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

York, C.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Nabarro, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gammans, L. D.

Nicholls, H.

Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.

6.30 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that a person shall not be deemed for those purposes at any time—

(i) to have been living in the property or a part thereof in continuation of the tenancy if he was then living there in right of a tenancy or agreement (whether express or implied) granted, made or renewed for a consideration which included the payment of a premium or of a sum in the nature of a premium; or

(ii) to have been living in a part of the property in continuation of the tenancy if another person was then in possession of some other part of the property, unless that other person was the former tenant or a person claiming under him or a person holding over after the coming to an end of a sub-tenancy created (immediately or derivatively) out of the tenancy."

Doubt has been expressed as to whether a case in which a fixed tenant stays on and pays a premium for the renewal of his lease would be covered by subsection (4, a). As hon. Members know, the object of subsection (4, a) is to exclude from the benefits of the Clause tenants who are staying on at a higher rent than the rent which they paid under the expired lease. Doubts have been raised as to what the situation would be if the tenant stayed on at the same rent but had paid a premium for the renewal of his tenancy. As the Bill stands at the moment, probably upon its true construction, such a case would not come within subsection (4, a).
During the Second Reading debate, those doubts having been indicated, I undertook that I would introduce an Amendment to set aside all possible ambiguity. The first sub-paragraph of the new proviso which I seek to insert is designed with that purpose. Hon. Members will see that it provides that a person shall not be deemed to be living in continuation of the tenancy if he has paid a premium for the renewal. That is the object of the first part of the proviso.
The object of the second part of the proviso is this. There may be a case in which a tenancy extends, say, to a terrace of houses. The lease may embrace 20 houses. The ex-tenant may, after the expiration of the long lease, be staying on and living only in one of those houses. This is a case which is, perhaps, rather unusual, but it indicates the sort of circumstances which the Government have in mind. After the lease has come to an end, and while the ex-tenant is staying
966
on in one of the houses, the landlord may have resumed possession of the other 19, and he may have demolished some of them or he may have sublet some of them to other tenants.
It is quite impossible, as a matter of practice, to restore the situation to what it would have been if all those 20 houses still remained part of the tenancy granted for the extended two years to the ex-tenant. Therefore, we felt that we had to provide for that sort of case, and we do so by saying that amongst persons who shall not be deemed to be living in continuation of the former lease within the meaning of the first subsection of the Clause shall be tenants who only live on in part of it, the remainder of it having been occupied by some other person, say the landlord, or some other tenant altogether. That is the object of the proviso which we seek to introduce.
Mr. J. Foster: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how paragraphs 2 and 3 of the First Schedule fit into this Amendment? They appear to be difficult to read together.
The Solicitor-General: I do not really think they affect this case. It is provided by paragraph 2 that where we get a continued tenancy—that is to say, where a situation arises under which a lease is extended for the extra two years—that shall be in substitution of any other contractual bargain which the ex-tenant may have entered into with his landlord. The object is to see to it that an ex-tenant is not called upon to pay two lots of rent, namely, the rent provided for in the continued tenancy—the tenancy continued by the provisions of the Clause—and the rent provided for in the hypothetical circumstances by the contract that he has actually entered into with his landlord. That paragraph deals with a different case altogether.
Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule was the paragraph which gave rise to the doubt as to whether a case of a premium would be included in Clause 2 (4, a), and because it was thought that conceivably the wording of that paragraph might be appropriate to include a case where a premium was paid, I now seek to introduce the clarifying proviso to make it perfectly clear that the receipt of
"any penalty, mesne profits or other sum."

967
which must mean other like sum, is not intended to cover, and as the proviso is now introduced does not in fact cover, the case where a premium was paid.
Mr. J. Foster: It may be due to my stupidity, but I find it difficult to understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood the first part of his remarks—that paragraph 3 of the First Schedule raised the doubt. If paragraph 3 is to be amended, that explains the situation; but unless it is, the two Clauses will be in opposition to each other. In paragraph 3 of the First Schedule it says
"any penalty, mesne profits or other sum … shall be brought into account."
If any penalty shall be brought into account, then that is a fact; and one proviso does not override the other. But what penalty—or premium, if the Solicitor-General likes that better—shall be brought into account if his new Amendment says that people who pay premiums shall not be covered by the Act? That seems to me very difficult to understand. I should like to know what kind of premiums are covered by paragraph 3 of the First Schedule which shall apply to people covered by this Bill when the Amendment says that people who pay premiums will not be covered by the Bill. I expect that there is an answer, but it is difficult to know what the answer is.
The Solicitor-General: The answer is that the words
"penalty, mesne profits or other sum"
are not appropriate to cover the case of the premium at all, and therefore the premium does not have to be brought into account. Supposing there is a case where a tenant has paid mesne profits. Those mesne profits which have been paid by the tenant are to be set off against the rent which is paid under the extending tenancy. In so far as there was a possible doubt as to whether the words in paragraph 3 could be said to be appropriate to cover a premium, we are seeking to make the matter pellucidly clear by introducing the proviso.
Mr. Foster: The doubt still remains in my mind because paragraph 3 of the First Schedule refers to
"penalty, mesne profits or other sum."
That seems to be a wide expression. If we look at the Amendment we find that it says
968
"the payment of a premium or of a sum in the nature of a premium."
Both those expressions are very wide and, it seems to me, overlap. Let me give an instance where the tenant obtained an extension of his lease—say 19 or 20 years ago—on the payment of an arbitrary sum of money, which would seem to me to come under a "penalty" It is not a premium in one sense, but the landlord has extended on a penalty. For instance, the landlord may have said. "I will extend your lease if you will pay for the erection of certain buildings at a sum to be agreed between us." Perhaps the man has to erect an outhouse for £400.
That case seems to be covered under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule and also under the Amendment, because it is something in the nature of a premium; and I do not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say that the two things are mutually exclusive. If the landlord says, "You have to pay a sum in the nature of a penalty," I do not see why that is different from something in the nature of a premium. I do not see what is the difference between a penalty and a premium.
The Solicitor-General: The contrast is between the case where a tenancy continues because of paragraph 3 and the case in which the tenancy does not continue because the proviso says that the payment of a premium shall prevent it from so doing. They are dealing with altogether different cases. Where we find that a sum is paid, such as mesne profits, in respect of the occupation of the premises, then all the paragraph says is that it is to be set off against the rent. The proviso is dealing with a case where a premium is paid; the tenancy is, therefore, not continued. The paragraph is dealing with any payment which has been made in the nature of rent in respect of the occupation of the premises and which has, accordingly, under the terms of the paragraph, to be set off against the rent.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will it not be necessary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to amend paragraph 3? It is very difficult to dispute the proposition that a premium is a sum paid to a landlord in respect of occupation. Does not paragraph 3 of the Schedule need amendment? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that he will amend it, we might be able to get on.
The Solicitor-General: I do not think it does because, after all, the proviso is in respect of the preceding enactments of the Clause which, by reference, incorporate the Schedule. The Clause and the Schedule have, therefore, to be read together and are subject to the proviso in which, where we find a premium, there is to be no continued tenancy. I do not think any change is necessary.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am still worried about this, and I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for not fully understanding what the Amendment does. It seems to me that there is confusion throughout the Clause about the word "tenancy," which keeps popping up and which sometimes refers to the original tenancy but which clearly, in subsection (4), refers to a new tenancy granted to carry on after expiry. It seems to me, on reading it, that if we take a case under subsection (4, a), which says:
"He was then living there in right of a tenancy or agreement (whether expressed or implied) at a rent, or in consideration of a payment in the nature of rent, of the like amount as the rent payable immediately before the date of continuation,"
that must refer to a new tenancy. That new tenancy is quite a different tenancy from that to which we refer in the main Clause, which is retaining the granting of a 99 years' lease—the continuation of the assignment of it. If that be so, I venture to submit that this Clause will not touch at all the question of the payment by the tenant to the landlord of a premium; it will catch people who have had to pay a premium to the outgoing tenant, which is quite common. The outgoing tenant may have said, "You can have the last three or four years of the lease if you pay £50 or if you buy the furniture at my price"; and the man is now occupying the premises by virtue of a tenancy agreed with the outgoing tenant in respect of which he has paid a premium.
I may be wrong—and I apologise to the Committee if I am—but I certainly think that is brought in by the wording of the Clause, and if it is, I do not think it should be. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at the matter again.
The Solicitor-General: I am always grateful for any suggestions of alteration
970
to the drafting which might improve the Bill, from whatever part of the Committee they come, and I say that with very great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), and others who have spoken. I do not think my hon. Friend's apprehension is well-founded because, if we look at subsection (4, a), the distinction between the tenancy which comes to an end at the date of the continuation and the new tenancy under which the tenant continues to live in the premises is, as a matter of drafting, made sufficiently clear. But I will certainly look at the drafting in the light of all the arguments which have been advanced.
Amendment agreed to.
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add:
(6) In this section the expression "the former tenant" means the person who was the tenant immediately before the date of continuation.
This is consequential on the Amendment which has already been made to page 2, line 12.
Mr. J. Foster: This does refer back to the family of a tenant as long ago as 20 years? That is theoretically possible?
The Solicitor-General: Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(NOTICE BY TENANT TO STOP CONTINUATION.)
Mr. Higgs: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out subsections (1) to (3), and to insert:
(1) A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Part of this Act retains or is entitled to retain possession of a dwelling-house shall be entitled to give up possession of that dwelling-house only on giving not less than one month's notice to the landlord in writing and specifying the date upon which he intends to give up possession and he shall not by virtue of the provisions of this Part of this Act ho entitled to retain possession after the date specified thereon.
The Chairman: May I ask whether this matter has not already been covered?
Mr. Higgs: As I understand it, we have not in any way yet touched upon the question of notices to be served by

971
tenants who do not wish to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill. This Amendment was intended to improve the drafting of the first three subsections of this Clause. That was its intention, and I shall move it quite shortly if you will allow me, Major Milner.
The whole of this Clause is intended to provide that a tenant who wishes to do so may opt out of the benefit of the Bill, and the first three subsections deal with three different sets of circumstances in which he may do so. Subsection (1) deals with the tenant who has a tenancy which is covered by Clause 1 of the Bill and who elects to give notice that he does not wish to take advantage of Clause 1 of the Bill; and he may do so by giving his notice not later than one month before the date of expiry referred to in Clause 1. Subsection (2) deals with a tenant, covered also by Clause 1, where he elects, either before or after the date of expiry, to give notice that he does not wish to take advantage of the terms of the Bill, and that he wants to opt out of it. Subsection (3) deals with the tenant who is protected by Clause 2 of the Bill.
We think that here we have an Amendment which would rejoice the heart of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), because we claim that we can do in one paragraph what the draftsman has done in three. We would provide that the tenant in any circumstances who wants to opt out of the Bill can do so by giving one month's notice, and that, having given that notice, he is bound by it. That is the simple effect of our Amendment, and we cannot see that it is really necessary to have three subsections dealing with three slightly different sets of circumstances in exactly the same way, when one subsection will cover all three. The Amendment seems to be a simplification.
The Solicitor-General: We can appreciate the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and we did give very serious thought to what he proposes by his Amendment. He does, in fact, seek to combine in one form of wording the three alternative sets of circumstances which we set out in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Clause. On balance we feel that it is desirable to say perfectly clearly what is to happen in the three sets of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman in
972
his Amendment does not deal with the case which is dealt with in subsection (1), where the tenant wants to bring his tenancy to an end with the expiry of the long lease. His Amendment provides for a general termination on one month's notice.
I quite agree that it is a question as to which is the more convenient form of wording, and that one obviously wants, wherever one can, to be short instead of long. At the same time, we feel that on balance, to begin with, that case is not specifically covered by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment; and, second, that it is desirable in the interests of clarity, although the draft will be somewhat longer, to differentiate between the case where the tenant wishes to give notice after the expiry of the long lease and that where he wishes to give it in the circumstances which are envisaged by subsection 2. However, we are grateful to the. hon. Gentleman for moving the Amendment, and I can assure him that we have considered very carefully whether it would improve the draft or not.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am a little surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, for this reason, that the Amendment does, as I understand it, specifically cover the wording of subsection (1) of the Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it does not, but will he read with me the wording of the Amendment? He will see there:
"A tenant who by virtue of the provisions of this Part of this Act retains or is entitled to retain possession …"
That means to say that it covers both those who are holding over after the expiry of their tenancy and those who are entitled to go on by virtue of this Bill after the tenancy expires, if it expires on a date in the future. Therefore, a tenant who comes under our particular Amendment can give notice that he does not wish to take advantage of this Measure, because he is obviously a tenant who is entitled, but for that notice, to retain possession. Therefore, I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite accurate, whatever objections he may raise, when he puts forward as a ground for resisting this Amendment the contention that the Amendment itself does not cover subsection (1) of the Clause. I should have thought it was clear from the wording that the Amendment, in fact,

973
is wide enough to cover that, and, indeed, to comprehend all three subsections in one short subsection.
Therefore, I should have thought that it would have been desirable, in the interests of keeping our Statutes as short as possible and of avoiding unnecessary verbiage, and indeed, of avoiding complexity, that where we could put it perfectly clearly, as it is put in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, we should insert such a provision, rather than put the same thing in something like 15 lines of the Bill. I think that the argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as the first subsection is concerned, is not strictly accurate. I should be interested to know where, in fact, he can base his objection to this perfectly reasonable Amendment, put with the purpose of improving this Bill, improving its drafting, and making it more intelligible.
Mr. J. Foster: Is not the Solicitor-General suffering from pride of authorship? The three subsections of the Clause do this: the first subsection says that a tenant in a ground lease can end on the day the lease expires; the second one says that a tenant who is continued by the Bill can deprive himself of the benefit of the Bill by serving notice; and the third says that a tenant who is holding over can do that. Well, the Amendment puts all that into one expression, and says that a tenant entitled to the benefits of this Bill can end his benefit by one month's notice. I should have thought that that was clearer and shorter than putting the alternatives out one after another. That is where I disagree with the Solicitor-General. His draft does not make for clarity, because if we put alternatives one after the other we keep on thinking of more alternatives. If we put in a complete expression to cover all that, I think it is much better. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter in that light. I can see the argument both ways, but I think the Amendment is the better way, and that it should be possible for the Solicitor-General to accept it.
7.0 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: I am sure hon. Members opposite will agree that the point involved is not a very big one. It is a question of drafting, and, while I do not want to be obstinate or meticulous
974
about this, the suggested drafting does not cover subsection (1), to begin with, because it refers only to the case where the tenant retains or is entitled to retain possession. Secondly, the Amendment only enables the tenant to give a month's notice, specifying the date on which he wishes his notice to come to an end. He may, however, simply wish to give a month's notice, without specifying a date, in order that his tenancy, the long lease still subsisting, shall come to an end with the long lease. With a change of wording, I agree one could incorporate both those alterations into the Amendment, but if that is done it becomes so complicated that it is far better to have the slightly longer form. There is only a small drafting point between us, but we take the view, rightly or wrongly, that on balance our draft is preferable.
Mr. C. Williams: I wonder whether I could help on this comparatively small point, looking at it from the point of view of the layman? The Solicitor-General has been exceedingly kind and helpful on this Bill. Having listened with great care to what he has said, as far as I can see we have here a perfectly simple Amendment which covers practically the whole of these three very complicated points in the Bill itself. It may well be necessary between now and the Report stage to make some slight alteration to the Amendment, but from every point of view I think it would be better to accept this remarkably clear and fairly easily understandable Amendment, which would have the effect of shortening the Bill.
If the Amendment is accepted, I am sure the Government could find some perfectly easy legal method of ensuring that most, if not all, of the cases are covered. Accepting this simple Amendment, which we have now adequately discussed, would be to include something which is easy to understand, and I should have thought that the Solicitor-General, who says that only a small point is involved, would have been glad to get at any rate one little bit of the Bill quite clear. In those circumstances, in the interests of the whole Committee I appeal to him to accept this Amendment, and so get one little bit of the Bill easily understandable, which would be something even for this Government.
Amendment negatived.
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out subsection (5).
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order. Would it be in order to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay)—in page 3, line 25, to leave out from the beginning to "shall" in line 26, and to insert:
"Section twenty-three of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927"?
If the Amendment to leave out subsection (5) is accepted my hon. Friend might be prevented from advancing the arguments which he wishes to advance in support of his Amendment. Could they be discussed together, in case my hon. Friend wants to divide the Committee?
The Chairman: The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has already seen the Chair, and it has been agreed that he should raise his point later on a new Clause (Service of Notices), which is the most convenient way of dealing with the matter.
The Solicitor-General: The object of this Amendment is to pave the way for that new Clause, which gathers up into it all references to the giving of notices. Notices are to be given under the terms of this Bill in accordance with the provisions of Section 196 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and the object of the new Clause is to say that once and for all in respect of all the purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has, in effect, made an alternative suggestion, upon which I will not at the moment address any argument. However, I hope the Committee will agree that, whichever Clause is the one which is to govern the giving of notices, it would be convenient that there should be only one reference to that Clause in the Bill, and that therefore subsection (5) ought to be left out in order to pave the way for the new Clause.
Mr. Hay: While I do not propose to anticipate the discussion we may have in connection with this point on the new Clause, I ask the Solicitor-General between now and the time when that discussion takes place to consider the point which was obviously in our minds when
976
my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) and myself put down our Amendment.
The Solicitor-General: We will willingly consider it. I think the hon. Member will agree that there are arguments in favour of both suggestions, and we should like to consider his as well as our own.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCE- MENT OF COVENANTS.)
Sir P. Spens: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
"(a) no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of the dwelling-house which is the subject of the tenancy or for the ejectment of the tenant therefrom shall be made or given unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment and either—

(i) the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available to the tenant or will be available for him when the order or judgment takes effect, or

(ii) any obligation of the tenancy other than for payment of rent or to insure or keep insured has been broken or not performed, provided that no order shall be made under this paragraph for any failure to comply with any obligation to repair or keep in repair the dwelling-house, unless the tenant in breach of any obligation to repair or keep in the repair the dwelling-house 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, or

(iii) the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the dwelling-house or allowing the dwelling-house to be used for an immoral or illegal purpose, and in the case of any such person the tenant has not before the making or giving of the order or judgment taken such steps as he ought reasonably to have taken for his removal, or

(iv) the tenant without the consent of the landlord has at any time after the date of expiry or the date of continuation assigned or sublet or parted with possession of the whole or any part of the dwelling-house, or

(v) the landlord requires possession in order that the dwelling-house or a substantial part thereof may be demolished, reconstructed or remodelled; and."

977
I apologise to the Committee, because I shall have to take rather longer on this point than I have done hitherto on any other on which I have addressed the Committee. We regard this as a matter of very great importance. Under the Clause as it stands there is no continuation whatsoever of the standfast during the two-year period so far as the obligations of complying with the terms of the existing leases are concerned. The reversioner is deprived of all effective right to enforce his remedies for breaches of covenant other than the covenant to pay rent and the covenant to insure. That is secured by the proviso to subsection (1).
Since Second Reading the Government have tabled an Amendment, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert:
"or extend to any failure after the commencement of this Act to comply with a term or condition of the tenancy (by whatever words Imposed) prohibiting the use of the property for illegal or immoral purposes."
I will refer to it only in passing. They seek to add to the two obligations already in the Bill the obligation that the premises shall not be used for illegal or immoral purposes. We therefore have this as the sum of the Socialist "Duty of a tenant to his landlord": he must pay the rent; he must keep the premises insured, and he must not use the premises for illegal or immoral purposes. Otherwise, he is free to do what he likes with the premises, to have in the premises whom he likes, and to carry on in the premises any business or other occupation that he likes. Of course, that must be to the detriment of the reversioner and, what is perhaps more important, in a great number of cases it must be to the detriment of his neighbours on the same estate. That is a point which I rather want to develop.
The type of tenant we mainly have in mind is the tenant who has lived in a property for a long time with his family, made it his home and regarded it as his home, and who wants this extra two years in order to preserve it as his home in the hopes that some form of permanent legislation will enable him still further to secure it as his home. With such a tenant the landlord's right of re-entry or forfeiture really does not matter two straws. The tenant is a good family man and a Good tenant.
If one asks oneself how many hon. Members in the Committee have ever
978
been threatened by a landlord with forfeiture or a right to re-enter one will find that it does not happen to the good tenant who looks after the premises and makes it his home. I suppose that in 99 cases out of 100, people, including myself, just do not know what are the covenants or all the covenants to keep which they have entered into an obligation with their landlord. I know that is so in my case. But I guess that they include paying the rent, insurance, undertaking not to misuse the premises, and probably certain covenants to repair and generally to keep the premises in a good and decent state. Therefore, so far as the great bulk of the tenants who are to benefit under this Bill is concerned, I agree that our Amendment does not very much matter.
If our earlier Amendments had been accepted—that is to say, if some qualifying period of residence in the premises had been accepted, so that the beneficiaries under the Bill could have been those good and family tenants, then, again this Amendment would not have mattered; but it is just because that has not been done, and because anybody who happens to be living in the premises or part of the premises on the date on which the Bill becomes law will be protected by the provisions of the Bill that it is perfectly certain that we shall have a certain number of wastrels and swindlers as tenants being protected by the Bill. We shall, therefore, have the man, who will seize the opportunity, if he is given it to make money out of breaches of covenant which, under the Bill as now proposed, cannot be enforced against him. He will take advantage of that state of affairs and the landlord will be unable to do anything.
7.15 p.m.
Let me take, as an example, the very ordinary covenant that a tenant shall not allow any nuisance or annoyance to his neighbours to be carried out on the premises. The moment the Bill becomes law and starts to operate on this extended two-year period there is nothing to stop the tenant doing what he likes on his premises, and, so long as it does not amount to something of an illegal or immoral character, he will be able to use the premises, intended to be used solely for residence, for business purposes, and he will be able, if he likes, to instal

979
machinery and to start running machinery which may well cause great annoyance and nuisance to his neighbours.
To give two cases in which, years ago, I was personally concerned, he will be able, if he likes, to use the premises for a dogs', cats' and other animals' home during the summer holidays, or he will be able to start a school for singing, dancing, music, violin playing, and so forth.
Mr. Janner rose—
Sir P. Spens: I am not going to give way until I have finished my argument. As the Bill stands, it would be quite useless for the reversioner, whoever he is, to give him notice to quit and to threaten forfeiture on the grounds that he is breaking the covenants, or to attempt to recover possession on any of those grounds.
What happens in the ordinary course of events and why are these covenants installed in leases? They are not put in solely for the benefit of the landlords. We are dealing with building estates, and covenants in the building leases are put in not only for the benefit of the landlords but still more for the benefit of their tenants and the tenants of neighbouring properties, and the whole object of them is that because the misbehaving tenant is bound by the covenant to the landlord, the landlord has a short, sharp, sweet, simple remedy which he can apply for the benefit of tenants who complain of breaches of covenant by a tenant.
Let us take the case of breach of repairing covenants, and suppose that the tenant does, in fact, convert the ground floor premises of a dwelling-house into a printing establishment and installs printing machinery. The next door neighbour complains to the landlord that these premises are being used in a way that creates a most excessive nuisance and annoyance to him and other neighbours. He may say to the landlord, "Stop it." The answer of the landlord, if the Bill goes through, is twofold. He will say, "My powers to stop it during these two years have been taken away from me, with one exception, namely, my very expensive troublesome remedy of moving in the Chancery Division of the High Court for an injunction. Why in the world should I do that? I have had imposed on me an extended tenancy at a low rent
980
which ought to have come to an end on the expiration of the lease. I am not going out of my way to spend money by taking proceedings." There will be landlords who will do this, and will say that, having been left with this as the only remedy—obtaining an injunction in the High Court—they are not going to do so. I pre-suppose that the tenant is an unworthy rascal and under no circumstances will he be good for any costs of an action taken against him.
The neighbouring tenants are the ones who will suffer, if the Bill goes through, not only the reversioners. They will suffer specially because the tenant, if he likes, can commit what lawyers call "waste," that is to say, misuse property structually in a way absolutely contrary to the lease, and, still more, use the premises or allow other people to use the premises in ways utterly detrimental not only to the reversioners but also to adjacent tenants. Under those conditions, we press the Government to consider our proposals, and, at any rate, very carefully to strengthen this subsection of the Clause. What we propose with regard to the covenant which I have been discussing so far is not that there shall be an absolute right of forfeiture or ejection.
Hon. Members opposite have spoken about the misuse of powers of ejection. We do not attempt to give to the landlord the same right of forfeiture or ejection that the Bill gives to him in respect of non-payment of rent, non-insurance and illegal and immoral usage. All we say is that if there are breaches such as I have described, then the landlord shall have a right during the two years to go to the court and ask for an order. If the court—in most cases the county court —thinks that it is reasonable in the circumstances and that such a breach as I have referred to has occurred, then it may make an order for ejection.
It is quite useless for anyone to get up and say that we are, therefore, putting the tenant at the mercy of the landlord to be shot out on to the streets, or any sentimental stuff of that sort. We are merely giving the landlord the right to start proceedings for ejection on behalf of himself or of the neighbouring tenants. If he can make out a case that the court thinks is reasonable, then the court can make an order for ejection. That is the substance of sub-paragraphs (ii) to (iv).

981
The Amendment includes ordinary common obligations, or those which we consider are of such social importance for the type of building estates with which we are dealing in the Bill. In respect of these there ought to be the right of going to a court.
In addition, if Members have done us the honour of studying the Amendment, it will be seen that we have introduced two other matters, on which the landlord may go to the court for an order, which have nothing to do with breaches of the covenant. The first is that if the landlord has available alternative accommodation he shall be entitled to ask the court to say that it is reasonable, that the tenant of the property, or a particular part of the property, should go to the other property and the landlord be given possession of the vacated premises. Again, there is no absolute right, but merely a right to go to the court and make a case. It gets rid of one very great drawback which is almost certainly the effect of the Bill, namely, that the occupation by one tenant of one small portion of a property will for two years prevent the landlord, whoever he is, whether he is, as the Attorney-General said earlier, a public authority, or whether he is a private landlord, improving and developing it. That is a very serious blot on the Bill.
The second is very much the same thing: that if a landlord requires possession in order that the dwelling-house or a substantial part of it may be demolished, reconstructed or remodelled, there is the right—no absolute right—for him to go to the court and say that in the circumstances he ought to be allowed possession of the particular part of his property so that he may carry out this modern development and not be held up, or his whole scheme held up, until two years or such time as permanent legislation is introduced.
We ask the Government to accept this remodelling of the Clause. I hope that I have made my reasons fairly clear. We say that, as the Bill stands, the Government are opening the door to all sorts of improprieties and giving benefits to people who ought not to get them, as well as holding up modern development. We believe that in this way both objects can be achieved.
Mr. Janner: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to accept the Amendment, the object of which is perfectly obvious. The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), glossed over one or two of the provisions of the Amendment as though they did not really matter, or as though they were a matter of form and everything would be very simple. Let us take the provision he referred to at the end of his speech, namely, the landlord requiring possession in order that the dwelling-house may be demolished, reconstructed or remodelled. That gives an absolute right to the landlord.
Sir P. Spens: The hon. Member is misreading the Amendment. The Amendment states that,
"no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of the dwelling-house … shall he made or given unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment. …"
Mr. Janner: I quite understand the point. This is exactly the same language as is used in the Rent Restriction Acts. I think it is to be found in Section 3 of the 1933 Act. That refers to similar matters in respect of statutory tenancies—weekly or monthly tenancies.
Here, we are dealing with long leases, and not with statutory tenancies. The Government have refused even to concede me the point on 21 years. It means that it is desired at the end of a long lease to deal with what is part and parcel of the rights of the lessee. We take an entirely different point of view on this matter. We say that a lessee should be protected in the case of a long lease if he has by right acquired an interest which is entirely different from the interest of the weekly or monthly tenant, and that in consequence of the obligations he has entered into and performed, which have increased the value of the property, he is entitled to a different protection. There can be no occasion, except in the case of a public body, for a landlord to turn round to a tenant who has been in occupation for many years and to say that he is to go because he—the landlord—requires the premises for business purposes, or whatever it may be.
No judge should be called upon to decide what is reasonable in these circumstances. To put the words in the Bill

983
will open the door to the belief that a judge is compelled to regard some circumstances as being reasonable if a landlord wants to demolish his premises. In other words, the tenant is placed at the mercy of a judge who might think it perfectly reasonable in the case of a man who wanted to extend his business. I do not think it should be left to the discretion of the judge, but we should say affirmatively that it is not reasonable and it -never can be reasonable for a man to say he wants possession to reconstruct a building at present held under a long lease.
7.30 p.m.
The second point I want to draw attention to is that the Amendment lays it down that
"the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available …"
That goes to the very root of the matter. That means that the man will be turned out of these premises before the end of the lease and will have no more rights, provided of course, there is alternative accommodation. In that event his right in a particular lease is for ever finished. The question of enfranchisement may arise here, but that is not intended. It may be wrong or it may be right; I am not arguing the rights. I have my own views about it, and others in the Committee have an entirely different viewpoint. The man would be out if suitable accommodation is available, and he will not get the advantage of enfranchisement which, I hope, will come into effect some day.
Then there is the question of relief of covenant. I expect a layman to argue this point, but a person who has extensive legal knowledge, as has the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, knows very well that the enforcement of these covenants in many cases mean that one cannot get any relief at all. The very fact that a breach of the covenant is committed makes it impossible for a court to say that they can grant relief. There are cases of that sort, and to make that a condition in this Amendment is asking a lot. If there is an instance where a nuisance is committed and causes trouble the adjoining neighbours have their own remedy. There is the question of an injunction and not only that but damages.
984
If damages are awarded an injunction is given immediately.
I ask the Committee to consider this in the context of the whole Bill, and I feel sure that it will not be accepted. I do not think that on consideration hon. Members on the other side of the Committee will agree to continue to demand the introduction of the Clause into a Bill into which it does not really fit.
Mr. Black: I should like to take up the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), but I want to confine my remarks to the last paragraph of the Amendment, which would confer the right on the reversioner to have possession of the premises where there is an intention to rebuild, reconstruct or remodel, subject always to the overriding decision of the county court judge that it is reasonable in the circumstances for possession to be given to the reversioner.
We shall, at any rate, be on common ground on this point, that in this time of acute shortage of housing, to which so much reference has been made during the Committee stage of the Bill, it is right as far as possible that residential premises should be fully occupied. There should not be large mansions with one or two people living in them and a great many vacant rooms which could be used to the very great benefit of people seeking houses. It is precisely that type of case with which this part of our Amendment seeks to deal.
Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are powers of acquisition. What is the answer to his point? Those premises can be requisitioned.
Mr. Black: I know perfectly well there is no general power of requisition vested in the local authorities for rehousing purposes, and as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, even when the power of requisition was generally enjoyed by local authorities I do not believe those powers extended to premises which were furnished and which were occupied though not fully occupied except in the most special and exceptional cases. It is no reply to the point I am seeking to make to suggest that the difficulty could be overcome by the exercise of requisitioning powers by the local authority.

985
The kind of house that I have in mind, which might well be the subject for remodelling, is the type of very large house one finds in the West End of London or in such districts as Kensington, Chelsea, Paddington or Marylebone, and that is the precise type of property which we on this side of the Committee wished to exclude from the scope of the Bill, because we were desirous of confining the scope of the Bill to those properties which came within the rateable limits of the Rent Restriction Acts. But that particular Amendment, which would have secured that result, has been rejected by the Committee, and we now find ourselves in the position of having large houses of the type that I have described falling within the scope of the Bill. It is, therefore, a matter of importance to the community as a whole that there should be some provision whereby in these cases the landlord can recover possession if he desires to remodel the property.
There are two particular types of case which I have in mind which I want to mention this evening to the Committee. They are by no means exceptional cases. They are the type of case which occurs in literally hundreds and hundreds of districts, where, if this type of property is included within the scope of the Bill and there is no right to recover possession in the event of the landlord desiring to remodel, a great deal of accommodation will be withheld from homeless families of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all very well for hon. Members to try to laugh off this particular point, but it is not a point of which people seeking accommodation would take such a light and airy view as apparently do some hon. Members on the other side of the Committee.
The two examples that I want to bring to the notice of the Committee are concerned with the type of large house to which I have referred. Let us take the case of a large mansion held on a ground lease which expires, for the sake of argument, on 25th March of this year. That is a lease which will be caught by the provisions of the Bill if our Amendment is not accepted by the Committee. It may be a large house of between 20 and 25 rooms and one or two people only living in that house. The desire and the intention of the landlord is to recover
986
possession of the property at the expiration of the lease, and on recovery of possession to remodel the house to make it a useful property in the conditions in which we are living today.
We can accept the view that the kind of house which I have in mind is not likely to be required again as a single private residence when the occupation of the present tenants comes to an end. The landlord desires, perhaps, to make the property into 10 self-contained flats. Each flat will be capable of housing a family of three persons.
Here is a scheme which, surely, it is in the interests of the community to encourage and not to retard. If the Amendment is rejected, such a landlord will be unable to recover possession of his own house at the expiration of the long lease, and 10 families will be deprived of the occupation of the 10 flats into which the house would be remodelled, so that one or two people who are living in the house may be enabled to continue their occupation for a further two years. If that is a position which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to go to the country to defend, it is very much better that the onus of defending it should fall upon them rather than that it should fall upon the Members on this side of the Committee. To extend for two years, without any right on the part of the landlord to go to the county court in those circumstances, and ask for possession, is both unreasonable and contrary to the national interest.
There is, secondly, the case of the house which forms part of a block. There are a great many blocks of houses in London and elsewhere which were built perhaps 100 years ago, which, structurally, are still perfectly sound and which are capable by adaptation of being brought into line with modern requirements. It is no exceptional case to find a block of 10 or even 20 houses which, taken together as a whole and reconstructed, could be made into a very large number of excellent flats, thereby making a contribution to the solution of the acute housing problem of the moment.
Again, I say that it is no exceptional circumstance to find a case where nine houses in a block of 10, or 19 houses in a block of 20, are in the possession of the landlord but there is one tenancy in one house outstanding. The landlord is

987
in the position of having either to submit to the blackmail of that one remaining tenant who holds him to ransom, or of being denied the opportunity of carrying out a conversion scheme of the whole property into flats which it would be greatly in the interests of the community to encourage.
Is that the type of development which hon. Members opposite wish to make impossible in the circumstances which I have mentioned? I cannot think that it is unreasonable in any degree, or that it is treating any lessee unfairly, to give the right to the reversioner to recover possession of his property at the expiration of the lease, where he genuinely intends to remodel the property for multiple occupation, subject always to the discretion of the county court to decide whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is reasonable for the lease to be allowed to come to an end and for possession of the property to be given back to the reversioner at the expiration. Hon. Members who are prepared to take the responsibility of resisting and voting against this Amendment are taking upon themselves a very grave responsibility in this time of acute housing shortage.
7.45 p.m.
A great deal has been said in our discussions yesterday and today about profiteering landlords exploiting tenants, but it is by no means infrequent to find a case of a profiteering or exploiting tenant who holds to ransom the landlord who desires to convert his property for multiple occupation to the public benefit. This point has been considered by a great many of the professional bodies whose members are concerned with matters relating to the land and who deal with such matters in their day-to-day professional experience. And it is not irrelevant for me to draw the attention of the Committee to what has been said on this point in the memorandum carefully prepared on the subject of this Bill by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, surely a body which is entitled to have its views taken seriously into account on matters relating to landed property. This is what the memorandum says:
"The extension of a lease by Part I of the Bill should also be of no effect if the lessor reasonably requires possession in order that the premises or a substantial part thereof may be demolished and/or reconstructed."
988
The final point that I would bring to the notice of the Committee, and particularly to the notice of hon. Members opposite, who seem to hold the view that there is nothing in the contentions that I am advancing, is that we are simply seeking to import into Part I of the Bill what is already in Part II of the Bill in relation to business premises. I would refer hon. Members to Clause 10 (3, c), in Part II. It provides that if the landlord reasonably requires possession in order that the premises which are the subject of the expiring tenancy, or a substantial part of those premises, may be demolished or reconstructed, that is a ground on which the landlord, subject to certain safeguards, is expressly entitled to recover possession of the property. Is it so unreasonable as some hon. Members seem to think that the same right to recover possession for the purpose of remodelling the premises should apply to properties which come within the scope of Part I, as is provided in Part II in relation to business premises?
I submit that the case is infinitely stronger for this protection in the case of Part 1, because we are dealing with residential premises. Surely it is of the highest importance that residential premises should be used to the best possible advantage at this time. The right to recover possession of business premises. based on the desire of the landlord to reconstruct the business premises, is a much weaker case on which to say that the landlord should have a right to possession than it is in regard to residential premises covered by Part I. For these reasons I most strongly urge the Committee to give serious consideration to all that is implied in the Amendment, and particularly to that part of it to which I have specifically directed the attention of the Committee.
The Solicitor-General: We feel that we could not possibly accept the proposal in the Amendment. At the outset I should like to say that I cordially agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). It is undoubtedly the case that the two sides of the Committee approach the problem from very different angles. As has been said over and over again, we approach the problem from the basis that where there are long leases which have been occupied for many

989
years—sometimes for 99 years—at a ground rent or an improved ground rent —at any rate, something less than a rack rent—the occupier has something in the nature of an interest in those premises which, although it may not be recognised in the law as it stands at the moment, nevertheless morally entitles him to some protection in the law which we are now trying to provide. If hon. Members do not take that view—
Sir P. Spens: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring also to the person who has bought the premises during the last few years and has no long period of occupation? Our Amendment is directed to deal with the people who come into occupation during the last few years of a lease.
The Solicitor-General: I entirely disagree with that observation. The person who comes into the tail end of the lease takes up the status of those who have gone before him as occupiers at ground rents.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The moral status.
The Solicitor-General: He takes over from them and stands in their shoes, and in our view—hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree, and they are entitled not to agree—he becomes invested with the expectancy which attaches to the occupier from time to time under the long lease at the ground rent. So we start off in our approach to the problem from very different points of view. That is the fundamental cleavage which has divided us.
It seems to us that the proposals embodied in the Amendment are directly counter to the point of view that we take. Even if one approaches it from the point of view of the Opposition, the case is not really as it has been presented to the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) pointed to the various covenants that one might find in a lease. He cited the case where a tenant who is a swindler comes in at the end of the lease and refuses to comply with covenants not to use the premises in a way which is a nuisance or an annoyance to adjoining tenants or uses them for some purpose prohibited by the lease, and said that in those circumstances the landlord is powerless and has no remedy
990
but that he ought to have the remedy of forfeiture. That is only a half statement of the position. The landlord can apply to the courts for an injunction.
Sir P. Spens: I said so.
The Solicitor-General: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman said so, but he coupled his remarks with the observation that the landlord might resort to the extremely expensive procedure of asking the Chancery Division for an injunction if he wants to forfeit the lease and is prepared to take proceedings. If it is a small property, he can ask for his injunction in the county court. There is really not so very much difference between the two. There may be some difference in the matter of costs, but not a great deal of difference in many cases.
Mr. Molson: Is there not all the difference in the world, because in one case the landlord would obtain the injunction for the benefit of his other tenants, whereas in the other case he would obtain possession of the property?
The Solicitor-General: Certainly there is that difference, but if the case is being made upon the basis that the landlord ought not to be left powerless in the case of the refusal of the swindling tenant to comply with the terms of the covenant, the answer is that the landlord is far from powerless. He can go to the court and in an appropriate case the court would by order forbid the tenant to go on disregarding the terms of the covenant. That is a very substantial remedy which is still in the hands of the landlord. It is a mis-statement of the position to represent it as if the unfortunate landlord had to stand by and look on while the tenant flagrantly flouted the provisions of the agreement.
As the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, said, in the vast majority of cases the problem does not arise at all. He said that he had not the remotest idea what his own covenants were. That applies to the vast majority of tenants throughout the country. We have, after all, to devise a Measure which deals with the great generality of the cases for which we have to provide. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Ah, yes, but in the small minority of cases we get the swindling tenant." What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In the

991
small majority of cases we get the unscrupulous landlord. We had to take that circumstance into account as well. That is directly relevant to one of the basic defects in the proposal, which is that it would enable the landlord not only to sue for forfeiture but also to obtain damages from the tenant during the tenancy.
As hon. Members know, what we have said under the terms of the Bill as we have drafted it is that the landlord's remedy in damages is to be postponed until the tenancies come to an end. The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the landlord should be entitled to enforce his remedy in damages during the currency of the tenancy. I said that there were some unscrupulous landlords. These unscrupulous landlords might well seek to use that remedy to force a tenant out with the threat of taking his chattels in the execution of the judgment for damages. Therefore, one basic defect in the Amendment is that it places in the hands of the unscrupulous landlord—I am certainly not accusing landlords generally —the power of forcing the tenant out of the premises by—to use the phrase of the hon. and learned Gentleman—a blackmailing threat. The landlord can blackmail the tenant by saying that he will have to meet a judgment for damages unless he gets out. Therefore, one basic objection that we have to the proposal, quite apart from any others, is that it embodies that change in the scheme of the Bill.
As I have said, the landlord can take the appropriate procedure, generally in the county court—after all, we are dealing in the main with small properties—to obtain an injunction to stop the tenant. Therefore, the case in so far as it rests on the allegation of the impotence of the landlord, goes entirely by the board. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) and the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, said "Ah, yes, but that may not apply to the case where there really is a need to re-develop or remodel the premises." The hon. Member for Wimbledon cited two cases, those of a large mansion occupied by one or two people and a block of 10 houses, held on long leases which were coming to an end, and said that the landlord might desire to remodel or reconstruct the property but could not do so because we deprived
992
him of the right to exercise his right of forfeiting the lease in the event of a breach of covenant.
As I have said, one has to look at the great majority of the cases with which one is dealing. The great majority of these cases are of small properties occupied by a family which, or with its predecessors, has lived there for many years and probably many decades. The case put by the hon. Gentleman is an extremely rare one. One might get a large property of 20 rooms occupied by one or two persons. It would be a very odd thing, but I agree that it could occur. It would be an odd coincidence that the landlord should be moved by such an active desire to remodel and reconstruct in the very two years during which the tenancy would be prolonged, but I quite agree that it could happen.
Mr. Black: If we regard that case as exceptional—it is not nearly so exceptional as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests—is not that exceptional case just the case in which the county court would consider it reasonable to give the landlord possession, whereas in the case of the small house which has been occupied for a very long period of years by one family the county court would not consider it reasonable to give possession?
8.0 p.m.
The Solicitor-General: I certainly cannot predict the view of any judge in any given circumstances, but no doubt in a case like that he might easily take into account the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. What I am saying is that in framing this Measure one has to consider the majority of cases, and cases of large mansions occupied by one or two people at the end of a long lease are extremely rare, I should have thought. It is possible, and probably it often happens, that a large house occupied originally by a large family has for some years past been occupied by one or two people, but in that case one will nearly always find that the individuals still occupying that house will themselves have converted it. In other words, they will already have taken steps to relieve themselves of the considerable financial burden of having to manage a large house which is much bigger than they require for their own possession.

993
The other case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was the block of 10 houses, but, after all, that is practically always occupied by 10 separate families. It really cannot be so urgent to remodel and reconstruct those houses as to make it necessary, within the two years during the standstill period for which the Bill will prolong the tenancy, to enable the landlord to get the houses back, turn the 10 families out and reconstruct the houses into a block of flats.
After all this is a standstill Measure, and one has to bear that in mind. What the provisions of the permanent legislation will be, I do not know and I am not forecasting, but in this standstill Measure there cannot be a case for making it possible for the landlord to turn out these families whose status is to be preserved, according to the object of this Bill, during the short interim period while permanent legislation is put upon the Statute Book. Tenants, it should be remembered —at any rate in my view and that of my hon. Friends—have something in the nature of a right in relation to those premises, which the law ought to recognise, because of their residence and because of the interest which attaches thereto.
That is what I would say in regard to the arguments used, but supposing one looks at the actual position. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked, "Is it not unreasonable, in view of the fact that in Clause 10 (3, c), you have given a similar right in the case of shops, to withhold it in the case of these houses?" But the difference is that the houses we are dealing with in Part I of the Bill are houses held on ground rents or improved ground rents, whereas the person who rents the shops rents as a rack renter. He does not himself occupy the position of a person who, or whose ancestors, originally built the house, nor does he become vested with the same status with regard to the property as they have. He is a rack renter who pays a full rent for the shop. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable and not inconsistent to treat him in a way which is entirely different from the way in which the person who holds on a ground rent under a long lease is treated.
But what does the Bill do? Since listening to the arguments advanced on the Second Reading, we have made substantial changes. In some senses we are
994
a good deal more favourable to the landlords than is this Amendment. This Amendment would require the county court judge to decide that it was reasonable. We have, in a sense, in the case of some covenants, gone beyond that. What we have said in an Amendment which we have put down and which we hope will be agreed to, is that the important covenants—that is to say, the covenants dealing with assignment and sub-letting, using for illegal or immoral purposes, and so on, are all, in the event of breach, to give rise to the right of forfeiture. We think that is going quite far enough in making available to the landlord any remedy which should be open to him.
To do what the hon. Member would seek to do, to add other grounds—namely, to enable the landlord to obtain possession of the building if he can offer suitable alternative accommodation or if he can show that he wants to reconstruct or remodel the house, subject to the judgment of the court—is, we think, even if there is a case for it, making a complete change of principle in the purpose of the Bill, which is to preserve the position for the interim period of two years.
In that connection I would repeat the argument which I used yesterday, that we do not think it consistent and within the scope of this Bill to change the position. We want to keep the position as it is. Therefore, we think that to preserve the landlord's remedy of forfeiture in the case of those covenants which one may describe as the most important covenants—which were, indeed, the ones on which hon. Gentlemen opposite founded their arguments during Second Reading—is quite as far as we ought to go in framing this Bill. Some of my hon. Friends, I feel sure, will think that we have gone too far in that, but certainly we cannot go any further. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will agree that this Amendment ought not to be accepted.
Sir P. Spens: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say where is the Amendment dealing with the most important covenants?
The Solicitor-General: It is in one of the new Clauses which in due course we propose to move.
Mr. Lionel Heald: I felt that perhaps I ought to apologise for intervening in this matter which has already

995
been fairly fully discussed, but I came to the conclusion that I need not do so, having sat here throughout the whole of yesterday and today, and having restrained myself from making any contribution except to listen with interest to the discussion and occasionally to take a small walk through the Lobby and back again. I feel so strongly about this matter that I am impelled to make a few remarks.
I suggest quite seriously that the Committee ought to think where it is going in this matter. Surely there are limits, especially when we get to the stage where the Solicitor-General, who always shows such moderation and fairness, is actually driven to making an almost tub-thumping political speech—
Captain Field: The hon. Member has never heard my right hon. and learned Friend on the platform.
Mr. Heald: We should realise where we are getting—[An HON. MEMBER: "Take another walk."] I notice one significant fact, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), who has spoken on several occasions, in a manner that justifies the remark I have just made, in relation to homes of the people, and so on, is not here at the moment. I can quite understand why he is not.
Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Member permit me to interrupt? In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), who is at present at a meeting, may I point out that he has been here pretty well the whole time?
Mr. Heald: I am not criticising the hon. Member. I am only saying that it is probably more comfortable for him not to be here, because at the present time he would have to justify an argument which is entirely contrary to his thesis. There is not the slightest doubt that if this Amendment were adopted it would provide in certain cases, if only in a few cases, for exactly the way in which more houses can be obtained, and hon. Members opposite are opposing it. That is significant and important. I am just as much entitled as any hon. Member opposite to say that I regard housing as a matter of the utmost importance. I have always done so and I always shall, and I am glad to see that there is no suggestion
996
on the other side of the Committee that that is not so. [Laughter.] Well, there is a laugh from one hon. Member.
Mr. John Hynd: More than one.
Mr. Heald: No, only one. However, I am not concerned with that kind of thing, but with the question of more houses. Here is an example of something which is being done which, in my opinion, will militate against that. That is the first reason why I object to this Amendment not being accepted.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: How does the hon. and learned Member reconcile his claim to be concerned over the problem of housing when, if the power contained in the Amendment is conferred on the landlord, he would be able to get possession of a large house full of tenants and thereby dispossess them?
Mr. Heald: The position with regard to that, as the hon. and learned Member knows very well, is that there are safeguards in the Amendment which I would have hoped the hon. and learned Member would regard as satisfactory: that is, that the learned judge in the county court will take a reasonable view. I hope that the hon. and learned Member would not suggest that the county court is not going to act in any reasonable manner. That argument, therefore, we can deal with. That is my first objection to the attitude of the Government and of hon. Members opposite.
My second is this. The interference that is being made with the ordinary operation of the law in this case is entirely unwarranted, and it is time that someone spoke out about it. It is no good talking on ill-thought-out and sentimental grounds about a matter of this kind. We have to be serious about it.
What is the position in regard to these covenants? The attitude which is adopted by hon. Members opposite—I put this to them, including, of all people, the Solicitor-General—is that if a man is committing a nuisance on premises and is ruining them, as we know happens, and the house is in an appalling condition, it is said, "You can get an injunction." And so one can, but does anybody suggest that that is an adequate remedy?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: No.
Mr. Heald: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. Everyone would agree that that is a hopelessly inadequate remedy, but that is the limit that is being laid down. Why is that being done? The reason has been given to us simply on political doctrine, so-called, or what I would call ill-digested vote-catching.
Mr. Messer: Who is tub-thumping now?
Mr. Heald: It is no good hon. Members opposite complaining. There are times when people have to speak out over these matters. It is perfectly possible to discuss these questions. Sometimes they are rather dry and uninteresting and legal, but every now and then we come down to something real, and we have come on to something real here. The attitude adopted is either sentimental and completely unthought-out, or is thoroughly unsound from a national and constitutional point of view. There is no justification whatever for this interference with the ordinary rights of the individual, and it is time that we put a halt to it.
Let there be no doubt about it. In the case I have mentioned it is a hopelessly inadequate remedy to tell a man that he can go and get an injunction when his house is being ruined. From the national and housing points of view, what benefit is it to preserve that state of affairs? That is precisely the case that ought to be dealt with in the public interest.
There is also the suggestion that in some of these other cases the premises could be requisitioned. In some cases they are requisitioned, but the cases with which this is intended to deal are those where premises are not requisitioned and where something is required to be done. Therefore, we must be a little more realistic over this matter.
One hon. Member opposite rather gave the show away as to what the real explanation was. He said that if these people were allowed to be turned out for behaving in the sort of way I have indicated—a completely uncivilised way —they would not be able to get the benefit of leasehold enfranchisement if and when that comes. There we find the explanation of the attitude of many hon. Members opposite. They say, "We believe in leasehold enfranchisement:
998
everybody must have it as a matter of principle, and therefore you must not exclude anyone, however undeserving they are." That is being a slave to political doctrine.
Mr. Gibson: What are you?
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Member asks me what I am. I will tell him, Sir Charles. I am a Tory Member of Parliament and I am representing here the views of my constituents, which I am entitled to do and which I intend to continue to do.
There is only one more matter to which I want to refer, unless anything else intervenes—and I should welcome it —whilst I am mentioning it. I ask the Committee to look once more at the terms of the Amendment, so that everyone may understand what we propose to do; it is useful and helpful sometimes to try to understand the subject at issue. First, the county court judge has to be satisfied that there is alternative accommodation; second, he has to decide that it is reasonable; and third, he has to be satisfied either that one of the covenants has been broken or that the house is required for the purposes specified.
Hon. Members opposite are saying that even where a man has broken the covenants in the most appalling way that we know is possible and is done in these cases, although the county court judge, exercising his discretion in the proper way in which county court judges do, is abundantly satisfied that it is reasonable and that perfectly satisfactory alternative accommodation exists, nothing is to be done. I want it to be clearly understood that that is the attitude which the Committee are being asked to adopt, so that if we are asked questions about it in other places—and if hon. Members opposite are asked questions about it in other places under circumstances which might arise in the quite near future—the attitude of those on the other side is plainly understood.
Mr. Messer: We stand for life; the hon. and learned Member stands for property.
Mr. Heald: I am very pleased to know that hon. Members opposite understand that, but I have no doubt what I think about it and I propose to support the Amendment.
Mr. J. Hynd: We have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) and particularly to his statement, which he made with such pride, that he is representing the views of his constituents. His constituents must be a peculiar body if they consist entirely of landlords, as it seemed to us from the drift of his remarks. He was talking entirely from the landlord's point of view.
Mr. Heald: Some 19,000 people voted for me and I do not think that they can all be landlords.
Mr. Hynd: That does not alter the fact that the whole of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member were addressed to the interests of the landlord, although he addressed himself very little to the terms of the Amendment. Most of his remarks were concerned with protection against interference with the rights of the individual; again, the individual in each case was the landlord, and the hon. and learned Member seemed to overlook entirely that what we are attempting to do in the Bill is to protect leaseholders—sitting tenants.
Nevertheless, it seems that we have made a little progress in regard to the Amendment, because the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), in moving it, began by elaborating the whole of its paragraphs and arguing the case on them. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) followed by confining himself to the last paragraph of the Amendment, from which we may be entitled to assume, probably wrongly, that he had dropped the argument in regard to the other paragraphs. Therefore, we found ourselves concerned mainly with sub-paragraph (v). That may be a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
Let us look at what was said in support of the Amendment. The main argument was that this was intended to cover the case where the landlord of a large mansion, in the West End of London, for example, was desirous of terminating the lease in order that he might reconstruct the mansion as a series of flats. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said, that would hardly be the usual case. I can hardly see the landlords of flats in Park Lane, for example, hammering at the door for
1000
permission to reconstruct those buildings as large flats to accommodate large numbers of families.
Mr. Molson: May I interrupt the hon. Member? Let me give a perfectly obvious case, that of Eaton Square. There a large number of houses are being converted into flats, and it is extremely probable that there may be two or three houses which have fallen back into the ownership of the landlord, and for conversion purposes, they might be saved by this Clause.
Mr. Hynd: I am not for a moment suggesting that there might be no such cases, and my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that there might be exceptional cases, but it is well known that, in the majority of cases, the landlords seeking to obtain protected property are doing so for the purpose of cashing in on the present market prices. What the hon. Member failed to draw attention to in arguing that the purpose of the Amendment was precisely that, was that there are four other subsections, and even the subsection on which we are arguing is for the purpose, not primarily of alterations to premises, but also for demolishing premises. How that would result in additional houses it is difficult to say.
The hon. and learned Member for Chertsey enjoined us to study what we were discussing and said that at times that was very useful. But he did not study the matter very carefully, because he was telling us that the Amendment was dependent on the one safeguard in the Clause that the courts must be satisfied that there is suitable alternative accommodation. The Amendment does not say anything of the kind. It states that to give a judgment either the court has to be satisfied that here is suitable alternative accommodation or that one of the other four provisions are met. So the alternative accommodation is not the covering safeguard.
Mr. Heald: I should like to apologise if I gave a wrong impression. That is certainly quite right.
Mr. Hynd: I thank the hon. and learned Member, but that is certainly what he said and I am glad that we have now made the point clear.

1001
All the other purposes of the Amendment are no longer argued and we are confined to an Amendment of subparagraph (v) and for that matter to the one word "reconstructed." If that is the position it seems to me that the whole Amendment should be withdrawn and hon. Members opposite should think again and produce an Amendment stating what they do want in this Clause, that is, permission to terminate the lease for the purpose of reconstructing a property into numbers of flats to accommodate larger numbers of families.
The whole of the arguments I have heard from hon. Members opposite on this Amendment have been arguments for the rights of the landlords and in defence of non-interference within the rights of the landlord. What we are concerned with in the Bill is primarily the protection of the holders of long leases of more than 21 years for an additional two years, until such time and the whole question of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant can be considered in a more comprehensive Measure.
Mr. Molson: I should like to disillusion the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) if he thinks that because my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) chose to concentrate on one particular paragraph of the Amendment that we are not defending the whole Amendment on its merits. The general drift of the argument from the other side of the Committee, from the Solicitor-General downwards, has been that we on this side are speaking only from the point of view of the landlords. It would be just as true for us to say that we have heard nothing from the other side of the Committee on the real economic merits of the argument, but that every time there have been arguments in favour of the so-called rights of tenants or concern for their alleged hardships.
I have never known two accomplished debaters like the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General dance so nimbly about from one argument to another as they have done during this debate. A very important argument which the Solicitor-General deployed was that the Amendment must be rejected because the Bill is intended to deal with ground leases. It is not so very long ago that we moved an Amendment to confine the
1002
Bill to ground leases and he, or his right hon. and learned Friend, declined to accept the Amendment.
Therefore, it is not reasonable for him now to say, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon advances concrete and practical cases of how this may operate in a most harmful manner if it includes houses which are not the subject of ground leases but of rack rents, to revert to the argument which was used earlier that this was intended only to deal with ground leases. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Attorney-General said that although he did not think many of the other category would be included he did not in the least regret that they would not be. That has been the real difficulty with which we have been confronted throughout the Bill.
There is the Bill as drafted. It has a certain meaning which is likely to be interpreted by the courts, and there is the entirely different drift of argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Whenever it suits their purpose they express their general sympathy with hon. Members who sit behind them and express their regret at not being able further to meet their point of view. Then, when we try to move Amendments to ensure that the Bill shall not have harmful effects because of the loose and wide drafting, they revert to what the purpose of the Bill was originally intended to be. The Solicitor-General, followed up by those behind him, has said that the purpose of the Bill is to maintain the status quo and to prevent hardship to tenants. Let me deal with those two points consecutively.
8.30 p.m.
First, on the point that it is intended to maintain the status quo, the reason we have moved this comprehensive Amendment is because the Bill does not maintain the status quo, and because, although they are unwilling to alter the rent or in any other way to modify the terms of the original leases entered into, the Government are proposing to modify the terms of those leases for these two additional years which are being added.
What is the possible justification in a standstill Bill, when the Government wish to maintain the status quo, for depriving the landlard at the same time of such reasonable provision as that to

1003
require the house to be kept in a reasonable state of repair? It is because we did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill—although we very severely criticised it—that we have brought in an Amendment of this kind to distinguish between those conditions of the original lease, which should surely continue to be enforceable during those last two years, and those which, perhaps, are not of the same importance.
It appears to us, therefore, that if the tenant who is responsible for maintaining the property in a proper state of repair has refused to comply with a notice served by the local authority under the Public Health Act, 1936, that is the kind of provision which in all fairness and reasonableness should continue to be enforceable even if the tenant is being given possession for another two years. It is really no answer for the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General, first, to say that they intend to preserve the status quo, secondly, that they intend to do away with all those conditions of the lease which he thinks would be unreasonable for the last two years, and then to refuse seriously to consider the case where the tenant is committing such nuisance in the property that even the local authority has taken action under the Public Health Act, but where the landlord is to be prevented from having redress.
All that the Solicitor-General has to say about that is that the landlord can go to the High Court or to the county court and obtain an injunction. But he would not have much inducement to do so and to incur the legal costs without any reward to himself. We have heard a great deal about the uncertainties of the tenant. What about the uncertainties of the landlord? If they read HANSARD and the speeches made by the back benchers opposite they will certainly see that the intention is that the landlord is never to be allowed to obtain possession of the house again.
Mr. Keenan: Why should he?
Mr. Molson: I was not arguing that point at the moment. [Interruption.] It would facilitate the debate if I were allowed to resume my remarks instead of having to listen to repartee being thrown across the Floor by hon. Members who are, according to the Rules of the
1004
House, supposed to be listening to what I am saying. That is a disadvantage of importing ideological considerations into a serious Bill of this kind.
The point I am trying to make is that, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald), I am concerned about maintaining the stock of houses in this country in a decent state of repair, and making the best possible use of them. The whole trouble about so much of the sentimental legislation promoted by the Government is that it is reducing a large proportion of the housing stock to a state of slum.
I am not in the least concerned as to whether, in theory, it is or is not desirable that the landlord should obtain possession of a house built on ground rent. What I am greatly concerned about is that the effect of the Bill shall not be that, during the last two years, purchasers of fag ends of rents who are not subject to eviction for not carrying out the obligations of the original lease should allow that property to get into a bad state of repair. I am sure that a man saddled by the present Socialist majority with the prospect of never obtaining possession of his house again would not wish to go to considerable expense and obtain an injunction in order to get the tenant to put the house in a proper state of repair.
I wish to advance one more argument, but it must not be supposed that because I do not deal with all five of the provisions of the Amendment we have abandoned them. I want to say something about the Solicitor-General's argument about averting injustice or hardship to the tenant. Our provision in sub-paragraph (i) of our Amendment is that the landlord may obtain possession if, in the opinion of the county court, he is able to provide suitable alternative accommodation. If there is suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant then, clearly, there is no hardship whatsoever in allowing the landlord to obtain possession of his house. This is a provision that was taken from the Rent Restriction Acts, legislation which worked extremely satisfactorily during the last 25 years.
It is only those who consider that in no circumstances should a sitting tenant ever be required to vacate property, and who regard the Bill as a general means of attack upon landlords as a class, who think there is any justification for not inserting the Amendment in the Bill.
Mr. Weitzman: This Amendment is completely illogical. The charge has been made on this side that this Amendment is put forward in the interest of landlords. I should like to support that suggestion very strongly, and I propose to give chapter and verse on why I think that charge is fully made out.
The Clause as it now stands extends the right of a holder of a ground lease for a period of two years. In other words, he holds the premises for a further period of two years under the standstill arrangement, paying the same ground rent as was paid before. It has been said by the Opposition that the words of the Amendment have not been looked into very carefully by Members on this side of the House. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they themselves look at the words of the Amendment carefully and see what the Amendment seeks to do. The first thing it seeks to do, after putting in the words,
"…unless the court considers it reasonable to make such an order or give such a judgment and either"—
is to say,
"(i) the court is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation is available to the tenant…"
What is the nature of that suitable alternative accommodation? Do hon. Members opposite mean that they are going to offer premises at a rack rental? Are they going to give the tenant alternative accommodation, putting him in the same position as before—that is, holding premises at the same ground rent and so that at the end of two years, when the Government have introduced Legislation, he gets the benefit of such legislation? Obviously not. That shows how ridiculous this Amendment is. He cannot be provided with suitable alternative accommodation.
If the matter remained there, the Amendment, on the face of it, would be obviously ridiculous. But it does not stop there. When we come to sub-paragraph (iii) the Amendment says
"the tenant or any person residing"—
Mr. J. Foster: There is the sort of situation which can arise—and I know it does arise—where one has a slum property and the ground lease is falling in and one can offer the sitting tenant in one ground lease either the equivalent, or in many cases better, accommodation in
1006
another ground lease and allow the development of the house which is vacated.
Mr. Weitzman: Clearly that is not the intention of this Amendment. This Amendment is based on the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is disingenuous of the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that suggestion. "Suitable alternative accommodation" does not mean what he suggested. It merely remains for me to mention the difficulty to show how ridiculous that suggestion is.
Let me pass to sub-paragraph (iii):
"the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance…"
Let me visualise the position where someone residing with the tenant has been guilty of a nuisance. Is it seriously suggested by hon. Members opposite that where someone residing with the tenant has been guilty of a nuisance, that ought to be a ground on which one can go to the court and say that the tenant of a ground lease, who has been given protection for two years and pays the ground rent as before, should be dispossessed? Hon. Members opposite may say that the county court judge may not think it reasonable, but why should anyone be put in jeopardy of an eviction in that way?
The criticism has been made that an injunction is not a sufficient remedy. I do not understand that objection. If a tenant has been guilty of a nuisance, what is there to prevent the landlord from going to the appropriate court and asking for an injunction? If he is right and gets an injunction, the costs will fall on the tenant. I cannot understand why it is suggested that it is wrong to say that the landlord has a remedy in going to the court.
Mr. I. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a landlord can get an injunction for the tenant to repair the house?
Mr. Weitzman: That interjection is not called for, because the part of the Amendment to which I am referring does not deal with that sort of thing at all. If hon. Members will look at sub-paragraph (iii) they will see quite clearly that it refers to "a nuisance or annoyance" and not to any question of repairs at all.
Mr. Foster: Sub-paragraph (ii) refers to repairs.
Mr. Weitzman: I am dealing with subparagraph (iii). I have selected from the Amendment two objections, and my submission is that if I take those two objections alone it is perfectly obvious that this Amendment, as it stands, is complete nonsense. The whole purpose of the Amendment is another attempt, repeating efforts which have been made before, to insert something based upon the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is an attempt to modify the intention of Clause 1 in respect of the standstill arrangement. I suggest that the standstill arrangement is a proper one.
The tenant who pays the ground rent should enjoy the use of his premises for those two years. Let him be in such a position that at the end of the two years, when further legislation is enacted by the Government, he will get the benefit of it. If this Amendment is accepted the position will be radically altered. The tenant will be put in such a position that he will not be able to obtain that benefit. In those circumstances, the Amendment ought to be rejected.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: The Amendments proposed by the Government make a considerable improvement on this Clause as originally drafted and presented to the House on the Second Reading. For that I think hon. Members on this side of the Committee can take a reasonable share of credit, in that their speeches on the Second Reading drew attention to the astonishing form in which this Clause was originally presented—a form in which it was impossible to enforce a covenant even against immoral use. That was the form in which the Bill originally came to the House.
Since the Second Reading, and in the light of the suggestions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, there have been a number of proposed improvements to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention. It is not, of course, true to say, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, that the Amendment differs from the Government's proposals only in one respect. There are the other respects of alternative accommodation and nuisance as well as the point of redevelopment which is covered by sub-paragraph (v) of the Amendment.
1008
As I understand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Amendment is undesirable and unnecessary: first, because he says that the cases for which it caters are unusual cases; second, because there is in any event the remedy of injunction; third, because this Bill is, after all, only a stand-still Bill, and of a standstill Bill not too much should be expected. That, in substance, was, the case put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I cannot, of course, pretend to reproduce the rich eloquence with which he always adorns his speeches.
So far as the suggestion that the Amendment covers only unusual cases is concerned, in a sense that is so. The law exists, happily, to deal with unusual cases, I wonder whether that has ever occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] In that case he lives and learns. Of course, the law provides for cases which are the unusual cases. If we pursue the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion there would be no need to provide remedies for breaches of covenant because, in a general way, tenants and landlords abide by their respective covenants.
But it is idle to say that because these cases may not be very usual—and we hope they are nbt—it is not right that the remedy should be prescribed for them in the Bill. Indeed, very similar remedies are provided in various sections in other Acts. There is the Schedule to the 1933 Act, which this more or less reflects, and provisions in some cases similar are to be found in respect of business premises. as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, in the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1927 and, indeed, in Clause 10 of the Bill. His argument that these similarities do not count in respect of the Bill because it is concerned only with ground leases has been faithfully dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson).
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that because the remedy of injunction exists it is not necessary to allow an enforcement of these covenants by for feiture. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that injunction is not a normal remedy in these matters. He is suggesting, as it were, an alien, difficult and costly procedure, and one which can be of very little benefit to the landlord who suffers a breach of covenant on

1009
the part of the tenant. In any event, the injunction will be difficult to enforce and, as has been pointed out, in respect of repairs it is unlikely that an injunction, which in that case would be in the nature of a mandatory injunction, would be granted at all.
Now, as to the third argument, in regard to the standstill nature of the Bill, there is no reason that because a Bill is a standstill Bill it should therefore be slipshod. It should be the best and the most logical Bill that the House is capable of producing; and, as I said yesterday, I have not a great deal of confidence that two years will necessarily see the Bill through. It would be quite contrary to our post-war experience if it were so.
I cannot remember whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed similar observations to the Committee during the passage of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. I have no doubt that he did, and that he made similar observations during the course of the Building Materials and Housing Act. In both those cases, the temporary term applied by the Measure has already been greatly exceeded, and one is waiting for a similar extension of the temporary application, for example, of Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
One does not have to be unduly sceptical to think that this Measure will remain on the Statute Book a great deal longer than the two years for which it is designed. Every argument that this is an interim, standstill Measure has to be read in the light of the melancholy experience we have had in this so-called temporary legislation since the war. That being so, it seems right that, if it is reasonable to have provisions for enforcement of these covenants, then the ones contained in the Amendment, which are not contained in the Government's proposals, should be put into the Bill, and that the Government should not burke the issue by relying on the merely temporary and standstill nature of the Bill.
One last observation about the last of these matters covered by the Amendment, that in which the landlord may recover possession if the court thinks it reasonable, and only if the court thinks it reasonable, in order that
1010
"… dwelling-house or a substantial part thereof may be demolished, reconstructed or remodelled;"
That phraseology is very similar, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls, to the phraseology of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, where a similar reason is a bar to a business tenant getting a new lease even though he has established all the difficult requirements of that Act in regard to his business premises. I attach great importance to that particular proviso.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends suggest that it is very rarely that landlords in these days embark upon schemes of redevelopment. If it is so, it is a considerable condemnation of the present Administration. It is because it has not been possible for them to embark on those schemes. Hon. Members opposite have posed for many years as the friends of town planning, as the apostles of comprehensive redevelopment; and yet, on any occasion when the thing is put to the test, they are unwilling to make provision whereby comprehensive redevelopment may be carried out.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) drew attention to the difficulties in which local authorities might be placed in regard to this matter. He made a perfectly good and proper point, and the same point applies, of course, in relation to private landlords embarking on large scale redevelopment schemes. It is quite obvious that such redevelopment schemes are in the interests of good town planning; they are in the social interests of the community; and it is not right that no provision should be made for the getting of possession in reasonable cases to facilitate such bona fide redevelopment schemes where they are possible.
In my submission, insufficient attention has been given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the practical implications of that particular part of our Amendment. I should like to press that on the Committee, not by any means because it is the only part of this Amendment which merits the respectful attention and sympathy of the Committee, but because it is so intimately bound up with the proper principle of good town planning and with the social progress of the community.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: This Amendment, like several of the previous Amendments, is completely contrary to the whole purpose and conception of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard so often, is to provide a standstill arrangement so that in due course, as I hope, we may have a leasehold enfranchisement Act put on the Statute Book. It is on the footing that we may have a leasehold enfranchisement Act put on the Statute Book that we have in this standstill Measure to consider the advantages or disadvantages of any proposal put forward.
This particular proposal provides for the recovery of the possession of the property by the landlord. We who believe in leasehold enfranchisement deny the prior right of the landlord to possession of the property. The whole basis of the case for leasehold enfranchisement is that the interest of the tenant in the property is a greater interest than the interest of the landlord. We believe that the interest of the tenant in the property is an occupational interest in the user of the property as his home, whereas the interest of the landlord in the property is merely a financial interest. We deny the whole basis upon which this Amendment is based, namely, the right of property of the landlord having priority over the right of property of the tenant, and we therefore object to the whole of this Amendment; but I will just deal with one or two points in detail. On the footing I have just discussed, the approach which we have to this problem of suitable alternative accommodation—
Mr. J. Foster: On his argument, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be against the Government Amendment concerning the use of premises for immoral purposes, because according to him the tenant has the right of property, and if a person with a freehold uses the house for immoral purposes he does not forfeit it. On his argument, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is against the Government.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, is being logical but not sensible. Of course, logic is on his side. I completely agree that when property is used for immoral purposes social considerations should prevail
1012
over consideration of private property and the interest in the property, whether of the landlord or of the tenant.
Mr. Walker-Smith rose—
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I should like to continue.
Mr. Foster: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that his argument is an argument for forfeiting to the State, but it cannot be an argument for forfeiting the tenant's right in his property just because he uses it as a brothel. It ought not to go to the landlord, but, on his argument, the tenant has got no right in it at all.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: On this occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman is not even being logical. What is being given by this Bill is a new advantage to the tenant. We say that if the tenant uses the property for anti-social immoral purposes, the State should not give him that advantage, and therefore the right of property of the landlord should prevail. In other words, where the right of property of the tenant is being abused, there is no reason, either in common sense or in logic on this occasion, for giving the tenant the advantage which this Bill proposes.
Mr. Foster: If he lets it become a slum, is not that anti-social?
Mr. Monslow: Who built the slum?
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am coming to the question of repairs, and I will deal with that in detail.
Therefore, the offer of suitable alternative accommodation is completely contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill.
The other point with which I propose to deal is the provision for recovery of possession in the event of the property being in disrepair owing to the neglect or default of the tenant. That means that, in connection with a large number of properties of the poorer people whom we are particularly concerned to protect, we shall have a carriage and four driven through this Bill, because it is common knowledge that towards the end of long leases there are, of course, dilapidations owing to the default of the

1013
tenant, and owing to the default of the tenant in accordance with the terms of the lease imposed on the tenant.
It is because of the strength of landlord's legal rights under the lease that we are concerned to protect the tenant, and everybody who has considered this question is concerned to provide some ameliorating legislation of one kind or another to deal with the cruel insistence upon the landlord's rights with regard to dilapidations at the end of a lease. Yet, in spite of that acknowledged cruelty to the tenant, the Opposition propose to take advantage of that cruel position by enabling the landlord to recover owing to the legal default of the tenant with regard to dilapidations. That is completely unacceptable, I trust, to every single Member on either side of the House.
On the last point raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), I have a great deal of sympathy with much that he said. The provision is for the recovery of possession if the landlord requires possession in order that the dwelling-house, or a substantial part thereof, shall be reconstructed, demolished or remodelled. There is no test in this requirement that demolition, reconstruction or remodelling shall be in the public interest. The whole of his remarks were based on the assumption that it was in the public interest.
Mr. Walker-Smith: That is, of course, the true test. That is the first test expressed in sub-paragraph (v), and the second is the overriding test that the court would consider it reasonable. In assessing the reasonableness, the court will, of course, weigh the position of the tenant against tthe public or social advantage of a scheme of comprehensive redevelopment.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is leaving himself wide open to precisely the objection which the Opposition make, and which I share with them, to another part of the Bill. Let us look at the position with regard to the discretion of the court. If the court is to have an overriding power to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable and the court's discretion with regard to what is reasonable or unreasonable is to be the predominant consideration which governs every other factor, there is no guidance to the court on the matter. It leaves it
1014
subject to exactly the same attack as was made by the Opposition on other parts of the Bill.
Mr. Walker-Smith: It is precisely this issue which is being argued not only in regard to the Rent Acts, which are a different issue, but which is being argued every day throughout the country in connection with town planning appeals, compulsory purchase orders, inquiries and so on. It is precisely this issue which is being debated by members of our profession every day.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Of course, there will be Acts of Parliament which provide in effect, although perhaps not in these precise terms, that the court shall have a wide discretion in one form or another. It is equally true that anyone who is aware of that, including the judges, takes exception to having that very wide discretion, and that the judges, in common with everyone else, want as much precision as possible in provisions of this kind. The Opposition have made that point on Second Reading in regard to another matter, and I share that view; but they now, in the interests of the landlord, propose to give the courts a width of discretion which, in their own judgment, they condemn.
The last part of the Amendment does not provide that the demolition, reconstruction or remodelling may be in the public interest. It might be for a purpose that is entirely to the contrary, and it is completely unjustifiable for the hon. Member to argue on the footing that this is necessarily in the public interest. But that is a criticism of detail. The fundamental objection is that it strikes at the whole purpose for which the Bill has been introduced.
Mr. Hay: Would the argument of the hon. and learned Member about the preparation for leasehold enfranchisement apply in the case of nuisance? He has dealt with the lack of repair and alternative accommodation. Will he deal with the matter from the point of view of nuisance?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) has sought to come to the assistance of the Solicitor-General. I do not think that he has made the case against the Amendment any stronger by

1015
the force of his utterances. The whole case put forward from the Front Bench has been that this is a standstill Measure. One difficulty in debating it is the fact that the Government and their supporters, as my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said, are constantly changing their ground.
The hon. and learned Member has really destroyed the argument put up by the Solicitor-General. His argument was that this is a standstill Bill, that nothing must be altered and that we have to keep the tenants in possession for another two years; that nothing must be altered in the lease, that it must not be varied, and that rents must not be increased. The hon. and learned Member now puts forward this argument: we recognise that this is altering the lease, but it is paving the way for what we want—leasehold enfranchisement. That is quite inconsistent with what the Solicitor-General said.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Not at all. Of course it is not altering it. It is holding the position. I hope it will result in leasehold enfranchisement. As it stands, it simply continues the lease as it is.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It does not. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the effect of the Clause is not to carry out the lease as it is. The effect is to make several provisions of the lease completely ineffective. The hon. and learned Member knows that, and it is nonsense to seek to assert that the lease is carried on for the next two years in precisely the same form and is as enforceable as today.
Whatever one's views may be about landlords and tenants there are two facts that the Committee should recognise. Members opposite have not paid nearly sufficient attention to these two facts, which cannot be denied. The first proposition is that it is certainly not in the public interest to let houses fall into disrepair in the next two years if that can be avoided.
Mr. Janner: It has been happening for 50 years.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: It may be, but let us look to the future.
I think that I carry the hon. and learned Gentleman with me. Another factor to which I will ask him to have regard is
1016
this: I remember the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in urging that houses which have only one or two inhabitants, and which could hold more families, should be converted for the use of more families. This second factor must be recognised. It is that unless we do something to facilitate that conversion taking place we are stopping the increase of housing accommodation. Unless the Clause is altered—let there be no mistake about this—the party opposite are putting an impediment in the way of the rehousing of our people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Indeed they are.
Let me come straight away to the terms of the Amendment. The first thing that it seeks to do is to give discretion to the county court judge similar to that which he exercises in many cases today. The hon. Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) tried to make a great deal of play with the Amendment by disregarding the fact that there is always discretion left with the county court judge. That is to say, that even if only one of the conditions in the Clause is satisfied, before any order for possession is made the court has to be satisfied that it is reasonable. There is always that safeguard.
So far as alternative accommodation is concerned, this is a similar provision to that contained in the Rent Acts, but there is force in the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Surely where we have a number of ground leases falling in we want to re-develop and reconstruct in order to create more housing accommodation. The landlord may be a local authority or a private person. There is o particular lessee who is enabled by the Bill to carry on in his tenancy while all the rest have gone. Surely if the landlord can show that there is other accommodation not very far away available for that ground lessee it might be reasonable for the county court judge to say, "Let him move from that ground lease to the one a short distance away, so that building can go on and new accommodation be provided for many more people." In a case like that, the county court judge might be right to make the order. No one would suggest that any order would be made where the house was full of a large number of

1017
families, which was the case put by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).
Mr. Weitzman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean that the Amendment provides that suitable alternative accommodation is offered by the landlord, so as to put the tenant in possession of premises at the same ground rent and with the same opportunity at the end of two years of being given any advantage which the Government will give in future legislation?
Mr. Turner-Samuels: I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. ManninghamBuller), that it is not only a question of rehousing. The point about the latter part of the Amendment is that there is also a question of demolishing, reconstructing and remodelling.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I will try to deal, briefly, paragraph by paragraph, with all the points. I am now dealing with one instance, a case where it really is desirable that the court should have power. There are other cases in which the court may not think reasonable. One can imagine a good many cases where application might be made, where the landlord would say, "this is for reconstruction," but the court would not think it reasonable. I do not fear discretion being left to the courts.
But let me move on from alternative accommodation. Whether it was suitable or not, would be a question of fact for the county court judge to determine. Many of these covenants, which are now going to be made completely unenforceable, are covenants which are for the benefit of the neighbours. Many of the leases contain covenants which deal with nuisances and annoyances to the neighbours.
Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot give way.
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), does not wish to give way, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), must remain in his seat.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is the question of an injunction where there is a nuisance.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am trying to wind up the debate and bring it to a conclusion, for we have debated it long enough. I am going to deal with the question of injunctions later, and there are other matters which I hope to deal with if I am not further interrupted.
Let me return to the question of nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks about them, but as he really suggesting that the landlord will try to get an injunction on that now? Is it not easier to leave it as it is? There is no means of enforcing it apart from an injunction. Let us take the next thing—repairs. Assuming, as I do, that something must be done to ensure that the property is not allowed to get into a state of disrepair in the next two years, surely we must look at the Bill to see how a proper standard of repairs is enforced. Straight away we find there are no means of enforcing it. It is really of no use to go to the court to try to get an injunction to get someone to put a place into repair. There is no power under the Bill as it stands which enables the landlord to demand even reasonable repairs during the next two years.
What we suggest is that the only repairs that can be enforced are those specified in our Amendment, namely, repairs to conform with a notice from the local authority if, in the opinion of the court, a dwelling-house is not in a reasonable state of repair. There, again, the obligation to have that extent of repairs cannot be enforced by recovery or possession unless the court itself is satisfied that it is reasonable to grant possession.
I want to say a word or two about the point to which attention was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), on demolishing or remodelling of premises. There, I agree, it is a matter of degree. Surely it is right, if the premises are to be demolished to provide further accommodation, or remodelled or reconstructed for that purpose, that there should be power vesting somewhere to see that some progress can be made with that during the next two years provided it is reasonable.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Amendment does not say anything about that purpose.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I know. But we could list a whole number of purposes. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really think that in these days a county court judge would consider it reasonable to make an order for possession unless he was satisfied that the requirements of reconstruction or demolition were bona fide and were to the public good? If he—
Mr. Messer: It does not say so.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I know that it does not in the Amendment, but one must leave something to common sense.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "housing."
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I said that and I meant that.
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt appreciate that the word "reasonable" here was very naturally interpreted as "reasonable in the interests of the landlord."
Mr. Turner-Samuels: In the circumstances.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not in the least agree with that. I see no reason
for that, particularly in regard to the form of words given, which in the Rent Restriction Acts is certainly not interpreted as "reasonable for the landlord."
Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Has it nothing to do with "reasonable for the landlord"?
Mr. Manningham-Buller: "Reasonable" means what it does; it is not "reasonable for the landlord." Obviously, we are completely divided on this. The party opposite, in the belief that they are benefiting a number of occupants of houses, are quite prepared to let a great deal of dwelling accommodation deteriorate without any possibility of its being kept up to standard and are quite prepared to impede the conversion of large old-fashioned houses into a number of flats to provide accommodation. We entirely disagree with them about that and shall carry it to a Division.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Committee might come to a decision now.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 239.

Division No. 20.]

AYES

[9.23 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Chetwynd, G. R.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Adams, Richard

Clunie, J.

Ewart, R.

Albu, A. H.

Cocks, F. S.

Fernyhough, E.

Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

Coldrick, W.

Field, Capt. W. J.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Collick, P.

Finch, H. J.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Collindridge, F.

Follick, M.

Awbery, S. S.

Cook, T. F.

Foot, M. M

Ayles, W. H.

Cooper, J. (Deptford)

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Bacon, Miss A.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Baird, J.

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

Gibson, C. W.

Bartley, P.

Crosland, C. A. R

Gilzean, A

Benn, Hon. A. N Wedgwood

Crossman, R. H. S.

Glanville, J. E (Consett)

Benson, G.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Gooch, E. G.

Beswick, F.

Daines, P.

Greenwood, A. W J (Rossendale)

Bing, G. H. C.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grenfell, D. R.

Blenkinsop, A

Darling, G. (Hillsboro')

Grey, C. F.

Blyton, W R

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Boardman, H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Booth, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Deer, G

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

Brockway, A. Fenner

Delargy, H. J.

Hamilton, W. W

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Dodds, N. N.

Hannan, W.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Donnelly, D.

Hardman, D. R.

Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.

Driberg. T. E. N.

Hardy, E. A.

Brown, George (Belper)

Dye, S.

Hargreaves, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Harrison, J.

Burke, W. A.

Edelman, M.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Burton, Miss E.

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Hayman, F. H

Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S)

Edwards, Rt Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Herbison, Miss M

Callaghan, James

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hewitson, Capt. M

Carmichael, James

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hobson, C. R.

Champion, A. J.

Evans. E. (Lowestoft)

Holman, P.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Monslow, W.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

Houghton, Douglas

Moody, A. S.

Steele, T.

Hoy, J.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hubbard, T.

Morley, R.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Stross, Dr. B.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Moyle, A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Mulley, F. W.

Sylvester, G. O.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Murray, J. D.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Nally, W.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Neal, H.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Janner, B.

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Jay, D. P. T

Oldfield, W.H.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Jeger, G. (Goole)

Oliver, G. H.

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

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

Orbach, M.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Jenkins, R. H.

Padley, W. E.

Thurtle, Ernest

Johnson, James (Rugby)

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

Timmons, J.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Pannell, T. C.

Tomney, F.

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Pargiter, G. A.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Parker, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, A. L

Keenan, W.

Paton, J.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Kenyon, C.

Peart, T F.

Viant, S. P.

King, H. M.

Poole, Cecil

Wallace, H. W

Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)

Popplewell, E.

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

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Porter, G.

Weitzman, D.

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

Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Lindgren, G. S.

Proctor, W. T

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Pryde, D. J

West, D. G.

Logan, D. G.

Pursey, Commander H.

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

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Rankin, J.

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

McAllister, G.

Rees, Mrs. D.

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

MacColl, J. E.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

McGhee, H. G.

Reid, W. (Camlachie)

Wilkes, L.

McGovern, J.

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

McInnes, J.

Richards, R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Mack, J. D.

Robens, A.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Williams, D. S. (Neath)

McLeavy, F.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

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

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

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

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

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

Royle, C.

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

Mann, Mrs. J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)

Manuel, A. C.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Wise, Major F. J.

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mellish, R. J.

Simmons, C. J.

Wyatt, W. L.

Messer, F.

Slater, J.

Yates, V. F.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Mikardo, Ian

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

Mitchison, G. R.

Snow, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Moeran, E. W.

Sorensen, R. W

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

NOES

Alport, C. J. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Amery, J. (Preston, N.)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Drayson, G. B.

Arbuthnot, John

Burden, Squadron Leader R. A.

Drewe, C

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Butcher, H W.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Baker, P.

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

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Baldwin, A. E.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Dunglass, Lord

Banks, Col C

Carson, Hon. E.

Duthie, W. S.

Baxter, A. B.

Channon, H.

Eccles, D. M.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

Erroll, F. J.

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

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

Fisher, Nigel

Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)

Clyde, J. L.

Fort R.

Bevins, J. R (Liverpool Toxteth)

Colegate, A.

Foster, J. G.

Birch, Nigel

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Bishop, F. P.

Cooper, A E. (Ilford, S.)

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

Black, C. W.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Gage, C. H.

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

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

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Boothby, R.

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Gammans, L. D.

Bossom, A C

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

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Bowen, R.

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Gates, Maj. E E.

Bower, N.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Glyn, Sir R.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip—Northwood)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Granville, E. (Eye)

Braine, B.

Cundiff, F. W.

Grimond, J.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Davidson, Viscountess

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Davies, Nigel (Epping)

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

de Chair, S.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Deedes, W F

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

1022

1023

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

McKibbin, A.

Scott, Donald

Hay, John

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

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

Maclean, F. H. R.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

Heald, L. F.

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Heath, E. R.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Snadden, W. McN

Higgs, J. M. C.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Soames, Capt. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Marples, A. E.

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

Hollis, M. C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Stevens, G. P.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

Hope, Lord J.

Maudling, R.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Medlicott, Brigadier F

Storey, S.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Mellor, Sir J.

Studholme, H. G

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Molson, A. H. E.

Summers, G. S.

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Sutcliffe, H.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

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

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

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Teeling, William

Hurd, A. R.

Nabarro, G.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Nicholls, H.

Thompson, K. P. (Walton)

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

Nicholson, G.

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

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Nugent, G R. H

Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Nutting, Anthony

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Jennings, R.

Oakshott, H. D.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)

Odey, G. W.

Turner, H. F. L.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Turton, R. H.

Kaberry, D

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Vane, W. M. F.

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

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

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Vosper, D. F.

Langford-Holt, J.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W)

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Leather, E. H. C.

Pickthorn, K.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

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

Powell, J. Enoch

Waterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

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

Watkinson, H.

Lindsay, Martin

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Linstead, H. N.

Profumo, J. D.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Raikes, H. V.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Rayner, Brigadier R.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Lockwood, Lt.-Cot. J. C.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

Low, A. R. W.

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Wills, G.

Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)

Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Wood, Hon. R.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Roper, Sir H.

York, C.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Ropner, Col. L.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Russell, R. S.

Mr. Wingfield Digby and

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from "reentry," to "and," in line 41, and to insert:
"in respect of any failure to comply with a term or condition of the tenancy, or to enforce any right against the tenant to damages in respect of such a failure."
This is merely a drafting Amendment, the object of which is to pave the way for the later Amendment which makes breach of a covenant against illegal or immoral use a ground for forfeiture. All that the Amendment does is to re-arrange the wording of the Clause in a slightly more convenient form in order to be able to introduce, after the wording in question, the words relating to the covenant against illegal and immoral use.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said in explanation of the
1024
Amendment, and as it is nothing more than a drafting and paving Amendment, it would be advisable to continue our discussion when we get to the major Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert:
"or extend to any failure after the commencement of this Act to comply with a term or condition of the tenancy (by whatever words imposed) prohibiting the use of the property for illegal or immoral purposes."
This Amendment introduces the words to which I have just referred, relating to covenants against illegal or immoral use.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think that everybody in all quarters of the Committee will welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to move this Amendment. I want, however, to make this

1025
comment, and I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. L. Hale), is not in his place. The hon. Member earlier made an extremely offensive observation regarding my Second Reading speech, in which he suggested that I had stated that every home in this country was not an Englishman's castle but was his brothel.
In fact, I pointed out that there were certain bad cases which were protected by the Bill. I mentioned the speculator in fag ends and the man who obstructed development. I also pointed out that under the Bill as originally drafted it was not possible for a landlord to get rid of a person who used the premises for immoral purposes. That, as has been shown by the action of the Government, was a perfectly just observation and the Government have seen the force of it and have seen fit to put down this Amendment.
Mr. MacColl: I think it might be helpful if I could make some comments on the Government's Amendment in view of the Amendment which follows in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Captain Field) and myself in page 4, line 3, at the end, to insert:
"and that nothing in this subsection shall affect—

(i) forfeiture or re-entry for failure after the commencement of this Act to comply with any term or condition of the tenancy (by whatever words imposed) prohibiting the use of the property for illegal or immoral purposes or any proceedings brought before the date of the commencement of this Act where the claim for relief is based on failure to comply with any such term or condition;

(ii) the right of a landlord under section five of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1912 (determination of tenancy of premises on conviction for permitting use as a brothel), to require the assignment of a lease or other contract under which the premises are held upon conviction of the tenant or occupier of knowingly permitting the premises or any part thereof to he used as a brothel or failing such assignment to determine the lease or other contract and recover possession of the premises."

I intervene on this subject with a certain amount of diffidence. My constituency has not many of the characteristics of Paradise, but it appears to have two in so far as it has neither brothels nor leaseholds. From a constituency point of view. I should hesitate to intervene,
1026
but I happen to be a member of a local authority in an area which has too many brothels and too many leaseholds. I should like to put some questions to my right hon. and learned Friend about the Amendment as it does not seem to meet the purposes for which it is intended.
We all agree that we wish to protect the right of the ground landlord to get rid of the brothel keeper who comes into a property and uses it for immoral purposes. The first question I want to put to my right hon. and learned Friend is a general question. The Amendment, as I understand it, deals only with cases where there are specific covenants against illegal or immoral users. There are many old leases in which there is not a specific covenant but in which it is at present possible for the ground landlord to proceed against a brothel keeper on a general allegation of nuisance. I ask whether it is possible to reserve that right for the landlord in a case where it is possible to establish immoral use as a nuisance, but not as a breach of a specific covenant.
The second point is that the Amendment deals only with paragraph (a) of the subsection. That is where there is a privity of estate between the ground landlord and the person against whom an allegation has been made. The Amendment I have put on the Order Paper is to preserve the wider power of the landlord in going against the occupier, whether the occupier holds direct or not from the ground landlord. The most common problem which leads to the most serious criticism of the landlord for laxity in keeping the property in a decent condition is where there is no privity of estate and where he has no direct contractual relationship with the occupier against whom the allegations are made. Therefore, if it is possible for the ground landlord to carry out the functions which everyone is agreed he should try to carry out, wider powers are needed than are given by this Amendment which is confined to paragraph (a).
The third point concerns the case where there has been a conviction for immoral use and under Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1912, it is possible for the landlord to terminate the tenancy of the premises and require an assignment of the lease in all cases where

1027
any occupier has been found guilty of an offence of using the premises as a brothel. I do not know whether the termination of a tenancy is the same as a forfeiture of the lease. That is a point on which the Committee may perhaps be advised by my right hon. and learned Friend. I ask whether he would be prepared to consider preserving that statutory power of securing the termination of the tenancy which arises under the criminal law.
If I could just put the three points again to my right hon. and learned Friend, there is, first of all, the general question of making effective a covenant where there is no specific covenant against immoral user; secondly, the right of the ground landlord to get at the occupier with whom he has no privity of estate, and, thirdly, the special powers in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act for the termination of the tenancy. If my right hon. and learned Friend can meet these points, he is, I am sure, going to meet the wish of the Committee, because it is going to be exceedingly difficult to make the kind of criticism that I and others have made of some ground landlords who are slack in this respect if, in fact, we have tied their hands in the way in which the Bill in its original form certainly did, and as, I rather fear, it still will do if amended in the way the Government suggest.
The Solicitor-General: If I may deal with those three points in order, I should have thought, although I have not given consideration to the precise questions that my hon. Friend asks, that the words in the brackets in the Amendment, "by whatever words imposed," would cover general conduct which amounts to a nuisance, and as such would include immoral conduct. But that is a question I should like to look at again. I see the object of his desire, which is to preserve the position where it cannot be said that the covenant in question in terms prevents immoral or illegal conduct, but particularly immoral conduct. My hon. Friend referred to, and wants there to be a right of, forfeiture where there is a covenant which, although it does not refer to immoral conduct, could be construed to be wide enough to cover it. I would also like to consider that matter further.
1028
With regard to the second question, my hon. Friend is undoubtedly right in his surmise that the only case in which there is a right of forfeiture given is where there is privity of estate between the landlord and the tenant, and there is no right given by this Amendment to the head lessor, the ground landlord. There, again, it might be possible to introduce a change into the existing wording in order to bring that about. My hon. Friend has put down this Amendment at a very late stage, and we really have not as yet been able to give it the full consideration which it deserves, but we are considering it. In particular, I would like to consider the further point, namely, whether Clause 4 should be so altered as to enable the head lessor to dispossess the subtenant if it could be shown that the subtenant was guilty of immoral conduct with the result that the sub-tenant's immediate landlord might dispossess him. Under the Clause as it stands, the landlord cannot do so.
The third point raised by my hon. Friend is whether we should retain the statutory power of the landlord over the assignment of a lease in the event of a conviction. We think there is reason behind the proposal, and although I cannot give any final undertaking with regard to it, it is certainly a proposal we will sympathetically consider and we hope to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to embody it, though I do not want to give a final and definite commitment that we shall do so.
Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move in page 4, line 18, after "stayed," to insert:
"until such time as the landlord is entitled to possession of the dwelling-house to which the proceedings relate."
Clause 4 (3) deals with the staying of any proceedings which have been brought
"after the 21st day of November, 1950, and before the commencement of this Act but have not been finally disposed of before the commencement of this Act. …"
The Clause provides that there shall be a stay, except in respect of an order as to costs. I understand one view is that in that connection the word "stay" is equivalent to dismissal.
We seek to incorporate in this Clause the words in the Amendment for the following reason. It seems rather unfair

1029
that where the landlord has commenced proceedings, if under whatever subsequent procedure is introduced, he should be entitled to possession of the premises again, he should have to start proceedings again. It would add to the cost and give a good deal of unnecessary trouble. As I understand, there is some doubt about the Clause as it stands, and we want to make the matter clear beyond peradventure. It is for that reason that I move the Amendment.
The Solicitor-General: I want to ask the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) to ask leave to withdrawn this Amendment, on the understanding that we will consider very carefully whether we can meet him in his desire. I think it is certainly arguable that the Clause, as already drafted, has the effect he wishes to achieve. However, we would like to consider this Amendment and again, without giving any commitment. I can say that we will sympathetically consider his proposal.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is a little odd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not really saying he will do anything about it. If the effect of the Clause is as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) suggests and the Solicitor-General will do something about it and will table an Amendment to put the matter right, then I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Amendment. But if the Solicitor-General is asking that the matter be left over so that he shall have further time to consider the meaning of this Clause in a Government Bill published as long ago as 15th December, he is really saying he does not understand what the Clause means and wants more time to appreciate its meaning. If that is so, then I think he is asking rather a lot.
Mr. C. Williams: I am rather surprised at the position taken by the Government, because yesterday we were assured by the Attorney-General that he had been through all the Amendments and that there were a great many he would have to refuse. Now the Solicitor-General says that he has not been able to go into this thing properly. One of them must be wrong. I think it is most likely that the Solicitor-General is right,
1030
and that the Government have not had proper time to devote to the Bill, which must have been obvious to anyone who has listened to the Attorney-General.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I want to be quite certain what the Solicitor-General is suggesting. If he is accepting my proposition that it should be made quite clear that the landlord can reinstate these proceedings when he becomes entitled to possession, then I will certainly withdraw my Amendment so that he can consider whether or not the Bill as drafted provides for that. If he is in doubt as to whether the landlord should be entitled to do that, then that is an entirely different matter.
The Solicitor-General: I think that on the present drafting of the Clause there is a final stay. In other words, the Clause does not do what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it to do. The question arises whether we can do what he wants us to do. It occurs to us that certain procedural difficulties may be involved, and we want to consider those difficulties. I am giving no undertaking beyond this, that we propose to consider those difficulties, and I will go so far as to say that prima facie the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal does not seem to me to be unreasonable.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PROVISION WHERE LONG TENANCY DETERMINED AND SUBTENANT, ETC., IN OCCUPATION.)
The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "years," to insert:
"and not for the time being subject to a tenancy granted for such a term."
This Amendment is one of a series, all of which are designed to effect two objects. One is to clarify the provision of Clause 5 and the other is to remedy a defect which exists in the wording of the Clause as it stands. I hope, Major Milner, that you may think it convenient if I discuss and indicate the purpose of

1031
those Amendments, and, upon the assumption that you will think it is a convenient course, perhaps I ought to indicate which Amendments they are.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of order, Major Milner. I should like to ask your guidance as to how we should deal with this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled and is about to refer to a whole series of Amendments which, as far as I can see, turn this Clause upside down. Whereas the Clause originally referred to superior tenancies and sub-tenancies, it has now become quite different in form and, indeed, it is not very easy to follow. That has been recognised by the Government in publishing as a White Paper the Clause as it would be if all these Amendments were made.
The difficulty which I feel, and on which I should like your guidance, is this. We on this side of the Committee have also tabled Amendments to the Clause in its original form and, as far as I can see, if we are going to deal first with an Amendment to this Clause to bring it into line with the White Paper, and then an Amendment of ours to make certain changes to the Clause in its original form, by the end of the day either the Committee will be in a tangle or the Clause will be in a tangle, and the Government will certainly be in a tangle. What I would suggest—and I ask whether it would be proper or convenient to the Committee—is that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could make a general statement outlining the precise effect of all his Amendments to this Clause, then I think that we should be in a position to determine whether or not we require to move any of our Amendments to the Clause. I do not know if that would be possible or, indeed, if it could be done now in the time at the disposal of the Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General: If I may be permitted to say so, I should have thought that that was a convenient course. It was, in fact, that course which I was proposing to follow.
The Chairman: Is the Committee in agreement with that course?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Solicitor-General: I was just explaining that the Amendments to which I refer are as follows: page 4, lines 40 and 45; page 5, lines 7, 11, 20, 24, 31. 34, 35 and 42; page 6, lines 26 and 32.
As hon. Members know, the general object of Clause 5 is to deal with the situation that was brought about by the decision in the case of The Knightsbridge Estate Trust Ltd. v. Deeley. As the Clause originally stood, without any of these Amendments, its effect was that it operated only where the sub-tenant was the immediate tenant of the ground lessee. That was what the Clause did as it was originally drafted. In its amended form we want to cope with this situation. It is quite possible that the actual occupier who is in occupation of the premises may be the owner of the last of a chain of sub-tenancies and it may be that the sub-tenant holding immediately above that occupier may himself not be in possession, in occupation, of any part of the property.
As the Clause is at present drafted, the occupier who is the last in the series of tenancies will not be protected. What we want to do, and what we seek to do by amending the Clause, is this—to bring it about that, under the terms of the amended Clause, the last in the chain of tenancies, the lowest sub-tenant of all, if he is in occupation, will be protected notwithstanding that the tenant from whom he immediately holds is not in possession of any part of the premises. That is the sole purpose of the changes which we propose, so far as they change the scheme of the Clause.
We thought, as a matter of fact, that some of the changes in wording would improve the Clause from the point of view of intelligibility. I am quite sure that hon. Members, whether they like the Clause or not, will agree that it is extremely difficult to draft a Clause like that, dealing with a whole chain of tenancies, where there may be an interruption of occupation some way down the chain. It is very difficult to do that without introducing a Clause which will be very difficult to understand, because of necessity it embodies extremely intricate machinery. I sympathise very much, personally, with the complaints of those who find this Clause difficult to understand, but I hope that hon. Members who feel that complaint will

1033
equally sympathise with us and with the draftsmen in trying to embody in language such a very complicated and intricate situation. We hope that, as it now stands, the Clause is more intelligible. The only change in substance which it introduces is that it protects that sub-sub-tenant, if I may so call him, when the sub-tenant from whom he holds, is himself not in occupation of any part of the property.
That is the object of this Clause and. having indicated its object, I think it might possibly be for the convenience of the Committee if, before I come to discourse on particular aspects of it, we were to give an opportunity for other hon. Members who propose an alternative system of Amendments to indicate whether they think their alternative system is, in the light of what I have said. still necessary.
Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is a long and complicated series of Amendments and we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the clear and cogent explanation that he has given of them. We appreciate the intention behind this Clause and, without expressing a firm opinion upon it now, I must say that it seems to me to go a long way to carry out the intention which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed. Indeed, we do not object to that intention. It is obviously right that the protection given to the sub-tenant of the ground lessee should be given to the sub-tenant, and all the way down the chain, and indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that yesterday, in the course of our debate, we suggested an Amendment to provide for this very thing—the Amendment adding a proviso to Clause 1. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before we resume the Committee stage of this Bill after tonight, to look once again at the draft of that proviso, because I am not at all sure that in that one short proviso—
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.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

ROAD HAULAGE (DELAYS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]
10.2 p.m.
Mr. York: As the Minister concerned has not yet arrived it is a little difficult for me to start presenting the case to him. Some of his hon. Friends might tell him that the debate has now started. I see that he is arriving. The question which I wish to raise tonight is the matter of the failure of the British Transport Commission to provide services partly for my constituents and also for a large variety of other people, firms and organisations in the country.
The original cause of my putting down this matter for the Adjournment has, I am glad to say, been straightened out; but I shall, of course, give details of this, and I shall also draw some conclusions from it. The criticisms that I am making tonight are criticisms of bad administration, and the spirit in which I make them is that, whatever we may think of this organisation of nationalised transport, for the moment, at any rate, it is in being, and we must all do what we can to try to improve it, and where failures are proved then those failures must be closely investigated and sternly dealt with.
Let me come to the first case which I wish to put before the House. It concerns a constituent of mine and a firm of furniture manufacturers who live in Shoreditch. As I have not their permission to use their name I shall call them "Shoreditch." In May, 1950, my constituent ordered some new furniture from this Shoreditch firm. In July, 1950, that firm wrote to my constituent and said that British Transport had promised to collect next week. I have, of course, a copy of that letter here.
The next thing that happened, after sundry efforts on the part of my constituent, was that on 22nd September this Shore-ditch firm again wrote and said to my constituent:
"As far as the B.R.T. is concerned"—

1035
that is, British Road Transport—
"believe us when we say we are heartily sick of their treatment not only as regards delay but mainly because of the terrific amount of damage they are doing to our goods. We say without fear of contradiction that we have had more damages in three months than we had in 20 years. When we complained to one sub-manager and threatened to report to his superior we got the answer, 'I don't care if you report to The King' only with an adjective thrown in."
I wish the House particularly to note that letter in view of another letter which I shall read in a moment. On 18th October, with still no sign of the furniture in Knaresborough, the British Road Transport Services wrote from Marylebone Road to my constituent and said it was a fact that the Shoreditch firm had placed this order,
"but we have not been able to carry it out, firstly because it is unpacked new furniture which requires special handling, and, secondly, we have had difficulty in operating a service for this kind of traffic for your particular district."
That is the British Road Services saying that they have, in fact, failed to carry out their promise.
But by 24th October something had happened to waken up the Road Haulage Executive, and I have little doubt that that was the fact that a Member of Parliament, myself, was brought into the picture. We then have a letter from this Shoreditch firm to the Road Haulage Executive with a very different tale from that in the letter which I read out earlier. They now say:
"We now have to tell you that we have found an immediate and vast improvement in services of all kinds. Also, without gushing, there is now a great improvement in feeling. For our part we promise, as we always intended, to help this scheme."
There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this series of letters, and that is that there has been some bullying, or at any rate some indirect threats, used upon this firm as to the future of their trade. I am sorry to say that it is not altogether to the advantage of the British Transport Commission that that should be so.
Pursuing my objective of obtaining redress for my constituent, and still trying to get this furniture from Shoreditch to Yorkshire, I wrote to the Chairman of the Transport Commission, and on 11th
1036
December I got the following information in a letter:
"There are a number of places to which the Executive are not yet in a position to give a regular direct service."
Later in the same letter he says that my constituents were told by the Executive on 18th October that the Shoreditch firm had placed an order,
"but I am sorry to find that this statement was incorrect as no order was actually placed."
So one part of the Transport Commission is now contradicting the other.
I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the money spent on publicity by the British Road Services, when they advertise the following in the trade Press:
"British Road Services specialise in the carriage of new furniture all over the country."
I think that there is a little lack of liaison between Lord Hurcomb and his publicity and advertising manager. While pursuing my endeavours to get this furniture from Shoreditch to Yorkshire, on 3rd January there arrived a further letter from the Chairman of the Transport Commission, in which he said:
"Our Road Haulage Executive have again gone into the matter and arranged to interview the Shoreditch firm. As a result, these two people now confirm that at no time was an order placed with British Road Transport."
We must conclude that somebody is lying, and we must leave it to the conclusion of each hon. Member as to which party is lying the most.
Despite the fact that there has been a considerable amount of misrepresentation of the truth in these transactions, I am glad to be able to report to the House that on 19th January the goods arrived. They arrived in a private enterprise lorry. Yet it is these private enterprise lorries that the Transport Commission are driving out of business, in spite of the fact that there is no alternative method of transporting these goods. At least, I hope to obtain from the Minister a promise that before these licences are revoked he will make quite sure that there is a regular and full-time service in this part of the country.
My second problem concerns a firm called Aerite, Ltd., which ordered their packers to send three parcels from London to Edinburgh. The firm is in Westminster. On 8th September, 1950, the packers despatched these three parcels

1037
to unit A.38 in Macclesfield Street, London. On 25th September, the parcels had not arrived in Edinburgh. Under the private enterprise system they never took longer than 48 hours. As a result, the order which was placed with Aerite, Ltd., had been cancelled and the customer had obtained American goods of the same description instead of English goods.
This is the point of this sad tale. When the representative of Aerite, Ltd., rang up the unit manager and complained, he was told that he had no redress, and, in any case, he must put his complaint in writing, as the road haulage organisation would not listen to any complaints over the telephone. Surely, if we are to have this organisation, it must be run as a live organisation, and it should be possible if proper and efficient unit managers were put in for them to take complaints on the telephone and deal with them on the spot. Either this unit manager is useless, or the rules and regulations laid down by the Road Haulage Executive are quite unable to operate and must be looked into closely.
My third point is one about which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) informed me, and it concerns sprats. At Hythe and Folkestone there is a considerable number of small fishermen going out in their boats and coming in at all hours of the day and night, bringing their catch of sprats. The sprats may appear at the harbour at any hour, may be at one or two o'clock in the morning, according to the tides, and they need immediate transport to London. The loads are quite small—one ton or perhaps up to three tons—and, under the old system, the fishermen were able to ring up the road haulage man in Hythe and say to him, "We have some sprats; please take them to London." At any time of the night or day that man was ready to take them to London. I should explain to the Minister that under that system it was possible to get sprats from the sea to the table in eight hours. A sprat, apparently, will not keep very long without being cooked in some way or other.
Under the new dispensation, of course, the office of British Road Transport does not remain open at all hours of the night and day, and there are no facilities for getting these sprats from the coast to London. The fishermen cannot wait until
1038
the office opens at eight or nine in the morning to ring up; by then they have gone to sea and the sprats have gone bad. All this has happened because the permit of the small haulier has been taken away and he can operate only within a 25-mile radius. I suggest that a job licence should be given for this particular work as the British Road Transport people are incapable of producing the service.
My next case concerns two antique bookcases despatched from London up to part of my old constituency in Ripon. They were handed to British Transport on 18th September but they had not arrived by the end of November. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) then wrote to the Minister, who, in his turn, wrote to Lord Hurcomb, and eventually the efforts of the Minister and Lord Hurcomb found these antique book-cases hidden under general cargo in a warehouse of a unit in London. The excuse, in a perfectly fatuous letter sent by Lord Hurcomb to my hon. and gallant Friend, was that these antique book-cases could not go in a general cargo; but apparently they could remain under a general cargo in a unit storehouse. I do not think, therefore, that there is very much excuse in that.
I can tell Lord Hurcomb that apparently the only way in which all these numerous complaints can be dealt with is by these people writing to Members of Parliament, and that he will be deluged with correspondents bringing his attention to all these small cases.
My next case—I shall have to leave out one or two—concerns a consignment of barley from the North Riding of Yorkshire. This is an incredible tale. I have a letter from the farmer in my hand. He does not wish his name to be mentioned, so I will call him farmer A. On 14th November, he threshed and sold 12 tons of barley. I cannot go into the methods by which barley is sold and taken off the farm, but normally I get very annoyed if barley is left on my farm much over a week. In this case, it was well over a month.
On 20th December, a British Transport lorry and trailer and two men arrived from a Scottish unit to take this barley to Scotland. It was duly loaded and went off. On 22nd December, another British Transport lorry arrived

1039
at 4.30 p.m. also to collect the barley. This is only the middle of the tale. This lorry was three-parts full, having picked up part of a load from farm B. The lorry driver explained that he had left seven tons at farm B in order to take up part of the 12 tons at farm A. Farmer A told him that the barley was by now at its destination in Scotland. He suggested that he should take his lorry back to farm B to load the other seven tons. But the driver said, "Oh, no, it is my tea time and I am going home."
That is not the end of the tale. There was a third British Transport lorry. Fortunately, farmer A heard of it and was able to get a message through to stop it coming to his farm. So far I know farmer B's barley is still on farmer B's farm. I do not think that that is an example of the efficiency of the managers of road transport in this country.
I shall have to stop my illustrations, but, in conclusion, I must say that all classes of traders are complaining about the services they are obtaining. The courtesy which they used to receive is seriously declining and the service is very slow. Second, the cost is increasing. There was an increase of 7½ per cent. in the summer. of 1950 and an increase of 10 per cent. on 29th January this year. Third, there are no real methods of obtaining redress from the Transport Commission. It is a monopoly and one cannot go elsewhere. Fourth, it is an inefficient monopoly and is squeezing out efficient businesses.
As an illustration of that I want to tell of an incident which was brought to my notice. A tender for a consignment was put forward by British Transport which quoted £32. A private firm quoted £6, so that there must be some very curious and mysterious method by which the British Transport monopoly are making an attempt to reduce their deficiencies. Fifth, drivers are now telling me that they are losing interest in their jobs because of bad management, lack of freedom to use their own initiative in picking up cargoes, and getting extra work for their lorries, and because they are being prevented from earning what they used to be able to earn under free enterprise. From all that I have seen throughout the three years it is apparent that the service has deteriorated.
1040
The Minister of Transport and the Transport Commission must review every part of the management of this vast organisation and investigate the management of those units I have mentioned. Is it the fault of the managers or the rules laid down by the British Transport Commission? I believe it is partly both. I believe they both need to be very seriously reviewed. Personally I believe that this organisation can never work, but the Minister believes it can. While it is in being, and while we have to endure it, we must try to make it better, and for those reasons I hope the criticisms I have put before the Minister will be considered and investigated.
10.23 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): By what he has said the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. York) has demonstrated the opportunity that is provided for Members of this House to raise matters of this description. I want to admit that he has put his case in a light and humorous way, which does not in any way undermine the seriousness of some of the points he made. He ought to recognise that many of his comments and assertions were hearsay and based on what other people had obviously seen, but that he had no opportunity of checking their accuracy himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not accept that at all. The report about the furniture represented a series of contradictory statements, and in his own analysis the hon. Member stated that when he raised the matter it had some effect. I do not think that any Member of Parliament ought to complain if, when he makes representations, the representations are taken seriously and steps taken to remedy the defect.
The hon. Member stated that, while the effect of his representations had been satisfactory, some threats had been used towards this particular firm. He finally admitted that, in the conversations that have taken place, the firm did not admit that they had any contract with the British Transport Commission. Three statements of that kind show that the main issue has not been adequately checked.
The information that I have about this consignment was that it was unpacked furniture. When the hon.

1041
Member talks about private enterprise delivering furniture, I would remind him that the removal of furniture is an exempted traffic under the Transport Act, so that there is no question here of eliminating competition. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I will examine very carefully every statement he has made here this evening and will have it checked as far as possible, and will see if any remedy can be applied. I know that the British Transport Commission and the Road Haulage Executive are as anxious as anyone to improve their services.
Mr. John Hynd: Do we understand that the Minister has not been informed in advance about these matters so that they could be investigated?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, I have in one instance, and I have pointed out that in the main case the firm acknowledges that no contract was actually placed.
Mr. York: They say the opposite.
Mr. Barnes: Let me give the House a comparison with regard to the experience of one firm, a well known firm taken over by the British Transport Commission. It was the Carter Paterson organisation, one of the largest firms of road transport in this country. Naturally, we have the record of this organisation when it was administered by private enterprise, and during the recent year when it came under British Transport administration. In 1946, the claims per 10,000 parcels handled by the Carter Paterson organisation were 28. In 1950, the first year it was operated under the British Transport Commission through the Road Haulage Executive, the claims declined to 21.2.
If we apply the same test to this organisation in regard to proof of delivery inquiries, then in 1946, for every 10,000 packages, the inquiries with regard to accuracy of delivery amounted to 50. In 1950 the proof of delivery
1042
inquiries declined to 27.2 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about 1949?"] I recognise, as does anyone who deals with transport matters, that there always have been defects in delivery, and there always will be. I am arguing tonight against the propaganda that very often ignores comparisons and is only animated by a desire to injure the reputation of this public organisation.
I recognise that there are bound to be weaknesses. We cannot take over 2,500 to 3,000 businesses in the course of a year and re-shape them into a national organisation without defects and loose points in some directions. I can only state broadly the general case here tonight, but I want to emphasise that the Road Haulage Executive with their lorries handle 1 million tons of traffic each week. That represents 2 million consignments, ranging from 1 lb. to many tons. Any organisation handling 2 million consignments each week is bound to get incidents of this character which can be treated either in a serious way or not.
I recognise that matters in that part of the hon. Member's speech are my responsibility to remedy and that of the British Transport Commission, but it seems to me that there is too much propaganda at the present moment being directed to undermining the authority and prestige of this organisation. I venture to suggest that when one strips the case put forward by the hon. Member for Harrogate, and which he presented in such a light, humorous and enjoyable way, and tests the facts, one will find that a good deal of his complaint tonight disappears. Whether that is so or not, I recognise my responsibility, and I am anxious to improve matters. I will investigate these cases and see whether the organisation can be improved.
Adjourned according at Twenty-Nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  KOREA (EXECUTIONS)
  KOREA (EXECUTIONS)
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
  ALBANIA (BRITISH CLAIM)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cream
  Cream
  Tinned Meat Imports
  Tinned Meat Imports
  Flour and Milling Offals
  Flour and Milling Offals
  Argentine Meat (Negotiations)
  Argentine Meat (Negotiations)
  Gambian Eggs and Poultry
  Gambian Eggs and Poultry
  Meat Ration
  Meat Ration
  Groundnut Scheme (Buildings)
  Groundnut Scheme (Buildings)
  Wool (Sale Price)
  Wool (Sale Price)
  Calves
  Calves
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (PINEAPPLE INDUSTRY)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (PINEAPPLE INDUSTRY)
  DISORDERS, SINGAPORE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
  DISORDERS, SINGAPORE (COMMISSION OF INQUIRY)
  EAST AFRICA (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
  EAST AFRICA (TECHNICAL TRAINING)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  C.O.I. Document
  C.O.I. Document
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (DEFENCE FORCE)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (DEFENCE FORCE)
  MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  UGANDA (DETAINED PERSON)
  UGANDA (DETAINED PERSON)
  WEST INDIES (ARMED FORCES)
  WEST INDIES (ARMED FORCES)
  GOLD COAST (ELECTION)
  GOLD COAST (ELECTION)
ROYAL NAVY
  National Service Men (Commissions)
  National Service Men (Commissions)
  Recalled and Retained Personnel
  Recalled and Retained Personnel
  Air Arm (Strength)
  Air Arm (Strength)
  Tinned Foodstuffs (Contracts)
  Tinned Foodstuffs (Contracts)
  Royal Marines (Pay)
  Royal Marines (Pay)
  Hostel, Risley
  Hostel, Risley
  Hostel, Croft
  Hostel, Croft
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Telephone Equipment (Export)
  Telephone Equipment (Export)
  Hostel, Risley
  Hostel, Risley
AGRICULTURE
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Cattle (Exports to Italy)
  Cattle (Exports to Italy)
BRITISH ARMY
  Troops, Korea (Rations)
  Troops, Korea (Rations)
  Courts-Martial (Presidents)
  Courts-Martial (Presidents)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Diphtheria (Statistics)
  Diphtheria (Statistics)
  Smallpox (Bevendean Hospital)
  Smallpox (Bevendean Hospital)
  ARGENTINE (DISCUSSIONS)
  ARGENTINE (DISCUSSIONS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RADAR UNITS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (RADAR UNITS)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (CLASS Z RESERVISTS)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (CLASS Z RESERVISTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (DESERTED WIVES)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (DESERTED WIVES)
  CIVIL AVIATION (SCOTTISH ISLANDS)
  CIVIL AVIATION (SCOTTISH ISLANDS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BRIGHTON EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
DARTMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.

IMPORT OF POULTRY
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to prohibit the import of poultry from countries where fowl pest is endemic]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the importation of live poultry from countries where fowl pest is prevalent is already prohibited. The importation of poultry carcases from such countries is allowed in only a few cases where special control measures have been established, and the distribution of the carcases in this country is restricted to certain large urban areas. These special steps were taken,
76
both in this country and abroad, so as to minimise the risks of introducing fowl pest while allowing a valuable addition to our poultry supplies. The question of a further restriction on imports raises many important issues and is being carefully considered in the light of the present spread of fowl pest and of the meat situation.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask if any steps have been taken to control the import of poultry, either tinned or otherwise, to the American Air Force in this country? Because it is notable that the pest started in the Worlington and Mildenhall area where the swill from the Lakenheath Aerodrome is distributed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we think there is no direct or conclusive evidence that the source of this disease has been in the American camp, but, in order to avoid any possible risk in the future, we have, with the consent of the American authorities, arranged for all waste foodstuffs from American camps to be sterilised before they can be used as feeding-stuffs for animals.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if His Majesty's Government have made such an arrangement as regards American camps as the noble Earl has just outlined, might not some arrangement be made as regards the urban districts into which the poultry carcases can still be imported?

EDUCATION OF COLONIAL STUDENTS
2.38 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what progress has been made in recent years to provide university standards of education to students from the Colonies, and what is the nature of the subjects such students must study who hold scholarships in this country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, since the

77
end of the war new university colleges have been established in the West Indies and in West Africa. In East Africa the existing college has been raised to university college status. In Malaya a university has been formed from the fusion of two existing colleges and further grants have been given to the universities of Hong Kong and Malta. To supplement these facilities in the Colonies scholarships are granted both from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote and from Colonial Government resources to enable students from the Colonies to study at universities and other centres of higher education in this country. At present there are 1,448 of these scholars in addition to 3,285 private students. Scholarships are awarded primarily for studies which will be of most benefit to the Colonial territories concerned. The numbers in the four largest categories were: Engineering, 193; Medicine, 177; Teacher Training, 150; and Arts, 137.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many of these students are studying agriculture? Before he answers, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House? I have put this Question down because before Christmas I made some remarks based upon information made by a distinguished journalist, an ex-Member of the other place and also a broadcaster, who wrote in a national newspaper that the greater proportion of these people were studying law in this country. I made some little research on my own and I thought the matter might be of such interest that your Lordships might like the exact information. If your Lordships will allow me to do so, I wish to express my regret—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD CALVERLEY: I was asking the indulgence of your Lordships' House.
LORD OGMORE: In answer to the noble Lord, there are at present in this country sixty-five students from the Colonies studying agriculture. In addition, there are a number of students in the colleges of East and West Africa, and special training in agriculture also takes place at the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in Trinidad.

SEARCH FOR SCONE STONE
2.40 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many policemen have been employed trying to find the Scone Stone, and what is the approximate cost to the taxpayer.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, inquiries connected with the search for the Scone Stone have been spread over a number of police forces and have largely been undertaken in conjunction with normal police duties. In the circumstances, I regret that it is not possible to assess the cost of these inquiries to the taxpayer or to distinguish the number of policemen involved.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that a considerable sum of money is being spent and that many policemen are being occupied in this search? Will His Majesty's Government consider offering an amnesty to the thieves and making a present of the Stone to the University of Glasgow, for the Lord Rector to sit on it?

PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2.43 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to move to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings, in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper has been put down to fulfil an undertaking that I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when in November last I made a statement upon the proposed new regulations regarding pedestrian crossings, and in order that, before we finally decide upon these regulations and lay them before Parliament, we can have the benefit of the advice and guidance of your Lordships. I intend to be very brief and will explain now the main points of the new proposals. Then with the leave of the House I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may wish to raise.
The principal change that we propose is to omit from the regulations any reference to the rights and duties of pedestrians and drivers respectively at crossings where traffic is controlled by light signals or police officers. I hope I may say this respectfully, but your Lordships' House is the cause of all the trouble, because sitting in its judicial capacity it delivered a judgment which has made the law upon this subject rather difficult to understand —at least from the layman's point of view —and it is a little confused. We therefore propose to rely upon the lights themselves, which give a large measure of protection to the pedestrian, as well as to the vehicle. We propose to deal with controlled crossings in the Highway Code, where we think we can deal with them better, and to lay down a treaty of good pedestrianship, if I may so call it, for the guidance of pedestrians. I will come back to the position of the Highway Code in a moment.
We propose to retain studs at the intersections where there are traffic lights, but these studs will have no other purpose than to give guidance to the pedestrians that that is a safer place to cross than any other. On the uncontrolled crossings, where pedestrians would have precedence over all traffic, we propose after very lengthy research by the experts, to adopt what is known as the "zebra" crossing. This will be a black and white striped crossing, which research has shown is far better for the vehicle driver and also the pedestrian. The pedestrian at those crossings will have a precedence, except when a police officer takes control, and then the precedence of the pedestrian will cease. We have not yet decided as to the best method, if any, of lighting such crossings, and that is a matter upon which I would value any expression of opinion from your Lordships. Those are the two main proposals. We hope to be able substantially to reduce the number of pedestrian crossings. As I told your Lordships when I made my statement, there are approximately 35,000 crossings, and we feel that this multiplicity has not been conducive to respect by pedestrians.
That, my Lords, is really the substance of the new regulations. We propose to put into the Highway Code something to the following effect. We propose to substitute for paragraph 19 of the existing Code these words:
80
"Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. You have a prior right of way over striped crossings unless traffic over them is being controlled by a Police Officer. Don't use this right unreasonably. Remember that vehicles cannot stop as quickly as you can. Give the traffic a chance and cross only when you can see that it is safe.
When crossing at a road intersection look out for traffic turning the corner. At traffic signals or Police-controlled intersections watch the traffic as well as the signals and cross only when you can do so safely. Do not cross at traffic signals when they show green or amber to traffic coming across your path. Wait until they show red to the traffic. If there is a crossing marked with two parallel lines of studs keep between the studs."
The other alteration concerns drivers and riders, and follows paragraph 37 of the existing Highway Code. This is the new wording we propose:
"Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. Pedestrians on these striped crossings have the right of way unless the traffic is for the time being controlled by a Police Officer. Even then you should carefully respect the safety and convenience of pedestrians on the crossing.
Similarly, although pedestrians have no precedence on crossings at road junctions where traffic is controlled by Police or light signals, you should treat them with respect. If anyone is already crossing the road when you receive the signals to go ahead, do not interfere with his passage. If you are turning right or left, look out for the pedestrian round the corner who is crossing in front of traffic held up by a signal and give way to him."
May I say one further word? I may be asked why we do not make it a statutory obligation for the pedestrian to honour traffic lights in exactly the same way as does the vehicle driver. We believe that it would be impossible to enforce such a rule. I think your Lordships will appreciate that fact from one simple example. If it were made compulsory for the pedestrian to cross the road only when the light was in his favour, and not to cross when it was not in his favour, all he would have to do would be to step one yard away and he would be outside the law. If crossings, instead of being, as now, about ten feet wide, were made twenty feet wide, he would only have to step twenty-one feet away to be outside. This would be an absolutely impossible situation. Also I

81
think your Lordships would agree that we could make only one universal law, and it would seem to be rather ridiculous to make pedestrians honour traffic lights in the middle of the night, when there is no traffic about, or in the country where there are traffic lights but no traffic in certain hours. So we have come to the conclusion that it is far better to try and deal with this matter in the Highway Code.
My final word on the Highway Code is this: that if we attempted to give legal effect to the Code, we should have to re-write it. It would cease to be a Highway Code and would become regulations, and there are so many things in the Highway Code that could not be enforced by law. Your Lordships know, for example, that we set out in the Highway Code what signals should be given. Are we to compel all road users by Statute to give signals of their intention to turn this way or that way on any road at any time, whether it is in a built-up area or whether it is in the heart of the country? If so, how are wo going to enforce it? It has been a very great disappointment to my right honourable friend, and to all those connected with the Ministry of Transport, that the Highway Code has not received more support from the benches and the courts of the country. We feel that if that is altered in the future, the guidance we give now on these controlled crossings, where we have taken away the precedence of the pedestrian, together with the liability for not exercising due care and attention (which is in the present law and can be enforced) will ensure greater safety and be far better for everyone concerned. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this discussion reflects a somewhat novel but, I think your Lordships will agree, very acceptable procedure, for it gives the House an opportunity to consider, as it were almost informally, the purpose and content of regulations before they are formally presented to us for
82
scrutiny. That advantage is enhanced if we remember the somewhat rigid system whereby Parliament is unable to make any alteration, even textual, in regulations once they are laid on the Table. It is perhaps not attributing too much merit to this House to say that it may even be that the Minister considers that he can derive benefit from the accumulated experience of the House in these matters, and do so at a stage when it is still open to him to put the results of that experience to profitable account.
I do not propose to go into the minutiæ of the lay-out of crossings, which is no doubt necessarily embodied in these regulations with almost the meticulous precision of dress regulations issued from the Lord Chamberlain's department. My main and, indeed, my almost exclusive concern is with the preliminary and predominant question whether the rights and duties alike of motorist and of pedestrian should be incorporated in regulations or should merely be set out in the Highway Code. That, of course, is no mere question of convenience of procedure, but one of actual determination of policy; for if the former course is taken, then any breach of the regulations can be visited by the penalties; of the law, whereas if the second course be taken a breach of the Code can be signalised only by, at best, a reproof. I should personally very much hesitate to advocate any system which meant merely that the public was to be harassed by a mutiplicity of trivial prosecutions. None the less, in this particular case my personal view is that the public has over the past years had every chance of reforming its homicidal or suicidal habits, and that it has profited singularly little from the opportunities given to it. Far too often as we go about London we can see at lightcontrolled crossings, and especially where two roads intersect, motorists who, when the light changes, accelerate so vigorously that pedestrians on the crossing at the further intersection are obliged to run for their lives; and equally far too often we see in similar conditions pedestrians who seem to have no regard for the fact that motorists have a claim to obey the light signal to go, and who continue to saunter across the road as nonchalantly as if they were taking a stroll along an unfrequented country lane.
There is, of course, the ancillary problem of what is called the filtering vehicle;

83
the vehicle which, quite legitimately, because the light is in its favour, comes round a corner and, by so doing, comes on to a crossing upon which pedestrians are just as legitimately walking, because in their turn the lights are in their favour. I wonder whether that difficulty could not to some extent be obviated by a more extensive use of the "Cross Now" signal on lights, of which we have examples, for instance, at a very busy corner by St. Martin's-in-the-Fields and another at the junction of Berkeley Street and Piccadilly. I suppose the interposition of an additional signal means some slight delay and consequent hold-up of traffic, but surely, if it can be advantageously done at such busy London crossings as those— there is a long experience behind it now— there are many other crossings at which it could equally be done. I sometimes wonder to what vital purpose the one or two minutes are put by people who protest so indignantly that they have lost one or two minutes on their journey.
I have noticed in previous debates on this subject that mention of the Alness Committee causes an almost imperceptible shudder to pass over the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but the words have now been mentioned and perhaps, I can go on without fear of further painful consequences, to say that ever since I was a member of that body I have been watching very closely happenings on the road, and I think your Lordships will find that I have not drawn a picture which is in any way exaggerated. If you think I have, I would only respectfully counsel you to take a leisurely and observant walk up, for example, Oxford Street at any busy time of the week. I do not doubt that, as a result, you will find that between motorists and pedestrians there is too often no such spirit of co-operation as public interest and self-interest dictate, but rather a spirit of retaliation calculated to add physical injury to mental insult. It is a curious phenomenon, and it might even be worth investigation by psychologists, that the resentment and contempt towards pedestrians felt by a pedestrian momentarily elevated to a car is equalled only by the similar feelings towards motorists experienced by an habitual motorist suddenly degraded to his feet. I cannot persuade myself that the cure for this trouble is the mere inclusion amongst the graceful courtesies
84
of the Highway Code of a code of correct conduct at crossings.
It is true that one's behaviour in violation of the Highway Code can be used as evidence in a subsequent action for damages for injuries caused by negligence. And, no doubt, it is often most helpful to executors. At the same time, with all apology to my friends of the legal profession, it seems to me preferable to forestall the infliction of those injuries, and if long trial and persistent error have proved— as I believe they have—that more drastic action is necessary, then, very regretfully, I am strongly of the opinion that any flagrant abuse of crossings ought to be subject to prosecution and, if proved, to the imposition of a suitable penalty. But if, as I hope will be the case, it is ultimately decided to include these provisions in the regulations, and not in the Highway Code, I would suggest that, before the regulations come into force, there should be interposed a period of supervision by what we have been accustomed to call "courtesy cops," who should be charged to watch a number of the more notorious crossings with the idea of bringing home to a too casual public the unpleasant and expensive consequences which are likely to attach in future to their continued breaches of regulations which are devised solely in their interest.
I imagine that I shall be told that to insist on detection of offences of this kind is only to add an insupportable burden to the work of an already overworked and undermanned police force. But, after all, the same argument could be applied to the enforcement of any set of regulations—to the observance of the thirtymile limit in built-up areas, or to any one of a number of other regulations. Are we to scrap them all, or are we going to do our best to observe those which are considered necessary in the public interest? I cannot help thinking that the police might be more usefully employed on the supervision of some of these crossings than in the detection of very minor parking offences, to which, in present conditions, so much of their time seems to be devoted. Naturally, it would not be possible to exercise a constant watch upon all crossings, but it would surely be possible to pick out certain well-known "black spots," and vary the choice from day to day, so that the public never quite knew when they would be under observation.

85
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke just now of the difficulty which had been created by a decision of your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity. But, after all, the Supreme Court of Appeal, as any other court in this country, only interprets existing law. It neither makes new law nor amends law. And laws in this country are not made by the Medes and Persians, but by the Lords and Commons. It should not be beyond the capacity of a Government Department to produce a measure which would put the position right. It is for the Ministry to make up their mind what is, the right balance to strike between the duties and obligations of the pedestrian and the motorist. And until the Ministry have made up their mind on that matter, all this discussion is largely in the air.
Yesterday's debate at least showed that we were conscious of the existence of the problem, and I must say that although towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made some reference to a vague, almost mythical, possibility of legislation, when he came down to saying that legislation might be introduced in the course of time, that statement struck a somewhat melancholy and discouraging note; because, apart from everything else, it seemed to indicate that the Ministry of Transport were not alive to their responsibilities to the public in this urgent matter. It is a good many years now since the Alness Committee met. It is no secret—in fact, we put it in our Report—that we were far from being impressed by the attitude of Ministry of Transport officials who gave evidence before us at that time. It is rather sad to detect something of the same climite of bewildered impotence afflicting the Ministry to-day.
The noble Lord also made some reference to the difficulties of persuading benches to inflict adequate penalties. May I say this to him? When you are dealing with light-controlled crossings, you are dealing, for the most part, with London and big cities, because that is where the majority of such crossings are situated. In London and the big cities you have for the most part Metropolitan magistrates or stipendiaries, rather than benches of lay magistrates, dealing with cases of this kind, and from experienced magistrates such as they are, you are likely to see a much more appropriate and
86
consistent scale of punishment than that obtained from a bench of lay magistrates. That seems to me to be another reason why these matters should be dealt with in the regulations.
Then the noble Lord painted an obvious picture of the difficulty of the situation in the country where Mere are traffic lights but no traffic. So far as I am concerned, I would raise no objection if these regulations were made applicable only to builtup areas. That would to a large extent get over that undoubted difficulty, because the last thing we want is to make regulations which we are unable to enforce or the enforcement of which merely makes us ridiculous. But if the regulations applied only to built-up areas, it seems to me that that would to a large extent obviate that difficulty.
I agree with the noble Lord that at the present moment there is a superfluity of uncontrolled crossings and that they act merely as an incitement to uncontrolled persons. If he proposes to abolish a number of them, I am sure that course will be received with general accord by your Lordships. Like other controls, they are effective only if the public are prepared to obey the rules, and the more of them there are, the less the public are anxious to pay heed to them, however much they may be devised for their own benefit.
The Minister desires to paint these crossings in black and white stripes. I do not imagine that that design will seriously outrage the æsthetic sensibilities either of the Fine Art Commission or of the public, but I have a recollection that some years before the war a departmental committee of the Ministry of Transport was commissioned to investigate the relative visibility of various combinations of colours. It is true that that was directed to signs rather than to road surfaces, but presumably the same considerations would, in general, apply. If my recollection is correct, that committee came down strongly in favour, not of black and white, but of black and yellow, and it may be worth while casting a thought back to the findings of that committee and seeing what were the con-siderations which led them to come to their conclusion.
The noble Lord spoke about the lighting of these crossings. I think your Lordships will all agree that they should be lit in some way, though rather as a sign than from the point of view of actual illumination. By that I mean Mat it seems right

87
that motorists and pedestrians should be made aware from a reasonable distance of where a crossing is situated; but it is much less desirable that motorists should be confronted and distracted by long stretches of comparative darkness with floodlit strips running across them. The obvious solution of that problem seems to me at first sight the insertion in the Belisha beacon of the Barnes bulb. There I leave the matter for others with more expert knowledge than I possess to take it up, only reiterating my strong feeling that this is no time for mere exhortation or procrastination, but most essentially a time for action.
3.14 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, on inquiry at the Printed Paper Office I was unable to obtain a draft of these proposed regulations; therefore it was rather difficult to find out what line the debate was going to take. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He said there were 35,000 pedestrian crossings. Did he mean that that was the number for the British Isles, or just for England and Wales? The noble Lord asked for the opinion of members of your Lordships' House on the subject of lights. I disagree with what has been said on this subject by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. He advocated that these crossings should not be lit up with an illuminant. Speaking generally, I agree with him, but on the other hand there are special crossings where the effect of lighting might be to induce pedestrians to use them.
I refer in particular to a point which most of your Lordships know very well —the crossing at Charing Cross Station about rush hour. There is at that time a seething mass of humanity, and how the police at that point manage to shepherd all the people across the road, and at the same time control the traffic crossing the line of humans going to the station, baffles one's imagination. But they do it somehow. If such a crossing were well lit up, by lights shining down on to it, and had illuminated "cross now" signs, I am sure that it would be an inducement for people to use the crossing. That sort of crossing is to be found at many places in the big cities and towns of the British Isles, at points where
88
everybody is trying to get to a station. I feel that these crossings should be lit in some way to draw the attention of pedestrians to them. With regard to the illumination of Belisha Beacons with the "blonde bulb"—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The "Barnes bulb."
EARL HOWE: "Barnes bulb"—I am sorry, I thought it was something quite different. I see that in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety, 1944, one of the recommendations was that pedestrian crossings should be illuminated at night. Yesterday a great deal was said about what had been recommended and had not been done. Here is another recommendation made no less than six years ago; and still nothing seems to have happened. I was on the Public Safety Committee of the Ministry of Transport when the Belisha Beacons were invented, and I remember being taken down Euston Road, with other members of the Committee, to have a look at the beacons, to see what we thought of them. The first remark made by practically everyone was: "Why are they not lit? How are people to see them at night if they are not." There is an additional danger in the background of lights behind the Belisha Beacons when they are lit, but I do not think that is any reason why the beacons should not be lit. The problem is an important one. I have here the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1949, on page 70 of which he indicates that no fewer than 300 pedestrians were killed within fifty yards of pedestrian crossings but not on them. Anything we can do to try to make people use these crossings is of service.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this other question. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, suggested that these regulations should apply only to crossings within built-up areas. I could not agree with him more. But there are a number of controlled crossings outside the built-up areas, and it is a little difficult to know what to do about them. I wonder whether, in his reply, the noble Lord could give the House an idea of how he thinks these crossings should be dealt with.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Earl please repeat that?
EARL HOWE: With reference to crossings outside built-up areas, if the noble Lord accepts the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, with which I entirely agree, that these new regulations should apply only inside built-up yeas, can the noble Lord give us an idea of what will happen with crossings outside the built-up areas, and how far the proposed regulations will apply to them?
With reference to the striped crossings, there again the Committee on which I had the honour to serve examined the same question as long ago as 1934. We then decided that we preferred the combination of black and yellow to black and white, as we thought it more visible. The noble Lord produced quite good reasons for not giving the force of law to the Highway Code as it stands. But could not he and his officials go through the Highway Code and select a few of the points which could be strengthened? It seems to me that there are provisions in the Highway Code which might well be given more force than they have at present, without their having the force of law. The noble Lord asked what we thought about the lights, and what sort of signals should be given to pedestrians. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, that nothing is better than the "Cross now." If that could be extended to all controlled crossings, I cannot help feeling chat that would be the best way of indicating to the pedestrian that his great moment to go across the road had come.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I have been in touch with the West Riding Police, and a high official asked me last week whether I could put forward in this debate a few of their difficulties. After listening to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am relieved, because his clear statement has made it obvious that these regulations can be worked. This senior officer was afraid that there might be chaos. I always thought that the colour of a zebra was yellow and black.
LORD HAWKE: No.
LORD CALVERLEY: I have seen only one in my life.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Lord is thinking of a wasp.
LORD CALVERLEY: I have seen plenty of them, and been stung. What is the colour of a zebra—black and white, like the whisky? What I am driving at is that we can expect greater success for these regulations, owing to the continued action and constructs work of the police during the past four or five years. For over four years I have been associated with the Road Accident Prevention Federation in Yorkshire, and from January 1 to December 31, last year, the police in the West Riding alone addressed 154,786 children in 1,229 schools. Your Lordships will see that the police are taking the hard, although the most successful, way in trying to prevent accidents. When your Lordships consider that in the West Riding alone there are, in addition, ten county boroughs, with their own police forces, all working on similar lines, with the police in full accord with the educational authorities, you will appreciate that we are converting the children to be missionaries to try to prevent accidents. Only last week the chief constable in a great borough in Yorkshire stated, as I have done when I have been touring the countryside that the children are now teaching their parents the Highway Code. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree with me, when I think of him in his salad days in another place, that he also needed a little conversion.
I want your Lordships to contemplate over 400,000 children being taught the ordinary kerb drill and what to do, not only in the large congested areas, but also on the country roads. It was emphasised in yesterday's debate that in the country, where there are no "zebra" or other crossings, the children themselves act as little policemen, and they are doing a great job of work. The statistics for Yorkshire up to December 31 last year show that the number of fatal accidents and accidents causing injury to children have been halved. That is something constructive and positive, upon which we can look with pleasure, and it has been done under the guidance of this much-maligned Ministry of Transport. I will not weary your Lordships with a great many statistics, but it appears that 31 per cent. of the accidents were caused by drivers of vehicles, and 24 per cent. by dogs.
With regard to the policies of the various magistrates courts, manned by

91
what we call lay magistrates, as a working magistrate myself I can say that we consciously try, without bias, every case that comes before us. We are bound by the same laws as are stipendiary magistrates in the London Metropolitan area, or anywhere else, and we have the same maximum penalties. I suggest to your Lordships that it is our duty as lay magistrates to listen patiently to these cases, and not to have a sort of standard penalty, willy-nilly, as I believe they have in some parts of America. Is the noble Earl, Lord Howe, an advocate of that?
EARL HOWE: No.
LORD CALVERLEY: I thought he would not be. Every case should be tried upon its merits. Sometimes we find that the police have summoned the wrong person, and we dismiss the case. I do protest at the slightest implication being thrown at these lay magistrates, especially in our large cities. My colleagues and I have already had six cases this month, and we try to consider, on the evidence, what our verdict should be. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the juries. The jury do not pass a sentence in a High Court—I should like to tell him that bit of law without charge. It is the High Court Judge who assesses what the sentence for manslaughter shall be. I will not even criticise a High Court Judge. The reason why I rose was mainly to emphasise that these new regulations will have a better prospect of success now than they would have had in the "bad old days" when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had a lot to do with transport. There has been a reformation. We believe that the children can reform even their own parents. If we can go on as we are doing, with the good will of the education authorities and the teachers, and with the police going into the schools and talking to these young children, the results will be positive in the days to come. It is a hard road, and we are not going to achieve miraculous results.
I am not going to touch upon the roads, as that subject was dealt with yesterday, but I should like to make a present to the Parliamentary Secretary of 114 photographs sent to me by the highways committee of the West Riding County Council. They are nearly "at their wits' end" in trying to keep the Al and similar roads in any sort of repair—some
92
of them made only recently. I wish my noble friend would try that charming smile of his on the Treasury and get some money out of them. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his friends now contribute £200,000,000 and receive back between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. It was Mr. Winston Churchill who said that he would "rob the hen roost," and went to the Road Fund. Succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequers have been receivers of the ill-gotten gains. I wish my noble friend and his Department would allow the authorities to repair these roads, some of which were made only just prior to 1939. It would not cost a great deal now, but if nothing is done there will be a big bill to pay in a few years' time. Although I believe I am out of order in speaking about it—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD CALVERLEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Several noble Lords were out of order yesterday. I will not transgress any more, except to say that this is one of our major problems. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the Highway Code. The police in the West Riding have made a film, and I wish the noble Earl could have appeared in the film being "run in." That film has gone all over the country, and Australia has asked for it. The Highway Code should be produced on those lines. The film comes from the West Riding, where there are more vehicles using the roads than in any other part of the country, with the exception of the Metropolitan area. The County Palatine of Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire are publishing this film on their own. It is already out of print, and no more money will be allowed us. It is far better than any of the Highway Codes because the instruction is in pictures. I will not trouble the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, any longer. I have a whole sheaf of notes, and I wish I could make a present of them to him and ask him if one of his secretaries would "vet" them and see whether anything can. be done. I support what he is doing.
3.34 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I must start by joining issue with the noble Lord who has just sat down upon his attack upon the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the question of education of children. There has been no Peer in this House since I have been here who has done so

93
much to advocate the education of children. It has been one of his hobby horses, to my knowledge, certainly for the last eighteen years.
LORD CALVERLEY: I was not attacking the noble Earl. I knew him in his salad clays, when we were colleagues together in another place.
LORD SANDHURST: There is one point about which I know the noble Earl is most anxious, and it is that when these new regulations come out they should, if possible, be circulated in a form which will appeal to children. He and I have many times seen a mother with a pram with a child in it and a small child walking alongside. The small child has pulled the mother back and stopped her going into the road when she should not.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a remark which completely defeated me. He said that the multiplicity of pedestrian crossings led to lack of respect by the pedestrians. I should have thought that it certainly led to lack of respect by motorists, but that it ought to have led to an encouragement to pedestrians to use them as they had not to walk too far to do so. I am wondering whether he actually said what he meant. I am also going to join issue with both the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and my noble friend, Lord Howe, on the question of the colour of the crossings. They both advocate black and yellow. I know that most careful experiments have been made by the Road Research Laboratory. I have seen those experiments, and I have actually experienced for myself the difference between looking at black and white, and black and yellow. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that black and white is the winner every time. I hope, therefore, that, whatever has been said this afternoon, the Ministry will stick to their black and white.
Then we come to this vexed problem of what the noble Lord calls the "zebra crossing," on an uncontrolled road. Now that is a problem with which it is very difficult to deal. The motorist expects to "bat" down that road fairly fast, and he watches the traffic. The traffic will probably obscure from his view the zebra crossing, and quite likely he will not even be able to see a Belisha beacon. If we are going to have uncontrolled crossings, as I call them, on uncontrolled roads, I
94
think there should be some light indication—say, a hundred yards each side of the crossing—to the effect that there is a pedestrian crossing ahead. Certain authorities in this country have already adopted that method, and I an sure it has a salutary effect. It slows the motorist down and gives him a chance to stop when somebody steps off the pavement. Short of that, I do not see how a success can be made of a pedestrian crossing on an uncontrolled road unless there are lights there.
Now I want to come to what I consider is the fundamental point about pedestrian crossings. I have no arguments at all against the regulations; I am fully in favour of them. I think there is an almost impossible problem to solve, and the regulations go as near to solving the impossible as they can. But there is one problem which will materially affect those regulations and their success, and that is the actual siting of the crossings. Now I submit that that is a specialist's job. The right man to do it is the gentleman I mentioned yesterday—a traffic engineer. I am going to ask the Minister the question I asked yesterday and to which I did not get a reply, but to which I do expect a reply to-day because he has been in his job a sufficiently long time to know the answer. Is there a single traffic engineer employed at the Ministry?—I mean a traffic engineer as distinct from a road surveyor, because a traffic engineer is a man who, by his training, if he has gone through the proper course, has learnt where to put a pedestrian crossing so that the motorist will respect it and so that it will be of some use to the pedestrian. Unless it fulfils those two requirements, it might just as well not exist. That is a most important point. It is a specialist's job. The police cannot do it; they do not know enough. They know a great deal but they do not know enough for that; they have not been specially trained. It is a job for a specially trained man.
I have one final word, on the problem of traffic filtering to the left at a controlled crossing. I would suggest that the answer to that problem may prove a nuisance to the foot passenger—and I am a foot passenger practically 100 per cent. when I am in the City because I do not like driving cars in traffic. The answer is to put the pedestrian crossing back

95
about ten yards from the actual turning, and not on the turning itself. That will have this effect. To start with, it will automatically stop the traffic well short of the crossing, so that the man who "jumps" the light will not do it as dangerously as he does at the present moment. It will give the pedestrian plenty of time to see the car coming along and give the driver of the car plenty of time to see the pedestrian. Furthermore, it will allow one or two cars to draw up behind one another whilst they are waiting for the pedestrians to cross, without creating a great block of traffic behind. I hope those have been constructive suggestions and that I shall get a reply to my question about the traffic engineer.
3.42 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the approval you have given to these proposed regulations and for the helpful suggestions that have been made. I will undertake to consider them all. I will answer one or two points now. I will at once put the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, at rest on his question: Do we employ traffic engineers at the Ministry of Transport? The answer is yes, the best in the country. Another point I was asked was whether the regulations will apply to Northern Ireland or only to the United Kingdom. The answer is, only to the United Kingdom. Another point is that the black and white striped crossing was adopted after extensive research and experiments by the Road Research Laboratory. I myself have seen it and tested it and I absolutely confirm their choice. You have to take into considera-tion that it must be viewed obliquely. All the other suggestions I will consider. I can say now to the noble Earl that I do not think it will be only an exceptional case when a zebra crossing is put outside a built-up area. I appreciate his point about the "Cross now" lights, and if the noble Earl will tell the Ministry where, in his view, we can extend those "Cross now" pedestrian lights, his suggestion will receive every consideration.
LORD SANDHURST: Is the noble Lord able to tell me where his traffic engineers receive their training—because it is not in this country. The only place that I know of where there is a faculty is in America.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have not that information, but I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that they are properly trained and that they are the best traffic engineers in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: May I ask the noble Lord whether the 35,000 pedestrian crossings include the crossings in Scotland?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SITING OF NEW COLONIAL OFFICE
3.44 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE rose to call attention to the recent expressions of public opinion in favour of retaining, as an open space, the site of the old Westminster Hospital; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will consider erecting the new Colonial Office on some other site unless, by replanning, the frontage can be set back to accord with the strong representations of the Royal Fine Art Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset of this, my maiden speech, I earnestly beg your Lordships' indulgence and ask your forgiveness for the many shortcomings that will be apparent in the design and presentation of my remarks. It is an architectural subject upon which I am about to speak, and I hope that the fact that I am an architect may favourably incline your Lordships' ears. During the process of acquiring the site of the old Westminster Hospital by Act of Parliament in 1947, many reasons were advanced in favour of erecting upon it, and upon the adjoining site of the Stationery Office, a new building to house the Colonial Office. It was, however, only the other day, when the site was cleared, that many people were able to realise what the consequence of that proposal would be, and they therefore began to reconsider these previously advanced reasons.
The first of these is the view, widely held, that as the site was bought by Act of Parliament for the purpose of building the new Colonial Office, the work must proceed as proposed, unless a new Act

97
of Parliament is introduced. But, my Lords, there is no mention in the Act of the Colonial Office. How can it be said that it is obligatory upon us to build the Colonial Office on that site? Let it not be thought, in drawing attention to this fact, that I want to relegate the Colonial Office to any unworthy site. Filial piety alone would militate against that, because I realise to the full that my father was at one time Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and therefore I should be the last to belittle that Office and its invaluable work for our great Colonial possessions. I only wish to make it quite clear that there is nothing in the Act which compels us to adopt the course now proposed.
A second reason in favour of the scheme was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in your Lordships' House on November 21 last, when he said that the proposal commanded general approval and that no vote was taken in either House. But the proposal was only to acquire the site—a proposal with which I believe everyone agreed, and still agrees. During the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the then Minister of Works made it quite clear when he said:
"All I am asking for now is the power to acquire the site."
Of course there was no vote against that, although even at that time voices were raised in doubt about the appropriate development of the site—notably the voice of the honourable Member for West Middlesbrough, who said at that early stage, in the first part of his speech on May 2, 1947, exactly what I feel now.
A third argument, a most cogent argument in favour of building over the whole of the site, is the very great cost of acquisition. It is indeed a most regrettable thing that a site which was sold, I understand, by the Treasury in 1831 for £6,000 should cost them £400,000 to buy back in 1947. I agree, therefore, that the best possible use should be made of the site, from every point of view. Even an architect must believe, however, that there are some pieces of land which can be better used by not building on them. In my opinion this small area is of incalculably greater value to us all as an open space than as a portion of a Government office. Noble Lords must not overlook the fact that even if no building use is made of
98
the greater part of the Westminster Hospital site, it was still necessary to acquire it if the Stationery Office site behind was to be developed to the full and the roadway between the two sites absorbed and built over.
Fourthly, it is argued in the Press and elsewhere that large open spaces are not necessarily æsthetically desirable around our great abbeys and cathedrals. But the space about which I am talking is not large. If the new Colonial Office were set back so as to leave the greater part of the old hospital site vacant, the total width of Broad Sanctuary from north to south would still be only about 110 yards; it is now 80 yards. From east to west (that is from the West Door of the Abbey to the start of Victoria Street), it is only 90 yards. It is also said that the beauty of a great abbey is enhanced by a huddle of roofs jostling against its walls. I agree that this can make a very attractive composition, but surely no one could possibly contend that the new Colonial Office, much as one may admire the design—and I wholeheartedly admire it—will even remotely resemble a huddle of roofs. A hundred feet high for the most part, and flat-topped, it will reach up almost to the level of the coping of the Abbey nave, and will be 10 feel above the base of the dome of the Central Hall.
Fifthly, my Lords, we are told that it is too late; that we ought to have had sufficient imagination to realise earlier what the result of this proposal would mean. The fact must be admitted that it takes a lot to stir our imaginations in an architectural sense. Something dramatic has to happen before we begin to sit up and take notice. Unless St. Paul's Cathedral had been miraculously saved amid the surrounding devastation, would the imaginations of the City Fathers have been stirred to preserve the view of the Cathedral from the south-east by the laying-out of a garden on valuables building land? Similarly, in this case, it was only when the old Westminster Hospital vanished before our eyes that we realised what possibilities would be lost for ever if we did not take advantage of the open space revealed. I am sure that there would have been a very different story to tell if the Hospital had been demolished first and then, after that,

99
we had been asked to approve the proposal now put forward.
The new model is now on exhibition in your Lordships' Library. I do not know how many of you have had an opportunity of seeing it, or whether arrangements will be made for its public exhibition. I am very grateful to the Ministry of Works for having given me last week a preview of it, and for their great courtesy in thus helping to stir my sluggish imagination. With its aid we can now see the new building in relation to its surroundings. We can see how it projects forward, spilling its huge bulk into Broad Sanctuary and, just by that projection, ruining what would otherwise be a seemly lay-out with its neighbours. If your Lordships could spare the time to go to St. Margaret's, Westminster, and on coming out through the West Door of that beautiful church, would look straight before you, you would find most clearly demonstrated this seemly lay-out, with the Abbey on your left, Middlesex Guildhall on your right and the Central Hall symmetrically placed in front of you on the axis. If your Lordships then look at the model from the same relative position, you will see at a glance how deplorable is the projection of the new building.
All this leads me to advance some reasons in favour of retaining the greatest possible amount of open space at this most historic spot. In this small Square are set the entrances to two great buildings, the first of which is the most venerated and beloved structure in the whole of the British Commonwealth—namely, the Abbey. At its doors assemble on occasion great and solemn concourses and processions. How absurd that, at this point, of all points, we should perpetuate that constriction which has repeatedly occurred between the Coronation Annex and the corner of the Westminster Hospital site, so that manoeuvring there is impossible! Even narrower is the roadway at the entrance to the other great building adjoining Broad Sanctuary, the Central Hall. Here again, no manoeuvring space will be possible at this point if the new building is erected as proposed. The hall will continue to have a hole-in-corner approach, although it is a hall seating 2,700 and is used for gatherings of a national and even an international character.
Mention of the Central Hall brings me to the crux of the whole matter. Although noble Lords may find it difficult to imagine at the present time, I think there is no doubt that one day this building will be acclaimed as a splendid example of the architecture of its period. We should not let the fact that its period is out of fashion now blind us to the lasting merits of a building such as this— now seen for the first time from the Parliament Square approach. My Lords, if the new building is erected on the line proposed, half the Eastern façade of the Central Hall will again be tucked away down a side street, and all the dignity and seemliness of the Western approaches to the Abbey destroyed, perhaps for ever.
In viewing the Central Hall with a critical eye, noble Lords should bear in mind that the building has never been completed. When Mr. Lanchester and Mr. Rickards won the competition, their design showed twin towers flanking and supporting the dome on the Eastern side; and one has only to look at the late Mr. Rickard's fine drawing to see how essential to the whole composition these towers are. They were never built, owing to difficulties over rights of light with the Hospital. But now, at last, if only the Colonial Office can be set back sufficiently, the opportunity offers to repair that which in this very context was described nearly forty years ago as "the unsightliness of the incomplete." I therefore asked the Trustees of the Central Hall what are the prospects of thus embellishing the London scene, and their agents replied to me as follows:
"We are authorised on behalf of the Trustees of the Central Hall to advise you that in the event of the old Westminster Hospital site being retained as an open space, the Trustees of the Central Hall would, when labour conditions and the financial position permit, proceed with the erection of the towers as proposed in the original plans of the building, subject to any architectural modifications deemed advisable."
But, my Lords, can these improvements and embellishments be carried out and the Colonial Office still find a home here?
We know, because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, told us so in this House on November 21, that the Royal Fine Art Commission strongly represented that the new building should be set back so far as to leave the old site almost entirely vacant, and he stated that this would have made the building too small to house

101
the Colonial Office, I feel, however, that this view needs very careful consideration, because I do not believe that the building would be too small. We do not know of course, what are the detailed requirements of this Department, but there are sure to be many of a very special nature, differing greatly from the normal requirements of an ordinary office block. Nevertheless, one has only to make a few calculations to realise that it would be easily possible, on the reduced site, to house to the most comfortable standard of modern office accommodation all the required staff—1,300 of them—while leaving at least a whole floor free for ceremonial and special purposes. As a comparison for your Lordships, this free floor area, which is one whole floor of the building, would be at the very least more than twice the floor area of Westminster Hall.
When the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said in this House, in the same speech from which I have just quoted, that over a third of the site had been surrendered, I was full of hope. I thought that much had been accomplished, and I dare say that many of your Lordships who were here felt the same. But when I went to look at the plans, and saw the model, I realised that the third was not at all the third that I had envisaged, but was made up of strips at the East and West sides, and only quite a small setting back on the all-important South front. In fact, the pavement line on the South front appears to be hardly varied at all. I maintain that if that area of land which the Government have already agreed to surrender is applied, with a bit added for good measure, to the all-important setting back of the South front, the Colonial Office would get all it needs and we should have a dignified square. But if we are still told that the requirements of the client Department (and do not let us be misled by the use of that insufficient term in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in November; in a matter of this importance the whole country is the client), the accommodation needed for the Colonial Office cannot be found by replanning, then let a smaller Department be housed in the new building which must replace the old Stationery Office, and let another sit: be allocated to the Colonial Office where there may be room and to spare without disservice to neighbouring buildings.
We have been accused of lack of imagination in not appreciating at an earlier stage the effect of the Government proposals in the area of Broad Sanctuary. But on this question of sites for Government offices it is, I suggest, the Government who have been so lacking in imagination, although they have in other ways helped forward admirably the cause of the visual arts in this country. It seems that they can now envisage the provision of offices for their use only by building, where a vast improvement would be attained by a measure of clearance or where, thanks to our forbears, we already possess a seemly layout. Of the former, the site we are considering is alas! perhaps to be followed by the obliteration of even more noteworthy aspects of the Abbey from the South-east- in the redevelopment of Abingdon Street. Of the latter, Carlton House Terrace has already attracted their attention for the uses of expediency. Surely the wise landlord, when he is obliged to extend his premises, employs the opportunity to raise the standard of less favoured parts of his own or adjoining property, rather than to misuse or spoil that which is already good.
If, then, the Colonial Office need more room than can be found by a more modest use of the Westminster Hospital site, then let us turn our eyes to those areas, not too far distant, where the demolition of obsolete or derelict buildings, and their replacement with a fine new Government building, would be a benefaction in itself. We have seen what can be done in the way of clearance for so transitory a purpose as an Exhibition—and that is not the only part of the South Bank which is due for a major overhaul. I do not propose, however, to examine in all detail the many alternatives which offer, until it has been proved that the reasonable requirements of the Colonial Office cannot be adequately met without engulfing the site of the old Westminster Hospital. My Lords, cannot we by some means keep this blessed plot free from building? Cannot we accept the strong representations of the Royal Fine Art Commission, instead of the dismal compromise to which they afterwards regrettably agreed? Rather than the latter, I think that another site could and should be found for the Colonial Office, but I strongly urge, and firmly believe, that this will not be proved to be necessary. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BADELEY: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his first speech in this House. For that speech he has chosen a subject upon which he can speak with the knowledge and authority of one who has risen high in his profession, and I know I am expressing your Lordships' appreciation of his words. Many of your Lordships will have a lively and affectionate remembrance of his father, who was for so long a member of this House. I am tempted to say that in this case we have yet another example of the argument in favour of the hereditary principle—or perhaps noble Lords opposite would prefer the phrase "in extenuation of the hereditary principle" —for once more we see the old dictum justified: Uno avulso non deficit alter. It is quite true in the case of the noble Lord. The noble Lord's scheme seems to me to go far to meet the views of the Ministry of Works and certainly of the Royal Fine Art Commission, and to go far also to assuage public feeling on the subject. I do not think he will ask the Minister to give a definite reply to-day, and I believe it would be unfair to do so, but I do hope that the Minister, whatever happens, will be careful to give close attention to the arguments that have been adduced.
The noble Lord has dealt with the scheme so thoroughly and, if I may say so, so competently, that I should only be wearying your Lordships if I went over the same ground again. I propose, therefore, in the few remarks that I am going to make, to deal with the idea that emerged towards the end of his speech— and I know I shall be batting on a very sticky wicket—and that is the question of an alternative site. As germane to that, I would ask your Lordships to consider what is taking place in London today. It is obvious that one of the major headaches from which the present Government are suffering is that caused by the necessity to find accommodation for the vast family of civil servants which they have created. There is really only one remedy for that, and that is to put some curb on—I do not quite know what to call it but, shall we say, the prolific paternity of the Government in this direction. That, of course, may be in contemplation, because from a glance at the
104
Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General I see that no less a sum than £72,000,000 is going to be saved on services. Let us hope that some of that will be achieved by diminution of the Civil Service. Without such a diminution, without that curb on the Government's paternity, I see no possibility of alleviation of the Government's headache.
I should like your Lordships to consider for one moment what has happened. Whitehall has long since ceased to be the headquarters of Government offices or, at any rate, of the majority of Government offices. They are cropping up now all over London. Kensington has been invaded, Mayfair has been invaded. Take, for instance, Berkeley Square. What chance would the unhappy nightingale have to-day of making its voice heard against the noise of transport activities in the neighbourhood? A few hundred yards further on the almost sacred sartorial grove of Savile Row is now almost entirely overshadowed by the gigantic building of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. One almost feels diffident about creeping into one's tailor's establishment to get a patch put on a favourite garment. Further South it is almost worse We find the splendid façade of Carlton House Terrace threatened by an extension of the Foreign Office. Worst of all, perhaps, in Whitehall itself, from the ruins of Montagu House, so close to those glorious buildings of the Horse Guards, the Banqueting Hall and Gwydir House, we see a huge erection rearing its head, designed, I am told, to house an enormous number of civil servants—a building remarkable only for that crude nudity of architectural design which seems to characterise so many of these modern utility models. As the noble Lord said, do let us keep, as long as we can, some of the remaining beauty in this land.
The point I come to now is the question of another site. I see the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, almost settling down in comfort, knowing, no doubt, that his mind is made up on this point. One of the objections which he will probably raise to the building on the smaller scale which has been proposed by my noble friend is that it will be too small for the requirements which it has to meet. That may be so. But there

105
are a good many Government Departments scattered not only over London but over the whole country. Take, for instance, the Inland Revenue. I have had correspondence on matters relating to income tax from places as far apart as Liverpool, Cardiff, Worthing, and Thames Ditton. Surely convenience and economy would be effected by some coordination of these various branches under one roof. Then there are a number of other smaller Government Departments. The suggestion I have to put to the noble Lord is that the building as curtailed by the suggestion of my noble friend might be quite large enough to contain one of those smaller Government Departments, and then a new and dignified building could be erected for the Dominions and Colonial Office. No one for a moment would question the desirability of having such an office. The Dominions and Colonies are, after all, probably of greater value to us now than they have ever been.
The site I would suggest is one in respect of which admirable precedent has been set by the Ministry of Works themselves. It is on the South Bank of the river. Many of your Lordships who use Waterloo Station will have seen the huge ruin of Messrs. Doulton's porcelain works. They have been neither restored nor demolished. If that ruin were removed, it would provide a space for a really fine building with an approach far more dignified than anything that could be obtained at Westminster. Access to Westminster is easy, and the frontage and approach could, with a little clearance, be made very good. And for neighbours, what could be more respectable than Lambeth Palace and the Ministry of Works? I can see no objection to that site, though others may have something to say about it. The great objection to it, I have no doubt the Government will say, is that of expense. One can understand well in these days, when such enormous demands are being made upon them, that it is impossible to ask the Government to spend a large sum of money on an entirely new project. But would it not be possible to house the Dominions and Colonial Office in some other large building which the Government may consider more respectable than the present establishment, and to defer the building of the new office on the site until the financial stress has lessened? One point upon which I wish to dwell
106
for a moment is this. We have the opportunity now of saving a site which to the hearts of Englishmen is probably one of the most dear. If we lose it we shall not get it again. After all, this is the time to beautify where we can instead of disfiguring as we do.
4.18 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise to support very strongly the speech which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and to join in congratulating him upon it. His speech was not only closely reasoned but it was persuasive, both in matter and manner. I hope that we shall often hear the noble Lord speak in this House. If I had on this occasion to do what I have to do when I give addresses in other places —that is, to take a text—I should take some words which during the war were inscribed over ticket collectors' offices in the railway stations—" Is your journey really necessary?" I want to base three questions upon those words to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government.
First, I would ask him: Is it really necessary to have this extension of the Colonial Office, either here or elsewhere? There is quite a modern craze for putting up vast buildings for all Government Ministries. But we are told that this is a time when there ought to be national economy. Is this a time when money should be spent on this building? We also know that it is necessary to build as many houses as possible for the working classes of the nation. I wonder how many houses could be built with the money and labour which is to be devoted to this building. I know that it is often said that the size of the staff of the Ministry is so great that a large building is required to house them. But often it is, in fact, the other way round: a large building is put up, and then the Ministry concerned feel that they must live up to that building, and fill it with staff. The larger the building the greater the temptation to have a large staff. So that is my first question to the noble Lord—is it really necessary to have this great extension? If, to my sorrow, he gives an unfavourable answer to that question I shall go on to the second.
If we are going to have this new building, is it really necessary to have it in this particular place, of all places in London or in England? At certain hours of the clay there is a great deal of discomfort through congestion. People pour out

107
from the surrounding offices and crowd the buses and Underground. Now, if this building is put up, there will be several more hundreds of people pouring out; and in days to come, when, as I have no doubt will happen, every civil servant has his own car, the congestion will be even greater than now. But the real objection to having the building on this site is that which has been pointed out by the noble Lord who has raised this question— namely, that it will obscure some really remarkable views which we have at the present time of Westminster Abbey and of Central Hall.
I must bear testimony that a few weeks ago I underwent a sudden conversion. I know that psychologists say that no one over fifty can undergo that experience. I had always looked upon the Central Hall as a building which was dull and ponderous. That was because usually I had seen only the lower part, with a number of unattractive advertisements. But the other day when walking from this House in that direction, quite suddenly I saw the Central Hall in its true proportions, unobstructed by any other building, and I agree, with what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said from an architect's point of view, that it is a very striking building of that period. We have that view at the present moment, as well as a much finer view of the Abbey. Surely we should do what we can to keep it. I do not know whether there is any discussion about a war memorial in connection with this last war, a memorial to our great deliverance. I wonder whether there could be any better or finer memorial than the preservation of this open space, and its use for various national memorials as occasion may arise. Here again, I am not confident that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will give a favourable answer to the question: Is it really necessary to have these offices in this place?
So I go on to my much more modest question: Is it really necessary to have a building which by its height will dominate the surrounding buildings, conceal the Central Hall and, at the same time, take away from us this new unrestricted view of the Abbey? Is it really necessary to have a building of the proposed height and projection, so that it shuts out all these views? That is the main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Like myself, he is not
108
over-hopeful of a Government Department being so suddenly and completely converted that they give up all idea of having a building in this place, but I think there is some hope that the Government may be prepared to make such adjustments in existing plans that some of the worse of the dangers now threatened may be removed. Therefore, I join the two noble Lords who have already spoken in urging in the strongest possible way that the Government should reconsider these proposals and preserve an outlook which, if it is lost now, will be lost for ever.
4.24 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to say a few words on this subject, as it was I who first brought it to your Lordships' attention some three or four months ago. I am particularly happy to follow my noble friend Lord Mottistone in the admirable maiden speech which he has just made, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, because they have both strongly taken a view I ventured to take then—namely, that the question of allowing a proper view of Central Hall was more important than the problems of proximity to Westminster Abbey. I was also very happy to hear the most reverend Primate supporting me in what I think to be the principal argument for not building on this site—namely, the question of traffic congestion.
When I raised this matter previously I pointed out that we should be importing some 1,500 civil servants, with their visitors and transport, to clutter up the roads, buses and tube stations during rush hours. But surely the offices they vacate however, said that these civil servants would be vacating premises in the neighbourhood, and that they would not add to the total of the traffic during working hours. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will be seized upon in a moment by other people, and the traffic will only be increased. Furthermore, we are already putting up an enormous block of offices behind the United Services Museum, as the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, has remarked, and another huge block is going up behind the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The traffic situation in two years within 300 yards of Parliament Square is going to be indescribable. It is bad enough as it is. We have all suffered from the No. 11 bus—perhaps I should say "No. 11

109
buses," instead of No. 11 bus in the singular. There is no such thing as one No. 11 bus. London Transport breed and train No. 11 buses to work in teams. The transport situation is going to be absolutely chaotic.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the model which the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, has kindly put into the Library for us. When looked at by a man of average height, it gives an impression of the actual site as seen, not from the ground hut from the roof of Westminster Hall. One has to bend down a little to see the real damage that is going to be done to the façade of Central Hall. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the most reverend Primate said, that Central Hall is a first-class building. It has been said that the Middlesex Guildhall was built to block out the sight of the Central Hall from Parliament. I do not believe that to be true or kind. There are two things to do: either block it out or leave it uncovered, but to leave it half uncovered by the jutting proportions of the new Colonial Office seems to me wholly wrong.
As to leaving the whole site open, I realise that great financial difficulty presents itself. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will say that, and that it is a very difficult argument to counter. For reasons which the noble Lords, Lord Mottistone and Lord Badeley, have given, and which I will not repeat, I should like the site left open. I am not one of those who think that a great building should automatically be surrounded with an open space. There are buildings which are designed to be surrounded by smaller buildings. St. Paul's Cathedral was designed by Sir Christopher Wren to have houses round it. The Minster of the most reverend Primate at York was designed to be surrounded on two sides by buildings, and to be left open on the other sides. Winchester and Salisbury Cathedrals were designed to be left open. The great French Cathedrals, Beauvais, Chartres and Amiens, on the other hand, were designed to be surrounded. I have looked into this matter fairly carefully, and on the evidence it seems to the that Westminster Abbey was designed to be left open. That appears to add to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
The matter comes down to this: the site should be left open, but we believe
110
we are going to get an unfavourable answer. We should, therefore, as the next best thing, try to cut back the Colonial Office to open up a view of Central Hall and avoid crowding in upon Westminster Abbey. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, whether he has studied the plan which Mr. Philip Cundle, the architect, produced in an attempt to solve this problem and which is now in the Ministry of Works. This Government have not a good record for a Government who boast so much about their planning capabilities. There was the plot for Carlton House Terrace, which I must say I regard with the greatest suspicion and about which the vigilant Westminster City Council expressed similar views. The Ministry have attempted some very odd things with the Nash terraces on the North side of Regent's Park. Fortunately, an equally vigilant and suspicious Marylebone Borough Council pointed out their forebodings.
Now there is this proposition. I think it is high time the anti-planners started to plan their anti-planning. This debate is a good attempt. I was always in favour of the old Westminster Precinct idea put forward in the Architectural Review before the war, which left the whole of this area free from traffic and to be treated as one whole precinct. That was an excellent idea. It has now become a little more controversial because, quite apart from the immense problems of money and labour involved, I understand that if it were implemented, now the first thing that would have to be done would be to demolish the Conservative Central Office. I know that Parliament has already decided this matter, but let us admit frankly that we made a mistake— never mind whose fault it was. We did not see what would be the effect upon this vastly important site if we allowed this rebuilding of the Colonial Office to go forward. Before it is too late let us reconsider and see whether we can do something to correct our mistake. The model in the Library shows clearly what an incongrous jumble the heart of the Empire is going to look if this plan goes through. I do not believe there is any other country in the world which would allow this to happen, and I beg of your Lordships to join in pressing upon the Ministry the need for reconsideration of the whole matter.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords are grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for bringing this matter before this House, and for giving us an opportunity of expressing our views about it. Indeed, the number of those of your Lordships who have already taken part and who desire to take part in this discussion is evidence of the public interest that it has aroused. I do not think there is any need for long speeches, as your Lordships have shown, because the matter is not one to be settled by long and weighty argument. You either feel it, or you do not, and no amount of argument will convince the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench unless he is prepared to be convinced. However, I am inclined to be more hopeful about his reply than was my noble friend Lord Mancroft, because I have watched Lord Morrison on the Bench, and I have observed him move, as I thought, some way along the road of assent as the previous speakers were speaking. I therefore have great hopes that by the time we reach the end of the debate he. although not giving a decisive answer to-day, will find it possible to give those of us who take this view a considerable measure of hope.
The Westminster site that is under discussion has a double interest at the present time. As has been noticed, there is, first of all. its effect on the view of the West end of the Abbey and, secondly, on that of the Central Hall. On both those points I find myself in complete agreement with what has been said by those who have preceded me in this debate. I find myself recording in my mind a certain element of hesitation in agreeing with what fell from my noble friend Lord Mancroft, when he said that he was not convinced of the general desirability of having space round large and noble buildings, because some were obviously designed rather to be clustered than to stand alone. He may be right technically—I would not set myself up as a judge or authority on that point—but I would assert that almost every place I know gains in dignity and power from being set in space. It may be that not many of us are qualified to judge of design on any technical standard—and certainly I am not—but I am competent to say that for me and, I think, for most people, one
112
of the elements of beauty is just that extra space that will lend size and dignity to any building. As has been emphasised in the debate, here we have an opportunity of doing something, an opportunity that comes all too seldom and one which, in this particular locality, may never recur, in this capital city of London, which, I venture to say, of all the capital cities of Europe that I know, is the worst showman of its things of beauty. We have many beautiful, historic, traditional and distinguished buildings for all sorts of reasons, but owing to congestion of space we are unable to show them; and the world passes them by almost unconscious of their existence. To-day we have an opportunity to remedy that situation.
I should like to mention one other thing that I think lends general support to what I have been trying to say, and to what other noble Lords have said more successfully. Those of your Lordships who have visited India will not have failed to be struck by many of the ancient and beautiful monuments of that country, and will have admired both their preservation and their setting. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware of how much of that is owed to the particular work discharged by the late Lord Curzon, when he was Viceroy, and of how much he did to secure for all time, in so far as was humanly possible, those treasures of beauty from the past. I believe that it is true to say that the bulk of his achievement was not in any restoration—though that was also included in his work—but consisted for the greater part in clearing the sites, in order that people could see them. Over and over again, if one looks at the great monuments of India, one realises that most of what Lord Curzon did consisted in widening the space and making a clear view for the spectator to appreciate. Lord Curzon once said that he anticipated that, when a record of his work in India was made, he was much more likely to be remembered for what he had done in the way of making possible that reconstruction of beauty than for any political or administrative reforms to which his name might be attached. Even though this scheme may cost a little money, I still submit that where in London you have a little space offered to you it should be. snatched with both hands, and it is short-sighted to allow such an opportunity as this to go by. For those reasons,

113
I would appeal to the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government to use his influence with his colleagues, and to recommend one or other of the possible solutions to which the speech this afternoon of my noble friend Lord Mottistone has opened the way.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, as the noble Earl has just said, there is no need for long speeches on this subject: indeed, the opening speech of the mover, Lord Mottistone, was so thorough that there is now little left for any of us to say. I rise for only a few moments, first, to add my small tribute to the congratulations of your Lordships to Lord Mottistone on his speech, and secondly, as a friend of his who works with him in various oilier capacities, to express my strong support of his Motion this afternoon. It is also my duty as Chairman of the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association to state in public that that Association are most strongly behind Lord Mottistone in his proposal, and that they hope sincerely that the Government will accede to it.
The only other point I wish to emphasise is the desirability of curtailing expenditure on buildings which may not be necessary. In private conversation with Lord Mottistone I ascertained from him that the computed or estimated 1,300 officials in the Colonial Office could be comfortably housed—including a whole floor for ceremonial occasions—on the site of the old Stationery Office, without impinging at all on the site of the old Westminster Hospital. If that is so, it surely appeals to all of us that it would be wrong to erect unnecessary buildings when the site is so urgently required for the æsthetic purposes which have been argued. I suppose it is true to say that if we are to retain our Colonial Empire, taking a long view it can only be by the granting of more and more self-government to its constituent parts. Therefore, it would seem that the Colonial Office is one which would tend to shrink in size rather than otherwise. If that is not considered a cogent argument, then, as has been put forward by other speakers, cannot a smaller department be allocated to this site and the Colonial Office be housed elsewhere? One wonders, for instance, how the old India Office is now
114
used. I am not aware to what use it is now put, but it is, as we all know, an enormous building and cannot be required for its original purpose.
Finally, I should like to express agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in his optimistic view of the likely reaction of this debate upon the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. A year or so ago I had occasion to contact Lord Morrison in connection with a proposal which would have been very deleterious to the aspect of the Tower of London, and I found him a most amenable personality to deal with and very sensible of the importance of preserving the beauties of this great city. I feel sure that the cogency of the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon will have impressed themselves upon him, and I look forward, with the noble Earl, to a favourable reply —perhaps not a reply which will give us all we expect and hope for, but one which will lead to what we desire in the ultimate result.
4.44 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, my observations on the Motion before your Lordships' House have been ticked off one by one during the course of the debate, and therefore I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two. I welcome this opportunity of congratulating sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on a most remarkable maiden speech. In congratulating him, I am under the impression that he is probably, with me, full of partiality and prejudice about this particular part of London, because approximately forty years ago, when the cluster of houses round the Abbey on its South Side was reclaimed from a rather disreputable century, he and I at approximately the same time entered as inhabitants, and we have this district very much at heart. There I spent five very formative years of my life in a school which claims with pride Westminster Abbey as its School Chapel. Now I find myself in your Lordships' House, which has a similar treasured relationship with Westminster Abbey. Thus I am full of prejudice and partiality about anything which affects the Abbey in any way at all.
I should like to refer to the Motion itself, which I wish had stopped at the words "some other site," and not gone

115
on to suggest merely that the present plans should be modified. I cannot support too strongly the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Badeley, that there is available great opportunity on both sides of the Thames—I think he mentioned only one—particularly that stretch between Vauxhall Bridge and Lambeth Bridge which, I suggest to your Lordships, could become a fine civic centre of Governmental buildings. Now is the time to plan for the future in that way. It is to me a very important thing that the precincts of the Abbey should not be further impinged upon either by buildings or by people. The grey and green majesty of the Cloisters, the charm of Jerusalem Chamber Steps and of Little Cloisters are in jeopardy from people who now frequent those places, and who are not so much archaeologists or people with an artistic appreciation of these buildings, or even genuine sightseers, but persons who use the Abbey precincts to enjoy an alfresco lunch, to do crossword puzzles or fill in football coupons. If there is another Government office built within a few yards of the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey, the Dean and Chapter will have a great problem with which to deal.
I would refer to the first line of this Motion, which calls attention to recent expressions of public opinion. I submit that public opinion on this matter, not only in Westminster and London or even in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Empire and, indeed, in all civilised countries of the world where the word "Westminster" up to now has certainly been a magic word, runs far more strongly and deeply than has been publicly expressed. I would therefore beg the Government not to plan something for 1951 or 1961, but to take an infinitely broader view and plan for centuries ahead as well as in homage to the centuries which are past.
4.48 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to start by most sincerely congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his excellent maiden speech, and to say that I do not think he could have chosen a more apposite subject than that of the area round about our Houses of Parliament. I should like to support the noble
116
Lord, Lord Rea, in suggesting that there should be no compromise at all over this matter, and I feel we ought to be adamant that both the Westminster Hospital site that has been cleared, and the old Stationery Office site, should be kept as an open space. It is not, after all, so small a site, when one considers how much has yet to be brought down to ground level. I myself would humbly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as an architect, that the proposed new Colonial building is a good one. But if it is to be placed where at present planned, nobody will be able properly to see it; it will become, like so many other buildings, far too closely surrounded by others; and will be a loss to itself, as well as to the Abbey and the area generally. On that, I find myself in the same difficulty as other noble Lords, that all the fine and sound things have mostly been said. The obvious suggestion is for some site on the other bank of the Thames. After all, it is the policy, rightly, of the Government to give the South Bank increasing status vis-à-vis the North Bank, and obviously there are places on the South Bank where the building could well be placed.
In this debate I cannot help acknow-ledging that my fire over this issue is largely connected with the reading of certain books about Westminster—for instance, Dean Stanley's Memorial of Westminster Abbey, with which I am sure many noble Lords are familiar. One cannot help seeing the very earliest origins of Westminster in Thorney Island, and I think it is right that, as much as possible, we should recover its natural sense of precinct, both the natural sense of precinct and the precinct that first came along in connection with the Abbey and the Benedictine Monks who founded it. In that sense, rather interestingly do we also regard as sacred to us the frontiers of this Thorney Island. These Monks took the whole island, and the frontiers fit with the Architectural Review's plan, "Westminster Regained," for deflecting wheeled traffic altogether out of the area. The Northern sacred frontier is along Great George Street. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, when regarding this idea of unity it must be in the far future, but if we can have this hospital site issue cleared up now, it will be a start. The northern stream that made Thorney Island went along Great George Street.

117
In fact, it went under the present Home Office, and that makes one consider that the very erection of the Home Office building—wh.ch occurred at about the turn of the century I suppose—was the beginning of a form of rot, as regards the presentday atmosphere of Westminster.
The other frontier is along the front of the Central Hall, and so down to the back of the Abbey where the old wall itself exists to-day. My suggestion is that the Westminster Hospital site ought to be brought into the same mood as that of St. James's Park and its lake. Why should there not be small ponds here, where we could see the Abbey most beautifully reflected in all its moods, of grey days and sunny days, and it would be possible to link it with the spirit of the Park?
There is a small point that came to my notice last week when I was in the Central Hall for three days running, as a journalist in connection with the annual meeting of the National Farmers' Union. One of the striking gains since the Westminster Hospital has been demolished is the very fine view of the Abbey from the long window on the staircase going up to the main hall. I think we should keep that view, whether the hall is used by farmers from all the counties or by anybody else.
Lastly, I cannot think that anybody coming from the Colonial Empire would be glad that this site is likely, or is not unlikely, to become a mere building haunted with the clicking of typewriters —which is now one of the largest industries in this country. I am sure that for every reason that noble Lords have put before the House, much better than I have, this site in its entirety must be kept open I should like once again to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on his excellent maiden speech.
4.54 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I did not intend to speak when I entered this chamber this afternoon, but I feel that neither this House, nor my noble friend Lord Morrison, ought to be under the impression that the whole of the aesthetic sense of this House is confined to one section of it. I should like noble Lords opposite to feel that some of us on this side feel equally strongly about the desirability of preserving the beauty
118
of this most historic site in Westminster, probably the most historic site in the world. I recognise that an Act of Parliament has been passed for the purpose of acquiring this site, and I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, whose maiden speech I very much enjoyed, and whom I should like to congratulate on it, that Parliament was certainly under the impression, when it acquired the site, that it was going to be built on. Although there may not have been anything specific in the Act, Parliament certainly understood that it was not merely buying an open space.
Nevertheless, I do feel that, if at the time representations about the importance of this size, and about the desirability of doing everything we could to preserve the beauty of its buildings, had been made to those responsible, those of us who had some responsibility for the selection of this site would certainly have hesitated and would have been impressed. The fact that those representations were not made at the time is something for which we must all accept some responsibility, but it is no discredit to any of as to say that our aesthetic sense has improved since 1947 —perhaps we are wiser to-day with the loss from time to time of beautiful parts of London and beautiful buildings—and that, if it is not too late, we would earnestly appeal to the Minister of Works to hesitate and to think again.
I am not one of those who would advocate that the whole of this site should be used as an open space. I think one can hardly go to Parliament and ask both Houses to pass a measure for the expenditure of £400,000 for the acquisition of a site to build on, and then say: "We are very sorry. We have bought the site. We do not want to build on it. We want another site." It would not be encouraging to go to Parliament for the purpose of a compulsory acquisition of land if there could be an accusation of some form of misrepresentation. Moreover. I would respectfully point out to the House that, if the Ministry of Works had not come along with this measure, the fate of this site would have been worse than it threatens to be at the present time. It was intended that this should be a block of offices, and if the Colonial Office is an unworthy neighbour

119
of Westminster Abbey then a fortiori a block of offices would have been so. So at least the Ministry of Works must be thanked for having saved us from this even worse fate.
I have nothing to add to the arguments and the representations which have been so eloquently and forcibly made, but I should like to associate myself with the majority of them. I believe that it is possible to erect on this site a building which will meet many of the objections and yet give the Colonial Office what it needs. I would earnestly plead with my noble friend Lord Morrison to ask his right honourable friend to look at this matter again. I realise that that must involve a good deal of delay. It must inevitably mean the preparation of new plans, possibly a task which will mean deferring for some two years the erection of the Colonial Office. But I wonder whether, in the existing conditions, it really is the intention of the Government to proceed with the erection of this building straight away? It may well be—I do not know—that the rearmament to which we are now committed—
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): With regard to that point, may I say that, but for the discussion which arose within the last few weeks, the Ministry of Works were within ten days of calling for tenders for the excavation.
LORD SILKIN: I appreciate that, but of course in the last ten days or so something else has happened, besides the raising of this matter in this House, and I imagine that there will be some curtailment of public building and public expenditure. In these circumstances, it may well be that in any case my noble friend may have had reason to postpone the actual beginning of the construction of the Colonial Office. If that were so, of course, it would mean that the delay would not be so great as it otherwise would, but, as I say, one must recognise that the preparation of new plans might put back the beginning of the construction of the offices for some two years— possibly longer. But, my Lords, I would plead that even two years is not a long time in the history of this country. Once
120
this building is put up it is there for ever; and surely it is worth while hesitating for even that period, in order to do the best we can for this great historic area. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us this afternoon that he will earnestly take into consideration the representations that have been made. I trust that he will not within ten days invite tenders for a start on this work, but that he will give serious consideration to the possibility of putting up an alternative building which will meet most of the objections that have been raised in this House.
5.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have been greatly impressed by the strength of the case that has been made out by all the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Therefore I feel bound to rise and, in a few sentences, to associate myself with the Motion that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The proposals in the last speech that we heard, which came from the former Minister of Town and Country Planning and a general supporter of the Government, must in particular carry great weight with us and with the public. It seems to me that probably the right solution would be to set back this building, to have a somewhat smaller building on the same site and to ask the Colonial Office to be satisfied with less commodious premises. I realise that we cannot waste the very large sum which has already been spent, and, much as one would desire to see the whole of this site kept as an open space, I fear that in present circumstances it is hardly practicable. However, I have looked at the model of the area, which is now to be seen in the Library, and it does appear that the area will be a terrible jumble if the present plans are carried out. Possibly the views expressed in your Lordships' House to-day may in a very large degree be met by a modification and not an abandonment of the plans. At all events, that is the suggestion that I would join in pressing upon the noble Lord and his colleagues.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, like the two noble Lords who have just spoken, I came into the House without any intention of taking part in this discussion, and I am afraid that the views which I am

121
going to put forward will not meet with very much acceptance, because the model which has been placed in the library had rather the opposite effect on me to what it had on other noble Lords. Of course, these things are matters of taste, and we know that matters of taste are not matters to be disputed. When the question was raised some time ago and it was suggested that we should have an open space on this site, I felt, as one who has spent a good coal of his life fighting for open spaces, that that was an admirable idea. I must say, however, that, looking at the model, it seems to me impossible to leave an open space on this site with advantage. In parenthesis, I would say that I would not agree with the noble Viscount that we ought not to spend the money—that is, if it were clear beyond a peradventure that it was the right thing in the interests of the noble Abbey and of this historic site to clear the whole thing away and leave an open space. If that were agreed, then. I think, £400,000 is a mere bagatelle in relation to such an object.
It seems to me that, with the Middlesex Guildhall on its present site, to have an open space where the old hospital used to be would be æsthetically to make a grievous blunder. That is the view to which I have come after careful consideration of the model. If the Guildhall could be swept away it would be another matter—and nobody this afternoon has said that the Middlesex Guildhall is going to be regarded in a few years' time as one of the most beautiful buildings of its time, and I am afraid that I have not yet been converted to the view expressed by the most reverend Primate in respect of the Central Hall, though it may, if its towers are completed, be a better place than it is now. But, as it stands, I do not feel that any great value has been added to this site by opening up the view of the Central Hall. I would agree that if it were possible to remove the Middlesex Guildhall (a project which has not, so far as I know, been suggested), and replan the whole of this open space, perhaps with some monuments upon it, so as to get a harmonious re-development of the area, that would be a magnificent scheme. However, I do not know that anybody has yet been prepared to come forward with a scheme like that. As the matter stands at he present time, I feel that it would be a mistake to leave an open space on the site of the old hospital and
122
the Stationery Office. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, suggests that, in effect, we are on the point of desecrating the site; but surely we have all been brought up in a time when the old hospital was there, and our feeling of affection and love of the Abbey and its beauty was developed in surroundings of that sort.
Moreover, I am one of those who feel that a really fine and beautiful building is something which would be a good thing in itself, and especially in this particular part of London. I am not sure that I agree with the view of the proposed Colonial Office expressed in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, which, like everybody else, I enjoyed enormously. It is difficult for the layman to judge from the elevation which is in the Library how good the proposed Colonial Office will be. My own reaction to it was not quite so enthusiastic as his. But I should like to see a really fine piece of architecture on this site. I believe there is a great deal in what the Fine Art Commission has said about it—namely, that its elevation is too lofty, and that it might be better if it were put somewhat further back. If the Government are prepared to do anything, I think it would be much the better way to proceed on those lines. We know that the Government have in fact been giving much attention to and are very sensible of the importance of this matter. I understand that the Prime Minister himself has within the last few days had more than one meeting about it, which shows that there is great feeling, sympathy and sensitiveness in the Government on matters of this sort. I feel, however, that if a compromise is to be reached, it would best be reached upon lines of the sort I have suggested and which I think will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Silkin.
5.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I want to add just a few sentences. I feel sure that the Government can do æsthetic justice and practical justice and, at the same time, accept a compromise which I believe will satisfy the whole House, not just as a compromise, but on merits, because I believe it is the right thing to do. I cannot, for the life of me, think that the Colonial Office want a building to house 1,300 people. The Colonies become fewer and fewer. When

123
I was Colonial Secretary—and we were not inactive in those days—I am perfectly certain that we could have accommodated the whole of our staff in a building onethird of this size. Certainly there should be no encouragement to proliferate Departments and sub-departments in this way. They cannot possibly require a building of that size. If they say they require it, then they should be taught a salutary lesson in these times, when we are all told, quite rightly, that we must make sacrifices. Let the Government set an example by sacrificing something in the magnitude—indeed, the megalomania—of the size of Government Departments. I am sure this Department could be satisfied completely, or, if you cannot satisfy them, they should be told that they must be satisfied with a building which is considerably smaller.
That being done, it would give ample opportunity to set the site back. I do not share Lord Silkin's view that it would be a reasonable thing to erect no building on this site, nor am I at all convinced that the beauty and the whole æsthetic conception of the area would be enhanced by making this an open site. After all, it is not a completely open site. It is true there will be an open space if you build nothing on it, but then the Middlesex Guildhall, which is an adequate but not a superlatively beautiful building, will be turned into an island in that open space. I believe that the result would be that we should end up not so much by enhancing the Abbey, but by enhancing the Guildhall. Certainly some other buildings which the destruction of the Stationery Office has uncovered would be much better concealed by a new structure.
Is not the practical thing to do in this matter to economise in expenditure? I certainly do not think the building need be started at once. I should not have thought it would take two years to redesign it. I bear in mind that Ministers of Town and Country Planning proceed gradually, like the late Lord Passfield. I have seen buildings erected in America a good deal more quickly than that, and, if I remember rightly, the I.C.I, building further down Millbank, which is quite a good building, was designed and erected in about two years. But I do not think it would matter at all if there were a little delay in erecting this building.
124
Indeed, we must have a reduction in capital expenditure over the next two years and certainly this building need not have very high priority. Therefore I would join in what I believe is the general feeling of the House in appealing to the Government to adopt a solution which would give them the practical result they want—a building of adequate size upon this site. I believe that would be not a mere compromise, but the best solution to the problem of meeting the æsthetic requirements of the situation.
5.13 p.m.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, after listening to something like a dozen speeches, no one could have failed, as Lord Samuel has just said, to be impressed with this debate. I must at once say, however, that I am almost as impressed, and a little confused, by the multitude of different suggestions that have emanated from the debate. I have only one complaint about this debate, and it is a very minor one; it was indirectly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Silkin. I thought that I detected in some of the speeches a faint suggestion that the present Government have a lower standard of culture in architecture and fine buildings than have noble Lords in this House. If that impression has gone abroad I want to contradict it immediately. I agree with Lord Silkin that we claim to have as high standards as anyone else in the community in these matters.
May I be allowed to join with others in congratulating Lord Mottistone? I thought that his speech was of more than ordinary interest. He spoke on a subject upon which he is well qualified to speak, and his speech, if I may say so, was also of great interest to many of us who have given lengthy service in one or both Houses of Parliament, and who have unforgettable memories, not only of personal friendship but of the valuable public services so generously given by his late father. As he reminded us (and I was thinking of it before he even mentioned it) I find it interesting to recall that his father was for some time an Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am sure that I am expressing the hope of every noble Lord here in saying that we hope that, if his professional work permits, we may have many opportunities of hearing Lord Mottistone again.

125
The subject which the noble Lord has raised is one which, as he said, and as your Lordships will remember, was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, just before the Christmas vacation. Lord Mancroft has again addressed us to-day, and while I am handing out compliments I hope that he will allow me to congratulate him, not upon his maiden speech but upon an announcement of almost equal importance which I read in The Times recently, and to wish his fiancé and himself good health, good luck, and a happy future. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who were not present on November 21, and did not happen to read the Report of our proceedings then, I thought it might be as well if I summarised briefly what I then said in reply to Lord Mancroft. My difficulty is that after such a long debate I do not want to weary your Lordships by dealing in detail with every point that every speaker has made. But there are one or two outstanding points.
Some noble Lords want this site cleared altogether. Others say, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has just said: "Let us have a compromise and build a smaller Colonial Office on that site." Therefore your Lordships will forgive me if I skim over the points, and try to present to you the situation as it appears to the Government to-day. In the first place. Lord Mottistone seemed to question whether, if an entirely new site had to be found for this building, it would necessarily mean new legislation. I can only say that I would draw his attention to the Public Offices (Site) Act, 1947, and he will see on the front page "An Act to make provision for the acquisition of a site for Public Offices in Westminster."
LORD MOTTISTONE: But it does not say for the Colonial Office; that was my point.
LORD MORRISON: That is so, but I cannot see how it would be possible, with a direction like that in the Title, to assume that the Act refers to anything other than public offices of any kind. What the noble Lord and others have been arguing for is a public open space. Therefore the best advice I can give, out of my own somewhat lengthy experience, is that it would be necessary to have another Act of Parliament before we could turn this site into an open space.
126
The announcement that the Government proposed to acquire the site of the old Westminster Hospital, and to build on that site and on the adjoining Stationery Office site a new building for the Colonial Office, was made as long ago as October 11, 1946. There has never been any question but that a new headquarters for the Colonial Empire is urgently needed, and I am sorry that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, having put some very direct questions to me, has not found it convenient to wait to receive the answers. That is the answer to his first question: that a new Colonial Office is urgently needed. The present Colonial Office is scattered over three different buildings.
When the Public Offices(Site) Act, 1947, which gave the Government power to acquire the Westminster Hospital site for this purpose, was debated in your Lordships' House and in another place the proposed use of the site commanded general approval. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said a few moments ago, and Lord Halifax agreed with him, that we were all to blame for that. There was no opposition at all to the proposal. Lord Mottistone eloquently pointed out, as an excuse for the failure of everybody to recognise what the view would be when the Stationery Office was pulled down; "Well, how were we to know?" I do not know: with the number of people who are experts in this sort of business we should expect them, I think, to have a little more imagination than they evinced over this matter in 1947. The matter was debated not only in your Lordships' House but in another place, and the plans commanded general approval, without question or dissent. There was ready acceptance of the statement made in your Lordships' House by Lord Henderson that:—
"There is no more worthy use for this fine position than as the Headquarters of the Colonial Empire."
I well remember sitting here next to Lord Henderson, when he spoke, and hearing the general applause and approbation with which that sentiment was received. At the same time, the fullest consideration was given to the limits which should be imposed on the size of the new building, and it was open to any interested party, by petitioning one or other of the two Select Committees which considered the Bill, to make their views known.

127
In 1948, a distinguished private architect, who had been commissioned by the Minister of Works to design the new building, prepared his sketch plans, and they were submitted for the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. Just before the war this body had signified their approval to the plans of a proposed commercial office block on the site which covered it to the full extent permitted under the Westminster Hospital Act, 1913. Subsequently, however, the Commission altered their view as to the proper development of the site, and pressed that the front of the new building should be set back so far as to leave the old site, which had by then been acquired at a cost of over £400,000, almost entirely vacant. A further result of this would have been to make the building too small for the Colonial Office, and thus to prevent the Ministry of Works from using the site for the purpose for which Parliament had authorised its acquisition.
In these circumstances, after consultations between the Ministry of Works, the Treasury, the Colonial Office, the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, a compromise scheme was evolved; the elevations were re-designed, and the building was set back so as to surrender land, worth about £150,000, for public amenities, and to enable important road widening to be carried out, both in Broad Sanctuary and in Princes Street. The size of the building was somewhat reduced, though still large enough to accommodate the Colonial Office, and the Royal Fine Art Commission, while still adhering to their former view that a lesser develop-ment would have been desirable, approved the compromise design as such.
Your Lordships, I am sure, will appreciate that there is a proper time for suggesting important alterations to a major project of this kind. Once the sketch plans have been agreed, much time and money has to be spent on the preparation of the working drawings and bills of quantities, so that a substantial change after the sketch plan stage is bound to involve a good deal of waste of money, as well as delay. With the greatest respect, I suggest to those of your Lordships who are in favour of the replanning or re-siting of the new Colonial Office that the proper time to make these recom-
128
mendations was in 1947, when the Public Offices (Site) Bill was before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes from that topic, may I ask him a question? He said that it would cost a great deal more money if we now altered the plans. But would hot one result of altering the plans be that there would be a smaller building which would cost less money, and that this saving would have to be set off against the extra expense incurred in architects' fees and so on?
LORD MORRISON: If there were a smaller building, I would agree to the noble Viscount's proposition, provided that the whole of the staff of the Colonial Office could be accommodated in that smaller building.
With regard to the suggestion in the Motion that another site should be chosen, I would only point out, first, that having been authorised by Parliament to acquire this site for the purpose of providing public offices, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works would—as I have already pointed out—require fresh legislation if it were decided to use the site entirely as an open space; and, secondly, that His Majesty's Government have at present no suitable alternative site in view. A great number of sites have been suggested in the debate this afternoon. Some have already been examined, but have been rejected on various grounds. Others have not been examined. I will bring these suggestions to the notice of the Government so that attention can be given to them. To change the site at this late stage would mean a complete replanning of the whole project, involving some years of delay— it has taken four and a half years from the decision to use the Westminster Hospital site to reach the present stage when a contract can shortly be let—and would, of course, involve the Government in the expense of acquiring two sites for one building. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, made the comment that he was hopeful as to what the decision was going to be because he thought that I looked hopeful. I must learn to control my features better.
May I say, with regard to the suggestion that the frontage line of the new building should be set further back, that there are a number of points of view? It

129
has been suggested, for example, that this setting back should be done not so much to afford a more spacious view of Westminster Abbey as to disclose the frontage of the Central Hall, but against this there is another school of thought—or, perhaps I should say, of dissentient opinion. Lord Mottistone said he thought that one day the Central Hall would be acclaimed as an excellent example of the architecture of the period. I am sure he knows that there is another school of thought which does not hold such an elevated opinion of the Central Hall. Indeed, I have heard it said that as an example of good architecture the less one can see of the Central Hall, the better. I am not taking sides in this matter, but merely pointing out that: there are experts on both sides. All I can say on this subject at present is that, in view of the wide public interest shown in this question, His Majesty's Government are at present giving their close consideration to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Badeley, said that he and his friends did not intend to press for a definite answer to-day. I accept that. I can say only that I will draw the attention of the Government to the suggestions that have been made. I cannot give any hope at all that the Government will look favourably upon the idea of abandoning this site altogether. I can, however, say that the important speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, together with, the new suggestions made, will be brought to their notice. I think I can also say that questions of height, frontage and accommodation are at present under active consideration, and noble Lords well know what that expression means. As soon as a decision is reached by the Government it will be announced.
5.30 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I must not detain you any longer now, because the hour is late. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of thanking all noble Lords who have received me so kindly, and have spoken well of me. I hope that I may do more to deserve your Lordships' kindness. I should like particularly to thank Lord Badeley for speaking about me in such kindly terms. I wish, also, to express my gratitude to Lord Morrison for his courteous reply to my Motion. There
130
are one or two points in his speech with which I do not agree, but I do not think that this is the time to go into them and to seek to answer them, in view of his remark that the Government would like more time to reconsider the matter in detail. That, I think, is the most important point. If they will do that, and will reconsider the matter, I will gladly ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion now, on the understanding that the model will be exhibited so that everyone can see what we mean, and that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter again when the Government have their proposals ready.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVERPOOL EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
LLOYD'S BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL [H.L.]
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
OXFORD MOTOR SERVICES BILL [H.L.]
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
UTTOXETER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a

U.S.A. AND FORTHCOMING COLOMBO CONFERENCE
LORD CALVERLEYasked His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the announcement of the State Department in Washington that the U.S.A. is to be represented at the next Commonwealth Conference in Ceylon, the Government will clarify the situation by stating exactly the position of the U.S.A. at this Conference in order to avoid misunderstanding.
LORD OGMORE: The meeting which is due to open in Colombo at the official level on February 12 is not solely a Commonwealth Conference. The Report

131
of the Commonwealth Consultative Committee, which met last in London in September, stressed the hope that it would be possible for non-Commonwealth countries to take part fully in the Colombo Plan in the very near future. Indeed, representatives of the non-Commonwealth countries in the South and South-East Asian area attended the London meeting as observers. As in the case of the London meeting, invitations to the forth-
132
coming meeting of the Consultative Committee in Colombo have been sent to Burma, Indonesia, Thailand and the Associated States of Indo-China, as well as to the Commonwealth countries concerned. In addition, the Ceylon Government have invited the United States and Philippines.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before six o'clock.