Sitting of 1 December 1953

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

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to ensure that a compassionate posting or compassionate leave is granted to 22768090 Craftsman W. B. Cosslett, Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers, 3, Spring Gardens, Cadoxton, Barry, Glamorgan, now serving in the Middle East, who prior to his call-up for National Service was abroad for long periods during service in the Mercantile Marine, for reasons stated in correspondence from the hon. Member for Barry; and, in particular, because of the ill-health of the wife, mother and mother-in-law of Craftsman Cosslett, and the strain upon his wife, following the birth of a child.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): No, Sir. I have had inquiries made and I am glad to say that the health of this soldier's wife, mother and mother-in-law is now satisfactory.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this? Is he aware that in normal circumstances the man would not have been called up at all because he was a member of the Mercantile Marine and it was only anxiety about the health of so many relatives which detained him on shore? It was under those circumstances that he was called up. He has now been abroad continuously for very many years. Cannot a more humane attitude be adopted towards this case in view of all the circumstances?
    Mr. Head: The man was available for call-up and was called up and sent to the Army. The grounds on which he has asked for compassionate release are not
    926
    really those which justify it, since the health of the relatives concerned is, I understand, satisfactory.
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the case of 22288898 M. Brennan, I/R Norfolks, B.A.P.O.I., Hong Kong.
    Mr. Head: I have written to the hon. Lady about this case.
    Mrs. Braddock: I thank the Minister for the letter I received this morning, but will he bear in mind that this man's service was excellent in his first period, and it was only when he found himself back during the second period of service that he intimated to his commanding officer about his previous period and why he had been discharged? If notice had been taken of that immediately, is it not a fact that he would not have got into these difficulties, and does not some responsibility fall upon those in the Services for this man's conduct within the last few months?
    Mr. Head: I can assure the hon. Lady that I looked into this case very carefully, and, before this man intimated about his previous service, he had got a very poor conduct sheet and was causing a great deal of trouble. The man is now going to leave the Army, and I think on the whole, although I regret it, that after what has happened that will be the best course.
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 22781161 Drummer Boy N. S. H. Gallagher, 1st Battalion East Lancashire Regiment, age 17, now at Barnard Castle, Durham, in detention, is refused a mattress to sleep on; and whether he will institute a full inquiry at once and make a statement.
    Mr. Head: I am having a full inquiry made into this case.
    Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to see that the Army Regulations are carried out and that permission is given to sleep on a mattress? Is it not very bad that this attitude has been adopted?
    Mr. Head: I shall not have any information as to what happened until the inquiry has taken place, but as soon as it has finished I shall write to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to several inquiries which are in contemplation. What is the reason for them all? Is there something wrong at the War Office, and if so, is the right hon. Gentleman giving it his attention?
    Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the Army totals 440,000 men and that occasionally some of them get into trouble.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we were sitting on the Government side of the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "There was no Army worth talking about."] Ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we were sitting on the Government side of the House there was hardly a complaint of this kind and that we did not need to hold inquiries because we had a firm grip on the administration.
    Mr. Head: I do not want to squabble about the period when the British Army was best. It is a very fine Army, whoever is looking after it, but, as the right hon. Gentleman should be able to recall, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge there was lots of trouble. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had terrible troubles, as had the right hon. Gentlemen himself, and I remember a troopship going to Korea about which he misled the House.
    Mr. Shinwell: Can I ask whether it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to have a court of inquiry to decide when I misled the House, as is suggested by the Minister?

    T.A. Officers
    Mr. Gloverasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers now serving on a Territorial Army engagement have battle experience; how many of these officers are over 40 years of age; and how many of the officers in the field force units are still category A1.
    Mr. Head: To get the exact details asked for would involve a special and laborious inquiry. I do know that in March this year about 3,400 officers in the Territorial Army are over 40.Nearly all of them served during the late war. As regards medical fitness, the exact position in Field Force units is not recorded day by day, but if these units
    928
    had to be embodied the number of their officers unfit for worldwide service would be small.
    Mr. Glover: If 3,000 or 4,000 officers are over 40, is my right hon. Friend happy about the command position in the Territorial Army when these officers reach retiring age in three or four years time in view of the fact that they are the ones with battle experience and also that today the Territorial Army is the Reserve Army and must, therefore, be ready for embodiment and action in a matter of three or four weeks? Does my right hon. Friend—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not ask supplementary questions which are too long.
    Mr. Head: It is a big problem in the Territorial Army to find volunteers to replace the officers who are growing older. When we have a long period of peace, as we hope to have, there always arises a moment when we cease to have battalion commanders with battle experience.

    Mailbags, Singapore (Loss)
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances 56 mailbags containing approximately 250,000 undelivered letters from and to soldiers serving in Korea have been discovered at Singapore; and what action has been taken.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement about the letters mislaid at Singapore.
    Mr. Head: The mail concerned was restricted to letters from or due for delivery to passengers in troopships. The number of letters delayed is not some 250,000, but is between 80 and 90 thousand. Special steps have been taken to supervise the delivery and collection of mails in troopships. The man alleged to be responsible is to be tried by court-martial.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Press announced that one non-commissioned officer has been detained in connection with the matter? Is he really telling the House that the superintendence of a pile of 80,000 to 90,000 letters which had been kept for some weeks is a matter within the sole responsibility of one non-commissioned officer?

    929
    Will our Forces in the Far East be able to operate without this very useful man?
    Mr. Head: I very much regret this incident in connection with this mail. At the moment it is the subject of a court-martial. As soon as that is over there will also be a court of inquiry, which has had to be suspended until the court-martial is over, because evidence cannot be given in two places at once. The man is attached to the civil Post Office in Singapore, and for this reason supervision comes from that organisation.
    Mr. Mellish: Why not put the senior officers in the Army Postal Services on court-martial?
    Mr. Head: That will arise.

    Household Brigade, Polo Club (Grooms)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Secretary of State for War why troopers of the Household Brigade have been used as grooms for the Household Brigade Polo Club and other polo clubs associated with the Brigade of Guards; how many such troopers have been employed for this purpose since January, 1953; and why they were withdrawn from other duties and training for this purpose.
    Mr. Head: Under authority given to recognised Army saddle clubs, four men were employed in this way between April and August, 1953.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it not scandalous that troopers should be employed at public expense for private entertainment for officers in off-duty hours, and is it not time that we stopped treating the Brigade of Guards as the only Government-subsidised social club in the country and brought an end to this sort of practice?
    Mr. Head: This concession, which was made to the Army as a whole, was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I do not feel that it is for me to be less keen about saddle clubs than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the very first I have ever heard of it? I am completely uninformed, and since I am completely uninformed on this subject, will he hold an inquiry and have it conducted in public?
    Mr. Head: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that an eye for detail is a great asset in the War Office.

    W.D. Vehicles (Rear Lights)
    Colonel J. H. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the interests of road safety, he will arrange for all War Department vehicles to be fitted with two efficient rear lamps as soon as possible.
    Mr. Head: By 1st October next year, all War Department vehicles will be fitted with twin red rear reflectors. Nearly all the vehicles obtained by the Army since the war are fitted with two rear lights and we are now examining the problem of modifying the remaining vehicles.
    Colonel Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he can have a second rear light placed on these vehicles, as provided in a Bill passed in the last Session of Parliament, it may help to avoid accidents, and is he aware that many of the vehicles in B.R.S. are having that done at the present time?

    Recruiting Figures
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War why Army recruiting figures for the first nine months of 1952 and 1953 have fallen from 43,711 to 35,763, respectively.
    Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 14th July this year.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Are not these figures—and I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can deny the figures for the year ending September, 1953—clear evidence of the present Government's dismal failure to honour their past assurances that they knew how to encourage voluntary recruitment for the Regular Army?
    Mr. Head: The figures last year were an all-time record for the Army. This year they are not so good. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the reason why, I should be most grateful if he would tell me. It is a topic of great interest within the War Office, and they are anxious to know if it is possible to

    931
    make the position better. Although the figures for this year are less than for the preceding 12 months, they are far from being disappointing.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister accept a memorandum from me explaining why the present figures are falling?

    Home Guard (Enrolments)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War the latest recruiting figures for the Home Guard in the county of London and elsewhere.
    Mr. Head: By 15th November 34,162 men were enrolled and 27,305 had joined the Reserve Roll for enrolment in an emergency. This is an increase of just under 3,000 in the past month. On the same date in the county of London 844 men were enrolled and 423 were on the Reserve Roll.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would help Home Guard recruiting if the Government agreed that Reserve liabilities of all men over 40 would be waived if they joined the Home Guard?
    Mr. Head: There is at present an arrangement whereby any man on the Reserve who wishes to join the Home Guard may apply to the War Office for permission to do so, and, provided he has not an absolutely vital rôle in the Service, that permission is granted.

    Unexploded Missiles, Ridsdale
    Mr. Speirasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fatalities earlier this year, what search for unexploded missiles has recently been conducted in the Ridsdale area of Northumberland; and what was the result of such search.
    Mr. Head: This is being done. So far nothing dangerous has been found, but the search is continuing.
    Mr. Speir: Is the Minister aware that although this accident happened nearly seven months ago not only have two boys been killed, but a dog has been blown up and other missiles have been found in the area by other children? Should a search not have been conducted and completed by now?
    Mr. Head: There are a number of cases of dangerous obstacles all over the
    932
    country. We have only a limited number of personnel, and we have given certain priorities. This was started as quickly as possible, but we have concentrated to some extent on agricultural land.

    Security Patrols, Kenya (Instructions)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for War what instructions are given to troops on security patrols in Kenya.
    Mr. Head: These instructions are, in general terms, the normal orders given to troops operating on internal security duties where part of the population is hostile. Special detailed instructions are given with regard to examination of documents, challenging, and when troops may open fire.
    Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether a copy of these instructions can be placed in the Library along with the other documents which he is to place there, and will he say whether it is possible to employ on this difficult and dangerous work officers who have experience of similar work and conditions, or whether that would be administratively impossible?
    Mr. Head: It would be nice if all officers operating in, say, Kenya had experience of similar work, but it so happens that with battalions going round such a situation hardly ever occurs. What is being done is that special instructions are issued, training takes place, and we have to carry on with the officers who are there.

    British Guiana (Christmas Leave)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what Christmas leave is to be given to soldiers now in British Guiana.
    Mr. Head: So far as military duties permit, Christmas and New Year's Day will be holidays. The question of local leave is difficult, but those who get private invitations will get leave whenever possible.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the Scottish soldiers and the Welsh Fusiliers in Guiana are not to be allowed home

    933
    for Christmas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are now afraid that they will be sent to Buganda, and that if the Colonial Secretary is going to mess up things in all parts of the world, the Scottish soldiers will never come home?

    National Service (Compassionate Cases)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to ensure fuller consideration of applications from National Service men for compassionate leaves or postings; and, in particular, that wherever possible, two members of the same family shall not be required to perform their National or Reserve Service at the same time.
    Mr. Head: It is my view and intention that all applications for compassionate leave should be most carefully investigated and sympathetically considered. They must, however, be restricted to real cases of hardship. In considering applications for deferment of Reserve training, the absence of another member of the family in the Services is always taken into account, if it contributes to the grounds of hardship.
    Mr. Gower: Is the Minister aware that I am not asking him to revolutionise the system of call-up but merely to take a more generous view of these applications? Will he bear in mind particularly the hardship that can result to a family when a number of people are called up at the same time?
    Mr. Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider more sympathetically than in the past the question of a National Service man who is the only child, whose father has died a few months previously to his call-up and within three months that man goes abroad, and a woman is left with a nervous break-down? I have had a number of cases of men who have been sent abroad without any consideration whatever.
    Mr. Head: We try to consider each case on its merits, but it is not altogether easy to arrive at a decision. The kind of case outlined by the hon. Gentleman is, I should think, the kind of case for which compassionate leave would have been granted.
    Mr. Shurmer: It has not been granted in the past.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Horticultural Produce (Import Duties)
    Mrs. Castleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on horticultural tariffs.
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement about the imposition of a tariff on imported horticultural produce, in general, and on foreign tomatoes, in particular.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals announced yesterday, since they involve increases of anything from 100 per cent. to 400 per cent. on a large range of fruit and vegetables, must mean a steep increase in the cost of living, and that as the housewife will now, for example, have to pay 2d. duty on an early lettuce, which before came in quota free, can the right hon. Gentleman say which consumer interests he consulted before making this abject surrender to the National Farmers Union?
    Mr. Amory: I think that the increases proposed are very moderate, and I would remind the hon. Lady that a high and stable home production is in the interests of both consumers and of producers. I would also remind her that the cost of living has now been almost stable for 16 months.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the additional measure of protection for horticultural producers in the United Kingdom, notably in Worcestershire and in Kent, announced in Cmd. 9018, is warmly welcomed by all these interests which have been penalised heavily in the last few years by unrestricted continental imports?
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland the house wives are disgusted at this agreement, and has he made any inquiry as to why tomatoes in the Clyde Valley, which is the growing district of tomatoes, are always 6d. a lb. more than in England?

    935
    Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prices are stabilised in the roof because they cannot get higher than the roof?
    Mr. Amory: I suggest to the hon. Lady that those are the kind of points which we may discuss usefully when we come to consider the affirmative Resolution.
    Mr. Jay: Can the Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend by saying which consumers' representatives he consulted?
    Mr. Amory: Organisations representing all interests, producers, distributors and consumers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which consumers?"]—I am unable to say which, but if the hon. Lady will put down a Question, I shall do my best to answer it.

    Exports to China
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will now grant licences for the export of small generating sets to China;
    (2) if he will now grant licences for the export of steel tubes and telephone cables to China.
    Mr. Amory: The export to China of steel tubes, telephone cable and generating sets of all sizes is prohibited in all the countries which are members of the Strategic Controls Consultative Group, and we are therefore not in a position to license this trade.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that his assertion is quite untrue? Does he not know that telephone cables are being exported from Belgium, that steel tubes are being exported from Germany, and will he also say in what way small generating sets are considered more strategic than the motor cars on which the embargo has been lifted?
    Mr. Amory: As regards the first part of the Question, all the members of the Consultative Group are in line on this matter, and all the items I have mentioned are prohibited by agreement, so that if what the hon. Gentleman says is so, I shall be grateful if he will let me have information on those specific points. As to whether small generating sets are more
    936
    strategic than motor cars, I can only say that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and the other members of the Consultative Group, they are.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor vehicles have been exported to China in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Amory: Exports of motor vehicles from this country to China in the last three years have been negligible. There were two in each of the years 1950 and 1951, one in 1952, and none this year up to the end of October.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that recent visitors to Peking report that it is as full of new American cars as Grosvenor Square? Is he further aware that what is good for General Motors is good for this country? What is he going to do to overtake the American lead which Senator McCarthy has established in this export?
    Mr. Amory: We have been making inquiries into this point, but there is no evidence at present to show that the embargo is not being adhered to by the other members of the Group.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that, through Japan, these cars are being exported from the United States and straight on into China?
    Mr. Amory: We have no evidence of that at present. If the hon. Gentleman has, I should be glad if he would let me have it.
    Mr. Robson Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in this country, whatever the Ministry may feel, that considerable tonnages of this kind of material are going into China from the U.S.A. at this time, and, while there are strong representations and attacks on this country from the United States of America in this respect, will my right hon. Friend take steps to check this matter and bring the evidence before the House?
    Mr. Amory: I have already said that we are endeavouring to make inquiries, but my hon. Friend will realise that we can only act on specific evidence. That is why I am anxious that if any hon. Member has any, he will let me have it.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government propose to the United States Government that Senator McCarthy might inquire into General Motors?
    Mr. Mikardo: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese have been able to buy large quantities of motor cars and steel tubes and generating sets and other things in many parts of the world by paying for them with the several hundred millions of dollars which they have got through exports to the United States over the last three years?
    Mr. Amory: I am not aware of that on present evidence.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In view of these allegations, will the Minister call for a report from our representative in Peking?
    Mr. Amory: As I said, inquiries are being made. We have had already an interim report and are expecting a further report from our representative in Peking.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that no one in the Board of Trade up to the present knows anything at all about these series of imports through the back door, from America via Japan into China?
    Mr. Amory: I think that I have already made it clear that we can only act on definite evidence, and definite evidence is lacking on the allegations made.
    Mr. de Freitas: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences have been received for orders from China for British motor cars; and how many licences have been issued.
    Mr. Amory: One formal application has been made this year, which was approved.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say whether we have now the enthusiastic co-operation of the Government in promoting the sale of motor cars to China?
    Mr. Amory: Small cars can now be exported to China and we should like to see that trade in small cars increased.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that Austins have a contract with China for £1,500,000 worth of motor vehicles which are awaiting licences from the Board of Trade? Could not the Minister say something about that?
    Mr. Amory: The question which I was asked was what applications we have had, and the only definite application we have had is the one to which I have referred.

    Machinery Imports (Report)
    Mr. Stevensasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the report of the Wilson-Smith Committee on Duty-free Imports of Machinery; and if he is aware that an early report is necessary.
    Mr. Robson Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the committee, which is considering the duty-free entry of machinery, will be making their report, particularly having regard to the financial difficulties which many small manufacturers are experiencing in the matter of import of special types of machinery not manufactured in this country; and the effect that this is having, both upon productivity and our export trade.
    Mr. Amory: I understand that the committee hope to complete their report early next year. The committee are, I know, aware that it is desirable that the report on this complex and difficult subject should be presented as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend once more stress that urgency, because much of this machinery is used for the production of articles for which there is a substantial export demand, and the sooner we have the report the sooner there will be hope of increased exports?
    Mr. Amory: I agree entirely as to the importance of this question, and I know that the committee will not delay the matter one moment longer than it can help.
    Mr. Robson Brown: Whilst thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are a large number of small firms with limited capital

    939
    in this country engaged on important export work who find this embargo extremely difficult and embarrassing to them, and any relief would be a great help to them?
    Mr. Amory: That is the type of question which I am sure the committee is considering.

    Development Areas
    Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade which local authorities he has consulted with a view to removing areas from the list of those scheduled as Development Areas under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): None, Sir. No occasion to do so has yet arisen.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Minister think very carefully before interfering with arrangements which have proved so successful but which have by no means finished the job?
    Mr. Strauss: Yes, I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but I am sure that he will agree that it is the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to bear in mind the provisions of Section 7 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of great interest to Scotland, and can he give an assurance that this sort of thing is not being considered at all?
    Mr. Strauss: It would be entirely improper to give an assurance that the President of the Board of Trade is going to ignore the provisions of a section of a statute, but there is no cause for apprehension. If the right hon. Gentleman will study the provisions of Section 7, he will note that before the President takes any action or asks Parliament for approval, which will be necessary, he has to consult the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. Can you help us, Mr. Speaker? Can something be done to make the Minister's voice more cheerful? It is making us so unhappy on this side of the House.

    American Economic Aid
    Mr. Palmerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make avail able details of the consultancy service to be initiated by the National Union of Manufacturers with the £5,000 to be granted to them from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The National Union of Manufacturers is engaging a technical assistance officer, whose duty it will be to keep members of the National Union informed about technical developments, to advise generally on measures to improve productivity and on the best sources for specialised advice on technical matters. He will be available for consultation by non-members of the National Union.
    Mr. Palmer: While recognising the generosity that made this assistance available, may I ask the Minister whether British manufacturers are now so poor and bankrupt that they cannot provide at their own expense the kind of technical service which this consultancy service is supposed to give?
    Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member would be wrong in concluding that they are not providing some of the funds necessary for this purpose. This is an additional grant.
    Mr. Palmerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the trade and employers associations which are to receive a share of the £72,000 total grant from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid; and the sum allocated to each association.
    Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend cannot yet give this information since discussions are still in progress, but he expects to be able to do so soon.
    Mr. Palmerasked the President of the Board of Trade the terms and conditions on which he has invited applications for loans to industry from the revolving loan fund made available from counterpart funds derived from American Economic Aid.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I would refer the hon. Member to the explanatory leaflet of which I am sending him a copy.

    Fforestfach Trading Estate
    Mr. P. Morrisasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the maximum use of the Fforestfach Trading Estate where excellent sites are available for every kind of light industry.
    Mr. H. Strauss: We bring this Estate and the facilities it offers to the notice of industrialists at every suitable opportunity.
    Mr. Morris: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman invite his right hon. Friend to modify the rents in the interests of the small business man who is anxious to avail himself of the sites there? Is he further aware that the Swansea local authority is anxious that the initiative which it took in acquiring this Estate and arranging for the Board of Trade to have it should not be nullified?
    Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend shares the hon. Member's desire that the excellent opportunities offered by this Estate should be used. The question of rent is quite separate.

    American Tobacco Purchase
    Mr. Gaitskellasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how he proposes to ensure that the recent purchase of tobacco under the United States Mutual Security Act, 1953, does not displace usual marketings of the United States of America or friendly countries:
    (2) how he proposes to ensure that the tobacco recently purchased under the United States Mutual Security Act, 1953, is not resold or transhipped to other countries and does not involve the resale or transhipment of additional quantities of other tobacco.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Our reserves of tobacco are so low, and manufacturers are so anxious to improve them, that my right hon. Friend regards the possibility of other stocks or purchases being displaced by the tobacco acquired under the Mutual Security Act as remote. My right hon. Friend has nevertheless required importers to give written undertakings that(a) they will treat this tobacco as an addition to stocks which will be kept at the higher level, (b) they will maintain their United States tobacco
    942
    purchasing programme this year at the level previously contemplated, and (c) the tobacco will not be resold or transhipped to other countries in an unmanufactured state. Tobacco cannot be exported except under licence.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Am I to understand from that reply that this tobacco will be put to stock and left in stock permanently so that there will never be any increase in consumption?
    Mr. Strauss: No, that would not be the right conclusion.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, how will the hon. Gentleman satisfy the American Government if he does not increase consumption?
    Mr. Strauss: It is not a question of how we are going to satisfy the American Government because, of course, we have already done so.

    German Exports (Subsidies)
    Mr. Grimondasked the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the extent to which British ex ports, particularly of locomotives, have been adversely affected by exports from Western Germany competing with the aid of a Government subsidy.
    Mr. Fienburghasked the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has that the West German Government are directly or indirectly subsidising the export of capital goods in competition with this country; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Amory: I have no evidence that the export of capital goods, including locomotives, is directly subsidised by the Government of Western Germany, but all German exporters receive some benefit from the remission of a proportion of their tax payments. Her Majesty's Government have taken a lead in international efforts to eliminate export incentives of this kind which amount to indirect subsidies.
    Mr. Grimond: Does not this remission amount in fact to a subsidy and, if so, is it in accordance with the international obligations of Germany?
    Mr. Amory: We are taking up through the various agencies the question of the discontinuation of all export subsidies by Government.
    Mr. Fienburgh: Is the Minister further aware that credit terms offered to various German manufacturers are such as to appear to be disguised subsidies? Will he also look into that matter?
    Mr. Amory: We are looking into that matter too, but though the question of credit available may have some influence on these lost orders, price is the main reason.

    Sunderland Trading Estates (Factory)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the future use of Messrs. Price Tailors Limited, Sunderland Trading Estates factory.
    Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir. I cannot add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 12th November.
    Mr. Willey: Will the Minister realize that this factory is now standing idle and that this is very disturbing to us in Sunderland? Is he aware that we should like to see some evidence of vigorous intervention by his Department?
    Mr. Strauss: I can assure the hon. Member that everything possible has been done and that the company which he has named is receiving every help from the Board of Trade.

    Rank Organisation (Booking Arrangements)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations have been made to his Department by the National Film Finance Corporation about the booking practices of two of the major cinema circuits; and what action he proposes to take;
    (2) if he is now in a position to state that the assurances given to his Department in 1948 by two major film circuits to the effect that film bookings were made separately on behalf of the two circuits are still being fully honoured.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Since the debate on the Second Reading of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill on the25th November, I have ascertained that the Chairman of the National Film Finance Corporation in the course of a recent letter expressed some concern on this subject. A sentence in my immediate reply to an intervention by the right hon.
    944
    Gentleman on that occasion was therefore misleading and I apologise for the mistake. We have no evidence that the undertakings given to the Board of Trade by the Rank Organisation in 1947 and 1948 are not being fully honoured or that there has been any change in the booking arrangements; but we are making further inquiry.
    Mr. Wilson: Whilst thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for his apology for an answer given with some little heat, may I ask if he is aware that this case shows the need for making much more thorough inquiry into allegations made from this side of the House before Ministers state things categorically? Will the Minister make further inquiries among the circuits themselves to see whether they are carrying out the practices previously alleged?
    Mr. Strauss: As I stated in my original answer, I am making further inquiry and that will be addressed to the Rank Organisation.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Football Pools (Duty)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of tax which he gleans from football pools; and what is the total sum on which this tax is levied.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The amount of Pool Betting Duty collected in respect of football and similar pools in the financial year 1952–53 was £20,403,503, levied on gross stake money of £68,011,677. Separate figures for Income and Profits Tax are not available.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Chancellor aware that of this turnover of £60 million, Littlewoods, Vernons and similar pools get £8 million to £10 million? Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the excellent example of Sweden where, under public ownership, they plough back something like £8 million for the sake of physical education? Is he further aware that the Players' Union have suggested that we should plough back some of these profits for the good of the game itself?
    Mr. Butler: I am naturally ready to examine any submissions which the hon. Member makes to me.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would it not be a measure of justice to return a little of this money to the men who make this income for the Treasury possible—namely, professional footballers—by remitting Income Tax on their benefits?
    Mr. Butler: This matter has been frequently debated, but the Government's case has proved to be almost unanswerable.
    Mr. Albu: Has the Chancellor observed that in Norway profits from football pools are used to finance scientific research? Does he not think that a better way of using the profits than by the establishment of further chain stores?
    Mr. Butler: While we have no earmarking of the sources of revenue in the British system, it is quite clear that a certain amount accrues to the British Treasury and is used in the most benign way possible by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Chancellor consider taking more of this money from the promoters of pools and using it for the benefit of physical education? Will he also reconsider the question of taxation of football benefits, which is a grave injustice?
    Mr. Butler: The latter matter is quite separate from the original Question, and the former matter is covered by the statement that I will give the question further consideration.

    Museums and Art Galleries (Grants)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sums granted to museums in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively, for the last year for which figures are available; and what sums were granted in 1939.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The total sums voted for 1953–54 for the national museums, galleries and libraries were £1,341,000, £112,000 and £118,000 for England, Wales and Scotland, respectively. The corresponding totals for 1939–40 were £611,000, £37,000 and
    946
    £41,000. The amounts for England and Scotland do not cover the cost of buildings and equipment provided by other Departments.

    European Payments Union (Dr. Erhardt's Speech)
    Mr. Gaitskellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has read the recent speech of Professor Erhardt, the German Minister of Economics, attacking the European Payments Union; and whether he will disassociate Her Majesty's Government from these views.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have read the Press reports of Dr. Erhardt's speech. These matters are, of course, under current discussion in O.E.E.C. At the October Council meeting my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I made it clear that we support the continuation of E.P.U. in very much its present form until the time comes for a transition to a wider system.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Chancellor realise that that statement will give much satisfaction to many people in this country and in Europe?

    Wales (Separate Accounting)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now cause to be published for Wales, as is being done for Scotland, the net receipts from various taxes, an analysis of Schedule D assessments by industry, a classification of the number of estates liable to Estate Duty, Surtax assessments, Profits Tax and Excess Profits Tax assessments and post-war credits repaid.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. Separate figures for Wales are not available and could not be prepared without an inordinate amount of labour and expense.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that for once a sympathetic gesture towards the people of Wales might be appreciated instead of this constant creation of resentment and anger at the completely unsympathetic attitude of the Government towards the people of that nation?
    Mr. Butler: I should have thought that the people of Wales never had better consideration than under the care and attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs. In

    947
    regard to the details of accounts, this is purely a physical difficulty. Many Parliamentary Questions have been answered illustrating the difficulty. If the difficulty could be overcome, I would be only too sympathetic.
    Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that in recent years many Departments have started to produce separate statistics for Wales and that, by a small extension of this process, we could rapidly reach a state of affairs in which Wales would be placed in a similar position to that of Scotland?
    Mr. Butler: I have had furnished for me all the answers I have given to my hon. Friend on the subject. I would simply ask him to refer to what I have said in previous replies, which I regret still presents difficulties almost impossible to overcome.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the difficulty in respect of Wales which, in his mind, is insuperable, while this can be done for Scotland? Cannot Wales be treated in this respect on the same footing as Scotland? What is the difficulty which is peculiar to Wales and not to Scotland?
    Mr. Butler: For one thing, the collection of taxes in Scotland is primarily under the control of the Controller of Stamps and Taxes in Scotland. Scotland also has its own Estate Duties Office. Apart from these reasons and others, it is easier to make this computation for Scotland than it would be for Wales.
    Mr. Llewellyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people in Wales entirely agree with the terms of his reply?
    Hon. Members: No.

    Customs Duty (Iron Long)
    Mr. Wellwoodasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that an iron lung, being imported to the City and County Hospital, Londonderry, from the City of Dublin Skin and Cancer Hospital, was held up for six weeks at the border by the United Kingdom Customs authorities, pending payment of duty by tine hospitals authority; and whether he will take steps to permit urgent medical supplies consigned to hospitals to be
    948
    admitted immediately, and for payment to be settled later.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The hospital authorities did not furnish full particulars of the goods for Customs entry and clearance when they arrived on 26th October. On inquiry of the Customs a day or so later, they were told that immediate clearance could be obtained by paying a deposit sufficient to cover any possible duty due, this deposit being adjusted later when full particulars came to hand. The authorities at no time indicated that clearance was required urgently, and advantage was not taken of the deposit facilities until 25th November, when the goods were cleared out of Customs charge.

    Gas Water-heating Appliances (Tax)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to facilitate the clean food campaign in shops, he will abolish the Purchase Tax on hot-water geysers.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) on this subject.

    St. Lawrence Seaway and Vancouver Island Schemes
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made to allow British capital to participate in the St. Lawrence Seaway and Vancouver Island schemes.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am anxious to facilitate British participation in these schemes and will do my best to provide dollars for any suitable project.
    Mr. Grimond: Has the Chancellor received any requests so far for the release of dollars for either of these schemes?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think I have actually received requests but we know that there are people interested.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Chancellor aware that these schemes are closely bound up with the development of the ironfields in Labrador, that the shortest journey to them is from Glasgow, and

    949
    that it would be a great opportunity if we could get Labrador ore by having an exchange of trade, we buying their iron and they buying our machinery?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, I am aware of the possibility to which the right hon. Gentleman calls attention.

    Brewery, Pimlico (Rateable Value)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the rateable value of the Stag Brewery, Pimlico, is £6,438; and whether he is satisfied that this valuation bears a proper relation to the land value of the 7·9 acres occupied by the brewery and offices.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I understand that the present rateable value is £6,845. Rating law does not require a separate valuation of the site and none has been made.
    Mr. Stokes: I know, but that is not an answer to the Question I asked. Is the Chancellor aware that as long as 25 years ago land in the neighbourhood was sold at £100,000 per acre, which would make this site then worth more than £800,000? Is it not quite absurd that the rateable value should be very nearly less than half of 1 per cent., taking into consideration the value of the land as well as the buildings? Surely there must be something wrong with the whole rating system.
    Mr. Butler: I cannot go further than saying that the rating law does not require the separate valuation of the site. On the general question of revaluation the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that revaluation is at present not only under active consideration but is the subject of action.
    Mr. Stokes: I know, but can the Chancellor say when he is going to do something about it because many Governments have evaded this issue for quite a long time?

    Valuation Officers
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what staff are employed on visiting and measuring houses for valuation purposes; and how far it is their practice first of all to see if there are plans of the said houses in the offices of the local authority.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Some 1,500 staff are employed on this work. In the case of council houses and new and altered private houses they normally make use of any plans in the possession of the local authority.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some small towns in my constituency it is believed that quite a number of amateurs are employed on this work? One would almost say that they are making jobs for themselves and they are not really doing the work as efficiently as it might be done.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend will, I know, be aware, this is the first general revaluation since 1934. It is a very big job. If my hon. Friend has any particulars of any case in which it has not been done as well as he thinks it should be done I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman direct the attention of these officials to the Stag Brewery in Pimlico?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer which has just been given to him by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: Yes, but it was wholly unsatisfactory.

  RETIRED OFFICERS' PAY
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether he will move to appoint a Select Committee to investigate the grievance of Service officers drawing retired pay at 9½ per cent. below the 1919 level.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to adopt this proposal.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that what distinguishes this claim from other claims is not that these retired officers are starving, but that they are being defrauded? Is he also aware that hon. Members will continue to press this matter—even though a few of them have run away from the Motion they signed last week following evasion of his responsibility?
  The Prime Minister: The usual procedure of the Session will enable this and other similar matters to be debated.
  Mr. Wood: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to publish a White Paper giving the numbers of officers in the various categories and also giving details of claims which are considered comparable to the restoration of this cut to these officers?
  The Prime Minister: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion which has been made.

  PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE (QUESTIONS)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister which Minister will answer Questions on his behalf during his absence in Bermuda.
  The Prime Minister: Questions should be put down in the usual way. I will arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal, or the Minister most closely connected with the subject matter to answer Questions on my behalf.

  U.S.S.R. (HYDROGEN BOMB)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss with President Eisenhower at Bermuda questions arising out of the Soviet pos session of a hydrogen bomb and its international implications.
  The Prime Minister: In the course of the conversations between the President of the United States, the French Premier and myself at Bermuda, many subjects may come up for discussion.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of impressing on the President of the United States and the French Prime Minister that a war with H bombs and atom bombs would be a catastrophe for both the capitalist and the Communist worlds? Will he impress on them the necessity of meeting the Russians and doing something to avert this possibility?
  The Prime Minister: Many of these ideas are already current in the world and on the other side of the ocean.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now publish a table showing the total number of civil servants in each Department; the numbers who are now allowed to take part in all political activities; the number allowed to take part in certain political activities, and how this restriction applies; and the number who are not allowed to take part in any political activities at all as a result of Command Paper No. 8783.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not yet, Sir.
  Mr. Freeman: When will this information be available? The Command Paper was issued nearly six months ago. This information is necessary, otherwise the Command Paper is a farce.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a matter, first, of classification of the categories concerned, followed by discussions with the Departmental Whitley Council in every Department. It inevitably takes some little time.
  Dr. King: Could not the Minister save himself a lot of work by remembering that civil servants are British citizens like everybody else and ought to have the full political rights of British citizens?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that I need the hon. Gentleman's reminder, nor do I think he needs the reminder that Governments of all parties in this House have realised the enormous value of a Civil Service which not only is but appears to be wholly politically impartial.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Private Street Works
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will bring forward legislation to amend the Private Street Works Act, 1892, so as to provide authority and financial grants to local authorities to make up unmade roads where such roads are in a dangerous condition.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider that answer? Is he not aware that the procedure under the 1892 Act is quite archaic? Is it not his policy to encourage local authorities to step in and take over these streets, which in some cases are very dangerous in developing housing estates? Will he not review this matter?
    Mr. Marples: The local authorities already have power to make up streets at the expense of the frontagers, and in many cases they are so doing.

    New Town Corporations (Land Acquisition)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether in order to simplify procedure, new town corporations can be authorised to pay agreed claims for loss of development value in all cases of acquisition of land, whether by agreement or by compulsion.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is afraid that this is not yet possible in all cases. Where land is acquired compulsorily and the compensation cannot be settled by agreement, the basis of assessment remains fixed by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, until that is amended. There are also some cases where the amount payable on the claim for loss of development value cannot be determined in advance of further legislation. But for the most part public authorities, including new town corporations, are free to pay the amount of the agreed claim relating to the land in addition to the existing use value.
    Mr. Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latter part of his answer will be received with satisfaction by people affected by land transactions in new towns? But in view of the fact that he is limited in the power of direction to new town corporations, will my hon. Friend take special steps to publicise his answer to ensure that the new town corporations observe not only the letter but the spirit of it?
    Mr. Marples: I can assure my hon. Friend that his Question and answer will be brought to the attention of the new town corporations.

    The Peak District (Limestone Quarries)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he considered it necessary to agree to the continued working of three limestone quarries in the Peak district against the advice of the local planning authority and the National Parks Commission.
    Mr. Marples: I am sending the hon. Member copies of letters explaining my right hon. Friend's decisions on these three quarries.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the explanations so far given have been wholly unsatisfactory? Is it not treating the authority rather improperly to disregard the very strong advice which it gave, in view of the anxiety of the planning board to make this national park a real success?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must realise and make the distinction between new industrial development in the national parks and the continuation of the old development there. I would call his attention to the fact that in Elmdon Hill and Sparrowpit the main factors which my right hon. Friend took into consideration was that the local authority supported it and so did the men's union, for the sake of continuing full employment in the district.

  HOUSING

    Overspill Populations
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will consider advising local authorities that in acceptance of overspill population, a proportion of the local authority's own waiting list should be considered at the same time as the overspill population.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is sure that in planning their house-building programmes local authorities in reception towns will hold a balance between the housing needs of their own people and the needs of the exporting authorities.
    Mr. Remnant: Is that merely an opinion, because obviously it is irritating to a degree to those who have been on the waiting list for some years to see a mass of people coming in from outside.

    955
    and it would do much for the relationship between the new and the old if some such formula as is suggested was laid down?
    Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind where he thinks this balance is not being kept, and he will write to my right hon. Friend, we will look at what his objections are.

    Private Loans (Deposits)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider ways and means of making house ownership possible for those who have not got the necessary capital to deposit but have adequate income to repay the loan.
    Mr. Marples: Local authorities have powers under the Housing Acts to make loans to persons wishing to acquire or build houses for their own occupation and also to guarantee loans made by building societies for the same purpose. These powers are discretionary but my right hon. Friend is endeavouring, in consultation with the local authority associations and the Building Societies' Association, to make arrangements whereby these powers will be made more widely known and used.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this will encourage people to own their own houses?

    Unoccupied Properties (Rates)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will consider taking steps to allow local authorities to charge rates at half rate on houses that remain unoccupied for six months or longer.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my hon. Friend realise that if he brought in such a scheme he would have more houses up for sale and fewer waiting to be sold? More houses would be occupied more quickly.

    Sales
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have sold houses under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1952; and what is the number of houses sold up to the latest available date.
    Mr. Marples: One hundred and three local authorities have sold a total of 638 houses up to 31st October, 1953.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister consider making some regular information available to the House on this subject, and also in connection with any conditions which he may require?
    Mr. Marples: I will pass that request on to my right hon. Friend.

  AIR POLLUTION
  Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Air Pollution with regard to the establishment of smokeless zones.
  Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this tomorrow.

KENYA (VISIT OF MEMBERS)
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make with regard to a deputation to Kenya?
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): As the House is aware, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggested some time ago that it would be helpful to a better understanding of the situation in Kenya if a party of Members from both sides of the House were to visit Kenya and see things for themselves. I put this suggestion to the Governor of Kenya who welcomed such a visit. It has now been arranged through the usual channels that the party will leave in the first week of January and will spend about two weeks in Kenya.
The Members visiting Kenya will be: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliott), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams).

KABAKA OF BUGANDA
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I indicated to you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask your permission today to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a subject of urgent public importance, namely
"The decision of Her Majesty's Government to depose the Kabaka of Buganda and to require him to leave its Territory."
I do not wish to interrupt the important debate today on the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, or the Division which will follow it, and I understand there is agreement on both sides of the House that this Adjournment Motion, if acceptable to you, should be taken tomorrow. May I ask, if that is the case, whether you would consider it tomorrow without prejudice?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly will consider it without prejudice tomorrow.

HIGH COURT SUBPOENAS (MEMBERS)
Mr. H. Wilson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement and to seek your guidance on a matter affecting all hon. Members of this House.
On Friday last, at 8.30 in the evening, a subpoena was served on me at my home to attend, at very short notice, namely, at 10.30 a.m. yesterday morning, at the High Court and to remain in court from day to day. I was required to give evidence in a case of which I had no knowledge and with which I had no direct or indirect connection.
I was required to produce on Monday morning minutes and documents of a committee of the Labour Party which are not in my keeping. The evidence I was to give related to discussions, the greater part of which occurred when I was not even a member of that committee. Why I was selected from the 27 members of that committee I do not know.
It was clear to me that compliance with this subpoena would be inconsistent with my duties as a Member of this House. Owing to the very short notice given, it was not possible for me to raise the matter in the House. However, Mr. Speaker, you intervened in the matter, for which I should like to express my
958
thanks. Following the letter which you sent to the learned judge who was trying the case the subpoena was set aside, but I do not feel that the matter can rest there.
I should be most willing, as I am sure all hon. Members would, to give evidence in any case where I could help to assist the administration of justice, and no doubt in such a case arrangements would be made to permit of evidence being given at such a time as would not involve interference with the fulfilment of an hon. Member's duties to this House. But at the same time hon. Members are, I submit, entitled to protection against the issue of frivolous and even malicious subpoenas and from the consequence of sensational misrepresentations in certain organs of the national Press.
I am advised that there is widespread ignorance in the legal profession about the privilege of hon. Members in the matter of subpoenas, and that a declaratory statement by yourself would help to make the position clear.
Mr. Speaker: I would inform the House that I only heard about this for the first time yesterday morning. I immediately sent a letter to the learned judge in charge of the case asking if he would intervene to postpone or set aside the subpoena. This would, I said, obviate the necessity for this House to take the formal and more cumbrous step of refusing leave of absence from the House for the right hon. Gentleman to attend the court that day, in view of the fact that Members of both Houses are, by law and custom of Parliament, exempted from attendance as witnesses during the Sessions of Parliament. I express no opinion whatsoever about the case which is being tried and about which, indeed, I know nothing. I only acted as I did to protect the right hon. Gentleman and to preserve the privileges of this House.
Mr. McGovern: In connection with the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I asked a similar question in 1934, when I was summoned to a Glasgow court because I had been guilty of some disorderly conduct by holding a public meeting without permission? Mr. Speaker FitzRoy decided then that I was bound to attend the court.
Mr. Speaker: I do not recollect the incident, though I was in the House at the time. But there is a distinction to be drawn. All I have ruled on today is the issue of a subpoena to an hon. Member to attend as a witness.

TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE (AGREEMENT)
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about our transatlantic telephone communications. The House will be glad to know that my noble Friend has just signed an agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company of Canada for the provision of the first transatlantic telephone cable. The agreement will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to approval in this House.
The new cable will transform telecommunications between this country and the North American Continent. In place of the existing 12 radio telephone circuits to the U.S. and two to Canada, dependent as they are on the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, we shall have high grade and reliable circuits, about 29 to the U.S. and six to Canada, as well as a number of telegraph circuits to Canada. Further technical development may well increase the number of circuits. Of very great importance also, the new cable will help us to give much better telephone and telegraph services to Australia and New Zealand via Vancouver. This will mean far less interference than with our present radio connections.
The cost will be about £12½ million, and the job will take about three years to complete. The submarine cable will be laid by H.M.T.S. "Monarch," the largest cable ship in the world, which is being specially adapted for this purpose.
I am sure the House will wish me to pay a very special tribute to the engineers on both sides of the Atlantic. Thanks to their persistence and skill something which has been a vision for a quarter of a century has become a reality, and has made possible this tremendous advance in the history of telecommunications.
Mr. Hobson: While congratulating the hon. Gentleman and all those associated with this scheme which was signed but a few minutes ago, may I ask him to inform us whether the submarine cable is to be fitted with submarine repeaters, and, if so, who is to manufacture them? Can he also give an assurance to the House that there will be no delay in bringing forward the affirmative Resolution?
Mr. Gammans: There will be submarine repeaters, about 110 in all, between this country and Newfoundland. We shall use the American system, because they have more experience than we have of deep-sea repeaters. But between Newfoundland and Canada we are to use the British system. There will be no delay in bringing forward the affirmative Resolution, but I cannot tell the hon. Member exactly when it will be laid before the House for discussion.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mrs. Braddock: Mr. Speaker, may I have your guidance on a matter which I consider to be of urgent public importance? I saw you with reference to a Private Notice Question on a matter which is causing great concern to many people in my constituency and in my city. It concerns the fact that a youth was handcuffed and chained to the roof of a van when being removed from a police station to the detention camp at Formby. You told me when I saw you that it was impossible to raise that matter as one of urgent public importance or interest, and I should like to know on what basis that Ruling was given and why it was impossible to raise a matter of that sort which is of great importance to many parents whose boys are called up for National Service. Also, I should like to know the reason why I was not permitted to visit the boy when I made a perfectly reasonable request to the major at the detention camp.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady submitted a Question to me to be asked by Private Notice of the Secretary of State for War which concerned an individual case. In the matter of Questions by Private Notice I have a duty to the House to see that time is not taken up by Questions which are not of sufficient general importance

961
to be asked by Private Notice. It is true that every private case is important to the individuals concerned, and I know that this matter is of great importance to the hon. Lady. Every private case is of importance because probably the liberties of the State are the sum of our liberties as individuals.
At the same time, in choosing Questions for Private Notice it is the custom, except in very exceptional circumstances, not to deal with individual cases but to offer to the hon. Member concerned the ordinary resources of Parliament. When I considered this matter—and realised too this morning that the soldier in respect of whom the Question was asked has escaped from the guardroom—I could not bring myself to the view that an inquiry into these past circumstances was of sufficient urgency to justify my acceding to the hon. Lady's request.
Mr. Wigg: There is one aspect of this problem which concerns every hon. Member. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) asked permission of the War Office, or a representative of the War Office—the soldier's commanding officer—to interview her constituent in the guardroom. The Secretary of State for War, or an officer acting on his behalf, refused permission. I should have thought that was a most serious matter and that any hon. Member who wanted to see a constituent to arrange for that soldier's defence had a right to
962
do so. I should have thought that the fact that that right was denied the hon. Member was a matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Speaker: On that issue, I understood from the hon. Lady that it was the officer on the spot who refused permission—a senior officer. It has been frequently ruled that in the matter of seeing prisoners, whether of a civil or military power, an hon. Member is in no better position than a member of the public. That has been settled by a long series of decisions, and that being an old matter I could not regard it as of sufficient importance to justify a Private Notice Question.
Mr. Keenan: Is not the position becoming rather difficult because cases of this kind are arising so frequently, especially in the Army? In order to get redress hon. Members have to try to adopt the measures adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). What other form of redress have we when the administration of some officers in the Army is so callous that National Service men and their parents are very upset?
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members have all the other resources of Parliamentary procedure open to them in addition to Private Notice Questions. I have experience of these resources being frequently used.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): Yesterday the House listened to many valuable speeches from hon. Members on both sides. This is the kind of debate which shows the very wide experience that hon. Gentlemen have of the conditions in which the people of this country live. On this side of the House we noticed that hon. Members opposite could not make up their minds whether the Bill is a mouldy turnip or a piece of cake for the landlords. We liked that divergency of opinion because it shows my right hon. Friend's skill and fairness in drafting the Measure.
  Everybody agreed on one consideration and that was the staggering size of the problems with which we have to deal. There are 7 million rent-restricted houses, and in a great many of our cities the decayed fungus of the slums which must be dealt with. The big issues before the House are who should do this job; where is the money to come from; and are there enough builders and materials to make a good start? The Government's answer to the question about who should do the job is, "Everybody capable of lending a hand." We have no likes or dislikes in the rehousing of the people.
  One has only to look at my right hon. Friend to see that he is not exclusive, that he is not a class-monger. He is the very reverse of a snob. In his housing drive he has demonstrated to the whole country the advantage of pulling in all agencies, public and private. Had he snubbed private enterprise, had he relied exclusively upon local authorities, I do not think there is anyone who would say that the present rate of new house building would have reached 300,000 a year.
  He intends to follow the same principle in this next stage of his housing policy. He will mobilise local authorities, housing associations, development corporations, building societies, industry both private and nationalised—and industry is
  964
  doing a great deal in the housing field—private owners and big and small builders. The more agencies and persons that are brought in the less money the taxpayer and the ratepayer will have to find.
  As it is a fact that private persons use their money better than the State, we are convinced that the work under our proposals will be done more quickly and more efficiently. The Opposition—and we are very glad about this—have made quite clear what is their alternative policy. They are the exclusive people and they are the snobs, because they want to hand over the whole business to the local authorities, using that one agency only. All the rent-restricted houses, and there are 6 million or 7 million of them should go to the local authorities, according to the Opposition.
  Some hon. Gentlemen went even further. They said that they wanted the local authorities to take over shops, garages and industrial premises if they were in the areas where there were a large number of rent-restricted properties. They wanted to do that to make a profit. I must say that it gives us pleasure to hear how lovingly hon. Gentlemen opposite use the word "profit" when it suits them. If they are to make a profit out of this property they must either buy it below the fair price—that is to say, they will have to introduce a measure of confiscation—or they will have to put the rents up afterwards, and we should like to know which. This is the official policy of the Labour Party, and it was attacked last night in a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us, because this is of very great importance, whether he is arguing that the local authorities should touch only things upon which there is a loss to public funds, and that if there are other elements which would ease the burden on public funds, they are to be excluded and to be held by private interests?
  Sir D. Eccles: I was merely saying it was interesting to notice that, as part of their housing policy, the right hon. Gentleman's party desire to take over all these shops, business premises and garages.
  Mr. Morrison: Answer the question.
  Sir D. Eccles: That is the Labour Party's policy. They think it right, we think it wrong.
  Mr. Morrison: Answer the question.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Do not dodge it.
  Sir D. Eccles: The question was whether I think it right or wrong. I think that it is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, in a speech which was a remarkable attack upon the policy of the Opposition, showed from his experience as a poor man's lawyer that this exclusive reliance upon the local authorities would bring less comfort and help to the people whom he knows so well than the more practical measures contained in the Bill. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Opposition—I hope that it is the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) who will wind up—
  Mr. Morrison Mr. Morrison indicated assent.
  Sir D. Eccles: —some questions about his party's policy.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is the policy of the Labour Party to take over, not only houses, but shops, garages, factories and the like. If that is wrong, how is it that his right hon. Friend is greatly in love with the huge Birmingham scheme that is doing that with 981 acres in the centre of the city, a scheme that is working very well?
  Sir D. Eccles: There might be an occasional case.
  Mr. Shurmer: It is the greatest scheme in the country.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Member always wants to have the same for the whole country or not at all. We say that to make it part of the policy for local government to take over all these business premises is wrong.
  Mr. Shurmer: Is Birmingham wrong then? Say "Yes" or "No."
  Sir D. Eccles: What I am saying is how fast—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Member. It all depends, I dare
  966
  say, on how much is paid. If these 6 or 7 million houses cost £500 a house—some would cost more and some less—that would mean £3,000 million. Where is all that money to come from, and who would pay the interest? Over and above the money for all these houses, hon. Members opposite would want another thousand or two million pounds for the other property that is round about. It is simply not practicable. Of course, they may say that they would take over these houses piecemeal, and from what they said yesterday it is clear that they would like to take the best ones first. That is clear also from the interjections we have had today. Then, what happens to the worst houses? Under the Bill, we provide that the worst houses should be taken over by the local authorities.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Who made the slums?
  Sir D. Eccles: The local authorities are the trustees of the people; they ought to be proud to do it. We are also helping the landlords of the houses that are not taken over immediately to repair their houses. Under the Socialist proposals, no help would be given to the owners of the houses not immediately taken over. They would simply wait until the local authorities could get round to nationalising them, and in the meantime, of course, those houses would fall further and further into disrepair.
  I must also ask the right hon. Gentleman where the money would come from to repair the 7 million houses which are to be taken over by the local authorities. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay out a large sum from taxation as subsidies, would the local authorities put up their rates, or, what is more likely, would they raise their rents? We want to know what is the financial scheme behind this wholesale nationalisation of property that is now the policy of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend is quite confident that our way is better and that by calling in everybody to help—private and public agencies—we shall get the work done quicker and more economically.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: If it is right that the local authority should take over the dilapidated houses, why should it not be equally right, and with even greater force, that the local authority should take over the valuable houses?
  Sir D. Eccles: There is a simple answer to that. We are faced with a lot of houses that need repair for the sake of the people who live in them. Therefore, we must look round and see who will do which part of the business. If we can get landlords, by giving them some justice in rent, to look after 4 or 5 million of those houses, we are doing the right thing by the people; but since the other houses require sums to be spent on them beyond the amount by which it is reasonable to raise the rents, we must look for some other agency. Being the Conservative Party, we are not the least afraid to bring in the State when it is the State that should do the duty.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If it is right that the State or the local authority should take over these houses because they have to be repaired or reconstructed, why should it not be right for the local authorities to take the good houses to offset the burden?
  Sir D. Eceles: The answer is that each of us does only so much at a time. It is far better to use all our resources to help the people than it is to follow out some political prejudice.
  I turn now to the third question: the problem of the building resources that are needed to make a good start on the Bill. Supposing that to make any impression on slum property a decision were forced on the Government to cut back the building of factories, defence works or schools, or to give up building a satisfactory number of new houses, the usefulness of this Measure might then well be challenged.
  In the last two years the building industry has acquired a forward momentum which, if it is continued, we are sure will make possible good progress on repairs, conversion and slums. That expansion has been achieved because my right hon. Friend and I have discarded Socialist methods of planning. We have found by experience that the builders and makers of building matrials expand their output most when they are not working to a Whitehall target.
  We have found that the way to increase output is to allow some part of the building programme to increase as fast as it can. When that happens it is possible for everyone in the industry to have confidence that he will not work himself out of a job. There is no better incentive
  968
  to a brick maker, for instance, than to tell him that all the bricks he makes he can sell. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the last 30 years?"] That was not so under the Labour Government. They fixed a target a year ahead for traditional houses, and therefore the brickyards took good care not to produce more bricks than were needed for that target. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
  There is no better incentive for a builder, for his foreman or for his operatives, than continuity of work. That kind of incentive exists only when work is waiting to be done for which the preparations, such as permits, drawings, and bills of quantities, are in an advanced stage, so that the work can be started as and when the industry is capable of doing it. As the House will have noticed, the proposals of my right hon. Friend are not tied to any time-table of work, but are designed to furnish a waiting list of prepared work which will enable us to maintain the expansion which has been a feature of the last two years.
  The House would like to have a more detailed account of the building resources which are available. Taking repairs and new construction together, the total output of building and civil engineering work is advancing at a rising rate. It is the direction and pace of that advance which is so important for this Bill. At constant prices, the annual figures are £1,400 million in 1951, £1,440 million in 1952. and a conservative estimate for 1953 is £1,560 million. Last year, there were small additions of about 15,000 to the labour force and a greater increase in productivity, as can be seen by the very large advance in the use of building materials.
  I should like to say a few words about building materials. Ever since the war, the supply of materials has limited output and productivity per man in building. I must say that our predecessors did not manage this job very well. In 1947, and again early in 1951, the amount of work started outran the supply of materials with very damaging consequences, and the whole programme twice had to be put into reverse. Since 1951, whether by good luck or by good management the House can decide, the amount of work started and the supply of materials have been roughly in balance. Here and there,

  969
  we have run into local shortages of bricks and cement, but never serious enough to put a brake on the rising expansion and never serious enough to cause us to hold up our step-by-step increase of freedom in building.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions before he leaves the matter of building labour? The first is this. Is it not a fact that, since 1948, the total number of men available for building in the country has been almost exactly constant, and has never been more than 1 per cent. by way of variation? The second is this. The only figure in the building trade which has gone up in the last two years is the unemployment figure, which has risen considerably. Is not that the case?
  Sir D. Eccles: The fact that the building force has remained the same, while it has been able to use a steadily rising supply of materials since we have been in office, only shows that productivity goes up when we have more freedom. On the second point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) regarding unemployment, the published figures show that it is now very low. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I cannot give the exact figure, but it is extremely low; less than 1 per cent.
  While output has been growing in size, there have been big changes in its composition, and these changes have a direct bearing on the prospects of carrying out this Bill. For instance, work on repairs has rapidly diminished. It is not yet true, as it is in the United States, that the building industry here is organised like the boot and shoe industry; that is to say, with one set of firms making the new articles and another set repairing them. As more machines are introduced, however, and as prefabrication is more generally adopted, we can look forward to the same division of labour becoming more common in this country.
  Today, there is still an interchange of resources between repairs and new building, and that fact was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale(Mr. Bevan), who reminded us of the compelling need to make good war damage when the bombing ceased. I regret to say that much of that repair work—and I have studied how it was
  970
  done—was done very expensively and inefficiently, but the bulk of it was completed by 1951. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private enterprise."] There were many reasons, but the fact is that, organised by Ministries, it was not well done.
  Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Cost-plus.
  Sir D. Eccles: It therefore became inevitable that, at the time we took office, a sharp decline in repairs should set in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale spoke yesterday as though we deliberately encouraged the decline in repairs, but, of course, the reverse is true. We took considerable steps to check the movement away from repairs. Far from putting any pressure on builders and their men to leave repairs and go on the housing sites, we twice raised the free limit for work on houses, first from £100 to £200 and then from £200 to £500, and, as I announced yesterday, next year's limit will be £1,000 for houses and £25,000 for industry and agriculture.
  I must mention a minor but useful result of these changes. It is that all painting jobs, except the very largest in industry—and a contract for £25,000 for painting is rare—will now be completely free from control, and this will help the painting trade, which often suffers from lack of work, especially in the winter. I am not sure that it is generally realised how much we have done to stimulate repairs. When the free limits were raised, on both occasions, we did not reduce the quarterly ceilings allowed to local authorities for granting licences above the free limit. Clearly, as the applicants were greatly reduced by the extension of the area of freedom, the local authorities have been able to be much more generous with licences for other jobs.
  These measures were taken while the war-damage work was diminishing, and. as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said yesterday, many men who had been doing this work transferred to new construction, but—and this is important for this Bill—the jobbing builder, the small man who likes to be his own master, has seldom transferred, and in some cities has been short of work for over a year or so now. He is going to get more work under this Bill, and he will be able to do it without affecting the rate of new construction.

  971
  We had work ready for those who had been employed on war-damage repairs and wished to change their jobs. New houses, as everyone knows, are foremost in our plan. I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that, whatever had been the situation in the building industry when we came into office, we should have launched our campaign for more houses, because my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that a good house is an essential background to a good family life, and that it is their duty to make a greater effort than their predecessors to meet this need.
  As it happened—and there is a stroke of fortune in every campaign—the Socialist Administration left behind them some critical shortages which squeeezed the building programme in one direction while helping it to expand in another. We inherited a steel famine and we were particularly embarrassed by a shortage of steel rod, a component of reinforced concrete. Supplies of this vital material were running at about 100,000 tons a year below current requirements when we came into office. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply put that right within a year; but, of course, in the meantime we had to hold back buildings using steel. On the other hand, houses call for little or no steel, and so it came about that the shortage which we inherited, and which had nothing to do with our policy, made it possible to carry out that policy a little more quickly than would otherwise have been the case. The slowing down in factory building is the result of this situation which we—
  Mr. A. Hargreaves: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the balance between new houses and repairs, will he deal with the allied point of the balance in the respective labour forces? In Carlisle, nine new housing contracts are held up for lack of cable jointers, because this labour drained away for other jobs. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point?
  Sir D. Eccles: I agree that here and there are difficulties of that kind. I am going to refer in detail later to the fact that the housing programme has expanded even faster than our greatest hopes, and that has produced one or two small shortages, but they will be overcome, as I hope to show shortly. I was talking about the slowing down in
  972
  other forms of building, and taking particularly factory building in order to show that the interruption is nothing like as severe as hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying in the country.
  I must rebut the charge that houses are even now being built at the expense of factories or that, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put it in a good phrase, that my right hon. Friend looks as though he is going forward but only because everybody else is falling back. That was a good phrase, I thought, but it is not true. If it were true there would be a strong argument against slum clearance, because that operation uses much the same materials as industrial building. As an example of what is being said, I take some remarks which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) was reported as making a week or two ago. The report which I saw said that in the last year of the Labour Government £100 million had been spent—I hope the House will note those words—on building factories. He added:
  "The Tories reduced this to £25 million."
  I believe that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is rather loose and wild in dealing with statistics, but I had thought that an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer would be rather more careful.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South) rose—
  Sir D. Eccles: Let me first complete this point, and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute. On this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman was not even comparing like with like. The figures are to be found—I see that he has the Monthly Digest in his hand—in Table 88. He took the whole of 1951 and compared it with the first seven months of 1953. That is the worst sin an economist can commit.
  Probably even worse than that, the right hon. Gentleman was not quoting the figures of money spent but of the value of contracts completed in the period. That is notoriously unreliable because the figures for any particular period can be abnormal when there is not a single big job completed in that period. For example, a job like the steel works at Margam runs into £20 million or £30 million and the whole of that is shown in one quarter, which makes the figures an unreliable guide.

  973
  I should like to make a fair comparison between our two Governments, between the last four quarters of the Labour Government, September to September, 1950–51, and the last four quarters for which we have figures, September to September, 1952–53. I will use not the figures of contracts completed but the actual money spent on industrial building. It works out as follows: £109 million for the Socialists; £112 million for the Conservatives; so there is proof that we have now completely recovered from the steel shortage. As the value of the industrial licences which we have given this year is 50 per cent. greater than last year, next year's figures will clearly show a rate of money spent on industrial building far higher than anything under the Socialists.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for now giving way. He was good enough to give me notice that he would be referring to some speech of mine. I gathered that he was reading from some report, but he did not mention the newspaper. I suspect that it was a report in the "Manchester Guardian." It was not reported in "The Times." If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the "Manchester Guardian" on the following day, he would have seen a letter from me correcting what was quite obviously a completely misleading report of what I said.
  I wrote to the "Manchester Guardian" and made plain that what I had said was that the value of completions in 1951 was £97 million, in 1952 it was £70 million, and in the first eight, not seven, months of 1953 it was £25 million. Those figures are taken from the Digest of Statistics and cannot be denied by the right hon. Gentleman. They give a very good picture of the way in which industrial building has been allowed to run down under the present Government. Nor can it be denied—this was also in my speech, so I shall make reference to it—that the present value of building, new factory building, under construction is still about £30 million below the peak under the Labour Government.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Sir D. Eccles: I am sorry, but I did not see the correction.
  Mr. Hamilton: Who is distorting now?
  Sir D. Eccles: The distortion remains, because this figure of completions is not a reliable guide. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] What matters is the amount of money spent. I have tried to put the matter frankly to the House to show that there was a trough due entirely to the mismanagement of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They know perfectly well that when we got into office we had to put a ban on new starts of steel-using building. We had not got enough steel to keep in progress the building which they had started.
  The key to my right hon. Friend's success, as I think he has often said, has been the expansion in the output of home-produced building material. Behind all the good work of the local authorities and the builders lies a magnificent effort in the brickyards, and in the foundries making cast-iron goods. I wish the ex-Minister of Supply were here. He left us a terrible shortage of cast-iron goods. We had to take the most drastic steps to get enough to keep the housing programme going that we found when we got into office.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: Could the Minister expand what he has said, and say what those steps were? The only result, so far as I can make out, has been a good deal of unemployment in our district.
  Sir D. Eccles: The castings industry, because I suppose of the nationalised steel industry—I do not know—was not getting the raw materials it needed. The shortage of pipes, rain-water goods and that kind of thing was very severe. We had to take steps to see that it was bettered. In the yards producing roofing tiles there had to be a very great expansion. They have done wonderfully to be able to roof 300,000 houses a year. Then there are the cement works. Cement is the bread and butter of the industry. I am not going to weary the House with details of the expansion in materials. The important fact before us this afternoon is that this rise in output is gaining in pace, which enables us to count confidentially on still greater supplies in the months and years ahead.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, comparing his own achievements with those of my right hon. Friend, claimed that any fool could build 300,000 houses. We understood by that

  975
  that he meant that any of his Ministerial colleagues could, when they were in office, have chosen between war-damage repairs and 300,000 houses. I think that is what he meant.
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Sir D. Eccles: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean?
  Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote me correctly, he should remember that I said that if there is a limited amount of resources at one's disposal and one wants to build 300,000 houses, then a decision has to be taken as to what is going to be done without. What actually was done, as I proved in the figures I gave yesterday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly; they were confirmed today by the right hon. Gentleman, who admitted that his right hon. Friend got the benefit of new house building and of large quantities of labour released from war-damage repairs.
  Sir D. Eccles: But the whole point is that in the right hon. Gentleman's day there were not enough materials and the men on repair work use far less materials than the men on new construction. Everybody knows they do, but the materials for new house building were not there, and therefore they had no choice in the right hon. Gentleman's time between repairs and building 300,000 houses. The real answer was given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday when he said:
  "The building industry…is a headache to anyone who has anything to do with it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 820.]
  He was speaking from his own experience, but my right hon. Friend and I have found that the building industry has responded very well to better management.
  Although the industry is more or less fully employed today, there are two reasons why we say it can take on this extra work. First of all, there is the increase of materials and we feel confident that these materials will be used next year and the year after. Techniques are improving. We must go forward with the new traditional methods. It is most important that the men should not only lay 400 to 500 million more bricks next year than this year, which is what was done this year compared with last
  976
  year, but it is important that the new traditional techniques should also go forward.
  Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison rose—
  Sir D. Eccles: I should like to get through this part of my speech if I may.
  Organisation of the site is most important, and that is steadily improving. More machines are coming into use and prefabrication is becoming more generally adopted. It is very interesting that, although there is more work in the building industry than a year ago, competitive tendering is keener and also that the price of building materials is coming down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and anyone can see that in the figures.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: Give us examples.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman can quite easily get the book and look them up. Building output will be about 8 per cent. above last year, and I see no reason why that should not be repeated next year.
  There is another reason for hope, and that is that not very much work can be undertaken until the Bill is law. After that plans will have to be prepared and passed, and in the interval of nine months or more some of the civil engineering and building programmes will be beginning to tail off. For instance, that part of the defence programme which eats up so much cement will begin to level off next year. Nor will we have to provide the additional cement for the emergency coastal defences, which will be more or less completed.
  Thirdly, new housing is now running at about 330,000 houses a year. My right hon. Friend, wizard and magician though he is, could not exactly forecast how the 1,500 housing authorities in England and Wales would respond to his business-like administration, so very different from what they had known. All honour to them. Together with the private builders they have reached and shot past the rate of 300,000 a year.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: They are not completed yet.
  Sir D. Eccles: Hon. Members will know from the latest housing return that the number of—
  Mr. Sparks: But they are not completed.
  Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. Hon. Members will know that the number of council houses approved but not started is coming down. That is deliberate policy. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to stabilise the rate of completions at round about 300,000 a year. That is 50 per cent. above the best that our predecessors did—not a bad record.
  Mr. Lindgren: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the difference between three-bedroom houses and two-bedroom houses? No less than 60 per cent. of the present houses under construction are two-bedroom houses.
  Sir D. Eccles: My right hon. Friend has just told me that 50 per cent. more bedrooms are completed every month. These are the reasons we expect—
  Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman does not live in a two-bedroom house, nor do any of his pals.
  Sir D. Eccles: I have given the House reasons why we can expect an increase in the output of building and a year hence some levelling off in programmes as we know them today. Here is the margin of resources for which we are looking. I have had an estimate made of this uncommitted capacity. It is of the order of £150 million to £200 million. How are we going to use this additional capacity in the building industry?
  The Government consider that industrial building should have the first call, and anyone in the private sector who wishes to build or extend a factory now will be encouraged to do so without let or hindrance. Building for the nationalised industries, which is very important, and for departmental programmes, such as schools, also very important, will be controlled by the money available, and will be maintained at a high level. Then we are licensing a number of large buildings in London and the other blitzed cities. In areas where there are sufficient resources I hope also to license rather more churches, shops, clubs and places of entertainment.
  Finally, we come to the proposals under the Bill. As I have said, there is at present a fairly strong movement away from repairs. At the worst the increase
  978
  in rent provided for in the Bill and the higher free limits announced yesterday should arrest this decline. They may do more. In fact, I myself am confident it will be so, because twice the statutory deduction is a powerful incentive to a great many landlords. I have got more faith than hon. Gentlemen opposite in the landlords' sense of duty to their property.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why did they not do it in the inter-war years?
  Sir D. Eccles: It is remarkable the number of landlords who keep their property in good repair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Hon. Gentlemen can come with me and I will show them
  Mr. Lindgren: Come with us.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in and around London there are thousands of homes in a dilapidated condition because during the interwar years, when there were thousands of building workers unemployed, with materials in abundance and very cheap, these very landlords refused to have the necessary repairs done and as a result these properties are today deteriorating into slums?
  Sir D. Eccles: There are, of course, some bad landlords, just as there are some bad Socialists.
  The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the proposals to encourage modernisation and conversion. This is a commonsense and desirable operation and we must do everything we can to make it a success. But, looking at it from the point of view of the building industry, I do not think that a large volume of conversions will come on to the industry in the immediate future. This is obviously a programme which will be difficult to expand, though we intend to do it.
  I do not think, therefore, that we need be apprehensive of the capacity of the building industry next year to deal with the extra repairs and conversions. Supposing that, by the middle of next year, this extra work, over and above the present rate, were running at about £3 million a month, I should say that we were doing very well. Of course, in 1955 we hope there will be a different

  979
  story—one of great expansion, and we shall be ready for it.
  As Minister of Works, I can see that slum clearance comes closest to my Department, because it will make the greatest impact on the industry. It is an almost limitless programme. One has only to think of the cities mentioned yesterday—Liverpool, Leeds, Stoke-on-Trent, London, and above all Glasgow. This work is going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and for that reason it can be so managed that it will underpin employment in the building industry for years to come.
  Miss Alice Bacon: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what there is in this Bill to help slum clearance rather than to help to patch up the slums?
  Sir D. Eccles: Well, there are financial provisions in Clause 1. [Interruption.] They are going to be brought into work again, and we are going to get the local authorities' plans. When we have the plans they will be put into action as soon as they can be, with the help of the Chancellor. An important point in slum clearance is the state of readiness of local authority plans, because everyone is familiar with the fact that one cannot turn on the tap of public works in a hurry. The detailed plans must first be prepared, and what we need here is a healthy queue of detailed plans if we are to manage slum clearance to the best advantage.
  Supposing plans come forward, how fast shall we be able to put them into execution? The answer, so far as the physical resources are concerned, rests with the building industry. The component elements of that great industry, the architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors and operatives, will see in the Bill an immense volume of work stretching out into the distant future. Here for them is the promise of full employment for years to come.
  How are they going to respond to that promise? They may sit back and say, "With all this work to do there is no need for us to bother much about our costs, or about new methods, or about getting rid of out-of-date restrictive practices. We are well enough as we are." If that kind of complacency infected the
  980
  industry, they would have succumbed to the occupational disease of full employment. On the other hand, they may say, "This is the kind of security which we never had before the war. We accept this challenge and this opportunity to look to our organisation, to introduce new techniques, and to hold nothing back in our effort to rehouse our fellow-citizens." The success of the Bill depends very largely on which of the two answers the building industry gives.
  That brings me to my last point, and I apologise for keeping the House so long.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Can the Minister give an assurance now, on behalf of all the Government Departments, that, as local authorities put plans before the various Ministries, nothing will be allowed to stand in the way of the local authorities proceeding with slum clearance as fast as the local conditions allow?
  Sir D. Eccles: Yes, as fast as the local conditions allow. That is exactly the way in which we intend to manage the business of slum clearance. That is why there is no time-table. We wish to feed in the work at all times when there are resources available. If there were a very big slum clearance programme in Stoke-on-Trent, it would affect the area around Stoke-on-Trent. Therefore, not only the city but the surrounding area has to be considered.
  I do not deny that this Bill makes a very great demand on the building industry. In the last two years the builders and operatives have done far better than anyone expected, but, of course, there are still some old-fashioned employers and many memories of unemployment; but our hope is that, with patience and with proposals for continuing work such as are contained in the Bill, and as time goes on with proof that men are not working themselves out of a job if they work fast, the builder and the building operative will achieve an increased output that will greatly astonish the pessimistic planners on the other side of the House.
  It is a great pity that the Bill is not going to have a Second Reading without a Division, for the particular reason that, if all parties passed this Bill, it would strengthen the industry's assurance that this great volume of work is going to

  981
  continue uninterrupted by any political changes there may be. I hope that, when the Opposition vote against the Bill, they will reflect that they are voting not only against ways and means of raising rents, but also against a practical method of improving the housing of the people as fast as our resources allow, and against a Measure which holds out the promise of employment for a very large number of our fellow citizens. When the time comes, the Government will be very ready to take their case to the country.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I think the whole House is interested in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious—in his last or second last point—that the building industry should look to new methods and should seek to abandon traditional practices. Why, therefore, has the Building Research Station, which plays an important part in this sort of work, had its staff so ruthlessly cut? Why, too, has the Minister of Works, if he is so keen on seeking new methods in order that the building industry should be more efficient, taken one look at his own payment-by-results incentive bonus section in the Ministry and sacked the lot? Those are the questions which immediately arise when a Minister gets up and says, "We must look for new methods," and does not say what he has done about it.
  The Minister claimed that there would be no difficulty with regard to materials. As to bricks, he under-estimated and said there are only local shortages, but the facts are, of course, that the stocks of bricks are very low indeed, and very low as compared with last year.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Three days instead of five.
  Mr. de Freitas: They are about half compared with last year.
  Sir D. Eccles: There have never been any stocks of bricks. There used to be five or six days' consumption; there are now two or three days'. The fact is that bricks are like buns. They are baked and delivered straight to the consumer. There never have been any stocks.
  Mr. de Freitas: When the Minister says bricks are like buns I realise why when
  982
  I read the "Builder" this week, this curious phrase was used:
  "The demand for bricks in the North-West is still as big as the makers can deal with, and, in some cases, the contractors are building…hand-to-mouth…."
  It seems to me to be a fact which should be taken into consideration and not be brushed aside lightly that stocks are bad and that there is definitely this complaint in the publications devoted to the industry.
  The Minister did not challenge the figures given by my right hon. Friend yesterday about manpower and the allocation between new houses and repairs. I regard that as an important admission. Repairs need skilled men, as the Minister knows well. The Parliamentary Secretary told us to look at what had been done in Birmingham and to visit Birmingham. It is exactly the shortage of skilled men—not the ordinary workers—which has affected the Birmingham scheme, and if we are to look to Birmingham as a guide we must find the skilled men to do the increased repairs in this national scheme.
  The Minister used a strange argument when he upbraided us for talking about Birmingham taking over shops and good as well as bad property, for the Parliamentary Secretary stressed that the scheme was based on that. If we look at Birmingham, we see that that is exactly what Birmingham did. We heard a great deal about Birmingham's experience yesterday, and it was most interesting, for one of the facts which came out was that Birmingham took over good as well as bad properties.
  We all welcomed the announcement yesterday that the limit in respect of agricultural and factory buildings was to be raised to £25,000. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's alarming statement on our economic position, we welcome that the Government have at last realised that our economic future depends on new factories, new industries and new agricultural plant.
  At Margate the Minister spoke in a debate in which it was stated that the wicked Socialists were saying that the Government had slowed down school and factory building in order to build small new houses. How did the Minister answer that? I was interested in the report of his speech in the "Manchester Guardian." If he could say, "It is not true that we have slowed down the building of fac-

  983
  tories," he would have scored a great debating point. According to the "Manchester Guardian" he said:
  "In 1953 new factories to the value of £16 million a month were started…."
  Sir D. Eccles: Not "started."
  Mr. de Freitas: This is a quotation from the "Manchester Guardian." Did the Minister write to the "Manchester Guardian" the next day to point out the error? He was quoted as saying that this was 10 per cent, better than what was done in the best days of the Socialist Government. He got an ovation for that. Where did he get his figures? Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, if I am on a false point I will withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman did not do that with my right hon. Friend, and yet my right hon. Friend had written to the "Manchester Guardian" the next day and drawn attention to the error in his case. However, in this case the figures have been perpetuated and have been trotted out up and down the country as the conclusive answer from the Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not say "started" and that the "Manchester Guardian" misreported him, I will withdraw.
  Sir D. Eccles: I said "licensed." I did not do anything about it because the start of any building is really the licence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is. The start of a factory is a licence. The fact is that we have licensed £16 million a month this year, which is 50 per cent. more than last year. Therefore, we shall produce far more factories than hon. Gentlemen opposite did.
  Mr. de Freitas: A lot of the discussion is on the difference between licensing and starting dates. Yesterday a big point was made by the Minister on the starting dates. No wonder the officials of his Department have been reluctant to give any information to back up the Margate statement. However, we all welcome the £25,000 limit, which is a most important development and shows the conversion of the Government to sound economics when it comes to matters of industrial and factory buildings.
  This is the middle of a Second Reading debate on the most complicated Bill of
  984
  the Session, but one would hardly realise that, because after a debate yesterday which went on until 11 o'clock we have not had a Minister dealing with the constructive criticism which has been made. A most interesting speech was made on behalf of the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that it was in no way related to the debate which we had yesterday. In fact, the speech hardly touched a twentieth of the subjects discussed yesterday. In particular, no reference was made to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) who preceded the Minister in the debate and spoke from long and distinguished experience in municipal housing.
  The main theme of opposition to the Bill has been that, if the Government are right in saying that the Bill will be worked, then it will work unfairly towards two groups: first, towards the occupants of some of the poorest houses and the National Assistance Board; secondly, toward the housing authorities and the ratepayers. But the Government have not proved that this much advertised Bill will in fact work and thus make any contribution towards solving the problem.
  As I said, the first contention is that if the Bill is worked it will work unfairly to some of the poorest tenants and to the National Assistance Board. Immediately after the debate on the Address, the "News Chronicle" pointed out that a great many rents would rise by one-third if the Government's plans were accepted, and it said:
  "It will drive many families to the public assistance officer."
  That would be bad enough in itself, but it is a trend which has already been apparent. In the first year of office of the Government, 150,000 more people received rent allowance from the National Assistance Board. As the "News Chronicle" pointed out, this inevitably happens as rents go up among the poorest tenants.
  Mr. John Hay: They are mainly municipal rents.
  Mr. de Freitas: Not at all, although it will be so in some cases. Food prices have also risen, but we cannot go as wide as that. Does the Minister of Housing and Local Government dispute what I have said?
  Mr. H. Macmillan: Did the hon. Gentleman say "rents"?
  Mr. de Freitas: I said that the numbers receiving rent allowance had risen. Surely, if there is an increase in the rent allowances the National Assistance Board has taken into account the way in which other expenses have gone up. If I have made a false point, the Minister can debate it later.
  The Secretary of the General Council of Sanitary Inspectors urges the Minister to insist that the landlord shall obtain the certificate of repair before he can claim a rent allowance, and claims that the present onus is wrong. Why has the advice of an experienced body like that been ignored? All this will inevitably lead to what the "Economist" in another context calls:
  "the danger of…bickering and litigation…"
  between landlord and tenant. That is as certain as anything.
  I also put it to the right hon. Gentleman—if I misunderstand the position I shall be delighted to be corrected—that the owner can get the county court to annul the certificate of disrepair, but if a reactionary Conservative local authority refuses a certificate, the tenant has no appeal.
  The second contention which has been advanced is that, if the Bill is worked, it will bear heavily on the housing authorities and on the ratepayers. Hon. Members have referred to the figure of £2 5s., which, as far as I can understand, comes from a calculation based on an average cost of rehabilitation of £155. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary told us to visit Birmingham to get the best available evidence on this point. I have not visited Birmingham, but I have had some pretty good evidence from councillors. It was mentioned in the debate yesterday. Surely the figure of £155 is ridiculously low? The Birmingham average is given as between £180 and £190. That was the figure mentioned yesterday, and it has not been challenged. If that is so, surely on pure calculation the figure which is derived from it is nearer £4 than £2 5s.?
  We are told that the Bill was based on Birmingham's experience, but it completely ignores the fact, which I mentioned in another connection, that Birmingham took in the good as well as the
  986
  bad. It also ignores the fact that Birmingham, unlike most of the other 1,500 housing authorities, has a population of one million and is able to afford a large staff to deal with these matters. Most of the other housing authorities are much nearer the size of a few thousand, and cannot possibly afford the staff to deal with them. No wonder it will bear extremely heavily on housing authorities and, therefore, on the ratepayers.
  The third contention is that the Government have yet to prove that the scheme will work. This leads to speculation as to why it was introduced. Either the Government, with their usual lack of understanding of municipal affairs, did not realise the nature of the problem, or the Minister tried to persuade his colleagues and the country into thinking that the scheme really would work when it would not. In the first place, the Minister and Government are innocent but foolish; in the second, the Minister is guilty and very nearly very clever.
  If the Government did not realise the nature of the problem and thought that the scheme would work, it is surely incredible to write, in a serious document like a White Paper, that repair work "has been neglected…since 1939,"without going into any qualifications. Everybody who had anything to do with housing before the war knows that millions of pounds of the 40 per cent. went into the pockets of the landlords and not into repairs. The incentive point has been dealt with. It must have been rather galling to notice that the day after the scheme was announced the "Financial Times" headlined its attitude "property owners dissatisfied."
  As for the administrative problem, not a word was said in any speech or in the White Paper, about an emergency training scheme for sanitary inspectors. Yet there is already a shortage, not so much in the south but in the northern industrial revolution towns. [Interruption.] I think I overheard the Minister say that it would be much worse if our policy were followed. But we would not try to implement our policy unless we faced the practical problem of having an emergency training scheme for sanitary inspectors. In the north an army of sanitary inspectors will be needed to begin to work this scheme. The Minister should deal with that point and study the

  987
  implications of this shortage of sanitary inspectors.
  I cannot understand anyone with the smallest knowledge of pre-war housing conditions subscribing to the White Paper's statement that in 1939
  "only 6 per cent. of the people were living in unfit or overcrowded houses."
  I did not have a long or wide experience of this matter, but I lived for two years in the East End of London, in an area which is very bad from the point of view of slums and overcrowding. In that area the figure would have been much higher. I am not seeking to make a point about that, but I am saying that over the country as a whole the figure was much nearer 20 per cent. That was the kind of figure which was used by social workers and, as far as I can remember, by the then Minister of Health when speaking in the House during the war in 1943. Surely there would have been some qualifications if the situation had been appreciated? Under the 1936 Act a man, his wife, a child and a baby could live in one room and still not be overcrowded. Surely it is necessary to make some qualification in that respect?
  Again, the 1936 Act did not define "unfit for human habitation," and there were differing opinions about it in the courts. This Bill makes an effort to define it, but why has not the Minister put into the Bill the definition suggested in 1946 by the Central Advisory Building Sub-Committee on Fitness? Why does not the Bill define "reasonable expense"? A Tory rural district council needs a lot of guidance as to what is reasonable expense.
  Now I come to the next contention, that of humbug—to borrow a word from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). This contention is that the Minister tried to persuade his colleagues and the country into thinking that this scheme really would work when it would not. The Minister talked about grasping the nettle boldly. I was a little suspicious when he used the phrase in that way. If he had said, "I do not think there is much in this, but at least it is an effort. It is worth a few days of Parliamentary time, and we shall see if we can work out something."—if he had said that I should have understood him, but he talked about "national
  988
  crusades," "grasping the nettle," and "Operation Rescue."
  I must congratulate him on his public relations. The Press gave him plenty of publicity for this rent scheme. My right hon. Friend's scheme for improvement grants under the 1949 Act did not get it. Historians of the future will be interested to see the difference in the publicity. If publicity had been given to the fact that a Labour Government were introducing improvement grants it would have knocked into a cocked hat the Conservative line that the Labour Party were against private owners. That was the line that the Conservatives were running all over the country. They forget that after six years of Labour Government there were more people owning their own homes than ever before in our history. It is charming to find, in the White Paper on which the Bill is based, the statement that landlords and tenants must be made aware of the provisions of the 1949 Act.
  My right hon. Friend has spoken of tugging at the fig leaf of the Minister to expose him. I have neither the verbal felicity nor the manual dexterity to match that in any way. I shall put it rather more straightforwardly, and say that the Minister should be prosecuted for obtaining credit for this by false pretences. He would not be treated so badly after conviction, because the judge would look kindly at a man of his presence, who was so obviously trying to better himself politically. Whether the Minister is innocent but foolish, or guilty and very nearly very clever, the result is the same.
  Like my right hon. Friend, I am going to ask the House to reject this Bill because I regard it as our duty to expose the pretensions of the scheme. If, against our advice, the House passes this Bill, then in Committee we shall work to put some good in it on the assumption that the scheme can be made to work. The problem of repairs exists, and we must not forget that the wretched tenants are not to blame for this Bill, and we must not be put off the subject merely because of the Bill itself. I am sorry to find that the Government are planning to take the Bill upstairs, as it may well be that they themselves on second thoughts, as my right hon. Friend suggested, want to bury it.

  989
  The Parliamentary Secretary ended with some comments on the building industry. It is indeed a classic example of the inefficiency of private enterprise. I wish, too, that it would try new and unconventional methods and become efficient like the aircraft industry and other industries. I mentioned at the beginning the abolition of the Ministry of Works Section on incentive bonus and payment by results, and the reduction by 10 per cent. in the staff of the Building Research Station. Why were these things done when both of the Ministerial speeches we have had on this Bill have said that Ministers want new methods and to break new ground? Why?
  It is just 100 years ago that William Morris set the path, as he thought, for a new social era, and, as Mumford pointed out, he made the design of the dwelling-house the point of departure. Today, when we have an increasing technical revolution, with radio, refrigerators, television, and so on, we must realise that the means of communication, especially TV, are turning the dwelling-house into the market place of the old classical urban civilisation. The social revolution is not far behind the technical revolution.
  So every day the house becomes more and more the centre of the life of the people. From that flow two facts that we in our life-time will never be able to ignore: First, that an increasing proportion of our national wealth will have to go to the dwelling-house, its provision and its maintenance and its equipment, because it will become the centre of our whole lives, for whether we like it or not, that is the trend; and second, that private enterprise find it less and less attractive to provide these houses, these homes, for the mass of the people. What is true of provision is, of course, even truer of maintenance.
  Even in the United States the late Senator Taft went on record as saying that the capitalist system could not house the people as a whole. This summer in the United States I talked to a number of business men interested in housing. Most of them realised that, in spite of the slogans of the chambers of commerce, capitalism had failed in this test, and the discussion there was chiefly on
  990
  the part to be played by public money and by philanthropy.
  Those hon. Members behind me who have given many years to studying the problem of housing and of maintaining the houses of the mass of the people want to give the Minister this credit. His Bill has aroused interest in this repair problem. However, we do not want the Minister to feel he is justified in claiming too much. His Bill gives us an opportunity to debate the problem, but it does not begin to solve it, and his victory is over the Leader of the House and not over the slums. But I wish he would not talk about grasping the nettle. What he seized is a fancy sort of posy from the Primrose League.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Horobin: Those of us who disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) must agree that we have listened to a very good-tempered speech, and though I am afraid that very little of what I have to say will be agreeable to most hon. and right hon. Members opposite I shall endeavour to preserve the same approach, because this is a problem far too serious to be much helped by merely slinging verbal felicities or fig leaves or nettles at one another. Most of what I want to say will be concerned with Part II of the Bill, because I think that is the most important.
  I do not think that the speech we have just heard was quite fair to my right hon. Friend in saying—if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright—that his speech was almost irrelevant to the debate, because a major point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) of the importance of considering the physical resources, and what we have heard today has certainly, even if it has not carried complete conviction, shown that there is reasonable cause for hoping that there is, putting at its mildest, a certain amount of play in the industry that we may hope to take up on the lines suggested. I admit that there is a good deal that we heard yesterday—and I heard almost the whole of the debate—that still remains to be answered from the point of view of whether this Bill, especially Part II of it, will work.
  Before I come to what I have to submit to the House on that I would say one

  991
  word on Part I, slum clearance. Almost as a variation of the suggestion that this Bill is giving undue money to landlords we have heard today already a good deal of argument that it is unreasonable that local authorities should take over only the slum houses, leaving landlords the rest. One would imagine that hon. and right hon. Members who make that suggestion have forgotten that any houses which are dealt with in this way are taken away from the landlords completely. The landlord loses everything.
  Mr. Shurmer: How much has he drawn in rent?
  Mr. Horobin: The houses are taken at site value. They always have been. Quite rightly, too; but he loses every penny. [Interruption.] I want to proceed because there are other hon. Members who want to speak in this debate, which has been characterised throughout by the fact that almost as many people have sought to make speeches by interruptions as have been called by the Chair.
  Whether we like it or not, unfortunately, and whoever, for the sake of argument, is responsible for that state of affairs, there will be for a number of years to come some slum landlords, and the point at issue is whether, that being so, it is not better that the slum landlord should be a local authority doing something for the unfortunate people who are continuing to live in slum conditions, or whether they should be left to deteriorate still further and nothing be done for the tenant at all.
  That is all I wish to say on the slum clearance part of the Bill. I want to address myself with some care and particularity, if the House will bear with me, to the all important point of the workability of Part II, and I would say at once that it would be very foolish to claim, and I do not think my right hon. Friend would himself claim, that this is as it stands, or even when it is amended in Committee, a complete solution to the overwhelming problem of the millions of houses in private ownership that are not all that we should like. But it is going equally much too far in the other direction to suggest that none of these repairs will or can be done.
  It is true—I am glad that most hon. Members opposite seem to agree, although
  992
  with some hesitation—that any suggestion that vast profits are going into the hands of anyone benefiting under Part II is quite beside the mark. I will quote a case from London to illustrate the sort of house which alone, as I shall try to show, will benefit under Part II. This is a six-room house in South-East London where the net rent is £29 10s. per annum. The statutory deduction is £9. The most that could happen would be that £18 a year could be added to the rent. The qualifying amount over three years would be £54. That particular case does qualify, but why? I ask hon. Members who have given vent to many wild and general charges about what landlords have been doing to note these figures. This is not a hypothetical case, but the case of an actual house, of which I have the address. It qualifies because the landlords have not spent £54 in the last three years, but have spent £138 on it.
  What will happen under the Bill is simply that for the next three years, claiming the allowance, they will get back no more than what has already been spent in the last three years. Any suggestion that profits are going to a house which can claim the rent allowance is beside the point. [Interruption.] I shall give a number of other cases, if I do not weary the House. These figures lead me to remind the House of a point which, I think, is of great importance. We have heard unsubstantiated and very general statements suggesting that no landlords had ever spent money on their houses.
  Mr. Lindgren: Who said that?
  Mr. Horobin: I find it very easy to understand why so many hon. Members opposite suggest that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Over and over again it has been said. It was said by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. Lewis: If the hon. Member had been here and listened attentively to what I said—and will repeat—he would know that I said that there are in London and other big cities thousands upon thousands of slum dwellings which have been neglected year after year, particularly in the inter-war period when there were many unemployed building workers, when labour and materials were very cheap, but these landlords drew the money and did nothing about repairs to their property.
  Mr. Horobin: All that long interjection is irrelevant because the hon. Member was talking about slum houses and I am not talking about slum houses.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member should not accuse me of saying something which I did not say.
  Mr. Horobin: I do not need to spend a great deal of time on this. I find it easy to understand why so many hon. Members opposite are so anxious to prevent landlords or anyone else going before a county court judge. It is because the county court judge would soon be able to satisfy himself. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a great deal of experience of this matter in an area next to the constituency of the hon. Member for West Ham, North. I do not think that the hon. Member will disagree, on consideration, that county courts have a very good reputation for dealing with the social problems of small people—very much better than some of the higher courts.
  Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis indicated assent—
  Mr. Horobin: I am glad to have the agreement of the hon. Member. I think it a strong point of this Bill that on questions of fact, such as whether landlords have, in fact, spent money on their houses, if there is a dispute they can go before the court and substantial justice will be done.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: What about the 14 days?
  Mr. Horobin: That is a Committee point. I think the period should be increased, but that can be considered in Committee.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I sympathise verymuch with what the hon. Member said about county court judges. Would the hon. Member agree that it would be an improvement in the Bill if the refusal of a certificate of disrepair were also to be appealable to a county court judge?
  Mr. Horobin: I should not like to commit myself on that matter, but it is a Committee point which might well be gone into. It is a strong point in this Bill that the landlord has to prove that he has spent some money and has the right of going to court to make his case.
  994
  We have heard from the benches opposite the alternative policy of the Opposition. I am not arguing whether they could or not, but they did nothing about slum clearance and we at least are trying to make a start on that. They did nothing, apart from war damage repairs which, in part, were localised—[Interruption.] Will hon. Members allow me to finish the sentence? They did nothing to deal with the problem of ordinary repairs in private houses, which was made impossible, as we all know, by reason of the cost and the restriction of rents. I think it essential to get this point clear. They suggest that all these houses should now become the property of local authorities, which, in practice, means that they are proposing the complete abolition of the Rent Acts. All these houses would go into the hands of local authorities and cease to have protection of the Rent Restriction Acts.
  Mr. Shurmer Mr. Shurmer rose—
  Mr. Horobin: I know that the hon. Member has helped every hon. Member who has hitherto spoken to make his speech, but I shall not give way now. It it true that houses not built by local authorities have not hitherto ceased to have that protection. But, when the Bill goes to Committee upstairs, are hon. Members opposite to vote against the provisions in the Bill which give local authorities the right they all need—and which we all know they need—in the case of any kind of house in their ownership, to increase the rent and bring it to what is necessary to do repairs? Everyone knows that local authorities must have that right. Will hon. Members opposite vote against it? They know they will not.
  If they do not vote against that it re mains true that their policy is to remove the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts from all rented houses as soon as they can be got within the ownership of local authorities. They cannot escape it; their policy is to bring all these houses to the ownership of local authorities. I challenge them to vote against the provisions which ensure that houses which local authorities have bought, acquired, or built are withdrawn from the Rent Acts. The distinction between us is that hon. Members opposite say there should be a general increase in rents without any restriction and no guarantee that any

  995
  particular house has any repairs done in it at all. [Laughter.] It is no use hon. Members laughing. I have had experience of this matter.
  There is no obligation upon a local authority to do repairs on a particular house before putting up the rent of that house. The rents of council houses all over the country have to be put up so that the local authorities who own them may keep their rent funds more or less in balance, in spite of the big subsidy. If hon. Members opposite deny that a great many people are unwillingly paying increased rents, although no repairs are done, I should be very surprised because it is well known.
  Mr. Lindgren: The alternative is simple. A council house tenant can sack his council, but an ordinary tenant cannot sack his landlord.
  Mr. Horobin: I have been interrupted a number of times, so I will not give the figures which I intended to give. But we are not dependent on any theories as to what may happen. I have made it my business to obtain particulars from a number of local authorities. I have particulars in my hand from one in the North-West of England where already the rents of council houses have been raised more than twice the amount of the statutory deduction and, therefore, more than the tenant would have been liable to have had his rent raised under this Bill, if his house had been a private house instead of a local authority house. We are not seeing things under the bed. This is actually happening already.
  Mr. Shurmer: Where?
  Mr. Horobin: In the North-West of England. The further point which I am making is to show why we are hopeful that a substantial and reasonable number of repairs will be done. I say at once—and I do not think there will be any dispute on this point—that if the landlord was a completely free agent I do not believe that a great many repairs would be done in response to this very small increase in rent. Some would carry out repairs for various reasons, but not others. But, of course, the landlord is not a free agent. Whether we like it or not he is already clamped within the Rent Acts and what he will consider is this. Is it better to
  996
  allow these houses to fall down until he eventually gets a clearance order, or, if he can qualify for the increase, will he do better by doing so? I think that is a major point.
  Secondly—I want to put this very briefly—I think it is common knowledge that a good many of these repairs are, in fact, done more cheaply, contrary to common opinion, in connection with the larger houses. Some of the larger houses are a better repairing proposition than some of the semi-jerry built post-war houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have some support from hon. Members opposite. Obviously, a number of old houses are thoroughly bad, but there are many in our industrial cities, and especially in the North, where the actual structure of the houses is often better from the point of view of repairability than some of the modern ones. Therefore, in many of these cases I do not think that it is as hopeless, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, to think that some repairs will be done.
  Now I want to come to closer grips for a few minutes with the condition which has to be fulfilled before a notice of increase of rent can be served. I want to consider, first, the condition and the amount of money which has to be spent—either three times the statutory deduction in one year or six times in the last three years. Here again, I would begin by saying that if we were to consider nothing but the chances of getting the Bill to work, I think that this condition would be a mistake. I think it would cause a great deal of trouble on both sides and a lot of complications, and, if we are not careful, some damage to the working of the Bill.
  I can see why the condition was put in, and I think that it was right to put it in. But, psychologically, the difference is enormous between persuading a tenant to pay a higher rent when he can at least see that the rain is not coming through on to his bed than to persuade him to do so, in respect of a vast estate or whatever it may be, upon which money has been spent on repairs but not on his particular house, and when the tenant of that house is likely to have a wet bed for another year. Psychologically, it is difficult to increase the rent in that case. Therefore, it is

  997
  much easier and, I think, fairer to link the second condition with the first overriding condition that the house must be put in repair.
  I put it to the Minister that he is running a risk here. As this is only a secondary condition he should make it elastic, and be very careful that he does not, by trying to make the condition too right, stop people from starting. One must bear in mind that throughout the whole of Part II of the Bill, unless the landlord serves notice of an increase of rent nothing happens at all. The tenant cannot do anything about it. The local authorities cannot do anything about it. No one can say, "I should like repairs done. Will you put up my rent?" Unless the landlord or his agent serves an increase of rent notice nothing happens and my fear is that if we are not very careful we may stop the thing beginning at all as a result of this second condition.
  I shall leave all the Committee points to the end. First, we have the very common case of the small owner. I am not making any point about the small owner being hard up and that sort of thing. I am simply dealing with the case of the owner of one or two houses. We know about this so well in the North. The joke used to be that everyone in his town owned his own house and the house on each side. It is a very common case for a small owner to own two or three houses and some of these have extremely small statutory deductions and extremely small rents.
  I want to give one actual example which is very typical of a great many cases of this kind. Here is a house—I have no objection to saying that it is in my constituency—the gross value of which is £13 and the statutory deduction £5. The repairs increase would, therefore, be 3s. 10d. a week. In the North, unlike London, we have the complication that rates are usually included in the rent, and we have, therefore, to subtract the rates because we are not concerned in this Bill with the rates. The present net rent after deduction of rates is 5s. 4d. Out of that, as is usual in my part of the world, we have to pay chief rent, insurance and other things, and when we have deducted all that from the 5s. 4d. the rent comes to well below 4s. a week.
  How can the owner afford to pay 3s. 10d. out of 4s.? That is not at all
  998
  an isolated case. I have a list of 25 other cases with which I shall not weary the House. It is, unfortunately, true, whether we like it or not, that a great many of these small owners cannot possibly claim now because if they handed over all their net rent, that amount in the last three years, let alone in the last year, would not be enough to claim the rent increase.
  Therefore, for these people, if this condition remains as it is and unless immediate and effective steps are taken to make it possible by much more active use of the provisions under the 1936 Act, Sections 90 and 91, to advance money to them, so that in the future they can claim, we shall find that for that type of small house the owner, without any capital resources of his own, will never be able to start. He will not be able to get over the first hurdle.
  I now come to a more important aspect of the same problem. I have obtained particulars of a large number of housing properties in different parts of the country. Hon. Members will see that similar problems arise even in the case of comparatively wealthy estates. In the first place, it will often be impossible to claim the allowance under the second condition with which I am dealing if we retain the period of three years. Either the period should be extended to five years, or else it will only be possible to claim by spending more on repairs this year, which is exactly what we want to happen. In the case of quite a surprising number of these estates, even where no claim can be made for the back period, the amounts spent on repairs are sufficiently near to the qualifying figure to make it worth while spending a bit more, so to speak, to throw a sprat to catch a mackerel.
  I want to give one or two instances. I have a case of 24 small houses on which, in the last three years, the expenditure on repairs is just over £500. The qualifying figure would be £1,000, so the landlord cannot claim now. But if he were in a position to claim, the landlord could add £336 to the rent. By doing a little sum it will be seen that the landlord will get just over £500 if he spends all the increase on repairs, which is exactly what he will have to spend—namely, half £1,000. There we have a small group of houses on which quite a

  999
  substantial sum has been spent, the landlord of which will not be able to get over the first hurdle but will almost certainly, if he spends the money, be able to get it back the following year.
  I have another case of 63 houses. The landlord has spent £3,400 on the property, which is quite a large sum of money. The qualifying amount is £4,600, so he cannot claim. But if we make the same calculation, it becomes clear that there is every reason for thinking that this Bill will see several hundreds of pounds extra spent on repairs on those houses in the next few years.
  I should like to give a somewhat different example of a set of over 100 working-class flats. The qualifying figure is £8,000. In the last three years £14,000 has been spent on this property, so that these flats qualify at once. But it so happens that in those three years over £1,000 was spent on dry rot. I deduce two things from that. First, many people will be able to claim if the period can be extended to five years because it will be possible to average these exceptional cases. Secondly, many people, while not being able to claim this year, will be encouraged to spend more on their repairs and will claim next year.
  In addition, and this is of extreme importance, surely that last case of over 100 flats—I could give several more examples—shows that the Bill will secure that in the case of houses which in the future receive a large expenditure on dry rot ora gable end or roofs or underpinning, the landlord of which will refuse to throw any more good money after bad, so that they are pulled down or become slums, enough money will be available to ensure that those exceptional expenses are met, because exceptional expenses of that kind will automatically ensure that even if the landlord was not able to claim before, he will be able to claim in the future.
  I am sorry to have been somewhat particular but, after all, one or two actual cases are worth a lot of general statement. I submit, therefore, that we are not being unreasonable in hoping that under this Bill a great deal of money will be spent on repairs which otherwise would not be spent, and that houses which are now in danger of further
  1000
  deterioration will be saved. Even if it is shown that not all the 6 million houses will immediately be brought into good condition but that we can make a substantial start, it will be a good thing.
  I have one last point to make on the first condition. The first condition holds, in Clause 40, an extremely grave danger for the Minister's plan, to which I wish to draw his attention—namely, the subtle distinction between repair and good repair. Here again, custom in the North of England differs from the South. While one cannot generalise, I think it is broadly true to say that tenants in the North do the interior decoration which, in the South, is still the landlord's responsibility. I am not going to argue whether that is good or bad, but I want to put to the Minister a practical point, and I have checked it up with a number of estate agents of great experience.
  Several have said to me that if this means taking on a new liability for the interior decoration of property, they will hesitate to advise their clients to serve notices. If they do not serve notices, the Bill is dead. We need not spend a lot of time arguing whether or not landlords should do interior repairs. In the case of a genuine weekly tenancy, there is no reason why the tenant should do any repairs; but where we have a long lease, owing to statutory protection, I should have thought there was a case for saying that the well established distinction between tenants' repairs and landlords' repairs in interior decoration should come into play.
  Whatever our views on that point may be, the fact remains that while the increase in general repairs may be sufficient or so nearly sufficient as to enable a start to be made, I fear that in Committee we must look carefully at the exact new obligations which may be put upon landlords if we call upon them to bring into complete decorative repair the interior of their property, and maintain that complete decorative repair. If, under the first condition, we are putting such a new serious liability on landlords that they will not serve notices, that will be just as serious as if we tie up the second condition so closely that they cannot qualify or do not have the money to do the work.
  There is little doubt in my mind that a substantial amount of new and valuable work will be done on a vast amount of

  1001
  privately owned property. It is in that hope that we ought to commend this Bill. Having watched the development of the housing policy of the Government, we have good reason to be grateful. Ordinary fathers, mothers and children will for a long time have reason to be grateful for the fact that the housing problem has attracted to its solution one of the most subtle, receptive and courageous minds which have ever been applied to this supreme social problem in our time.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) has given us some interesting examples, and has made what I took to be some criticisms of the formula on which the Minister is working. No doubt we shall hear more of some of the points he made when we come to the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, pardon the hilarity with which his remarks about local authorities were received on this side of the House. We do not understand that local authorities are bad landlords. We believe that their tenants have adequate protection without the operation of the Rent Acts, and, from our wide experience of local government, we believe that local authorities maintain their properties in good condition both outside and in.
  I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that the deplorable conditions of some millions of our houses is not a party matter. I think both sides will agree that this is a problem which must be faced and for which a solution must be found. It is difficult to say exactly how many of these houses there are. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of 6 million, 4 million of which required repair, and the Minister himself talked of 7½ million, and broke down that total into different categories. However, I think we can all agree that the figure involved is quite substantial, certainly several millions. There are probably about 4 million houses which, unless action is taken soon, will deteriorate to the point of becoming a total loss to the community.
  I am sure that all hon. Members, and anybody who is at all interested in the subject, will agree that something must be done to prevent the loss of such a
  1002
  large number of houses from the stock of habitations available to the community. Therefore, we agree that the repairs must be done, but I think we can also agree that such repairs will cost a lot of money. There can be no dispute about that. When we come to the question of who is to pay for these repairs, there may be some difference of opinion.
  I believe it would be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that if these houses are properly repaired, a reasonable increase in rent would be justified. Indeed, I think that the majority of tenants would agree that if their present semi-slum dwellings could be made habitable and some modern conveniences installed in them, they would be prepared to pay a reasonable amount in addition to their present rent. I have actually tested that point, and I found that the tenants were almost unanimous in saying that they would be prepared to pay a little more in such circumstances. But, in saying that, we must remember that there is a section of tenants who are not in a position to pay more. They are the poorest of our people, who are not dealt with in this Bill.
  Those people, who, because they are poor, are unable to afford an increase in their rent—the "submerged tenth," as they used to be called—are not covered by this Bill. That is a matter which we cannot very well discuss today, but it is one to which this House will have to address itself before very long—how to provide decent housing accommodation for the poorest of the community at a rent which they can afford to pay. Many of them cannot afford the present rents charged for private lettings or for local authority houses.
  The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities have found it necessary to raise their rents, and there can be no dispute about that. Local authorities have found that a good house, properly maintained, often means an increase in rent. If we agree that repairs have to be done, that the money has to be spent, and that rents will have to go up in consequence, then I think that the Government must also agree to the consequences that will follow.
  If the houses are put into sound repair and rents are increased to cover the cost,

  1003
  then it logically follows that there will be quite an upward jerk in the cost-of-living index. That will be the inevitable outcome of the success of this Bill. Therefore, the Government must realise that as a consequence of their proposals—if successful—wage claims will be forthcoming and will have to be met. National Assistance payments and pensions of all kinds will have to rise with the increase in the cost of living.
  I now turn to Part II of the Bill, with which the hon. Member for Oldham, East dealt so fully, and I propose to add one or two points which occur to me. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with others who have spoken that this is the core of the matter. It attempts to deal with the several million houses which are in different stages of disrepair, and attempts to find means by which to bring them back into repair and thus prevent them from becoming a total loss.
  When I read the Bill, I was surprised to find that it differed considerably from the White Paper. Indeed, I think it fair to say to the Minister that in one important matter the Bill belies the White Paper. On reading the White Paper—on which we only had a short debate—I said to myself, "Well, the Minister evidently intends to make sure that the repairs are done before rents are increased." That was the impression which many of us got from reading the White Paper.
  I consulted several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and we decided that the Minister really meant business, and that he was going to see that the landlord did the repairs. We came to the conclusion that the Minister really had learned the lesson of the 25 per cent. increase in the 1920s, and that he realised that landlords generally—not in all cases—could not be relied upon to do the repairs unless there was compulsion behind the Measure that allowed them the increase.
  I am afraid that we were mistaken in thinking that, and I think it would be well to remind the Minister of the two paragraphs in the White Paper which, I suggest, misled the House and the country. Paragraph 38 says:
  "Her Majesty's Government intend that a landlord will be permitted to claim a repairs increase only if the house is in good general repair as respects tooth structure and decora-
  1004
  tion. If the house is not already in such a state of repair, the landlord must put it right before claiming a repairs increase."
  They are perfectly clear words. Paragraph 39 says:
  "Further, Her Majesty's Government intend that no repairs increase shall be allowed unless and until the landlord can show that he has actually spent money on repairs."
  The Parliamentary Secretary can raise his eyebrows, but those two paragraphs misled some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who, after all, are not without experience in their reading of White Papers, into the conviction that the Minister really meant business, that he was thinking of the houses first of all and intended to get the repairs done. But we were mistaken. The Minister's speech on the White Paper showed clearly that we have been far too simple and that we were wrong. We had forgotten that the Minister likes to do unpleasant, difficult things in a light and pleasant way, and that seems to me what he has attempted to do this time.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt, but surely the two conditions to which he referred are implemented in Clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill. Clause 18 reads:
  "Where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy…subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act,—(a) if and so long as the following conditions…are fulfilled, that is to say—(i) that the dwelling-house is in good repair"—
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Minister cannot enforce it.
  Mr. Marples: We can, because the local authority will decide whether it is in good repair, and Clause 19 says that the landlord must have spent the money on it.
  Mr. Evans: It is quite evident that the mind of the hon. Gentleman and my mind run on different tracks. I am saying that the words of the White Paper led many hon. Members on this side of the House to think that the Minister intended to see that the repairs were done before the rent was increased. In fact, we know that the reverse is true. We now know that the landlord will not have to prove his case but that the tenant will

  1005
  have to disprove it. The onus will be put on the tenant to get a couple of days off from work to do so.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, East talked about the essential justice of the county court, and we will not disagree with that, but does the Minister realise that this excursion to a county court by countless thousands of poor tenants is a sheer impossibility? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is good for the lawyers."] It is all very well to say that justice is for everybody provided that they can pay for it. I do not like cynical phrases and it is clear that the safeguard which the tenant has of going to the county court is not practicable.
  Mr. Horobin: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Clause 21 he will see that the landlord has to do exactly that; he has to satisfy the court in an action for recovery. All the tenant has to do is simply not to pay the rent. If the question is in dispute as to whether money has been spent, the landlord has to go to the court to get his rent. The tenant does not have to do anything.
  Mr. Evans: Now the hon. Gentleman is inciting tenants not to pay their rent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he is saying that the remedy is not to pay. Has the hon. Gentleman ever been in the position of being ejected for non-payment of rent? I can assure him that the fear of non-payment of rent is a very real one in the minds of working-class people. It is not sensible to suggest that the tenant should refrain from paying his rent in order that the landlord shall take him into the county court.
  The Minister should explain why he has adopted this method of the landlord claiming his increase before the certificate of disrepair has been obtained. Will he explain why he could not reverse that procedure and say that the landlord, before he raises the rent, must get a certificate of good repair from the local authority? It could be done. It is quite a practical suggestion. I know that yesterday "The Times" said that it was not a sensible or practical suggestion to put the onus on the landlord. It said:
  "To put the onus on the landlord to prove that he qualifies for a rent increase, rather than on the tenant to challenge the increase, is impracticable."
  "The Times" made that assertion without giving reasons to support it, but there
  1006
  is another authority, apart from the "Thunderer," which has a larger experience of this practical point than "The Times" leader writer. The Sanitary Inspectors' Association has considered this matter and has put on record its considered views on this point of the certificate of good repair and the certificate of disrepair. In paragraph 62 of its memorandum, headed "Increase of Rent," it says:
  "As private owners are by law required to carry out repairs, there appears to be a need for rent adjustment, at least in certain circumstances. The Association suggests that any such increase, being applied to specific circumstances, perhaps transitory in character, should be subject to periodical review, and in any case precautions would necessarily have to be taken to prevent the imposition of an increase without specific performance of the duties…"
  Now I come to the point I am making:
  "This safeguard could be applied by a requirement that, precedent to any increase, the sanitary inspector should (in the same manner as obtains in the reverse direction in the Rent Restrictions Acts), issue a certificate that the repairs have been satisfactorily completed…"
  That is the considered view of a large body of men who know more about this matter than any others in the country, and the Minister would do well to look at it again. If the right hon. Gentleman does not make some alterations in this part of the Bill, it will not work. Therefore, if he wants his Bill to work he should consider the proposals made by the Sanitary Inspectors' Association and also consider whether he cannot alter the Bill in Committee. We will readily help him to do so on that point. If the right hon. Gentleman allows the present position to remain, he will unloose on the local authorities a volume of work beyond their capacity. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise what he is throwing on to the local authorities as a result of these proposals?
  There is in this great Metropolitan area of ours a borough called Islington. It is a great borough. In that borough alone there are 40,000 assessments, estimated to contain 90,000 rentals, almost all of them 70 to 100 years old. Knowing the state of disrepair of those properties, and knowing the ways of landlords and their agents, I shall consider it my duty to advise at least 40,000 of those tenants to apply at once to the local authority, and to the courts if necessary, as soon as the landlord makes his claim.

  1007
  I think the Minister will find that, if he does not alter this part of the Bill, he will have great difficulty in trying to make it work.
  Now I want to say one or two words upon Part I of the Bill. I shall be brief, because much of this has been covered already. Apparently, slum clearance is not to be left to private enterprise—the local authorities have to do it. We all agree that the local authorities must do it, and do it in stages across, perhaps, the next 20 years. The squalor left by private enterprise must be cleared up by local authority enterprise.
  The local authorities also have the new task of patching up these houses, the demolition of which is to be delayed. We understand from Clause 6 that the Exchequer will pay a certain amount and the local authority will have to pay a like amount; in other words, it is to be on a 50–50 basis as between the Exchequer and the local authorities. Is not this a new departure in housing finance? Is it not true that, since the war, housing finance has been on a three-to-one basis? I understand that before the war it was on a two-to-one basis. That is my information from a reliable source.
  Now we have this 50–50 basis, the local authority paying an amount equal to the Exchequer grants. It might be that the exact details of these financial provisions have not been finally settled. I understand that talks are going on with the local authorities, but I have been told that the Minister has committed himself and has told the local authorities that the 50–50 basis has been fixed and that he will hold to it. I should like to know whether that is so and whether the Minister has bound himself to that basis before the Second Reading of this Bill. The Minister owes it to the House to explain exactly to what he has committed himself with the local authorities. If he wants the local authorities to go ahead with their part of this immense job he will have to reconsider and change his financial proposals.
  All of us wish to have this job done. We want to see the several million houses put in a condition worthy of the people who live in them and worthy of the nation, but I am afraid that we shall
  1008
  be disappointed by the operation of this Bill. I fear that Part I will not function because of the unfairness of the financial Clause, and Part II will fail because of the need of private enterprise to make a profit. It will not be profitable enough for the landlord to operate this proposal on any wide scale. The homes of our people are a national responsibility. The provision of homes for the people will always be a problem before Parliament and I believe that all of us will come to realise in time that that responsibility can only be carried out by public enterprise.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Brooke: The House listened with interest to the thoughtful and moderate speech just delivered by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), and I have some sympathy with his comments on the financial proposals. But when the hon. Member suggests that the right way to arrange the machinery relating to increase of rents is in every case to require that a certificate of good repair has to be obtained from the local authority even though the tenant and the landlord are completely agreed about the situation, he must realise the fantastic addition to expense and work that he is recommending.
  The hon. Member referred to the huge figures of controlled properties in Islington. Borough councils have many important duties, and there is not an unlimited supply of sanitary inspectors in the country. Is the hon. Member really going to recommend that sanitary inspectors should leave their most urgent functions in other directions, to go round and inspect houses and grant certificates of good repair where landlord and tenant are entirely agreed that the property is in good repair?
  Mr. A. Evans: I am aware of the volume of work that that proposal would involve for the local authorities. That point has been made before in this debate, but I think that that is preferable to the reverse proposal whereby, in duty bound, we should have to send thousands of people to the local authorities to obtain a certificate of disrepair. I think that the hon. Member will know from practical experience that the local authorities could do that job, as I suggested, on a staggered basis over a period of days.
  Mr. Brooke: I have stated my view once and the hon. Member has stated his view twice. I will leave it at that.
  I pass on to a subject on which, I hope, we shall be in agreement. Surely we shall all welcome the fact that the White Paper and this Bill appear to presage the resumption of the slum clearance drive which was so tragically interrupted by the war. In this country we were able to make far too little impression on the slums until 1933. Then, in the six years before the war, people from slum dwellings were refocused at the rate of 200,000 a year. We are all agreed that since the war progress has been negligible.
  The real difficulty, the crux of the matter, is how to rehouse—"decant"is the standard word, which most of us dislike—those people who have to be moved out of their slum houses before new homes can be built on that land; and often those new homes will not satisfactorily house as many people as the old hovels filthily housed before slum clearance took place. It is only when the rate of new house building rises above 300,000 a year that slum clearance becomes a possibility. For that reason, first of all, I am most deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend for the whole of his housing policy, leading up to this chance of progress in clearing the slums.
  Reference has been made to the standard of fitness laid down in Clause 7 of the Bill, and I was surprised when the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) criticised it as in some way falling short of the standard recommended by the Mitchell Committee in 1946. I have the Report of that Committee; it is quite a rare document now. I can see in it no substantial difference. If there is a difference I hope that we shall hear the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) on the subject, because she signed that Report and she would appear better qualified than anybody to say whether this Bill carries out her Committee's recommendation.
  Mr. Mitchison: I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to one very remarkable difference, in that the repair required by the recommendation of that Committee was to be good general repair, a phrase which reappears in this Bill.
  Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. and learned Member is making the mistake which so many people have made, of not comparing like with like. I am referring to paragraph 23 of the Mitchell Report, which recommends that a certain subsection in the 1936 Act
  "should be repealed and be replaced by a Clause somewhat to the following effect: 'For the purpose of this Act the house shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if it is not…'."
  It is that paragraph in the Mitchell Report which has to be compared with Clause 7 of the Bill, and it appears to me that the words in the Bill carry that out entirely.
  However, I join with other hon. Members in expressing the hope that when he winds up the debate my right hon. Friend will give the House more explanation than it has had up to the present of the financial proposals in Part I of the Bill. The suggestion is a 50 per cent. grant to local authorities in respect of loan charges on the cost of acquisition at site value, combined with a grant of 45s. a year towards the cost of temporary maintenance of the unfit houses.
  The first of these costs is virtually fixed. It is not something to which the local authority, by good or bad management, can make some difference; but the other is unfixed and variable. I should have thought it desirable that the Treasury should be as generous as possible in respect of the first part of the grant—that relating to the cost of acquisition.
  Slum clearance must be pursued with determination or not at all. It is essential to get the enthusiastic goodwill of the local authorities for that great endeavour and it is useless for the Treasury or any Government to imagine that local authorities or the general public will tolerate the rates rising ceaselessly up when other forms of taxation are going down, because, as we all know, the basis of rating is a narrow one and rates do not operate truly fairly as between one payer and another. I am not in the least worried about the charge that local authorities will become slum landlords. They are temporary trustees and they can the quicker cease to be slum landlords the better they get on with their job. But a sound financial settlement which will secure results is a sine qua non.
  I have one further financial point to make, in connection with the Amend-

  1011
  ments to the 1949 Act. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and one or two hon. Members opposite have suggested that that Act failed because the Press omitted to give it sufficient publicity. We must blow that story sky high. The reason why that Act, which everybody welcomed, in fact failed to produce results was because almost immediately it reached the Statute Book one of the recurrent economic crises of those years fell upon the country, and the Labour Government found it necessary to cut drastically the monthly quotas for repair, maintenance and conversion work which were allowed to the local authorities. The result was that the average local authority hardly had enough quota even to license work in fulfilment of statutory notices, and it could not dream of going out and inviting applications for conversions, because it would have been unable to license them.
  The amendments to the Act seem all to be in the right direction, but I ask whether the substitution of 8 per cent. for 6 per cent. is likely to be sufficient if we want to get the work done. In another part of Clause 13 the period for which the house is expected to remain habitable is lowered from 30 years to 10 years. How many owners of house property will be able to put a major improvement in hand if they are limited to an 8 per cent. return on their outgoings and the life of the property may be less than 20 years? It seems to me that that is drawn too close and that it would be wiser—andI believe my right hon. Friend could do this with the common consent of all parties—to remove that limit and to extend to all cases the power of the local authority referred to in subsection (6) of Clause 13 to determine what the permitted rent shall be.
  As for Part II of the Bill, which is the more controversial Part, I listened with intense interest to the defence of the Government's approach put up last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He went right to the heart of the matter in explaining and arguing out why it was right to rely on the private owner and the building industry to do this job, which we all agree to be necessary, rather than to throw the whole weight of it on the local authorities and then
  1012
  possibly damage the efficiency of the building industry.
  What this Bill is—and it claims to be nothing more—is a practical plan for enabling a start to be made. We have heard a number of speeches from the other side of the House apparently desiring to provide by legislation that 6 million rent-controlled houses shall be repaired immediately. Indeed, one of the most often repeated criticisms has been that under the Bill too little will happen. The proposal coming from the benches opposite—that if the local authorities take over all these houses everybody will get their houses repaired at once—surely is the certain way to overload the building industry. I have heard hon. Members opposite say that on several occasions—
  Mr. Mitchison: Never.
  Mr. Brooke: I should have thought that those who remember what the overload of war damage repairs did in the way of harm to the building industry would have hesitated to hold out hopes that people would get their houses repaired well and quickly if the local authorities took them over and started doing the whole thing at once.
  One hon. Member in the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech suggested that under the local authorities this virtue would be gained: that the worst houses would be repaired first. I tried to imagine that in application to my constituency. We have upwards of 15,000 rent-controlled properties, and under that plan, presumably, the borough council would first have to make a survey of all the 15,000, then get them into an order of badness and then start the work. There is no spare staff to do this job throughout the country. If a local authority like mine proceeded at the rate of 20 houses a day, it would complete 15,000 in three years, and then I suppose it would start getting on with repairing the worst of them. Time will not wait for that.
  We must have an immediate start. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West has admitted that people are willing to pay more rent for their homes if they are properly repaired. The fundamental question of the debate is, who is to pay? The Bill says that the tenant must not pay more than a certain amount. The

  1013
  Opposition's plan would remove that limit. As I said in the debate on 4th November, "Vote Labour for much higher rents."
  How much will it cost on average, if the Socialists' plan for transferring all rent-controlled houses to local authorities is carried out? What will be the all-in average cost of buying the house, presumably at market value, and then carrying out the repairs?
  Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Member does not suggest that local authorities should buy a house at market value when there is a sitting tenant?
  Mr. Brooke: If they are not buying at market value there will be an element of confiscation in the plan. Perhaps this is the crux of the question, and perhaps the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) will deal with it when he speaks at the end of the debate: do the Opposition propose that owners should sell their houses at market value to local authorities or at some figure below market value?
  Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Member tell us what a landlord is losing if he gets the sitting tenant value?
  Mr. Brooke: It is just as possible to determine the market value of a house with a sitting tenant as it is without a sitting tenant. Having purchased the house, the local authority has to spend quite a substantial amount of money on it. What will the combined cost of all that be? Will it be £400, £500, or £600? If it is £500, the local authority, having to meet loan charges on £500 at 4 per cent. and wanting to amortise that sum over 30 years, will need 11s. a week in rent to do it. On top of that 11s. there will have to be put all the costs of repairs and management and insurance, which amount to over 10s. a week for the pre-1914 cottages of the London County Council.
  We even heard a horrifying suggestion yesterday from the hon. Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that if the local authorities took over all these rent-controlled houses they would actually be able to make some profit out of them, which could go to make good the loss on the slum or near-
  1014
  slum houses. That would mean yet more on the rent. So it does not look as though, under the Socialist plan, the tenant of the present rent-controlled house will come off well so far as his rent is concerned.
  The Government plan holds the field. It is based in essentials on the proposal put forward by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 1951, though it is a bit more unfavourable to landlords than that.
  The Opposition appear to be completely confused in the case which they have been putting before the House during today and yesterday. They say at one time that only local authorities should do this work and not the private landlord. that it should be taken right out of the hands of private landlords. The Opposition had their chance in 1949 if they really believed that. They did not confine the 1949 improvement grants to local authorities. I have in my hand a circular issued in September, 1949, when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was Minister. In that circular it was stated:
  "Action by the local authority will be particularly appropriate where there are groups of houses which lend themselves readily to improvement and for which comprehensive proposals are not forthcoming from the owners."
  At that time the Socialists' view was that the owner should be encouraged to do as much as possible, and the local authority should do the rest. Now that they are not in office, they turn round and say that the local authority should do everything.
  They cannot decide whether their case is that this Bill will not make repair sufficiently profitable to the landlord—that was the argument which we have heard from the Front Bench opposite—or will make it too profitable. The case that it will make it too profitable was given to Holborn the other day in this leaflet:
  "Landlords of old houses are rubbing their hands with glee. They are expecting a rich harvest from the Tory Government's new rent proposals."
  That is what is said when there are votes to be caught or stolen. That is the kind of thing which we heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley)

  1015
  and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson).
  The hon. Member for Clapham made a speech which sounded a most damaging one. He quoted dividends paid by various property companies. The complete answer to that is to look at the facts about the housing societies. The housing societies and trusts are bodies which under their constitution are limited to a low rate of interest, or none at all, and all surplus profit goes back into the property.
  Since 1947, the housing societies have been pleading with the Government that their properties should be freed from control, because under the system of control they found that they could not maintain them in a condition which they desired and which the tenants required. Nobody has ever suggested that the housing societies waste their money or misuse their revenue. For that reason, I am proud to be the first in this debate to welcome the provision in Clause 28 of the Bill that the properties of these bodies, as well as the properties of local authorities, are to be freed from control. My one request is that my right hon. Friend will consider making Clause 28 fully comprehensive. At present there are, as he may know, a few charitable trusts and housing societies which could not qualify under the definitions in the Clause. I trust that in Committee my right hon. Friend will favorably consider Amendments to put that right.
  I return, in conclusion, to the hon. Member for Clapham. I am sorry that he cannot be in his place. He quoted figures designed to prove that property companies owning rent-controlled house property were paying large and increasing dividends. This happened towards eleven o'clock last night, and I have since looked up one or two of the cases which he quoted.
  The hon. Member referred to Brixton Estate Limited, which he said owned seven acres of working class properties in Brixton. He went on:
  "There is no doubt about these being rent-controlled properties."
  I have consulted a standard work of reference, which states that Brixton Estate Limited "owns an estate of about seven acres in Brixton, comprising offices, factory buildings, garages and workshops"
  1016
  On that kind of argument the hon. Member for Clapham was resting his case against the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: May I put to the hon. Member the point that this company does in fact own, in addition to the kind of properties which he has mentioned, rent-controlled residential property?
  Mr. Brooke: I should not be surprised, and I am not denying it. But the case which the hon. Member for Clapham was putting was that these were companies which were managing rent-controlled property so profitably that they were able to pay high and increasing dividends out of it.
  I intend to give the House one further example. The hon. Member quoted also Bell London and Provincial Properties Limited, which in the same work of reference that I have mentioned is thus described:
  "Owns controlling interest in Marble Arch Restaurant Ltd., Park West Service Station Ltd."—
  and finally a company at whose profitability I cannot guess—
  "Liberal Guarantee Company Ltd."
  Mr. Barnett Janner: Has not the hon. Member done sufficient research to find out when their properties which are rent-controlled were purchased by the companies, and why they purchased them at that time, knowing that they were rent-controlled and knowing what the probabilities were in regard to those repairs?
  Mr. Brooke: No, I have not had the time to make more detailed inquiries. I am submitting that if we are to take the dividends of those companies as evidence in this debate, we need proof that the profits of those companies are principally derived from rent-controlled properties. That was certainly the impression which was given to the House last night, and it is not the case.
  I know that I have been tempted into fields of party controversy, but these matters with which we are dealing go so near the heart of England that I hope that however much we differ upon them we shall be yet able to join in making this Bill as good as may be. I hope, too, that my right hon. Friend, who has

  1017
  done so much in two years for the housing of the British people, will bear particularly in mind, when the Bill is passed, that full information about all the powers, responsibilities and duties arising out of the Bill should be made available to everybody in the simplest and clearest possible form.
  I say that because I do not believe we can make the machinery of this or any other Bill perfect in so complicated a field. I believe, however, that we owe to all concerned, tenants, landlords and local authorities, not only clarity of purpose but clarity of explanation.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) need never apologise for bringing in what he termed party politics. He of all Members opposite speaks with some knowledge and experience of local government, and from his speeches this House profits considerably. But I think he strayed from his usual fairness when he chided my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about his 1949 Housing Act.
  The hon. Member suggested that the Opposition now wanted the local authorities to take the initiative, whereas under the 1949 Act my right hon. Friend proposed that private enterprise should take the initiative, and that the local authorities should come in if private enterprise failed. The difference is that under the 1949 Act the local authorities had control the whole time. If there was an improvement grant, not only were the local authorities contributing, but they were passing the plans and inspecting the work. The hon. Member for Hampstead suggested that we were saying that local authorities should be the only ones to do the work. That may be one way of putting it. I would prefer to say that the local authorities are the only people who can be trusted to do the work.
  Perhaps the only hon. Gentleman opposite who faced up to the problem was the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I am delighted to see the hon. Member in his place. His regular attendance is an example to many hon. Members. My opposition to this Bill is general and fundamental, and that is why I appreciate the approach of the hon. Member for
  1018
  Wolverhampton, South-West. The first fundamental question I wish to ask is, why did local authorities become concerned with the provision of housing at all? It was because private enterprise failed to provide the houses. It is impossible for the speculative builder or the investor to provide a house at a rent which the ordinary working person can afford to pay.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And when they do it is a shoddy one.
  Mr. Lindgren: I shall come to that later.
  After the 1914–18 war. when it was no longer possible for private enterprise to make a profit out of housing the working-class, the then Coalition Government had to provide local authority housing. We started off with the Addison Act of 1919, and then followed the Chamberlain Act of 1923 and the Wheatley Act of 1924, almost yearly to the Housing Act of 1936 which consolidated all the others. Local authorities became concerned with the provision of housing because private enterprise had failed to provide them. I wish to make that point at the outset.
  This Bill will fail because private landlords are not in the business for the benefit of the community, or out of consideration for the tenant, and they never have been. They are there for what they can get out of it. There are, of course, isolated exceptions. I know there are some good landlords with estates in the country who look upon their houses as part of the general assets of the estate. But I am a cockney and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans). We regard landlordism from the point of view of our experience of landlords. This patronage, about which some hon. Gentlemen opposite speak, may happen in some isolated village where they live, but it has not happened to those of us who live in the towns.
  One of two things will happen under the provisions of this Bill. Either landlords will put up the rent and do little or no repair work, and pocket the money, or they will not put up the rents because they have no intention of doing any repairs, and so there will be no change in the situation at all. I said that landlords would put up the rent and not

  1019
  do any repairs, and the Minister raised his eyebrows. The right hon. Gentleman may have the best intentions in the world, but we have lived under Tory landlords and we know what they do. We suffered from the 1920 Act.
  I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what will happen. Every landlord will put up the rent irrespective of whether or not he spends a penny on the property. He will send a notice to the tenant, and what will the tenant have to do? He will have to go to the local authority to ask for a certificate of disrepair, and he has only 14 days in which to do it.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.
  Mr. Lindgren: Then what is he to do? There is nothing under this Bill to stop a landlord, who has not spent a penny on the property, from sending a notice to the tenant that the rent is to be increased—[Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister said, but I will give way if he wishes to interrupt me.
  Mr. H. Macmillan: So it is not such a mouldy turnip after all?
  Mr. Lindgren: The Minister can interject how he pleases—about mouldy turnips or other people's speeches—but we are speaking with some degree of experience of living in towns where there are property-owning landlords.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: He would lose at the county court.
  Mr. Lindgren: That is the point. Whoever loses there is one group of fellows who are always in, right from the start, and that is the lawyers. They will get their money every time. With them will be the architects and surveyors. After all, the lawyer wants to see the money on his desk before he takes up a case.
  I think the problem was faced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he said that the choice lay between the suggestion of the Opposition and whether we can make private enterprise pay. He said, as proof of his support for this Bill, that he would suggest that in the inter-war years private enterprise was showing the way. He said that first of all private owner-occupiers were buying the houses and then persons were able to purchase houses and live in them.
  1020
  and they were paying mortgage interest and repayments. Secondly, 110,000 houses were built for letting by private enterprise from 1937 to 1939, I think those were the years the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Let us deal with the first point. It was not municipal enterprise or socialism which was responsible for the term "jerry-building." That term was used to describe the work of the speculative builders in the inter-war years, whose standard of construction was such that the industry and everyone else was ashamed of it. They were even assisted in their evil work by the building societies. Has the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West heard of the Borders case? Owner-occupiers were being fleeced. Properties were jerry-built, and the poor folk who went into them found more often than not that the property was a millstone round their necks for 20 or 30 years.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the amount of mortgage repayment was little more than the rent. That is not altogether true, but I will give him that point. The house purchase schemes operated with the second mortgage of the building society on the builder of the house were almost a social evil. People who were induced to undertake obligations which were more than they could carry were almost legion. The problems which arose as a result of financial strain were terrific.
  I worked among people who were in a fortunate position. I was a railway man and we were not subject to the cursed fear of unemployment during the Toryism of the inter-war years. So long as we behaved ourselves we knew we had a steady job. Many people outside who purchased houses were not so fortunate. Local authorities and building societies had to face many problems caused by tenants being missing overnight and leaving the keys behind in the house. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, "Nonsense"—
  Mr. Powell: I did not.
  Mr. Lindgren: —but in the Home Counties hosts of people had to do a moonlight flit.
  Mr. Powell: I did not use the expression, "Nonsense." I merely repeated the

  1021
  word "tenants," because the hon. Member seemed to be referring to tenants and not to prospective owner-occupiers. But now that he has kindly given way to me I would also remind him that the percentage of defaults on building society mortgages in the years immediately before the last war was under 1 per cent.
  Mr. Lindgren: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is not talking of the rackets which went on with the second mortgage through the building societies, the houses for £5 down and all road charges paid. They were the ones which were in the mind of the hon. Member when he spoke last night, and they are the ones to which I referred when I spoke of the jerry-builder and the curse of the building industry in the inter-war years.
  I leave that point and come to the question of houses to let. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 62,000 houses to let of a gross value of under £20 in Greater London. He said that 62,000 of 110,000 houses in the Greater London area were of an average gross rateable value under £20.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman please look at the Official Report?
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman said,
  " 'of 110,000 houses built for letting between 1st October, 1937, and 31st March, 1939' "—
  that is in 18 months—
  " 'almost 62,000,' "—
  that is, over half—
  " 'were of a rateable value not exceeding £13, or £20 in Greater London.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 890.]
  Mr. Powell: Yes.
  Mr. Lindgren: I challenged the hon. Gentleman when he made that statement. I admit that my researches since then apply only to North London. I could not find any of these houses of under £20 gross rateable value until I come to the Hatfield Rural District Council where there were some of a gross value of £20. But I have not been able to find any in the North London area in the short time since the hon. Gentleman made his speech.
  When one examines the houses which were built outside London one would not suggest that they were of best quality standards. This is a part of the policy of the Government. There are interests
  1022
  behind politics. Do not let us hoodwink ourselves. One of the interests behind the Tory Party is the property owners and the Central Landowners' Association. This is a vested interest within the Tory Party. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can accuse me of being a vested interest within the Labour movement, as representative of the trade union movement within the Labour movement. I accept that, but this is a vested interest of property owners within the Tory Party.
  This is within the general policy which the Minister has followed on housing. The right hon. Gentleman likes to make himself out as a tremendous success; but in the inter-war years the general standards of council houses were a music-hall joke. When the comedian in the music hall got tired of talking about the mother-in-law he used the council house as a standby—hear the woman next door change her mind, and all that sort of thing. A succession of Tory Governments between the wars depressed housing standards to such an extent that during the last war when the Tories were worried, as they always are during a war, they promised all sorts of things and set up the Dudley Committee. It was not a Socialist Government but a Tory Government who set up the Dudley Committee to determine post-war housing standards.
  The houses which the Minister is now building are considerably below Dudley standards. They are even below the standards of houses built by local authorities in 1938. There is in addition the two-bed roomed house which the Minister of Works seems to be quite proud of. That is not a house which ought to be encouraged. I interjected when the Minister of Works was speaking—perhaps wrongly—that hon. Gentleman opposite do not live in two-bed roomed houses.
  Mr. Hay: I do.
  Mr. Lindgren: Most of those who do live in them do so from Monday to Friday and have another house in the country for the week ends.
  Mr. Hay: No, I could not afford that.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) is twisting the argument of his earlier interjection which was designed to give the impression that while the Government could claim more

  1023
  houses, because they were smaller houses, they could not claim so many bedrooms. The Minister replied that there were 50 per cent. more bedrooms, so that argument failed.
  Mr. Lindgren: I agree. That was the effect of my first intervention. It is true that the houses built under the standards of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, whatever else one might say about him—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentle men opposite can say what they like. This at least can be said for my right hon. Friend. The houses built when he was Minister were built to Dudley standards which the Coalition Government promised would be adopted. But the houses which are being built today are of a debased standard. The Minister is reducing ceilings to 7 feet 3 inches and taking away all sorts of amenities—
  Mr. Shurmer: Putting stairs in the kitchen.
  Mr. Lindgren: —reducing the superficial floor area and bringing the number of bedrooms down to two. If one lowers standards and makes the houses smaller, with two bedrooms instead of three or four, of course one can build more houses even with the same amount of materials.
  Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: Is it not the case that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has claimed credit for designing these new houses?
  Mr. Lindgren: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I should not like to live in a house that he or any other Member of this House designed. My right hon. Friend is a Cambridge don and a politician, and I much prefer to live in a house designed by an architect and built by a builder. Not even the Minister can claim credit for those designs. They are the work of architects within the Department for which a particular Minister happens to be responsible. It is true also that the density in housing is being increased.
  My objection to the Bill is fundamental. I just do not believe that hon. Members opposite are interested in the housing and housing standards of the working class. I have had 25 years' local government experience of fighting the Tories on those standards and I do not
  1024
  believe that they have changed a bit. The Minister's action in debasing the standards since he came into office convinces me that there is no sincerity whatever in the desire of hon. Members on the Government side to improve the housing standards of the people. I believe that their desire is, as it always has been, to improve the rent and profit that comes from the necessity of housing the people, and that that is the basis of the Bill.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: In view of the fact that I do not wish to detain the House very long, I do not think I ought to be tempted into following the hon. Member for Welling borough (Mr.Lindgren) into such fascinating speculations as to whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) is a better designer of houses than his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), or, indeed, to borrow the hon. Member's phrase, as to what might be said against his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. The House will look forward to hearing from the hon. Member on that topic on some other occasion
  Mr. Lindgren: And in a different place.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: —and, perhaps, in a different, if not, technically, in another place.
  I want to do what has been a little unusual in this debate by starting my observations about the Bill at the beginning, at Part I. I welcome Part I of the Bill as constituting a signal to local authorities to resume the great slum clearance campaign under Part III of the principal Act, the Housing Act, 1936. The House will appreciate that the Conservative Party have a very good and long record in regard to this matter—
  Mr. Tom Brown: Such as?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Member. Some of his hon. Friends are notoriously selective in their study of history, but in direct answer to the hon. Member's question, the Tory Party's record began with what he will know as Sir Richard Cross's Act—
  Mr. Lindgren: That was in 1889.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: No, it was not 1889. The Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, is

  1025
  known as Sir Richard Cross's Act. It was passed, as the hon. Member will recall, in the second Session of Disraeli's great Administration of 1874. The Act to which the hon. Member refers is the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which was passed during Lord Salisbury's Administration and which held the field until the Act of 1925.
  To come a little more up to date, during the 1930s under the 1935 and 1936 Acts there was great progress in the matter of slum clearance. But for the unhappy interruption of the war, there is no doubt that the slum clearance problem would have been solved by this time. In the 1930s there was this very rapid advance on two fronts: first, under Part III of the Housing Act, in regard to slum clearance, and secondly, in the provision of houses by private enterprise, not only for owner-occupancy but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) explained yesterday, for private letting, plus a number of ordinary local authority subsidised houses under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936.
  That was a sensible approach to the problem of the deployment of the building industry and the provision of housing, and it comprised a proper allocation of function. The local authorities and the contract builders concentrated on their work under the Housing Act in the provision of houses and flats under Part V and also on slum clearance. At the same time, the private builders, the non-contract builders, were deployed on the business of private enterprise housing for owner-occupancy and private rental.
  The history of the 1930s shows that that allocation of function produced a very rapid advance on these fronts, accompanied by various other factors of an encouraging nature. In the first place, in the 1930s, subsidies under the Housing Act, 1936, we redirected to those in need of subsidies and did not produce the social anomalies and paradox which we have seen in the later 1940s and in the 1950s. There were, at any rate, in the later part of the 1930s, rising standards of house construction with the formation of the House Builders' Registration Council. Also, there was a rapid and continuous improvement of standards within the building industry itself. The later 1930s saw the advent of the holidays-with-pay scheme in the building industry,
  1026
  the guaranteed week and the wet-time scheme, all notable advances in the field of conditions of the building industry.
  Mr. Gibson: The unions were entitled to the credit of the holidays-with-pay scheme in the building industry.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think the hon. Member would be so unfair as to try to take for one side of the industry all the credit for what was an agreed measure. If Mr. George Hicks were still in the House, with his recollection of what happened in those days, he would not take that point.
  Along with those advances there was in the field of rent restriction a policy of decontrol which was a satisfactory policy, because it was based on the provision of alternative up-to-date housing accommodation at an economic cost. Therefore, when I heard the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale say yesterday that the Government were beginning to repeat the pattern of pre-war Tory housing, I took it to be a considerable compliment to my right hon. Friend.
  If this welcome restart of the slum clearance campaign is to be a success, the local authorities must be stripped for action and not cumbered about with a great many other additional functions. It will be necessary once again to seek a more logical and practical allocation of functions. I echo what was said last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that this will mean a larger proportion of the provision of non-slum clearance houses by private building, and it will entail a revision of the subsidy position under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, to ensure that the maximum amount of public money is available where it is most needed: that is to say, in the implementation of the slum clearance campaign.
  Now may I turn to Part II of the Bill. So far as this is concerned, it is generally agreed in the House that some action is required to arrest the processes of disrepair. There is less agreement as to whether the extent of disrepair is to be laid at the door of the landlords or not. In my submission, the House has heard very little evidence that, although there are good and bad landlords as there are good and bad tenants, the landlords as a whole are to blame. I do not mean that

  1027
  there has not been a good deal of iteration, but there has been very little evidence.
  Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that, in a very large number of cases—involving, possibly, millions of houses—the landlords did not use the 25 per cent. for repairs?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion, without any very clear evidence about it. I do not say that it did not happen in some cases, but I do say that the law gave a remedy in Section 2 (1, d) of the Act of 1920 which was available to the tenants. Furthermore, if landlords allowed houses to get into such disrepair, the local authorities had their power to serve statutory notices under the Housing Acts. Therefore, there were very considerable curbs on any landlord who was neglecting his liability to repair in the way which the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not say that none of them failed in their duty, but I do say that there is no evidence of this wholesale disregard of these responsibilities which is suggested; and hon. Members really do little credit to the average intelligence, courage and resource of the tenants when they suggest that they were so pusillanimous and ignorant in regard to their rights in this matter.
  I think that probably a more important question now is whether the ratio of rents and repairs in the post-war years is in balance. Here the House has been helped by the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, which in sum show that, whereas before the war 11 per cent. of expenditure went on rent plus rates, it is now a figure of only some 7 per cent. When the House remembers that that is an inclusive figure including rates, and also remembers how much rates have risen in the post-war period, it will be realised how the ratio of rent to repairs has got out of balance in the post-war years.
  Indeed, in this country we are spending only half as much on rent and rates as before the war, as against 4½ times as much on tobacco as before the war. It is therefore quite clear that there is an unbalance between the amounts of rent and the cost of repairs in these post-
  1028
  war years. From that, I think the House will conclude that any remedy must include the possibility of rent increases, having regard to the general position and also to the extent to which local authorities have found it necessary to raise their rents in the last few years.
  Looking at the report of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, I find, for example, these increases in regard to weekly net rents charged for three-bedroom houses owned by local authorities and completed before 31st March, 1945, as between 1950 and 1952, Bath had to raise rents by 4s. 3d., Doncaster by 2s., Merthyr Tydfil 2s. 3d., Nottingham 2s. 5d., Preston 2s. 7d., South Shields 3s. 7d. and West Ham 3s. 1d. I have selected these as being some of both kinds—some Socialist and some non-Socialist authorities—in order to show the generality of the position. Therefore, I think the House will say that there is no impropriety in a Measure which is going to allow some rises in rents. The House will no doubt think it right that the rise should be linked to the cost of repairs, as it is in this Bill; and that is what is done in Clause 18.
  I must be frank with the House. I think that what is sought to be done in Clauses 18 and 19 is very difficult. What my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to tread the razor's edge between hardship to tenants on the one hand and inaction by the landlord on the other. The difficulty here is that any inducement which is sufficient to ensure action by the landlord may bring hardship to the tenant, but, on the other hand, in trying to avoid hardship on the tenant it is quite easy to result in a nullity because there is not sufficient inducement to the landlord. After all, that is the basic problem of this part of the Bill.
  Along with the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I took part in a radio discussion on the Home Service of the B.B.C. some time between the issue of the White Paper and the publication of this Bill; and not the least interesting thing about taking part in these discussions is the correspondence which they bring. I studied the letters which I received with care, and, in substance, what the tenants' letters said to me was this. They made two points, in the main; first, that the record or conduct of the landlord in their

  1029
  particular case was such as to disentitle the landlord to any increase at all, and, secondly, the difficulty of finding the money with which to pay an increased rent.
  I did not feel much difficulty about the first, because, quite clearly, on the facts as stated in these cases, there would be no benefit to the landlord in the provisions of this Bill. The second point was one on which I felt some difficulty and with which I had considerable sympathy, though I think in the generality of cases it probably is not an undue burden; that is to say, when we compare the present position of wages, it is not an undue burden to have to pay the increase in rent for better accommodation, having regard to the fact that the increase will not, in the ordinary way, be very much.
  Again, looking at the report of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, I find that in the case of 31·7 per cent. of the houses in England and Wales the additional rents could not exceed £8 a year. I do not say that that is negligible, but I do say that, to a man working on present day wages who is paying for a better house, it is not unreasonable. The difficulty arises in regard to people like old-age pensioners and those on National Assistance and so on. The House must face this problem. It may be that in some cases, public money will go to pay an increased repairs increase, but it will go because there will be a better house as a result, and a better house is part of the assets of the nation. I think the House should be prepared to accept that position.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those cases, the Assistance Board ought to be able to take up the cases themselves direct, and make the landlord substantiate the claim for a little extra rent?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: That is an important point. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to it in his interesting speech yesterday, and it will probably be further explored in Committee. I should like to pass to what the landlords said to me in the letters that they wrote after that broadcast.
  Their points were these: First, "Where am I to get the money from with which to do the repairs before I get the increase of rent?" Their second point was that the tests under Clause 18 were too exacting. I find the first of those points very
  1030
  difficult, not so much for the large estate company as for the small landlord. I do not have the answer, and I was not able to give it to them. I am not a financier, but is clear that if landlords are not able to raise money to do this work, that part of the Bill becomes a nullity. That is why this is a very important aspect of the matter. I do not know what influence my right hon. Friend will have on the banks, but the point is obviously most important. If the Bill is to be effective, the small property-owner should be able to raise the money and to satisfy the tests in the Bill.
  In regard to the tests being too exacting, my correspondents specified various points, many of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin), my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), and others in the debate. One of their difficulties which has been less referred to is under Clause 19, the "stopper" Clause, as I think it is called. Some of these correspondents point out that the gross values are very arbitrary and out-of date, as all of us with any knowledge of rating realise.
  This is the Nemesis of the postponement of the quinquennial revaluation, an unfortunate effect of the blunder made by the late Socialist Government in Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1948. A good deal of inequity will result in regard to it, more particularly if the meaning of the Bill is to link it to current gross values and not to gross values as they may be after the quinquennial revaluation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will refer to this point in his reply, because I am not sure about it.
  The other points included the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns last night about the statutory deduction including not only repairs but insurances and other expenses necessary to keep the property in a state to command the rents. That being so, it may be that that is too exacting a test.
  Therefore, I feel bound to say that it would be wrong to express the view that it is certain that these proposals will secure widespread repair. On the information that is known to me I could not feel that certainty. I hope it is probable and it should be possible. While there is that necessary uncertainty in

  1031
  regard to Part II of the Bill, there is absolute certainty about the undesirability and impracticability of the alternative put forward by the party opposite for the municipalisation of rent-controlled houses. Perhaps I might summarise my objections to that course.
  The first is that the course proposed is a gradual remedy for an urgent problem. Secondly, that it will be extremely costly. In spite of what the hon. Member for Wellingborough says "Challenge to Britain" does refer to "fair compensation." If compensation is fair, it will be astronomical. If it not astronomical, it will be unfair. Thirdly, that the alternative will impose a great burden on the technical and other staffs of local authorities which will gravely hinder them in this great duty of slum clearance, under Part I.
  Mr. Blenkinsop rose—
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry. I am in this difficulty that when I give way often it means that I speak too long. I have given way several times already.
  Fourthly, the objection is that, from the point of view of the tenant, it would effect the end of rent control; not absolutely immediately as a matter of law, because the old controlled houses will presumably retain their rent control. The 1939 rent-controlled houses will become decontrolled immediately they are taken over by the local authorities, under Section 3 (2) of the 1939 Act. So far as the old controlled houses are concerned, there will be overwhelming pressure to bring them into line with the 1939 controlled houses and with the new houses of the local authorities, so as to get rid of rent control from all local authority houses. As soon as that happens, there will be increases of rents such as have already taken place in the instances I have quoted, or there will be increases of rates, which would bear immediately on the tenants, because all tenants would then be direct ratepayers.
  From every point of view—of the tenants, of good administration, of economy, and of the houses themselves—the scheme put forward by the party opposite is doomed to failure. That being so, the Bill, with its very good provisions for slum clearance and its, at any rate, possible provisions for the achievement
  1032
  of better repairs, is a very considerable advance which can be commended with confidence to the country.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) started his speech by proving that the Conservative Party had a good record in slum clearance, and to do so he had to go back to 1875. One is tempted to comment on what he said that, having made the slums, they then set about to clear them. The hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of time referring to the 1930s, and he took a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about "the emerging pattern of pre-war Tory housing" as a compliment. Of course, we are getting the same pattern as we had in the 1930s, an immediate house with as many amenities as you want for people who can afford it, but not nearly sufficient houses for people who have not the means.
  I represent what must be one of the worst-housed constituencies in England, if not the worst, the centre of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I shall refer a good deal to my own area because I know it best. My people are living in appalling, degrading and humiliating conditions of overcrowding and decaying houses. I did hope that when, in the Gracious Speech, the Government said they would tackle this problem, the Bill, when produced, would be some help to the people I represent.
  I have tried to look at the Bill objectively, but I must say that as it is framed it will not begin to touch the fringe of our problem. It will, no doubt, improve houses where the standard of maintenance is already fairly good, but it will not do anything at all for the houses which are the core and heart of this probblem, the millions of houses that will be written off in five to ten years' time unless a great deal of money is spent on them now. I do not believe that they will be touched by the financial provisions of the Bill.
  To begin with, the Bill is, of course, based upon a false premise. In the White Paper, the Government say:
  "The success of the Government's measures for the building of new houses makes it possible now to turn to the old houses."

  1033
  On the next page, they repeat this by saying:
  "This expansion of the new housing programme enables us now to turn to the problem of the old houses."
  A good deal has been said about this, and I also want to say a word about it, because it really is not true. If we strip the Tory housing record, such as it is, of all its ballyhoo, we see that the party opposite have provided practically no more accommodation than did the Labour Government.
  During the tenure of office of the present Government, the waiting list in Newcastle-upon-Tyne—I hope the Minister will remember these figures—has gone up by 2,000 to 17,000. They are certainly providing more houses, but in Newcastle-upon-Tyne this year 70 per cent. of all the corporation houses have been two-bedroom houses.
  When the Minister of Works was speaking—having been duly prompted by his right hon. colleague—he said that 50 per cent. more bedrooms were being provided. Some time ago I did a bit of research on this question. I have not the figures for 1953, because, obviously, they are not complete, but this is what has been happening on the question of bedrooms, and bedrooms, after all, are the best yardstick for measuring the amount of accommodation provided.
  If we compare 1948 with 1952, we find that in 1948 one-bedroom houses represented 3·4 per cent. of all council houses built, whereas in 1952 they represented 7·5 per cent. of all the houses built. In 1948, 13·2 per cent. of all the houses built were two-bedroom houses, whereas in 1952 such houses represented 35·1 per cent. of all the houses built.
  Now let us look at the increase in the number of three-bedroom houses, which are the most useful of all. In 1948, 80·4 per cent. of all the houses built by the Labour Government were three-bedroom houses while in 1952 the proportion fell to 54·6 per cent.
  Mr. Nicholls: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience on his local government housing committee, but he surely must know that local authorities build the sort of houses which the applicants on their housing lists require. He will find that in the industrial areas more than 60 per cent. of the
  1034
  applicants on the average waiting lists want two-bedroom houses. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that although the demand is for two-bedroom houses, local authorities should build three-bedroom houses with all the extra cost and extra use of materials which that involves?
  Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman referred to my experience in local government. I am a member of the City Council of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and for some time before I came here I had the honour to be the leader of my party, which is, unfortunately, in a minority on that Council. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure of 70 per cent. is not based on a proper analysis of the waiting list. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne Council is a Tory council and they want the Tory Government to build 300,000 houses a year. That is why there is this preponderance of two-bedroom houses, and that is not only being done in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, but all over the country.
  The number of small houses—and let the public get this clear—bears no relation to a proper analysis of the waiting lists. In Scotland, in 1952—and I collaborated with some of my Scottish colleagues in working out these figures from answers given by the Minister in this House—there were actually fewer bedrooms provided than in the previous year. Therefore, to say, as the Government do, that they are providing more accommodation is really not correct. They are providing houses, but fewer bedrooms.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there is a very important aspect of this over-building of two-bedroom houses I do not know whether the House remembers the most disturbing Report of the Royal Commission on Population, but in that Report we were told that the average size of families in Britain over the past 20 years had been 2.2 children, which is 6 per cent. below replacement level. In other words, the population will increase up to 1971 and will then come right down unless we get bigger families.
  I suggest that by concentrating on two-bedroom houses in this way the Government are discouraging people from having more children. In addition to reducing the size, the quality and the amenities of the houses have also considerably deteriorated. My hon. Friend the Member

  1035
  for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and another colleague from Newcastle and I recently spent half a day visiting a new housing estate. Quite frankly, I was shocked by the quality of the houses I saw. They are the worst council houses I have ever seen, both in regard to finish and amenities.
  The bedrooms were only 7 ft. 3 ins. in height and their windows had been cut down to 2 ft. and pushed up to the eaves. In the second bedroom upstairs, the door could not be opened if a single bed was put in it. All the cupboards were cut out, and, by some remarkable feat of planning, the back door was next to the front door. If a bicycle was stood in the passageway, there was no room for a pram, so if the husband had to go to work on a bicycle the couple could not have any more babies. That is the sort of thing that is happening, and happening under deliberate pressure from the Minister.
  Mr. Marples: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities are building houses lower than the Dudley standard?
  Mr. Short: I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to come to Newcastle and to go with me to have a look at the estate of which I am speaking. He would get a shock.
  The only real increase which has taken place is that in houses for sale. Admittedly, there has been a tremendous increase here. I think that the figure for this year will be 60,000 houses built for sale, but, of course, those houses are not allocated according to need at all. They are allocated according to the length of one's pocket, and, therefore, make no impact upon the waiting lists at all.
  There is no lowering of standards in these houses, and no cutting out of amenities. Indeed, the announcement made by the Minister of Works yesterday ensures that the amenities of houses built for sale will be increased. That means that while council houses are going down in quality, privately built houses are going up in quality. Of course, that is pure Toryism; that is the way it has always worked out. In the words of the popular song of the day:
  "The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."
  1036
  A second false premise on which this Bill is based is that the standard of maintenance was adequate before the war. In the White Paper, the Government say:
  "Before the war the nation was making good headway in dealing with both the provision of new houses and the maintenance of existing houses."
  Again, this is just not so. The maintenance of houses was by no means adequate before the war, and I think that this fact is absolutely fundamental to the Labour Party's objection to this Bill.
  I know from my experience in my own city that before the war there was gross neglect in the maintenance of houses, in spite of the 25 per cent. Increase allowed to landlords for repairs. Houses are now being written off very largely because of pre-war, and not post-war, neglect, and in those days, of course, the rent was adequate. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne whole streets of studily-built terraced houses are now disintegrating and falling into a hopeless state of disrepair because the landlords in the 1920s and 1930s—about whom the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was speaking—were unwilling to reduce their profits. That is why the houses are now having to be written off.
  The Government state, in the White Paper, and I apologise for quoting from it so much:
  "The other and more serious cause…"
  that is, the cause of houses deteriorating—
  "…is rent control."
  Maybe that is so now, but I have had a long acquaintance of this in the North-East and I suggest that, if the landlords had played the game before the war, the present rents would have been adequate because the maintenance costs would not now be so great. But now, unfortunately—and we all admit it, on both sides—the problem is beyond them and the neglect of the houses has become cumulative. The remedy, I believe, is now quite beyond the means of most landlords.
  We have heard a lot today about housing trusts, and so on, but a great many houses are owned by quite small people. It is quite common to find, in a street of flats, that the family downstairs owns the pair. That is common throughout most of the great cities. The

  1037
  neglect has gone so far, however, as to be beyond their means to put it right. I suggest that the financial inducements in this Bill will not, and cannot, put back the problem of repairs within the means of landlords, because we have to bear in mind that the house must be put in order before the increase may be claimed. To put most of these houses into order again would require not £20 or £30 as provided in the Bill, but £300 or £400. A problem of that size is quite beyond the means of most of the landlords.
  This anti-social attitude of the landlords between the wars has sealed their fate, because their neglect then has removed their ability to deal with the problem now. Only the resources of the State and of the local authorities are now adequate to save those 6 million threatened houses. In other words, it has now become a social problem which cannot be solved by individual private enterprise. Of course, the Conservative Government still regard housing, or house property, as a field for profitable investment. In the White Paper they say:
  "…the rent of a dwelling may be regarded as composed of two parts—interest on investment and cost of repairs."
  We, on this side, regard housing as a social service in which private profit must have no part whatever. I think that is the fundamental cleavage between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party on housing. I always thought that the party opposite did not believe in nationalisation, but, by their present proposals, they will go down in history as the party which believes in nationalising the slums. They supported nationalisation of the railways, and condemned the nationalisation of steel; that is why, perhaps, they support the nationalisation of the slums.
  The financial provisions of the Bill are based on the assumption that the cost of repairs has gone up by 300 per cent., but what we are not told is that the market value of the property has also gone up by 300 per cent. The landlord has an asset which, if he can liquidateit—and most of them move heaven and earth to do so—
  Mr. Nicholls: Can the hon. Gentleman produce any evidence to show that the value of rent-restricted property has increased by 300 per cent.?
  Mr. Short: I said, if the landlord could liquidate it. By that I meant if he could get possession. Those of us who represent congested city constituencies know of hundreds of cases where the utmost pressure has been brought to bear on such people as widows, and old people, to live in with someone so that the landlord could sell the house. I know that many large property owners in Newcastle-upon-Tyne have sold houses since the war at enormous profits, but in very few cases does any of that profit find its way back into the improvement of other houses. If the landlords want a new deal they must change their social behaviour. As the lawyers would say, "Those who seek equity must do equity."
  There is no denying that, under this Bill, millions of tenants will have to pay more rent, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale that most of them would be quite willing to pay more rent if they could have modern amenities and a house in a decent state of repair. But people should understand that this Bill does not provide them with amenities. What the landlord has to do to benefit under the Bill is to put the fabric and the decoration into good order. Clause 40, the interpretation Clause, states:
  " 'good repair'…means…good repair both as respects structure and as respects decoration;"
  There is nothing whatever said about geting rid of the dusty old kitchen range, or putting in a bathroom, or installing an indoor toilet or anything of that kind. It does not show that side of the problem at all.
  Mr. Hay: It is in a different Clause. Read the next Clause.
  Mr. Short: That exists already under the 1949 Act, and here again the landlords are quite unable to do anything under that Clause because most of them have not the money. The Amendment to the 1949 Act, as suggested by the Bill will not make the slightest difference.
  I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale about the equity of the increase from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. If we take a house of an existing gross value of £25 the statutory deduction is £7. If at any time, and this illustrates the point I am making, the landlord, say, paints the exterior at a cost of £21 he can

  1039
  then claim an increase of rent of £14 per annum for ever more.
  Mr. Hay: Under the Bill as drafted, it is only as long as the landlord keeps the property in good repair that he can draw the increase.
  Mr. Short: As I say, if he paints the exterior of the house at a cost of £21 he can increase the rent by £14 per annum for the rest of its existence. I believe that such a financial arrangement as this will only act as an irritant to the tenant and will make no difference whatever to the state of repair of the houses in my constituency, or indeed anywhere else in the country.
  The White Paper mentioned a figure of 140,000 slums. But that is a pre-war figure. I think the present figure would be some hundreds of thousands, certainly considerably in excess of 140,000. I agree with all that the White Paper says about slums. In Newcastle, which is typical, the city has a wonderful, well-planned, well laid out perimeter, and a decaying heart. I am not referring to Newcastle United when I say that. It is the same with most cities. Building has been going on for generations out from the city, and the heart is now in a state of the utmost decay. That cannot go on indefinitely.
  I believe that we have now reached the stage in our great cities where we have got to come back and build where we were building in medieval times, in the centre. A great many people prefer to live in the neighbourhood where they were born and bred. Many people prefer to live in the middle of cities. Of course, there are certain things we must do before we start rebuilding in our slum areas.
  For one thing, we have got to set up smokeless zones. That is particularly true on Tyneside, because we have the highest tuberculosis rate in the country; it is twice as high as the national average. We could not start rebuilding in the slum areas unless we did something of that kind. Provided we can set up smokeless zones, and provided we have a good standard of industrial design in the cities, there is no reason why we should not start rebuilding in the places where we were building in the days of Queen Elizabeth I.
  1040
  Unfortunately, this Bill provides nothing new, so far as I can see, for the clearance of the slums. It provides for nationalising the slums, or part of them, but it provides nothing new in the way of an inducement to clear the slums. The White Paper says:
  "The pace and phasing of a slum clearance programme must be for the local authority to determine in the first place—by measuring that need against the general housing need upon which they have concentrated their efforts since 1945."
  It says later:
  "The Minister of Housing and Local Government must inform himself, and must be able to inform Parliament, of the way in which local authorities are setting about the task, and must be able to satisfy himself that their proposals, singly and in total, do not exceed or fall short of the resources that can properly be allocated for these purposes."
  There we have the duty of the local authority and of the Minister with regard to slum clearance. But how can either the local authority or the Minister carry out those functions if one great sector of the campaign to save the houses is omitted? One whole sector of this campaign is put in the hands of private landlords. How, then, can the local authorities plan the campaign and the resources so that the whole thing moves forward together in the various areas? If, as we suggest, the local authorities took over streets of rented houses in need of repair and modernisation, then and only then could the local authorities and the Minister perform the function which this Bill lays upon them.
  It is rather like a battle in which all the army is under a commander-in-chief, except for one independent brigade which is not under anybody. It can please itself what it does; it can please itself whether it fights or not. Yet that brigade is holding an important sector. How could we hope to win a battle of that kind?
  Dr. H. Morgan: Now then, you soldiers, tell us that.
  Mr. Short: I hope I have not introduced a military note into this debate. This Bill is based on a great national problem. We are all agreed about the existence of the problem. Here are 6 million houses, and, no matter whose hands they are in, they are a valuable social asset which we cannot allow to deteriorate any further. But there our agreement ends. We on this side of the House

  1041
  believe that the Government's approach to this problem is fundamentally wrong, because their solution to this great social problem is based on the outmoded landlord-tenant principle. It is a principle which failed in the inter-war years, and always has failed to maintain our houses. On present costs, which are likely to go on increasing, or which will certainly not decrease for a considerable time, it is an utterly impossible basis on which to plan the housing of our people in the future.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. John Hay: The rather remarkable speech to which we have just listened created one particular effect in my mind, and it was this: if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) really believes, as he has said, that this is a vast problem which must be solved, it seems extraordinary to me that he, in common with so many of his hon. Friends, did nothing whatever about this same problem in the years between 1945 and 1950 when they were in power. No effort was made by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends to rebuild the hearts of these cities that were decaying and falling to pieces.
  Mr. Lindgren rose—
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman made a vitriolic speech earlier. I have listened to many speeches from the opposite benches in this debate, and the same theme has run through all of them—a constant attack upon what this Government are seeking to do to put this grievous problem right, a thing which they themselves were frightened to do and from which they ran away
  Mr. Short: Surely the hon. Gentleman will recollect—it is a fact which the Conservative Government so often forgets—that when the Labour Party took office the war was still on; the war was still to be won. That is not starting from scratch. It is starting further backwards. All our builders were in the Forces. They had to be got out. Damage had to be made good. The building force had to be recreated. That is where we started from—not from the point where this Government started.
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the war ended in 1945, and the Socialist Government were still in
  1042
  office in 1951, which is quite a long time by my reckoning.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell rose—
  Mr. Hay: I want to talk about the proposals of the Government, because I believe this is the most important matter that we have got to discuss. The argument put forward by hon. Members opposite in connection with the solution of this admittedly grave matter of the repair of our older houses is based upon "municipalisation." As has been pointed out from this side of the House, that is an idea which, although perhaps attractive in theory, is nevertheless unworkable because primarily it is very costly.
  An interchange took place between the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and one of my hon. Friends on the amount of compensation which would be paid if this proposal for municipalisation went forward. The hon. Member for Wellingborough was quite frank about it. He said, "We will certainly not agree to anything like the market value." Yet neither he nor any other hon. Member opposite, putting forward this grandiose plan of municipalisation—which is really nationalisation under another name—have said precisely what their compensation proposals would be. Would they buy up these houses at site value? Would they carry out exactly the same sort of scheme as they did for slum clearance? Would they introduce any kind of element of remuneration for the landlord for the loss of an intrinsically valuable asset? Or would they confiscate the property without any compensation at all? That is what we want to know.
  Mr. Lindgren: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned me, perhaps I might ask, if these properties are such a loss to the present landlords, what compensation does the hon. Gentleman think they ought to have? Does he suggest that the local authorities ought to buy them at vacant possession value?
  Mr. Hay: I gave way to the hon. Member because I thought that I should get an answer to the question I put to him. Instead, he puts another question to me. This municipalisation plan is not mine, but his own, or that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—with whom he was at one time

  1043
  in closer contact than he is today, judging from what he said.
  The other argument against municipalisation as the answer to this problem of the older houses is that it is very cumbersome to carry through. It is, naturally, very slow. Repairs will not be done any more quickly than they can be done by the small jobbing builder upon whom my right hon. Friends pin their trust in this Bill. The man working for the small private owner—the little man round the corner—can easily do the job very quickly. This could not be done by a local authority at anything like the same speed.
  As far as the tenants are concerned, municipalisation would result in a complete removal of the protection which the Rent Restrictions Acts, for better or worse, still hold over them. Once houses come into the scope of the Housing Revenue Account—as a number will do under this Bill—the rent umbrella is immediately removed and the tenant is at the mercy of the local authority. The tenant will not know whether his rent will go up, whether he will be evicted or allowed to stay, or whether he will be able even to keep a lodger without having to pay a "lodger tax." He will suffer from all the disadvantages under which council house tenants labour today.
  No one is going to tell me that a man who works on the bench in a workshop, or in the field, alongside a council house tenant, and who himself lives in a rent restricted house, will be very keen to exchange his private landlord—saddled as that landlord is with the shackles of the Rent Restrictions Acts—for the council, which is completely free to charge what rents it likes and to evict whom it likes, when it likes.
  Mr. Albert Evans: If the hon. Member makes that assertion, how does he explain the very long waiting list for local authority houses? Most tenants of private houses are clamouring to get into local authority houses.
  Mr. Hay: I know they are, because of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Those Acts have imposed such a freeze upon housing accommodation that people have been making use of more accommoda-
  1044
  tion than they need. That is part of the price which we have to pay for our inaction in the field of rent restriction for so long, and part of the price we have to pay for the failure of the last Government to build anything like the number of houses we used to build before the war. The most they could work up to was a miserable 200,000 a year.
  Mr. Marples: And that was only in 1948.
  Mr. Hay: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it was only in 1948 that they reached even 200,000 houses. Yet we hear speeches criticising and poking fun at the fact that we are building 300,000 houses and solving the housing problem.
  We have been discussing, and I have been arguing against, municipalisation. Several hon. Members opposite have equally criticised the possibility of private enterprise being properly mobilised to assist in the solution of the problem of the older houses. I believe that private enterprise is a much more flexible instrument to use than municipal control. It is certainly more efficient. There is a great deal ofmisunderstanding—and certainly a great deal of distortion—on the benches opposite, as to exactly what is the rôle of private enterprise in the provision of houses. We have heard what I call, frankly, clap-trap, about housing being a great social service, fit to be entrusted only to public servants. The fact is that the ordinary house is a piece of capital equipment, just as is a factory or a machine.
  Dr. Morgan: What is an office?
  Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member wants to make a speech I hope that he will later catch the eye of the Chair. He has had a pretty good innings today in the matter of interruptions.
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member is talking such nonsense.
  Mr. Hay: A house is a piece of capital equipment, and it is produced, originally, on certain economic terms. Those are, first, that the house will provide to the person who puts it there a degree of profit, because if there were no degree of profit it would not be put there, and, secondly, that it should provide revenue enough for its own maintenance and its eventual replacement when it falls to pieces, just as in the case of a factory or a machine.

  1045
  Thirdly—and this is the great virtue of house property as an investment—it is a security. It is not liable to such risks as are other types of investments, like stocks and shares. From the point of view of strict economics, a house should be a self-balancing unit, providing itself with enough revenue for its own replacement and maintaining all the time a reasonable degree of profit for the person who maintains it.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Is the hon. Member talking about private enterprise housing?
  Mr. Hay: Yes. The hon. Member has just come in. This is the important divergence between my party and hon. Members opposite. They cannot concede that there is any virtue whatever in private enterprise providing houses in that way.
  Mr. James MacColl: As the hon. Member is putting the case for private enterprise housing, he should face the difficulty squarely. It is all very well to say that there should be an adequate revenue for replacements, but there should also be some means of securing that the money is used for replacements. The whole trouble about private enterprise houses—as has been shown from the reports made from time to time—is that there is no means of securing that private landlords plough back part of their rents for replacements. They have used the rents for their own purposes, and that is why we are in the present mess.
  Mr. Hay: That is a very well taken point. I would only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Bill. The complicated provisions contained in Part II are expressly designed to deal with the very point which the hon. Member has in mind.
  Dr. Morgan: Tell us where they are.
  Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member does not know he had better read the Bill and come back better instructed. It is clear, as the Government have explained, that private enterprise has an important and useful rôle to play in the maintenance and provision of houses for our people. I suggest, however, that if the Government intend to rely upon private owners to carry out these repairs, which are so vitally necessary to our older properties, those owners must be given adequate incentives to do that job.
  1046
  We talk a great deal about providing incentives in many other spheres of our national life, but, although much is said against the landlord and the property owner, he is just as much entitled to an incentive as anyone else. This Bill gives only the very barest possible minimum incentive, and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to do something to adjust it to make it a little fairer. If we are placing a responsibility for the repair and maintenance of old houses on the shoulders of private landlords; if they are to be the instruments of the Government's policy in what they call "Operation Rescue," and that policy is to work, they should be given an adequate incentive to do so. In many respects the private owner will be given no adequate incentive. In many cases he will be under considerable handicaps and even hardships in carrying through the policy outlined in this Bill.
  There are four major handicaps, some of which have been touched upon by my hon. Friends in earlier speeches. First, there is the requirement that the house must be put into good repair before the repairs increase can be obtained. In considering that, one must ask on self why it is that the house is not in good repair at the moment. Why is this Bill necessary? The answer is that the continuance, for nearly 40 years, of rent restriction has prevented money being available for carrying out the repairs.
  Now, at last, we have a Government who are prepared to do something about this problem and not run away from it as the party opposite did when they were in power. I believe that the duty put upon the landlords to put their property into good repair to the very high standard laid down in the Bill will prove a very great handicap, particularly to many of the small owners who own, I believe, by far the largest proportion of this kind of property.
  Then there is the other handicap that the landlord has to prove he has spent certain sums of money in the past. This is something I have not been able fully to understand. I still cannot quite see the reason why the owner should have to go to all the trouble of producing accounts to show that over either of these two arbitrary periods, whether it be one year or three, he has spent certain sums of money on repairs.

  1047
  That is a point that we shall have to probe into a little more deeply in Committee, but I am not at the moment by any means convinced that it is necessary. We have been told that this is a test of the landlords' good faith, but I think the test of the landlord's good faith, speaking of them generically as a group, is that, for the most part, as my right hon. Friend and others have frequently said, houses have, in fact, been kept in reasonably good repair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—despite the inadequate returns.
  The third handicap is what my right hon. Friend calls the "stopper" which I personally—it is a matter of personal preference—should rather like to call the "ceiling." I cannot really think that it is absolutely necessary to have the ceiling placed as it is, at the figure of twice the gross rateable value, when we realise the enormous anomalies and difficulties one gets into where the actual valuations themselves are so out of touch with reality, having been fixed, perhaps, many years ago in entirely different circumstances and conditions from those at the present moment. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) dealt with that point very well.
  The fourth handicap that the owner has got to surmount is the risk, the constant and almost interminable risk, that at any particular moment the tenant may suddenly obtain a certificate of disrepair, with the county court proceedings and their attendant costs, the engagement of the lawyers that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough dislikes so much, latter-day Jack Cade as he is. All these complications will make any owner say to himself, "Shall I really be better off if I do apply for this repairs increase?"
  Those are the four big stumbling blocks, which, I hope, we shall do something to make a little jess difficult. But there is a fifth. I believe that if something is not done, not by the Minister, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, this difficulty will completely destroy all the Minister is trying to do. I refer, of course, to Income Tax, because unless these repairs increases are to be reasonably and fairly treated for tax purposes I think that there will be a serious risk of owners saying to themselves,
  1048
  "Why should I worry? I get perhaps 2s. or 3s. a week extra for the repairs increase, of which the Revenue takes half. It is just not worth going to all the trouble of doing it." So I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue—I am sure he is—to have conversations with and to put pressure upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat the repairs increase generously when he brings forward his Budget next year.
  I want to turn to another topic, also connected with the repairs increase. It is, I think, a very important one to which insufficient attention has been paid during the debate so far, and it is the very problem of financing the initial repairs which must be done before the owner starts to qualify for the repairs increase. I think it is clear from the White Paper and from what the Minister said, and what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier on, that they conceive that the amount of expense which will be necessary to put into repair a property of a type suitable to qualify for the repairs increase will not be very large, but I would, with respect, differ in many ways from that optimistic view.
  The standard of repair which is laid down in the Bill is a very high one indeed. It is one which, in the hands of a sanitary inspector who was, shall we say, not particularly well disposed towards private ownership or private owners, might easily be the instrument which would effectively prevent the landlord from doing anything short of putting his house into the condition of Buckingham Palace. I really think if that standard is to be enforced rigorously it will knock the bottom completely out of this policy. I hope that when we go to Committee we can examine the definition in the Bill of what is good repair.
  But there it is. A very considerable sum of money must be found by the owner before he can submit a claim for repairs increase. Where is he to get the money? It may be several hundreds of pounds, and I conceive that it could easily be as much. He may go to the banks. Perhaps the banks will be prepared to lend the money. I do not know. Or he could go to the building society to see if it is prepared to lend him a bit more on his mortgage. I do not know.

  1049
  His third alternative, unless he happens to have a rich uncle, is to go to the local authority. Under Section 4 of the 1949 Act he can obtain a loan from the local authority for the very purpose of doing these repairs. The rate of interest charged fluctuates according to the length of time for which the loan is required. In fact, I believe the local authorities' rates are fairly generous compared with the ordinary commercial rates.
  Assume that a large number of owners, anxious to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill, anxious to put their properties into good repair, wanting to find the money to finance the initial repairs before they can start drawing the money from the tenants, are going to the local authorities. Is my right hon. Friend going to address to the local authorities a request that they should be more generous in granting these loans than they have been in the past? Not only is it the question of a straightforward business transaction where one borrows money more or less commercially from the local authorities at a low rate of interest, but many other conditions are attached as well which are set out in Section 4 of the 1949 Act.
  If the local authorities are to be generous then I believe what we shall have done will have been to have transferred from the private owners' shoulders and from the shoulders of the tenants a burden that, but for rent restriction, their rents would have enabled them to carry for the maintenance of the houses—we shall have transferred the necessary repairs costs at two removes to the Treasury, which means the taxpayers. Because the local authorities borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, and the Public Works Loan Board borrows from the Treasury, and the Treasury gets the money from the taxpayers. Unless we are very careful about this it may easily turn out to be what the Treasury, I think, calls in its technical parlance, an "open ended commitment" to finance the initial repairs of these millions of houses up and down the country.
  This Bill is one which owes a certain amount of its parentage not only to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, not only to the Sanitary Inspectors' Associaton, but to the Government of Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is not here
  1050
  because, no doubt, he would be very interested in this. In 1951, the Government of Northern Ireland brought in an Act which has been on the Statute Book there ever since, and very much along the same lines as those of this Bill.
  I have been making some inquiries about how that Act has been working in that country, and I am told that the initial result of the passing of that Act was an enormous demand on the part of tenants for certificates of disrepair. That has now slackened because very few owners are prepared to go through all the complicated procedure, which is the same as we have in this Bill, and all the trouble to obtain the repairs increase.
  My informant in Northern Ireland, to whom I was speaking this morning—an estate agent in Belfast, who knows the problem very well—said that for all practical purposes that Act, which is so similar to the Bill before us, looks like breaking down and certainly is not doing the job expected of it. We must look at that in Committee and see whether there is any way in which we can make the terms upon which these repairs increases can be obtained a little less onerous to the owner and a little fairer to him, so enabling him to do the job which I am sure he can do.
  We need not do it at great expense to the tenant. A great many things have been said about tenants; we are told that we must not irritate them or do anything which will in the slightest degree upset them. That has been the constant theme which we have had running throughout the debate. I am sure, first, that the vast majority of tenants of rent restricted property in this country will be quite happy to pay a few shillings more in rent if they can have their properties put in a decent condition. Secondly, I am equally sure that the vast majority of the tenants of rent restricted houses can afford the increase which is being asked of them.
  Let me refer hon. Members to the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure published last August, which shows that in 1952 this country spent no less than £850 million on alcoholic drinks, no less than £821 million on tobacco and no less than £187 million on entertainment. They spent only £736 million on rent, rates, light, heat and water charges. When people say that tenants are so

  1051
  screwed down that they will have to flock in their thousands to the Assistance Board because they cannot pay the rent, I cannot help thinking that it would be less hypocritical to suggest that a little less money might find its way into the pockets of the football pool promoters and the purveyors of alcoholic drink, and a little more towards the repair of the nation's old houses which, as one hon. Member rightly said, form a great national asset.
  8.14 p.m.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Wembley—
  Mr. Hay: I sit for Henley, not Wembley.
  Mr. Janner: I am not at all surprised at the kind of speech which he made because clearly he is in sympathy with the policy of the Government in increasing the cost of living for people who are occupying these houses, just as they are in favour of an increase in the cost of living in so far as other commodities are concerned. I approach this matter possibly from an angle somewhat different from the approach of other hon. Members hitherto, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley). I did not think the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) was vitriolic in the slightest. I wonder what the hon. Member for Henley will feel by the time I have finished saying what I have to say on this subject. Possibly he will have to find some more superlative adjectives to add to his comments about my hon. Friend's speech.
  This Bill has been presented to the House by the Government solely as a Measure to remedy the existing state of affairs which exists in regard to outstanding repairs to houses. In my view it is a sugar-coated poison pill, particularly as far as it deals with the security of the tenants' homes. It is a continuation of the Government's policy of rationing by the purse. Already, in consequence of the Government's actions, the cost of living has soared and the cost of staple foods is beyond the capacity of many of the lower income classes. Now there is to be a rationing of homes by the purse. That is what Part II of this Bill means.
  1052
  I will not talk about Part I because that is merely a continuation of a policy which we introduced.
  Mr. Hay: When?
  Mr. Janner: In 1949. We introduced Measures which enabled slum clearance to take place. I intend to talk about the Rent Acts and what is happening to them in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) raked up some historical facts and gave us the history of housing which has brought us into the present very serious situation. I will follow his example. I have been re-reading the book, "Landlords and Tenants," written by an old friend of mine, Dan Rider, who made such a valiant fight to keep the protection of a roof over the heads of the wives and children of the men fighting in the First World War. That was mainly the origin of the Rent Acts. It will make interesting reading for the Government and I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take up this book one of these days and read it.
  I should like to quote one passage in it, and then I think hon. Members will understand what is the background of the Rent Acts which today we are about to attack very seriously in Part II of the Bill. This is what was written about one of the causes of the Rent Acts, and it concerns the First World War:
  "Chaplains with the troops at the Front started sending me distressing letters from the wives of the soldiers in their regiments containing notices to quit. They said the men were distracted and had come to them for advice and they asked me to look into the matter and to protect their wives and families. I wrote to the women to come and see me…. I found their petty landlords were adopting petty methods to frighten them out in order to get more rent from another tenant and in all these instances we taught the landlord a lesson."
  He continues in that strain.
  I think we are wasting a very considerable amount of sympathy on some of the landlords—I do not say all landlords, but a very substantial number of them, as I shall prove in a moment from a survey which I made in my own constituency. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) made a very sincere and moving speech in which he exposed the result of the Government's proposals, particularly in respect to Part II of the Bill. It is difficult for me to believe that the

  1053
  Government have made their proposals without knowledge of the consequences to the tenant. The position is very serious.
  In spite of the complexity of the Rent Acts, they managed to keep one of the most important institutions of life, the home, within reasonable limits of cost to the lower income group. I know there are anomalies, but the provisions contained in the Rent Acts have been of considerable service to millions of families in this country. Unhappily, they were difficult to understand, and the vastmajority—and I speak in definite and clear terms on this—of the tenants were completely unaware of the protective provisions which they contained. The hon. Member for Henley knows that very well. He is a solicitor and he knows that people came to him—or possibly he gave assistance in some of the advisory committees which were spread throughout the country—10 or 15 or 20 years after the passing of some of the Acts, who had been paying rents far in excess of any rent which they were obliged to pay under the Rent Acts. They had not the slightest idea of what their remedies were.
  That prevailed throughout the country; millions of people were affected by it. Most of us know that that is so not only in respect of rents but also of repairs. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that when the average layman came along for advice he did not know what he had to do in order to obtain relief. He did not know where to go for this or that he had to make a copy of the sanitary notice or that he had to serve it on the landlord. All these things were unknown to him. What was the result. Many a house went into disrepair because the tenant did not know what to do about it. Unfortunately by the time he did get to know what to do he was placed in a position in which it was almost impossible to repair the house. That is the position generally with regard to the Rent Acts.
  I say that it is practically impossible to calculate the number of tenants who were concerned in this matter. I personally dealt with hundreds of cases in which large sums were recovered from the landlords and I had not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member and many others in this House have done similarly whether they are lawyers or not. Much has been said about lawyers, but this is
  1054
  one of the sides of the Rent Restriction Act which did not pay a lawyer as a rule to deal with. I think that any lawyer in this House will know very well that the lowest scale of charge was allowed in respect of the Rent Acts, unless a very special case could be made out, and it did not pay financially to go into the whole inquiry which was necessary; to find out what the rent was in 1914, what the rates were in 1914 and all the rest of it. I hope that when hon. Members talk about lawyers in future they will deal with us with mercy and perhaps with a little more justice.
  Mr. Shurmer: How many cases has my hon. Friend taken for nothing?
  Mr. Janner: I hope that my hon. Friend is making that statement to me. I should say many hundreds, and I have advised in many thousands of cases. As rent adviser to the Labour Party I should think that possibly I have advised in many hundreds or thousands of cases.
  Mr. McColl: My hon. Friend and I were members of the same local Labour Party for many years, and I have never known a man more generous in giving help to poor people in the district than he was.
  Mr. Janner: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think that it should be made known to the House that we are not really as bad as we are painted on so many occasions. I have said that a vast sum of money was obtained by increases of rent. Not only was this so in respect of increases which had been legally placed upon the tenant by means of notices, but also in respect of increases which were charged far and above anything which was allowed under the Acts.
  Let me come back to the increases which were allowed under the Acts. I cannot understand the attitude adopted by some people in this matter. Since the year 1920, 25 per cent. of the net rent controlled under the 1920–1938 Acts, was allowed to landlords in order to enable them to keep their houses in repair. I say that if they had used that 25 per cent.—and we know that the Parliamentary Secretary was rather cynical when I interrupted him the other day and he would not allow me to get in because I think he was a little afraid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, I am sure he was. He

  1055
  was talking about some 469 furnished lettings applications heard by the rent tribunals in which -there had been the decision that the rent should be increased. He overlooked some 18,000 or 19,000 cases in which the rent was reduced. I think that the figure was even 20,000 to 30,000 or more.
  When I talked in millions on this subject I meant millions. I think that millions of houses out of those which are under control under the 1920/1938 Rent Acts received the 25 per cent. increase without the owners doing a single thing in the way of repairs. I took the precaution, in case I was doubted on this, to have an inquiry made in my own constituency, in a district which was recently visited by the Parliamentary Secretary, in which many of the houses had been allowed go into almost complete decay. What was the result of that inquiry? A letter which I received from a person who conducted the inquiry as a member of a group said that he came up against the most appalling conditions.
  "Quite a number of people told us"
  he wrote
  "that they had to go into the centre of the town to use the public conveniences as the places which they had to use with so many others were not fit to use."
  But there had been this 25 per cent. all through those years allowed for that purpose. In addition what did they find? They visited 124 houses, all rent-controlled under the old1920/1938 Acts, and in respect of 53 of them nothing had been done in repairs. In 49 cases the tenants had done repairs themselves which they were not supposed to do under the terms of the Act. I should like to quote the kind of position which they found there. Let us have this matter clear and see where we really stand. In one of the streets this is the kind of thing that happens to various houses:
  "No repairs done, 13 years' residence; no repairs done, six years' residence; no repairs done, 40 years' residence; no repairs done, 14 years' residence."
  In cases where the landlord did do repairs this is what they found—11 years, odd slates; 46 years, a new ceiling. That is all that the landlord did in the whole of 46 years.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And the tenants decorated them themselves.
  Mr. Janner: Now we are faced with this tremendous difficulty. Of course the houses are falling out of repair. Is this Bill the way to tackle a problem of this nature? I venture to suggest that it is not. I suggest that what should be done is for a proper inquiry to be made as this has not been done up to now as to how much has actually been received by the landlords in order to arrive at the position as to what repairs have to be done.
  Who has cause for complaint? I think that is the next point which we have to examine. We hear from time to time about the poor one house person, and of course there are some, but they are exceptions taking the millions of houses into consideration. What has actually happened?
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to listen to this; I will do my best to be as quick as I can, but there is a tremendous lot to be said. Since 1920 until the present day what has happened, who has cause for complaint? If the person who actually owned the house in 1915 was receiving the same rent there might be some cause for complaint, but in fact he was given 25 percent. of the net rent as an increase in the years when that was ample to enable the repairs to be done, but he did not do them. That is number one.
  Let us take No. 2, the person who has purchased a place and is now asking to be helped in carrying out the repairs. Did he not purchase with his eyes open, did he not know that the Rent Acts were in existence, that if he took the place as an investment he had to face up to the difficulties that existed and would exist in the future? Consequently, why is the coming to the rest of the community and asking them to subsidise something that he has bought?
  Let me go one step further and consider the positionin regard to a person who came on to the scene by reason of a will or something of that nature. We are told of the poor widow in this regard. I quite agree it is very hard for her, but the will only comes into operation on the day of the death of the person who has made it, and if there are no assets—if there happens to be a liability—no one is

  1057
  bound to take that liability. All these arguments are matters which require very careful investigation.
  Here is a Bill which purports to be a Measure remedying the Rent Acts. Is there anything in it to help the tenant? Let me give a few illustrations of what might have been done by a Government which wanted to give security. By this Bill the Government are only removing security. Let me give an illustration of what might have been remedied. Today, when a tenant dies the widow of that tenant or a member of that family is entitled under the Rent Acts to retain possession of the place, but as soon as that widow dies that house becomes decontrolled in so far as protection is concerned and the landlord can sell it at whatever price he wishes. Landlords are selling such houses at enormous profit, everybody knows that.
  We must face up to the situation which exists. Instead of the possibility being given to the family of the widow to have a roof over their heads, and it may very well be that a man dies today and his widow only a few days later, there is no security of tenancy for the families who are left.
  Sir Frederick Messer: They are trespassers.
  Mr. Janner: Yes, they are trespassers. Why is that sort of thing not dealt with by the Bill?
  I think that the Government's policy is to do away with the Rent Acts, and that is a very serious thing. I have complained time and time again in the House, but the Parliamentary Secretary will not listen, that he shuts down and keeps on shutting down rent tribunals, that he takes away the offices, the places where people can get the information which they are entitled to have; and he is now introducing a Measure whereby he will ask the rent tribunals to do more than they have been doing in the past.
  In this Bill there are a number of matters which underline perfectly clearly what a constituent wrote to me a few days ago. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) is not here. He spoke of the kind of letters he got when he had spoken on the wireless and said that they emphasised the importance of this Bill, that it was not
  1058
  strong enough, that we must have more increases. Let me read a letter which came to me from my own constituency, and with this I propose to conclude:
  "Very many of us are perturbed by Mr. Macmillan's new rent scheme."
  This is important, it deals with the very points with which we have been dealing.
  "May we hope that the facts below are considered by you."
  By that he meant, by the Government; I considered them long ago and I am of the same opinion as my constituent.
  "Tens of thousands of tenants have lived 20 years or more in houses, the rent of which would show them to be a far better investment than 3½per cent. war loans, after deducting amounts spent on maintenance and repairs. My own tenancy of this house, for example."
  It is 7, Browning Street, Leicester.
  "House cost owner £200, average rent 10s. 6d. plus rates £27 10s. clear. Total amount spent by landlord inclusive of some damage by bombs £30. After allowance of 4 per cent. this leaves a profit of no less than £320.
  It would be safe to estimate that millions of houses and tenements would show tremendous profit on the investments. The cry about 'deterioration of property' is, I think, just a whining racket of profit hungry owners.
  I am myself a part owner of a house let at 6s. 6d. a week in Yorkshire. After keeping it in good repair it shows a profit comparable to my 3 per cent. War Bonds.
  I put it to you Sir, that it would be a vile injustice to raise the rents of this street, and especially streets like those around Belgrave Gate, Wharf Street area and elsewhere. There are many worse in Birmingham (Bristol Road district). Glasgow tenements too are horrible injustices at present rents. I have travelled a good deal, London to Aberdeen. East and West Coasts, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford….Before the increase in costs of maintenance, before the first (1914) war and certainly prior to 1939, the housing conditions in certain parts of London and the larger English and Scotch cities were a shame and a horror, ghastly in its terribleness. Owners could have been compelled to maintain their property in habitable condition, and rent tribunals could have investigated the original cost of house…."
  There is more in this letter, but it follows on lines similar to those I have stated.
  I say to the Government, withdraw this Bill. Think of something better. Think of something which will meet the case. Do not think merely of placing money into the hands, or into the pockets of many—I do not say all—but very many who will know how to dodge out

  1059
  of any Act you pass and who will not do the repairs you are trying to make provision for.
  8.37 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: At this late stage there is little I can usefully add to this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will not expect me to embark upon a discussion of the history of the Rent Acts, although perhaps on some future occasion he and I may have an opportunity of debating that interesting topic. One of the subjects we may be able to discuss then would be the number of houses in his constituency which have been repaired under this Bill when it becomes law.
  I wish to make one or two observations on a subject about which little has been said, and that is the effect which this Bill is likely to have on the local authorities. I think that the local authorities will welcome this Bill and will be glad to play their part in this new campaign to end the scandal of the slums. But today local authorities are in an overburdened position financially. If they are to play their part in this great scheme it will be necessary to afford them the financial assistance they require.
  Mr. Shurmer: Would not it be worth it?
  Sir G. Hutchinson: I think it would.
  Last night the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said that this scheme would cost the London County Council £500,000. I think he might have recalled that under the Government which he supported the London County Council lost the Exchequer grants which amounted to a great deal more than that. But let that pass. There is no doubt that this Bill will place upon local authorities some financial burden.
  I shall not refer to the terms of the Bill in the limited time available to me. I am not clear as to what provision is made for affording financial assistance to the local authorities in respect of their slum clearance proposals and the proposals for the acquisition and temporary reconditioning of properties which would eventually be redeveloped under slum clearance schemes. The financial proposals of the Bill will, I hope, be discussed by my
  1060
  right hon. Friend with the local authorities, and their views ascertained and fully considered before the proposals of my right hon. Friend take their final form.
  The Financial Resolution is on the Order Paper following the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that the Resolution will not preclude future discussions with the local authorities. It was said, I think yesterday, that a meeting is to take place before very long. If that is so, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that this matter will be considered in conjunction with them and that no final decision will be taken until after their views have been taken fully into account.
  Having said that, I make one brief observation upon the Bill itself. I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) that there is no need for him to look anxious. I know what the right hon. Gentleman expects of me. The problem which confronted my right hon. Friend when he approached this matter was the problem of ensuring that adequate repairs would be done to the great number of rent-controlled houses.
  I have listened to almost the whole of this debate. I do not think that anybody has claimed that the burden which the Bill will place upon tenants is an unreasonable one. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said frankly that if these houses are to be put in proper order it will be necessary for some contribution to be made by the tenants whether the houses remain in private ownership or whether they pass into the ownership of the local authorities.
  The main criticism which has been made of the proposals of my right hon. Friend is that they will not be successful in achieving the purpose he has in mind. But nobody has contended that, if in fact my right hon. Friend's proposals produce the results which he hopes to get from them, the Bill will not have made a major contribution to a most urgent and serious problem. I should have thought that in those circumstances the House might have given the Measure a Second Reading. Then we can see in the future whether the expectations which are entertained of it are fulfilled.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Herbert Morrison: There was one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) with which I cordially agreed, and that was when he called attention to the undoubted fact that the financial burdens on local authorities in respect of housing operations of one sort and another are substantial and are growing, and that unless something is done about it they will grow to very large figures. Indeed, they have reached substantial figures already.
  The question of the magnitude of the rate for housing purposes is a matter of increasing anxiety to the local authorities. In these circumstances, I do not apologise for commencing by making some references to the financial provisions of the Bill first in relation to the State and, secondly, in relation to local government. The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill is a curious document. Its whole idea is to give Parliament, before it passes a Bill, even on Second Reading, a picture of the financial commitment into which the House is entering.
  But this is an extraordinary document. Time after time it says that the Government cannot state what the financial commitments are. I know that this happens from time to time, but one would have thought that the Government might have given a rough indication, or, at any rate, an indication as to whether the commitments are substantial or not. Clearly, the potential transfer of the slums to local government with a grant and the ultimate demolition must involve substantial figures, and I should have thought that Parliament had a right to know.
  The only figure that is mentioned in the Memorandum is the modest sum of £10.000 in respect of increased expenditure on rent tribunals. For a Government who pride themselves on their financial rectitude, strictness and propriety, all of which I do not follow from time to time, it is rather a curious Financial Memorandum and of a somewhat exceptional character.
  Now I come to the local authority financial aspects of the matter. As I have said, the rates in respect of housing and related purposes are substantial and
  1062
  are growing. We must all remember—and one sometimes has to remind municipal tenants who complain about burdens that are put upon them, especially when there are modest increases of local municipal rents for municipal properties—that the housing rate of the local authority has to be met by everybody. The municipal tenants are included, but so are the tenants of private owners and owner occupiers. Therefore, this question of housing finance in its local government aspects is bound to be increasingly discussed in Parliament and among the local authorities.
  The higher interest rates which the Government imposed at a fairly early stage in their life have increased the local authority burden generally. I suppose that there was no department in which an added burden was more notice able in this single respect than the housing department of a local authority. So it must be remembered that the Government have pursued a policy which has added to a substantial degree to the financial burdens of local authority housing.
  It is proposed under the Bill to lay upon the local authorities new functions, new burdens, and to impose these functions and burdens on the local authorities—or to empower them in these respects, at any rate, to do it—notwithstanding that it is a further addition to their financial burdens to lay these burdens on the local authorities under distinctly less advantageous financial terms than has been the case for a long time past. Further burdens are to be imposed on the local authorities, and with a proportion of State contribution substantially less than has been the case for quite a considerable time, that seems to be a bit rough on the local authorities.
  Sometimes I wonder—perhaps the Minister can tell us—whether any Member of the Cabinet has ever served on a local authority. I do not recall any who did, but there may be one or two. It is curious, however, that these things should be either set aside or overlooked, with the result that precedents which have been built up as to the proportion of financial aid from the State to local government in respect of housing seem either to have been forgotten or wilfully and coldly set aside by the Government.
  Let us see what are the arguments in regard to the finances of the Bill from

  1063
  the local government point of view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been consultations with his Ministry, and there have been some consultations between the financial officers of the local authority associations and the London County Council and officers of his Department. It has been pointed out by the local authority representatives that all the postwar housing legislation has provided for sharing on a three to one basis, which means 75 per cent. by the State and 25 per cent. by the local authorities. Even before the war, the basis was two to one, but now the Minister proposes a basis in respect of loan charges on this slum operation—or near-slum operation—not of three to one, not of two to one, but of 50–50; that is to say, of one to one.
  From the local authority point of view, this is a very serious retrogression which will cause the local authorities considerable anxiety, and we must remember that it is in respect of a new function, a function which I shall come to describe later, tout a function of taking over slum property from the slum landlords because they themselves do not know what to do with it. That is the first point in respect of the finances of the Bill—that it breaks away from the recent three to one basis, that it breaks away from the pre-war two to one, and that it is now one to one, or 50–50. I do not know whether it is worse than it has ever been before, but certainly it is worse than it has been for quite a long time.
  The next point is that it is understood that the average figure of the cost of bringing slum property into a reasonable state of repair—the average basic figure which the Minister has taken—is £140, and it is said that it is based upon the Birmingham experience. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the work has already cost Birmingham £180 or £190. My hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) confirms that, and I am much obliged to him. Therefore, if that is the tendency, and the figure is confirmed by my hon. Friend, £200 would not be an unreasonable figure to take, and it does make a material difference as between £140 and £200.
  1064
  There is a further point. The Bill is based upon the doctrine that the loan period should be 15 years, that being based upon the estimated average life of the dwelling, but is it by any means certain that the average life of a partly reconditioned slum will be 15 years? The next question is: Ought it to be 15 years? I am very doubtful whether it ought, and if it is not so, and if it does not last for 15 years, as is quite likely, but lasts for only 10 years, the point comes, when the 10-year period is up, when the loan charges go on for another five years without any revenue from the property at all. I submit that that also is an unreasonable proposal.
  It is claimed that there should be improved terms. It is true that the Minister originally offered, instead of the figure £2 5s. under paragraph (b) of the relevant Clause, £1 13s., but there has been an improvement in that respect which it is fair to acknowledge. The local authorities argue that that is not enough and that it ought to be more, and they make a strong case to that effect.
  A curious feature of the Money Resolution is that the contribution laid down in this respect is £2 5s.
  "or such other sum as the Minister of Housing and Local Government may determine."
  I could follow that the Minister might determine a lesser figure than £2 5s., but will he tell us whether it enables him to make the figure bigger? I do not know. Could it be made £125 instead of £2 5s.? I do not think that is likely, but could it be done? If so, this Resolution makes a complete fool of Parliamentary control of finance. I do not recall any Financial Resolution which lays down that the Minister can fix "such other sum" as he likes.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We could do the same in Committee.
  Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend has a point there. If this Financial Resolution is a complete delegation of powers to a Minister, without Parliamentary specific or maximum authority, it is a matter for argument whether it is Parliament which is the financial authority. My hon. Friend is on a point whether the Committee upstairs could not increase the amount. A Committee of the House of Commons ought to have some degree of authority as well as a Minister of the Crown.

  1065
  The local authorities claim that the Government's share should be at least two-thirds of the acquisition costs and the deficit on improving and maintaining slum properties. Secondly, they claim that the estimated cost of making a slum dwelling tolerably habitable should be assessed at £200 rather than £140; and, thirdly, that the amortisation period should be 10 years rather than 15 years. If these points were conceded, where should we arrive?
  On this basis it would appear that the unit maintenance grant would be approximately £12 1s. a dwelling or part of a dwelling, on the following calculation: debt charges on £200 at 3½ per cent. for 10 years, £23 17s. 6d.;repairs and maintenance £15, making a total of £38 17s. 6d., less the estimated rent £20 16s., leaving a deficit of £18 1s. 6d., which, with a 66⅔ per cent. grant, would bring a grant of £12 1s. Those figures take a bit of upsetting. I think they are sound figures, which are advanced by responsible financial officers of local authorities, and they are in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  I have only one other thing to say about local authority finance, and that is to reinforce the appeal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, although I am not sure whether it was made in specific terms. I think the Minister said that he should not bind himself to the particular terms of the Financial Resolution. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Financial Resolution will not be moved, for a reason which I hope he will regard as reasonable. There is to be a meeting between the Minister, the local authority associations and the London County Council on 10th December to discuss all the matters I have raised—and others as well—and various aspects of the Bill.
  It is true that on 23rd October the Minister informed the local authorities that he would hold to the 50–50 basis. I think it is a little bit tall to meet the local authorities for the purpose of discussing matters, and then to say that on that very important element there is nothing to discuss. However, I am glad to know that the Minister has promised to meet the local authorities again on 10th December. If this House were to pass the Financial Resolution tonight, it would
  1066
  make a mockery of that meeting of 10th December, unless, of course, it is the Minister's intention to scrap it later and bring another one forward; though I do not think that that is an easy thing for a responsible Minister to do, and I am sure that the Treasury would not like it.
  I hope, therefore, in order that the local authorities may be able to argue their case on 10th December, that the Minister will be able to announce that he will not bother with the Financial Resolution tonight. As a matter of fact, he does not need it, at any rate until the Committee stage of the Bill, and, strictly speaking, he does not need it until we reach the Clauses which authorise the expenditure of Parliamentary funds.
  I very much hope that these negotiations with the local authorities will be free and not tied up in advance, and that the Minister will be so good as to agree that the Financial Resolution shall not be moved tonight, because, otherwise, a situation would arise which would be unfair and inimical to good relations between the great State Departments and the local authorities, which, irrespective of party politics, I am always sorry to see happen. Of course, I think that a little bit of fun between local authorities and Government Departments from time to time is one of the pleasant ways of British life, and it is something which I myself have very much enjoyed in the past from both sides of the table. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
  I now come to the provision of the Bill in connection with slums. This is a technical Bill, and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having got through yesterday with reasonable clarity, because it is not an easy Bill to explain. These Bills never are. I hope that the Minister of Works enjoyed himself this afternoon in dealing with what was mainly his Departmental business, namely, the question of supplies. We were very glad to hear him.
  The Bill aims at an acceleration either of the clearance of slums or a departure whereby local authorities clean them up, recondition them, and so on. That is the dual purpose of the Bill in respect of slums—direct clearance, reconditioning, and maintenance for a time. For my own part, I am not thoroughly convinced of the wisdom of local authority acquisition

  1067
  and patching up of the slums. I admit that, according to reports, the municipality of Birmingham, which is a great municipality, has done some interesting and valuable work in that respect, and the next time I go there I hope to be able to see what Birmingham has done.
  Mr. Shurmer: Come around my way.
  Mr. Morrison: I have great respect for the work of the municipality of Birmingham, and I am glad that it has, politically, come on with great energy recently. But I do not think that my friends from Birmingham would disagree with me when I say that, if it were possible physically to clear a slum out of existence at a reasonably early date, even if some years ahead, it would be preferable to patching them up for a period which may turn out to be longer than we anticipated at the time we were doing it.
  I sat as a member of a Cabinet Committee on one occasion to deal with the question of building prefabricated houses on open spaces, a matter which was liable to be controversial, but the war was on and it was done more or less peacefully. We all talked then about the 10 years that those prefabricated houses would last, but I said at the time, "We are deceiving ourselves. They may last longer than that, and we must realise that to interfere with these open spaces for a period longer than 10 years is a serious business." And here we are, in this period, giving the Minister powers to make that 10 years, or something like it, longer.
  I would sooner demolish the slum, sweep it right away as quickly as it is empty. If it is left empty long, someone will come in and it will be empty no longer and, it is most important, when a slum is empty of human beings, to pull it down, smash it up, and clear the site. I would honestly prefer to do it in that way rather than have this other business of the local authority taking over slum property. Why do I say that? It may be thought that I am a very funny sort of Socialist when I am offered, by the Conservatives, the socialisation of the slums, but I question, and they might question themselves, what they are doing in bringing forward a policy of socialisation of the slums—but they are.
  1068
  What will happen when the local authority takes them over? First of all, it has to carry these added financial burdens, which are to be substantial. Secondly, many people, decent, good citizens, will be asking the local authority, before it knows where it is, "Why are you owning and managing filthy, abominable property of this sort?" There will be probably a lot of respectable Conservatives asking Labour local authorities why they are going on with slum property, and, it may be, some Labour people in Conservative local areas doing the same the other way round.
  I am not saying that we are not decent people, or that the other side are not decent people, within their limits. I mean non-political people, who will be arguing that this is a scandalous state of affairs, and the poor local authority will be pushed around to get on with this financial, administrative and organising job with extraordinary speed—pushed to do it and to spend a lot of money upon that property. And when it has done so, the local authority will have to say to the tenants, some of whom are attracted by a low rent, and are prepared to put up with a slum—some, although not all, "We have spent all this money on the house. The grant from the Ministry is 50–50"—if it still remains there, which I hope it will not—"Now we must put up your rent."
  So, having been knocked about politically for not putting the slums right quickly enough, possibly by political opponents, when it does put the slums, right and has to increase the rents, as it will undoubtedly have to do, it will be knocked about by the inhabitants of the slums in that way as well. I would, therefore, sooner wipe the slums out of existence as soon as possible, rather than that the local authority should become a slum landlord, which is not a natural job for a local authority. I confess that I do not like it. It will cause the complications and troubles to which I have referred.
  We want to know whether the local authorities can acquire only the actual slum property, because in one speech that we heard from the benches opposite this afternoon—I think it was by the Minister or Works—it was suggested that it was natural that the local authorities should

  1069
  take the slums, but that it was not natural for the local authorities to take anything that was worth having. On the other side of the water, in the Waterloo area, the London County Council has acquired property which was largely slum property. But, at the same time, it acquired shops and industrial hereditaments. It sought to treat people in occupation fairly according to the extent of their occupation. It also eased the burden. The Minister of Works ought not to be so simple in this matter of socialisation that he says that it is right that the local authority should carry the burdens, but that if there is any money to be made and if there is any financial relief, that is for private interests.
  I am not surprised. I know why he said it. The whole story of the record of this Government is, "If there is any money to be made, let private enterprise make it; and if there is any money to be lost, socialise it." They are as good Socialists as we are when the taxpayers' or ratepayers' money is to be lost. It is when there is anything to be made that they are not Socialists. This Government hates the word "monopoly," though quite a number of its supporters spend a lot of their life building up private monopolies.
  What are the Government doing now—this Government which is so busy in denouncing monopolies in the public service? It is not only socialising the slums; it is trying to manufacture a municipal slum monopoly, and it is not even giving it adequate sporsorship. So this Government, which uses the word "monopoly" ignorantly in respect of television, transport and iron and steel, is now fastening, so far as it can, a slum monopoly on local government because its own friends in the property owning world do not know what to do with the slums, and say, "Let them go to the local authorities."
  Whether, under the provisions of the Bill, the repairs will be done by private enterprise I am not at all sure. If private enterprise does not do the repairs because it either cannot or will not, then is that property to become slumproperty and will that be socialised and added to the municipal slum monopoly? It seems to me to be a bit tall if that is the case. I do not like the onus of proof being on the tenant. I think it ought to be on the
  1070
  landlord, and these matters ought to be dealt with by rent tribunals and not by county courts.
  I say this in conclusion, because it is time for the right hon. Gentleman to wind up the debate. He has much to answer, and he thinks he ought to have three-quarters of an hour. Certainly, those of us on this side of the House are anxious to see the end of the slums—and if I detect some development of conscience among Conservatives I welcome it. The slums have been denounced by the Labour Party and Socialists ever since we have existed. So have the dreary streets which are now inflicting increasing mileages on our great cities.
  I cannot and do not forget the slums, which are a disgrace to our country. Nobody was more proud than I when, at the London County Council, with the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) and others, we were able to begin abolishing the slums with big slum clearance programmes. If it had not been for the war we should have broken the back of the problem by now. Other local authorities in the United Kingdom were doing something, and some Conservatives and Liberals were also engaged in the work.
  But do not forget that we were the pioneers and the fighters. I can remember the day, young as I am, when Tory candidates for local authorities advised slum dwellers to vote against the Labour Party because we should disturb them in their slums—and many people did so. We want to get rid of the slums; we want to get rid of ugliness, and we want our country to be beautiful, clean and attractive. It is our sincere conviction that this Bill is not the way to do it. We believe that it is ineffective in itself and unfair to local authorities in its provisions. Therefore, with a clear conscience and with complete conviction, when the Question is put we propose to vote against its Second Reading.
  9.16 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I very much regret, as we all do, the reason why the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has not been able to be here tonight to wind up the debate for the Opposition. I hope that he will make a very speedy recovery, and I should like to have that message sent to

  1071
  him from all his friends on both sides of the House.
  Nevertheless, he has provided a very adequate substitute, in the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), more especially because of the right hon. Member's long experience in local government and, therefore, the very valuable help that he has been able to give us on certain aspects of this problem. I noticed that in his speech he stuck rather rigidly to certain parts of the Bill and avoided or evaded the presentation of the great alternative plan.
  The Government have every reason to be satisfied and grateful for the generous reception, from the Press and the public as a whole, of the ideas which have been put forward in the White Paper and which are now embodied in the Bill. Of course, there have been criticisms both inside and outside the House. It is the traditional function of an Opposition to oppose. Nevertheless, I am personally grateful for the very valuable criticisms and suggestions which have been made in the course of the debate by Members on both sides of the House, especially by Members who have considerable personal experience of these problems. I want to assure them that from whatever quarter those suggestions or criticisms may have come, we shall study them most carefully between now and the opening of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  It would be foolish of us to claim that all the details of those complicated proposals—and they are complicated—are immutable or sacrosanct. The function of the Committee stage is, surely, to mould the Bill in accordance with its main principles. On Second Reading it is the general design of the Bill which comes either for support or rejection.
  The first part of our proposals is intended to provide that, in the case of houses already in a reasonably good condition, or in quite a good condition, the income available to spend upon current repairs should be sufficient to prevent them from falling into disrepair. That is the purpose of part one of the scheme.
  The scheme that we have adopted, based upon the statutory deduction, is, we frankly admit, of a somewhat complicated character. It cannot be presented or argued with the simplicity of a percentage increase, but a percentage
  1072
  increase, at any rate in England and Wales, in the special conditions prevailing in England and Wales, with the control, the decontrol, the recontrol, and the great variety of rents of houses of the same rateable value and the same amenities, in my view, would have been inequitable and unjust in every point of view.
  In this debate, although there has been general recognition that either in one scheme or the other, whether houses remain in private ownership or are taken over into public ownership, the rents would have to be raised, I do not think anyone has suggested that we ought to substitute for a more specialised and accurate scheme the method of percentage increase in England and Wales. Some months ago when the Parliamentary timetable, I think, made people think we should be unable to introduce this Bill—last summer—I was interested to read in the "Daily Herald" that:
  "The Minister of Housing and Local Government is under pressure to grant a percentage increase of 50 per cent."
  The article went on to say:
  "He is prepared to go some way at least to meet this demand, and to meet it without making hard and fast rules about spending the extra rent on repairs."
  At any rate, that particular prophecy has proved to be untrue.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases I have investigated up in the North of England a permitted increase might well have to be 50 per cent., or in some cases slightly over?
  Mr. Macmillan: "A percentage increase without any conditions"—that is what was said about the Bill. I think, perhaps, one of the considerations that has caused a little confusion among the critics is that I refused to fall into this particular trap. However, it was some comfort to me to see that the day on which this prophecy was published was 1st April. Of course it would have been easy to have devised a simpler scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who made a very valuable speech, has pointed that out very clearly, but it would not have been a fair scheme either in respect of the principles of any increase or in respect of safeguards.

  1073
  On the rent proposals there are only three questions to answer. They are partly Committee points, but they are vital. Are they fair to the tenant? Are they fair to the landlord? And will they get the job done? That is the test. I think there has been very little weight in the attack, broadly speaking, in this House so far as the tenants are concerned. The argument has not been pressed powerfully in Parliament. Of course, it will be reserved for the street and the doorstep. Nor do I think that the tenants will object to paying this modest increase so long as they get the repairs done at the same time. The operation of the "stopper" or "ceiling" principle prevents the total rent of any house rising beyond the rents which other houses in the same street already command, and the condition that the repairs increase must be spent on repairs ensures that the tenant will get value for his money.
  Mr. Shurmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt him. I did not have the chance to get in the debate because he wanted an extra quarter of an hour. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the landlords will do the repairs now with a small increase, then why did they allow the majority of the houses to get into bad disrepair during the inter-war years when they had the 25 per cent. increase of rent to pay for them, and plenty of labour and materials available?
  Mr. Macmillan: I was dealing with the tenant's point of view, and now I shall come to the landlord's point of view.
  Mr. Shurmer: That is the tenant's point of view.
  Mr. Macmillan: I shall deal with it, if I may, in the order of my speech. Of course we considered the proposal that the landlord should obtain a certificate of good repair. That was made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). We rejected it on two grounds: first, in many of these cases there will be no question of litigation or dispute and, indeed, in the majority, mutual agreement will be reached between landlord and tenant. The second reason is that it would place an intolerable burden upon
  1074
  the certifying local authority. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, the authorities are already short of surveyors and sanitary inspectors. The hon. Member is no longer in his place—
  Mr. Blenkinsop: He is.
  Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry; the hon. Member was on the Front Bench, but during the debate he has demoted himself. I beg his pardon. There was already some difficulty, he said, in getting enough surveyors and sanitary inspectors, but of course if we were to throw all that extra work upon them in addition, it would be an impossible demand, and I am sure it is wiser not to do so.
  Then it is said that the declaration of the landlord as to the amount of money he has spent—that is, the statement that he has spent actual sums of money—ought to be decided, in case of dispute, not by the court but by the local authority or a rent tribunal. But surely this is not a matter of opinion or of judgment but a matter of fact. I do not think the great majority of people will willingly and knowingly sign their name to the document we propose if to do so would be an absolutely false declaration. I do not think the majority will do so. Very few people do such things. It is quite a risky thing to do, and it will get them into a good deal of trouble if they are found out. In any event, such a question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) pointed out in his admirable speech, is a suitable question for determination by the courts. I was glad to hear such tributes paid to our county courts by hon. Members below the Gangway who have such experience of them—[Laughter.]—of their work.
  It is said that once the landlords have obtained the repairs increase they might then allow the house to go out of repair. If they do that they are taking a very big risk. They take a double risk now if, having got the repairs increase by satisfying the two conditions, they then let the house drop out of repair. First of all, I think the tenant may come down upon them, and if he does obtain his certificate they will lose, not only the new repairs increase, but the 40 per cent. increase they were granted on the rent in 1920. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They will lose both and go back to the 1914 control. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They risk the

  1075
  new repairs increase and 25 per cent. of the 40 per cent., at any rate; that is quite a risk.
  Moreover, they may attract the attention of the local authorities, stimulated by my Department, who will begin to apply some of their new powers as to dilapidation and all the rest. Finally, under the circumstances, the landlord risks the house in the end being taken from him with no payment at all except that of the site value. Although we will consider in Committee any suggestions, particularly the point about 14 days, which is a Committee point and to which we will give sympathetic consideration, I think we have taken the right course in framing these conditions.
  One point has been raised which has always been in my mind and on which I should like to say a few words. It was raised by the hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Lincoln. It is, how will this fall upon tenants who are in difficult circumstances? I must frankly admit that such a proposal as I am making now, although perhaps right to make, would have been one which I would have hesitated to make without some special provisions in pre-war circumstances. It would have forced a number of people to make use of the Poor Law system which, under its old form, was thoroughly distasteful to the most honourable and deserving people in our whole community.
  But I have made inquiries into the working of the new National Assistance system, which we all claim, and, I think, we believe, to be free of the stigma of the old Poor Law. That is its purpose. We believe it to be the proper system—at least I believe it to be so—by which the effect of any measures which may economically be correct over the whole field may be corrected over some part of that field.
  I find that a very large number of those now drawing National Assistance are already receiving assistance either for the whole of their rent or for some part of their rent. I think that the figures are 1¼ million out of 1¾million. Therefore, those who are receiving the whole of their present rent in full will obviously receive the repairs increase, should it apply, and
  1076
  those who are receiving it in part may also qualify because there will be a heavier burden upon them. By this means, I am informed, the very great majority, if not all, would in fact have the repairs—I admit it frankly—paid on their behalf, by whom? By all of us. In my view that is right. They will be paid by the nation.
  It will have this advantage, that their houses will be kept in good repair and they have the right to see that their houses are kept in good repair. If they have no resources from which they can pay economically, why is it wrong then that the whole community should pay on their behalf? I think that it is an extraordinary doctrine if we are to force them to live in bad conditions.
  The hon. Gentleman who introduced this argument pointed out that this was already happening on a considerable scale as rents rose. But what rents have gone up? Why, only the local authority rents. It is the local authority rents which have gone up, although I have no doubt that some increased assistance has been given to those who happen to be in local authority houses the rents of which have gone up.
  Now I come to the landlords. There is a good deal of division of opinion about the landlords. When the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talks about them he does so with tears in his eyes. He says, "The poor landlords—we are not going to give them all they deserve." The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) could not stand for that, and he said that he did not agree at all with the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the landlord. Hon. Members have been either pro-landlord or anti-landlord. Some say that this is intended to put more money into the landlord's pocket. I have no doubt that in particular quarters, where they think their argument will be successful, they will continue to use it.
  There are certain points to which I want to refer. There is particularly the case, referred to by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), of rural cottages and some houses in the older industrial towns. It is suggested that the rents are low and, therefore, though the percentage increases which I propose might be quite high, the increase in terms of money would be very small. It is said that not only are the rents low but

  1077
  also the gross values are low. Therefore, repair increases based on the statutory deduction would be correspondingly small and the operation of the ceiling would be correspondingly restricted.
  Of course, it must not be forgotten that the effect of lower assessment is to some extent modified by the fact that the statutory repair deduction is proportionately higher for houses of low gross value. There is a scale. For instance, if the gross value is £12 the repairs deduction would be £5, whereas if the value was £9 the repairs deduction would be £4, rather higher in proportion. That is to some extent an alleviation, but I have not represented this plan as an attempt to iron out all the great varieties and anomalies of the rent system. I do not think that that could be undertaken, and I really do not see any way of meeting this precise difficulty at the moment, although I will think further about it, except to say that I think we have to consider all the way through this sort of proposal the balance between the logical and the mathematical argument and the human approach.
  Logically and mathematically, in the case of a very low rent, say of 2s. 6d. per week, it is quite true that the increase which will be made will be very small. On the other hand, people think partly in terms of what they are already paying and one has to try to balance what is a human response to what people think is a very high percentage with what we hope will be enough to make a contribution towards doing this work. Today the cottages on many estates are somehow kept in good repair because it is regarded as right and good by the landlord to do so. This will be some contribution towards easing that burden.
  The next question from the landlord's point of view came from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who was followed by others, as to whether in establishing his claim to the repairs increase the landlord could go back over a period of only three years. Why not go back five years? I was led to go back for a short period because in the case of the owners of many well-managed estates and properties it is the practice to have a regular cycle of repairs. Not to have gone back at all would have been very hard on perhaps the best of all landlords.
  1078
  On the other hand, one must strike a balance somewhere. If one were to go back too far we should, I feel, be in danger of endangering the principle which I think is so important, and which, I am sure, the whole country regards as important, the principle that the repairs increase and the actual doing of the repairs should be closely linked. While I will look at the point again, I do not want to endanger the whole principle that these two things, the repairs increase and the repairs, should go together and be seen to go together.
  I am more concerned with the fear that the repairs increase taken as a whole may not be of sufficient size or may be hedged in by too many conditions to be of any real use to the landlord. There are two versions of this argument; I do not wish to overstate it. There is that put forward, and I must take serious note of it, by the National Federation of Property Owners. This is what I would call the argument of insufficient incentive to do the job.
  The other version is put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale—he is not here, but he has explained to me why he is not here—which might be roughly described as the theory of the "mouldy turnip." I do not know whether the National Federation of Property Owners have yet elected the right hon. Gentleman to their committee, but what strange bedfellows these really are.
  Of course it is impossible to dogmatise, but I would emphasise again what is the category and the class of houses which we are trying to deal with by this repairs increase. It is the class of house that can be dealt with by an increase for current repairs. It is not intended to deal with houses which will require several hundreds of pounds to be spent upon them. Obviously no increase in the rent which can be proposed in whoever's possession those houses may be, whether in private hands or whether in the hands of housing associations or local authorities, could be an economic rent if one means by economic rent rent sufficient to pay for the structural repairs of houses which have fallen into such a bad state that they need £300 or £400 to be expended on them.
  I wish to go back to the estimate which has been made to the best of their ability by those who advise us. There are seven

  1079
  and a half million houses in Great Britain owned by landlords and let to tenants as houses and flats. Probably a million of these are no good anyway, and will have to be torn down. The problem is to do it quickly, when we have people living in them, as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think we can do it. But we have to place the people somewhere. I would say that there are five million or so houses which are in a reasonably good condition and which this system will stop from falling into bad repair. They can be maintained as an asset, and as good houses, and not become a burden to the nation.
  There are perhaps another million where the condition is somewhere in between. Under our proposals some of them will have to go down and I hope that landlords, under the pressure of the local authority, will be made to put some houses into a condition which at least is fit for human habitation. The landlord may think that is a good thing to do, and this will be on; step towards encouraging landlords to put them into a sufficiently good condition to earn the repairs increase. Other properties will have to come down, and there will be applied to them the scheme and the machinery which we have devised to try to deal with them by the only means by which we can deal with them. If it cannot be done at all on an economic basis, it can be done only by the community in one form or another, the local authority being assisted by the central Government.
  Finally it is asked, why should the owner do current repairs at all, even on houses in moderately good, or in good condition, if he has to use all the extra rent for extra repairs? Why should he do this if he cannot add to his free income which he may spend on himself? The first answer is that many landlords do this already even with an insufficient rent. They do it when they can afford to do so, not out of the income of the house but out of other resources which they may have at their command—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Well, we all know that that is true. If the income of the house can be made sufficient the landlords will have two motives, first, because it is a good thing to do, and secondly, because it is preserving and maintaining an asset which can have a
  1080
  substantial value, instead of allowing it to decay and, as I said before, to reach a position in which it may eventually be taken from them with no payment at all.
  I wish to say a word about taxation, a question raised by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). Like most other people, I find it as difficult to understand the theory of taxation as to conform to the practice of paying it. But I should say that roughly this is the position regarding Income Tax. It has been said that the repairs increase will be subject to Income Tax. That is perfectly true, and it is in line with the taxation policy in general. But it should not be forgotten that landlords can, and ought, to make a maintenance claim. In his claim which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is for a five-year period, the landlord has this advantage, that he is able to average out his expenditure over the five years, so that a particularly heavy expenditure in one year, where there would not be enough income to make the full claim, can be spread over the income for five years.
  Therefore, indubitably, the five-year maintenance system is an advantage to the landlord. He already receives an automatic statutory deduction for tax purposes. But I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if it is necessary or possible to devise any additional means of meeting this problem.
  This leads me to another doubt—expressed by a number of hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Henley—about where the landlord is to get the money. He has of course to get the money to do the repairs, and he may have to wait some time to get the repayments, especially on his maintenance claim. In many cases the landlords of large estates will have no difficulty at all, and it is indeed remarkable how much money is spent on repairs today.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who made such an excellent contribution last night, pointed out that the smaller landlord would be faced with spending perhaps £18 or £20 and would have difficulty in obtaining it. Apart from the ordinary sources such as the banks—and we hope that the banks will be generous—there is machinery provided in the 1949 Act to which I want to

  1081
  call public attention once more. Under it the local authorities have power, and in my view they have the duty, to advance money to individual landlords for the purpose of paying for repairs. I think that is a great benefit that that Act did, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentlemen opposite for having made that provision.
  The interest they pay is the current rate of interest which, for short-term loans, is now just under 3 per cent. I hope that the local authorities will really make an effort under the new scheme, if it comes into being, to provide the necessary money especially to the small landlords. After all, it costs them nothing and it may save them a great deal, because every house that is kept in good repair in their area saves them the duty of dealing with it under my scheme or under the still bigger alternative of having to take it over at some time themselves. Therefore, it costs them nothing, and nowadays virtue which costs one nothing gives one an agreeable opportunity for feeling good.
  Nobody has seriously argued that the great mass of houses can be kept in proper condition without some addition to the rent where the rent is already insufficient for the purpose. After all, the local authorities have no particular urge to increase their rents. As was pointed out yesterday, they are in closer touch with the electors than we are, because they have to face them more frequently. Every day we see that the rents of local authority houses are going up. Sometimes these are Conservative-controlled and sometimes they are Labour-controlled. It is pure hypocrisy to talk about the rich harvest for the landlords. In many cases the local authorities have already had to make larger increases in rent than would be allowed to private landlords under the Bill.
  I believe, therefore, that this part of our proposal—the part dealing with the repairs increase—is fair. I believe that it is fair to the tenant and to the landlord and that it will work. I believe that it can make a contribution towards the maintenance of this vast number of houses, three-quarters of the whole we have to deal with, and keep them in decent repair at no public expense.
  Now I come to certain points about the second part of our scheme which have not been opposed because they are
  1082
  common between us. I refer to conversions and improvements. The public imagination has been struck by some of the experiments which have been made. Public opinion is ripe for a new impulse in this direction. I have been informed that, as a result of increased publicity even in the last few weeks, many more applications are already coming in for grants. I hope that this is only the beginning of a great drive.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary said, success depends partly on suitable legislation. We are trying to make amendments. I am not accusing those responsible for the old Act, but there are one or two Amendments which we think will be useful. Success also depends partly on sensible administration and partly on broad public response. So far as legislation is concerned, we have put in some amendments which we think will be valuable and useful. So far as the general structure is concerned, I do not think that I can alter that.
  I know some people feel that it ought to be obligatory upon the local authorities to make the grant, but I could not accept that because I feel that where public money is at stake and where the authority is in a sense the trustee, both for its own money and for Exchequer money, there must be proper conditions. Some authorities have rejected this scheme altogether; they have not used their discretion, which is what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale meant them to do, but have rejected it altogether. Curiously enough, this is not solely, so my researches prove, on ideological grounds.
  This action has been taken by councils of different political complexions. So far as Labour councils are concerned, I hope they will rest upon the sound doctrine which has been given to them by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and so far as Conservative councils are concerned, I hope they will take the advice that we give them. Therefore, I hope they will exercise their discretion in the way in which it was intended as to whether it is a good scheme and ought to be put into effect, and that that should be the only criterion.
  There are, on the other hand, some administrative changes which we intend to introduce. The Minister's conditions have sometimes been rather too inflexible

  1083
  and rather a barrier to progress, and we hope to make these more reasonable and more flexible. Therefore, in one way or another, I believe that with good publicity, by getting public opinion behind the scheme, by getting the authorities to use the powers which were given to them in the previous Parliament, by strengthening those powers and by improving the administration, we can now make a great forward move. This is one of the most effective measures for using a large number of houses which are structurally sound but out of date in their amenities and in their design for modern conditions, but which can play a most useful part for many years to come as part of our whole housing reserve.
  There are some things I must say about the slums before I conclude.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with local authority finance?
  Mr. Macmillan: Yes.
  I do not think I need say a great deal about the scheme itself. It has been very well received. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Surely, there can be no objection in anybody's mind to going forward with a new attempt to open up slum clearance of a big scale. As for the rather novel proposals—that is, the deferred demolition—while I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I am not impressed by it, nor are the local authorities.
  It is true that when I asked the local authorities to meet and I put this proposal before them, I said, "You all know that there are slum areas which cannot be cleared in five years or even in 10 years. In some of the great cities you know that it will be a longer job. What is the alternative? You can either take them and, at least, do something for the people who are there waiting, or you can take the high line and say, 'We could not be owners of bad property.' But if you do that you would be like the Levite, you would be like the man who passed by and left the poor man in the ditch. Why should you be ashamed to do something for them while they are waiting? Why should be it wrong to do some little work to help them during this period that they have to wait?"
  1084
  The Birmingham experiment has given us a very good example of what can be done, and I am proud to acknowledge that it is upon what they have done in that scheme that I am trying to base my future policy. As regards slum clearance as a whole, the Association of Municipal Corporations has called a two-day conference next week—this is not as regard finance—to launch a whole new crusade of slum clearance.
  Mr. Bevan: They have already discussed that.
  Mr. Macmillan: No. This is the two days' conference of representatives from every local authority. It was called, not by me, but by them. That was done on Mr. Greenwood's first Bill.
  As regards the finance side, I have already discussed the financial provisions of Part I of the Bill at a full meeting of the local authority representatives, and further discussions have taken place with my officials. It was convenient to everybody to put the Financial Resolution on the Paper, but since I am to meet them personally on 10th December for a final review, we shall not ask the House to proceed with the Financial Resolution until after then. I hope that will meet the general wish.
  There are only one or two things on which I want to end. It has been suggested that, instead of acting in the way we are trying to act, which I think is practical and realistic, we ought to have promoted a Measure which would progressively, bit by bit, hand over the whole of some 7 million houses and land them on the local authorities. I am going to place administrative burdens on the local authorities under Part I of this Bill. I do not mean financially, but in resources of manpower and trained men like surveyors and architects and so on, and if, in addition, they are to take over 6 or 7 million houses, then I say that is neither practical nor realistic.
  I leave out altogether the sum of money which that might cost, and, after all, even £2,000 million or £3,000 million is not to be sneezed at. From the point of view of the people, they are more likely to get the houses dealt with if everybody plays their proper role—landlord and tenant, if we use the local authorities in the only way in which the local authorities can

  1085
  work. The people should not be taken in by these academic proposals. My proposals are realistic, whereas the alternative is all right in a debating society or a resolution, but is really not attuned to the needs of the day.
  I cannot help thinking that the trouble is that the party opposite do not like our housing story. In the first year, we were being taunted as to when we would complete our target. In the second year, when it was clear that the date was getting imminent, some alternative had to be found. In the Housing Summary which is in the Vote Office tonight, it will be seen that, in the month of October, 30,000 houses were built in Great Britain—a record for any month since the war. In the second year of our Administration, that is to say, from 1st
  November, 1952, to 31st October, 1953, the number of houses built was 300,001. [Laughter.] I mean 301,000. So we have already reached that target. Now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite says that these new plans are unworkable, and indeed asks me to prove that they will work. We have proved that what we said before has worked, and so I say to him that if, perhaps, he waits two years, with the help of all our colleagues in the Government, he will see that the job will be done. In this Bill, we are asking Parliament to give us the necessary tools, and then we shall put our hearts into finishing the job.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 282.

  Division No. 10.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Grimond, J.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

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

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Harrison, Col. J. H, (Eye)

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

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

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hay, John

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Barber, Anthony

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Heath, Edward

  Barlow, Sir John

  Dodds-Parker. A. D

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Baxter, A. B.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  H"nchingbrooke, Viscount

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Duthie, W. S

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M

  Hope, Lord John

  Birch, Nigel

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Bishop, F. P.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Black, C. W.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G

  Fell, A.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)

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

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Bromley-Devonport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Hurd, A. R.

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Fort, R.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Foster, John

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  Jennings, R.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

  Gammans, L. D.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Carr, Robert

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Glover, D.

  Kaberry, D.

  Channon, H.

  Godber, J. B.

  Kerr, H. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Gower, H R

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Cole, Norman

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Leather, E. H. C.

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

  Nutting, Anthony

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Odey, G. W.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Lindsay, Martin

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

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

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

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

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

  Storey, S.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Osborne, C.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Page, R. G.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Summers, G. S.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  McCallum, Major D.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Tilney, John

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Turton, R. H

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Redmayne, M.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Wade, D. W.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Marples, A. E.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Maude, Angus

  Russell, R. S.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Maudling, R.

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Wellwood, W.

  Medlicott, Brig. F

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Shepherd, William

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Wills, G.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Neave, Airey

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  York, C.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Soames, Capt. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Speir, R. M.

  Sir Cedric Drewe.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Adams, Richard

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Albu, A. H.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Burke, W. A

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Edelman, M.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. (Brighouse)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Carmichael, J.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Champion, A. J.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Baird, J.

  Chapman, W. D

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Balfour, A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Bartley, P.

  Collick, P. H.

  Finch, H. J.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Bence, C. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Follick, M.

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Foot, M. M.

  Benson, G.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Forman, J. C.

  Beswick, F.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Daines, P.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

  Blyton, W. R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Glanville, James

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Gooch, E. G.

  Bowles, F. G.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Deer, G.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Grey, C. F.

  1088

  1089

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Hale, Leslie

  Mason, Roy

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mayhew, C. P

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Snow, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hannan, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Monslow, W.

  Steele, T.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hastings, S.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Morley, R.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

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

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mort, D. L.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Moyle, A.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Holman, P.

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Nally, W.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Hoy, J. H.

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  O'Brien, T.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, M.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Oswald, T.

  Thornton, E.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Padley, W. E.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Paget, R. T.

  Timmons, J.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Tomney, F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Janner, B.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Pannell, Charles

  Usborne, H. C.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Parker, J.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Paton, J.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Peart, T. F.

  Watkins, T E.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Popplewell, E.

  Weitzman, D

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Porter, G.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

  West, D. G.

  Keenan, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Kenyon, C.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Key, Rt. Hon C. W.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Rankin, John

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Kinley, J.

  Reeves, J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Wigg, George

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rhodes, H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Richards, R.

  Willey, F. T.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Logan, D. G.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. R (Droylsden)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Royle, C.

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

  McGovern, J.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  McInnes, J,

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  McLeavy, F.

  Short, E. W.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Shurmer, P. L E.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Yates, V. F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

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

  Skeffington, A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."—[Mr. Whiteley.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 308.

  Division No. 11.]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Baird, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Adams, Richard

  Balfour, A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Blyton, W. R.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bartley, P.

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Bence, C. R.

  Bowles, F. G

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R

  Benson, G.

  Brockway, A F.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Beswick, F.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Burke, W. A.

  Janner, B.

  Rhodes, H.

  Burton, Milt F. E.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

  Richards, R.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carmichael, J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Champion, A. J.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Ross, William

  Chapman, W. D.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Royle, C.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Coldrick, W.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Collick, P. H.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Short, E. W.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Keenan, W.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Daines, P.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfold, E.)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Snow, J. W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Deer, G.

  Logan, D. G.

  Sparkes, J. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Steele, T.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  McGovern, J.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McInnes, J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon J.

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

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McLeavy, F.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Edelman, M.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mann, Mrs Jean

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mason, Roy

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Finch, H. J.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Follick, M.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Thornton, E.

  Foot, M. M.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Forman, J. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Timmons, J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Monslow, W.

  Tomney, F.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Moody, A. S.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

  Morley, R.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Glanville, James

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

  Wallace, H. W.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Mort, D. L.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moyle, A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mulley, F. W.

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Murray, J. D.

  Weitzman, D.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R.

  Nally, W.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Grey, C. F.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  West, D. G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  O'Brien, T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Hale, Leslie

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Orbach, M.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Oswald, T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hannan, W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Wigg, George

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paget, R. T.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Willey, F. T.

  Hastings, S.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pannell, Charles

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

  Parker, J.

  Williams, Rt. Hn. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, J.

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Peart, T. F.

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

  Hobson, C. R.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Holman, P.

  Popplewell, E.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Porter, G.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reeves, J.

  Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  1092

  1093

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Fletcher, Sir Waller (Bury)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Fort, R.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Foster, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

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

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  McCallum, Major D.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Barber, Anthony

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Glover, D.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Baxter, A. B.

  Godber, J. B.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Gough, C. F. H.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Grimond, J.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marples, A. E.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Black, C. W.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Maudling, R.

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Mellor, Sir John

  Braine, B. R.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

  Hay, John

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Heath, Edward

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Buchan Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Neave, Airey

  Bul"ard, D. G.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Bul"us, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hollis, M. C.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Carr, Robert

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hope, Lord John

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Channon, H.

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Odey, G. W.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

  Cole, Norman

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)

  Colegate, W. A.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Osborne, C.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

  Page, R. G.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Jennings, R.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip℄Northwood)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kaberry, D.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Kerr, H. W.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Redmayne, M.

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

  Robertson, Sir David

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Erroll, F. J.

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Fell, A.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  1094

  1095

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Storey, S.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Summers, G. S.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Webbe, Sir H (London & Westminster)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Wellwood, W.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

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

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Soames, Capt. C,

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Tilney, John

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Speir, R. M.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Wills, G.

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

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Turton, R. H.

  Wood, Hon, R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  York, C.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Vane, W. M. F.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Sir Cedric Drewe and

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Wade, D. W.

  Mr. Studholme.

  Resolution agreed to.

  IRON AND STEEL (COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS
  10.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move,
  That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 1) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
  These Regulations relate to nationalisation. The No. 2 Regulations, which we shall come to in the second Motion, relate to denationalisation. The No. 1 Regulations provide for compensation to be paid by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency to employees of iron and steel companies suffering loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of the nationalisation of iron and steel under the 1949 Act, but the Regulations themselves are made under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, Section 24 (1, a) of which places an obligation on my right hon. Friend to make Regulations exactly for this purpose.
  The House will remember that the 1949 Act, passed by the previous Government, gave the Minister of Supply power, under Section 41, to make such Regulations, but, in fact, no Regulations were made under that Act either by the previous Government or by my right hon. Friend. There was a simple reason for this. No one applied for any compensation, and those who know about these things were of opinion that no one would have any reason to apply for compensation. That
  1096
  is still the case, and it is, in our opinion, most unlikely that any claim for compensation will be made under these Regulations.
  Nevertheless, the 1953 Act rightly made it obligatory to make such Regulations, and I am sure the House will want to have a short account of the effect of these Regulations before it gives its approval to them. Since the Regulations relate to nationalisation we thought it right to follow the pattern of compensation on nationalisation worked out by the previous Government. That seemed to us to be fair to all concerned. The basic provisions of these Regulations are, therefore, the same as the basic provisions in the compensation Regulations made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the nationalisation of electricity, gas and road haulage, and in some other cases such as those connected with the National Health Service and the National Insurance Act.
  The most important of these basic provisions, which were discussed by the House at considerable length in the case of the electricity Regulations, and on a number of other occasions, are these. The first of the basic provisions is a qualifying period of not less than eight years' continuous service in the industry. No one who has not that eight years' service may receive anything under the Regulations.
  Second, there is no entitlement under the Regulations to compensation in consequence of any disturbance that happens more than 10 years after the date of transfer to public ownership, that is, after 15th February, 1961. Third, claims must be made within two years of the loss. Fourth,

  1097
  a claimant with the eight years' service qualification is entitled to receive interim compensation for up to 13 weeks as soon as he makes the claim, while his claim for substantive compensation is being examined. That is an advance payment on account.
  Fifth, if he fulfils the conditions for long-term compensation he is awarded compensation on the basis of his emoluments and length of service up to a maximum amount of two-thirds of his emoluments immediately before the loss. Sixth, if a claimant cannot establish a right to long-term compensation he will receive short-term compensation covering a total period of between 13 and 26 weeks, depending upon his age and length of service. Seventh, a claimant in respect of pension rights is credited with up to 10 additional years' service, depending on his age, and the amount of his pension, when payable, is increased accordingly. Eighth, compensation may be commuted, but only to a limited amount. Ninth, there is a right of appeal to a tribunal: in this case a tribunal appointed by the Minister of Labour.
  On all these basic points there is no difference between these Regulations and the Regulations for nationalised industries. There are, however, two points of detail on which there are differences to which I should draw the attention of hon. Members. Both these differences relate to the weekly deductions which, where applicable, are to be made in calculating the amount of compensation. Both have been discussed and agreed with the Trades Union Congress.
  The first difference is that where unemployment, injury or sickness benefit has to be taken into account, the deduction will be at the rate applicable to a person without dependants instead of, as in the previous Regulations, a deduction of two-thirds of the actual benefit claimable. This provision will be found in Regulation 8 (1, a), Regulation 13 (d) and Regulation 14, and avoids penalising claimants with dependants.
  The second difference is that in calculating the interim compensation only two-thirds of any current earnings will be taken into account, whereas in previous Regulations on nationalisation the full earnings were taken into account. This encourages the claimants to take up em-
  1098
  ployment even at a lower rate of pay, and benefits them if they do.
  I said, at the outset, that we did not expect any claims to be made under these Regulations. We hope, indeed, that this will be so and that our consideration of them tonight will prove to have been academic. But I can assure the House that in drawing them up, and in our consultations with the Trades Union Congress, we have proceeded exactly as if they were known to be of real importance. I hope that hon. Members will now be able to give them their approval.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have no doubt that the House will readily give its approval to these Regulations. I am aware that where there have been possible matters of dispute discussions have taken place on a most amicable basis between the Ministry and the trade unions concerned. I do not think there is any difference between them, and on this occasion there is no difference between the Government and the Opposition. I think the Regulations may be allowed to pass without further discussion.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I was interested in the concluding remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, that the provisions of the Regulations would be purely academic and that there would be no claimants. May we agree that that shows the extent to which there was disturbance among the people to whom, we were told, there would be done this, that and the other under nationalisation? I am glad there is evidence tonight that the disturbances and displacements to which reference was made have also proved to be academic.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Low: I beg to move,
  That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 2) Regulations, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
  These Regulations provide for the payment of compensation to employees of the iron and steel companies affected by the 1953 Act and to former employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. We believe and hope that our consideration of these Regulations will be as academic as that given to the No. 1 Regulations.
  Mr. J. Jones: In other words, no disturbance at all?
  Mr. Low: In compiling these Regulations we decided to follow as exactly as possible the line of the only other Compensation Regulations so far made on denationalisation, namely, the British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1953. Since the House discussed those Regulations and approved them on 27th July I will not go into very great detail.
  Some of the provisions of these denationalisation compensation Regulations are the same as those in the Regulations we have just been discussing, but there are some important new provisions.
  Instead of interim compensation and substantive compensation, whether long-term or short-term, all subject to an eight-year qualification, we now provide, in these Regulations, for resettlement compensation, and for long-term compensation, each with a different qualifying period. The only service qualification necessary for resettlement compensation payable for loss of employment is either the holding of a permanent appointment, whether in the industry or the Corporation, or three years' employment in the industry and the Corporation.
  The amount of compensation is calculated in the same way as the short-term compensation in the other Regulations we have just discussed. But whereas, under the old rule, the period of extension above 13 weeks for those of 45 years of age or older depended on the actual service performed after that age, we have provided, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, that the extension period should depend solely on age. The reason for this is that it is obviously harder for an older man to get resettled. In this way, whereas a man of 45 or under could get resettlement payments for 13 weeks, a man of 58 or over could draw such payments for 26 weeks. That provision was welcomed by the House in July in the case of transport and it is hoped that hon. Members will welcome the change by which the resettlement payment is not confined only to those with eight years' service.
  There is also an important change in the conditions under which the long-term compensation will be granted. Under the nationalisation Regulations it was necessary for a claimant to prove he had a
  1100
  right or expectation, under customary practice, to the payment of compensation in the event of discharge or reduction in earnings. In addition, he had to fulfil the qualification of eight years' service in the industry. Instead, as was done in the case of road haulage this year, we have provided the one qualification of eight years' service with one company or its predecessor in title. The House accepted this principle in connection with road haulage in July, and it is not necessary to remind hon. Members of the arguments. For claimants the change is an improvement.
  My right hon. Friend has had consultations with the Trade Union Congress, as he did in the case of the No. 1 Regulations and there is no disagreement between him and them. I am afraid, however, that representatives of those former members of the Iron and Steel Corporation who are now employed with the Agency have not been willing to accept the Regulations as drafted. I had two very full meetings with them myself, and they say that special terms ought to be included to make them eligible for long-term compensation from which the eight-year qualification excludes them. But no such payment was given to the staff side of the Road Haulage Executive, nor was any special treatment given to the staff of the Electricity Commission, whose service was brought to an end in 1948. The same principles were applied to them as were applied to the staffs working in their industries. So, with iron and steel, I see no reason to draw up special qualifications and conditions for the staff of the Corporation giving them what amounts to preferential treatment not given to workpeople and staff of the companies in the industry.
  We have, however—and this is important—provided, in effect, that the former members of the Corporation's staff who have transferred to the Agency may make a claim for resettlement when they leave the Agency. Without such a provision they would be barred from a claim had it been made later than 13 weeks after the date of these Regulations. They qualify for resettlement compensation, therefore, if they had a permanent appointment. They would have qualified for nothing at all under Regulations following the nationalisation pattern. But we hope very much that no former member of the Corporation's staff will need

  1101
  to make a claim at all. Certainly we hope that the 15—for that is the number—who have joined the Iron and Steel Board have been resettled. Of the other 45—there was a total of 60 at the time of the appointed day—one has already found new employment and 44 are now employees of the Agency.
  I understand that the Agency will, when any member of the staff leaves, do all it can to assist him to find comparable alternative employment. Secondly, I understand that each member of the staff will qualify, under a scheme which the Agency will be introducing, for a cash payment on a stated date, or for a deferred annuity calculated by reference to service and salary. For this purpose, service with the Corporation will be added to service with the Agency.
  My right hon. Friend has on several occasions paid his tribute to the work done by members of the Corporation and its staff, and he has been particularly anxious that all of them should be treated with full fairness after the demise of the Corporation. My right hon. Friend and I have, naturally, been personally interested in the provision made for these men and I hope that the House will agree that these arrangements of the Agency, which are made with the full approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, coupled with the resettlement compensation which is included in these Regulations, are fair provision for the staff. I commend the Regulations to the House.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Parliamentary Secretary has explained this second set of Regulations with his usual clarity and charm. We always enjoy hearing him speak. We are also very pleased to know that he, and, I understand, the Minister, too, have had discussions with the various parties concerned and have arrived at compromise agreements affecting all those who work in the various iron and steel companies; and that the T.U.C. are satisfied, broadly, that these Regulations are fair and have no desire to put forward, at this late stage, any views in opposition to these Regulations. We on this side of the House are also satisfied, as far as workers in the iron and steel companies are affected by the Regulations.
  Having said that, I want to put before the House and the Minister what appears
  1102
  to be an injustice which has been meted out to these people who have been, up to recently, officers of the Iron and Steel Corporation. I warned the Parliamentary Secretary that I would be raising this matter and he, on his part, has been good enough to devote a part of his speech to this problem. I think he realises that it is a problem; and what is quite certain is that, whether the people have suffered an injustice or not, they feel strongly that they have. Indeed, they have a strong sense of grievance that they have not been fairly treated; and, as shortly as I can, I will tell the House why.
  The Act passed earlier this year makes these provisions about compensation to members of the Iron and Steel Corporation staff. It says that:
  "The Minister shall by regulation require the payment by the Agency, in such cases, and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations…"
  This, I admit, gives him an opportunity of not making any Regulations of compensation to various classes. One class about which I want to say a word is
  "persons who are officers or servants of the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain immediately before the appointed day, and suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any provision of this Act."
  As this was specifically stated in the Act, people in the Corporation believed, as I think every hon. Member in the House believed, that the Minister would make Regulations giving some compensation to members of the staff in respect of loss, or diminution, of emoluments or pension rights. But, in fact, the Minister has not done so. Various reasons have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do not think that they are sound.
  One reason he gives is that he is following the precedent set in the Road Haulage Executive and the Electricity Commission when their staffs were abolished. But I suggest that there is a considerable difference, and the precedent, not a good one. The staff of the Road Haulage Executive consisted mainly of people drawn from the road haulage industry; people who had existing pension rights which were maintained while they were members of the Executive's staff.
  Similarly the staff of the Electricity Commission had mostly, I understand, pension rights inherited from their

  1103
  previous employment, whereas the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation was composed of people not drawn from the industry at all. They were people recruited to the Corporation by means of advertisement and they came from all walks of life; none, I believe, came from the iron and steel industry.
  Therefore, I suggest that there is not a close connection between the Road Haulage Executive or the Electricity Commission and the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation for the sound reason—for such I believe it to be—that those in the two former inherited pension rights while those with whom we are concerned to night had none.
  The second reason why it is said that there is no provision for these people is that the Agency will do its best to find other jobs for people when they leave it. That is all very well; so it may, but it is one thing to rely on another job being found by the Agency—which might fail—and quite another to have it laid down by Parliament that there shall be provision for loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights. Therefore, I do not think that that argument is sound.
  What do we find? When we look at Part III of the Regulations, dealing with long-term compensation for loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, we find that the Regulations which follow apply only to people who are working in iron and steel companies and not to members of the staff of the Iron and Steel Corporation. But, the Parliamentary Secretary says, they are, nevertheless, to get some compensation, called resettlement compensation, when they lose their jobs. That resettlement compensation will last for probably 13 weeks. It may be adequate, or it may not be, but it certainly puts these people in a separate category and does not entitle them, as they thought they would be entitled from reading the Act, to the same sort of compensation as people who are working in the iron and steel companies.
  The argument is also put forward—and I agree that there is force in it; that it is unlikely that these people are to be employed by the Agency for eight years, and long-term compensation is
  1104
  only payable to people working in the industry after working there for eight years. That is perfectly true. But who can tell? We may have the disastrous situation in which a Conservative Government remains in office for eight years. We hope not, but it might happen.
  It might also happen—indeed, it is likely if the present Government remains in office—that the Agency will continue in existence for eight years because it will not be able to get rid of all its iron and steel assets during that period. If that should happen, these people will not have the same rights of compensation as those working in the iron and steel companies, and they have a measure of grievance about that. But their case is much stronger in regard to no arrangements having been made for their loss of pension rights.
  Again, I come back to Section 24 of the Act, where it is clearly stated that members of the Iron and Steel Corporation would receive compensation in respect of their pension rights which they might forfeit—
  Mr. Low: They have no pension rights. The right hon. Gentleman did not approve the pension scheme.
  Mr. Strauss: I shall come to that in a moment.
  Under the Act they are entitled to expect compensation in respect of pension rights which they will forfeit as a result of the passing of the denationalising Act. They joined the Corporation on the justifiable expectation that a pension scheme would be set up, because the advertisement which was issued inviting people to join the staff of the Corporation definitely said that a pension scheme was to be established.
  As soon as possible, steps were taken to consider what would be the most appropriate pension scheme. But before it could be drawn up, the political situation changed, and it was considered that it would be unwise to go on with it any further in view of the possibility of denationalisation. But definitely, the people joined the Corporation in the belief that there was to be a pension scheme. I can quote the advertisement if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but I do not want to waste the time of the House.

  1105
  Because no pension scheme was set up, the Corporation set aside a sum equal to 10 per cent. of the salary of each of the people concerned so as to form the nucleus of a pension scheme when one was established. There was no doubt, therefore, about the proper expectation that there was to be a pension scheme, or about the intention of the Corporation to set one up as quickly as possible. But, under these Regulations, the people will not get their pension rights which they were led to expect they would enjoy, or the compensation in respect of those pensions which they were led to expect they would receive under the Act.
  It appears to me that there has been an injustice there. We are told that the staff concerned are to get something out of the pension fund which has been set up. There is to be a return to them of the 10 per cent. contributions paid in by the Corporation. But that is nothing to do with pension rights. Therefore, it seems to me that they are being cheated out of compensation rights which they were entitled to expect to be paid to them in some form of compensation. The fact that this money is to be paid either in cash or in some form of insurance which will give them a little money when they are 65 years old does not correspond to the pension rights which they were entitled to expect. They were sure that they were to have these rights, because they were told so when they applied for the jobs.
  Reading this Act, they are entitled to say that they were to get proper compensation for loss of pension rights because the Corporation was to end. These people have a justifiable grievance. The Government can argue that they have only been working there for two years, and that they have a job with the Agency—44 of them. That job can last for a long time, or for a short time. Whether these people have, or have not, a reasonable job as a result of denationalisation has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is that by the Act passed by this House, and put forward by the Government, everyone was led to believe that these people would have a pension. I therefore ask the Government to look at this matter again.
  I suggest that the Government are technically entitled not to give compensation if it does not want to; but in view of the wording of this Act, I say it is not
  1106
  playing fair with the House—and it has certainly caused considerable perturbation and annoyance among the staff concerned—to find that they are not to get compensation for these pension rights. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and perhaps bring in some amending legislation. The grievance, it is true, concerns fewer than 60, but this House has always been as jealous of the rights of small numbers as of large numbers. Because we are satisfied with the effect of these Regulations upon the great majority working in the industry is no reason why we should not ask the Government to look at the problem of the small number who feel, with justice I believe, that they have been unfairly treated.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. P. B. Lucas: I only wish to raise one matter briefly. This relates to Part III of the Regulations, which deals with loss of employment, emoluments, and pension rights. I find myself in the somewhat remarkable situation of being in some degree in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss). He quoted Section 24 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953. I shall not weary the House with that again; but it appears to me that the Regulations we are considering have been so framed as to exclude from the provisions of Part III any reference to the officers or servants of the former Corporation.
  I fully appreciate and welcome the assurances which my hon. Friend has given tonight, but on the face of these Regulations it would seem that in the event of the Treasury dissolving the Agency, as provided under Section 25 of the Act, these people could—I do not say they would—suffer any or all of the losses referred to in Section 24, without any guarantee of compensation.
  This is a state of affairs which I had hoped might not arise, having due regard to the provisions of Section 24 (1, c) of the Act, but in spite of the assurances which have been given tonight my interpretation of these Regulations makes it questionable whether there are sufficient safeguards for those who were members of the staff of the former Iron and Steel Corporation. On the basis of their permanent employment with the Corporation, I was under the impression that they

  1107
  had acquired certain pension rights, but, so far as I can gather, under this proposal, should the Agency be dissolved in the future there is no certainty that comparable pension rights would, in fact, become operative.
  I know that my hon. Friend has been most courteous, in meeting representatives of the Agency's staff association and hearing their views, and I am sure that they are grateful to him for the time that he has given to them. Nevertheless, they do retain the impression that, whereas, under these Regulations, the industry and the employees of the companies concerned have been adequately provided for, the treatment which they are receiving is less favourable. This may seem a small matter, but it is certainly causing them some concern. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend replies to this short debate he will elaborate a little more, and clarify a little further, the position of this small but deserving group of men.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Jones: I want to intervene only very briefly in reference to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. As the story of steel unfolds itself we really get the facts. Whereas we were told, ad nauseam, that there would be bureacracy going mad and "jobs for the boys" when this industry was nationalised, it now appears that it was successfully run by a staff with a maximum of 60 and a reasonable minimum of 44. That is a very interesting fact. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), like myself, wants to get to bed, if I properly assess the look of him.
  There is the question of what I consider to be unfairness to these people who had a genuine right to expect compensation when this Corporation was set up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) dealt with that. I want to refer to the individual who, it is suggested, might leave the employment of the Agency. There are some who might, and it is questionable whether they are getting a square deal. But what about the fellow who does not leave but gets the sack? What happens to him? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
  Within this Agency, there is bound to arise a clash of opinions. At the moment, I am looking at the Financial Secretary to
  1108
  the Treasury. I might, as a practical, technical fellow, be sitting on the Agency with him, and he and I might have a clash of opinion. He knows all about finance, and I know nothing about it, but I know how to make steel and what should be done with certain works. I want to know what happens to an individual who has a clash of opinion with Treasury officials and is given notice to leave. Will he get a job so easily, and get the amount of money which it is suggested might come to him? What about the man in the industry who, as a result of the technical inefficiency of the Agency, finds himself out of work?
  I cast my mind back for a moment to Barrow Works, probably one of the least economic in the possession of the Agency, and will be for more than eight years if there is no slump. But if there is a slight recession in steel in this country and in the world, that is the sort of place that will find itself in debt very quickly. And what about the men who, in the employment of the Agency, have not been technically efficiently looked after through there not being technically efficient persons in charge?
  I think we are at the stage in the steel industry where people own who cannot control and people control who do not own. Only part of the shares have been sold, and the remaining part has been left in the control of people who only own a part or percentage of the shares. What can the Minister tell us about individuals such as the man who loses his job as a result of recession, as a result of inefficiency, or as a result of being under the control of financiers rather than the steel makers?
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I shall be very brief. What these people were promised in the subsection of the Act which was devoted specially to them and did not cover the company service was compensation for suffering loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rates. Now there are two headings of compensation. One is resettlement compensation for loss of employment, which does apply to them, and which appears to be compensation rather like the widow's benefit under the National Insurance Act. It is small benefit. But when we come to the actual language in this subsection of the Act, which is repeated in these Regulations,

  1109
  the very words about loss or diminution of emoluments and pension rights, we then find that they are specifically omitted from it. When we turn to see what are the pension rates and look at the definition, we find it is exceedingly wide. It is not merely a formulated scheme. It means an arrangement "whether by virtue of any statute, trust, or customary practice, or otherwise in connection with his employment as a person or servant," and it then carries on as to the contracts of the employing companies. Now, if a man is invited by an advertisement, which offers, or suggests that he shall have pension rights, to undertake a job which at the time looks like being permanent, I should have thought that was getting precious near the kind of language that is used here.
  I want to put it a little more broadly. These people, we are told, and it is not denied, came from outside. They came into a particular skilled kind of office work in a public corporation, and I imagine they felt they would get the kind of treatment that people who go into the Civil Service get. I am certain that was the sort of thing they had in mind, and it is borne out when we look at the terms of the pension arrangements, which, I hope the Minister will agree, are modelled on what is prevalent in the Civil Service. There is the same old formula about the number of years, and the rest of it, that dates back to some 19th Century Act in connection with the Civil Service.
  These people seem to me to have been misled. They could assume that they were going into a public service in respect of which pensionable arrangements would be made for an employment of long, practically indefinite operation, and that they have abruptly, owing to this piece of legislation, been deprived of it. So much for the pension.
  But there is another matter; they were also promised compensation for loss or diminution of emoluments. So far as I can see—I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that has been entirely omitted. They are entitled to this widow's benefit, as I call it, as resettlement compensation for a very short period, but suppose in fact, as a result of this change, they get another job, and get it at considerably lower emoluments, that is specifically the case that was to be covered by the Regulations made
  1110
  under this subsection. It is covered, of course, in the case of servants of the company, and it was also promised under this subsection to officers or servants of the Corporation. Why do they not get it? There may be argument about their strictlegal right to a pension. There cannot be very much about their moral right to it, I should have thought. When it comes to loss or diminution of emoluments, I do not know what the Minister's answer is. Why were they promised that in the Act, and why are they now not entitled to have that promise fulfilled?
  11.12 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not yield to these blandishments. I confess I cannot hope to know very much about the subject, but it is perfectly apparent from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that no promise was given, that it was presumed that pensions would be paid, that it was imagined that pensions would be paid, that people thought they were joining a kind of Civil Service. These aparently were just attractions in an advertisement which invited these 60 persons who knew nothing about, the steel trade to come into the industry, and they are now trying to claim pensions.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman said he knew nothing about the matter. In that, in this point, he was absolutely correct. He said they were not led to expect there was to be a pension scheme set up. I have the advertisement here to which they replied:
  "Persons appointed may be required to join a contributory pensions scheme which the Corporation intend to set up in due course."
  Sir W. Darling: "May be required." If the right hon. Gentleman will make much out of that he can talk to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. There was not a promise of a pensions scheme, and the Parliamentary Secretary takes his stand apparently on that premise, and I want to support him. The present large appetite for pensions in this country seems to be becoming endemic. This will be soon an entirely pensionable community. The other day it was pensions for policemen, and a little while ago pensions for retired officers, and now there is this specious claim for no doubt deserving men and women who joined

  1111
  this industry, who knew it to be precarious.
  They were men and women with practical knowledge who knew this proposition was being forced on the country by the Socialist Government, and was a policy which was resisted apparently by half the nation. In spite of those plain facts they came forward to join something as though it were as permanent as the Civil Service. If they had been wise in their generation then, no doubt, in the few months they were in office they would have seen that this pensions scheme was set up; they could have seen that the promise which apparently was inherent in their minds was brought into very rapid being. If it was not they should be indicting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), who had a good deal to do with it, for not having set it up. He did many things; why did he not do that? Those who are not getting the pensions now should not lay the blame on this Government but lay the blame on the previous Government who were so busy doing other things they neglected to attend to the circumstances borne in the minds of those who joined the party.
  I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will remember the Government he represents. This is a Government who are hard pressed financially in many directions, and it is not for him to interpret in any generous terms these arrangements whereby public money is to be freely dissipated. I hope he will resist this specious plea by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall and stand by the rigid letter of the law. No more; no less; preferably less.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I wish to take a contrary view to that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I feel a great deal of sympathy with the case made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), but I was surprised at his naivety in that he found himself unable to understand the failure of the Treasury to keep a promise. He should know by this time that there is a well-established precedent for that, when we are dealing with matters of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman
  1112
  should be well aware that there are many cases in which the Treasury goes back on its promises with regard to pensions.
  It may be considered irrelevant in this discussion to go into the matter of the pensions for certain officers in which I am interested in another connection, but the parallel is very much in point. As I understand his case, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall says that a particular inducement was held out to people to accept a particular post on the under standing that when the time came for a pension to be awarded to them that would be done—
  Sir W. Darling: No, only considered.
  Mr. Marlowe: It would be considered. My hon. Friend says that it was to be considered. I could cite a much stronger case where it was promised, where a contract was made on the basis that a particular pension would be paid at a particular time; and by some calculation which the Treasury was able to arrive at it was able to say, "We have now decided that the pension should be greatly lowered."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is going far beyond the matter under discussion.
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not wish to weary the House with another subject, but I am merely putting this forward as an illustration of the point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I thoroughly understand the case he has made. He is saying that there is a casewhere there was a bargain made—
  Sir W. Darling: No bargain.
  Mr. Marlowe: An anticipated bargain, and the bargain was not kept. I merely wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be surprised when these things happen. Apparently it is a well-established practice for the Treasury to enter into bargains of this kind and, when it suits them, to back out. I hope that the extension of this principle will not be carried any further.
  I have not heard what this will cost, but I should like to know what the cost will be. We understand there are 60 people involved, and I should like to know if there is any cost falling on the Treasury. It may be that there is none, but I think

  1113
  we are entitled to know before leaving this matter, and whether any expenditure involved is equivalent to the £200,000 which the Government refused to the pensioned officers in whose case I am particularly interested.
  11.20 p.m.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that there will be no payment from the Treasury. The money which has to be found by the Agency will come from its own revenues.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and other hon. Members concentrated their remarks on the compensation to be given in the event of loss of one kind or another suffered by members of the staff of the Corporation as a result of the processes of de-nationalisation. I wish to correct the impression that there has been any act of bad faith, or any failure on the part of the Government to carry out any assurances given during the debates on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we had promised in some way or another that Regulations would be introduced to give the kind of benefits he has been claiming this evening—that is to say a complete departure from the provisions of the eight year rule which was well established in previous compensation Regulations. I should like to draw his attention to the terms of the Act itself. Section 24 states
  "The Minister shall, by regulation, require the payment by the Agency in such cases, and to such extent as may be specified in the regulations."
  Obviously, now that the matter has come before the House for the first time, it is for discussion whether the Regulations go far enough. However, nothing in the Act says that a particular type of compensation is to be granted. Under subsection 3 these Regulations apply to officers and servants of the Corporation.
  The last thing in the world I would wish is that there should be any suggestion that we are treating anybody shabbily. I have taken the view that, if there is any doubt whatever, we must do a little more, if necessary, than is absolutely fair so that there can be no possible suggestion that any body has been unfairly treated because of this legislation.
  1114
  Under the original draft of the Bill as presented to the House, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, there was no mention whatever of a compensation scheme for the staff of the Corporation. The reason was that all compensation schemes were based, apart from the short-term resettlement, or the widow's benefit as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) described it, on the eight-year period of service. As the staff of the Corporation could not possibly qualify under the eight-year rule, we left them out in the original draft of the Bill. At a later stage, as a result of discussion in the House, they were brought in under a subsection of Section 24.
  In doing so, I said:
  "The second Amendment relates to compensation for officials and employees of the Iron and Steel Corporation. This was not referred to in the original draft because the period of their service has been too short to qualify them for compensation under any of the Regulations so far issued. The possibility of bringing employees of the Corporation within the scope of the compensation regulations which might in due course be issued should not be excluded in advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 1950.]
  That is all I committed myself to doing, namely, bringing the staff of the Corporation within the terms of the compensation arrangements notwithstanding the fact that they would not in any normal conditions nor in accordance with previous precedents, qualify for compensation under the eight-year rule. That is the only commitment I made to the House. We did not wish to exclude by legislation the possibility that the staff of the Corporation might be included in the compensation schemes. That is what we have done. We have included them, but have not been able to give them compensation on a scale which would not be granted to anybody else in similar circumstances. That is the difficulty of the situation.
  As my hon. Friend explained earlier, we have followed closely the terms of the Transport Denationalisation Regulations, which have been approved by the House. We should get into great difficulties if we introduced a different set of Regulations for compensation in different industries. The circumstances are in almost all respects absolutely identical. There is one difference, and that is that a certain number—I do not know how

  1115
  many, but I doubt whether it is by any means all—of the staff of the Road Haulage Executive had previously been employed in the road haulage industry. Therefore it was quite possible that by adding the period of service under the Executive to the period of service in some other capacity in the industry, they were able to make up the eight-year period, and therefore to qualify. That does not happen in the case of the Iron and Steel Corporation staff who, almost without exception, were not previously employed in the industry.
  The question really is whether people who have served a body for different periods until the Corporation was dissolved, some two years and nine months at most—we are not talking about short-term resettlement compensation but about long-term compensation—are entitled, to the same extent as a person who has worked all his life, or for a great number of years, in an industry, to what is described as "long-term" compensation. That is the issue.
  The fact is that we are, under these Regulations, providing compensation for the staff of the Corporation on exactly the same basis as for the Road Haulage Executive, subject to the fact that their service may be different, and as for the workpeople throughout the whole of the iron and steel industry. I would find very great difficulty, and so I think would hon. Members on all sides of the House, in providing compensation terms for the staff of the Corporation which were superior, better and more advantageous than the compensation which we are offering to the working men in the iron and steel industry. What is suggested here is that we should accept the period of two years and nine months as the qualifying period for long-term compensation. I would find it very difficult to refuse compensation to a steel worker who, owing to denationalisation, lost his job, while the administrative staff of the Corporation should qualify for it. We should get ourselves into great difficulties and I do not see how we could possibly justify it.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the staff had been led to expect some scheme when they joined the Corporation. That is true, but it was more, as the right hon.
  1116
  Gentleman read it out, a warning that there might be a contributory scheme. But, as my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary has already explained, this matter has by no means been neglected in the short time that the Agency has been in existence; it has now produced a scheme to meet just this kind of case. As has been explained, the members of the staff, under this scheme, will qualify for a cash payment at a stated date, or a deferred annuity; calculated in each case by reference to service and salary, and an important aspect of that is that in calculating service, service with the Corporation will be added to service under the Agency.
  I only wish that this scheme had been made known to the members of the staff of the Agency at an earlier date; but we have had discussions over a number of months, and it was only in the last few days that the scheme has been made known. I say this because I think that the attitude of the staff of the Corporation might have been different if they had known of the scheme. I hope, and I have every confidence, that they will feel reassured by announcement of this scheme.
  That, broadly, is the position and, in addition to this, we are providing a resettlement benefit—short-term compensation. I am assured that the Agency is as anxious as hon. Members in all parts of this House to see that cases of special hardship do not get overlooked. It is prepared to deal specially with cases where hardship arises; but I am hopeful that hardship, or loss, or injury, at any time will not occur. So far as other employment is concerned, I can tell hon. Members that, with the exception of one person, who has found employment elsewhere, all the members of the staff of the Corporation are now employed by the Iron and Steel Board, or the Agency, I have no doubt that it is most unlikely that there will be any cases of hardship arising from de-nationalisation any more than there were as a result of nationalisation.
  Resolved,
  That the Draft Iron and Steel (Compensation to Officers and Servants) (No. 2) Regulations, 1953 [copy presented, 20th November] be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the payment of Exchequer Grants to local authorities in Scotland in lieu of the grants payable to such authorities under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, and, among other things, for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and of any subsequent year beginning with the sixteenth day of May, of grants to local authorities in Scotland amounting in the aggregate to a sum equal to eleven-eightieths of the total amount certified by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to have been paid in respect of the twelve months ending on the thirty-first day of March falling within the year in question to local authorities in England and Wales by way of Exchequer Equalisation Grants under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948.

  GRADUATE TEACHERS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  11.34 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Lindsay: I make no apology for raising the subject of graduate teachers' salaries tonight, although the Minister of Education has not yet received the recommendations from the Burnham Committee. But she will appreciate that this may be the last opportunity of doing so before the Christmas Recess, which will begin three weeks from now, and that she will probably have to take a decision upon the decision upon the recommendations before Parliament meets again in the latter part of January. We know what the recommendations of the Burnham Main Committee are going to be, and I wish tonight to concern myself with the proposed differential known as the Graduate Addition. This is that the present provision relating to an addition of £60 for men and £48 for women graduates will remain as it is at present. There is a new proposal under which all First Class Honour graduates will receive an additional allowance at the rate of £30 for men and £24 for women, and at the discretion of local
  1118
  education authorities Second Class Honour Graduates may receive the same addition.
  In my opinion, this proposed differential between graduate and none-graduate teachers does not go nearly far enough, and I hope that the Minister, who has no power to alter the recommendations, will send them back to the Burnham Committee to ask them to reconsider the recommendations in this respect. I ask this on two grounds; first, in justice to the special position and responsibilities of graduate teachers; and secondly, on national grounds.
  I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that before the war the differential between graduate teachers and non-graduates was about 25 per cent., which has now been reduced to approximately eight per cent. Non-graduates take the General Certificate of Education at 16, and can enter gainful employment until obtaining a vacancy at a teaching college, usually at the age of 18, and then, apart from the requirements of National Service, they can start teaching two years later; whereas the would-be graduate has to obtain his university award at the age of 18 and often 19, and then he has to undergo four years education and training, as a result of which he emerges far better qualified for his life's work.
  The work of those who teach in sixth forms, coaching scholars for Open Awards, is comparable to that of a first year in a university, and only those with high academic qualifications can measure up to this responsibility for which they should be adequately paid. I personally believe that if these recommendations are accepted, grammar schools in particular, whose staffs are 80 per cent. graduates, are going to suffer, and that the effect upon the nation will be unfortunate. I believe that the threat to grammar school efficiency is a threat to national efficiency at a high level. The high standards attained by the grammar schools in the last 50 years constitute one of the outstanding features of English education, and it is, to my mind, essential that grammar school masters should be men and women of high intellectual attainment and personal qualities.
  A month ago, on the initiative of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), we debated the shortage of science teachers, which is already the direct result

  1119
  of inadequate remuneration. I believe that no longer will we get adequate graduate recruits to the teaching profession unless the differential is raised. More and more would-be teachers are choosing the two-year course, and this cannot be considered to be progress in education.
  I have said that we know what the recommendations of the Burnham Committee amount to. But unfortunately we also know that they are not unanimous recommendations but only those of a majority, for they have been emphatically rejected by the Joint Four Associations which in particular represent grammar school teachers.
  I am sure that the Minister will not allow herself to be misled by the fact that the National Union of Teachers has approved these proposals, because non-graduate teachers are the great majority among its members. Is the Minister satisfied that the Burnham Committee, as it is at present constituted, satisfactorily represents the interests of graduate teachers? It seems to me to be heavily weighted in favour of non-graduate teachers. This is inevitable, since these are in the vast majority. Does not the Minister think that their interests ought to be represented by a separate panel, as was, in effect, achieved by the Burnham Committee which existed before the Education Act of 1944.
  Nor am I happy about the proposal to increase mandatorily the increment of first-class honours degree graduates by £30 for men and £24 for women, and permissively for those holding second-class honours degrees. This is unfair because universities and faculties have different standards. For example, I am informed that often approximately 30 per cent. of chemistry graduates at one university receive first-class honours, whereas only 3 per cent. of English graduates at another normally obtain this distinction. Everyone knows that universities encourage teachers to take general degrees, and only some universities give honours in general degrees.
  Then there is the special position of those whose university careers were interrupted by either of the two world wars, and who therefore obtained unclassified degrees which were nevertheless honours degrees. How are they to be treated?
  1120
  To sum up, there is no doubt that more and more school teachers are becoming gravely dissatisfied with the failure of the Burnham Committee to recommend any improvement in the amount of the Graduate Addition, apart from the trifling increase proposed for the holders of first-and some second-class honours degrees, or to provide compensation and encouragement for teachers who delay their entry into salaried employment to follow extended courses of training and study at the universities. They are equally disappointed that no substantial improvement is recommended in the arrangements made by the local education authorities for the payment of special allowances in respect of special responsibility and work of special value.
  The position is all the more serious because discontent is most marked among the teachers in those schools which have to carry an increasing responsibility for the education of the nation's ablest children. The number of boys and girls in the sixth forms of the grammar schools has already greatly increased. During the next few years, when the post-war increase in the birth rate will have its effect on the number of boys and girls in the grammar schools, staffing difficulties will become still more acute, particularly in certain subjects, and at certain levels of teaching.
  There can be no doubt that the grammar schools are going to be unable to recruit and retain the services of sufficient teachers of the quality which is required unless they are able to offer salary scales comparable with the awards that could be obtained in any other profession.
  11.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Morley: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) is wrong in assuming that the National Union of Teachers does not represent graduate teachers. There are, as a matter of fact, as many graduate teachers in the membership of the National Union of Teachers as there are on the other bodies in the joint organisation. The hon. Member is also wrong in stating that this Award was carried only by a majority. Voting on the Burn ham Committee is by panels, and each panel votes as a unit. This Award was agreed to by both panels on the Committee—by the Teachers' Panel and by

  1121
  the Local Authorities' Panel—so it was not carried by a majority; it was carried by the decision of both panels.
  I quite agree with the hon. Member that there should be an even bigger graduate allowance than was actually awarded, but that was not the fault of the teachers' representatives. The Teachers' Panel put forward a claim for a graduate allowance of £125 instead of the present allowance of £60. I would point out that the hon. Member did not relate the full story about the present graduate allowance, because there is not only a graduate allowance of £60, but also an allowance of two increments of £36 for the additional two years of training which the graduate undertakes. So in practice the graduate allowance is not £60 but £96, and in the new Award there will be £30 for a first-class honours degree and £30 for a good second-class honours degree.
  As it will be very difficult for local authorities to decide what is and what is not a good second-class honours degree, we can assume that everybody with an honours degree will get £30, and the total addition to be received by the graduate, provided he has an honours degree, will be £126. The teachers asked for a graduate allowance of £125, plus more for the incremental addition, and tried very hard to get it, but they were not able to convince the local authorities. It is to the local authorities that the hon. Member should direct his arguments in this matter and he should not make very unjustified criticisms of the National Union of Teachers.
  The Parliamentary Secretary wants at least 10 minutes to reply, and I have only one more minute to deal with the argument put forward by the hon. Member, but I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not advise his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to send back the recommendations of the Burnham Committee. That Committee is a duly constituted, statutory committee, set up by Act of Parliament, and both sides of the Committee have agreed to this Award. If the Minister turns down the Award of a negotiating body to which both sides have agreed, it will strike a very deadly blow at all negotiations.
  I should have thought it would be something with which hon. Members on both sides of the House would strongly
  1122
  disagree. I say that the Award has not satisfied everybody, but it is an Award agreed to by both sides—the teachers side and the employers' side.
  Mr. M. Lindsay: I do not want to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman said it is an agreed Award. How can he say that when it has been emphatically rejected—
  Mr. Morley: But the organisations are represented on the Burnham Committee. Each have their due proportion of representatives. The Joint Four have their representatives on the teachers' panel, as well as the National Union of Teachers, and the teachers' panel as a body, including the representatives of the Joint Board, agreed to accept the last offer of the authorities' panel because their experience during the negotiations had convinced them that no more could be wrung from the authorities. So far as the Burnham Committee is concerned they are agreed recommendations, and I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think of advising the Minister that she should turn down the agreed recommendations of a statutory negotiating body.
  Mr. George Wigg rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pickthorn.
  11.51 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): I am very sorry indeed, but I think I should be more to be criticised if I did not rise now. The House will have observed from both hon. Gentlemen, for whose moderation I am indebted, the considerable extent to which they cancel each other out, though I do not think myself likely wholly to agree with either of them. I think that may be evidence to the House that this is a very complicated matter. To discuss the details of what is to be a salary scale arising out of a Burnham Committee discussion—at a stage where the Committee have still to meet once more, I think in a fortnight's time, to discuss what still has no statutory effect—would be an innovation, and it would be of doubtful propriety for the House here to endeavour either to induce or advise the Minister to make a decision before the meeting which will happen in a fortnight's time. That would plainly be improper.

  1123
  I think it would also be improper if I said anything in discussing this matter which might seem to encourage or discourage either of the professional sections or the individual persons who will be at that meeting. I should be very much open to criticism if I said something which might seem either to strengthen or weaken any variety of opinion in that meeting. I can assure the House, and I do not think the House needs assuring, through its knowledge of the Minister's conduct in office—and if the House pays enough attention to me it may know well enough my own views from the whole of my curriculum vitae—that neither of us is likely to underestimate the value or the importance of the grammar schools to the national life and national survival.
  There were two points mentioned to which I should refer. One was about the University "A," where 30 per cent. of chemists get firsts, and the University "B," where only 3 per cent. of English graduates get firsts. I deprecate all such comparisons very much, but in so far as an argument can be based upon them, it rather busts the hon. Gentleman's argument. I myself have, only naturally, a persona] prejudice in favour of graduates. But to argue that graduates vary almost infinitely in glory, like the stars in their courses, and then to argue that remuneration should continue to depend very largely indeed upon being a graduate, and not upon performance within the profession after being a graduate, and to have the argument about 3 per cent. and 30 per cent., really busts the hon. Gentleman's case.
  One other small point, before I use my last few minutes going through what I had prepared to say—or to gallop through as much of it as I can in the time left. It is the point about unclassified honours degrees in war-time. I am not familiar with that subject. On the whole I think that those who came back afterwards, people who had had some wartime studies, rather benefited. They had been allowed terms, and so on. I shall make what inquiry can be made about the questions put to me on that point.
  On the principal points made I think I have now said as quickly as I could the most important things to be said, and I now turn to what I had been meaning to say. There is not the slightest evidence
  1124
  to suggest that the large increase in the number of the two-year teachers, those who come from the training colleges after two years, has been at the expense of the graduate teachers. The number of two-year students completing courses of training satisfactorily was 3,872 in 1939 and 9,191 in 1952. The number of graduate teachers completing courses satisfactorily was 1,744 in 1939, and was up to something over 3,000 in 1952. One would not expect the two to go at proportionately the same rate, but the fact that the second one, too, has gone up very considerably in that period disposes of the suggestion, for which there is no evidence, that people are being tempted, because of the insufficiency of the differential, to opt for training colleges rather than for universities. I do not think there is any evidence that that is happening.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the differential in favour of the graduate, as exists at the present time. I think I could give more details, because I have had the best expert advice, than the hon. Gentleman opposite has given, but what the hon. Gentleman opposite said on that point may be sufficient for our argument to night. Neither averages nor comparisons with pre-war conditions are really very useful, but so far as we can get anything like an average, something like this may be said to be a reasonable guess: that the average graduate gets a salary 27 per cent. above the non-graduate at the bottom end and 13 per cent. above it at the top end. But that is leaving out the additional payment for special responsibility and value, which would add on to those percentages; and we must assume—otherwise the whole argument busts itself—that graduates will have an advantage in competition with other people in seeking positions of responbility and value.
  I would not deny that there has been some levelling as between the two since the 1944 Act, and it is not my business, even if there were time tonight, to say whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I would say only two things: it was indeed a levelling up, although to be fair to the House, one has to add, a levelling up in numbers of £sterling, and one must admit that various things have happened to the £ sterling since 1944. Secondly, although

  1125
  a fall in the value of the £ sterling would be a fair enough argument for the necessity of the subsistence element in salaries being looked at again, it cannot be advanced as the ultimate argument, for obviously the inflationary spiral would become infinite and absolutely insuperable. It would mean that the moment that the £ sterling dropped another penny there would have to be another penny added to salaries—hon. Members will appreciate the point.
  As to the adequacy of the Burnham system in general, about which I must say a word; that could not be discussed at sufficient length even were I given 29 out of the 30 minutes of this Adjournment debate. It is a very complicated subject. I am not certain whether it would require legislation. I do not assert that; I have not been able to make up my mind. Section 89 of the 1944 Act does not specify; it states that the Minister shall appoint one or more committees. But my right hon. Friend cannot now do anything except within the general background of the Act, and within the pattern of school organisation which has grown up under it.
  If I may delicately hint at a critical tone, the hon. Gentleman seemed sometimes in his logic to shift feet from graduate teachers to grammar school teachers, as if the two categories were an identity. Anything of the sort he desires to be done would need a definition of "grammar school," which does not occur in the Statute. Even if it did not need legislation, it would have great practical difficulties because of the difficulty about what is exactly a grammar school. I am not suggesting it could not foe done. If the whole matter could be thrashed out no doubt it could be done, but it would
  1126
  take long and detailed debating after long and detailed discussions outside, and it is not a matter upon which a junior Minister ought to pontificate in a half-hour debate.
  I hope I have kept the "padding" down to a minimum and answered the main points, although it is difficult to do so at this, which is not the best moment or occasion for discussing either what are to be the rates of salary, or what the Burnham Committee is or should be; it is the moment when the Burnham people are coming to the end of their labours, but about which there is nothing officially publishable. I hope that what I have said has been relevant and that in the circumstances the House will think that I have said as much as can be said, and that is all which in the circumstances I dare attempt.
  12.4 a.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the statement he has made. I think it is a dangerous thing if we try to start a debate in this House. It will have to be argued out in the Burnham Committee. It will cause controversy in a profession in which it is important it should be felt that justice is being done. As the Minister pointed out, quite clearly the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) had not clarified in his mind the position of the graduate in the primary school.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Four Minutes past Twelve o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Broadcasting Service (Civilian Staff)
  Broadcasting Service (Civilian Staff)
  T.A. Adjutants (Appointment)
  T.A. Adjutants (Appointment)
  Soldier (Arrest and Release)
  Soldier (Arrest and Release)
  Regular Troops (Tie)
  Regular Troops (Tie)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Raw Cotton Imports
  Raw Cotton Imports
  Seed Exports (Value)
  Seed Exports (Value)
  MEMBERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS)
  MEMBERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS)
HOUSING
  Requisitioned Properties
  Requisitioned Properties
  Bristol
  Bristol
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Television Station Site, Hessary Tor
  Television Station Site, Hessary Tor
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Bombed Cities (Reconstruction)
  Power Station Site, Leys
  Power Station Site, Leys
  Wales
  Wales
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  War-Damaged Football Stands (Reinstatement)
  War-Damaged Football Stands (Reinstatement)
  Industrial Building (Licensing System)
  Industrial Building (Licensing System)
  Dangerous Trees, Kensington Gardens (Replacement)
  Dangerous Trees, Kensington Gardens (Replacement)
  Kensington Palace (Expenditure)
  Kensington Palace (Expenditure)
  Bricks and Cement, South Wales (Production)
  Bricks and Cement, South Wales (Production)
  DOMESTIC HEATING (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)
  DOMESTIC HEATING (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)
EMPLOYMENT
  Building, Engineering and Mining Industries (Weekly Earnings)
  Building, Engineering and Mining Industries (Weekly Earnings)
  Domestic Workers
  Domestic Workers
SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Electricity Supply Pylon, Skewbridge (Explosion)
  Electricity Supply Pylon, Skewbridge (Explosion)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Discharges (Purchase)
  Discharges (Purchase)
  Retired Officers (Pensions)
  Retired Officers (Pensions)
  Medical and Dental Services (Committee)
  Medical and Dental Services (Committee)
  Fighter Aircraft (Member's Letter)
  Fighter Aircraft (Member's Letter)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (STATISTICS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (STATISTICS)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Service Grants (Widows)
  National Service Grants (Widows)
  Assistance Allowance Recipients (Rents)
  Assistance Allowance Recipients (Rents)
  COMMONWEALTH SUGAR AGREEMENT
  COMMONWEALTH SUGAR AGREEMENT
  SCHOOL MEALS
  SCHOOL MEALS
  COAL AND COKE, FLINTSHIRE (STOCKS)
  COAL AND COKE, FLINTSHIRE (STOCKS)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Spectacle Frames (Dispensing Fee)
  Spectacle Frames (Dispensing Fee)
  School-Leavers (B.C.G. Inoculation)
  School-Leavers (B.C.G. Inoculation)
  POLICE FORCES (STRENGTH)
  POLICE FORCES (STRENGTH)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD REITH
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD REITH: My Lords, I ask leave to make a personal statement. At 7 p.m. last Wednesday the Lord Chancellor's assistant secretary telephoned to my home, where I had just arrived, to inquire where a letter should be sent. I asked that it be read then. In it, the Lord Chancellor informed me that he would probably refer to me next day. I asked that a note might be made that the letter had been read to me, and that I had replied that I could not be in the House because of a board meeting. On Friday, the 27th, two noble Lords were kind enough to tell me that the Lord Chancellor had the day before, referred to an article written by me in June, 1952; they suggested that I should read the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I did so yesterday. It made me regret my absence last Thursday; but there is only one point in the Lord Chancellor's remarks about me to which I wish now to refer. I learned that words used by me seventeen months ago were taken by him to impugn his integrity. They were certainly not intended to impugn the integrity of the Lord Chancellor; it never occurred to me that they could be so interpreted, and I am very sorry that what I wrote should have given that impression.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will say no more than this: that I am very glad to hear what the noble Lord has said. I understand it to be an apology and, as such, I accept it gratefully; and I can assure him that, so far as I am concerned, bygones shall be bygones.

  THE KABAKA OF BUGANDA
  2.38 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government two Questions of which I have given private notice. The first Question is: Whether Her Majesty's Government have any further statement to make about the withdrawal of recognition from the Kabaka of Buganda, and his deportation to this country.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary in another place yesterday afternoon.
  EARL JOWITT: I am sure the noble Earl will realise that it is very desirable that we should have the White Paper at the earliest possible time. It is probable that when we get the White Paper the desirability of having a debate will be obvious. Can he give me any idea as to when we shall get the White Paper, which was not mentioned in his original Answer?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to have the White Paper issued as soon as possible. I should not like to tie myself down to a definite date, but so far as we are concerned there will be no undue delay.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Lord whether this Ruler will have an opportunity of making a direct approach to this House, or to both Houses, in order to state his own case, and not have it stated for him by a Government Department?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I should imagine that there is nothing to stop the Kabaka having informal discussions with Members of both Houses of Parliament, if he so wishes.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was not thinking about that. I was thinking of some means by which this Ruler could present his case to the House officially.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  2.40 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the second Question is as follows: Will Her Majesty's Government make a statement in this House as soon as possible in regard to matters arising out of the court-martial of Captain Griffiths?
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I rise to reply to the noble and learned Earl. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has also given me a list of questions which he wishes to ask me on this same subject. I am afraid that my answer to both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount must be that I have no further information to give than was contained in the statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War in another place yesterday, and in his answers to supplementary questions on that statement. I have no doubt that both the noble and learned Earl and the noble Viscount have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of yesterday, as have noble Lords generally. I must ask noble Lords to await the arrival of the records of the trial in this country. Obviously, my right honourable friend will not be in a position to make a detailed statement on the subject until he has had an opportunity of examining them.
  EARL JOWITT: While realisingthe difficulty of the noble Earl, may I call his attention to the fact that this is a very serious matter. There seems to be some ground for supposing that the instructions of General Erskine in command have been disregarded, and that things have been done which are not in any way in accordance with the high standard of honour of the Army. That being so, will the noble Earl realise that we should have a statement in this House at the earliest possible moment, and will he do his utmost to see that such a statement is made?
  EARL FORTESCUE: In reply to the noble and learned Earl, I will transmit his remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary for War.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this matter of the court-martial and the reports of the trial have gone out through
  764
  the whole Commonwealth, which in population is mainly non-European; and that might have a most dangerous effect on the stability of the British Commonwealth? May we have an answer on four particular points, which have nothing whatever to do with the trial and the acquittal, which is finished. First of all, is it clear that the order against "blood money" was understood by the troops and the officers? From reading the account of the court-martial, it appears not to have been understood; in fact, both the acquitted officer and others, and the defending officer, referred to it quite openly. The second point is, what is the rule about what is somewhat strangely called "mercy killing"? That also was referred to, and was reported by the acquitted officer to his superior officer, who said in the trial that he had no comment to make; it was no special feature of the report. The third point is this: what about "trying to escape"? Is it "trying to escape," if you tell a man to walk on and then shoot him in the back? The fourth question is: Is it an offence punishable by death to be found in a prohibited area? If so, when you have bombed the hide-outs, is it a capital offence for other natives to go to succour the wounded? Those are four questions to which I should like answers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that the information which he has, and the information which we have, must be fully supplemented. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to wait until we have had transmitted here the report of the court-martial proceedings, we shall be able to form an opinion on the matter. I beg him to wait until that arrives before making any more observations in this House about that matter.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Viscount at least state from that Bench what has already been stated by the Judge-Advocate in the case—namely, that so-called "mercy killing" is an offence? Will the noble Viscount also state what has not been stated in anything to date, that the payment of "blood money" is an offence? Can he make those two statements, and make them here?
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I have no further observations to make.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then it is to go out that the acting Leader of the House is not prepared to substantiate the fact that "mercy killing" of the wounded is an offence, and that he does not think it proper to reinforce what we have understood to be the case: that the payment of "blood money" is an offence under military law.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: That is an entirely unwarrantable remark.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
  2.44 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to validate under the law of England and Wales, and restrict to charitable objects, certain instruments taking effect before the sixteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, and providing for property to be held or applied for objects partly but not exclusively charitable, and to enable corresponding provision to be made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  FUTURE OF THE PORT OF TRIESTE
  2.45 p.m.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is among their aims, in whatever decision is arrived at in respect of the future of the Port of Trieste, to make provision against the imposition in peace-time of tariff barriers or other special restrictions on goods passing through that port to or from Danubian and other countries for which the port is a natural access to the sea.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the economic importance of the Port of Trieste as an outlet for a large hinterland. It is certainly their hope that in any solution of the Trieste problem provision will be made to ensure the widest possible use of the port's facilities, both in the best interests of the population of Trieste and in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the countries which the port is well situated to serve.
  LORD GRANTCHESTER: I thank the noble Marquess for his courteous reply.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, in view of the vital importance to the people of Austria of the Port of Trieste, on which the noble Marquess remarked, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will seek to secure the presence of a representative of the Austrian Government, either as an observer or in some other capacity, at any conference that may be called with regard to the future of Trieste?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are endeavouring, as the House knows, to arrange a conference between the five immediately interested Powers, and I think that, in the first place at least, we had probably better devote our efforts to that end.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will the noble Marquess say that steps will be taken to see that the existing Treaty with Czechoslovakia in regard to their trade with Trieste will be preserved?
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I fail for the moment, to realise how that arises out of Lord Grantchester's Question. If the noble Viscount likes to put down a Question on the somewhat extraneous subject which he has now touched upon, I shall do my best to answer.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Inasmuch as the Question asked that the existing facilities of other countries for trade through Trieste will be considered, it appeared to me to be relevant, and I should be glad if the noble Marquess would answer it.

  COURT-MARTIAL OF CAPTAIN GRIFFITHS
  2.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the text of the proceedings of the recent court-martial trial at Nairobi can be made available to Members of this House.]
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the noble Viscount that the text of the proceedings of this court-martial has not yet arrived in this country. It is hoped and anticipated that it will arrive by December 7, and that a copy of it will be put in the Library of your Lordships' House on December 8. Of course, that must depend on circumstances.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am obliged to the noble Earl, but I am rather concerned to know that the text should be freely available. Putting a copy of it in the Library does not mean that it is to be available, for instance, to the Press; and it will not be available to many Members of this House who may desire to see it. Would it not be possible to make available this transcript in. some form, if it is to be published, so that everyone could have access to it?
  EARL FORTESCUE: We will consider that.
  EARL JOWITT: I hope that the noble Earl will indeed consider it. I must say that I am rather surprised that it will take as long as until December 7 to get this text from Nairobi. I should have thought it could have been flown here in twenty-four hours. If it is typed, it is just as quick to make half-a-dozen copies as one, and it might even be reproduced in some other way. I hope that there will be enough copies, as the noble Viscount has suggested, for the Press and for Members of this House.

  INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS (CROWN USE) BILL [H.L.]
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Bill is another step in the implementation of Her Majesty's Government's undertaking to review, and where possible abolish, emergency powers. Its purpose is to get rid of some of the powers exercisable by the Crown under emergency legislation in relation to inventions and designs. In order to do so, however, without serious embarrassment to some Government Departments, it is necessary to make permanent a limited number of the powers they may now exercise under the emergency legislation. It is, I think, fair to say that the exercise of these emergency powers in the past has caused little trouble and even less injustice. None the less, the Government are anxious to retain only powers which are necessary for the efficient functioning of the Departments which have to use them.
  The Bill does three things. First, it slightly increases the permanent powers of the Crown in relation to the use of inventions, designs and industrial information. Secondly, it preserves the powers of the two Government Departments mainly responsible for supplying the Armed Services, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty, to demand information for defence purposes. Thirdly, and most important, it brings to an end the much wider emergency powers now exercisable by the Crown to use inventions, designs and industrial information, and to demand information.
  So far as patents are concerned, the Crown has always been able by law to use private patents as of right. I would emphasise this point, because I think it is something which a few people do not always remember. This power enables any Government Department to "make, use and exercise" inventions as of right "for the services of the Crown." In addition to this permanent power which the Crown possesses, Government Departments were given, during the recent war, considerably wider temporary powers to utilisepatented inventions. They are now exercisable under Section 49 of the Patents Act, 1949. That was the Act

  769
  which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, steered so skilfully through your Lordships' House when noble Lords opposite were in power. That Act contains the expression "during any period of emergency," which must be declared by Order in Council.
  These emergency powers are wider than the Crown's permanent powers in two ways. First, Section 49 widens the meaning of the expression "for the services of the Crown" by listing a number of widely framed purposes—for example
  "the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community"
  and
  "generally ensuring that the whole resources of the community are available for use, and are used in a manner best calculated to serve the interests of the community."
  Secondly, to the permanent power to make, use and exercise inventions, there is added by Section 49 the power to "vend" or, in plain English, sell them. Under these powers, during the war, vitamins were imported and manufactured to fortify foodstuffs for supply to the public. And, if by mentioning this fact I am not seriously endangering the prospects of the Bill, let me remind your Lordships that under these powers, similarly, dehydrated potatoes were manufactured and supplied to the long-suffering public. There were a variety of ways in which these powers were exercised. Concrete sleepers have been supplied for railways, coal cutters for collieries, and even refrigerators for council houses. Since 1949, the emergency period has been continued by yearly Orders in Council, as your Lordships know. On Thursday, in the calm and cool after the Division had been taken on the subject of television, your Lordships heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor ask the House to agree to certain extensions of these Orders in Council, and he added that this Bill, which I now have the honour to out before your Lordships this afternoon, would be shortly introduced. Thus, at the moment the Crown has power to use and sell patented inventions, as of right, for almost any purpose connected with the functions of government.
  The Government feel, however, that it is quite unnecessary for the Crown to retain such wide powers during a period under which the country is returning to normal economy, and therefore they have
  770
  decided to terminate the period of emergency during which the Crown retains them. Why then, your Lordships may ask, is this not done by allowing the period of emergency to expire by the normal passage of time? The reason is that there are certain functions of government in respect of which it is necessary that the Crown should have these powers in normal periods, and it is doubtful whether the permanent powers which would still remain under Section 46 of the Patents Act provide for them. The powers retained are only those which are really required. First, there are the functions of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to hospital patients and pensioners—such things as the provision of deaf aids and artificial limbs. Secondly, there are the Civil Defence functions of the Departments responsible for the supply of Civil Defence equipment (mainly the Home Office and the Post Office)—for example, gas masks and equipment for operating air raid sirens. Finally, there are the functions of supplying communications equipment for the country's fire services—also required by the Home Office aid the Post Office. These three functions are listed in Clause 1 of the Bill.
  Your Lordships may ask why it is necessary to list these functions at all in the Bill since the Crown already has power to use inventions "for the services of the Crown." But the meaning of this phrase is far from clear. The provision of warships, tanks and aircraft for the Armed Forces is clearly within it. But it is much less certain, when the Home Secretary wishes to supply a gas mask to a member of the public, or the Minister of Health a deaf-aid to a hospital patient, that the Ministers concerned have the powers to use inventions as of right in relation to the patents which cover the manufacture of these articles, even though they may be supplying them in pursuance of a statutory duty. The gas mask or deaf-aid might be said to be produced and supplied not "for the services of the Crown" but for the recipient's own use and purposes.
  I have already pointed out that Section 46 of the Patents Act, the section which gives permanent powers of Crown user, does not give power to vend inventions. It does, however, give a limited power

  771
  of sale. It permits a Government Department to sell or authorise the sale of goods under treaty arrangements to the Government of a foreign country for the defence of that country. Under that power, Her Majesty's Government sold "Meteor" trainers to the Government of France; and Ministry of Supply contractors have sold "Vampires" to Norway, and "Meteor" night-fighters to Denmark. The existing permanent powers also permit the sale of articles made for the services of the Crown but no longer required. Much obsolete military equipment has been sold since it became surplus to requirements. But it may be the case that the Ministry of Supply may wish to sell or authorise the sale of defence goods to a foreign country in respect of which we have no treaty arrangement. For example, under the temporary powers, "Canberra" bombers have been sold by the English Electric Company to the Venezuelan Government; three S51 helicopters were sold by Westland Aircraft Ltd., to the Japanese Government for their national security forces, and five "Vampire" trainer aircraft were sold to the Chilean Government by de Havilland Aircraft Co. Ltd.
  Or it may be that one country may wish to buy defence goods for supply to another country. Under N.A.T.O. arrangements, the United States Government makes what in that country are known as "off-shore" purchases—for example, purchases in this country of "Centurion" tanks, with spares, for delivery to the Governments of Belgium and Holland. Provision is therefore made by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 for cases of this type.
  Again, it may be that half-completed articles become surplus to requirements. Since they are unsaleable in that form, they would have to be scrapped unless there were power to complete them for sale. Paragraph (e) of the same subsection gives the necessary power.
  There is one important point to be borne in mind regarding the Crown's power to use inventions as of right under Section 46. The section does not permit free Crown user. Compensation is payable after the use has taken place. But the importance of this power is that it saves delay. Thus, for example, my right
  772
  honourable friend, the Minister of Supply, when a patent is granted, or indeed sought, for an invention in respect of an aircraft engine, may immediately order his contractor to commence manufacture for supply to the R.A.F. Without this power, he would have first to negotiate terms with the patentee and might be interminably delayed by extortionate royalty demands.
  I have so far been speaking only of the Crown's right to use patented inventions. But the same article may incorporate both a patented invention and a registered design. For instance, the hinges of my spectacles may be made in accordance with a patent, while the shape of the frame may be registered as a design. It may therefore be equally important for the Crown to be able to use a registered design without delay. The Crown has exactly equivalent powers in relation to registered designs as it has in respect of patents. The Registered Designs Act, 1949, which gives them, repeats in identical terms the provisions of the Patents Act which relate to Crown user of patents. For the reasons which I have given, therefore, the slightly extended permanent powers to Crown user of patented inventions, of which I have spoken, is applied to Crown user of registered designs.
  As I have pointed out, Clause 1 of this Bill extends the permanent powers of Crown user under the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act. But those Acts give rights only in respect of patented inventions and registered designs. The inventor of an un-patented invention does not possess the monopoly rights in his invention which are given to a patentee, but he can, by virtue of restrictive agreements, and to a lesser extent by the protection given by the Copyright Act, 1911, effectively prevent the use of his invention by outside parties. It is becoming increasingly the fashion in industry to keep industrial processes secret, and to rely on such agreements and the Copyright Act to protect new inventions and methods of production, rather than to take out patents in relation to them. Certain Government Departments—Secretaries of State, the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply—at present have power under the Defence (Patents Trade Marks, Etc.)

  773
  Regulations, 1941, to authorise the use of any
  "drawing, model, plan or other document or information notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any licence or Agreement."
  Clause 2 of this Bill gives power to the Crown to authorise the use of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs, regardless of restrictive agreements. It is true that the Defence Regulation gives this power only to certain named Departments, but, since any Government Department has power to use patented inventions as of right, and the power given by this clause is complementary, it is thought right that the clause should give the power to "any Government Department." It should, however, be noted that the scope of this power is the same as that of the power to use patents—that is, it may be used only for the services of the Crown. And, unlike the Defence Regulation which it supersedes, it makes provision for the payment of compensation after the use has taken place.
  It is clearly both illogical and inequitable that there should be compensation for Crown use if an invention is patented, and none if it is not. The Bill, therefore, goes on to repeal the Defence Regulation which this clause supersedes. The powers which are sufficient to enable Government Departments and their contractors to use patents and registered designs will thus hereafter be found in the Patents Act and the Registered Designs Act, as amended by Clause 1; their powers to use unpatented inventions and unregistered designs will be found in Clause 2.
  It is, however, possible that the Department may not have the technical information necessary to use the invention, and the persons in possession of the information may not be willing to divulge it. The only power which can overcome this difficulty—and it is recognised by the Government to be an extreme power to be used sparingly—is one to require a person in possession of the information to divulge it. This power is at present given in a wide form by the Defence Regulations which I have mentioned. These enable a Secretary of State, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, or the Minister of Supply, if it appears to them necessary, in the interests of the defence of the realm or otherwise in the public interest, to give directions to any person requiring him to furnish to any specified
  774
  person or authority such information relating to any invention, design or process as may be specified in the directions or demanded of him by that authority or person. At the specific request of my right honourable friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister of Supply, this power is now made permanent, but in a very modified form.
  Although it is realised—and I emphasise this—that this is a wide power for a Government Department to possess, these two Departments feel that the existence of this power, and its use, or the possibility of its use, may be necessary for them in carrying out their function of supplying the Armed Services and they are positive that, without it, vital information might be withheld from them. Not only is it necessary where a person is unwilling, for his own purposes, to divulge information, but also where he is under a contractual obligation not to do so, and would, but for the existence of this power, feel himself bound not to break his contract by divulging it. It will be clear that the power is necessary during a war. But, since its main use must be in the development of a new piece of equipment, it must equally be necessary in peace time when it is our object, by providing the forces with the best equipment, to give them the strength to prevent war.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I ask the noble Lord, who is giving such a clear description of the Bill, where I shall find in the Bill any provision that this power will be used only in extreme cases?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Before the noble Lord answers that question, I should like to put another. Will he make it clear whether the wide powers which are being sought by this Bill will be enforced immediately the Bill has received the Royal Assent, or only when an emergency has been declared?
  LORD MANCROFT: The answer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is that the information which he seeks is not in the Bill, as he will see But he must surely realise that such an expression cannot be placed in the Bill, and when two Ministers come and ask for such a power as this, I think the House can take it for granted that they will not use such an extreme power except in extreme circumstances. The answer to

  775
  the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot, is that I assume the power comes into force as soon as the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. However, I should like to check up on that point.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord is telling us now that these powers are necessary, but that, in fact, we can rely upon good, sensible Ministers not to abuse them.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, that is so.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Is not that the very argument that he condemned when the last Government were introducing certain nationalisation measures and taking wide powers? He then said: "I know that the present Ministers are good fellows, but there might be bad ones in the future."
  LORD MANCROFT: If there are bad Ministers in the future, and if this Bill is not passed, then those bad Ministers can still do a great deal more under the existing regulations.
  LORD REA: My Lords, surely the existing regulations are only extended from year to year and could be revoked in the case of a couple of bad Ministers appearing on the horizon.
  LORD MANCROFT: In the opinion of some people, we have had a couple of bad Ministers appear on the horizon, but the powers have never been revoked. Therefore, if I may say so, the noble Lord's point is a hypothetical one.
  As I was saying the power retained by this Bill to demand information is, however, considerably restricted compared with that under the Defence Regulation. Perhaps I can explain. The principal modifications in the Regulation, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, can be exercised by several Departments in the interests of the defence of the realm, and otherwise in the public interest. In the Bill, the power is limited to the two Departments I have just mentioned—that is, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty—which require it for defence purposes; and its use is confined to those purposes. It will not, therefore, be available to any other Government Department or for any other purpose than defence.
  776
  Again, there are no provisions in the Regulation for compensation. Compensation is, however, provided for by the Bill. Finally, barristers, solicitors, patent agents, Patent Office officials and other persons engaged in legal proceedings are, by the Bill, absolved from divulging information obtained by them when acting in that capacity. No such exemption was given by the Regulation. The Government feel that a Defence Regulation of this sort has no place in the law of a land at peace. This Bill, by retaining only what is necessary of the Regulation, makes its repeal possible. There has always been compensation for Crown use of patents and registered designs, but, as I have indicated, up to now there has been no right to compensation in respect of the use of unpatented inventions and unregistered designs. Nor did the person forced to disclose industrial information have any right to demand compensation. This Bill, however, remedies that fault. The settlement of disputes as to the amount of compensation statutorily payable is entrusted to the same tribunal as would settle disputes as to compensation for patents—that is to say, a court of law.
  I have taken longer than I meant to take in explaining, or seeking to explain, this Bill to your Lordships. I offer no apology, because it is a Bill which has come to your Lordships' House first; it has not yet been through another place. I offer no apologies for going into some details of matters, which are concerned with the rights of the subject. I believe that your Lordships would think it wrong of me if I did not explain them as best I could. I am well aware of the fact—having read the newspapers in the last day or two—that some slight uneasiness concerning one or two of the smaller provisions of this Bill may prevail. Let me, if I can, straight away suggest that the Committee stage of this Bill will be taken as far off as is convenient to your Lordships, in order that any difficulties which may still exist or any points from outside sources which need examination, can be examined fully. I give your Lordships the undertaking that they will be examined fully and in as helpful a spirit as I can engender. To sum up, this Bill takes one more step towards the abolition of the Crown's emergency powers. By giving a statutory right to compensation it remedies any

  777
  injustice attaching to the use of the limited powers retained. And it retains only those powers which are really necessary, even in peace time. I therefore commend it cordially to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  3.13 p.m.
  LORDWILMOT of SELMESTON: My Lords, your Lordships have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, an elegant speech to which we listen with great interest. But to-day it seems to me that he has excelled himself in a masterly understatement. This is a revolutionary Bill. It takes some sweeping powers and embodies them in the permanent law of the land. Until now, these wide powers of exhortation, and extortion of industrial secrets and processes from their private owners for the use of the Crown, have been embodied only in Defence Regulations specifically made for a period of war and then extended, with the consent of Parliament, from year to year to cover what was deemed to be an extended emergency period. It is a different thing, I submit, to widen these powers—and they are greatly widened in all material respects—and then to embody them in an Act which will become permanent law of the land, because they are so wide as to strike at the very roots of private property in industrial patents and processes.
  Not only does the Bill widen the powers of the Departments to require disclosure of pieces of information, but it widens the use which the Department may make of that information and extends the number of Departments which can make use of it. It also extends widely the purposes. Defence is now held to include maintenance in peace time of any services which the Government of the day decide are essential services. That can cover an unlimited field of activity, and I think it is true to say that if the powers of this Bill are fully used, any kind of industrial process or any kind of patent or secret can be extorted from the owners and used by the Department; disclosed to other people who may be competitors, and the product sold abroad without the consent of the persons who own the property in the patent or the process. That, surely, is going a long way, and I think your
  778
  Lordships are entitled to a little more time than we have had to consider this Bill before we can be asked to consent to it. This Bill was printed only a few days ago.
  LORD MANCROFT: Three weeks ago.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Three weeks. There has been little time to examine and scrutinise it carefully, let alone to think out the necessary Amendments. Clause 3 gives the most astonishingly wide powers. One has only to read the first subsection. It says:
  "… a competent authority may, if it appears to that authority to be necessary…give directions to any person requiring him…"
  to disclose any information in his possession. This information can be used for a wide range of purposes.
  Your Lordships' time is too valuable for me to take it up to-day in repeating sentences from the Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill is a necessary one, but if your Lordships consent to give this Bill a Second Reading to-day it should be only on the clearest understanding that the promise which the Minister made is interpreted in the widest sense: that a long period of time must elapse between now and the Committee stage, and the Government must show a willingness, which they are not always eager to do, to study any comments made by those in industry and by people interested in patents and processes. There has been no consultation with industry up to now. It seems to me remarkable to introduce a Bill of this kind and of this magnitude without any prior consultation with the interests and persons affected. The Government must show a ready disposition to listen to advice tendered to them, both from this side of the House and from outside, and must be prepared to embody in the Bill safeguards which will remove some of the grave apprehensions which we have about the Bill in its present form.
  3.19 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a technical Bill and it is difficult for one who has not an expert legal training to understand it and speak to your Lordships upon it. Nevertheless, it is a most important Bill, and I should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft if, in my analysis of it and its possible effects, he will pick me up at any

  779
  time, in the course of the short time I shall detain your Lordships, if he considers I am wrong.
  First, I think we all regret—and perhaps in his heart the noble Lord himself regrets—that this Bill has been introduced without the usual consultations with important industrial bodies. The Federation of British Industries knew nothing of this Bill until they saw a printed copy. I do not think it would be discourteous, or asking too much of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to ask him whether, when he replies, he can give us some reason why the custom followed by successive Governments, that of consulting industry, was not carried out on this occasion. The noble Lord said that the Government's policy is to remove from regulations, so far as possible, the emergency powers needed in war time and to incorporate in permanent legislation such powers as they consider necessary for continuance in peace time. It is true that this Inventions and Designs Bill does this. But Lord Mancroft admitted it does more: it actually provides an extension of powers under the present Defence Regulations. War-time Defence Regulations conferred upon the Government powers used—and I quote:
  "in the interests of the defence of the Realm or efficient prosecution of the war."
  In 1946 that limitation was amended to powers used—and again I quote:
  "in the interests of the defence of the Realm or otherwise in the public interest."
  The first extension of the powers in this Bill was mentioned by Lord Mancroft. It eliminates the need for a treaty to exist between this country and another country before the Government can exercise their powers to authorise the supply to that other country of patented goods. That is true. But the second extension, which I do not think was touched upon by Lord Mancroft, is a widening of the definition of "defence purposes." The definition of "defence purposes" is given in Clause 6 and now includes not only defence of Her Majesty's Dominions or territories over which Her Majesty has jurisdiction but also—and I ask your Lordships to note these words:
  "… the maintenance or restoration of peace and security in any part of the world, or of
  780
  any measures arising out of a breach or apprehended breach of peace in any part of the world."
  It may well be that Her Majesty's Government will defend this wide definition by saying that it is in line with Britain's international commitments under the United Nations Charter. It would be more acceptable, if that be their defence, if we had knowledge that other countries had either passed, or were ready to pledge themselves to endeavour to pass, similar and permanent reciprocal legislation. This, then, is my second question to the Minister: Can he tell us whether, if this definition is in line with our United Nations obligations, Her Majesty's Government are representing to other countries the need to introduce permanent and reciprocal legislation?
  I now come to the wide permanent powers. I have tried to deal briefly with the extensions. Under Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill, the Government can pass to any other Government, possibly contrary to the wishes of the patent owner, goods made by a Government-authorised contractor if our Government consider that such goods are necessary for the defence of the foreign Government. It seems to me that under this Bill we are to become judges of what is or is not necessary for the defence of a foreign country. That seems to me to be a very wide power. The next wide power is mentioned in Clause 3 (1), wherein the Government take powers over not goods but information. "Information" is defined in Clause 6 (1). "Invention" and "design" are then defined in the last paragraph of Clause 6 (1). These two definitions, coupled together, seem to me to cover anything and everything produced by normal drawing and manufacturing processes at any factory, and certainly include what is known as the "know-how"—the knowledge and experience possessed by technical brains. I ask the noble Lord to say who can define, in an era of total war, what is or is not required for the defence of Britain or any other country. Civilians, their social and commercial lives, and their possessions, are in the front line of battle to-day, as much as the lives and equipment used by the Armed Forces. Therefore, on certification by the Government, virtually anything can be said to be required for defence, even though its normal use is civilian in peace time.

  781
  I turn from goods and information required for defence and I come to goods required for "services of the Crown." The previous definitions of "services of the Crown" are now widened under Clause 1 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). As requirements for the National Health Act, 1946, are specifically mentioned, as I read it this proposal means that in future all drugs, medicines or appliances required—and presumably this would mean design and manufacturing processes—ranging from artificial limbs to penicillin, could be removed from the hands of inventors and producers and be taken over by the Government for handing over to any person nominated by the Government. This might mean a trade competitor within our own boundaries, or a foreign competitor overseas. This seems to me an extremely wide power. The only differences in these wide powers between goods required for defence purposes and goods required for services of the Crown are twofold. First, in the case of goods for defence there is a sanction of fine and imprisonment for refusal to supply information. This is stated in Clause 4 (1). In the case of defence, only the Admiralty or Ministry of Supply can now wield authority; whereas in regard to goods for the services of the Crown any Government Department can operate these particular powers.
  This is very complicated, my Lords, and I trust you will forgive me for trying to go into some little detail in regard to this important Bill. The exercise of the powers under this Bill would violate the sanctity of customary commercial contracts. May I give your Lordships one or two examples? In doing so I am afraid I shall be obliged to use our old school day friends, "A" and "B." First, let me give the example of goods or processes for defence purposes. Manufacturer "A" produces a new article which he had hoped the Government of the United States would adopt. Our Government, under this Bill, can take "A's" work and hand it over to the United States Government, ignoring completely "B," who is "A's" authorised agent in the United States and who has a contract with "A" covering the use of inventions by "A" in that territory, such contracts to be interpreted according to United States law. Now when "B," the agent, sees "A's" invention in full use in the United States, through the United States
  782
  Government's distribution of that invention, "B" can sue "A" in the United States courts for breach of contract; and, as far as I can see, "A" will not have any redress at all.
  The second example is this. Many firms have agreements with foreign co-operators, or even sometimes rivals, for the interchange of technical information. This is a practice which has been of great benefit in the past British industry. If firm "C" has been accustomed in the United States to pass information to "A," and "A" to pass information to "C," for strictly confidential use confined to the other party, that is probably in accord with a technical agreement for the interchange of information. Under the Bill, "C" would presumably continue to implement his part of the bargain, sending information to "A" in this country, but "A's" information would pass over the head of "C" direct to "C's" Government or to any individual rival in "C's" country whom our Government might select. I suppose "C" could sue "A" in the courts of "C's" country, the United States, and it seems to me that "A" would have no redress. If, as is most likely, "C" stopped supplying information to this country, it would probably be this country which would suffer severely.
  Let me give one more example—goods for "services of the Crown." The same examples as I have given to your Lordships in regard to goods for defence, would, I believe, apply, except that, if our Government, in connection with defence or for services of the Crown, handed over processes for making some of the supplies from "A" in this country to "X" in this country, "A," who has designed and manufactured the processes, is prevented from suing "X" even though those inventions have been passed over to a rival, because of the provision in Clause 2 (1) which says that the Bill overrides any contract between "A" and "X," both of them being in this country. It seems to me that those are amazingly wide powers. My main criticisms are that the provisions of this Bill contain no machinery whereby those who have developed and manufactured goods, either for defence or for services of the Crown, can question the Government's right to take over their work. I understand the noble Earl the Postmaster

  783
  General wishes to make a statement. I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to detain you for a further five minutes, after that statement has been made.

  TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE CABLE
  3.33 p.m.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord and the House for interrupting the proceedings, but it is important that I should make this statement at the same time as it is made in America and Canada. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I have just signed an Agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company of Canada for the provision of the first Transatlantic telephone cable. The Agreement will be presented to Parliament and will be subject to approval in another place.
  This scheme has been talked of for years and has become possible only as a result of long and patient research, both in the famous Bell Telephone Laboratories of America and also here, at Dollis Hill, in London. Quite briefly, the new cable system is a marriage of modern radio and cable techniques, and the main problem has been to design repeaters (which boost the speech currents) of sufficient strength and reliability to work below two miles or so of ocean. After all, with a cable at that depth, once it is down at the bottom of the ocean, the longer we can leave it there the better. In America, development work on repeaters of this kind culminated in 1950 in the laying of two repeatered cables between Havana and Key West. In this country we have concentrated our energies on repeaters suitable for the medium depths round our coasts and between the United Kingdom and the Continent. Since 1943, we have installed nineteen such repeaters. As a result of all this work, we have between us succeeded in planning by far the longest submarine telephone cable there has ever been. So far, no cable has contained more than four repeaters, and no working repeater has been laid at a depth of more than one mile.
  784
  The new cable will completely transform telecommunications between this country and the North American Continent. In place of the existing twelve radio-telephone circuits to the United States and two to Canada, unreliable and dependent as they are on the vagaries of atmospheric conditions, we shall have high-grade and reliable circuits, about twenty-nine to the United States and six to Canada, as well as a number of telegraph circuits to Canada. Further technical development may well increase the number of circuits. I should perhaps explain here that a circuit means capacity for one conversation, so that twenty-nine circuits means capacity for twenty-nine conversations simultaneously. Of very great importance also, the new cable will help us to give much better telephone and telegraph services to Australia and New Zealand via Vancouver. This will mean far less interference than with our present radio connections.
  The total cost to all parties concerned will be about £12·5 million, and the job will take about three years to complete. The submarine cable will be laid by H.M.T.S. "Monarch," the largest cable ship in the world, which is being specially adapted for this purpose. I am sure your Lordships will wish me to pay a very special tribute to the engineers on both sides of the Atlantic. Thanks to their persistence and skill, something which has been a vision for a quarter of a century has become a reality and has made possible this tremendous advance in the history of communications. In saying this, may I also add a further tribute to their spirit of energy and co-operation. Never at any moment have we had the feeling that the Bell Laboratories were keeping anything back, and I hope and believe that they have felt the same about us. Lengthy negotiation with the Americans and Canadians on the details of what is necessarily a long and complicated Agreement has been to me and my representatives a very pleasant and happy experience.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, whilst, of course, I hope that the anticipations of the noble Earl will be fulfilled, is he not a little rash in assuming that all the difficulties which will be met with in practice have already been surmounted? When it comes to putting schemes into operation, one often finds "snags" arising. I

  785
  want merely to ask this question. The noble Earl says that
  "The total cost to all parties concerned will be about £12·5 million."
  I should like to ask: Who are the "parties concerned" and in what proportion will the cost be shared between them?
  EARL DE LA WARR: I referred in my statement to "all parties concerned." More accurately, the scheme is between the Americans, the Canadians and this country. Actually, the United States will carry 50 per cent. of the cost and the Commonwealth will carry the other 50 per cent. Forty-one per cent. of the cost will fall on this country and 9 per cent. on the Canadians. The whole of our contribution to the capital cost will, in fact, be in kind and will not, therefore, involve us in dollars. It will be divided between the cost of the cable and the contribution of the "Monarch" to the laying of the cable.
  EARL JOWITT: The percentages, then, are 50, 41 and 9?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Yes.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if the difficulties to which my noble and learned friend referred do not eventuate, this Agreement may well mark an epoch-making advance in communications between this country and the North American Continent. A cable of this kind was a dream when I was at the Post Office in 1945. We hope that the dream is flow coming true, and I am delighted that this should be happening during the time that the noble Earl Lord De La Warr, is in charge of the Post Office. As the noble Earl has pointed out, it has taken many years of hard work by devoted public servants at the Post Office to make this Agreement possible, and I hope that the noble Earl will convey the thanks and congratulations of noble Lords in all parts of this House to the research scientists at Dollis Hill, the Post Office engineers and others who have been concerned—
  EARL DE LA WARR: And the Bell Laboratories.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: And the Bell Laboratories. What I should like is to join in the congratulations which have been offered particularly to those who are responsible for our share of the work.
  786
  I know from experience that many scientists at Dollis Hill have been concerned and, of course, a very large number of Post Office engineers. I hope the noble Earl will convey our thanks to all on his staff who have contributed to the reaching of this Agreement.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I thank the noble Earl very much.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I know nothing about the technique of this matter, and therefore cannot say whether or not there will be difficulties. But, speaking as a Press man, it is clear that this marks an important stage in the increase of telephone communications across the Atlantic. Anyone who has been concerned with the Press knows how, whenever there is a radio disturbance, cable communications are utterly inadequate, and confusion results. I am quite sure that the Press will hear this news from the Postmaster General with great pleasure. I think it is also a very great thing that this improvement will affect what is to some extent another bottleneck—namely, the communications between this country and Australasia.
  I am quite sure that your Lordships did not fail to notice that the last paragraph of the Postmaster General's statement was not entirely irrelevant to the debate which follows. This important process has come about by the voluntary exchange of information across the Atlantic. I think it may also perhaps be true to say that what obtains between Governments obtains between private industry. Information will flow more freely into, as well as out of, the country if it is voluntarily rather than compulsorily disclosed. I make that comment because I do not propose to take any further part in the debate on the Inventions and Designs Bill. I rose really in order to congratulate the Postmaster General on what will certainly be a landmark in the development of communications.
  LORD GIFFORD: Can the noble Earl say whether this new cable is likely to lead to cheaper telephone charges across the Atlantic, and to Australia?
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that I cannot say anything about charges at the moment. At the moment our charges from Great Britain to America

  787
  are very much cheaper than the charges the other way. Those figures have to be negotiated between us. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for his reception of this scheme, and also the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—he has always remained a firm friend of the Post Office. As I believe most of us do when we leave the Post Office, he has left happy memories among the staff, who I am sure will receive his message of congratulation with very real pleasure.

  INVENTIONS AND DESIGNS (CROWN USE) BILL [H.L.]
  3.43 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading continued.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, when the Postmaster General intervened to make his important statement I was endeavouring to prove to your Lordships that the provisions of this Bill would violate the customary sanctity of commercial contracts, and I had just given an example where the Government had taken over from one manufacturer in this country his designs and his "know-how" and handed them over to his rival. I said that as I understood the Bill, the first manufacturer would be unable to sue because of the provisions in Clause 2 (1), which says that the Bill overrides any contract made between any two such manufacturers. My main criticisms of this Bill are that the Bill contains no machinery whereby those who have developed and manufactured goods, either for defence or for services of the Crown, can question the Government's absolute right to take over their work. All the Bill does is to provide machinery whereby the inventor or manufacturer can appeal against the financial proposals of compensation from the Government for the requisitioning by the Government. If the inventor or developer cannot arrive at an agreement with the Government—I presume the Treasury would be the Department with which he would negotiate—then there is provision for arbitration.
  I think that is manifestly unfair for three reasons: first, it puts the citizen (in using the word "citizen" I mean either an individual or a corporation) entirely into the hands of the Executive so far as concerns the removal and the
  788
  placing of his work elsewhere. Secondly, it puts him in the impossible position of having to prove not only financial loss to himself by the Government's action, but problematical future financial loss through the future use of his inventions by those to whom those inventions have been handed. I believe that to be an impossible thing to expect anybody to prove. Thirdly, in the case of defence goods or processes requisitioned (I use the word "requisitioned" broadly) by the Government and given to a foreign Government or contractor, there is the danger that what was given for defence will in fact be used in that foreign country for civil purposes, with no possibility of redress at all by the developer or the maker over here.
  The Government have given assurances that they will allow ample time for consultation with representatives of industry before proceeding with further stages of this Bill. That is a most satisfactory assurance for us to receive, but it does not entirely expunge our regret that the consultations which are now to take place did not take place before the Second Reading. I should like to ask the Government, if the Bill to-day obtains a Second Reading from your Lordships' House, whether they will please not proceed with the further stages until all responsible industrial bodies who wish to make representations—not a few, but all—have had time to make those representations. It is unfair to expect industry to consider, digest, and give opinions upon such an important measure, affecting our home and export trades, in the limited time which so far has been available.
  My own view is that somewhere in the Bill there should be inserted a provision whereby some form of tribunal would act as a checking point to the Government's proposed absolute and complete power to say what is or is not required for defence purposes, and what are or are not goods required for the services of the Crown. If some such checking point were instituted, it would give the corporation or the individual some appeal beyond merely questioning the financial compensation offered as redress, and it would also afford opportunity for representations to be made as to whether or not the Government should in fact take his invention or process. This checking point could have a further use, namely, to restrict in some form the indiscriminate distribution by

  789
  the Government of what has been requisitioned. I do not wish to rake up old troubles, but it was under similar powers to those in this Bill that the Nene jet engine went to Russia and gave a large step forward to Russian jet engine development, as we all acknowledge now. Responsible industry should have some checking point to which they could go and make representations, before the Executive are allowed to use these absolute powers. I thank your Lordships for your consideration and kindness in allowing me to develop these points in a very complicated and technical Bill which it is not easy for a layman to speak upon, but I believe this Bill to be of such importance that it justifies consideration from every quarter of this House.
  3.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I know that the House is anxious to get on to the next item, in which I myself am interested, so I propose to say only a few words on this Bill. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his interesting and eloquent speech, it seemed to be a very simple Bill. But, having listened to the speeches subsequently made in this debate, it does not now appear to me to be so simple as it sounded when it was explained by Lord Mancroft. The noble Lord referred, in his closing remarks, to the liberties of the subject. In that he was quite right. This Bill, in my view, represents a substantial invasion of the liberties of the subject, and that has been brought out in the debate.
  One of the matters which interested me as much as any that have been touched on was a point brought out and developed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Lord Mancroft, your Lordships will remember, spoke of exports to China and of licences issued by the Board of Trade to British industry for exports to China. I am interested in a body called "C.O.C.O.M."—I forget its full title: we all know these bodies by initials. Now C.O.C.O.M. is a body which sits in Paris, and about it I have already expressed some apprehensions. Apprehensions undoubtedly exist in British industry that in the consultations which take place inside C.O.C.O.M., as between representatives of this Government and of other Governments, information in relation to British commerce and the activities of
  790
  British traders is passed across to some of our competitors. It is suggested that these competitors may use it—I do not say that they do—to their own advantage. As I understood Lord Balfour of Inchrye, it was that point which he stressed in relation to this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will consider this point—though of course I shall not expect him to deal with it in detail in his reply to-day. I hope that he will consider it, and will try to make certain that it will not be possible, under any of the clauses of this Bill, for information to be passed across to our competitors and used by them to their advantage and to the disadvantage of their British rivals.
  That is all I have to say, except this. I would add my plea to those already made to the Government that ample time should be given for consideration of this Bill before the Committee stage. This was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and, like him, I trust that time will be given for British industry to consider this Bill in all its aspects. I hope that Lord Mancroft will at least be able to satisfy us in that connection when he replies to-day.
  3.53 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am reluctant to interpose in this debate, in view of the importance of the discussion which is about to take place on the Committee stage of my noble friend Lord Templewood's Bill, for which many people here are waiting; but I must ask leave to make an observation. I remember very well the discussion which took place on the Patents Act, 1949. I took a leading part from the Opposition side in shaping that Bill and in getting it changed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Section 46 is the section which applies during any emergency period, and all that I quite understand. But I also have a recollection of another and a later debate which we had in this House on the subject of the continuance of emergency legislation. The present Lord Chancellor made a very important speech on that occasion, and, if I recall it aright, he referred to the Emergency Regulations in connection with patents and pointed out that some of these might require to be preserved in permanent legislation. Unless my memory deceivers me, however, he went on to indicate that

  791
  that would be done only after full consideration of what might be said by those who had the best reason to have a view as to what the permanent legislation should be.
  To me, this Bill has a very odd air. It has been attacked, or criticised, by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench on the ground that it strikes at the roots of private property—an excellent sentiment, coming from Socialist quarters. But the Bill itself appears to be a claim that the State and Ministers know better than anyone else, and that they have a complete right, within the provisions of this Bill, to demand from a private person not merely the use of processes but even information as to how to use them. That appears to be prima facie a Socialist doctrine. I remind myself of the explanation which Dean Swift gave long ago, in a highly satirical passage, as to why Irish bishops were so bad. He said that most excellent persons were selected in England to be bishops in Ireland, but that, unfortunately, on the way there, they were seized by highwaymen, who acquired their robes and status; and so really it was a lot of highwaymen who went to Ireland and occupied the bishoprics there. Something of the same sort has happened here.
  LORD BURDEN: I am glad we are bishops.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: It is almost impossible to understand how this Bill can have been approved in its present form by Her Majesty's Government. In the days when I knew the inner processes of legislation—there is no harm in my saying it now—we had a Legislative Committee before which every Departmental Bill came; and it had to run an examination, if it was a Departmental Bill, by Ministers not specially attached to that Department, in order to see whether it was a proper Bill. Here, I do not think even the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches has exposed the full character of this measure, though, as we know, he denounces it as striking at the roots of private property.
  I turn to this famous Clause 3 in which I see that
  "a competent authority"—
  792
  that, I think, means the Minister of Supply or the Admiralty—
  "may … give directions to any person requiring him, within such time as may be prescribed by or under the directions, to furnish to that authority, or to any other person nominated in the directions, such information in his possession … as may be demanded by the person so nominated …"
  That is an astonishing power to claim. I cannot understand how a Government, inspired, as I know this Government to be, with a proper respect for private property, and a dislike of the theory that the State knows better, since "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best," could possibly have sponsored such a provision. I suppose that we are now going to be asked to pass the Motion for the Second Reading, but I hope that, when we have done so, there will be a long interval, during which the promoters of the Bill will themselves consider whether, on reflection, they are going to stand by it. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, observed that the Government's object was to review and, if possible, abolish these Defence Regulations. It is quite plain that this Bill not only does not do that but in fact widens the powers contained in the Defence Regulations and invents new powers which the Government will claim to exercise.
  Lastly, I would make this observation. I am not an expert on this subject, although I took some interest in it when discussing the Patents Act, 1949, when I tried to help to make the Act a good one. I have noticed of late, in some newspapers, some comments on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Mancroft, who must have a very unpleasant task, observed at the end of his speech that "some uneasiness has been expressed in the newspapers." I read the leading article in The Times this morning and I should not be surprised if the Cabinet, or some of them, read it too. That leading article called attention to this Bill and its curious terms, and makes some very moderate comments. It ended by saying:
  "The Government have almost certainly gone too far, and quite certainly too fast."
  I think that is the reflection to which I am forced by an impartial study of the Bill and by listening to what my noble friend said. All I wish to ask the noble Lord is that he will give us a perfectly definite assurance, which he has already

  793
  indicated, that, if we give the Bill its Second Reading to-day, there will be abundant time, not only to hear the views of the people who know about this matter—as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has demanded—but for the Government to reconsider the whole proposal, because I should be very sorry if this Bill went on the Statute Book as an example of Conservative policy.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, having listened to this debate, my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be in no doubt whatsoever of the grave concern the industry feels about this measure. I would go further. Industryis not merely gravely concerned about the contents of the measure, but it feels that the arrangement whereby over the last few years an understanding has been built up for Government Departments to consult with organised industry before any important measure is laid before Parliament has been overlooked. On this occasion, none of the major industrial organisations, such as the Federation of British Industries, mentioned by my noble friend, and the National Union of Manufacturers of which I can speak personally, has been consulted beforehand.
  We all recognise that it is important that when possible emergency regulations should be done away with, and we recognise also that some minimum residue may have to be included as part of our permanent legislation. The question arises, what should that minimum be? When we consider a measure such as this, which affects the ability of industry to compete under conditions of intense competition in the world markets, we have to think seriously whether such a measure is right at all. I do not want to go over the whole Bill, but in the light of what has been said I should like to remind your Lordships again how very widely the definitions in Clause 6 have been drawn. I find it difficult to conceive of anything that any manufacturer can make, or any design or invention he may have in his possession, which is not subject to the provisions of this measure. Even more important, the definition, particularly on the question of information, is not subject to any territorial limitation. If I make something in this country, it may be arguable that I ought to be compelled at the right time to hand that knowledge
  794
  over to the Government; but is it right that if I, in this country, have knowledge that somebody in Canada is making something under licence from the Canadian Government, I should be compelled to provide that information to the Government of this country?
  As has been said, there are two main purposes—the disclosure of what I might call secret information and the disclosure of patented information. As regards the first, dealt with in Clause 3, I understand that the Minister of Supply or the Board of Admiralty, by giving directions, can compel any person to disclose information. He can be made to disclose information not only to a Government servant, but also to a third party, perhaps a private individual. That individual may be one of his competitors. Moreover, information having been disclosed to a third party, I can see nothing in this measure that would not allow that individual to publish it for all to see and know; and, therefore, it no longer remains secret information. I understand that there is only one limitation to this—that is, whether it appears to the competent authority to be necessary for defence purposes—whether "it appears," not whether "it is." When we recognise how very wide the definition of "defence purposes" is, we realise that this is a very serious measure.
  I understand there is only one set of circumstances in which an individual is legally entitled not to give information—that is, if he has received the information in his capacity as a counsel, solicitor or patent agent. The reasons one would more often expect him to be able to put up against giving any information are not allowed for in this measure at all, and I should like to give your Lordships an example of the kind of cases which seem to be serious. The question of being under contract of secrecy has been mentioned already and I shall not refer to it again. But a foreign citizen visiting this country can be compelled to give information. If that is so, a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission visiting this country could be questioned on those matters of which he may have special knowledge, and he could be prosecuted, and even imprisoned, if he were so unwise as not to agree to give the information asked for. I could go on giving other cases of a similar kind.

  795
  I would merely suggest that for a Government Department to be able to extract information in this way under threat of prison is a complete change in the law of this country and is without any precedent whatever.
  It has been mentioned that a considerable amount of confidential, technical and scientific information is passed between different people in different countries. We pass confidential and technical information to firms in the United States, and in return we get valuable information in this country. That is also not infrequently coupled with some allocation of markets. It may be that the American firm has the South American market and the market of the United States, and that we are given the market in this country, in the sterling area and in Canada. But if this measure goes through as it now stands, surely there will be a great effort on the part of foreign countries to stop giving us this information, which can only be to the disadvantage of our export trade.
  It is true, as has been mentioned, that there is provision for compensation, and that compensation may amount to a considerable amount where one firm is using the invention of another, or the Government are going to use the invention of some firm to a considerable extent. But where information is not going to be very much used, the secrecy will have been broken, and there is no compensation at all that I can see, unless it be by some form of ex gratia payment which is provided for in the Bill. Clause 1 deals with patented information, and I have in mind in particular the production of proprietary medicines, and so on. I should like to ask my noble friend whether there have been many abuses where this information has been withheld; and whether those cases of abuse that have been detected are not capable of being dealt with under the provisions of the existing Patents Act.
  I think it was only last week or the week before that two draft statutory instruments were laid before Parliament for the prolongation for a further year of emergency regulations dealing with patents, inventions and designs. Surely, with that extension of one year, there is no hurry. My noble friend has already promised to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill for a considerable time—that is obviously reasonable. But we
  796
  want to make sure in our minds whether the Bill is capable of being amended satisfactorily. That raises a matter of principle. Is it right that industry should be liable, in peace time, to have to disclose everything it knows? If the answer to that is, "Yes, it is right", then I am sure the measure can be amended. But if the answer is, "No, it is not right", then I would suggest that there is only one course which should be adopted, and that is for this measure to be withdrawn altogether. As I imagine the answer to that question will not be "Yes" or "No," but rather, "It is not peace time," then it should be clear in our minds what that answer means. We must all agree that it is not, in the ordinary sense of the word, peace time; but while in some respects it is not peace time, in so far as we are up against highly competitive conditions in world markets it is very much peace time. Therefore, we want to guard against caring for an eventual future crisis while we are at the same time jeopardising the immediate prospects of being able to pay our way. I welcome my noble friend's offer to postpone the Committee stage. I take it that that means that all organised industry will be allowed to express their views and discuss this matter; and I can only hope that when that is done, such a situation as the one in which we find ourselves today will not be allowed to arise again.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, this Bill has received a chilly welcome in this House, and I am afraid that I am not going to offer any comfort to the noble Lord who introduced it. I do not remember an example of permanent legislation of such a drastic character. All kinds of things are done, and no doubt justifiably done, in time of war, in order to safeguard the public interest; but these are drastic provisions indeed to form part of the permanent legislation of this country. For example, Clause 1 appears to mean that a Government Department has the power to vend an invention. That, I presume, means that it can effect a compulsory sale of the patent rights to somebody other than the patentee. I do not know what the justification for that can possibly be. I understand that reasons can be advanced for giving compulsory powers to use an invention, subject to payment of a proper royalty, but to oblige the sale of it seems

  797
  to be a very strong measure, and an unnecessary one.
  I have had considerable occasion in recent times to deal with matters relating to patents for inventions, because a number of my clients are interested in them. I am not speaking this afternoon on behalf of any particular private interest, but, I hope, in the public interest. The path of the applicant for a patent in this country is already a difficult one. Even under the most favourable conditions it takes a long period before he is able to get his patent sealed, and if it should be the subject of opposition the time taken is quite inordinate. And during all that period he is in a state of uncertainly as to what his ultimate position will be. This Bill will add considerably to the uncertainties and the difficulties of patentees.
  It is a remarkable thing that it should also require the disclosure of secret processes. In many cases it is necessary, in order to protect the interests of an inventor, that, instead of patenting his process, he should develop it as a secret process. It may be that the process is of such a nature that, if he patented it and the method became known to the world, it would be impossible for him to detect infringement. Therefore the remedy which is theoretically open to him is, in practice, not available. Or it may be that, although the process is of considerable industrial value, it may not be of a nature which is patentable. Once this information becomes disclosed as it can be under the provisions which are contained in this Bill, to the operator's competitors, they are not under any obligation—and if they were, it is difficult to see how the obligation could be effectively enforced—to keep the process secret any longer; and once it becomes known to the world the inventor's position is entirely destroyed. As I understand them, the provisions contained in this Bill for compensating him do not take any regard whatever of that possibility.
  As industry becomes more and more complicated, industrial processes become of a very intricate nature. The development of new methods of manufacture involves long periods of research. It often involves an extremely large expenditure of money for the purposes of experiment, and I fear that the provision of this Bill may lead to a considerable loss to people who have expended their resources and energies in that way. If that happens,
  798
  it will be a detriment to the country as a whole, because it will discourage inventors from devising new inventions.
  4.22 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Acting Leader of the House whether, in view of the many responsible speeches which have been made on this Bill to-day, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has promised that the Committee stage will not be taken for a considerable time yet, it would not be wiser to postpone taking the Second Reading? After all, nothing would be lost, and it would not be any sign of weakness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to think again as a result of the weighty remarks which have been made from all sections of the House. If, after consideration, Her Majesty's Government still insist upon getting their Second Reading, they can have it at any time they wish; and, of course, if they insist they can have it this afternoon. Nobody is going to vote against it. But would it not be wiser for the Government to think again and make up their minds whether, in the light of the debate which has taken place, they really want the Second Reading, and whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said—and I think quite rightly—this Bill is capable of amendment in such a way as to satisfy the criticisms which have been made?
  4.24 p.m.
  VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I have not been able to listen to the whole debate, and my apologies are due to the House for that fact. I was not aware that my noble friend Lord Salisbury was going to be away this afternoon, and I had another appointment to keep in the House. That was the reason for my absence, which I regret. I have, however, noticed the general feeling of the House, and there is another factor in my mind, which is that the consultations with industry, which have in fact begun, undoubtedly had not been finished when the Bill was drafted—indeed, I do not think they have been finished now. If it will suit the convenience of the House I beg to move that this debate stand adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Viscount Woolton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
  4.25 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs
  1.—(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section and to the other provisions of this Act, if any person wilfully—

  (a) kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any wild bird; or

  (b) takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use; or

  (c) takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird included in the First Schedule to this Act,

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if that offence is committed in respect of a bird included in the said First Schedule or in respect of the nest or egg of such a bird, shall be liable to a special penalty.
  (2) Without prejudice to paragraph (c) of the foregoing subsection, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit the taking or destruction in the whole or any specified part of Great Britain of the eggs of any wild bird specified in the order, other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, any person who wilfully takes or destroys any egg in contravention of such an order shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:
  Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection with respect to part only of any administrative area.
  (3) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply—
  Provided that—
  (i) this subsection shall not have effect in Scotland on Sundays;
  (4) Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act.
  (5) In this section, the expression "close season" means, subject to the provisions of section eight of this Act—

  (a) in the case of capercaillie and woodcock, the period in any year commencing with the first day of February and ending with the thirtieth day of September;

  800

  (b) in the case of snipe in Scotland, the period in any year commencing with the first day of February and ending with the eleventh day of August;

  (c) in the case of wild duck and wild geese in or over any area below high water mark of ordinary spring tides, the period in any year commencing with the twenty-first day of February and ending with the thirty-first day of August;

  Provided that the Secretary of State may by order made with respect to the whole or any specified part of Great Britain extend any of the periods aforesaid in the case of any wild bird specified in the order.
  LORD BURDEN: On behalf of my noble and learned Leader, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Marshalled List. The Committee will see that this Amendment extends the subsection considerably, but, I venture to suggest, in a desirable manner. We are anxious that nothing should be put into this Bill to prevent the scientific study of bird life. It was felt by some who have given consideration to the matter, however, that the subsection as it stands is not wide enough to prevent the damage which might be anticipated in some quarters. I see that my noble and learned friend has now arrived, and having moved the Amendment formally in that way, I will leave it to him to continue the argument. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, after ("use") insert ("or endangers the contents of such nest by disturbing the nesting-site without due care:").—(Lord Burden.)
  EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to my noble friend for helping me. The discussion on the previous Bill ended rather suddenly and your Lordships will forgive me for not being here. I am not thinking of pressing this Amendment to a Division; I raise it merely in order that it may be considered. There is a class of person to-day who no longer collects eggs but thinks to himself that he will get photographs of birds' eggs and of birds nesting, and that sort of thing—as, in the old days, Cherry Kearton used to do. We probably all saw his pictures. That is an admirable thing to do. But if it is done by an unskilful person, who puts up an ill-concealed camera, the result is far more disastrous than the taking of an egg, because, as often as not, the bird will desert the nest, and that is a great misfortune. I do not know whether it is possible in any way to stop the action of

  801
  such persons, but in the hope that it may be possible I propose the insertion of this phrase:
  "or endangers the contents of such nest by disturbing the nesting-site without due care."
  I am sure I shall have the good wishes of everybody in my endeavour, but I am not at all sure that my Amendment is practical, and I move it really in order that it may be considered.
  I should like to know from the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill what his view is about the meaning of Clause 1 (1) (b). The phrase is as follows:
  "subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section … if any person wilfully"—
  now come the critical words—
  "… takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use …"
  Does that mean literally destroys the nest and the structure in which the eggs are laid, or does it mean—as it does colloquially—takes all the eggs in the nest? If you find a thrush's nest with four eggs in it and you leave the nest intact but take all four eggs, have you or have you not "destroyed the nest"? I am not sure. Of course, in the case of certain other birds, for instance the guillemot and many sea birds, there is no nest and the eggs are laid just on the bare rock. In the case of a partridge you find practically no nest at all, and in the case of a puffin you find the nest down a rabbit hole. I thought I would mention this point now, because it is a little hard to leave this obvious ambiguity to a magistrate, who would have to propound to himself this question: "This small boy took every single egg in the nest: has he or has he not destroyed the nest?" I do not know what the answer is, but I raise the matter now so that between now and the Report stage the noble Viscount may have it looked at and consider whether or not it would be desirable to clear up this problem. At present I feel it is hardly fair to leave the magistrate who might have to decide this case to solve a problem which we ought to decide for ourselves. I say that in connection with the clause. Perhaps the other question—endangering the site by photography—might also be considered.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: With reference to the last point raised by the noble and learned Earl, I am informed that "destruction of the nest" would mean destruction of the nest as apart from
  802
  the taking of the eggs. But if the noble and learned Earl has any comment to make upon that point, perhaps he will let me know between now and the Report stage. That, however, is the position at present. Secondly, as to the actual Amendment, I entirely agree with its object. My difficulty in accepting it is that, as I think the noble and learned Earl himself will see, his words might well be difficult to interpret in a court of law. What I will say to-day is that I will look into the matter again in view of what he has said, and see whether we can get some more precise words before the Report stage. It may be that we shall not be able to do so, but I will try.
  EARL JOWITT: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.32 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "bird" to insert "other than a moorhen or coot." The noble Lord said: I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to discuss Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. Indeed, Clause 3 also should be considered at the same time, since the object of these Amendments is to include all the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule, except the moorhen and the coot, among those birds whose eggs are protected. I do not, however, feel it would be right that the taking of the eggs of the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule should be liable to such severe penalties as the taking of the eggs of the rare birds named in the First Schedule. I know it was the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to get these heavy penalties especially for those who take the eggs of very rare birds. If my Amendment is agreed to, it will mean that the eggs of all the birds in the Third Schedule, mostly duck and marsh birds, will be protected in the close season as regards the taking of their eggs. That is with the exception of the moorhen and the coot whose eggs, I think, should not be protected. I know that Lord Templewood has an Amendment which would probably have the same effect; but the object of this Bill is to simplify as much as possible the law with regard to birds. My Amendment, I think, makes it absolutely clear what eggs are protected and what are not, whereas the noble Viscount's

  803
  Amendment means referring to a large number of local ordinances to find out exactly what the state of affairs is. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 11, after ("bird") insert ("other than a moorhen or coot").—(Lord Gifford.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think the Amendment which I have on the Paper achieves what the noble Lord has in mind, but in a better way. I feel that the better way is to keep all the existing regulations, for these will cover the kind of bird that the noble Lord has in mind, and to leave it to the Secretary of State to revise them if the Bill passes. I think that that is more in accordance with the structure of the Bill. With regard to the two birds which the noble Lord would exclude, the moorhen and the coot, I believe that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is to move later that the moorhen be included in the list of what were previously called "noxious" birds. That would meet, anyhow in part, the noble Lord's purpose. As to the coot, I do not think I should identify the coot altogether with the moorhen. The coot is often a nuisance, but nothing like the nuisance the moorhen is. In any case, the coot is not in great numbers and is a migrant: it is not here in any great extent all the year round. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment and will feel that my Amendment will achieve nine-tenths of what he has in mind.
  LORD GIFFORD: I thank the noble Viscount for his lucid and helpful explanation. I do not wish in any way to embarrass him by pressing this Amendment. I entirely accept his assurance that what he proposes to do amounts to the same thing and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.36 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the said" and insert "Part I of the." The noble and learned Earl said: My Lords, I should like to explain this Amendment, though I shall not proceed with it, I think, if I can get the assurance I want. The position, as I follow it, is this. If "nest" means what the noble Viscount thinks, and what I think—that is to say, "nest" as opposed
  804
  to "egg"—there will be, as this Bill is drafted, no protection against the eggs of a bird being taken, except those of the birds named in the First Schedule. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that we must not be too hard on the small boy, or make criminals of people who take eggs, it seems to me that the small boy has a right to take every other egg except those of birds mentioned in the First Schedule. You give him too much latitude altogether. Therefore, I have put down Amendments to put it right, and Lord Burden has tried to prepare a larger list of birds which should be protected. But I say frankly that, as I understand the matter, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has now evolved a scheme which makes it unnecessary for me to press this Amendment further.
  If I understand it aright, what he proposes to do is to say that every bird which at present has protection shall continue to have the protection which it now has. The Home Secretary, as we all know, is going to make his list; and, as I understand the matter from the noble Viscount, the Home Secretary may make a list, if he is so minded, giving the birds named protection—the protection in respect of their eggs, which at present is confined to the list of birds in the First Schedule. If that is so, and if of course the Home Secretary takes good advice, as I am sure he will, I shall be satisfied to leave it to the Home Secretary. He has at his disposal far better advice and knowledge than I can command or claim. It seems to me that that is a satisfactory way out of the difficulty.
  There is one other point. If the noble Viscount also moves the Amendment which he has down making it possible for the Home Secretary to differentiate between area and area, it will be of advantage. I can give your Lordships a simple illustration of that. I live in a little flat in Ashley Gardens, quite near to Westminster Cathedral. It was last spring that a song thrush was there, obviously nesting somewhere and singing most beautifully. Although it may be too much to expect that you protect the egg of a song thrush in the country, yet I sincerely hope that you protect the egg of the song thrush in London. It would have been a disaster if the egg of the song thrush had been taken away in a built-up area. If the noble Viscount tells

  805
  me that he intends to move his Amendment so that a number of other birds may have protection in respect of their eggs, it seems to me that will be a solution of the difficulty and I shall not trouble the Committee with this Amendment or with the Amendments which I have down later on altering the Schedule. I beg to move. Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 14, leave out ("the said") and insert "Part I of the").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Earl for what he has said. First of all, he has exactly described my intention. Under the Amendment that I propose to move at the bottom of this page, I propose to leave it to the two Secretaries of State to make out a new list of birds which, though they are not included in the First Schedule, will still have protection. I think, on the whole, that is better than attempting a list. I have attempted a list of these birds and I see that the two noble Lords opposite have also attempted lists. It is most difficult to get a good list without a good deal of expert advice. I suggest that the best way to get a list of these additionally protected birds will be to leave it to the two Secretaries of State, to rely upon them to take the best possible advice and to rely upon Parliament to attack them if they do not. So much for the first point. As for the second point, I can give the noble and learned Earl an assurance that I intend to move the Amendment at the bottom of the page, which would make it possible for the two Secretaries of State to deal with particular areas, rather than only with county areas. I am glad to give the noble and learned Earl those two assurances, and I hope that he will be kind enough to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD BURDEN: I should like to say one word arising out of that reply. The object of the Amendments to which the noble Viscount referred was to see that under this Bill the protection of birds that are protected in different areas was not withdrawn, even for a limited period. The list to which reference has been made represents birds which are at present protected in one county or another. It has been a terrific job to get out those details, but we felt that it was necessary to do it in order to bring that point before the Committee. As I understand the noble Viscount, by Amendment No. 6 and the one, if I may refer to it, on Clause 2, it
  806
  is proposed to continue the measure of protection at present enjoyed by all birds—
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Yes.
  LORD BURDEN: —leaving the two Secretaries at some future date, if necessary, either to alter any protection which may at present be afforded, if it be necessary, or to extend the list by including other birds.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Yes, that is so.
  LORD BURDEN: As I understand it, that would meet the desire of my noble and learned Leader admirably, without the trouble of the list to which we have gone to such pains to prepare.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would that not give the Secretary of State very wide powers indeed? Surely it passes out of the control of Parliament? I have had a little experience in this matter because, as the noble Viscount and, perhaps, the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition may remember, I was responsible for the Plumage Bill which passed through Parliament after the First World War. I had some considerable experience of drawing up these Schedules of birds to be in or out of the protected lists. What measure of control is left to Parliament? None at all, so far as I can see. The Secretary of State might alter these Schedules, in or out, just as he saw fit. Would the noble Viscount kindly let us know how far that discretion goes, if the noble and learned Earl's Amendment is to be withdrawn?
  LORD MATHERS: Before the noble Viscount replies to the discussion that has taken place, may I take the opportunity, in dealing with this Amendment, to voice a general apprehension about the whole idea of making great lists of birds that are to be protected. In an earlier debate on the protection of birds I expressed myself somewhat in this way: that what we want to do is to protect our wild birds, a great wealth, a great amenity of this country. It seems to me that the way to do that is to protect all birds except those that are game birds, or quasi-game birds, which can be used for food—not to make a list of the birds that are protected, but to protect all birds and put the others that may be destroyed in the different localities on what

  807
  may be described as a "black list" of noxious birds, birds that are doing harm in one way or another. I should hardly be inclined to place the responsibility for making the choice in the different areas upon the relative Secretaries of State. I should seek to put that power in the hands of the local authorities who can judge as to the position in their own areas. As I say, that is a general criticism of the whole atmosphere of this Bill, and I invite word from the noble Viscount as to the validity of that criticism, because I am not speaking entirely "without the book." For a number of years in another place I promoted a Bill exactly on the lines that I have indicated, protecting all birds except the game birds, the quasi-game birds and those that were doing harm; and that, as I understood it—indeed, I had an assurance about it—was the method desired by the Scottish Society for the Protection of Wild Birds. If their attitude has changed, I certainly have not been apprised of it, and yet this Bill legislates for Scotland as well as for Southern Britain. I voice these apprehensions hoping to have some indication of the reasons that have caused the change, so far as Scotland particularly is concerned.
  LORD HURCOMB: May I say that, while I am in agreement with the general principles which the noble Lord who has just spoken has in mind, it would be deplored by all those bodies interested in the protection of birds if we went back to a system of separate county ordinance. I should like to express my appreciation of the extent to which the Amendment next on the Order Paper meets the point which I and others urged strongly on the Second Reading: that existing protection should not be withdrawn. The eggs of any birds not specified in the Second Schedule and thereby outlawed will, if they are now protected, have that protection continued by the Bill. That is something. Nevertheless, I hope that before Parliament finally deals with this matter, something further will be done, and that, in addition to the new provisions relating to the rarer species specified in the First Schedule, a real step forward will be taken. I agree that our object should be not merely to protect those birds which are exceptionally beautiful, or are occasional migrants from other countries, or are not yet excessively
  808
  rare: we want an abundant and varied bird life of all sorts to adorn our countryside.
  When it is suggested that we cannot, or ought not to try to, alter long-established practice, I feel that we ought to bear in mind that circumstances have changed during the last half century. There are many more human beings in this country, and far more built-up areas than there then were, and bird life is exposed to many new risks—such as the fast-moving motor vehicle, changes in agriculture, the chemical warfare waged in one form or another upon nature, and other changes of that kind. The need for protection is correspondingly greater, and as we cannot easily alter the habits of the birds, surely the thing to do is to adjust our own. I feel that we have reached the stage when human beings, whatever their age or motive, ought not to molest those birds which are not definitely prescribed, or I might venture to say proscribed, in some order by a Secretary of State. But meanwhile I think the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill go a long way to ensure that we do not slip back; and on other stages, the Bill is capable of yet further adjustments which may enable us to move forward and say that only the eggs of those birds which are outlawed in the Second Schedule, or may be for this particular purpose specified by a Secretary of State, shall be liable to be taken.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am obliged to Lord Hurcomb for his intervention. It seems to me that his great knowledge carries much weight. As to Lord Mathers'point, I would remind him that this Bill is the result of a very careful inquiry by two expert Advisory Committees, one of which was a Scottish Committee upon which was represented a great body of Scottish expert opinion. I think we should all have liked a simpler Bill than this one—most of all myself, in charge of it. But when we have gone into the question we have found that there is a danger of over-simplifying the Bill. One must draw distinctions between various categories of birds: that is really the basis of the Bill.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank raised the point about giving so much power to the two Secretaries of State. It

  809
  is a choice between giving powers to someone or attempting to put a very complicated list of birds into an Act of Parliament. I have tried to make these lists and I admit that I have failed. I believe the only way is to leave it to the two Secretaries of State, with their Advisory Committees. I do not think it is a thing that one can do here and now. The birds in the list will vary from time to time—
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We did it in the Plumage Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I know, but the question of plumage was a single issue. Here we are dealing with about 250 different species of British birds, and I think there must be elasticity in dealing with them. It may be that at one time it is necessary to put a bird into a particular Schedule, whereas at another time or in another place it is necessary to take it out. That being so, I do not believe it can be dealt with in statutory form, and I think the better plan is to leave it to the two Secretaries of State.
  EARL JOWITT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (2) to omit the proviso. The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to leave out the two lines at the bottom of the first page—namely,
  "Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection with respect to part only of any administrative area."
  This is the point upon which Lord Jowitt has already spoken; it is to make it possible to deal with smaller areas. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 25, leave out lines 25 and 26.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is an Amendment that we have already discussed up to a point—namely, the Amendment under which I safeguard all the existing protection. As we have already dealt with it I do not think I need elaborate it. I therefore beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 26, at end insert—
  "(3) So much of any order made by the Secretary of Stale under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as prohibits the taking or destruction in any specified area of the eggs of any specified kind of wild birds shall be deemed to be an order made under the last foregoing subsection:
  Provided that a person shall not by virtue of any such order be guilty of an offence by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act."—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: All I will say is this: it has been brought to my notice that in another place a Bill is being introduced which puts the matter the other way round—all birds will have, and are to continue to have, protection, but it will be open to the Secretary of State to remove the protection from them. I should like the noble Viscount to bear that in mind. We do not want to seal our minds absolutely between now and the next stage, and we should consider whether the clause in that Bill, which is easily referred to, affords perhaps even a better way than this of achieving our object. If he will look at it I shall be much obliged.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I shall certainly look at it. I think one of the advantages of having a Bill on parallel lines in another place is that eventually we can pick out the best in each of them and embody it in the final measure.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.58 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "the person is an authorised person and." The noble and learned Earl said: We are getting on very well and quite amicably, but this is a rather more controversial Amendment and I am afraid I must take a few moments to put it before the Committee. In discussing this Amendment the Committee may also like to bear in mind Amendment No. 10 on the Marshalled list, which deals with the taking of the nest, because the arguments in the two cases are very much the same. May I start off with a statement which I believe to be correct—many of your Lordships will know it—about the law of trespass? I believe I am right in saying that trespass as such is not a criminal offence at all, subject to certain exceptions which I will

  811
  mention presently—I am, of course, talking about trespassing on another person's property, land and so on. That trespass is a civil wrong. The trespasser is responsible for the damage he does, which is generally very slight; and if he threatens to repeat his trespass an injunction can, of course, be obtained.
  As an illustration, may I tell the Committee of this case? There was a well known case where some small boys played a game of football on a field of grass. The owner of the field came and ordered them off, but they did not go. Thereupon, he proceeded to take them before the magistrates, but he failed in his prosecution. He had the right, no doubt, to use such force as was necessary to throw them out. The mere fact, however, that the boys were on the field and not doing any real damage—a certain amount of damage, I suppose, was done, but not real or substantial damage—did not create a criminal offence. That has always been the broad general principle. Sir Walter Scott always used to refer to the type of notice which bears the words "Trespassers will be prosecuted" as "a wooden lie." Trespassers cannot be prosecuted, prosecution meaning the taking of criminal proceedings against them. Trespassers, as a broad general rule, commit only a civil wrong. The law has dealt with this matter. It was the subject of great Parliamentary discussion and no little Parliamentary heat in the old days.
  The first and most important exception, however, is "trespass in pursuit of game." Trespass in pursuit of game has, for a long time, been a criminal offence—I remember Statutes going back to 1830, and probably there are Statutes going back even further. If you satisfy a court that a man has been in pursuit of game, that is sufficient. Whether he has got game or not does not matter; the fact that he was trespassing in pursuit of game made it a criminal offence. Another exception which is enshrined in an Act of 1914 is where a trespasser does serious and malicious damage. In these circumstances trespass comes within the purview of the criminal law, and where a person does serious and malicious damage he can be prosecuted for trespass. Then there are various other Statutes making trespass an offence. Trespassing on the railway, for instance, is,
  812
  by the Railway Acts, a criminal offence. That is the broad picture which I want to present and I think I have done it sufficiently to remind your Lordships of the fact that trespass, as such, is not a criminal offence. And I think we should be very slow indeed to make trespass a criminal offence.
  What we are, in effect, doing here, though in rather a roundabout way, is to make trespass in pursuit of magpies a criminal offence. About that, I think we should hesitate. The way the clause works is this. I am considering the killing of birds for the moment; we will look at the question of the nests presently. We start off with a broad, general, sweeping prohibition and we make it an offence under Clause 1 (1) (a) to kill, injure or take any wild bird. To that broad general proposition we then begin to engraft certain exceptions. The exception which I am now considering is that contained in paragraph (a) at line 3 on page 2 of the Bill. It is stated that this clause shall not apply
  "(a) where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act; …"
  The second Schedule to the Act is a Rogues' Gallery of Birds. For the sake of argument, the magpie is as good an illustration as I want. The broad general proposition does not apply where a person is an authorised person and the bird a magpie.
  What is an authorised person? That is defined in the definition clause. It includes—I do not wish to read the whole clause—any person
  "shown to have been authorised by the owner or occupier, of any land …"
  For the moment let us examine the structure of this thing. Subsection (4) states that:
  "Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  I will take one arbitrary case, the redshank, which is included in the Third Schedule; I could take as an example a bird mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule, but the redshank will do. See, if you will, what is the distinction. If a man armed with a gun comes on to my ground, his intention being to shoot a magpie,he—I am assuming, of course, that he is a trespasser and not authorised—commits a criminal offence in so

  813
  doing or in attempting so to do. But if he comes on my land armed with a gun intending to shoot a redshank, he commits no criminal offence, because the qualification about being an authorised person applies only to (a) and does not apply to (b). If I may say so, with the greatest respect, that seems to me a most astounding result. I could have understood it had it been the other way round, but I cannot see what sense there is in saying that if you are going to escape the broad general proposition in the case of magpies you must show that you were authorised (for the moment, I am talking of persons authorised by the owner or occupier of the land) but if it is a redshank or any of the birds mentioned in the Third Schedule, other than teal or duck—there are special Statutes dealing with those—the question of authority is nothing to the point.
  Before I leave this matter, by way of illustration may I consider the same point in regard to the taking of a nest. That arises in connection with the passage beginning at line 16 on page 2 which I have quoted. Clause 1 (1) (b) relates to taking a nest. This paragraph may or not be amended—I hope it will be. It is stated at line 16, page 2, that
  "… this section shall not apply where the person is an authorised person and the bird is included in the Second Schedule to this Act."
  There you get the same sort of complication, the authority being linked up with the inclusion of the bird in the Second Schedule. Frankly, I do not understand that at all. Behind this there is an important point. I want your Lordships to understand that there is nothing in the Bill which extends by one iota the right of people to go on to other people's land. This is not a Bill to confer on any one the right to go and kill magpies or anything of that sort. But when you are going to bring these matters within the reach of the criminal law, I beg you to stop and consider what you are doing. May I take the case of two boys? One, we will say, is the squire's son, who presumably has the authority of his father to go out and do what he likes on his father's land. He sees a magpie's nest in a tree and pulls it down, or shoots the magpie. That is all right; he is an authorised person. But a village boy whose father has not got any land and who wanders into a wood and does these
  814
  things, having no right to do so, any more than he has to-day, will find himself guilty of a criminal offence. This seems to me a most dangerous extension of the law of trespass. When I think of the battle in the past about making a criminal offence of trespass in pursuit of game, when I think that in effect what you are doing is to make it a criminal offence to go in pursuit of magpies, I wonder whether it is wise.
  I am one of those most anxious to get the Bill through: I am not trying to be obstructive at all. But I am perfectly certain that insistence on having this clause in the Bill will mean that the Bill will not get that easy passage which it otherwise would have when it goes to another place. I am not going to ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment now. I am moving it to see whether the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill cannot do something to get out of this difficulty, which I believe is a serious one. I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way in favour of allowing people to go on to someone else's land to shoot magpies, or for any other purpose. I do not want the impression to get about that by passing this we are extending that right. It is not so. Nothing in the Bill extends the right. But I would ask your Lordships to say that if it be right to kill a magpie, then let the village boy or the squire's son kill it, subject, of course, to the right of damages for trespass. If it be wrong, prohibit them both from doing so; but I beg you not to make the test of a breach of the criminal law whether the boy who does the deed is the one or the other. If we do that, then I am afraid we shall incur for this wholly admirable Bill a great deal of opposition which I think we can avoid by a little wisdom. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 17, leave out ("person is an authorised person and").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD GIFFORD: May I ask the noble and learned Earl whether, if this Amendment is inserted, it will not provide a perfect alibi for the poacher? If a poacher is found with a gun and a dead pheasant, he could say he was shooting at a magpie or a pigeon or other noxious bird and happened to bring down the pheasant.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not think that is a very good alibi. Of course, it is for the magistrates to decide. That is the sort of defence which is always put up to-day and I need hardly say that the magistrate generally decides it is not the truth.
  5.13 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is really the most difficult question in the whole Bill. It is a question upon which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. What we want to do is to avoid indiscriminate shooting and the disturbance of the country, and it has been thought that, in drawing attention to the birds in the Second Schedule that may be killed, there was a real risk that that would be an incitement to Tom, Dick and Harry to wander about the country killing these birds, and would be a pretext for nefarious egg collectors to say they were out shooting magpies when they were trying to get marsh harrier's eggs. That risk very much impressed the advisory committees and they attach considerable importance to this provision. It is not the result of a plot between landowners who wish to keep people off their land; it is the result of bodies like the Nature Conservancy and the various bird societies who are nervous of their sanctuaries being disturbed. There is a certain comparison to be made, though not a very exact one, between what is proposed and what is already in force for rabbits and hares under the Ground Game Act. That is the case for the provision.
  On the other hand, there are the objections that have been so clearly raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. There is the anomaly that it would not be a criminal offence to shoot a redshank, whereas it would be to shoot a magpie. One possible way to deal with that would be to make it compulsory for everybody to have the licence of an authorised person to shoot anything, but difficulty would arise with shore shooting: people who are quite legitimately shooting birds on the shore, and in places like that, would have to have permits, and I do not think that is practical politics. The second main objection, which in my view is much the stronger one, is that here we are dealing with inflammable material that has become more inflammable over a long course of time. As a layman, I am
  816
  nervous of becoming involved in controversies over the laws of trespass and in turning civil offences into criminal offences. On that account, though I admit that I do not see the right solution to the problem of preventing the unnecessary disturbance of sanctuaries and at the same time of avoiding changing what is a civil offence into a criminal offence, I am prepared to look at this matter again.
  I am most anxious not only that we should get the Bill through without undue trouble, but that when we do get it through we shall have raised no Party issue in our discussions, and, if possible, we shall have an agreed measure. It may be that in looking at it again, we may find it possible to put in a strong declaratory clause stating clearly that nothing in the Bill alters the present law of trespass. I am aware of the objection that is always made to declamatory clauses—namely, the difficulty of applying them in courts of law; but, none the less, I think a clause of that kind would give a lead to magistrates' courts in dealing with these questions. At any rate, I am prepared to say to-day that I will look into this question again with the desire to find a way out. I do not see one at the moment but I shall do my best to find one.
  LORD MATHERS: I am sure your Lordships will be pleased with the kindly way in which the noble Viscount has received this Amendment. I rise only to say that in the further consideration he gives the matter, I hope the noble Viscount will keep in mind that there is no trespass law as such in Scotland. Damage must be done and trespass per se is not an offence.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am very conscious of the difference between English and Scottish law and also of the great risk in an Englishman's legislating for Scotland. But I can assure the noble Lord that I will see that the Scottish side of the question is not ignored.
  EARL JOWITT: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has received this matter. I should like to add this, which I thought of afterwards. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me a question. He will realise that if the man says that he was going out for a redshank, then he will be all right; and it is only if he is going out for a magpie that he commits a criminal offence. I should also

  817
  like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that on the Second Reading he was anxious that the police should not be concerned by making these offences committed by young boys criminal. Does he realise that if a boy, not being authorised, strays into a wood to take a magpie's nest, or the nest of a jackdaw if he sees the jackdaw coming out of a hole in the tree, he will be committing a criminal offence, just because he is not an authorised person? It seems to me that when the noble Viscount gives the matter further consideration he should have that aspect of it in mind also. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3), to add to proviso (i): "Christmas Day." The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks simply to extend the prohibition in Scotland for one more day. It is not a controversial Amendment. It has the blessing of the Scottish Wild Birds' Protection Society, and will, I think, be accepted throughout Scotland, both by the shooters and the non-shooters. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am quite willing to accept this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (5), the first being in paragraph (a) to leave out "and woodcock." The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to discuss this and the next Amendment together. As the Bill is drafted, the open season for a woodcock begins on October 1, the open season for snipe in Scotland on August 12, and the open season for snipe in England on September 1. Occasionally, when one is shooting grouse on moors in Angusta snipe or woodcock will get up, although it is a rare event. It is felt that little harm would be done if it were made possible for the snipe, both in England and in Scotland, to be shot from August 11, and for the same thing to apply to the woodcock. My desire is to make the
  818
  open season, both for the woodcock and the snipe, begin on August 12. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 21, leave out ("and woodcock").—(Lord Gifford.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I think the real point of this Amendment is that snipe and woodcock reach Scotland rather earlier in the year. Therefore, I do not think there is any great harm in allowing a different date. When we were discussing this matter in the Advisory Committee the idea was that there should be a different date for Scotland from that in England, which we have had in several cases. Personally, I do not see any objection to it. Whether that would meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I do not know.
  LORD GIFFORD: The noble Earl is talking about woodcock now?
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: Yes, and snipe. They leave Scotland fairly early, and a good many of them have gone if the date is September 30.
  LORD GIFFORD: As I understand it, what the noble Earl has in mind is to put the woodcock with the snipe in Clause 1 (5) (b), and to make the woodcock date the same as that for same in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not suggest that I feel strongly upon this point, but I should prefer to leave the Bill as it is. What is happening is that there are certainly more woodcock breeding in the country every year, and that is a good thing. I should do everything I could to encourage them. I feel that making the close time for the woodcock longer is a good thing. Whilst I do not think this change would have any disastrous consequences on the Bill. I should prefer to leave it as it is.
  LORD GIFFORD: Would the noble Viscount consider the compromise of allowing the woodcock to be shot in Scotland from August 12, the same as the snipe?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I promise to look into it, but I am afraid it will be rather unsympathetically.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, on this matter.
  LORD TERRINGTON: I should like strongly to associate myself with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. I feel that this change would be a most retrograde step.
  LORD GIFFORD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (5) to omit paragraph (c). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the important question of the date for shooting ducks and geese in February, and it is put down largely as a result of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on the Second Reading, when he pointed out that, as the Bill is drafted, we should leave the state of affairs in some districts worse than it is at present. The object of this Amendment is to keep the dates as they are, and in no cases to allow the dates to be worse, from the point of view of protection, but to leave it to the two Secretaries of State to go through these dates and eventually decide upon the final date. The Amendment affects only the coastal districts, where it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the early days of February are very much needed for wildfowlers. Be that as it may, I think the wise course is to take the line that I venture to suggest in this Amendment, to safeguard all the existing protection, and leave it to the two Secretaries of State to make the final decision as to what the date should be. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).—(Viscount Templewood.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): I might point out that if this Amendment is passed, Amendment number 14 cannot arise, because the paragraph will have gone. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, would consider speaking on this Amendment also.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I did not intend to speak on this Amendment, but was going to ask the noble Viscount whether he would consider afresh the position of the wild-fowlers. They have given up eighteen days at one end of the season, without protest, and it is now being suggested that they should give up eighteen days
  820
  at the other end. Before agreeing to this Amendment, I wonder whether we could have some assurance from the noble Viscount that, at the next stage of the Bill, their case will be considered afresh.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not think I could possibly give that undertaking. These dates were agreed to by the representative of the Wildfowlers' Association upon the Advisory Committee. They were the result, I understand, of a compromise, and I should be reluctant to give the impression that I wished to see these dates made worse, rather than better, in the future. Therefore, I could not give that undertaking.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Of course, I must accept the noble Viscount's argument.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I think I should support the noble Lord, because this was a definite compromise with the wildfowlers in our Advisory Committee. We had a good deal of talk about this, and, as my noble friend probably knows, at the present time any county can apply to shoot below high-water mark, I think it is (I am not sure whether it is high or low-water mark) but only up to February 21. The wildfowlers came to us and said, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has mentioned, that they had given up a lot the other way, and we thought it was a compromise. The compromise was that, under the Bill which we suggested (and it was in the present Bill, though it has been so changed now that I do not quite know where it is) all maritime counties should have that privilege below low-water mark. That has now been cut out, and I do not quite know where we are.
  LORD HURCOMB: My name is added to this Amendment, so may I say one or two words in explanation. I should like to acknowledge the extent to which the Amendment later on the Order Paper meets the point which arose earlier: that no existing protections should be withdrawn. As regards the dates in paragraph (c), it will no doubt be an advantage to many birds, and particularly wading birds, that the close season should be extended to August 31, although, as the noble Lord knows, the migration of waders through this country tends to be at its height not in August but in the first

  821
  fortnight of September. But as regards most wild ducks, and all wild geese, an extension in August means nothing at all, whereas any curtailment of the close season in February means a great deal. The breeding stock is then already largely paired, and though the casualties inflicted may not be very numerous in those concluding days, they have a disproportionate effect on the maintenance of the breeding population. It is the maintenance of the breeding population in this matter which is really the point of importance.
  I do not think that, on scientific grounds or on grounds of conservation, there could be any doubt that to extend the open season through the first three weeks of February would be a retrograde step. At present, the onus is on the county council which wants an extension to apply for it. My point in putting down the Amendment was to draw attention to the fact that this automatic extension by three weeks was a step in the wrong direction. I am speaking only from the point of view of conservation. That is the view of the Nature Conservancy of the Severn Wildfowl Trust and of other bodies with exceptional knowledge, and is based on the fact that many species of wildfowl have greatly declined in numbers during the last fifty years.
  That statement is based not on a mere apprehension of what may happen, but on the knowledge of what, in fact, is happening, and has happened in other parts of the world. In America, during the last fifty years, species after species has become extinct, or has diminished to the point of danger. In the United States in recent years nearly all shore birds have been removed from the list of game birds and have been given protection, and their numbers have shown a gratifying increase. Nevertheless, some have become rare and some stand in danger of extinction. For example, the upland plover is now protected both in the United States and Canada, but it winters in South America and is shot in its winter quarters far down into the Argentine. As an American authority who was writing on this subject said:
  "The birds have to run an endless gauntlet of gunners."
  It is no wonder that even in that vast Continent the species which existed in almost countless numbers not very long ago now stand in danger of extinction.
  822
  I submit that the interests of wildfowling and of conservation in this matter are identical, and I think that the great majority of wildfowlers themselves would wish to take an enlightened view.
  Any proposals for extending the close season, and maintaining the close season where it exists, is not in any sense hostile to wildfowlers but is, in fact, in their ultimate interest. I feel, therefore, that the matter merits close consideration, and I think it unfortunate that within the last year or so the Home Secretary has made an order prolonging the open season in the county of Gloucestershire, while the negotiations between the noble Earl, Lord Ilchester, and his Committee were still going on. It was made on the assumption that any extension contemplated would go only to February 15. I believe it was suggested to the county authorities that they might come into line, having hitherto been quite content with February 1, and prolong the open season to the 15th. That that should have happened in a county like Gloucestershire, where the efforts to maintain the wildfowl have received financial support and created universal interest throughout the world, seems to me rather unfortunate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will see that during the interval before this Bill takes effect no further extensions of time are granted, on any grounds of application whatever. I have put down my name to this Amendment to draw attention to it, and not to press it to a Division. I am quite content to be guided by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill; but it would seem to me in the best interests of the wildfowlers, as well as in the interests of conservation, that this date should be switched back to where it was—February 1—the date which Parliament itself not long ago declared an appropriate one. That date should stand, and there should be very special reasons for it to be advanced in any county where it is not already in force.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): The noble Lord asked me to give him an undertaking, but he will realise that that is not possible at the moment. The noble Lord will not expect an explicit undertaking to-day that there should be no extensions, but we will consider it and

  823
  see whether or not that will be possible. Further than that I cannot go to-day.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I express my surprise at Lord Hurcomb's remarks about Gloucestershire? Personally, I have never heard a single word of the matter. I suppose it came on after it was handed over to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. It never came up to our Advisory Committee. I think it ought to have come to us. However, that is a matter for the Home Secretary.
  LORD HURCOMB: I did not raise this matter as a complaint, but the order was made on January 21 of this year. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, I was, of course, not expecting an undertaking; but he has shown himself to he so understanding and sympathetic to the points which have been raised by me during the course of this debate that I am quite content with his assurance that he will look into it.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should also like to say that our Advisory Committee were all strongly opposed to any date later than February 1. But I thought it was only fair to the Wildfowl Committee that I should mention the exact position.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: May I say that I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said? But since, by accepting what he has said, I lose my next Amendment, may I press the noble Viscount, between now and the Report stage, to give the most favourable reflection he can to the case of the human wildfowlers and the ornithological waders?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I certainly will, but I am afraid that I could not on any account agree to including waders, which is a very vague expression.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Amendment follows the explanation I gave just now which safeguards the protection in the areas where it is better than February 21. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 35, after ("that") insert ("(i)").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The same remarks apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to second ("any") and insert ("the close season for").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The same remarks again apply to this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(ii) so much of any order made by the Secretary of State under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as provides that the time during which the killing and taking of wild duck and wild geese is prohibited in any specified area contiguous to the low-water mark of ordinary tides shall begin with some date later than the first day of February but not later than the twenty-first day of February shall, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of the said Acts of 1880 to 1939, continue in force with respect to that area so far as it relates to any bird included in Part II of the First Schedule or in the Third Schedule to this Act, but may be revoked by an order made by the Secretary of State under paragraph (i) of this proviso.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Power to establish bird sanctuaries
  2.—(1) With a view to the creation of bird sanctuaries, the Secretary of State may by order make provision with respect to any area specified in the order providing, subject to the provisions of this Act, for all or any of the following matters, that is to say—

  (a) that any person who, within that area, at any time wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill injure or take, any wild bird whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;

  (b) that any person who, within that area, wilfully takes or destroys an egg of any wild bird whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act;

  (c) that where any offence against this Act, or any such offence against this Act as may be specified in the order, is committed within that area, the offender shall be liable to a special penalty.

  (2) Before making an order under this section with respect to any area, the Secretary of State shall consult with any person who owns or occupies any land included in that area and with the council of any administrative area within which that area or any part thereof is situated.
  5.46p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1) to insert as a new paragraph (a):
  "(a) for prohibiting the entry of any person during the nesting season into the sanctuary save under such conditions as may be specified in the order;"
  The noble and learned Earl said: This is a matter of some little importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, threw out a hint on the Second Reading of his Bill that the point was already covered in the National Parks Act. Now, if it is covered in the National Parks Act I do not want to have it twice. I am talking, therefore, on the assumption that it is not entirely covered by the National Parks Act. I attach a great deal of practical importance to this Amendment. After all, what have we done? We have done a very useful bit of work but I am afraid it often happens that a boy will take the eggs without knowing what eggs they are: he will just see them and take them. In the same way a sportsman may be about with a gun and shoot a bird without knowing what it is.
  Here is a practical and effective step to encourage the breeding of some of these birds. Why not have small sanctuaries—with the consent of the owner and everyone concerned, and only with that consent—where these birds could breed? If you cannot get the consent of the owner, you cannot do it. The Home Secretary ought to have power to say, "This is a sanctuary," and if he says it is a sanctuary then no one save some person with his authority should go into it in the nesting season. I believe that to be a matter of great importance. I have known odd little woods, quite small, no more than half an acre in extent, where warblers, and so on, have nested. The most effective way to get these birds to bring up their young and breed is to prevent people from going into those sanctuaries. I do not believe there is any other way in which you could prevent people from going in.
  Further, I should like to confer upon the Home Secretary a power in this matter. I make it quite plain in a later Amendment that it is a power which should be exercised only with the consent of all the people concerned. This power would be to prevent anybody from going into these places. Of course, in fact you would have to have someone authorised to go in and look after the place, and
  826
  people would be allowed to go in only with him. If small boys and collectors were allowed to go about in these places except in the company of this person they might do a great deal of harm. Therefore for the nesting season, and only for that time, nobody should be allowed in under the terms of this licence.
  That is the subject of the first Amendment. If I am told that the power already exists, then there is no point in having it re-enacted; but I am not sure that the power exists. I know it has been said that in some areas the owners are not known. Well that is just too bad, and in that event you cannot do what I am suggesting. In the vast majority of cases, however, the owner is known, and, provided you get his consent the Home Secretary ought to be able to say "I am not going to have you in here in the nesting season." I also believe that the nesting season should be defined by order of the Home Secretary. Here I am myself wanting to make trespassing a criminal offence: if anyone goes into these places without the order of the Home Secretary it should be a criminal offence. This practical step would do much to protect some of our birds and I think the noble Viscount will be very sympathetic to me, in this matter. He will tell me whether everything he wants is already in the National Parks Act, and, if it is not, I hope that he will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, after line 43,insert the said paragraph.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have looked up the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and I am inclined to think that all the necessary powers are included in it. I am told that the powers under the National Parks Act are the powers that are suitable for keeping people out of an area. It is said wardens and a staff to keep people out would be needed, and it would be rather a big affair. That being so, it is better that it should be dealt with under the National Parks Act, in which there are the necessary provisions, rather than under this clause, which contemplates nothing more than small, voluntary sanctuaries. At the same time, I attach a great deal of importance to what the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, says upon a subject of this kind, and I am prepared to accept

  827
  the Amendment; but I am sure he will agree with me that if, upon further inquiry. I find that it really is superfluous, we can then cut it out at the Report stage.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think this is a particularly important point, having regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, just now, that the laws of trespass in England and in Scotland are different, and therefore what might apply to a prohibition in the case of England might not apply in Scotland. Therefore I hope that, when the noble Viscount looks into this point, he will bear that in mind. I am wholly with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in considering it as being one of the most important features of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like strongly to support the noble and learned Earl in this Amendment. This is a point I have been urging throughout our work on the Bill: that there should be power to stop a man from entering and disturbing the nesting in a ternery, for instance: it creates the most appalling chaos, when anybody comes in, and you have no right to get him out unless he has eggs on him. Naturally, before you catch him he has thrown them away. I am wondering whether the point is covered by the National Parks Act, and I shall be interested to know what my noble friend finds out about this. My view is that a national park, a big park, naturally is covered; and equally so is anything arranged by the Nature Conservancy; but does a small county council sanctuary, where there is no park and no nature reserve, come under it? I am doubtful. That is a point I should like carefully looked into.
  LORD SILKIN: Since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act has been referred to, may I, and as one who played some part in getting it on the Statute Book, say that in my opinion that Act does not cover this particular case, and that the provision which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is seeking to introduce into this Bill is rather wider, for the reasons given, I think, by the noble Earl, who has just spoken. In the National Parks Act certain specific areas are dealt with, but I take it that this provision is intended to be rather wider. There is one point that
  828
  the noble Viscount may look at when he is examining the matter, and that is the question of machinery. The National Parks Act concerns some Minister other than the Secretary of State, and it may be that there would be two similar sanctuaries, one governed by one Minister and one governed by another. That may need a little straightening out. But I am quite sure that the area covered by the National Parks Act is not identical with the area covered by the proposed Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL JOWITT: This Amendment is to make it plain that this can be done only with the consent of the owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 44, after ("who") insert ("without authority enters that area in the nesting season or who").—Earl Jowitt.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.57 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD had given notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), the first of which was, in paragraph (a) to omit "whatsoever other than a bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act." The noble Viscount said: This is a somewhat new proposal with reference to sanctuaries. When I spoke on the Second Reading, I had been informed that there was no need to have in the Bill a clause about sanctuaries, because that matter was covered by the National Parks Act. Since then, I have made further inquiry and I find that that information is not entirely accurate. The effect of having no clause in this Bill would be to remove the protection from a number of existing sanctuaries that are protected under Wild Bird Protection Acts which are to be repealed under this Bill. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the matter here. I deal with it with the fullest possible desire, not only to save existing sanctuaries but to increase their numbers.
  As the Bill was originally drafted, the criticism was made that we might be taking property and interfering with various interests without the power to give any compensation. I was anxious to avoid questions of compensation in this Bill, because I know how often they lead to complications. We have therefore been considering how best to deal with

  829
  the problem. I have been in consultation particularly with the Chairman of the Nature Conservancy, and you will see from this Amendment how we propose to deal with the matter. We protect the existing sanctuaries; we encourage new sanctuaries provided they are made voluntarily; and there is a provision that no interest—where there is ownership or rights of various kinds, shooting rights, for instance—should be interfered with at all. I think that, with that proviso, the proposal is watertight. As I say, it encourages the small sanctuaries, it is based upon voluntary agreements, and it gives the undertaking that no existing interests will be interfered with. I venture to suggest that that is a better way of dealing with it than the way proposed by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in Amendment No. 23, which would make it necessary to have the prior consent of everybody concerned. I am told, particularly with regard to some of these sanctuaries, that, even if they are not foreshore or something rather like it, if is very difficult to find out who are the owners and who have rights. That being so, it is better to state clearly that no interest should be compromised rather than to have to search areas, perhaps for several years, before we can find exactly who is the particular owner in a stretch of vague, uncertain country. Unless there is this provision, it may be impossible to start some of these voluntary sanctuaries. With that explanation, I hope the Committee will accept my new proposals.
  LORD TERRINGTON: Which Amendment is the noble Viscount speaking to?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am speaking to all three Amendments.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("bird") to ("shall") in line 2.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to reply, of course, by a Roland for an Oliver—if the noble Viscount is good enough to accept my Amendment, I will accept his. I should like to look at it again. I am doubtful in regard to "an authorised person" coming in here.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: What I said earlier will cover the point here.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not mind his being a person mentioned in the order of
  830
  the Home Secretary, but I do not want "authorised person" to mean anybody who is authorised by the owner of the land; because if the land-owner consents and the Home Secretary gives his approval to the making of this ground a sanctuary, then a sanctuary it must be, and the persons who are authorised must be only such persons as are authorised by the Home Secretary. That seems to be an important point; otherwise the reality of the sanctuary will not be observed. I should like to look again at the other point between now and the Report stage and inform your Lordships how the difficulty about lack of knowledge concerning ownership in some of these areas appears to me. I think it would be much simpler to adopt my scheme, but it may be that there would be difficulties in that scheme because we cannot tell who is the owner of the area. Perhaps we may look at it together and see whether we can work out some convenient and simple method of dealing with the problem.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will certainly look at the point. What I say is based very much upon the experience of the Nature Conservancy. They tell me that they have had great difficulty, causing long delays, in regard to finding out particular ownerships. However, I will certainly look into the point.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With great respect, I think the scheme of the noble and learned Earl is rather too watertight; it is not elastic enough. I think the scheme of the noble Viscount is better from that point of view; it is more likely to lead to the creation of bird sanctuaries, without holding them up.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 5, leave out from "bird" to ("shall'') in line 6.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3,leave out lines 12 to 16 and insert—
  ("Provided that—

  (i) an authorised person shall not by virtue of any such order be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing, injuring or taking of or an attempt to kill or take, a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act or by reason of the taking or destruction of an egg of a wild bird so included;

  (ii) the making of an order under this section with respect to any area shall not

  831
  affect the exercise by any person of any right vested in him, whether as owner, lessee or occupier, or, in Scotland, as limited owner, of any land in that area, or by virtue of a licence or agreement.

  (2) So much of any order made by the Secretary of State under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1939, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act as prohibits the taking or killing in any particular area of all wild birds or the taking or destruction in any particular area of the eggs of all wild birds shall be deemed to be an order made under this section, and subject to the provisions of this Act any person who contravenes that prohibition shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  General exceptions
  3.—(1) Nothing in subsection (1) of section one or in any order made under section two of this Act shall make unlawful—

  (a) the killing of any wild bird not included in the First Schedule to this Act—

  (i) in pursuance of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by or under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950; or

  (ii) in pursuance of a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act,1947, or by the Secretary of State under section thirty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948;

  (b) the taking of any wild bird if the bird is taken solely for the purpose of ringing or marking it and is then released;

  (c) the killing, injuring or taking of any wild bird for the purposes of any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

  (2) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of, or of any order made under, section one or section two of this Act a person shall not be found guilty of an offence against this Act—
  (a) by reason of the killing or injuring of a wild bird other than a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that the bird was killed or injured while doing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries;
  6.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The point of the first Amendment to Clause 3 is that orders under Clause 1 (2) may create an offence in taking eggs, in addition to the offences created by Clause 1 (1), and therefore the exceptions in Clause 3 (1) should apply to offences in subsection
  832
  (2) of Clause 1. I think that is an obvious Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 17, leave out from first ("in") to ("section") in line 18 and insert ("or in any order made under, section one or").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This Clause makes an exception of the killing of birds in pursuance of powers under the Agriculture Acts. These Acts, however, also refer to the taking or destruction of the eggs of birds which are pests, and consequently the exception should be wider. Accordingly, the Amendment substitutes for paragraph (a) in subsection (1) the new paragraphs (a) and (b), in more general terms; it also substitutes a new paragraph (c) for paragraph (b) in the Bill. This has the effect of making merely a small verbal Amendment—namely, the insertion of a reference to "an attempt to take" birds. I think that explanation covers this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 19, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
  ("(a) anything done in pursuance of a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or by the Secretary of State under section thirty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948;
  (b) except in relation to a wild bird included in the First Schedule to this Act, anything done by virtue of any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries by or under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950;
  (c) the taking of, or an attempt to take, any wild bird if the bird is taken or to be taken solely for the purpose of ringing or marking and then releasing it;").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: As regards the next three Amendments, the offences created by Clause 1 (1) include attempting to kill or take birds, and the exceptions, therefore, should also refer to attempts, as well as to killing. These Amendments make the necessary verbal changes. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 32, after ("of") insert ("or an attempt to kill or take").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 38, after second ("of") insert ("or an attempt to kill").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, leave out ("while") and insert ("or that the attempt was made, while the bird was").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "serious." The noble Lord said: This may seem a very small matter. I think it was referred to by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, either today or in his Second Reading speech, but I am informed that it should be sufficiently an offence under subsection (2) (a) that the bird in question was doing damage, since it would be difficult for any magistrate to differentiate between "damage" and "serious damage." It is really a question for the magistrate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, leave out ("serious").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I suggest that it is not necessary to leave out the word "serious"; in fact, I think it is better to keep it in, otherwise somebody might start shooting a bird that we wished to see generally protected merely because it had done quite an insignificant amount of harm. My advice, therefore, would be to leave in the word "serious." It describes what we have in mind—namely, that it is serious damage that we contemplate, not simply picking a few buds off an individual tree.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I agree with the noble Viscount. Even if we leave the word in, it is left in the hands of tie magistrate to decide whether the damage is "serious," and I think it is an indication of what Parliament intends. I think it best to leave it in.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.9 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out all words from "crops" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
  "and that there was no other practicable means open to him of protecting such crops."
  The noble and learned Earl said: It is deplorable, but inevitable, that people should shoot a large number of birds because they are doing what birds naturally do with fruit trees and the like. Whether we call it serious damage or not, I agree that it is inevitable; but I should like to try, if I can, to protect some of these birds. I do not know that I have here the right form of words—indeed, it may not be possible to find the right form. But, quite frankly, the differentiation I want to make is this. I want to differentiate between my strawberry bed, for instance, and my cherry trees. I am not talking about acres of strawberries. It is impossible to net them. But I am speaking of the ordinary strawberry bed in one's garden, a patch, we will say, not as long as from here to the Throne—about half that distance. Now an ordinary person protects such a bed with a net. By protecting it with a net you prevent birds from getting into it. Another way of protecting it would be to stand beside it with a gun and to shoot all the birds that came along. In that way you would destroy a very large number of birds I fear, and that would be a lamentable thing. I realise that it is not practicable for people to use nets if they have acres of strawberries. I realise that it is not practicable to net cherry trees at all. But for the ordinary small garden, where you have a strawberry patch or a patch of raspberries, the normal thing is to net and not to kill the birds. If everyone is to start killing birds because they are taking raspberries or strawberries which the owners have not troubled to net, a large number of birds will be unnecessarily killed.
  I have tried to devise a form of words which will meet this situation. I have suggested:
  "and that there was no other practicable means open to him of protecting such crops."
  The point I wish to ask your Lordships to consider for the moment is this. Would it not be fair to say that where it is simple and not unduly expensive for a man to use a net to protect things, he

  835
  ought to use one, and, if he does not, he should not then complain that the birds do damage. I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to know where to draw the line and to say what is practicable. To protect a small strawberry patch with a net is certainly practicable, but is it practicable to protect a quarter of an acre in the same way? In the last resort, I suppose, that would have to be a question of fact for the magistrates. I am anxious, if I can, to prevent an unnecessary holocaust of birds. I think it could so easily be prevented by the use of nets. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("crops") to the end of line 43 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am doubtful whether we can get a form of words that will effect the noble and learned Earl's purpose. There are such widely differing conditions. If I may quote my own case, I have several acres of blackcurrants, and I do not know how they could be protected with nets. In fact, I think it would be impossible to do so. Obviously, I could not net them. I think that other noble Lords will have in their minds difficult cases of a similar kind. As I say, I am doubtful about this form of words. I see no objection in principle to the Amendment at all. We have here a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and I do not know what he would say on this question.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): I am certain that the Committee will have every sympathy with what the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. I think the difficulty here would arise in this way. The nearest sort of situation one can think of which exists at the present time is that of a farmer whose sheep are being worried by dogs. He shoots a dog, we will say, and I gather that in that case the farmer has two defences. He has the defence that there was no practical means other than shooting to stop the dog worrying his sheep—which is the same sort of thing as the noble and learned Earl has in mind. The
  836
  farmer has the additional defence that, having regard to all the circumstances in which he found himself, he acted reasonably in regarding shooting as necessary for the protection of his sheep against an attack or renewed attack. As I understand it, the noble and learned Earl's Amendment would do away with that additional defence which the grower of crops has got and would put him in a rather difficult position. He would have to look ahead to foresee all kinds of things that might happen if he is to be covered against this sort of thing. I wonder whether there is very much substance in what the noble and learned Earl is trying to do. He cited the example of his own strawberry patch. He and I grow strawberries for ourselves. None of us, I am sure, would dream of shooting the birds which attacked our strawberry patches. If we were going to do that we should have to stand on guard from dawn to dusk, or else hire someone else to do it, and that would be very expensive. I think that, in the ordinary course, we who grow strawberries in our gardens would naturally net. It is only if it became unduly expensive that you could not net, and then you would get the sort of situation arising of which the noble and learned Earl has spoken, and it would be necessary to shoot birds. I hope that, from that point of view, the noble and learned Earl will not press this Amendment.
  LORD MATHERS: I wish to support my noble and learned Leader in the humane attitude which he is taking up. The noble Viscount's blackcurrants and Lord Carrington's analogy of sheep being worried by dogs do not seem to me to apply, because sheep worrying is something that can easily be proved, whereas I think it might be—and very likely would be—that the birds were protecting the noble Viscount's blackcurrants from green-fly or something of that kind, and by shooting them he would be destroying a protection instead of a menace.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I stand corrected.
  EARL JOWITT: In view of what has been said—though I am rather sorry about this—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.17 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: This is really a drafting Amendment, and I may say that the next one is the same. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 44, after second ("of") insert ("or an attempt to take").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 1, at end insert ("or to be taken").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds
  4.—(1) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section nine of this Act, any person—

  (c) for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird uses as a decoy any live bird whatsoever which is tethered, or which is secured by means of braces or other similar appliances, or which is blind, maimed or injured; or

  (d) uses for the purpose of killing any wild bird a shot-gun which is constructed or adapted to hold more than two cartridges at a time, whether in a barrel or in a magazine, or of which the barrel measures more than one and three-quarter inches in diameter at the muzzle; or

  (e) uses for the purpose of killing or taking any wild bird any form of artificial light,

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty:
  Provided that in any proceedings under paragraph (a) of this subsection it shall be a defence that the article was set in position by the accused for the purpose of killing or taking animals in the interest of public health, agriculture or the preservation of other creatures and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to wild birds.
  (2) If any person uses any mechanically propelled vehicle or boat or any aircraft in immediate pursuit of a wild bird for the purpose of driving, killing or taking that bird, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and be liable to a special penalty.
  (3) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall make unlawful—

  (a) the use of a cage-trap or not by an authorised person for the purpose of taking a wild bird included in the Second Schedule to this Act;

  838

  (b) the use of nets for the purpose of taking wild duck in a duck decoy which is shown to have been in use immediately before the passing of this Act;

  (c) the use of a cage-trap or net for the purpose of taking a wild bird if it is shown that the taking of the bird is solely for the purpose of ringing or marking and then releasing it or for the purpose of an experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.

  6.18 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, in subsection (1) (c), after "injured" to insert "otherwise than by being pinioned". The noble and learned Earl said: I wish there was no Clause 4 to this Bill.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will accept this Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: Still, on the basis that there is a Clause 4 (I am shortly going to move that it should be deleted) I have to move this Amendment. I had duck in mind; I am told that we must make it plain that this Amendment does not apply to geese. I never meant it to apply to geese, but I think I had better move the Amendment in this form at the moment. I know that Lord Hurcomb has a view about the matter. I should be prepared to have this confined to duck. Perhaps it would content your Lordships if we passed the Amendment in this form without prejudice to devising appropriate words between now and the next stage to ensure that it does not apply to geese. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 29, after ("injured") insert ("otherwise than by being pinioned").—(Earl Jowitt.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Earl that it ought to refer solely to duck and not to geese. If necessary we will make that clear later.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1) (d), to omit all words after the second "barrel," and to insert:
  "has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches or"
  The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to define more exactly than was done in the original draft the size of a punt gun. I do not like any of these punt guns, but if we are going to have them we want the size of them

  839
  restricted. I understand, from the inquiries that have been made, that this is about the average size of the punt guns that are being used. There may be bigger ones, but this was the recommendation of the two Advisory Committees and if we are going on with the clause I think this is the right kind of provision to have.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("barrel") to end of line 34 and insert ("has an internal diameter at the muzzle of more than one and three-quarter inches or").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: If we are going to deal with this matter, why have the punt gun at all? I think it would be better to deal with this matter by proposing that there should be no punt gun in future. It seems to be so extraneous to the Bill that it is a pity we do not drop this clause.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Again this is the result of compromise. This is what the Advisory Committee accepted, after discussion with the wildfowlers, and I hesitate to upset the compromise. Left to myself, supposing there had been no compromise and no long discussions of the subject, I should be very willing to see the end of the punt gun. I have regretted that while it kills a considerable number of ducks, the punt gun wounds a great many more. But there are few punt gunners in the world to-day—far fewer than there used to be. The race is becoming extinct. It was on that account that I accepted this compromise, with the hope at the back of my mind that in the not very distant future the use of this gun would come to an end altogether.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: This was a compromise with the wildfowlers, who particularly asked that it should be left in. I believe there are no shooting punts used in Scotland, but in England a certain number are used and I feel bound to support this Amendment, though personally I should be very happy to see shooting punts done away with.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "bird" to insert:
  ", other than a bird included in the Second Schedule,"
  The noble Earl said: Two days ago I was asked by the County Councils Association to put down this Amendment. It refers to the killing or taking of wild birds by any form of artificial light. So long as it refers only to Second Schedule birds, I see no objection to it. The way this is done might interest your Lordships. They propose to have a very strong torch and shoot birds with air guns. The idea seems to me a little far-fetched. Perhaps some better way of doing it might have been found. The only way I have found of doing anything with starlings on a large scale is to have very smoky fires on a still day like this. But, of course, we cannot use that in London. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 35, at end insert (", other than a bird included in the Second Schedule,").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am ready to accept this Amendment.
  EARL JOWITT: Does this prohibition in the Bill include the use of a torch? I suppose that in our young days many of us have gone duck flighting, and then, when the light failed and when we have been asked how many birds we brought down, we have said more birds than we actually had. We would then go round with torches to collect the birds and count them, and it would become darker and darker. Are we not to be allowed to use a torch to pick up the birds?
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I should have thought the answer was that picking up does not come into this clause, which deals with killing. I certainly agree with the noble Earl that a torch is required for picking up ducks at the end of a late flight. I will look into it, because I am sure that to prohibit that is not what Lord Ilchester intended. Subject to that, I think we may accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) to insert:
  "or
  (f) uses for the purposes of killing or taking any wild goose any decoy in the form of a stuffed specimen or model of a wild goose."
  The noble Earl said: Anyone living in the north-east corner of Lincolnshire, as I do, must have noticed the great decline in the number of pink-footed geese. I am informed that one of the chief causes has been the practice of shooting over decoys. I should like to quote from a letter from no less an authority than Mr. Peter Scott, himself a keen wildfowler, who has kindly given me permission to do so. He says:
  "They"—
  the pink-footed geese—
  "have not found such a sanctuary there,"—
  in Lincolnshire—
  "and their numbers there are, I understand, much lower than they were twenty years ago. There is no doubt that persecution by a few keen wildfowlers with decoys, who account for far more than their fair share of geese, is chiefly responsible for this desertion of their former winter feeding-grounds."
  From this point of view, Mr. Davies's campaign is important. I feel that it should be supported by all moderate and reasonable sportsmen. Shooting geese over decoys is extraordinarily easy and provides very dull shooting, since the birds are hovering to settle; and in my view it is a thoroughly bad way of making a big bag. I do not think anyone, least of all myself, would wish to interfere with the activities of the genuine wildfowlers, than whom there are no finer people, not do I wish to discuss the ethics of sport, but I should like to say that Mr. Davies's campaign, which has already been referred to, resulted in 530 landowners and farmers in North Lincolnshire refusing to have shooting of geese ever decoys, I beg to move this Amendment, purely to prevent a few greedy persons from driving our geese away. If this Amendment is accepted, my second one follows as a matter of course. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 36, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Yarborough.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I have every sympathy with the noble Earl in his Amendment and I am grateful to him for raising this question in Committee this afternoon. I have had a good deal of correspondence about the slaughter of geese in North Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire, and I should like to see it, if not stopped, at any rate very much restricted. It is significant that the 530
  842
  land owners and farmers whom the noble Earl has mentioned have banded together to stop decoy shooting on their land. I am told that the trouble is that there are certain tracts of land over which their writ does not run, to which gunners come, often from great distances, and shoot large numbers of pink-footed geese. The difficulty is to know how best to deal with them. I do not think anybody wants to stop the legitimate shooting of geese. What we do want to stop is the kind of case that the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, cited to me before this Committee stage, of a man who had a gun with a silencer on it and who had killed seventy-three geese in the space of about an hour.
  A further difficulty is that I am not sure whether the Amendment of the noble Earl would really be effective. He proposes that decoys should not be allowed. If decoys are not allowed for geese, I suppose it would follow that they ought not to be allowed for duck. I do not believe that a provision of that kind is really necessary. We have only just agreed to allow pinioned ducks to he used for duck fighting. As at present advised, I do not think we could entirely prohibit the use of decoys for geese. However, I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage—this Amendment has only recently been put upon the Marshalled List—to see whether we cannot deal with the kind of scandal that is at present going on in this area. If we can, so much the better. It may be that it would be a case for the declaration by the Home Secretary of a small sanctuary in the area—but I do not wish to prejudge the way in which we might be able to deal with it. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, that we will look into this matter sympathetically to see whether anything can be done.
  EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, replies, I should like to say that I hope the result of the noble Viscount's inquiry into this matter will be that he will chance his arm and insert the Amendment. The story we have just heard of the killing of seventy-three geese in an hour is one of sheer, wanton slaughter. We must do our best to stop that sort of thing. I believe the noble Viscount will find that there is no reason in law why we should not prohibit the use of decoys or stuffed specimens in the case of geese, without doing it in the case

  843
  of duck. This Amendment certainly has my blessing, and I hope that, as a result of the further consideration which is given to it, the Amendment will be accepted.
  LORD TERRINGTON: I should like to suggest that if there is no reason in law why we should not prohibit the use of decoys in the case of geese, without doing it in the case of duck, there is also no reason in practice, any more than there is any reason why some birds should be put into the "prohibited" Schedule and others left out. I feel that, both in law and in practice, it is a reasonable proposition.
  THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for saying he will look into the matter. I meant the decoys to refer only to geese, and not to ducks or pigeons. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.34 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided also that nothing in paragraph (d) of this subsection shall prohibit the use for the purpose of killing wildfowl of a shot-gun of which the barrel exceeds the measurement prescribed in the said paragraph and which was manufactured and in the possession of the person using, the same before the third day of November, 1953."
  The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment we come back to the punt gunner. I confess that I agree with what has already been said about the punt gun and the punt gunner. I have no personal experience of, or liking for, the punt gun, and I am glad to hear that it is not employed at all in Scotland. On the other hand, the spirit of compromise in this Bill must, I think, be upheld on behalf of the few existing punt gunners who might be affected by this clause of the Bill, and it is in fairness to them that I move this Amendment. I understand that there are only six or seven existing punt gunners to whom this clause would apply, and I therefore move the Amendment on their account. The purpose is to preclude hardship to any punt gunner whose existing gun exceeds the prescribed measurement. While it is not considered that new guns larger than those should be licensed, it is felt equitable to permit the use of those now in use. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: We must remember that this is a Bill for the better protection of birds, both ducks and geese. On that account, I do not feel able to accept this Amendment. If there are any guns exceeding one and three-quarter inches in diameter, I feel they ought not to be used any longer. That being so, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved to omit Clause 4. The noble and learned Earl said: I should like to tell your Lordships exactly why I move this Amendment. As we know, this proposed legislation started by being a Government Bill, but it has now become a Private Member's Bill. I have had a great deal of experience, and so has the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and between us we can think over a good many years of legislation both in this House and in the other place. Now that this is a Private Member's Bill, I would beg the noble Viscount to go in for a course of slimming and to throw out a great many of the matters which do not closely relate to the protection of birds. He said just now that we must always remember that this is a Bill for the protection of birds. We have here Clause 4 (1) (d) about which nobody has said anything. By that paragraph we prohibit the use of
  "a shotgun which is constructed or adapted to hold more than two cartridges at a time, whether in a barrel or in a magazine. …"
  What is the point of that? The Americans use guns of this sort, and they are much cheaper to buy than the ordinary gun. If I were a bird and I had to be shot, I do not think I should mind very much whether I was shot by an ordinary 12-bore shotgun or by one of these other guns. So far as getting in your shot is concerned, I should have thought that an experienced shot, with a good loader and two guns, would get in just as many shots as somebody using this type of gun. Absolutely nothing has been said about this gun. Only once in

  845
  my life have I seen one of these guns in use. I do not know whether they are more cruel than any other sort of gun, but by this paragraph we prohibit the use of this gun. Why should that be?
  It may well be that somebody in another place will dislike this provision, and some agitation will be raised about it. I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary, in a Private Member's Bill for the protection of birds, which has my most cordial good wishes and support, to put in a provision of this kind. The more provisions such as this that we have in the Bill, the more we offer up hostages to fortune, and the more difficult it becomes to get the Bill through. I should feel much happier about the chances of this Bill if some of these provisions were thrown out. I have no objection to any of the items contained in this clause—I know nothing about them. I have never heard of anybody taking a wild bird in any form of artificial light, except that I have known a torch to be used after the evening flight to pick up, not only—mark you, my Lords—dead birds, but a bird which is not necessarily dead and which it is right should be picked up. I have never known people shoot from mechanically-propelled vehicles, or boats, except when the boat was stationary—although it may be done. But what is the point of it all? Is it really necessary, in a Private Member's Bill for the protection of birds, to have all these provisions? I humbly express my opinion that the chances of getting the Bill through would be far better if you left out some of these clauses and concentrated on what matters—the protection of birds. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 4.—(Earl Jowitt.)
  LORD LLOYD: I feel that I have served the Committee well by saying very little, but I must say a word on this Amendment in view of what the noble and learned Earl has just said. If I understood him aright, he concentrated his argument on one particular aspect of this clause, but I gathered that he objected to the clause in general. Perhaps we could dispose of the particular argument about what I believe is known as a pump gun, which is a magazine gun. I do not attach any sanctity to that particular subsection in this clause, and I will say this to the noble Earl: he said that
  846
  he shot during the war with various people who were not very accurate, and he said that he did not think that a bird would mind being shot at with one of those guns. If some people had one of these guns I think he would mind being a bird, because they bring them clown one after another. Therefore, from the bird's point of view, there is something in prohibiting these magazine guns.
  On the general question, the noble and learned Earl is quite right when he says that this was originally intended to be a Government Bill. Everybody has said in the past—and it is true—that the law about all wild birds, and the protection of wild birds, is in a hopeless state of confusion, and we must all admit this. The demand has therefore been made that we should have one Act of Parliament to which any sensible man could go to find out the law about wild birds. May I take this particular clause, Very little of it is pure consolidation. This clause is in most respects re-enactment and extension of the existing law. For example, the only parts of this Bill which could have been left out, on the ground that they do not materially alter the existing law, are Clause 4 (1) (c), Clause 7 and Clause 5 (1) (a), with the Fourth Schedule. To take the last clause as an example, it is an advantage to include it in the Bill if only because the Secretary of State will have, under Clause 8, a power to vary the Fourth Schedule, and this is a power which he does not now possess. I do not think Clause 7 is contentious, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by leaving it out. Far the rest, we take the existing law and amend it.
  How are we going to do that? There are only two things we can do. One is to introduce a Bill of this kind, and if your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that we have repealed no fewer than fifteen complete Acts of Parliament and parts of several more. The only other way is to amend existing Acts of Parliament, which inevitably means legislation by reference; and this, I think, in view of what has been said about wild bird legislation, is the last thing we want. Here, if I may, I should like to quote something which the noble and learned Earl once said to me on some Regulations which I brought before this House. The noble

  847
  and learned Earl said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 179, col. 1066):
  "… it is not a matter of the substance of the regulations; it is a matter of the form. The principle at issue, as noble Lords on all sides of the House maintain, is that when this House is asked to pass a regulation, an ordinary intelligent reader, on reading the regulation, ought to be able to know what it is all about."
  I do not blame him for saying that—I think he was absolutely right. I do not think anybody could have understood that particular regulation, for it was a complicated one. But does that not apply equally to this Bill about wild birds, and do we not want an Act to which the ordinary intelligent man can go and find what is the law about wild birds?
  If we are to do that, then we have to re-enact these various measures which are in other wild bird protection Acts of the past. We cannot avoid that. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that this is the only way in which we can tackle this problem. The noble Earl may say to me: "You could legislate by reference, by amendment, and then it could be consolidated." I concede that that is perfectly possible, but in the meantime what happens? There is, as the noble Earl knows as well as anybody, a long list of legislation to be consolidated. This will have to take its place, and nobody can say how long it will be before those who are consolidating can get round to this particular set of laws. In the meantime, not only should we have the existing fifteen Acts of Parliament which are being repealed, but one more which, I suggest, would be just as obscure, complicated and difficult to understand as any of its predecessors. For that reason, I hope that my noble friend will resist this Amendment, because I think that, from the point of view of the general public, no good object would be served by trying to mutilate the Bill in this way.
  6.48 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: I certainly shall not press this Amendment to a Division. There is an important point here, and I want the noble Lord to bear it in mind. I believe that this is the worst way of introducing legislation. Take Clause 4 (1) (a). Is there any noble Lord sitting on these Benches who knows to what extent that is existing law—what is new
  848
  in it and what is old? I say, quite frankly, that I certainly do not. I think that the Committee, when they are asked to pass a thing of this sort, ought to be told to what extent we are making new law. Is this all old law? Take, for instance, the business of a poisoned or stupefying bait. I believe that the only effective way of getting rid of magpies is to use a poisoned egg. There are hundreds of people who are using a poisoned egg, because a magpie, a jay or a carrion crow is the sort of bird that will take the eggs: the other birds will not. That is done up and down the country. Is that illegal or not? I am sure I do not know. Have you to get the consent of somebody or not? We are asked to pass this clause making it an offence in future to use poisoned or stupefying bait. It is true that you can get a licence from the Home Secretary, but that is a cumbrous sort of way of getting rid of your magpies, and we do not know where we are.
  It is a point of great importance that in future we should not be asked to pass legislation of this sort in a Private Member's Bill. We do not know what we are doing—whether we are altering or extending the law. No one can tell us, and I suggest that this is a great mistake. I suggest, further, that if only you would give up this clause, and some of the other clauses we are coming to in a moment, it would simplify the passage of this Bill enormously, because, although we are anxious to get it through here, all these clauses make it difficult to get it through another place. Although I do not press my Amendment now, I hope that what I have said will be considered, to see whether there is a chance of improving the prospects of this Bill. If you can avoid difficulty, by jettisoning some parts which do not very closely bear on the birds, I hope that it will be done. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Restrictions on sale of live and dead wild birds, eggs, etc.
  5.—(l) If, save as may be authorised by a licence granted under section nine of this Act, any person sells, offers for sale or has in his possession for sale—

  (a) any live wild bird, being a bird included in the Fourth Schedule to this Act of a species which is resident in or visits

  849
  the British Isles in a wild state, other than a close-ringed specimen shown to have been bred in captivity;

  (b) an egg (including a blown egg) of a wild bird of any species which has nested in the British Isles in a wild state;

  he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and, if the offence was committed in respect of a bird included in the First Schedule to this Act or in respect of the egg, skin or plumage of such a bird, shall be liable to a special penalty.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1) (a), to omit "shown to have been." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I do not think has any great significance. What we have done with regard to cage birds is to put into the Bill the existing provisions of the 1933 Act. In the existing provisions these words: "shown to have been" do not appear. The fact that we had put in a new adjective made all the cage bird people very nervous. They wondered if there was some ulterior motive in the words—but there was not. The safeguard is that all cage birds have to be ringed; they are ringed when they are very young—that is the only way to ring them. That is the test. Therefore, in my view, these words are unnecessary; and as they have worried the cage bird industry I think it is better to take there out.
  I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 24, leave out ("shown to have been").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  EARL JOWITT: I take it the cage bird people thought that in some way it shifted the onus.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: That is so.
  EARL JOWITT: If they want the words left out I have no objection to this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.54 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT had given Notice of his intention to move in subsection 1 (b), after "egg," where that words occurs a first time, to insert "other than a gull's egg." The noble and learned Earl said: This is an Amendment upon which I was going to spend some time, but in view of the next Amendment on the List I
  850
  think it is unnecessary for me to say anything. For a long time past now, since the war, we have enjoyed in the proper season the use of gulls' eggs, and I was amazed to see that, for some reason I did not appreciate, that was going to be made a criminal offence. That seems to be "misery for the sake of misery." I personally do not like gulls' eggs, but some people do. I should have thought that if there was any question of gulls decreasing in numbers it would be a different matter; but simply to prohibit the use of gulls' eggs for no apparent reason seems to me to be quite wrong. The fact is that some of the enthusiasts on this subject, people from whom we get much help, rather allow their enthusiasm sometimes to run away with them. I am far from suggesting that that applies to any of your Lordships—obviously it does not. There is a danger, however, that some people may get too enthusiastic and come to regard it as a terrible offence to eat an egg at all. But now that the noble Viscount has put down his Amendment, which exactly meets the case—I wanted only to preserve the right to eat gulls'eggs—I am perfectly prepared to accept his Amendment and not move mine.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I beg to move this Amendment. I think it carries out what is in the noble and learned Earl's mind.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  "Provided that, in the case of an egg of a black-headed gull, greater black-backed gull, lesser black-backed gull herring gull or common gull, a person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection if the purpose for which the egg is sold, offered for sale or in his possession for sale is the purpose of human consumption."—(Viscount Templewood.)
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like to say a word on this Amendment. Surely this is a Bill to preserve the birds and not to eat their eggs. It seems to me that the gastronomic ideas of some people have overcome what we are really trying to accomplish. The noble and learned Earl said that he had not heard that gulls had gone down in numbers; but the number of gulls killed by oil in the last twenty years is something appalling. If people want to eat gulls' eggs, there is no more to be said: but I do not like it I shall not vote against the

  851
  Amendment, but I would draw attention to my noble friend's wording. I know of a sanctuary, a very big one, in which there is a black-headed gull's nesting place. What is going to happen there? That point surely needs looking into. On the other hand, the black-backed and the lesser black-backed gull are carrion of the worst type. Is any one going to eat their eggs? I should be sorry to do so. There are, in fact, very few of them and I do not think they should be included.
  EARL JOWITT: I should like to make my position quite clear. If anyone told me that the gull was decreasing in numbers I should certainly not eat the eggs. Presumably nobody eats gulls' eggs merely for the fun of doing it. If the noble Earl tells me that there is a danger of the serious diminution of any species, I am with him heart and soul; but unless he case is made out on that basis, then I am in favour of making hay while the sun is shining.
  THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I quite appreciate the noble and learned Earl's point. There is another matter which I want to mention, and that concerns the terns. We must be careful that the terns are not forgotten. This Amendment refers only to gulls, but there is in the public mind very little difference between gulls' eggs and terns' eggs. Surely we must safeguard that matter: it would be serious if we did not do so. I ask the noble Viscount whether he will look into that question.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I will certainly look into anything into which the noble Earl asks me to look. I cannot believe, however, that there is any danger of these quite common species of gulls decreasing. My experience is that they have increased out of all measure in my lifetime. It may well be that in certain places black-headed gulls, for instance, are breeding and mating under protection, and in that event I think it would be a case for a sanctuary. My own experience, even of the black-headed gull in Norfolk, is that it is increasing very much and that there is no risk of danger to it. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with this very careful Amendment.
  LORD GIFFORD: I take it that this Bill does not overrule the idea of sanctuary.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Not at all.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  6.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I think it would be for the general convenience if we adjourned the Committee stage now, and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL
  7.0 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, who unfortunately has been called away, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of the Bill is to enable money to be provided for the development of Post Office services, the actual rate of expenditure in any one year being, of course, subject to Treasury approval. The previous Money Act, which provided for the issue of up to £75 million, received the Royal Assent in July, 1952. As your Lordships will see, the present Bill provides for £125 million, the increase being needed partly because the Post Office programme in the next two years will be higher than in recent years, partly because the capital provision in the Bill is intended to last for a longer period and partly also because of the general increase in price levels.
  Of the total amount provided for by the Bill, my noble friend expects to spend £116 million on the development of the telephone service. At present, there are 383,000 people waiting for telephones, as compared with 485,000 people when this Government assumed office, and I hope that the number will be down to 350,000 or 360,000 by the end of the present financial year. If it had not been for the storms in Scotland and the East Coast floods, we should, of course, have been able to do much better. That waiting list has got to come down a

  853
  great deal further. On the other hand, I must tell you that the size of the waiting list is not the real criterion by which the success of telephone development should be judged. It is not always realised that new applications for telephones come along all the time. In the past quarter alone, over 100,000 fresh applications were received. A year's new demand is, in fact, as large as the present waiting list. Like the Red Queen, we have to run very fast to stay where we are. That is the real measure of our problem and the number of exchange connections provided each year is, in many ways, the real measure of our achievement. This year, we hope to provide 50,000 more exchange connections than we did last year, and the total number supplied this year will be as many as 365,000. The rate of installation is 50 per cent. greater than it was before the war.
  We are catching up, though we still have a long way to go. Excluding what we are spending on defence (a little over one-quarter of the total), the figure this year will be about £4 million more than last year. Next year, it will be up by another £5 million, and my noble friend looks forward to a steady improvement—but he emphasises the word "steady". When new exchanges are needed they take a considerable time to provide. Where new cables are needed they also take time, though less than do exchanges. Above all, we must get back to orderly development, instead of the piecemeal development to which we have been driven by the war and the shortages after the war. But, taking all factors into account, with larger financial resources at his disposal, he is looking forward to a progressive stepping up in the number of telephones put in, although the actual waiting list must depend very largely on the rate at which new applications continue to come in.
  There is one further point that my noble friend asked me to emphasise. It is, of course, no use putting people on the telephone and then not being able to handle their calls. The number of telephones is now nearly double what it was before the war, and two and a half times as many trunk calls are made. We have therefore, in the first place, to devote some of our additional resources to developing our
  854
  basic equipment for carrying the constant and ever-increasing traffic. The quality of the trunk service, I think noble Lords will agree, is at present high, and it is my noble friend's earnest intention to keep it so, in view of how much efficient and quick trunk communications mean to the business and industrial community. There are also considerable arrears of building work to be overtaken, not only for telephone exchanges but also for the postal service.
  The present Money Bill is required to provide the additional capital needed to finance these important developments in the next two years. That is the broad outline of the intention of this Bill. I do not think it is in any way contentious and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a suitable and convenient time to pay tribute to the very good work that has been done, and is being done, by the staff' of the Post Office in difficult conditions. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, We should be grateful to noble Earl for his remarks in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Our first reaction is to congratulate the Minister, the Postmaster General, on having secured a larger allocation of capital for the development of his service. We hope that that will be devoted, as he says, to overcoming the arrears of capital works which will enable the telephone service to continue the steady expansion that has marked it ever since the war. This is not the time, your Lordships will agree, for anything like a general review of the work of the Department, but I suggest—and I think many of your Lordships will agree—that there should be a day, in the year which we can devote to a full debate on the subject of the Post Office and a fuller review than is possible at the moment or than that which the noble Earl has given us of the work of the Department. Many things came out in the speech of the Assistant Postmaster General in another place dealing not only with the details of the working of the Post Office but with matters of general policy. So I hope that the Postmaster General will agree that we should have a full debate, with fuller information than we have at the moment. I should like

  855
  to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the congratulations to the staff of the Post Office on the way in which they have carried out their duties. Subject to what I have said, we agree to, and shall not oppose, the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl far the way in which he has received this Bill. As he says, the speech with which the Bill was introduced was a short résuméof the Bill itself, and not a discussion of the general workings of the Post Office for the last year. That is what my noble friend intended it to be on this occasion, but he has authorised me to say that he will be only too pleased to have a full debate on the Post Office at a time convenient to your Lordships.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  7.9 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. To your Lordships, the Second Reading of this Bill is obviously not an event of great consequence. To me, however, this is something of an occasion, for it is the first time that any of my family has spoken from this Dispatch Box. Moreover, it is 182 years since one of my family last spoke for the Government in another place, when my great-great-great-grandfather, Sir Edward Hawke, defended in his last speech the naval policy of Lord North's Administration. That is a long interval and I hope your Lordships will not think that I am making up for lost time in presenting a Bill calling for the expenditure of £500 million.
  A Bill of this nature is produced more or less every year to enable the National Debt Commissioners to put the Public Works Loan Commissioners in funds, to enable them to make loans to local authorities and other bodies for housing, education and so on. In addition, this Bill enables the Board to make commitments to lend in advance of the actual lending. We are asking that there shall be
  856
  power to advance up to £500 million in cash, with the proviso that advances plus commitments shall not exceed £1,200 million at any one time. The existing authority, the Public Works Loans Act, 1952, was passed nearly a year ago, giving authority for advances of £500 million, with a total limit on advances plus commitments of £1,050 million. Of this authority there is still a margin of advances, as only some £364 million has been paid out against the limit of £500 million. But commitments of another £608 million bring the total of advances plus commitments to £972 million, which is getting rather near the total authority of £1,050 million, which at the present rate would expire probably early in January. For this reason it is necessary to present this Bill now. Any balance of last year's authority to make loans lapses on the passing of the new Act, and new loans start to be made both as the result of the commitments which carry forward or from fresh commitments entered into.
  When this Bill becomes law we may well be carrying forward over £600 million of commitments, and therefore we decided to ask for a rather larger total limit this year—£1,200 million instead of £1,050 million—although we propose to keep the figure of £500 million for advances. Whether, in the outcome, this figure will last exactly a year, we cannot tell; it is our best guess, having regard to all the circumstances. If we prove to be wrong, no great harm results, because the next Bill can be presented either earlier or later than a year ahead. I should like to emphasise that this Bill in no way whatever controls the capital programme of the local authorities; it merely enables them to have a source of cash to borrow. I therefore hope that it will be a non-contentious Bill. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hawke.)
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Box. I do not know whether he regards this as a sort of rehabilitation of the family fortune; if he does, he has certainly succeeded. He spoke with complete assurance and in an entirely uncontroversial manner, and on personal grounds I

  857
  wish him every possible success in the future. As the noble Lord rightly said, this is a Bill in more or less common form. It is introduced from time to time, roughly at intervals of about a year, and it in no wise controls the capital expenditure of the local authorities.
  There are just three points I should like to make. In the first place, this is, I think, the first Bill since local authorities were given freedom to borrow elsewhere. I should have thought that that freedom would have been hardly necessary if there had been rather more flexibility in the conditions under which the Public Works Loan Board were allowed to lend money to local authorities. As noble Lords are aware, before they can borrow money at all, local authorities have to get loan sanction from the appropriate Minister, and it is the custom, at the same time as they apply for loan sanction, to apply for a loan to the Public Works Loan Board. The loan sanction is accompanied by a statement of the period over which the loan has to be repaid. It is a maximum period—in the case of housing it is normally sixty years; in the case of other services it may depend upon the estimated life of the work which is required to be done. But the Public Works Loan Board were apparently instructed in 1946 that they must never lend money for a shorter period than the period of the loan sanction, so that if a local authority wants to repay a loan, say a housing loan, in a shorter period than sixty years, the Public Works Loan Board are not allowed to agree to such an arrangement; and in that case the local authority is compelled to go outside to raise its money.
  There may be a variety of reasons why the local authority may want to repay the loan earlier than the period of the loan sanction, but they cannot do it—and for a curious reason. The reason given is that in a number of cases there is a subsidy attached to the particular service, and this subsidy may be on a percentage basis—that is, on a percentage of the loan charges; and if the repayment is over a shorter period, it automatically increases the actual loan charge, and would thereby increase the Government subsidy. This is a very small point, however, and it applies to not more than 10 per cent. of the expenditure of the local authorities. Most of the expenditure is
  858
  by way of a fixed subsidy, as in the case of housing. This is really a sore point among local authorities, and although I know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are aware of this point, and are discussing it, it has been a matter for complaint over a number of years. I trust that the noble Lord will convey to those who instruct him the hope that this will be settled in the very near future, and that more flexibility will be permitted to the Public Works Loan Board in that respect.
  My second point is that, for a reason which I do not understand, the Board charge a fee of 4s. for every £100 advanced. On the £500 million which is sought to be secured under this Bill, the fees will amount to £1 million. If it could be stated that that is to reimburse the Public Works Loan Board for their expenses, there world he no comment, but the expenses of the Public Works Loan Board amount to about £70,000 a year. There seems to be no reason why they should charge £l million in fees to the local authorities, in respect of these advances. In addition, the Government charge 5s. per £100 as stamp duty in respect of these loans. That again, altogether, amounts to 9s. per £100, to be paid away for no apparent reason, and is another sore point among the local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to go to his masters on that point as well.
  Lastly, there is the question of commitments. The commitments on this occasion, together with the amount available for advances, are to be £1,200 million. As I said earlier, every time that a local authority gets a loan sanction, or applies for a loan sanction, it applies automatically for a loan from the Public Works Loan Board, whether, in fact, it needs to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board or not. In a number of cases, the local authorities have no intention of borrowing from the Board. Nevertheless, that is put down as a commitment, so the Public Works Loan Board has am enormous number of commitments which it is never likely to be called upon to fulfil. In fact, this figure of £1,200 million is entirely unrealistic. Nevertheless, it governs the duration of this Bill As soon as the £1,200 million of commitments has been exceeded, whether it is

  859
  likely to be spent or not, another Bill has to be introduced. It is not a very serious point, but in dealing with these astronomical figures it is just as well to be realistic, and the figure of £1,200 million is not a realistic figure of the commitments of the Public Works Loan Board. My Lords, those are three points—not major points but points of comment on this Bill. On the need for the Bill, and on the merits, there can be no possible argument, and we shall put no difficulty in the way of its passage through this House.
  7.22 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the kind words which he said about me personally. I should also like to thank him for giving me notice, more or less, of the points which he was going to raise. I hope to be able to satisfy him on them. First, let us take the question of repayment of these loans before the fixed time upon which they were granted. As he says, there are two sorts of works generally involved. One sort of work attracts a percentage grant from the Government; the other sort of work attracts a fixed grant from the Government. As Lord Silkin says, when a loan in respect of work carrying a percentage grant from the Government is paid off earlier than expected, the instalments are larger than expected, the percentage is larger than expected, and a larger sum falls on the Exchequer than was to be expected.
  I think the noble Lord must admit that from the point of view of accurate estimating, accurate budgeting and general tidy financing, it is rather important to know what the amount of these grants is going to be from year to year. If local authorities are going to pay back unexpectedly in shorter periods, it does make the position very difficult for the Chancellor. But, of course, as the noble Lord says, those particular types of works are not the majority. The majority are types of works which carry a specific subsidy—housing in particular. There the same argument could not apply. My right honourable friend has been in consultation with local authorities for some little time to see whether the local and administrative difficulties which undoubtedly exist can be cleared up, and though it is too early yet to say
  860
  whether the outcome will be entirely favourable, I think I can say that some of the difficulties seem to be dissolving. I think that answers the point with regard to works which carry a fixed subsidy. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the arguments which the noble Lord has advanced in respect of those works which carry a percentage subsidy.
  As to commitments, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that the figure of commitments is entirely unrealistic. Well, it is difficult to prove or disprove that statement, because no one really knows. Local authorities do not know from time to time which of these commitments they really intend to take up as loans in the end. In some cases a commitment can disappear because the work is not proceeded with. In other cases, it can disappear because the money has been raised locally or through a bank. In other cases, the local authorities can go to the Stock Market, and that commitment then becomes a dead one. We have no compulsory powers to compel local authorities to notify the Board when they regard a commitment as dead. From time to time, however, Treasury circulars go out to the local authorities, if there is any reason to believe that the list has become rather swollen. One went out fairly recently; I understand that, as a result, some £50 million of commitments was knocked off. But up to date we have not been embarrassed, because this year, for instance, we still have authority which will carry us over the normal year which is the lifetime of this Bill. So one cannot say that we have really been embarrassed. As regards the fees of the Board, in the last year they were of the order of £750,000—the noble Lord was talking of the future when he talked about £1 million—and the expenses were of the order of £80,000.
  LORD SILKIN: I was making merely a simple arithmetical calculation on the basis of 4s. per £100 on the £500 million.
  LORD HAWKE: Of course the £500 million last year has not been used up. The figures are of the order of that magnitude. I admit that that is a substantial sum to come in to the Board, but it is paid straight into the Exchequer. I think one can really regard that as a contribution towards the very expensive and heavy charges that are incurred in raising the

  861
  money and administering the loans. At any rate, I will bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the fact that he promised in another place to look into this question. But the money goes into the Exchequer and is not kept by the Public Works Loan Board. I think I have answered all the points the noble Lord raised. I am sorry I cannot answer them to please him better; that is the best I can do.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  LICENSING (SEAMEN'S CANTEENS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, at this excessively late hour, I do not think I need say a great deal about this Bill. It has been sufficiently discussed and all have agreed that fundamentally it is a good measure. Therefore, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Lloyd.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a; Amendments (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  7.32 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I want to say only two words. When the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, he made special reference to a whole chain of Acts called the Tithe Acts and asked me whether they could not be considered for the purpose of consolidation by the Com-
  862
  mittee over which I preside and of which he is a member. I promised to look into the matter. I had intended to write him about it, but thinking he might be here, I considered that it would be more convenient to mention it in the House, so that it might go on the record. The position is this. These numerous Acts relate to tithe rent charge, often referred to as tithe. Tithe rent-charge was abolished in 1936, as to something like 95 per cent. of that charge. The only remaining operation of the Acts is on a residuum of antique rights so peculiar that they were excepted from the abolition in 1936—rights with which some of your Lordships are familiar, particularly in the north, such as rents on "gated and stinted pasture," "corn rents" and so on. Consolidating the Tithe Acts would be a very big task and would certainly not be worth while, in view of the tiny extent of their remaining operation. It is hoped to abolish most of these oddities under a power to do so given by the Act of 1936. I hope that information will satisfy the noble and learned Earl. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  7.34 p.m.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Committee stage of the Protection of Birds Bill will be resumed at half past three on Thursday, December 10.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.