Sitting of 27 January 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Commercial Television
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with applicants for television transmission licences with regard to the terms on which such licences are to be granted.
    Mr. G. Longdenasked the Assistant Postmaster-General to give an assurance that, under the Government's scheme for competitive television, a prospective programme company need not wait until the new corporation is set up before it can obtain information about the prospects and conditions of a contract with the corporation.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): While the terms and conditions of such a contract will, of course, be a matter for the new corporation when it is set up, my noble Friend would be glad to have preliminary talks with any individuals or bodies who are thinking of entering this field. He has, in fact, already met a few of them.
    Mr. Fletcher: Can the Minister tell us who are the few with whom he has had discussions, because this is a matter of great public interest? Is Lord Beaver-brook and the "Express" group one of those interests with whom talks have taken place? Is it intended that such a company should be able to have news programmes as well as other programmes?
    Mr. Gammans: For the reasons I gave to the House a short time ago, it would not be proper for me at this stage to give names.
    Hon. Members: Why not?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Minister not aware that a Bill is to come before the House in which all the terms and conditions are to be laid down? Is it not highly improper to have these secret talks with interested parties before this House is given an opportunity of discussing the matter?
    Mr. Gammans: I did not say secret discussions. They are not secret in the real sense of the word; they are confidential discussions.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If they are not secret, will the hon. Gentleman disclose the names of the people with whom he has had discussions?
    Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. For the reasons I have already given to the House, I am not prepared, while discussing the matter with them, to give any names at all.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) whether he proposes to permit news programmes and political programmes on commercial television; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure a fair balance of political opinion on the boards of programme companies;
    (2) how far he intends to prevent advertisers from influencing commercial television programme; and whether he will prevent directors of companies which advertise on television from being directors of television programme companies.
    Mr. Gammans: I would ask the hon. Members to await the publication of the Television Bill.
    Mr. Mayhew: Meanwhile, may I ask the Minister to give a general assurance that he is not going to grant licences to groups of Conservative Party supporters?
    Mr. Gammans: At this stage, I am not prepared to give any assurances that I have not already given to the House.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that this is really an extraordinary attitude? Surely, it is elementary that the Government will have a responsibility to secure absolute political impartiality? [An Hon. Member: "Why?"] For the purpose of the record, let the Minister note that one of his own supporters asks "Why?" Surely, it is elementary that he must guarantee

    1725
    political impartiality? May I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General why, instead of going on with this silly business, he does not concentrate on protecting the mailbags in the interests of the public?
    Mr. Gammans: A guarantee has already been given to this House that strict impartiality will be maintained.
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps his Department are taking to ensure that, when parliamentary approval is obtained for the institution of a system of commercial television, the necessary transmitters, lines and other equipment will be swiftly available.
    Mr. Gammans: While, in general, final decisions will have to await the setting up of the new corporation, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our best—within our statutory powers—to help the corporation to get off to a good start, and, to that end, we propose to maintain continuous contact with the radio industry on the many problems involved.
    Sir I. Fraser: My hon. Friend says "We shall do our best," and that they propose this and that. What is he doing now, because, unless these transmitters are ordered straight away and the trade are informed in good time, we shall never get the system going in time?
    Mr. Gammans: We cannot order transmitters in advance of the authority of this House.

    Continental Programmes
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what negotiations foreign television authorities have had with him with a view to making possible direct television broadcasts to this country from the Continent.
    Mr. Gammans: None, Sir.
    Colonel Clarke: May I ask the Minister whether he anticipates that foreign broadcasting stations capable of making direct television broadcasts to this country are likely to be established in the fairly near future?
    Mr. Gammans: I should doubt it in the fairly near future. There are considerable technical difficulties in the way.

    Interference
    Mr. Osborneasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that interference from the Waltham Naval Wireless Station with the reception of television programmes in the district has become worse in the past few weeks; and what further steps he proposes to take to end it.
    Mr. Gammans: The recent interference was caused by a new service operated from this station. The trouble has been dealt with, and reception again appears to be satisfactory.
    Mr. Osborne: While my constituents recognise the difficulties that must arise in connection with this wireless station, may I ask my hon. Friend to have the position watched carefully, because, although it has been put right once or twice, I am told it has got much worse in the last week or two?
    Mr. Gammans: If my hon. Friend assures me that the position has again deteriorated, I will, of course, have another look at it.
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how far the treatment of a section of the electric railway between Lancaster and Heysham by engineers of his Department to eliminate interference with television reception continues to be satisfactory; and if he will extend the treatment to adjoining sections of the line.
    Mr. Gammans: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that the treated section of this line continues to be satisfactory. Other sections which cause interference will be similarly treated as soon as possible.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents are grateful for the very great trouble which his Department and the local engineers have taken in this matter? Will he press on with this reform?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the continuing interference with television reception in the new town area of Kelvedon, Essex; what steps have been taken to deal with this interference; and what

    1727
    prospects there are of an early improvement.
    Mr. Gammans: The trouble to which the hon. Member refers comes from nearby high voltage electricity supply apparatus, and arrangements are in hand with the local electricity supply authority to trace and cure it. Trouble occurred on this line about a year ago when, by our joint efforts, we succeeded in improving reception for some months. I hope that it will be possible to effect a permanent improvement soon.

    Reception, Dundee (Light Programme)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to improve reception of the Light Programme in the Dundee area.
    Mr. Gammans: I understand from the B.B.C. that reception on long wave transmission is reasonably good with a satisfactory outdoor aerial, but I shall be pleased to investigate any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there are widespread complaints in Dundee over this matter because many local people feel that although they buy a licence for a service they are simply not receiving it? Would not the Government be better employed in devoting money to bringing this service to the citizens of Dundee rather than to commercial television, which will never reach the city anyhow?
    Mr. Gammans: I have given the hon. Gentleman a promise that if he cares to let me have particulars of any unsatisfactory long wave reception I shall certainly have the matter investigated. It must be long wave reception because Dundee is not likely to get good reception on medium wave lengths.

    Northern Ireland Transmitters
    Captain Orrasked the Assistant Postmaster-General upon what grounds he bases his estimate of 1955 as the year during which the permanent television transmitter for Northern Ireland will come into service; and what estimate he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation on the matter.
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the estimate I
    1728
    gave him in my reply of 9th December represents the opinion of the B.B.C. and is based on information furnished by them.
    Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that the B.B.C. is apparently speaking with two voices, because the Director-General and the Regional Controller for Northern Ireland have already given us 1954 as the year in which this permanent transmitter will come into use? What is the cause of the difference of a year? What have the Post Office to hide in this matter?
    Mr. Gammans: We have not anything to hide, so far as I am aware. If my hon. and gallant Friend will be good enough to let me have particulars of any discrepancies, I will certainly ask the B.B.C. whether they can give me any explanation.

    Very High Frequency Modulation
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the steps the Government propose to take upon the recent report on very high frequency radio transmissions and the frequency-modulation system.
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Assistant Postmaster General if, in view of the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation' spresent plan to relay existing sound programmes on very high frequencies will cost £3,500,000 of licence money and will cost the public £20 per set if they wish to receive these relays, he will submit the matter to the Television Advisory Committee, or some other expert committee, before coming to a decision.
    Mr. Greyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the construction of a station for very high frequency sound broadcasting for the North-East is to commence.
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps are being taken regarding the introduction of very high frequency broadcasting in North-East England.
    Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend is considering the recommendation of the Television Advisory Committee that frequency modulation should be adopted for very high frequency sound broadcasting.
    Sir I. Fraser: There is another part of the Question, namely whether the Government are considering the use of very high frequencies. That is not quite the same as to say that if they are used frequency modulation will be used on them. Can my hon. Friend answer that part of the Question and give me an assurance for my constituency that if these 50 small local stations are put up Morecambe will be considered, because it has never had good ordinary sound radio?
    Mr. Gammans: In this general consideration my noble Friend has to consider not only which form of modulation has to be adopted but the whole question of the V.H.F. broadcasting.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Germans have some 70 V.H.F. stations operating and they have introduced this system with very much more economy than is suggested in the B.B.C. £3½ million plan? Could my hon. Friend place a copy of this plan in the Library so that hon. Members on all sides can have a look at it and see whether the plan is being introduced in the most reasonable manner?
    Mr. Gammans: That is one of the reasons why my noble Friend is considering this matter further. With regard to the scheme being placed in the Library, I am answering a Question about that later on.
    Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the North-East does get a station for very high frequency broadcasting it will mean that the people in the area will have to pay extra money for their wireless sets? Does not he think that one of the wavelengths used for the Third Programme could be better used for the North-East and that the Third Programme should be transmitted on very high frequency?
    Mr. Gammans: That is an entirely different Question, but the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the cost of new sets is one of the matters which we are considering at the moment.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how far the Television Advisory Committee's technical committee were limited in their recommendation on the form of modulation to be adopted, by the needs only of
    1730
    the British Broadcasting Corporation, and excluding the need of universities and like bodies to establish very high frequency broadcasting systems.
    Mr. Gammans: The recommendation to adopt frequency modulation applies whether very high frequency broadcasting stations are set up by educational authorities or not.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last part of the final recommendation of the Committee they say that it is based upon a small number of stations, but that, if provision is to be made for universities, that recommendation does not hold the field? Will the Minister take that into account?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, I will.
    Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in view of the continuing failure of F.M. broadcasting in the United States, he will consider making an offer to purchase all the obsolete F.M. sets there for use in this country?
    Mr. Gammans: That is a proposition with which I could not possibly agree.

    New Television Stations
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Assistant Postmaster-General on what waveband the six new television stations will operate; and what will be their power and aerial polarisation.
    Mr. Fellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what areas the British Broadcasting Corporation propose to erect 2 kilowatt television transmitters; and the areas for which 5 kilowatt television transmitters are proposed.
    Mr. Gammans: All six stations will operate on Band I, i.e. between 41 and 68 megacycles per second. The power to be radiated from the permanent station near Norwich will vary with the direction of radiation, with a probable maximum of 15 kilowatts. The power of the other five stations has still to be determined. Horizontal polarisation will be used in each case.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does not this reply suggest that the B.B.C.'s application for extra wavelengths in Band III for their first programme was based on false premises?
    Mr. Gammans: It was considered at one time that they might have to go into Band III, but now, I am glad to say, they have gone into Band I.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that the B.B.C. has only been induced to go into Band I as the result of pressure put upon it and that probably a far better picture would be obtained by going into Band III?
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that. No pressure whatever has been brought to bear on the B.B.C. to go into Band I.
    Mr. Fell: Can the Minister say whether, if this transmitter is to operate on Band I, it is necessary to have a temporary transmitter at all? My information is that a transmitter of the required power on Band I could be available more or less at any time that the B.B.C. wants it.
    Mr. Gammans: That is not my information. It is usual in all cases to have a stand-by transmitter.
    Mr. Hargreaves: In the consideration given to this matter, will it be borne in mind that people living in the area covered by the six stations to which the Minister has referred depend upon V.H.F. for receiving sound radio? At the moment they are neglected, and, therefore, it is a matter of urgency that a decision should be reached.
    Mr. Gammans: I am not sure whether I understand the hon. Gentleman aright. We are talking about television, not sound radio.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if the effective radius of the new Inverness television station will include Caithness and Sutherland.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what will be the range of the proposed television station at Inverness, and when it is likely to be established.
    Mr. Gammans: Until the site, power and frequencies of this station are settled, the B.B.C. cannot say what area will be served, but is unlikely to include any substantial part of Caithness and Sutherland. It is too early to say when the station is likely to be established.
    Sir D. Robertson: What is the object of building a station so close to Caithness and Sutherland with a totally inadequate radius? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Government are making a big effort to stop de-population, which is the greatest of all Highland problems? Will not the Post Office do something to make it easier for people to live there if they want to?
    Mr. Gammans: I have never disguised from the House my belief that we can never give 100 per cent. television coverage and that some parts of the country must necessarily be excluded. I quite accept what the hon. Gentleman says about depopulation, but we could not possibly hope to cover all parts of the country.
    Mr. Rankin: Could the Minister tell us if there is any reason why the Inverness station should not cover the rest of the North of Scotland?
    Mr. Gammans: Because of the whole question of distance and the limited use of wavelengths.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Surely a station properly placed in Inverness would go very far to covering the whole of the North of Scotland? Can the Assistant Postmaster-General give some idea when the project is likely to commence, because the news last week was very heartening to the people in the North?
    Mr. Gammans: I only announced last week that it was going to be commenced, and I do not think that my noble Friend would expect me to be more specific about the location within a week. As to the area covered by the station, that must depend on where the station is located.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the hon. Gentleman consider leaving the Inverness station to commercial enterprise?
    Major McCallum: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General think that, in spite of the mountain ranges, when this station is established North Argyll will be covered by it?
    Mr. Gammans: I should doubt it very much.

    Development Programme
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total amount of capital involved in the

    1733
    approved British Broadcasting Corporation television expansion plan and the proposed British Broadcasting Corporation sound development programme submitted to the Television Advisory Committee; and the amount estimated to be involved in the provision of commercial television.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. estimates that the capital cost of the 14 television stations now in course of construction or planned will be about £2,300,000. The Corporation's latest proposals for 56 V.H.F. sound broadcasting transmitters would cost some £2 million. As to the last part of the Question, I cannot add anything to what I said in the recent debate. There will be some considerable expenditure by the Post Office for television links, but at this stage I am unable to add to what I said in the debate on the Post Office Money Bill on 19th November last.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that someone is trying to keep an eye on this generally large capital expenditure, and are we really in a position to afford this casting off of all control over this form of investment when the country's economic position is not too bright?
    Mr. Gammans: I do not think there is any question of casting off all control over capital expenditure, and one of the reasons why my noble Friend wishes to reconsider this recommendation a little further is because of the expense involved.
    Mr. Fell: As V.H.F. and F.M. broadcasting has been almost a complete failure in every country in the world in which it has been tried, with the exception of Germany, will the Minister consider very carefully before embarking upon a £2 million scheme without first giving it a proper try-out in this country?
    Mr. Gammans: One of the reasons why we are considering it is because of the expense involved and because some of the matters are contentious.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottomasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will place in the Library the plan of development presented to the Television Advisory Committee by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. Reevesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will
    1734
    arrange for a copy of the British Broadcasting Corporation development programme, which was submitted to the Television Advisory Committee, to be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Gammans: I should like to place a copy of this plan in the Library, and will do so at the first opportunity, but as it has not yet been considered as a scheme of development by the Television Advisory Committee, both my noble Friend and the B.B.C. feel that it should be regarded as confidential until we have had an opportunity of considering any recommendations which the Television Advisory Committee may have on it.
    Mr. Winterbottom: In view of the difficulties which the country is experiencing at the present time in respect of both sound and television programmes, does not the hon. Gentleman think that keeping this information from Members of this House is somewhat reprehensible?
    Mr. Gammans: There is no intention whatever of keeping it from the House, but at the moment the whole question is more or less sub judice and, until a decision is reached, both the B.B.C. and my noble Friend feel that it would be premature to issue the report.

    East Anglia
    Mr. Fellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) what field tests have been carried out in East Anglia in connection with the television transmitter proposed to be erected at Tacolneston, and when Great Yarmouth can expect to receive television transmissions;
    (2) when the proposed temporary ½ kilowatt television station will be transmitting from Tacolneston; what area he expects the station to cover; and how long it will be before the proposed 2 kilowatt transmitter will replace the temporary transmitter.
    Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. hopes to provide a temporary station within 12 months to serve Norwich and its immediate surroundings. Great Yarmouth will be served by the permanent station, which is expected to be ready by early 1956. I am informed that the Corporation has not found it necessary to carry out field tests for this station.
    Mr. Fell: May I ask my hon. Friend what all that means? Why has the B.B.C. not considered it necessary to carry out field tests before announcing that a station is going to be set up in a particular area with a transmitter at a particular place? Further, why has it been announced by a B.B.C. engineer—and contradicted this afternoon by the Assistant Postmaster-General—that the temporary station at Tacolneston will be ½ kilowatt and the permanent station will be 2 kilowatt? May I further inquire why it is that this station, which has been a long time in coming, is now going to be delayed a further two years when private enterprise—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should come to the point of his supplementary.
    Mr. Fell: I will, of course, defer immediately, Sir, to your wish that I should come to the point, but unfortunately so many Questions have been answered together that there is more than one point.
    My major point is as to why it is that East Anglia—as far as my constituency, Cambridge and other parts are concerned—has to wait another two years to get television service, when private enterprise could have done it, and offered to do it, within nine to 12 months?
    Mr. Gammans: The reason why the hon. Gentleman's part of the world has to wait is because the B.B.C. has a very big programme on its plate.

  POST OFFICE

    Deliveries, Merton and Morden
    Captain Ryderasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that in certain parts of Merton and Morden the earliest postal delivery does not arrive until 9.30 a.m.; and whether he will take steps to effect an improvement.
    Mr. Gammans: The first delivery of letters in Merton and Morden should normally be completed by 9.15 a.m., but there have been periods this winter when abnormal absence of the regular postmen owing to sickness has caused some delay. We are trying to avoid delays of this sort, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of any special cases that have come to his notice I will make inquiry.
    Captain Ryder: Does my hon. Friend not think that 9.15 is very late for the first delivery, and will he also bear in mind that in the same areas, so I am told, the second and only other delivery takes place at about 11.30? Is it not very unsatisfactory to have those two deliveries so close together?
    Mr. Gammans: The first delivery should be completed, not started, by 9.15, but, for the reason which I have given, it has been impossible on several occasions during the winter to maintain that standard.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us what time this particular postman started in the morning?
    Mr. Gammans: I do not know to which particular postman the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Williams: I should have thought that before the Assistant Postmaster-General answered his hon. and gallant Friend he would know what he was talking about. I want to know what time the postman on this round started?
    Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman has asked a general question. I am afraid I cannot give him the answer.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Errollasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the extent of the present restrictions on capital expenditure by the Post Office.
    Mr. Gammans: This Question cannot be answered in terms of a figure. The limitation is what the nation can afford for development of Post Office services, having regard to other claims on the national resources. I am glad to say that, for next year, capital investment has been increased.
    Mr. Erroll: If there is no figure, how can the extent of the restriction be known, and, if the extent of the restriction is not known, is it fair for the Post Office to use it as a frequent argument for not supplying telephone services?
    Mr. Gammans: I think I have answered what the hon. Gentleman asked. We can only afford on the Post Office services generally what the country can afford generally.

    Leicester Square Office (Complaint)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why, at Leicester Square Post Office on 17th January last, a member of the public who wished to buy 290 l½d. postage stamps was allowed, after repeated requests, to buy only 120.
    Mr. Gammans: There was no reason why 290 l½d. postage stamps should not have been supplied, and I very much regret the inconvenience and annoyance caused to the gentleman concerned owing to this inexcusable failure. Disciplinary action is being taken.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is good to know that postage stamps are not being rationed and that the public can buy as many as they wish.

    Mail Bag Robberies
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement about the recent theft of a Post Office van in Waltham stow, and whether he will arrange for an immediate and complete overhaul of existing security arrangements in the postal services.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Assistant Postmaster-Generalif he will take more positive precautions to prevent mail robberies.
    Mr. Gammans: The facts are that a Post Office van standing outside the Walthamstow Sub-District Sorting Office last Friday, with all doors locked, was driven away during the momentary absence of the driver and guard after the driver's door had been opened, apparently with a false key. The van was at once pursued, and abandoned by the thieves within a matter of minutes, but they had succeeded in stealing part of the contents valued at £4,700 out of a total of nearly £10,000. This case of highway robbery is under investigation by the police in association with the Investigation Branch of the Post Office. In answer to the second part of the Question, the problem of safeguarding the mails has been under continuous review for the past 20 months by a Committee of experts who have already been responsible, in consultation
    1738
    with the police and other authorities concerned, for the introduction of many useful new safeguards.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his frequent promises to tighten things up, public confidence in the security of the postal services has never been lower than it is today? Even the Queen's personal mail is being tampered with, and the other day a newspaperman wandered all over Mount Pleasant without being challenged. Will the Assistant Postmaster-General ask his noble Friend either to take effective action to remedy this lamentable laxity or to make way for someone who will?
    Mr. Gammans: I think the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating when he says that confidence in the postal service has never been lower than it is today. What we have to remember is that this is a case of highway robbery, and in the general crime wave now assailing this country the Post Office cannot be expected to be exempt from it.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable alarm throughout the country about these continual mail robberies and that the public are looking for more effective action than has been taken up to now? We are aware that he cannot disclose the methods which are being used, but will he put a stop to these thefts at once?
    Mr. Gammans: Merely because the Post Office is asked Questions in this House it does not follow that Post Office robberies are more serious than any other robberies. All other public utilities suffer equally from crimes of this type.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not the case that there has been a marked tendency for mail robberies to increase since this Government came into office? Ought not the Postmaster-General to wake up and see what he can do about this matter, instead of letting it go on? Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite possible that, as the mind of the Post Office has been diverted to commercial television as a result of a small pressure group opposite, it is likely that they have not the time to look after the mail?
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon Gentleman should be a bit more sure of his

    1739
    facts before making the dogmatic statement which he made at the beginning of his supplementary question. The fact is that Post Office robberies and losses have gone down very considerably as compared with five years ago.
    Mr. Renton: Is not the serious point about the Walthamstow case that a large amount of public money in the form of cash was stolen from a van which was temporarily unattended? Will the Minister ensure that public cash, when gathered together in large quantities—as it must be by the Past Office from time to time—is always under somebody's care and supervision?
    Mr. Gammans: The investigations into this case have not been completed. One of the questions which has to be further investigated is the very point raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the Minister say that whilst those further investigations are proceeding the elementary precaution will be taken, without delay—at least in the case of vans which are carrying thousands of pounds—of seeing that these vans are manned by two persons, so that when one of them is away in the building on other duties the van is not left unattended and merely an invitation to anybody who may be knocking about to run away with it?
    Mr. Gammans: This particular van was manned by two persons.
    Mr. Russellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to increase the protection of mail vans in transit; and what instructions are given to the drivers to immobilise them when left unattended.
    Mr. Gammans: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). On the second part of the Question, I am not prepared to disclose what instructions are given to drivers, but my hon. Friend may Test assured that they are quite specific.
    Mr. Russell: Can the Minister say whether the van referred to in the previous Question was capable of being immobilised? Does he not realise that during the war most car owners were asked to immobilise their cars? Would not this be an obvious measure to take to prevent vans being driven away?
    Mr. Gammans: This van was more than immobilised. It was locked.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not quite obvious that the experts who are at present advising the Postmaster-General on general security arrangements are not quite so expert as those who are advising the robbers?
    Mr. Ian Harvey: In view, of the allegations made from the Front Bench opposite, is it not significant that this robbery took place in Walthamstow?
    Mr. Crouchasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of mail robberies which have occurred in London; and the number in the provinces during each of the last two years.
    Mr. Gammans: The numbers or robberies as such are not available, but, out of roughly 350 million bags in transit, 720 bags were recorded as missing during the year ended 31st December, 1953. In 1952 the figure was 660, and in the preceding year 760.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that all that these robbers are doing is to divert public funds to private profits? They are following the example set them by the Government.
    Mr. Crouch: In reply to a supplementary question a moment ago my hon. Friend said that there had been a decrease in the number of mail robberies, but according to his figures there has been an increase in the number of bags missing. Can he tell me the difference between missing bags and stolen bags?
    Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) alleged that under this Government more mail had been lost than before. I wished to assure him that that was not true.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will provide mail van drivers with a mate when conveying valuable mail.
    Mr. Gammans: It would be contrary to the public interest for me to disclose under what circumstances a mate is carried on postal vans.
    Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend said that there was a mate in the van from which the robbery took place on Friday. I

    1741
    understood that the purpose of the mate was to stay in the van whilst the driver left. Surely my hon. Friend is not going to suggest that a van could be stolen if the mate were sitting in it?
    Mr. Gammans: That is the very point which, as I assured my hon. Friend just now, was under investigation.

    Staff (Security Check)
    Mr. Russellasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what security check is made on staff when they are engaged by the Post Office.
    Mr. Gammans: I can assure my hon. Friend that before staff are engaged for service in the Post Office all practicable steps are taken to ensure that they are of good character, but it would not be in the public interest to give particulars of the precise methods adopted.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to ease restrictions on capital expenditure which are preventing the supply of telephones to communities in Sutherland which are without a single public or private telephone and where there is no telegraph service.
    Mr. Gammans: Much has been done to meet the need for telephone service in isolated communities, but much remains to be done both in such areas and in the rest of the country. Progress is governed by what the country can afford for telephone development, and while the Post Office programme is larger this year and will be increased again next year, it will be a long time before all arrears can be overtaken.
    Sir D. Robertson: May I first say that I put this Question down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it not a fact that the people mentioned in the Question are in the greatest need of telephones? Will the Assistant Postmaster-General not attempt some system of priorities to deal with communities like these where, in a case of accident or illness, there is literally no means of communication.
    Mr. Gammans: I have the utmost sympathy with the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I assure him that we can only do what we have the money to carry out.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General explain, if the country is not in a position to afford a reasonable development of the telephone service, how it is that it is able to afford the development of sponsored television?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Gammans: That is an entirely different question.

    West Ham
    Mr. Lewisasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total number of applicants waiting for telephone installation at the latest convenient stated date, in the county borough of West Ham; and the number of installations that have taken place in each of the years from 1945 until the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Gammans: On 31st December, 1953, 1,250 applications were outstanding and 747 were in course of being met or under inquiry. As the second part of the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    The numbers of telephones connected in the years 1946 to 1953 are as follows:

    1946

    1,861

    1947

    1,321

    1948

    984

    1949

    595

    1950

    1,135

    1951

    2,031

    1952

    1,190

    1953

    1,349

    Applicants (Waiting Time)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Assistant Postmaster-General the average time an applicant must now wait before having a telephone installed; and how this period of waiting time compares with a similar date in each of the last six years.
    Mr. Gammans: Where exchange equipment and lines are available the average waiting period is about a month for priority applicants, and two months for residential applicants. There has been some improvement recently, but detailed information for previous years is not

    1743
    available. It is not possible to make an estimate of the average time when new plant is required.
    Mr. H. Hynd: When the Assistant Postmaster-General says that the average time of waiting for a telephone by non-priority applicants is two months, will he convey that information to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre); in other words, tell it to the Marines'?
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what additional amount of capital would be necessary to supply the existing list of applicants with telephones in the next two years.
    Mr. Gammans: A figure would, I think, be misleading. New plant must provide, not only for existing applicants, but also for current and future demand. Our capital programme is being increased next year, but a further increase would not of itself enable the waiting list to be abolished in two years because many projects, e.g., new exchanges, take several years to complete.
    Mr. Craddock: Has the Minister made any representations to the Treasury in relation to this matter with a view to securing the necessary capital so as to increase the efficiency of the country?
    Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir, and, I am glad to say, made them successfully. The difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's Question as set out on the Order Paper is due to applications for new telephones. Last year there were no less than 400,000 such applications, which is an all-time high record.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) recently stated in this House that workers in some of the cable undertakings were to be dismissed because there was insufficient work for them to do? As this is a very serious matter, does not he think that he ought to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer in line with the main argument of the Question before us?
    Mr. Gammans: As I have told the House, we have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am glad to be able to inform hon. Members that we have an increased allocation for next year.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Commonwealth Division (Helicopters)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Under-secretary of State for Air whether a flight of Bristol 171 Sycamore helicopters is now available for communication service in Korea.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister not aware that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? We can build and fly helicopters here, yet we are dependent entirely on United States' generosity in Korea. Can he do something about that?
    Mr. Ward: The Commonwealth Division in Korea has expressed no dissatisfaction whatsoever with the services provided by the United States.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not the fact that they have to go cap in hand to the United States Service authorities to get these helicopters?
    Mr. Ward: It is not the fact. These services are provided for us as well as for them.

    Colour Bar
    Mr. Lewisasked the Undersecretary of State for Air what steps he takes to ensure that coloured Royal Air Force personnel are not officially sent to hotels that operate the colour bar when needing accommodation; and what action he takes to ensure that no Royal Air Force personnel are officially sent to, or accommodated in, hotels that operate the colour bar.
    Mr. Ward: None, Sir. Members of the Royal Air Force are not officially sent to stay at particular hotels. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that there is no colour bar in any club, canteen, or hostel run by an organisation officially recognised by the Air Ministry.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that under no circumstances will he allow any of his officials or those in the Air Force

    1745
    to be accommodated at Government expense at the Green Park Hotel, which operates a colour bar?
    Mr. Ward: I can only repeat that we do not send people to particular hotels.

    Horsham St. Faith Airfield
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what would now be the cost of constructing fresh runways at Horsham St. Faith Royal Air Force Station on the side of the station further from the city of Norwich so that the use of the runways nearest to the city could be discontinued.
    Mr. Ward: Without a detailed survey it would be difficult to give an estimate. For operational reasons, however, we are now considering extending the east-west runway at the airfield, and this will, I think, meet the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I hope that we shall shortly be in a position to discuss our proposals with representatives of the city of Norwich and other local interests.

    University Air Squadrons (Training)
    Mr. Gloverasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements he is making for the future training of university air squadrons consequent on the closing of the Reserve training flying schools.
    Mr. Ward: The training of the university air squadrons will not be affected by the closing of the Reserve flying schools.

    Flying Schools (Redundant Staff)
    Mr. Gloverasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what arrangements he is making for the continued employment of the staffs both ground and air who will become redundant consequent on the closing of the Reserve flying schools.
    Mr. Ward: These staffs will have the same measure of assistance in finding employment in the Royal Air Force or in civil life as was given to the staffs displaced by the closing of the other flying schools last year.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that while those men who lost their jobs last year are grateful for
    1746
    the assistance they received there are some men, skilled pilot instructors, who have not yet got a job?
    Mr. Ward: We have taken as many as we possibly can into the Air Force of those who wanted to come back, and we have even stretched our normal regulations a little to do the best we possibly can for them.

    Jet Aircraft (Accidents)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Under-secretary of State for Air the number of fatal accidents to jet aircraft in the United Kingdom for the 12 months ended 31st December, 1953; and what was the number of personnel who were killed as a result of these accidents.
    Mr. Ward: In the United Kingdom during 1953 there were 91 fatal accidents to Royal Air Force jet aircraft in which 112 members of the Royal Air Force lost their lives. These figures are slightly lower than the comparable figures for 1952, although the number of hours flown during the year was about one third greater.
    Sir L. Ropner: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of extending training on slower and easier machines over a longer period before these young pilots are allowed to operate jet aircraft?
    Mr. Ward: I do not think that is the answer. Indeed, on the contrary, I think it may well be that the step from the slower, light aircraft on to the jet is too big, and we are introducing now the Provost-Vampire sequence and also considering the introduction, anyway as an experiment, of a jet basic trainer.
    Mr. Beswick: What proportion of those accidents was caused by human error, and was there any other structural cause that accounted for a significant number of the crashes?
    Mr. Ward: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give me notice of that, and I shall do the best I can to answer it. I think I shall find that it is almost impossible to put one's finger on anything that is common to all accidents.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: How do these figures for jet aircraft compare with the fatal accidents with piston-engined aircraft?
    Mr. Ward: The fatal jet accident rate during 1953 was roughly half the fatal accident rate of the Spitfire when in comparable service.

  NORTH ATLANTIC WEATHER SHIP SERVICE (U.S.A. PARTICIPATION)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Under-secretary of State for Air whether he can now make a statement on the discussions which have been taking place with the United States Government with regard to the provision of weather ships in the Atlantic.
  Mr. Ward: As the right hon. and learned Member is aware, the United States Government has now expressed its willingness in principle to take part in a new North Atlantic Ocean Weather Ship Scheme. I should prefer not to say anything further at this stage, and I must ask the House to await the outcome of the Conference being held in Paris next month.

  ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING REGULATIONS
  Mr. Roy Jenkinsasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many regulations he has so far made under the Road Transport Lighting (No. 2) Act, 1953.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): No regulations have yet been made under this Act. In accordance with the promise given during the passage of the Act the subject is being examined, but priority has been given to plans for improving rear lights and reflectors under the other Road Transport Lighting Act of 1953.
  Mr. Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that so far as the leaving in streets in London of unlit vehicles is concerned the law should be left entirely different from the practice, and that the thing should be made to work only because police officers do not enforce the law?
  Mr. Molson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present state of affairs is not at all satisfactory. I have
  1748
  been giving personal attention to this matter. One of the reasons why we are not taking action at the present time is that we want to arrive at a really satisfactory solution to this problem.
  Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why this Question appears on the Order Paper, because the information is already available in the Library?
  Mr. Lewis: Is it not, whether intentionally or unintentionally, a reflection on the Chair for any hon. Member to query and criticise a Question that has already received your approval, Mr. Speaker, and that of the Clerks, in so far as it is already on the Order Paper?
  Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member is entitled to draw my attention to anything that he considers to be an irregularity. I am not myself aware that the information asked for in this Question exists in that form.
  Sir H. Williams: The index to the Statutory Instruments is available, and makes it possible for any hon. Member to obtain this information.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Has not the hon. Gentleman who has raised this point of order himself been guilty of the same thing in Question No. 7 today?
  Mr. Jenkins: When does the Parliamentary Secretary hope to be able to start introducing those regulations that he says are desirable?
  Mr. Molson: I cannot make any promise, but the matter is being considered at the present time.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister, when making this inquiry, also inquire into the rear lighting of bicycles and how far that is properly observed?
  Mr. Molson: That is already being done.

  RAILWAYS (ROAD BRIDGES)
  Mrs. Whiteasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, if he will take powers to improve the upkeep of roads passing over railway bridges, many of which are in a bad state of repair owing to the division of responsibility for their upkeep between the railway and the highway authorities.
  Mr. Molson: It seems desirable that the local highway authorities should take over on suitable terms responsibility for the upkeep of roads passing over railway bridges, other than trunk roads which are already vested in the Minister. My Department some time ago initiated discussions on these lines between the British Transport Commission and the local authority associations, and I hope they will be successful.
  Mrs. White: Will the Minister do all that he can to expedite the conclusion of these discussions, because in the meantime the roads to which the Question refers are deteriorating very rapidly?
  Mr. Molson: Yes. Because progress is not sufficiently satisfactory my right hon. Friend called a meeting on this subject in November last.
  Mr. K. Thompson: Do these discussions cover the rebuilding of very narrow bridges often found in congested areas?
  Mr. Molson: No. That is an entirely different matter.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (ACCIDENTS)
  Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he is taking to reduce in future the total of 26,213 persons killed and injured on British Railways during 1951.
  The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am afraid the answer is rather long. Responsibility for the safety of railway operation rests with the British Transport Commission. The Railway Inspecting Officers of my Ministry, who have certain statutory functions in connection with railway safety, are in constant touch with the Commission on measures to maintain and improve the high standards which the Railways set themselves in these matters. Full information will be found in the Annual Reports of the Chief Inspecting Officer on Railway Accidents. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these Reports for 1951 and 1952.
  The actual figures for casualties in 1951 on British Railways and London Transport railways are 307 killed and 26,213 injured. Of the 307 fatalities, about one
  1750
  sixth, or 55 persons in all, including 43 passengers, were killed in accidents to trains. The remaining 252 fatalities included 61 passengers who fell from trains in motion or entered or alighted from moving trains or met with other accidents on railway premises, and 168 railway servants who were killed in the course of their work about the lines.
  Of the 26,213 injuries, 23,788, or 91 per cent., were slight cases, only a very few of which required detention in hospital.
  Mr. Erroll: As my right hon. Friend has attempted to break down this very high total by categorising the types of casualties, will he be so good as to do the same thing for road casualty figures so as to avoid needlessly alarming the public?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly I will do what I can in that field, but I thought, in view of the particular way in which this Question was framed—and I am not suggesting it was framed to give a wrong impression—that I should break up the figure to avoid the danger of misunderstanding. If we had last year been spared the Harrow disaster only one passenger would have been killed on British Railways last year.
  Mr. Manuel: Does the Minister not agree that the vast majority of Members of this House on both sides are concerned about the prevention of accidents and safeguarding life in all forms of transport in Britain and not only on British Railways? Would he advise his hon. Friend not to put down Questions with malice aforethought, as he has done on this occasion?

DIVISION (ANNUNCIATOR ERROR)
Mr. Follick: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask a question of which I have given Private Notice with respect to an incident which occurred last night and by means of which I was robbed of a vote. This was brought about by a mistake on the mechanical device known as the annunciator.
I was paired from 6.15 to 7.45 p.m. with an hon. Member on the Government side, and when the Division bell went the

1751
annunciator marked the time of the Division as 7.44. I consulted the Government Whips about whether I had the right to vote. I was not sure whether the time in question was when the Division was called or when the vote was cast. The Government Whips, kindly and helpfully, told me that, according to the rules of the House, I had to take the time when the Division was called, but they said that as the margin was so very small, and on account of the circumstances, they would not mind if I voted, as long as I went into their Lobby.
As that was a very high price to pay, I preferred to remain an honourable man, to keep to my pact and not to vote; but this morning, on consulting Hansard, I found that the Division was called, not at 7.44, but at 7.45, so that I had every right to vote. On account of the mistake on the annunciator, I did not vote. If the position had been reversed, and if the annunciator had advanced the time and I had voted, I should have got into serious trouble with hon. Members opposite by having voted when I should not have done. On this occasion the annunciator had a time earlier than it should have shown. Would you, Sir, kindly give us guidance on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the whole House will sympathise with the hon. Member in the dilemma in which he was placed, but I must make it quite plain that agreements to pair are private agreements between hon. Members and are in no sense matters in which either I or the House can intervene. As the hon. Member said, in this case the margin in time seems to have been a very narrow one. I think I must advise him to make his peace with the hon. Member with whom he was paired. Certainly there is nothing we can do about it.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. May I submit, with respect, that the point of interest to the House
1752
is not the effect of the private arrangements which my hon. Friend made but the error on the annunciator which misled him into a misappreciation of what his position was?
Mr. Speaker: There seems to have been an error of a minute. I will certainly see whether anything can be done about it, but I think it is a very small error, and perhaps the House may feel disposed to follow the legal maxim, "de minimis non curat lex."
Sir I. Fraser: There is a relevant point for the House, if I might venture to submit it to you; can you annunciate—can you say—at what time a Division begins?
Mr. Speaker: A Division begins when the Question is put to the House.
Sir I. Fraser: Is that the time on the annunciator or the time when you say it?
Mr. Speaker: The time when I say it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
PRISONS (OVERCROWDING)
Mr. K. Thompson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th February, I shall call attention to overcrowded prisons, and move a Resolution.
EMPLOYMENT (OLDER PERSONS)
Mr. Drayson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th February, I shall call attention to the first Report of the National Advisory Committee on the Employment of Older Men and Women, and move a Resolution.
DEPRIVED AND DELINQUENT CHILDREN
Mr. MacColl: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th February, I shall call attention to the care and treatment of deprived and delinquent children, and move a Resolution.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a complicated Bill because it deals with a technical subject, but the principles underlying the Bill are fairly simple and I shall explain them as clearly as I can.
  The subject is far from being a new one to the House. The Bill follows pretty closely the White Paper on Leasehold Property, which was published a year ago and debated last April. Twice in the last three years the House has considered temporary legislation on leaseholds. A standstill Act was passed by our predecessors in 1951 and we extended its period of operation last year.
  This Bill contains our proposals for permanent legislation to replace those temporary Acts. I should like, again, to record our gratitude to the Leasehold Committee who, originally under Lord Uthwatt and, after his death, under Lord Justice Jenkins, examined the subject with tremendous thoroughness. The Committee was appointed by our predecessors, but the present Government owe a great debt to it. We have not accepted all the recommendations, but the Report is the foundation of the Bill.
  I should like to begin with Part I of the Bill, which deals with ground leases of houses. The object here is to give the protection of the Rent Acts to the ground lessee who is living in the house. He is not protected by the Rent Acts at present, because they do not apply where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, and with almost all ground leases the rent is below this level.
  We discussed in the debate on the White Paper why the Government chose this solution instead of leasehold enfranchisement. I do not want to cover the same ground again; but I should like to suggest, as I suggested then, that the
  1754
  subject is best considered from the practical point of view rather than on the basis of abstract principles, whether, on the one side, the morality of the leasehold system or, on the other side, the sanctity of contract, and so on.
  The majority of the Leasehold Committee came down against leasehold enfranchisement. The minority, consisting of the right hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas)—may I be allowed to say that I am very sorry to hear that he is not well and is unable to be with us today; we shall miss very much his contribution to the debate—and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) put forward an enfranchisement scheme. It was a moderate scheme and was worked out in considerable detail. We are grateful to them because it was by examination of that scheme that we found out where the difficulties lay.
  It was these practical difficulties which led us to decide against leasehold enfranchisement. I emphasised what they were and I want to summarise them in a sentence or two again. First, the cost to the tenant; second, the difficulty of fair apportionment where a variety of properties are concerned; third, the exclusion of late purchasers; and fourth, where the leasehold property concerned is comprised in estates consisting of some, or, in some cases, very many, houses there are at least three serious difficulties. First, the covenants in the leases protecting the amenities of all houses in the estate; second, the compensation to the landlord for severing a part of his estate which must fall so heavily on the first purchaser; third, the harm to public interest by the prevention of desirable redevelopment. The fifth difficulty that has to be faced is the great reduction in the scope of the scheme by the necessary exclusion of publicly-owned estates—estates owned by local authorities, New Town Corporations and Crown Agencies.
  When I explained the difficulties in opening the debate on the White Paper, I said that I should like to hear the answer to them: I should still like to hear the answer. In that debate we were told that the difficulties did not matter, and that they were not major difficulties, but we were not told the way round them. The right hon. and learned Member for

  1755
  Leicester, North-East finished his speech by saying that the Labour Party,
  "unfailingly come down in favour of the tenant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1953; Vol. 514; c. 2387.]
  It would not help the tenant to introduce a scheme which did not really work. Indeed, although we were told again and again that the party opposite favoured enfranchisement, I came away from the debate without learning how they propose to achieve it. In fact, it was clear and manifest that several of the speakers who argued for enfranchisement were not arguing for the proposals of the minority of the Leasehold Committee. They wanted something much less favourable to the landlord.
  Moreover, it seemed to follow from their speeches that if the right to enfranchise were granted at all, it should be granted to every ground lessee, whether he is in occupation or whether he has sub-let. The two hon. Members to whom I have referred, in their Minority Report, suggest confining it to the ground lessee who is living on the premises. That was the position. We shall see as the afternoon goes on whether it has altered today, and whether anyone is prepared to give an answer to these difficulties which are now over a year old. They have been stated fully and clearly in the White Paper to which I have referred.
  I want to say this again—and I shall try to follow up my own suggestion—that I am sure the most productive approach to the problem is to concentrate on what the tenant needs now. Surely his greatest need at the present time is the right to stay in his home when his lease comes to an end. And this need is common both to the lessee whose grandfather built the house a century ago and to the lessee who has only recently taken an assignment of the lease.
  It is this right we are giving him; and I believe that if the Bill is passed and there is time for its effect to be felt, many of the supporters of leasehold enfranchisement will come to see that we have gone a long way to meet them. This then is what Part I of the Bill does for the occupying ground lessee. When his lease comes to an end he is to be entitled to stay on as a statutory tenant under the Rent Acts, provided his house is not too large to be within the ambit of those Acts.
  1756
  I think that everyone realises that the terms of the normal statutory tenancy under the Rent Acts are very different from those of a ground lease. This is particularly so as regards repairs: a ground lease places a much greater repairing responsibility on the tenant than the average statutory tenancy. It follows that the terms of the ground lease have to be very largely re-written, and it is this which accounts for much of the complexity of Part I of the Bill.
  Perhaps I ought to outline the machinery which the Bill sets up. The ground lease, instead of ending automatically on a particular date, will run on until the landlord brings it to an end by notice. In his notice he must explain to the tenant his rights under Part I.
  Mr. David Grenfell: Does that mean that in every single case no tenancy can expire without notice by the landlord?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No ground lease.
  Mr. Grenfell: Yes.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is what intended.
  Mr. Grenfell: What is the period of notice?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that it is three months. I should like to check up, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know. Speaking offhand, it is three months. He must not only give the notice, but the notice must explain to the tenant his rights under Part I of the Act. That is, I think, an important piece of machinery.
  The landlord must also include in his notice his proposals for the new statutory tenancy—unless he intends to apply to the county court for possession, in which case he must give the tenant warning of that fact. I am sorry, but it is better than I thought. The three months applies to a later stage. I am sorry if I misled the right hon. Gentleman. Under Clause 4 (2) of the Bill:
  "A notice under the last foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless it is given not more than twelve nor less than six months before the date of termination specified therein."
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I understand that the notice can be given to expire on the term date. In other

  1757
  words, that notice can normally be given to expire on the very date the lease normally comes to an end.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should not say that that would normally apply, because there are other considerations in the Bill. I accept that that can be done, but my point is still a good one: that there has to be a notice in order to deal with the matter. It does not come to an end by effluxion of time.
  The next point that the landlord must also include in the notice is proposals for the new statutory tenancy, unless he intends to apply to the county court for possession, in which case he must give the tenant warning. The grounds on which he can apply for possession are not only those which would entitle him to a possession order under the Rent Acts, which, as the House knows, are stringent and in the tenant's favour, but also—and this is the new point which the House will want to consider—that he needs the premises for immediate redevelopment.
  We thought it right to include this additional ground, because the houses in question will almost all be nearly 100 years old; and if the landlord genuinely intends to redevelop and can proceed at once—it is only immediate redevelopment that qualifies—it would be against the public interest to stop him. I point out to the House, however, that the landlord has only the one chance. When the statutory tenancy has started, he cannot get possession on the ground of desiring to redevelop any more than any other landlord of Rent Act property. We do all that we can to encourage the two parties to settle by agreement the terms on which the tenant is to stay. If there is a dispute, it will go to the county court.
  I should like to deal briefly with two of the principal matters to be settled: namely, repairs and rents. Dilapidations are, we all know, one of the leaseholder's great bugbears. It is the schedule of dilapidations which has, as much as anything else, led people to press for enfranchisement. I think we have found a fair solution to this problem, but it has not been easy to decide what to do. Under a ground lease, the tenant is fully responsible for repairs. If we followed the letter of the existing law, I suppose we would say that the ground lessee could not have a new tenancy unless he
  1758
  had complied with his obligations under the old tenancy. But we recognise that this would deprive many people of the protection that we want to give them.
  On the other hand, I do not think it would be right to disregard the tenant's contractual obligations altogether. After all, many ground lessees have bought their leases at a price that reflected these obligations. So the line we take in the Bill is that the tenant is relieved of his responsibilities under the ground lease, but the landlord can, at the end of the ground lease, carry out what we call "initial repairs," and he can recover the cost from the tenant to the extent that the repairs are needed because the tenant has failed to carry out his obligations under the ground lease. The tenant can pay either in a lump sum or by instalments. How much should be done in the way of initial repairs and how the tenant should pay are questions which can, if necessary, in default of agreement, be argued before the county court. The tenant cannot be made to pay for more than is needed to bring the house into good repair.
  "Good repair" is a key phrase, which I have borrowed from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, for it appears in his Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. It is defined in the same way in both Bills. Under the Housing Bill, the house must be in good repair if the landlord is to be entitled to his increase in rent. In my Bill, good repair is the upper limit for the initial repairs for which the tenant can be made to reimburse the landlord.
  In some cases, the parties may decide that they can put the house into reasonably good condition without going as far as this upper limit, but even where the maximum of initial repairs is carried out it is still likely—I should think, almost certain—to be less than the very high standard enforceable under the repairing covenants of any ground leases. The tenant will to that extent be let off his obligations.
  I should like here to compare the tenant's position under our scheme with his position under the law as it stands. At present, when a ground lease ends, the tenant has no right to stay on. What is more, he is liable before handing over the house to repair it up to a high stand-

  1759
  ard—perhaps a good-as-new standard. In the Bill, we give the tenant the right to remain in his home, and also substantial relief from his repairing liabilities.
  I now turn to the rent to be paid under the statutory tenancy. It will be based on the condition of the house after the initial repairs are done, and it will be related, of course, to the repairing and other covenants of the statutory tenancy itself. I have considered this point a great deal, because when the White Paper was before the House a number of hon. Members suggested that the basis on which the rent should be fixed ought to be denned more precisely; and I have tried to apply my mind to that.
  Some of those who made suggestions wanted the rent to be linked with values current at some time in the past, even 1914. I am quite sure it would be wrong, apart from the difficulty of assessment, to create tenancies based on values long out of date. Other Members felt that the courts would need more guidance. The danger of that is that if we make the formula too precise, it immediately becomes rigid. We want to leave the parties a reasonable chance of settling the terms of the tenancy between themselves.
  What they settle—for example, the allocation of repairing responsibilities—between them is bound to affect the rent. I feel just as strongly, after the reconsideration which I have given this matter, that a rigid rent formula would take away this flexibility. I think that if we tell the court to arrive at a reasonable rent in the light of the covenants and condition of the house, that is as much guidance as they need.
  Part I deals also with sub-tenants of ground lessees. If I may put it in the horrible shorthand of my former profession, it reverses with certain exceptions what is known as the Knightsbridge judgment. The effect of that, if I may try to put it shortly in other terms, is that under the law at present, if a ground lessee sub-lets to a sub-tenant who is protected under the Rent Acts, the sub-tenant loses his protection when the ground lease comes to an end. That is what we are changing. The result will be that in most cases the sub-tenant continues to be protected against the head landlord after the ground lease has expired. Apart
  1760
  from any differences on other points, I think the House will be unanimous on this improving of the effect of the Knightsbridge judgment.
  Mr. Granville West: Does the protection extend both to security of tenure and to rent?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. The tenant has his full protection under the Rent Acts.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The sub-lessee has the same right as the lessee?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly. The Bill maintains the protection of the Rent Acts. Under the Knightsbridge judgment, it was outside the Act as soon as the ground lease came to an end. We reverse that.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to clear up one small point? Presumably, if the landlord fails to give the requisite notice, the leaseholder will hold over under the terms of the lease. If so, the landlord will have to exercise some other remedy under the existing law—for instance, a period of reasonable notice—to terminate the existing lease. Will the leaseholder then possess similar rights should the lease be terminated subsequently?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If he does not give notice before the date when the lease would have ended, it goes on, but, of course, he can then still give the 12 months' notice later. There will be the same rights. He cannot invade the rights of the lessee by not giving notice at the earliest point.
  I expect that it will be Part I which will attract most attention in the debate, but I ask the House not to overlook Part II, which provides security of tenure for business tenants. Part II applies to all occupying business and professional tenants, whatever their type of tenancy, whether they pay a ground rent or a rack rent, and whether the tenancy is for a term of years or is a weekly or other periodical tenancy. Valuable as Part I will be to the people whom it affects, Part II is perhaps even more important because its effect will be felt so much more widely.
  The proposals in Part II were generally welcomed in the debate on the White

  1761
  Paper. There is nothing really novel about them. It was as long ago as 1927 when a Conservative Home Secretary took the first step and introduced the Bill which became the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. In the 27 years which have passed, a number of criticisms have emerged of the workings of the Act, and these were received and tabulated by the Committee which inquired into the matter.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The point is that the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, has been quite ineffective.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall point out the defects which I consider ought to be changed and shall suggest alternatives. The hon. and learned Member should remember that in 1952 there were no fewer than 550 proceedings under the Act, and, therefore, although I certainly agree that the time has come to improve it, one cannot say that it has been unused and entirely unhelpful. However, what happened—I want to make the point clear—was that it fell short of what Parliament intended when it passed the Act. Clearly, it is incumbent on us to propose amendment.
  I want to explain how the Act proceeded, because that will show at what point amendment must be directed. Under the Act, if the letting value of premises in the hands of the landlord has been increased through the tenant carrying on a business there, the tenant is entitled to compensation when he leaves. The second stage is that if that compensation does not cover his loss through leaving, he is, by and large, entitled to a new lease instead of compensation.
  Thus, the basis of the Act is that the tenant must first establish a right to compensation before he can claim a new lease. The essential condition is that the letting value must have been increased through the presence of the tenant. That increase in letting value is known by another horrible phrase which has been much used, "adherent goodwill."
  The theory of this is simple enough. It is that if the landlord gains through the presence of the tenant, he either pays compensation or renews the lease. That sounds very attractive, but, in fact, the Leasehold Committee found that there were a number of great difficulties.
  1762
  The first is that it is very hard to establish and measure adherent goodwill. Value is created by a number of different factors apart from the physical characteristics of the premises. It is one thing to say what the premises are worth, but it is very rarely possible to prove how much of that figure has been contributed by the tenant's business.
  Secondly, the claim can never succeed if the premises are to be demolished by the landlord or if he lets them for a different and more valuable purpose.
  Thirdly, there are many types of businesses which, by their nature, do not create adherent goodwill; but the need for security of tenure on the part of the tenant of the premises who is carrying on the business may be just as great.
  Therefore, the Committee thought, and the Government entirely agree with them, that in view of these difficulties it would be wrong to keep adherent goodwill as the essential condition and that a new approach must be found.
  The Committee gave us three different schemes; one in its Interim Report, another in the Majority Final Report and a third in the Minority Report. I hope that no member of the Committee will be violently outraged by the fact that we have not adopted any of these schemes as a whole, but we have followed them all in putting the emphasis—this is the important point—on renewal of the lease rather than on compensation
  The essence of our scheme can be put this way. We say that if at the end of the tenancy the landlord needs to occupy the premises himself for his own business or to pull them down and rebuild, the tenant must leave and the landlord is perfectly entitled to refuse a new tenancy. If, however, the landlord is going to relet the premises anyhow, then we say that the sitting tenant has a prior right to remain, provided he has been a satisfactory tenant. But if he stays on he must pay a fair and up-to-date rent; there is no question of freezing rents at a past level.
  I believe—whatever our political views, we must all, surely, be glad to share the belief—that what we are doing is to put into a statutory code the practice which a reasonable and good landlord would naturally follow. We encourage the parties to proceed by agreement. If they cannot agree on the grant of a new

  1763
  tenancy, or on its terms, the court adjudicates. Normally it is the county court, but large cases would go to the High Court.
  I need not go into more detail about the machinery at this stage, but I ought to mention that the scope of Part II is a good deal wider than the 1927 Act. Part II covers not only the tenants of shops, offices and factories but also professional men and bodies such as charities, trade associations and learned societies. The Leasehold Committee pointed out that these need security of tenure just as much as commercial firms, although for different reasons.
  It is a corollary of our scheme for security of tenure that if a new tenancy is refused because the landlord requires the premises for his own purposes, the tenant should be compensated. The compensation is to be the amount of the rateable value or, if the tenant's business has continued in the premises for 14 years or more, it is to be twice the rateable value.
  This basis is, I admit, rough justice, and one may call it arbitrary. It has been criticised for giving too much to some tenants and too little to others. But up till now no one has suggested a better basis for compensation. Believe me, if we hear some constructive proposals today, I shall be very pleased to consider them.
  I have tried to explain to the House that the basis of compensation under the 1927 Act was adherent goodwill and I have also tried to explain why that is unsatisfactory and why I am sure we must get rid of it. Another conceivable basis is the loss which the tenant suffers through having to leave, which would include loss of goodwill and the cost of removal of the various items covered by the compensation for disturbance which a tenant receives when his premises are compulsorily acquired. I think it would be placing too great a burden on the landlord, who is taking his own premises for his own use, to make him pay compensation on this basis when anew tenancy is consequently refused.
  The rateable value basis appeals to me, first because it enables the parties to find out what is due without taking expensive professional advice and without litigation. It seems to me that when
  1764
  they go into the lease both of them will understand exactly and clearly what has to be paid at the end. What we are setting out to do, which I think is reasonable, is to give the tenant something to help him to re-establish his business elsewhere.
  As I have said, the amount is double if the business has been carried on for 14 years because, in general, removal is a harder blow for the long-established business and I do not want it to be that. But it does not follow from this that the business which has only been going for two or three years should get nothing. I should have thought that security was important for the young business which is being built up, and if so, compensation should be payable when the tenancy comes to an end.
  Now I come to Part III, which deals with compensation for improvements—
  Mr. Hale: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves Part II, there are two points which are much in my mind. Incidentally, I am grateful for Part II, it is important and it will be a good thing for occupiers of small business premises.
  My first point is with regard to the curious provisions for contracting out. I gather that one can contract out of compensation much more easily than out of security under Clause 38. My second point is that Clause 41 (3, b) now brings in business premises in respect of which, subject to a vast variety of exceptions, a man has been in occupation for six months. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the 1951 Act is sufficient to carry on protection, and that it will not be possible in the intervening period for business tenants to be deprived of the protection of these provisions by action taken now by the landlord?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think so, but I will look carefully into the way it has struck the hon. Gentleman, especially in view of his vast experience and the work he did on the Leasehold Committee. I say that quite sincerely, as I am sure he appreciates. Indeed, all I have said about the work of the Committee is felt most sincerely by everyone in the House.
  Broadly, people can contract out of the compensation if it is not more than five

  1765
  years, because that envisages that when the landlord is expecting his premises back in a short time, it is reasonable to contract out of compensation; but people cannot, broadly, contract out of the security provisions. That is the approach we have made and we try to apply common sense. It applies generally, but of course there are certain fields to which it does not apply, such as agriculture and licensed premises, because they are covered by statutory codes at the moment into which we think it would be a pity to make an inroad. Apart from that field of exceptions, however, the idea is to cover everybody.
  Sir Patrick Spens: On that point, would my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the exception in Clause 41 (1, c), which I gather is where a person carries on the business of keeping a house for subletting and is taxed accordingly but none the less will not be given the benefit of this Bill? Thatis causing great anxiety amongst a large number of people, so will my right hon. and learned Friend say something about it?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am under the impression that in the case of someone letting flats or offices, where the person concerned has only a small letting office on the ground floor of the building and is carrying on the business of letting the premises there—that is, the premises are, so to speak, the stock in trade of the business—he is in a different position. I am prepared to discuss that but it would make a better Committee point than an interruption of my speech.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is a further point on that which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might want to consider. Take the case of a large house which, during the lease, has been converted into five or six flats. Would those provisions apply in that case?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to look into the point of where the exact frontiers come in the case of the exception quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). It would be more helpful if we discussed that in Committee, but I will certainly consider the point. In general, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) will agree that
  1766
  it is not a practice to be encouraged to throw out legal opinions on the construction of a Clause in the middle of a Second Reading speech, but I am none the less grateful for having had the point put to me.
  Part III deals with compensation for improvements and again we meet the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. The House will remember that under that Act the outgoing tenant of business premises is entitled in certain circumstances to compensation for an improvement which he has carried out, provided that it has enhanced the letting value of the premises. In Part III we seek to amend these provisions in various ways recommended by the Leasehold Committee and I do not think anyone will quarrel seriously with what we are doing.
  The Leasehold Committee also recommended that these compensation provisions should be extended to improvements in residential premises, but we decided against this. The reasons are set out in the White Paper, but if I may put them in a sentence, we think that residential premises are in a different category from business premises and that improvements in residential premises are a very different thing.
  I said that the test under the 1927 Act was whether there was an increase in the letting value. Compensation is not payable unless the improvement has increased the letting value of the premises. I do not think that this test really fits residential improvements. One point on that is that residential improvements are so much more a matter of personal preference than of economics; an improvement that appeals to one tenant may not appeal to another. And so I think it is difficult to ascertain at all reliably what increase in letting value has been produced. The other point is that I do not think it is fair to the landlord who intends to live in the premises himself later on—there are bound to be many such—to oblige him to pay for an improvement which he may not want and may not be able to afford. Again, I ask the House to remember the infinite variety of human taste.
  I now come to Part IV of the Bill. The point to which I want to direct the attention of the House, because it is a difficult one and is of some interest, is the position of the Crown and the way

  1767
  in which we have tried to treat the Crown for this purpose. There are several amendments to the general law of landlord and tenant. I shall refer to one or two a little later, but I should like to deal first with the application to the Crown.
  As far as Part I of the Bill is concerned—that is, the Part dealing with ground leases of houses—the Crown is in the same position as under the Rent Acts. The tenant whose immediate landlord is the Crown is not protected against the Crown. On the other hand, where there are three parties, the Crown as landlord, a tenant and a sub-tenant, then the sub-tenant is protected against his immediate landlord. I am not claiming any credit for or making a defence of that, because that is the Rent Acts position today, and it follows as a result of applying to occupying ground lessees the Rent Acts generally, including the Act which we all associate with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson)—the Crown Lessees (Protection of Sub-tenants) Act, 1952.
  When we come to business premises—that is to say, to Part II of the Bill—the Crown is bound; but Clauses 54 to 57 introduce certain modifications in relation to the Crown. Here we draw a distinction between the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, on the one hand, and ordinary Government Departments, on the other. I believe that to be right. Crown Lands and the Duchies hold their land for investment, just like a private landlord, and they are treated under Part II in exactly the same way as private landlords.
  Government Departments are in rather a different position. They are not landlords at all to any great extent. Where they do let property, it is either, first, because the property is not for the moment needed for the purpose for which it has been acquired, or secondly, because the letting is itself the means of carrying out the Department's statutory functions, as in the case of the factories erected by the Board of Trade in development areas. I ask the House to note that, because it is very important. It might be called the philosophic basis of the treatment of the Crown which I have suggested. There are cases where the
  1768
  letting is necessary for us to carry out statutory functions, and I think that factories in development areas are very good examples.
  In either type of case the security of tenure scheme which we are putting forward must not be allowed to damage the public interest by preventing the Department from obtaining possession where it needs it in order to carry out its business. As a principle, I hope that that will commend itself to the whole House. Whether I have worked it out properly in the Bill is another matter. For the reasons which I have stated, Departmental landlords are given a special right to refuse a new tenancy of business premises where a Minister certifies that to be necessary. Local authorities and certain other public bodies are given somewhat similar rights, provided again that a Minister certifies that possession is required.
  I considered this problem very carefully because I had very much in mind that there must be no favouritism of Government Departments. I am sure that I take the whole House with me in having had that in mind. I believe that the safeguards which I have included in the Bill are essential for the good functioning of Government in the country, but I have been careful to try to keep them to a minimum. It is worth mentioning here that Government Departments receive no special treatment in the matter of compensation. I think that that bears out the approach which I have indicated. Where land is required by a Department there must be a procedure for the Department to obtain it, but that does not affect compensation. If it gets it the Department receives no special treatment in the matter of compensation.
  Under Part II the private landlord must compensate when the tenant is refused a new tenancy on certain grounds. A Government Department must compensate, on the same basis, where it refuses a new tenancy on comparable grounds. Moreover, Government Departments must give tenants the same length of notice as must a private landlord under Part II, except where a Minister certifies that early possession is needed for reasons of national security.
  I should like to mention a group of the Leasehold Committee's recommendations, all dealing with covenants in leases. We

  1769
  have not accepted some but we have accepted others. I start with what I am sure must have given the hon. Member for Oldham, West one of his greatest headaches, as it has given me. It is the problem of securing a code of standard covenants in leases. I should like to put my difficulties to the hon. Member and tell him why I come to this position. I am sure that I shall have his sympathy, if not his agreement. The suggestion was that covenants were to be embodied automatically in all leases and tenancy agreements unless they were expressly excluded. I give it to anyone at once that in the White Paper we said that the Government had accepted this proposal in principle, but with reservations. We have given a great deal of thought to it since and we have decided not to include it in the present Bill.
  I think that the Leasehold Committee had repairing covenants mainly in mind. They wanted to ensure that in every tenancy responsibility for repairs was clearly allocated among the parties. A code of standard covenants is an attractive way of achieving this, but there are great inherent difficulties. The first is the question of how far we are to allow the parties to contract out. That stands out a mile. If one did allow that, the code would be soon a dead letter. It would soon be a dead letter if the whole thing could be excluded by a few words in a tenancy agreement or a sentence in the last page of a rent book. If contracting out were too easy, it would become a matter of common form.
  Ought we, then, to say that all the ground covered by the code must be covered in every tenancy agreement in some way or another? That is, ought we to say that, while the parties would be free to allocate between one another where the responsibility of repair would lie, there must never be any responsibility for repair left unallocated? That would make the parties assume a much greater responsibility for repairs than they would do at the present time. I do not know how one could let an old house which might be quite useful for the storage of certain things and allocate all the responsibilities of repair.
  Mr. Hale: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, may I say that he is very interesting on this point and that no one claimed the monopoly of
  1770
  wisdom on this matter on either side? It was obviously a very complex subject and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be too devastating in his analysis of the objections to the proposal. It should be borne in mind that in almost every business lease the small tenant is obliged to conform to a code made by the big landlord. He is told that he can take it or leave it. We felt that there was something to be said for a standard for the whole of the community rather than only for some big landlords.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that when I finish the hon. Member will see that I am being anything but dogmatic about it. I did feel that I owed it to the House, and especially to my colleagues who have been on the Committee, to put the difficulties as they appeared to me as frankly as I could. Going back to my point as to whether we ought to allocate all repair responsibilities in every case, I will take the case of the old house that may be rented for storage as illustrating one of the difficulties.
  This is not a party point at all. I think Parliament would prefer to impose these liabilities by an express obligation rather than by an indirect method. Broadly, that is the sort of line that we have tried to take in the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. That Bill does not affect the contractual liabilities of the parties but it says that the landlord is not entitled to an increase in rent unless he keeps the house in good repair. I think that broadly it is better to lay down obligations of that sort in housing legislation than in a Landlord and Tenant Bill.
  There is also the point, which I am sure the hon. Member will remember, that the Committee itself was doubtful whether its code should apply to Rent Act houses. If we leave out the Rent Act houses, I am not sure that the code is necessary for properties of other kinds, but I want to make clear that I am not rejecting the idea. That is why I indicated to the hon. Member that he should be of good cheer. I think we must defer consideration of it and I hope I have pointed out the difficulties with sufficient frankness for the House at any rate to have sympathy with me, if it does not agree with me about it.

  1771
  The other point which gave me difficulty is that of covenants against assignments, subletting, making of improvements and change of user. My professional colleagues, who have shown such extraordinary patience, will know that there are two kinds of these covenants. Sometimes, for example, the tenant covenants that he will not assign the tenancy without the consent of the landlord and the law at present says that in such a case the landlord's consent must not be unreasonably withheld.
  The second type of covenant is the absolute covenant by the the tenant that he will not assign at all. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that we should do away with the absolute covenant and it was suggested that it should be converted into a covenant not to act without the consent of the landlord. We accepted that recommendation with reservation, as stated in the White Paper.
  It is interesting to see, as we go on with discussions, how far our experience has been changed. One of the objects of a White Paper is to try to test public opinion. A great many professional and other organisations, and also individual members of the public, sent us their views on the White Paper and this proposal about covenants in leases attracted more criticism than anything else.
  There were various arguments; a perfectly reasonable one was that the landlord might have let the premises to a particular individual or for a specified purpose at a relatively low rent. If he did that he was entitled to be certain that the benefit of the tenancy at the low rent could not be assigned to someone else and that the premises could not be used for a much more valuable purpose. The argument which I think impressed me most was that the right to impose an absolute covenant is essential for good estate management. The House will remember the background which I have been considering, the Board of Trade with its factories in development areas. The same point was put to me by some colleagues in relation to the property which they administer. Again, I came to the conclusion that the criticisms had substance and decided not to include that proposal in the Bill.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: But if the consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, that would be an element taken into consideration. As it now stands, everything is cut out and there is no opportunity of assigning at all with an absolute covenant.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I must ask the hon. and learned Member to believe that that same profound consideration has occurred to me and I have argued quite a variety of cases with various interested people on it. They felt that very strongly and I felt that there was enough equity in their consideration to leave it out. Again, that is a point which we can pursue in Committee and I shall be very glad to hear the hon. and learned Member develop his objections. I thought I ought to state the reasons and the history to the House.
  I come now to the recommendations we have accepted. Clause 49 of the Bill, as suggested by the Committee, extends the scope of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, dealing with repairing covenants. I think the House will agree that it extends it considerably and wisely. Clause 50 carries out another of the Committee's recommendations by widening the scope of Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. That is a Section which provides machinery for inquiring into, and if necessary causing to disappear, restrictive covenants which have become obsolete. I always found it very useful machinery in the old days and we have widened it.
  Another proposal is concerned with the jurisdiction of the court when the question arises of whether the landlord has been unreasonable in withholding consent. At present the case can only go to the High Court. The Committee suggested, in connection with covenants against improvements, that the county court should have concurrent jurisdiction, and that is secured over a rather wider field by Clause 51.
  I must apologise to the House for spending so long on these technical details. There remains only a final point that I wish to make about the Bill as a whole. Time and again in preparing the Bill we came up against a difficult decision. Where exactly were we to strike the balance between the legitimate interests of landlord and tenant? We have done our best throughout to be fair to both. But there is a temptation to go

  1773
  so far in the pursuit of absolute fairness that one produces a system too complex to be workable. These provisions will affect great numbers of transactions and they will defeat their own ends if they are too complicated.
  In saying that, I hope no one will take me as discouraging suggestions for Amendment. It would not be much good if I tried to discourage them, but in any case I want to make clear that that is not my intention. Obviously there is a great fund of knowledge on this subject in this House. Our four colleagues who served on the Leasehold Committee must have accumulated an immense store of learning in the course of their labours. Many others have had experience of this subject in its various aspects either in this House and in our constituencies or professionally. Though I am sure there are many points on which, in the light of that knowledge and experience, the Bill can be improved, I am equally sure that its principles are sound, and that in this difficult and controversial field we have found a solution which is reasonably practicable.
  4.40 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which makes no provision for leasehold enfranchisement."
  I should like at the outset to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that I am sure the House is grateful to him for his painstaking exposition of the purposes of this Bill. We on this side of the House recognise at once that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a great deal of thought to the matters which he has embodied in his Bill. We accept at once, and recognise with gratitude, that the Bill contains a great deal which is of value and which accords with the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the proper relationship between landlord and tenant.
  On Second Reading of a Bill of this magnitude and complexity, it is impossible to go over many points which can be dealt with better in Committee; and I conceive it to be the best service I can render the House, in speaking on behalf of the Opposition, to deal with those
  1774
  matters of principle which seem to us to require discussion at this stage in the life of the Bill.
  Though recognising, as I say, that the Bill contains much of value, nevertheless there are some aspects which very gravely disappoint hon. Members on this side of the House. The first one with which I want to deal is that raised by the Amendment, the question of leasehold enfranchisement. I start my argument by citing a passage from the White Paper and ask, having cited it, whether the Government accept what is there expressed. Paragraph 12 of the White Paper, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is being principally implemented by the present Bill, reads:
  "The majority of the Leasehold Committee were opposed to the introduction in any form of Leasehold Enfranchisement, their opposition being based mainly"—
  and I emphasise the word "mainly"—
  "on ground of principle, such as the rights of property, the sanctity of the original contract, and the undesirability of providing by statute for compulsory acquisition of property by private individuals without regard to the public interest."
  There is an objection of basic principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not said a word about basic principles in his speech this afternoon.
  I should like to know whether the Government accept that there is a basic principle in the way of the acceptance of our proposal, or whether they depart from what is said in the Majority Report of the Leasehold Committee, and reject the view that there is any objection of principle to leasehold enfranchisement. The objection of principle is most easily answered if it is persisted in by the Government. Sometimes the expression "sanctity of contract" is a little over dramatised for political purposes. But if it is accepted—as I think we all accept—that it is a great and important principle that contracts should be honoured, that must apply to contracts entered into by parties on an equal footing one with another, each free to enter into the contract or not as they choose, and when no over-riding public interest intervenes.
  If it is said that there is an objection in principle on the ground of the "sanctity of the original contract"—and those are the words used in the White Paper in the quotation I have just read—I think it apposite and proper to remind

  1775
  the House that, when we are dealing with leasehold enfranchisement, we are dealing with interests in land which in no possible circumstances can be said to originate from any contract between equal parties on a fair basis.
  What we are dealing with is the interest of ground lessees mainly under 99-year building leases entered into originally in the middle of the last century between, on the one side, a working man, and, on the other side, a landlord who, by the accident of inheritance or birth, had a monopoly in vast tracts of land generally wholly undeveloped—the working man having an obligation to provide a house for his family on that very land which was near his work. A house is not a thing which you can do without. If you have a family you have to have a house. To apply the expression "sanctity of contract" to a contract which, in effect, the landlord could impose upon the working man is a mere perversion of language. That is the problem.
  If it is said that, after all, this happened nearly 100 years ago, I would reply that that is a very two-edged argument to use. The facts with which we are dealing at present are that in large tracts of this country, particularly in South Wales, these building leases are now running out. The result is that families who may have lived in houses for years and are paying a very low ground rent—families whose houses may have been equally occupied by their predecessors in title or in lineage—find themselves at risk of being thrown out with the expiry of their leases, unless they are rescued at the last moment by the provisions of the Government's present Bill. Therefore, it is an urgent and a pressing need with which the Government must deal when it approaches the situation of this very large number of people to whom I have referred.
  It is no consolation to those people to say that, after all, it is a question of "sanctity of contract," when their possession of what they regard—and are morally entitled to regard—as their home is threatened by the exercise of a right depending on a phantom title, 100 years old, which is devoid of flesh and blood and simply armed with legal teeth. That is the problem, and I would ask, do the Government adhere to the view, mainly relied upon by the majority report
  1776
  of the Committee, that there are objections of principle founded on the "sanctity of contract"? Or do the Government, as I apprehend, throw over that consideration lock, stock and barrel and recognise it as being completely empty and without foundation? If they do, and I hope they do, the only obstacle in the way of obtaining some form of leasehold enfranchisement is the series of what I respectfully would suggest are very slight difficulties which the right hon. and learned Gentleman enumerated in his speech.
  It was said—rather slightingly, I thought—in the Majority report that the demand for leasehold enfranchisement was, on the whole, in the country as a whole, comparatively slight. I do not know whether that is the view which has influenced the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but if it is I would ask him to have a word with some of my hop. Friends who represent constituencies in Wales. Then he will realise that the demand is extremely keen, as it is in the North as well as various other parts of the country, but particularly in Wales. He will realise the demand is particularly keen and that there is an intense feeling behind it that families who have lived for years and generations in houses which they have considered their own should be given the opportunity to become the lawful owners, without the threat hanging over them of the exercise of this century-old title which has little reality except in law.
  If the House accepts that there are these people in this predicament, and that there are these people in very large numbers, and that there is this keen and intense feeling which animates a desire for a right of leasehold enfranchisement, it is the duty of the Government not simply to be lukewarm, not to pooh-pooh their proposals and desires, but to approach the solution of these problems with something of a determination to find an answer to them. That is what the attitude of the Government should be in this matter.
  The Government say that there are difficulties and, on the whole, that there is no particular desire for leasehold enfranchisement. I would point out, that, in the first place, the Government have accepted it in principle for Scotland. I do not know why they should not accept

  1777
  it for England. Secondly, their own proposals to give security of tenure to the occupants of ground lessees themselves involve a considerable inroad—and rightly—upon this so-called "sanctity of contract" which invests with a particular holiness these century old rights. Thirdly, it is a well-known Ministerial exercise, without which few Ministers could survive in their offices, to construct a kind of obstacle course of difficulties which they represent as insuperable; and that is not the right way of approach to this extremely serious social problem.
  What are the obstacles which are suggested, and what is the remedy which we propose? The obvious and main difficulty clearly is the price at which the tenant, the ground lessee, should be entitled to acquire the property, if he is to acquire it, when, or at or about the time when, the ground lease runs out. Obviously, when one is still some considerable time away from the end of the lease the value of the reversion has not become enhanced—and does not become enhanced—by the prospect that the landlord will soon regain the tenement. At that stage, I think that, by common consent, it would not be unreasonable to provide that something in the way of the capitalised value on a certain basis of the ground rent would not be an unreasonable amount for the tenant to pay.
  The real difficulty arises when one approaches the terminal period of the ground lease—the last 15 or 20 years of it—when year by year the market value of the reversion increases by reason of the fact that the prospect of the landlord regaining the tenement at the end of the lease comes nearer and nearer. When we get to the last year the prospect of getting possession is so immediate that the value of the reversion is not far short of the value of the freehold. The difficulty is to try to find what is the proper price for the tenant to pay during that terminal period.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would expect the Opposition to say what, in terms, were their proposals to meet that problem. I do not propose to tie myself down irrevocably, on behalf of the Opposition, to any particular proposal in order to answer that problem. Two, at any rate, stand out as possible ones. One is the one which the Government themselves have
  1778
  adopted for Scotland which, I think, is approximately a 30 year capitalised value of the ground rent whenever the lease is bought out by the tenant. That is one proposal. I do not necessarily recommend it, but it is one which the Government have accepted and it obviously requires further consideration.
  Another proposal is one which I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have yet fully considered. They have not mentioned it in its fullness. It is the one which appears in the recommendations of my two hon. Friends who signed the Minority Report of the Committee. It is the suggestion, which I put before the Government for consideration, that the tenant in the terminal period should be entitled to buy the freehold not at the full market value of the reversion. That would probably be far beyond his purse, anyhow, and in point of fact it would be giving him no advantage because no doubt he could buy his freehold reversion at the market value without any legislative intervention by the Government. He should not have to pay that full market value but he should have to pay a value assessed, broadly speaking, on the principle which I will outline.
  It should be what the market value of the reversion would be if we assume a sitting tenant protected by the Rent Acts and, not only that, but a sitting tenant protected by the Rent Acts both in the matter of security and in the matter of rent. In other words, when we get to this terminal period what we should say is what would be the market value of the reversion of a particular house if we assume that the house is occupied by a rent protected tenant who had come into the house before 1914 or before 1939, as the case may be, and had thereafter occupied the premises at what would have been a protected rent supposing he had come in on those dates.
  Supposing he had come in in 1912, the standard rent as at that date would have been assessed. One can find out what that standard rent would be by asking what the rent of similar properties in the neighbourhood would have been. One can find out what would have been the rent that the tenant would have been paying supposing he had come in in 1912 and the lease had been granted before that date. Then, from that time onwards, that would have been his standard rent

  1779
  and it would have been susceptible of augmentation only in terms of the Rent Acts.
  When asking what should be the proper price that the tenant should pay for the reversion in its concluding stages, we should say, the market value of that reversion upon the assumption that the tenant had lived there at a protected rent and with tenure protected from 1912. Obviously that would give a figure which would be very much less than the ordinary market value of the reversion. I put that suggestion before the Government. It was a suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). So far as I know, it has not been fully considered by the Government; at any rate, I have seen no valid criticism of it, which would show that there was a basic objection to the assessment of the value of the reversion on something like those lines. I suggest that that is the basis on which possibly the problem of compensation might be approached.
  That really is the basic difficulty, such as there is. The other difficulties enumerated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman really are very trashy in comparison with that. What were they? The cost to the tenant; of course, that depends on the compensation. If the suggestion that I have made, or the suggestion that the Government themselves adopted for the purpose of their Scottish provisions, is approved, then that difficulty goes. What remains? There is the amenity covenant. A little goodwill can get over that difficulty. The occupation of the house, if the public interest so requires, could be made subject to compliance with an amenity covenant. That might be an answer.
  Then there is the question of severance. What compensation, if any, should the tenant pay to a landlord who has a terrace row of houses which are subject to building leases? If he should pay any compensation, I would only say so should a tenant of a terrace house who is at present given security of tenure under the Government's proposals. The Government have made no suggestion that that tenant should be under any obligation to pay compensation to the owner
  1780
  of the terrace. It is very questionable whether, as a matter of ethics and justice between the two, the occupier, who has become the freeholder of that same house in the assumed circumstances, should pay compensation for severance. If he should pay fox severance, then, equally, just as in the case of the evaluation of the reversionary price, there can be some kind of formula and some figure of compensation, which should be moderate and reasonable and such as is within the limits of the purse of the owner.
  I would put it seriously to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that to try to erect that as an insuperable obstacle which cannot be overcome by the exercise of good will and common sense is running away from the problem. If he thinks that there is no problem then he should have said so. If he thinks there is an objection in principle, then he should have said so. But he is running away from saying that, and I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not have committed himself to what really is an extravagant statement attributed to the majority Members of the Committee in paragraph 12 of the White Paper. So it really is a question of overcoming these difficulties.
  The prevention of desirable development is another difficulty instanced both in the Report and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is a very tenuous objection. There is no reason to suppose that development in parts of the country where the system of freehold tenure is operative is in any worse situation than development in parts of the country where the system of building leases have become widely spread. There is little reason to suppose, and little evidence to be culled from the past in support of the view that, because a particular house occupier has been changed from a long lessee into the owner of the house, it can have any real effect upon the development of general housing schemes in the neighbourhood.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If that is so I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question. If it is his view that the leasehold system is of such small importance in securing

  1781
  good town planning why did the Government of which he was a member introduce it in the new towns?
  Sir F. Soskice: But the new towns are the landlords, and it is a very different thing when we remember that the private landlord, whose principal object is to make profit—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Yes, unless it happens to be a private landlord like the Bournville Estate Company, or something of that sort. But one is a public authority in control of development; the other is a private owner who develops in order to turn the result to his ownprofit. It may be the case that a particular individual does have views as to development which coincide with public interest and public amenity, but I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that to assume that it is axiomatic that that is the case in every instance is very far from the mark.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was putting to me a point about freehold development and leasehold development in connection with town planning authorities, and I asked him, on that, a question which I thought was very relevant. If it is his view that the two can be equated, why did the Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member select leasehold development for the new towns? I submit that that is a very pertinent point.
  Sir F. Soskice: For the reason that I have given. Town planning has been brought under public control, and, indeed, the whole of this argument is rather academic. It might have been true at one time to say that, if there were developers animated by the same purposes as the Bournville Estate Company, a non-profit making concern, there would have been better large-scale development. But that is all past history since it has become an accepted part of our legislation that town and country planning is to be regulated by a public authority under statute.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, perhaps I may add something to what he has said. Surely there is an additional reason which the Home Secretary will appreciate. The background to
  1782
  the new towns is the example of Letch-worth and Welwyn Garden City. The original conception of Letchworth and Welwyn, as envisaged by the pioneer Ebenezer Howard, was a central landowner who would not only exercise town planning control through his leases, but would also recoup betterment for the public good. The leasehold system in those towns is an integral part of the financial set-up, which will bring money to the benefit of the inhabitants of these towns, as the values of central areas increased.
  Mr. R. Fleetwood-Hesketh: May I be permitted to say that I represent a town which was laid out between 1820 and 1840, and is still regarded as one of the best examples of town planning in England?
  Sir F. Soskice: If I may possibly supplement what I have said, I should like to quote from a passage in the Majority Report which does not bear out the conception that this system of building leases conduces in any real sense at all to the improvement of the town planning layout. It is paragraph 53 of the Report, which appears on page 138 and it says:
  "The minority who favoured leasehold enfranchisement for leaseholders with a substantial interest comprised all the Liberals on the Committee, and stated that the building lease system of 99 years or so was proved: —(1) To have been maintained by private Acts of Parliament framed on the lines of ecclesiastical custom and family settlement avowedly in the interests of the landowners. (2) To have led to bad building. (3) To have imposed vexatious and harassing covenants on lessees. (4) To have kept property in insanitary and dilapidated condition at the "fag-end" of the lease. (5) To have charged lessees with exorbitant fees and law costs. (6) To have separated ownership and occupancy and to have brought in being a number of intermediate interests of middlemen and ultimately of house jobbers. (7) To have inflated rack rents on both houses and tenements."
  I have read that paragraph word by word, because it is some evidence at any rate to show how the system worked out before we had the town and country planning legislation, which really is the proper repository of the public interest in the matter of amenity development and proper layout of town planning.
  I put to the House that that objection also is a particularly tenuous one. It has not worked out in fact to produce better town and country planning. Certainly, no reason is given, and if there is any

  1783
  better planning where the building lease system applies in any part of the country it has not been shown, but there is considerable evidence in the opposite direction. In any case, the thing is out of date because public authorities are responsible for the layout of town and country planning so that that goes. If I have correctly enumerated the objections raised, I think that is all—
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I wonder if I have correctly got the reference in the Leasehold Committee's Report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said paragraph 53, but the one he read does not coincide with the one in the Report.
  Sir F. Soskice: It is on page 138.
  The Solicitor-General: That is the Minority Report.
  Sir F. Soskice: That is the Committee's Report, and I read out to the House the words:
  "The minority who favoured leasehold enfranchisement for leaseholders"—
  The Solicitor-General: I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was reading from the Majority Report.
  Sir F. Soskice: I was reading from the Final Report and I prefaced what I was reading with the words:
  "The minority who favoured leasehold enfranchisement…."
  I thought that was reasonably clear.
  The final objection is even more tenuous, and it is that which reposes in the words which I noted from the Home Secretary's speech about the reduction in the scope of leasehold enfranchisement from the exclusion of public authorities. If that is the real reason I would simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that even if all these public authorities which he had in mind were excluded, there would still be very large areas, particularly in Wales, where any provisions, which the Government introduce giving the right to leasehold enfranchisement, would be operative and would be greatly to the benefit of those in whom the right was vested.
  Finally, on that, may I say this. All we seek to press upon the Government is to implement in the provisions of the Bill
  1784
  the right to buy the freehold—not the obligation to buy but the right to buy, and if the right would be exercised in only a comparatively few areas of the country, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, what of it? If it comes to the rescue of some families who are at the present time in the predicament which I have described and which is referred to over and over again in the Minority Report, it will still be an extremely valuable provision. In point of fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's apprehensions are really unfounded, because, even if public authorities, development corporations and all the rest were excluded, the right would still be exercisable, and I feel sure would be exercised, over very large stretches of the country and by very large numbers of families who live in these houses, which they are morally entitled to consider their own, and which, as a fact, they undoubtedly do consider to be their own.
  Mr. Gower: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, if this right was granted, he would limit it to the people who are in actual occupation of the houses?
  Sir F. Soskice: Personally, I would. I am not tying myself to any particular scheme, but, looking at the arguments both ways, I should have thought that the people who ought to be helped by the scheme are those people who have been actually occupying lessees under long leases which are about to run out, and occupying houses which they consider to be their homes and actually to belong to them, except for a legal fiction, the origin of which stretches far away back into history to a legal accident of 100 years ago. Those are the people—
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was interrupted in his speech and that he gave way, but there are a number of important matters which must be dealt with in Committee. All I want to do on Second Reading is to sketch in broad outline what is the scheme which we ask the Government to consider and, after consideration, to approve with the help of the expert advice at their disposal but not at ours, and have embodied in the Bill.

  1785
  How it comes about is in this way. The Government have rightly given security of tenure to long leaseholders whose leases are about to expire. In so doing, in the opinion of myself and I am quite sure of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, they have done right and abundantly right. All that we are asking them to do is that, having gone that far, they should include in their proposals one other giving the leaseholders security. They have given them security in the form of rent protected tenancies. Why should they not, if these very minor difficulties can be overcome, as they certainly can, instead of only giving a protected tenancy to the holders if they want one, say that they should be entitled, at a price to be fixed in accordance with a formula on the lines which I have suggested, to become the freeholders of the houses in which they and their forebears have lived. That is all that we suggest in regard to leasehold enfranchisement.
  Mr. Ralph Assheton: I want to challenge the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument here. He said a short time ago that there was no reason to suppose that the leasehold system had resulted in any town planning superior to that of the freehold system. Is he not aware that those towns which were laid out under the leasehold system, like Eastbourne and Southport, are infinitely better towns than have been built up under the freehold system?
  Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am talking about building leases granted about the middle of the last century, during which there was large-scale development during the industrial revolution in this country, which leases in large numbers are now falling in, particularly in Wales and in other areas of the country. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that those are the cases to which I am referring, and it is because of the predicament in which ground lessees under these leases stand that we press the Government to go what is only a little step further and say to these lessees that if, instead of being statutory tenants, they prefer to become freeholders, as they can under the Government's proposals for Scotland, they shall be allowed to do so—
  1786
  also in England and Wales. That is all we are asking them to do.
  Mr. Assheton Mr. Assheton rose—
  Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry, but I really must get on.
  That is, broadly, the request we are making to the Government, and we feel very disappointed that the Government, for what seem to us to be wholly unsatisfactory reasons, which have been advanced both in the White Paper and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, have hesitated to go further. They should not have been so timid about it, and they should not have stopped, for reasons which could easily be circumvented, at doing what is the real substantial measure of justice which is due to these tenants who hold these building leases which are now falling in.
  Having said that in support of the Amendment which I have moved, may I turn from that to the provisions of the Bill itself? The Government have already gone a long way in giving security of tenure. They offer it to residential tenants under Part I of the Bill, but there, again—and this is not a Committee point, but a point of substance and importance, which I must press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman at this stage—he is giving residential tenants security of tenure, and has provided in his Bill that tenants may stay on under the terms of the lease until and unless the landlord serves upon them a notice proposing a statutory tenancy. If the landlord does that, the terms of the statutory tenancy have either to be agreed between the parties or settled by the county court, including the provisions as to the rent.
  I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill contains a serious defect in the provisions to which I have referred as to rent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his speech today, said that he felt that it was in the public interest to leave the definition of rent in a very unprecise form. He felt that a rigid formula would be undesirable, and so he left the provisions as they appear in Clause 9 (4). The basic objection that I have and which I put to the Minister about that provision is that the rent, as it is there provided for, will almost certainly be fixed by the county court judge at the ordinary market rent, indepen-

  1787
  dently of any protection under the Rent Acts.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow me. What he has provided is that the court should have regard to the state of repair of the house as it would be if the initial repairs had been carried out, and the Clause goes on to say:
  "…and the rent determined by the court shall be the rent which, irrespective of the personal circumstances of the parties, in its opinion would be a reasonable rent for the dwelling-house on a letting in that state of repair and on those terms."
  I hope that the righthon. and learned Gentleman will place himself in the position of the learned judge who has to interpret that formula. What other rent would the learned judge adopt as a rent falling within that formula except an ordinary market rent? What does that mean? It means that a tenant whose forebears have been occupying the house at a ground rent that may have been £2 or £5 a year may suddenly find himself at the conclusion of the lease, no doubt with security of tenure, but at a rent which may be anything from £1 to 30s. or even £2 a week.
  That is really giving with one hand and taking away with the other, and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a provision in that form certainly will not meet the sense of injustice which these people, who are threatened with eviction, feel at the moment. They are told that they can stay, but, instead of staying on in what they regard as their own property at something like the same rent or something just above it, they are told that their rent may be 10, 12 or even 15 times as much, which very likely they cannot afford to pay.
  I would pass from that to refer to the important provisions of the Bill which provide that repairs which are due to the tenant's failure to comply with a repairing covenant may be carried out by the landlord, and that the cost of those repairs can be recovered by the landlord from the tenant either in instalments or by a lump sum. Suppose the repairs come to £150 or £200, as may well be the case with old property. If one tries to work the formula which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has embodied in his Bill, namely the repairs necessary to put the house into a good state of repair, the cost may work
  1788
  out at something like £150, or some figure in that neighbourhood.
  If the tenant, who has theretofore lived in the house on payment of a ground rent, finds himself obliged not only to pay 30s. for his rent but on top of that to pay a lump sum which may be £150, or instalments which may be £5, £10 or £15 a month, on top of the rent, the protection that is being offered to him may be completely illusory. He is offered security of tenure, but at a price which he cannot pay. The danger that the price of leasehold enfranchisement might be beyond his means was one of the objections urged against leasehold enfranchisement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting, in a different form, equally upon the tenant who is supposed to have security of tenure, an equally difficult burden for him to carry.
  Mr. Hale: I am not quite clear on these points, on which I always speak subject to correction. It appears that the tenant will have not merely to pay the rent and pay by instalments the amount of repairs, but that the rent will be on the basis that the repairs have been done before the rent is assessed; so that there will be an instalment, plus the cost of the repairs.
  Sir F. Soskice: Yes. The learned judge has to consider what would be a reasonable rent payable for this house, supposing the initial repairs had been carried out. It may be that the house after 100 years, is in a state, not exactly of dilapidation, but in which it could be said that it is far from being in a good state of repair. The learned judge has to picture that house in a good state of repair, and then to ask himself, "What is a reasonable rent for that house?" Obviously, he will say to himself, "I have no guidance here. I can only fix what is a reasonable rent. The Act gives me no authority to limit the rentby reference to any protection which the Rent Restrictions Acts provide in regard to rent. I must see what is the market rent for such premises in a good state of repair."
  What is the situation in which the tenant may find himself? What will happen if that tenant becomes unemployed or ill? He has still to pay these sums of money. Thinking, as he is entitled to think, that in the Bill there is protection for him in the matter of his

  1789
  tenancy, he will find that protection taken away from him because it is accompanied by an obligation to pay sums which, very likely, will be wholly beyond his means.
  What do we say in reply to that? The Government have said in their White Paper that they want to remove an anomaly. In paragraph 34 of the White Paper the Government say:
  "The Leasehold Committee were unanimous in proposing that this exclusion should be abolished"—
  the exclusion being the exclusion from the protection of the Rent Acts of houses let at less than two-thirds of the rateable value—
  "the Majority, because they thought it an unjustifiable anomaly, and the Minority because, in addition, they considered its abolition a pre-requisite for their scheme of leasehold enfranchisement."
  That is the view which the Government have accepted, the view of the whole Committee, that the exclusion of these tenancies at less than two-thirds of the rateable value outside the provisions of the Rent Acts was an anomaly; so that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do is to remove that anomaly and to bring them in.
  If he does so, not merely should he provide the tenants with security of tenure but he should also give them the advantage of the limitation of rentals to be charged that the Rent Acts enjoin. We say that he should not leave the matter of rent at large, to be fixed, as it almost certainly will be fixed, on a basis of open market rent. He should ask himself, looking at the tenant in that house, "Suppose that at all times the tenant and his predecessors had been protected tenants, what rent would they be paying?" That is the rent which should be fixed under the terms of the Bill as the rent payable by the tenant whose tenancy is to be continued as a statutory tenancy in consequence of a landlord's notice.
  I want to pass from that point to say one word or two on Clause 15, which reverses the Knightsbridge Estates decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked by one of my hon. Friends. "What rent will the tenant who is given protection by Clause 15 have to pay?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered, I should have thought rightly, if I may respectifully say so, "It will simply be the protected rent he was
  1790
  paying when everybody was under the impression that he was already entitled to protection under the Act before the Knightsbridge decision was given." If he has to pay a protected rent after the ground lease expires, is it not wholly anomalous, supposing that the ground lessee himself continues as a protected tenant, that the ground lessee should have to pay the fullmarket rent? It is impossible in logic to reconcile these two, and to explain what is a clear—involuntary, no doubt—discrimination. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will explain where I am wrong.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is more convenient to reply later.
  Sir F. Soskice: Later on, we shall have the advantage of a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and we are looking forward to enjoying the full fruits of it. I am sure that one of the fruits will be a clear exposition of the error into which I have fallen.
  It seems that the Knightsbridge tenant will have to pay a protected rent, but that the ground lessee who holds on will have to pay the full market rent, as a reasonable rent to be fixed by the court. At the least, it is putting a most unfair burden on the judge to ask him, without any guidance and at large, to fix upon what he thinks is a reasonable rent. It makes his position most unenviable. He may decide upon a market rent in a case in which other people may think it should have been a protected rent. That position of the learned judge, left unprotected under the terms of the Bill, is one which should not be put upon him.
  I have dealt with matters arising out of Part I of the Bill, and I would couple them again with an expression of my recognition of the thought that the Government had given to drawing the provisions of the Bill, which has nevertheless, in my submission, the defects which I have pointed out. I am sure that the righthon. and learned Gentleman will carefully consider what I have said, as he always does, whether he thinks my points bad or good, and I hope he will see his way to altering the provisions as to rent and substantially reducing the burden of the cost of initial improvements, which are at present put upon the shoulders of the tenant.

  1791
  With that, I pass to business premises and the provisions in Part II. About them I want to say much less, because I find much less to quarrel with. The scope of Part II is extremely wide. It covers—indeed, this is almost a frightening phrase with which I certainly do not want to frighten the Government—
  "any activity carried on by a body of persons, whether corporate or incorporate."
  That covers almost everything. I suppose it covers factories, and would cover the activities of non-profit earning bodies. I suppose it was intended for that, but it is very wide. The Government have been very courageous in adopting these terms in the provisions of their Bill, accepting as they do the view that the paramount consideration is the tenant's right to occupy. He is the person who is in the premises, the person who is living there, as distinct from the landlord, who has simply an investment interest. I am not going to cavil at what the Government have done in regard to this matter.
  The only other thing I would say is that, unless I have misunderstood the effect of Clause 30 (1), it is a bar to the tenant's claim for a new lease, first, that alternative accommodation is available; secondly, that the landlord requires to demolish or reconstruct the premises; and, thirdly, that the landlord intends to occupy the premises for the purpose of carrying on a business of his own.
  I hope that during the Committee stage we shall further investigate the suggestion that these are unjustifiable bars in the way of the tenant's claim to have a new lease of the premises in which he makes his living. That, I suggest, is a case where the investor's interest is preferred—and unjustifiably preferred—to the interest of the person who lives there and who makes his living on those premises. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider that.
  One word with regard to the question of compensation which can be said to approach a matter of principle and to transcend detail. It is a bar to the tenant's right to compensation for goodwill or to compensation generally—because it is not named as compensation for goodwill—(1) that the tenant has not sought to renew; (2) that he is in breach of covenant; (3) that he is unsatisfactory as a tenant; (4) that he has declined an
  1792
  offer of suitable alternative accommodation; and (5) that he has failed to exercise a reasonable contractual option for renewal.
  I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is going to reply, that when one is considering compensation on this very modest scale for what is accrual value in the premises, or what is at least assumed to be a loss to the tenant—either a gain to the landlord or a loss to the tenant, these bars to his right to seek compensation are wholly irrelevant.
  Why should the landlord reap the advantage of an added increment in the value of the premises just because the tenant has not sought renewal? This has nothing to do with it, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to strike out of the Bill these provisions, or, at any rate, to give the matter further consideration so that we may hear a stronger case in favour of them in Committee than we have heard so far. It seems irrelevant that they should enable the landlord to obtain a monetary advantage for reasons which have nothing to do with the circumstance which give rise to the tenant's claim.
  Finally, I propose to say a few words about one or two other Clauses. I am very doubtful whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description of the provisions as to quantifying the computation of the rateable value or double the rateable value under Clause 37 is, as he describes it, rough justice, or whether I should not adopt the expression used by an hon. and learned Gentleman who was once a Member of this House, "just roughness."
  That provision for quantifying can bear nothing but a hit and miss relationship to the actual loss suffered by the tenant through disturbance. He goes out and suffers loss, and—although I can see the reasons which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deployed on the score of certainty—simply to give the tenant the rateable value, or, in some circumstances, double the rateable value seems a very jejune effort to compensate him for what may be a serious loss.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself realises, it will work wholly differently in the case of different tenants. Some tenants will suffer a large loss, and

  1793
  others none at all. Again, there will be bad tenants and good tenants who will yet get the same compensation. Therefore, that is a provision which wants looking into again in Committee.
  Those are the general remarks that I have to make about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill. I do not want to seem ungracious or ungrateful in not paying my tribute to the obvious thought which he has put into the Bill. Having gone so far, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that in many respects he has stopped short. The Government accept as a matter of principle that it is the duty of Parliament to come to the rescue of tenants of long leases and to come to the rescue of tenants of business premises.
  As to the tenants of business premises, the Government have acted in a way at which, subject to the suggestions I have made, I could not cavil. They have acted very fairly towards them. But in the case of residential tenants they have given them what is little better than a fictitious certainty of tenure, because they have burdened them with payments which, in many cases, they will not be able to pay, and also have stopped short where they should have followed the example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues in their Scottish provisions, and given them not only the right to become statutory tenants but also the opportunity of owning their home in the true sense. The objections which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced are of a comparatively ephemeral nature which can certainly be overcome, and I hope he will give further thought to the matters I have raised.
  5.36 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I think that anyone who has listened to the very interesting speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) will be at a loss to understand why the Government of which he was a Member failed to bring in a Measure of leasehold enfranchisement between the years 1945–51, because every single argument which he has advanced this afternoon applied just as strongly during those years as it applies today.
  Sir F. Soskice: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard it said over and over
  1794
  again that during the years 1945–50 we probably did much too much owing to the arrears of social reforms left over from the previous period? I have never heard it suggested that we did not do enough.
  Sir E. Boyle: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was too much legislation in those years, not all of it valuable. But, on his own principles, it seems to me very difficult to defend the failure of the last Government to introduce this legislation during those years.
  I was going on to say that nearly all of the arguments which he advanced this afternoon were getting out of date in the early years of the present century. If he wishes to see them answered even more conclusively than they are answered in the White Paper, I strongly recommend that he should read a short book on Liberalism by Mr. Herbert Samuel, as he then was, which was published as long ago as 1902.
  I think that the present Government can take some congratulation for the fact that our proposals are based on the findings of a committee which sat since the war. Time after time, we have repeated these proposals as our policy, both at the Blackpool Conference in 1950 and since then in this House, and I honestly suggest that our proposals are more in line with the needs of the present day than is a policy which was completely discredited 50years ago.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that Mr. Lloyd George, who was then the Leader of the Liberal Party, advocated leasehold enfranchisement at the time to which he referred a moment ago?
  Sir E. Boyle: Mr. Lloyd George was not the Leader of the Liberal Party in 1902, and it is only fair to say that Mr. Herbert Samuel was a friend of Sidney and Beatrice Webb. It so happens that the Webbs would have supported the views of my hon. and right hon. Friends on leasehold enfranchisement, rather than those of hon. Members opposite, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) pointed out in his very convincing speech when we last debated this subject. I am sorry that the hon. Member, who takes such a very sound view of the question, is not with us this afternoon.

  1795
  The hon. and learned Gentleman read paragraph 12 of the White Paper and then asked whether the Government agreed with it. Quite honestly, the answer can be found in a completely straightforward way in paragraph 16 of the White Paper, where the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find these words:
  "Whether, and (if so) at what point and in what circumstances, this special interest may be held to give to the occupying ground lessee a right(denied to the occupying rack-rent tenant) to enlarge his proprietorial interest by compulsorily acquiring the freehold against his landlord's wishes are no doubt more controversial questions, and the Government are very far from conceding that occupying ground lessees possess such a right as a matter of principle. Their examination of the scheme proposed by the Minority of the Leasehold Committee has, however, led them to the conclusion that the practical difficulties of application, quite apart from any objections of principle, are likely to prove fatal to the devising of any workable and worthwhile scheme."
  That is a perfectly legitimate method of argument. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite feel very strongly about this, but we say that we are not going to rely simply on arguments of principle, and we point out that the consequences of what they want to do would not be nearly so straightforward as they themselves imagine. They would be fraught with far more difficulties than they think and in this debate we are quite entitled to take our main stand on practical grounds.
  There is, however, one point of principle upon which I take my own stand and which I should like to make absolutely clear. I believe the building lease system to have been a valuable one. I hope that system will be maintained in this country, because I believe that it has enabled a very large number of private people to obtain residences or business premises without having to sink money in a freehold.
  I have no respect for the wholly fraudulent argument that those who do not uphold leasehold enfranchisement are not on the side of those who wish to own their own homes. On the contrary, the leasehold system has enabled countless people, who could not otherwise have done so, to own their ownhomes, and it is my fundamental objection to any scheme of leasehold enfranchisement that
  1796
  has so far been proposed that I do not think it could be introduced without dealing the leasehold system a lethal blow. For my own part, I have no special knowledge of this subject, but I represent a dormitory area—an urban suburb. I have had to answer questions about this, and I have always tried to put the case for the Government's proposals as clearly and fairly as I could.
  I was very interested indeed to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said today about the financial aspect of the Opposition's proposals. They are, of course, identical with the description given of them in paragraph 17 of the White Paper. It is important to make that clear, because when we last debated this subject the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said more than once that we did not understand what their proposals really were. Here I would like to say how sorry I am that the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be with us today, because he always makes very valuable contributions and I, for one, listen with great interest to him.
  Sir F. Soskice: I shall be glad if the hon. Member would allow me, in my intervention, to express my recognition of what he has just said, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, with regard to my hon. and learned Friend. I should like to thank them cordially on his behalf.
  Sir E. Boyle: The former Attorney-General made it perfectly clear this afternoon that his proposals are that the leaseholder who wishes to enfranchise should pay what the market value of the reversion would be if there was a sitting tenant protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. That was not, I think, the scheme of leasehold enfranchisement envisaged in the last debate by more than one hon. Gentleman opposite, and I have very few constituents who would wish to enfranchise on those terms.
  My experience when answering questions on this subject at election times, is that there are many people who would like to be able to hold their leases in perpetuity, and some would like to be able to compensate the landlord for the capital value of the ground rent and enfranchise on those terms, but I do not

  1797
  believe there are a large number of people who wish to enfranchise on the terms described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think it is also worthwhile pointing out that, in paragraph 17, the White Paper makes it quite clear that this proposal would entail a comparatively large sum of money being paid by just the class of people on whose behalf hon. Members opposite often speak—miners living in South Wales. They would have to find a large capital sum, and I am very sceptical as to how many would wish to do so.
  I know that my next point will provoke a howl, but I shall make it nevertheless. I do not believe that we should assume that the Rent Restrictions Acts, in their present form, will remain on the Statute Book indefinitely. Nor can I understand anybody reading this White Paper and thinking that the difficulties of any system of leasehold enfranchisement which are described in it are minor ones. Having listened to the last debate, having re-read very carefully what was then said by the hon. and learned Gentleman for Leicester, North-East, and having listened, as I did, with the closest attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon, I do not believe that they have done justice to the difficulties described in the Government's White Paper.
  Let me just deal with one or two examples where I feel the case is particularly strong. There is, first of all, this question about the public interest when large estates would be severed. Surely, the point is this—and it is described quite clearly at the bottom of page 8 of the White Paper—that it would be the duty of the local planning authority to decide whether enfranchisement in any given case was contrary to the public interest or not. It might well turn out, in many cases, that an enfranchisement would have taken place early in the duration of the lease, and that only at the end of the duration of the lease, when other leases on the same estate were also falling in, would the local planning authority discover their mistake in allowing the earlier case of enfranchisement.
  I can see the task of local planning authorities being made very much more difficult if proposals such as those suggested by the other side were carried out. Secondly, I believe that the proposals of
  1798
  hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not work out fairly and equitably as between one landlord and another and one tenant and another—it is difficult enough to hold the balance fairly between landlord and tenant—but nothing could be worse than to carry out some scheme which would seem unfair to two people who felt themselves similarly placed.
  I do not propose to develop these points further, because I think they are made absolutely clear in the White Paper, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General will be replying later. Having read the White Paper and the last debate, and having some constituency experience of these problems, I believe that the Government's proposals are about as fair as could be devised in the present circumstances. They will give security to the leaseholder at a time when alternative accommodation may not be available. I, personally, commend the proposals to the House, and shall be very glad to do all I can—although I know it will not be much—to help the Bill through its later stages and to see it put on the Statute Book.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: We have listened to two speeches from the other side of the House this afternoon. One was from the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the other from the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary spoke with his customary charm and Platonic partly political manner, and talked at considerable length about the details of the Bill; but the hon. Member for Handsworth put up a much more convincing case than that of the Home Secretary when he was discussing the principle of leasehold enfranchisement. I thought that the Home Secretary was particularly weak on that point.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Handsworth was that the building lease system had served a very useful purpose in enabling people to build homes which they could not otherwise have done, because it enabled them to put the capital into the building and not necessarily into the land. I should like the hon. Member to look a little more closely at the figures of such a transaction. The houses which we are discussing today are, primarily, those which were built at just

  1799
  over the halfway period of the 19th century. At that time money values were very different from what they are today.
  An average small building plot could then be purchased for £20 or £25, when building was at the density which was normal in industrial towns. The average ground rent demanded where the freehold was not sold initially to the developer was somewhere between £1 and £2 a year. The £20 or £25 required for the purchase of a plot represented only a small proportion of the initial capital cost of building the house. I should not have thought that that amount was a very great deterrent to somebody who proposed to build his house. It did not represent a very substantial factor in the question whether or not development took place.
  The basis of the hon. Member's remarks was that the development would not have taken place had it not been for the fact that people had been able to lease the land instead of having to purchase the freehold. But the leasehold system did not come into existence through a benevolent attempt to secure development. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) pointed out—in what, if I may presume to say so, was a quite remarkable speech; one of the best statements on leasehold enfranchisement which we have heard in this House for a very long time—it was due to the fact that large numbers of land owners had a monopoly of the land in areas where development was taking place.
  We cannot approach this problem either from the technocratic attitude of the Home Secretary, who dealt with a small number of technical objections, or from the legal problems which are involved. As the Minority Report rightly pointed out, this is an issue which one must approach fundamentally from one's particular political standpoint. It is essentially a political issue, which can be re solved only by political decision. One's approach is entirely dependent upon one's own personal experience and the broad political views one holds. It is essentially a Liberal policy—
  Mr. Hale: Where are the Liberals?
  Mr. Donnelly: My hon. Friend will probably realise that I am speaking from the Liberal Bench this afternoon. It is
  1800
  regrettable that not even one Liberal has attended this debate to advocate his view on what used to be one of the central planks of the Liberal Party programme, and which enabled them to win every seat in Wales in the 1906 General Election. Not one of them is here to advocate the cause which once made their party great.
  This issue arises out of the land monopoly which existed in the 19th Century. We have been discussing the question of leasehold enfranchisement for a long time. In his quotation from paragraph 53 of the Minority Report my right hon. and learned Friend gave evidence of the adverse effect which the leasehold system has had.
  Now let me go back as far as the famous Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, 1884–85, when a Supplementary Report, signed by Cardinal Manning, Lord Carrington and a number of other people, said:
  "The system of building on leasehold land is a great cause of the many evils connected with overcrowding, in sanitary buildings, and excessive rent. This appears to be conclusively proved by the evidence of Lord William Compton, Mr. Boodle, the agent of the Marquess of Northampton, Mr. Vivian, of Camborne, and by the incidental evidence of other witnesses….Those of Your Majesty's Commissioners whose signatures are appended to this supplementary report are of opinion that the prevailing system of building leases is conducive to bad building, to deterioration of property towards the close of the lease, and to a want of interest on the part of the occupier in the house he inhabits…."
  Those are the views of that famous Royal Commission, and they are in direct contradiction to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Handsworth.
  The attitude of mind with which he approached this problem was made only too clear by the remarks of the Home Secretary. When he was discussing the question of dilapidations, with a great air almost of benign benevolence—at which he is so good—he mentioned that he was using the phrase of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in referring to a house being in good repair. He said that was the upper limit to be demanded. Still talking about dilapidations, he said that good repair was a material factor in the assessment of the rent, and that the rent would be based upon the condition of the house after the repairs had been done. All that means is that the tenant is being asked to put

  1801
  his house into good repair; he is being asked to pay for it, and then he is being asked to pay for the good repair into which he has put it. Then the rent is assessed. In effect, he is being asked to pay for his own increase in rent.
  Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend should inform the House of the full magnitude of this question. First, the tenant does the repairs; secondly, the landlord says that the house is not in good repair; thirdly, the tenant pays by instalments after the landlord does the repairs; fourthly, the rent is assessed on the basis that the tenant has put it in good repair, and fifthly, the landlord, under the appropriate Housing and Rents Measure, is then qualified to put the rent up once again.
  Mr. Donnelly: Yes, and then remember the remarks of the hon. Member for Handsworth, who says that the Rent Restrictions Acts should be repealed.
  Fundamentally, the landlord's interest in leasehold property is the question of how much he will get out of it. Fundamentally, the tenant's interest in the house which he occupies is the question of how much happiness he will get out of it. Fundamentally, there is a conflict of interest in those two approaches.
  Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that many leaseholders have the same motives as the landlord, in so far as they acquire leasehold houses and sublet them to other people, obviously with the same motives?
  Mr. Donnelly: I am not concerned, any more than my hon. and learned Friend was, with the individual who acquires a leasehold house and then sublets it. I am concerned with the person who has a direct lease from the freeholder, and whose home it actually is.
  I should have thought, in view of the discussion we have had today, that it would have been generally agreed, despite the hon. Member for Handsworth, that this is fundamentally a bad system because there is a conflict of interest, and that it should be our aim to try to do away with the system, if that is possible. We quite agree that we are saddled with this system, and that is why we are prepared to agree to measures of protection for people when their leases fall in. At the same time we must dispense with the
  1802
  system. We have got to have something which breaks the ring, so to speak. That is the reason why we are advocating leasehold enfranchisement. It is no good having the one without the other, no good having the Government's protection unless we have leasehold enfranchisement provisions as well, because it is the leasehold enfranchisement provisions which make the other tolerable and enable us to create a land tenure system in which this sort of thing will not happen again. Otherwise, this sort of thing can go on happening. Now let me deal with the objections.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said that what we ought to do is to concentrate on what a tenant needs now, the right to stay in his own home. I think that that is a most charming utterance from a chief spokesman of the political party that believes in a property owning democracy. Is this the complete abandonment of all the proposals for people to purchase their own homes? It is the negation of any suggestion that people feel any personal desire for the ownership of their own homes.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), in a brief intervention, said that the leasehold system had produced valuable town planning schemes and that it enabled land owners to secure some measure of uniformity of design and in the standard of layout and so on. He ought to bear in mind that in the 19th Century there were no town planning powers of any kind in existence, and the only way in which one could exercise any control of development was through central ownership of the land. In the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, adequate powers of control over development are provided. The powers are, indeed, as some people may say, too wide. The right hon. Gentleman, with his advocacy of Adam Smith that he produces from time to time, would be one of the first to say that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is almost an encroachment on the liberty of the individual.
  The other point the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider, too, fairly carefully is that in the 19th Century it may have been that there were good schemes promoted by individual landlords in certain upper class areas such as Bath and

  1803
  Regent Street, London, and so on. What we are concerned with here is where the landlord has ignored the social considerations involved because he was solely concerned with the profit motive. That is the industrial development in South Wales and Lancashire. The answer to him is that it is no good the right hon. Gentleman's coming here and saying that just because a few landlords were good we ought to ignore the adverse effects of the developments which have taken place under the leasehold system in all the other parts of the country.
  The Home Secretary produced in addition to his central objection, five individual objections which we had already heard from him in the debate on 30th April last year. The first one of those was that any proposal for enfranchisement would be a heavy financial hardship on the tenants, that they would not have the money for it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Minority Report which my hon. Friends produced he will see that they said that side by side with any proposals for enfranchisement was the consideration of how they should be financed. There are also many agencies now, the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, building societies and insurance companies, by which people can borrow sums of money to purchase the freehold of their property.
  The other particular points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produced, such as the adverse effect of the severance from the landowners, the problem where more than one dwelling was embodied in one particular lease, are all technical points that could all be dealt with in the Committee stage of any Bill produced for leasehold enfranchisement; technical points rather than points of basic principle. I should have thought that none of those five points the Home Secretary produced was a really essential administrative obstacle that would prevent us from progressing any farther with any leasehold enfranchisement proposals. I should have thought that those five points might well have been made within the general policy of the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act, 1920, to which my hon. Friends drew attention in their Minority Report. In paragraph 47 they say this:
  "The following example will illustrate the scope of the Act: —In 1823 A lets a building
  1804
  plot to B for 99 years under a building lease subject to a ground rent and an obligation to build a house costing not less than £x and to yield up the property with the house in good repair at the end of the lease. B sublets to chapel trustees for the remainder of the 99 years less one day and the trustees build a house for occupation by their minister. In 1918 A's reversionary interest is sold to C who pays his price in the expectation that in 1922 he will obtain not only the ground but also the house free of the lease. In 1920 the Act is passed and the trustees can then enfranchise—they can enlarge their leasehold interest into a fee simple estate at a price from which the value of tie house is excluded."
  If it was possible to do that in 1920 with that property, it is possible to do it in a much wider form in relation to the leases of all dwelling houses.
  Now let me make a concession. I quite agree that some injustice will be involved to people who are in the position of Mr. C., but whatever one does about this complex problem some injustice will be done to someone. What we are seeking to do is to create an administrative setup that will enable us to dispense with the system in future. As I have said, I do not think it can be done until we introduce leasehold enfranchisement.
  The Royal Commission of 1884, in the Supplementary Report signed by those 10 members that I have already mentioned, came down in the end by saying this quite firmly:
  "Legislation favourable to the acquisition on equitable terms of the freehold interest on the part of the leaseholder would conduce greatly to the improvement of the dwellings of the people of this country."
  They themselves advocated leasehold enfranchisement, and it is from that period that the demand for leasehold enfrancisement actually began.
  I think it is only fair to say in passing that there was an additional Memorandum by the Marquess of Salisbury in which he called the proposal for the enabling of the holder of a long lease to force the freehold, "wholly objectionable, wholly novel." Of course, that was to be expected of the Marquess of Salisbury of the day. He was the very gentleman of whom Joseph Chamberlain said, "He toils not, neither does he spin." But that Marquess is already celebrated in the political history of the party opposite.
  That demand for leasehold enfranchisement, which the Royal Commission of 10 members put forward, to which the Marquess objected and which began

  1805
  about that period, was one of the central principles upon which David Lloyd George founded his political career. In his first political speech in the Caernarvon Boroughs bye-election in 1890, which returned him to this House, he included this sentence:
  "The leasehold system is most oppressive and unjust. It is a stain on the laws of the country, and it is the duty of every Member of Parliament to do his utmost to remove it from the Statute Book."
  Those were the battles of 60, 70 and 80 years ago, and the fact that we are still having to argue about them today is an illustration of the fact that the party opposite has not changed. It is the same political party, with many of the same names in the leadership and many of the same interests, some of which have been advocated here this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham—
  Mr. Hale: Oldham, West.
  Mr. Donnelly: I am sorry; I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. I always wish to differentiate between him and the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin). I am not interested in the latter because I hope for a change in the representation of the Oldham, East constituency at the next election. In the course of his brief intervention my hon. Friend gave some illustrations of the effect of this Bill on tenants and of the way in which rents would be increased.
  Perhaps I may, in conclusion, give some indication of the effect of the Bill on the position of the landlord, as opposed to that of the tenant; and herein lies my personal interest in the problem. As many hon. Members know, the town of Pembroke Dock is the classic example of the leasehold system in this country. There we have a town which was built around a naval dockyard at the beginning of the 19th Century. All the land belonged to one landowner, a man called Brigadier-General Sir Frederick Charlton Meyrick. There we see, not a landowner interested in enabling the workers in the dockyard to build their houses and in removing from them the burden of having to purchase the freehold of the land, as the hon. Member for Handsworth would have us believe, but a landowner deliberately using the monopoly he had of the land in the area—poor scrub land—in order to compel the dockyard workers to
  1806
  undertake long building leases which would eventually fall in and, together with the houses Which the dockyard workers had built, would revert to the estate company.
  In that town there are something like 1,730 leasehold houses. In Pembroke Dock itself, 75 per cent. of the houses are still leasehold. If we take £3 a year as an average ground rent—and I have deliberately put the figure high—the 1,730 houses would yield a gross income of £5,190. Under the general system which the estate company was pursuing before the introduction of the Bill, and under the general system of re-leasing where the leases have fallen in, the company has been asking an average ground rent, for the renewal of the lease, of £20 a year. Whereas the previous gross income was £5,190 at £3 a year, at a rent of £20 a year, when the leases fall in, the new gross income would be £34,600, which is a very substantial difference.
  Under the proposals which the Government have brought forward, where landlords will be able to obtain the full rack rent—and again I have deliberately taken a low figure for the rack rent—the average rent per house would be £40 a year—15s. a week. At £40 a year the 1,730 houses would yield a gross income of £69,000. The income would rise from £5,190 to £69,000.
  Why, this is the biggest wage claim in British history. There are banner headlines if the railwaymen ask for 5s. a week more, or if the Electrical Trades Union asks for a few pence an hour extra, but here is one landlord asking for an increase of £64,000 a year. He does not do a stroke of work to earn this. He never built one of those houses or paid for a single brick or a stone or for the mortar which went into them. Like the Marquess of Salisbury to whom I have referred, he toils not neither does he spin; and yet he is asking and getting an increase of about £1,600 a week in his gross income. This is the full measure of this preposterous proposal which the Government have brought forward.
  Mr. Gower Mr. Gower rose—
  Mr. Donnelly: I have given way to the hon. Member several times, and I do not wish to detain the House by doing so again.

  1807
  I think this is a very good example by which the nation may realise—if the newspapers are prepared to give it the same sort of headlines as they gave to the railwaymen's wage claim—that the new look of the Tory Party is only a façade.
  In the last analysis, this House and the people of the country have to decide which side they are on—on the side of one limited section of the community who are seeking to utilise their land monopoly to increase their own personal incomes, or on the side of people who are seeking to achieve security in their own homes by ownership. There is a deep, innate, emotional desire on the part of people to own their own homes which the Home Secretary entirely ignored in his speech. We have to decide which side we are on. When that situation is made quite clear to the people of this country they will appreciate the monstrous extent of the proposals which the Government have introduced.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ralph Assheton: I did not intend to speak on the Bill when I came into the House, but one or two observations have been made which I wish to challenge, and perhaps I may therefore be allowed to intervene for a short time.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) is clearly no friend of landlords, and I make no secret of the fact that I am a landowner myself. I come of a family who have owned land for many hundreds of years; I am not ashamed of it, nor am I ashamed of the record of my family or of a great many of my neighbours and fellow landowners. I am very proud of them.
  May I call the hon. Member's attention to a great deal of the good which is inherent in the leasehold system? I may say that my own property is not let under the leasehold system, in the sense which we have been discussing it. There are, of course, many illustrations in this country with which the hon. Member must be familiar of the splendid development done under the leasehold system—development which would not have been done half as well under any other system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh) intervened to describe what has been done in South-
  1808
  port. That is a very good example. It was the hon. Member's great-uncle who laid out, designed and largely built Southport, and a wonderful bit of town planning it was. He was a Member of this House; he sat on the benches opposite. After developing Southport, he went on to develop Fleetwood. I believe he came a financial cropper over that and lost all he had made in the development of Southport, but that does not alter the fact that a great piece of work was done in the development of Southport. The same can be said of the development by the Duke of Devonshire at Eastbourne, which is one of the best bits of town planning in the country, or, indeed, in the world. The same can be said of the development of the Grosvenor Estate. I am a tenant of the Grosvenor Estate, so that I have an interest as a tenant as well as an interest as a landlord.
  Mr. Hale: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for permitting me to intervene on what is an important point. Very few of the textile workers are tenants of the Grosvenor Estate. As for Southport, the problem which confronted Lancashire was the problem which put well-to-do occupants of houses as far as possible away from the place where they were making their money and huddled together all the people who were working in the industry, and all the buildings in the industry, in a very over-crowded area in Oldham and Blackburn.
  Mr. Assheton: I do not wish to engage in class war with the hon. Member. I should like to continue, if I may, the argument I was trying to make. I was coming to the development of the Grosvenor Estate. The Amendment put from the other side of the House is an Amendment to do away with the leasehold system, and I am trying to show to the House that there are some virtues and merits in the system.
  I am a tenant of the Grosvenor Estate, and I do not in the least want to become the freeholder of the house in which I live. I am happy to say that I have a long lease of it, which I renewed at considerable expense, and I do not want to become the freeholder for this reason: I do not want all my neighbours to become freeholders. I am glad to think that the area is well-protected by useful covenants in the lease under which I benefit, and I think that it is a benefit to the community that this should be so.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
  Mr. Assheton: I am sorry that I cannot give way.
  I was saying that I have no desire to become the freeholder because I think that we leaseholders benefit greatly from these covenants in the lease. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, said that nowadays, under the Town and Country Planning Act, there was so much power in the hands of the planning authorities that it was no longer necessary to have the protection of covenants such as those under which I benefit—or, as hon. Members opposite seem to think, suffer. I do not agree with them.
  Although I do not think that the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act are by any means satisfactory, I am not, as the hon. Member for Pembroke seems to think, a great opponent of town and country planning. I am extremely keen on it. I object to a great deal of the economic planning which hon. Members opposite like to indulge in, but I think that town and country planning is an essential thing. We have to plan physical things. But I have seen developments taking place in the country since the war which are an absolute proof that the Town and Country Planning Act does not work properly. Under the Town and Country Planning Act many developments have taken place which no first-rate landlord would ever have permitted, and I think that there is a great deal to be said for the leasehold system.
  When we come to the proposal that we should have leasehold enfranchisement, what do we find? I do not think that it is a possibility to begin with. Take the case of my house on the Grosvenor Estate. Supposing I become the freeholder of it.
  Mr. Janner: What is the ground rent?
  Mr. Assheton: It is £125 a year, but that question is not relevant to the argument. Suppose I become a freeholder of that house. It may be that at the next election or some other time I shall be excluded through circumstances from continuing to enjoy the membership of this House, and I may not want to continue to live there. I may want to let the
  1810
  house, thereby creating a new landlord and a new leaseholder.
  The system of owning property and renting it to some one else is inherent in the existence of property. We cannot do away with it. This Bill is to remedy certain defects which have arisen in that system. There are two things which, I think, the Government ought to do. They ought to protect the people of this country from foreign foes and they ought to protect the weak against the strong. It is on that basis that a Bill of this sort is being introduced. It is a pure illusion to think that we can abolish the leasehold system. We cannot abolish that system and, if we did abolish the system, it would grow up again and increase once more.
  Apart from the fact that we cannot abolish it, I think that many of the arguments in favour of abolishing it are quite unsound. To begin with, the advantage to redevelopment of a large area by leases falling in at the same date is tremendous. I think that all town planning people would agree with that. That is one of the greatest advantages of the leasehold system.
  There has been a lot of talk on the other side of the House and by some hon. Members on this side about the jerry-building which took place between the wars. Those jerry-built houses were not leasehold houses. Good landlords will not allow jerry building on their estates. They insist on the property being well constructed. Therefore you do not find jerry building on leasehold estates—no, sir, it is done on the freeholds.
  Another point to remember is this. It is frequently suggested that the landlord is going to inherit unearned increment which has accrued without his having "toiled or spun," to use the expression of the hon. Member for Pembroke. But the occupier himself has no more right to that unearned increment, if there is any, than the landlord. I suggest that a large number of the reasons which have been advanced to prove that the leasehold system is unsatisfactory are very unsound reasons.
  By the Amendment on the Order Paper, the Opposition wish to reject this valuable Bill simply on the grounds that it is not accompanied by a measure of leasehold enfranchisement. If the House will accept the suggestion I have put forward that it is impossible to abolish the leasehold

  1811
  system, then I think the Amendment must fall to the ground. I hope that when the Amendment has once been defeated the Government will then be able to speedily proceed with this Bill.
  6,27 p.m.
  Mr. David Grenfell: I am very happy indeed to be given an opportunity of speaking on this subject. It is the subject nearest to my heart at my present time of life. I have lived in poverty stricken parts of South Wales in the old days, and I have seen the splendid efforts made by the people themselves. I took a modest part when I was very young indeed in the advancement of Socialism, and I confess to this House that I was occasionally almost chided by my parents for venturing to talk of such a creed.
  At the age of 11 or 12 I realised that there was much preventable poverty and social misery in those valleys. I have given myself to the study of these problems, including the study of the industry to which I owe almost everything I have. I have had a lifetime of experience and hard work with the most gallant people whose domestic circumstances and personal idiosyncrasies I know very well indeed. I am very proud of having had the opportunity of knowing my fellow men as well as I do.
  I have been transported to this House after many vicissitudes. I worked abroad when I was young and I have seen a good deal of modern industrialism at close quarters. I would say that perhaps the greatest handicap and the most persistent obstruction to progress that I have known has been due to land monopoly. The people do not own much land. In most of the countries to which I have been and on the Continent of Europe the people in the mass are described as proletarians, and there is no recognition of their wonderful qualities. I am very proud of this country. I am Welsh and I have never concealed it; I speak of it with pride. I would not want to alter my relationship with the people whom I know best. I think that South Wales serves us for the purpose of this debate as well as any part of Britain.
  I should never be an expert of London geography, and neither do I know the temperament of the people of London as I know the temperament of the people
  1812
  in the industrial areas. I have travelled up and down the Welsh valleys, visiting places of employment and going underground to meet the men on the spot. I know South Wales, and I think that it is perhaps the best example we have of the problems which we have to solve. One of those problems is the housing of families so that they can rear their children to have future families and try together to build a better and constantly improving society, We are a far better people than we were when I recall the environment and outlook of people of my boyhood days.
  Our education is better. We have trained a new generation of people. All this entailed, as the first essential, the building of good homes. Then we had to build schools, and then churches, and every time we took a step in the direction of providing housing accommodation, there was the landlord obstructing the way, never ceasing to take advantage of the leasehold system. Probably it has grown to a more settled, more tyrannous monopoly over the life of people in Wales than in any other part of the country.
  Following my parents and two or three generations of people who worked hard, I live in a house which I call my own with as much right as anybody calls anything his personal property. I worked very hard for it, but the land where I live is not in my name. I do not have the original title to it. I am a tenant on sufferance and on conditions, and the conditions in my case are that I pay £3 2s. 6d. for a strip of land just big enough to hold a single-fronted house and a little garden hutch behind.
  I pay £3 2s. 6d. for land which I have seen shown on ancient maps, less than 100 years old, as waste or common land, worth nothing at all. Now, 20 houses are paying about £3 2s. 6d. each on every acre of land, or somewhere about £75 an acre, for land that is worth nothing. Nobody claimed this land originally, and when people had to move out into the suburbs and make their homes as best they could, they had to go to the landlord. The landlord readily fell in with their plans and gave them the lease.
  I have no complaint on this. I said so in my memorandum to the Uthwatt Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) and I are the

  1813
  only two Members of the House who took the trouble to go to that Committee. We were cross-examined, and I was proud of the way I came through it. I really was not badly wounded by the legal luminaries.
  One can put this case anywhere. In these days, we have fewer people per house than in the old days. In the old days, the average was six or seven persons per house, but today it is less than four persons. About 25,000 houses are needed to house the 100,000 working-class population whom I represent. I know how they live. I pay tribute to them for how well they live. What a wonderful fortunate country it is to find people of their own volition and conviction setting up standards for themselves.
  This is not a gestapo or dictatorship country. We have allowed ourselves a great deal more liberty than some working people have been able to obtain. We pride ourselves in living in our own houses, and we pay without complaint. I do not bother very much about this £3 2s. 6d. that I pay every year—I shall pay it and then I shall go, and somebody else will then take up the lease and it will go on for the remainder of the 999 years. One thing which is certain is that I shall not be here to see it end.
  By means of this ground rent, a small body of people are commercialising their private fortunes as they never did before. They have joined together to exploit the public more efficiently than at any other time. The building of these houses has become altogether immoral and is a disgrace in a country like ours. I want the House to try to right this thing as far as possible. What I say today is the same as the evidence I submitted to the Uthwatt Committee, not as a final word in the plan of salvation, but as a contribution toit. To everybody who is pledged by his own signature, of his own volition, to pay ground rent, I say that the youngsters who grow up to take the place of the old ones must get emancipation sometime. Why should I surrender my children and their children to the obligation to carry on this payment ad infinitum?
  I am quite agreeable to the proposal that we should be allowed to buy this land freehold. Having paid the ground rent for 20, 30 or 40 years, our proposal
  1814
  is that we pay an amount equal to 25 years' annual rent of the land and then get the title deeds and use the land for our own purpose and the purpose in which we share it with others.
  It would wrong no one to get a Measure of emancipation passed by the House. The people are suffering an iniquitous burden upon personality, life, intellect and everything else. Set the people free. Let them pay the 25 years' purchase. I should gladly see this House do that before I go away from it, and I give the promise that I shall be haunting the House unless this is done before I go away from here. This is a standing disgrace upon Parliament. I gladly enter my word of caveat, my opposition, to the iniquitous system, and I ask the House to put it right.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: We who sit for Welsh constituencies, whether on this side of the House or the other, have a peculiar regard and affection for the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). If he speaks with emotion on this problem, I quite understand it, because this form of tenure has a particular incidence in South Wales which it does not have in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, I cannot quite understand the tactics of the Opposition in regard to the Bill.
  As I understand it, the part of the Bill which deals with business premises has been warmly commended, not only by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), but also by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). They both expressed the view—the hon. Member for Oldham, West in a short intervention, and the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend rather more fully—that the part of the Bill dealing with business premises was an extremely valuable contribution to the law affecting leaseholds.
  With regard to residential properties, around which most of the debate has centred, the position, as I understand it, is this. Under the strict letter of the separate leases, the leaseholders, on the termination of their terms—whether 60 or 99 years or longer—would be obliged to yield up possession. The position of the leaseholder was modified by the temporary Act which the previous Government put upon the Statute Book, and the

  1815
  need for the first part of this Bill is because of the lapsing of those temporary provisions.
  The Opposition say, in effect, that it cannot give a Second Reading to this Bill because it does not include some provision for what is vaguely described as enfranchisement. The effect of a successful vote by the Opposition against this Bill because of the failure to include such a provision would mean that the leaseholder on the termination of his lease would be in a far worse position than if this Bill were passed, the temporary provisions of the previous Government having lapsed. In other words, he would return to the position he was in before the temporary Measure was passed by the Opposition when in office.
  The failure of this House to approve the Second Reading of the Bill would place the leaseholder of residential premises in the weakest possible position in which he could find himself, a position, whether he had occupied the property or not, of having to yield up possession of his holding on the termination of his lease.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: But would not one consequence of that be that if this Bill were defeated the Government would resign, there would be a new election, and the leaseholder might get increased protection?
  Mr. Gower: That may be a personal point of view, but the first consequence of the rejection of this Bill would be that the position of the leaseholder would be worsened. It is another question whether or not an alternative Government, if they took office, would do what they neglected to do when they were in office before.
  Mr. West: Is the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument this, that lessees can never expect any sympathy from lessors?
  Mr. Gower: I would not generalise about lessors or lessees in that way. I would say that if this Bill is not given a Second Reading the position of the lessee holding of a poor less or would be the worst possible, whereas if this Bill is passed the lessee will have some advantages beyond those to which hitherto he has in law been entitled. He will have
  1816
  the option of making an application for a protected statutory tenancy, and that is something to which he is not entitled now and, indeed, has never been entitled.
  Mr. Janner: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He represents in this House a town which I know very well. I wonder if he would relate his arguments to what the people in Barry want, how that town was built, what is the leasehold position there, and whether enfranchisement is wanted or not.
  Mr. Gower: I shall come to that later. I am quite willing to face up to those matters, but unfortunately it is not what the people of Barry or the people of Leicester want which determines the course a Government adopts, but what the elected representatives of the whole British Isles require, otherwise it would only be the people who pay taxes who would be entitled to vote on questions of taxation. That is a somewhat out of date doctrine for the framing of legislation.
  If hon. Members on the opposite side of the House imagine that I am unsympathetic to the idea of some change in the law, I can say that at the 1950 conference of the Conservative Party I tried to get a motion passed which would have the effect of changing the law on leaseholds, not in the same way as is proposed by the Opposition today, because I have very grave doubts whether, if a leaseholder were given the right of purchase, he would in many cases care to spend the large capital sum involved, and in other cases whether he would have the resources available for that purpose.
  The proposal which I tried to persuade members of my party to approve was one under which the court, in appropriate cases the county court, and in other cases the High Court, might be given the power, with proper safeguards, to approve a renewal of the lease, particularly during the time when housing was in such desperately short supply.
  I feel that whatever are the views of the House on this topic, it is incumbent on us to give the Bill a Second Reading, because whatever the first part of the Bill may or may not do, it certainly improves the position of the residential lessees, and it may be fairly described as the biggest advance by permanent legislation in doing something for the residential lessee. There

  1817
  has been no step in the past by any Government, whether Liberal, Conservative or Labour, of any permanence to assist any lessee. This is the first act of the kind.
  I do not subscribe to the views of hon. Members opposite that the leasehold system is a bad system. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) described it in these terms; he said, "This is a bad system." He went into great detail about houses which had been erected in the last century in industrial areas, but let us remember that it is this system which is used widely not only by private landowners and by public authorities, but also in some degree by local authorities.
  I know that in Cardiff, where I live, it is quite common for the City Corporation to lease land to persons for the purpose of building if it does not intend to use the land for the erection of council houses. It is a convenient system not only for the private developer but for the local authority. In some cases a council would not wish permanently to alienate its land, but it may be prepared to grant a lease for a reasonable period.
  It should not be imagined that changes in the law would affect only a few developers. That may have been the position 60 or 70 years ago, but the problem today is more involved than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend implied in his speech. Today the ownership of freeholds is widely dispersed. I can think of several instances where the best form of investment for church organisations has been deemed to be freehold, the best form of investment for insurance companies has been freehold property, and any step taken by this House which would violently affect the value of freeholds would be prejudicial to the Government itself, to Government investments, to the investments of local authorities, to the investments of great banks, to the investments of churches and chapels, to the investments of trade unions, the Co-operative Society and the insurance companies in which many hon. Members in this House have life policies. That is why I say that this is a very involved issue.
  Having said that, I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend some pertinent questions on the position as it affects Wales. It has been said tonight that
  1818
  a right has been given in Scotland for lessees to purchase. I have not familiarised myself so much with the Scottish legislation as with this, but why, if it is possible in Scotland, can it not be possible in Wales? Is Wales always to be behind Scotland? I know we are well behind Scotland in the matter of Parliamentary time; I know that we do not occupy a day of the week in Parliamentary Questions, but is it always to be said that different laws can be designed for Scotland while, if there is a peculiar social problem in Wales, special attention cannot be given to Wales? I say that more as a Welsh Member than as a Conservative Member.
  In his appraisal of this position, would my right hon. and learned Friend say what would be the effect of the different suggestions made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? And I want to emphasise here that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend was completely different from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower. The one spoke of payment of a sum which was to be based directly or indirectly upon the value of a house deemed to have a tenant in it, whereas the right hon. Member for Gower spoke of 25 years' purchase.
  Those things are hardly reconcilable in practice, and I want to know for the guidance of the House which is the official view of the Opposition? Does the Opposition advocate some value to be assessed as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend suggested, or does it advocate the more traditional method mentioned by the right hon. Member for Gower and, I believe, approved by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West)?
  I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to say whether either of those proposals would have a revolutionary effect upon the value of freeholds all over the country or could some modification be made in certain cases? Is it possible that in future we might contemplate in certain cases, provided that the leasehold term has not become too short, giving a right to a court of law to grant a renewal of lease in extraordinary circumstances? Those which I have in mind are some of those which the hon. Member for Pontypool had in mind, and also the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) when he intervened—

  1819
  a town where there is hardly anything but leasehold property. Those might be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances not to be governed by the general law for ordinary towns.
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that this has been considered fully? My reading of the position is that while great thought has been given to the possibility of the leaseholder some day having the right of purchasing his freehold, less attention has been devoted to the possibility of conferring upon a court a right to renew the lease for a short or long period of years in suitable circumstances.
  Furthermore, I should like to know, on the basis of the leasehold position as we understand it, whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are of opinion that the system should be completed abolished, as the hon. Member for Pembroke suggested? If they do not think that, how can enfranchisement be compatible with new leases being granted freely throughout the country where it may not be possible for large numbers of people to purchase the freeholds?
  I may comment that I have noticed that the consequences of Measures of this kind which are passed by the House are not always those which we foresee. For instance, one of the less noticed effects of the Rent Restriction Acts, which I have observed in many parts of the country, is that they have increased the number of owner-occupiers. That is a good effect. The reason for it is that when a tenant, or his successor, leaves a rent-controlled house the owner, instead of re-letting, sells it—
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: Shame.
  Mr. Gower: I would not say shame. I am glad to see that the result has been that the proportion of owner-occupiers has increased in recent years. So the effect of this Bill may not be what we imagine. It must result in a measure of greater security for occupying lease holders, and it may be that after due consideration we shall be ready for another step forward—
  Mr. Shurmer: Come to Birmingham and see what is happening.
  Mr. Gower: The Opposition will be guilty of inconsistency if they press their
  1820
  Amendment, because the effect of it would be to prejudice the leaseholder whom their Amendment is apparently designed to help. Therefore, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should not press their Amendment but should give this Bill a Second Reading, since it is designed to help the residential leaseholder in Part I and, as they admit, it will help the leaseholder of business premises in Part II.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) was obviously in difficulty over this Bill. It was apparent that he was being pulled one way, as he admitted, as a Welsh Member of Parliament and that he was being jerked, rather more strenuously I thought, in the other direction by party considerations. I could not follow either the sense or the seriousness of the point made by the hon. Gentleman as to what would happen if this Bill were not passed. I thought that the intervention which announced to the hon. Gentleman that in those circumstances there would probably be a General Election, followed by an entirely new Measure in which greater justice would be served, was not only an answer to him but would be a boon to the people whom this Bill is supposed to cover.
  I would also like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that his remark that enfranchisement seems to be the only point of objection from this side of the House is wrong; that is by no means the only objection. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) referred to a number of points and criticisms under Parts I and II of the Bill and I propose to refer to some more.
  I listened, as we ail did, with great respect and attention to the opening speech of the Home Secretary. If the validity of his case had been as agreeable as its presentation, there would have been much more value in it. It will be obvious on reading the Bill and appreciating its implications that this is a vague and discriminatory Measure which is bound to lead to many anomalies. I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this situation any more than I blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). They are the inheritors, not

  1821
  the instigators, of the system with which we are dealing at present.
  Can one imagine a more untenable proposition than the one which the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West tried to make when he seriously observed that a tenant is no more entitled to increment value than a landlord? Surely he is informed enough to know, first of all, of the enriching progress of time and, secondly, that upon the land which the ground landlord holds has been erected a very valuable building which has gathered value with the years. If one compares in juxtaposition the two values between the landlord and the tenant, it is perfectly clear that the landlord is running away with an asset which rightly belongs to the tenant.
  The right hon. Gentleman said rather naively, though perhaps not as naively as it sounded, that he is quite satisfied with being a lessee of the Grosvenor Estate. I have no doubt that he is and that he occupies a very desirable house or flat there. He says that he is quite satisfied because he is under perfectly good terms and he has nothing of which to complain. But I think that there is another reason why his enthusiasm lags a little about becoming the landlord and the owner of those premises. I should have thought that the cost of acquiring them would be so huge that that would be another item in the category of reasons for his being satisfied with the position as it stands at present.
  I am quite sure that the Home Secretary, who is a very reasonable person in these matters, will agree that the first point that one observes in this Bill is that it only embraces houses that are of a rateable value within the Rent Restriction Acts. All other houses are excluded from its provisions. That is a cardinal factor and it is causing the greatest anxiety in every industrial area where long leases are falling in. I should like to add to an observation which the Home Secretary made, because it is very pertinent to an illustration which I shall give. He said, and I agree heartily with him, that the tenant's greatest need is his right to stay in his home at the end of the lease.
  There is surely no room for discrimination in that proposition. Not only should that, and does that, apply to tenancies of the character which this Bill embraces
  1822
  but it must equally, if not with stronger reason, apply to houses which are outside it. I illustrate that proposition with a case from the City of Windsor. There a house was bought in 1944 at a time when there were still 11 years to run. The original lease was for 84 years. The property was rated at £105 and, therefore, is outside this Bill. When acquired it was in a seriously dilapidated condition. The owners were the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The present tenant spent £2,000 on the house and he turned it into five flats, installing bathrooms, kitchens, a hot water system, and so on. The result is that this property has increased its value by 75 per cent.
  The lease expires next year, but the Crown Agent has categorically refused to renew or to extend the lease. He insists upon a sale at a very high price, and he excludes from the price the gardens which he proposes to cut up into five building plots. The result of the high price that is being asked is that the present tenant is absolutely unable to pay it, and he is not protected by the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Colegate Mr. Arthur Colegate (Burton) rose—
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me finish.
  There is no doubt that this is a typical case. I submit that it is an outrage on all sense of fairness and fair dealing. It is a sheer piece of exploitation by the landlord—the Crown Agent at that—of a valuable asset created by the tenant, who is now subjected to this shocking form of deprivation. I am entitled to say, therefore, that this Bill condones two very serious matters. First, it condones the fact that there shall be no compensation in these cases for substantial improvements of property. Secondly, it condones what is sheer confiscation of a tenant's profits which the tenant's expenditure has created.
  Mr. Colegate: Will the hon. and learned Member allow me to intervene?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I will not.
  What has become of the Tories' missionary zeal for a "property-owning democracy?" This Bill kills that piece of political cant stone dead. What it does is to re-confirm the property-owning republic which is made up of vested interests upon which the Tory Party shamelessly relies for its political machine

  1823
  and funds. That is why there is no provision in this Measure for leasehold enfranchisement. I want the Home Secretary to note the very serious point indeed, to which there will be serious reaction in the country, that if a house of the type that I have mentioned is outside this Bill there is no compensation whatsoever for improvements. And if the improvements have enhanced the value of the property and the tenant has to give it up, the tenant is left in the position of getting nothing at all. Any fair-minded person would say that that is completely inequitable.
  I should like to say a few words about Clause 9, with regard to the fixing of the term of the statutory tenancy. Apparently the principle is to be that there shall be either an agreed rent or that the matter shall go to the county court judge to decide what in the opinion of the court
  "…would be a reasonable rent…."
  But anyone who reads the Clause will discover at once that the guide to the county court judge is completely vague. It is bound to lead to anomalies and inequalities. It is like the old measure of the judge's foot which we lawyers hear about so much when we are studying our equity.
  Each judge may give a different decision on this question of what the rent should be. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why the rent should not be fixed on the rateable value. I ask him to think about that, and then, in Committee, perhaps we can deal with the matter, because a reasonable rent would be a rent that would be payable had the premises been rent restricted. But there is no provision whatsoever for that.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am most interested in this. Is it in the hon. and learned Member's mind that there is provision in the Rent Act that if the rent is not fixable in the ordinary way as a first letting after the relevant period, one goes to the rateable value? I am speaking from recollection.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: However that may be, here the difficulty is left absolutely at large. Every county court has its own exclusive territory and, normally, the case is not reported in the All England Reports, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. There is
  1824
  usually no report of county court cases, and therefore there can be little or no uniformity and no guidance to county court judges as a body as to what are the principles on which they are to act I do not say there is no difficulty in solving this problem—of course there is difficulty—but I do ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have this matter looked at again. I am sure he will agree with me on this, whether he agrees with me or not on the other part of my speech. It would be most unfortunate if, in different parts of the country, on the same elements of this problem, different decisions were arrived at.
  I wish to say a word about repairs by the lessee. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman also to look at this provision again. I may be wrong, but I am not at all satisfied that the Bill requires the lessee at the expiration of the lease to do only such repairs as are reasonable having regard to the age of the property, its location and all the other circumstances. Those are the elements which I think it most important here to be looked into. In his speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that all the tenant has to do is to bring the house into good repair. The house may be a property that has sustained most extensive dilapidation. In that case bringing it into good repair might be a very costly process and might go far beyond what the facts ought to require in justice.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member. He has been very helpful in dealing with practical points but I am very anxious that this should be made quite clear. Bringing the property into good repair is the ceiling of the matter. It is quite possible, under the Bill, for the landlord and the tenant to agree that the house requires something less than that, in which case the tenant will only have to pay the lesser amount. We have tried to cover the point and, if the hon. and learned Member is in any doubt about us covering it, I shall be very glad to look at the words. But that is the intention and we agree with him on the point.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sure it is the intention and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at it

  1825
  again, because I am not satisfied about it. The matter is left too much at large and is not precisely defined. I agree that there has to be a certain amount of flexibility because we are dealing with different properties in different circumstances, but a most onerous burden can be cast on a tenant in a matter of this kind. In my submission, the Bill should make it indubitably plain that the tenant is protected.
  I wish to say a word about business premises. Again, I have an illustration from my area, which covers Gloucester and Bristol. There are 2,000 grocers who are really disturbed by the provision of subsection (2) of Clause 37, dealing with cases where the landlord regains possession of the property. In such cases, the compensation payable, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, is twice the rateable value of the holding if the tenant and his successor have occupied the premises for 14 years for business. In any other case it is the rateable value. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he thought that was very fair and that he had looked at all suggestions and that seemed one which could be accepted because two years was a simple form of calculation. But may I put this to him? If two years is a matter of simple calculation, so also are four years equally a simple matter of calculation. The test is whether it is fair. There is no quarrel about the method of calculation or that the rateable value in a multiple ought not to be adopted. What is complained of is that the two years and one year respectively will not only lead to injustice but to substantial injustice because it is not nearly enough compensation.
  I would point out what the right hon. and learned Gentleman must know, that non-renewal of the lease in the case of business premises means a loss of the retailer's livelihood. Secondly, it means a serious capital loss because the retailer is unable to sell his business as a going concern. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the normal value of goodwill is a two years' purchase of the profits of the business. I think one can say with absolute safety that that certainly would exceed the rateable value. After all, we are here dealing with the goodwill which has been built up for 14 years or more—a very substantial asset.
  1826
  I wish to refer to two of the exceptions in reference to the right of the business tenant to renewal of his lease, which are dealt with in Clause 30. The two exceptions are: first, where the landlord can offer alternative accommodation and, secondly, where the landlord wants the premises for his own business, either wholly or partly. He does not need to require the premises wholly, but may only want them partly, nevertheless he will be entitled to the whole property. As regards alternative accommodation, that is a very vexed and doubtful question. If it is to be laid down categorically, the point at once arises as to whether a man who has built up a business in one area or district or street is not inevitably to be under a disability in having to go elsewhere, wherever it may be.
  Apart from the general vagueness of the matter as regards alternative accommodation, on the second point, namely, where the landlord wants the premises for his own business, I wish to ask what that means. What sort of business does it include? Does it include the same business as the tenant's? If it does, it is rather like turning such a tenancy into a Naboth's Vineyard and certainly provides an intolerable opening for sharp practice. Here we are giving the landlord an opportunity of taking what might be a very valuable business, built up by the tenant or his successor with goodwill and reputation over many years, and, be it noted, of taking the whole property maybe to carry it on as the same business for his own profit to the deprivation of the occupying tenant. That cannot be right.
  The question of leasehold enfranchisement was very fully dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), whose excellent speech must have greatly impressed the whole House. I should like to point out to the Home Secretary that there is warm support for that proposal from the Trades Union Congress, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party. All the commissions and committees that have dealt with this matter have, with one exception, been in favour of it. There have been many Private Members' Bills on it that have had a Second Reading. Furthermore, most countries have abolished the leasehold system altogether.
  In those circumstances, it is perfectly clear that the Bill must have the closest

  1827
  and most careful scrutiny in Committee if anything like justice is to be done. I strongly urge the Home Secretary to pay heed, as I am sure he will, to the criticisms that have been made. If the Bill is amended in those respects it may very well be a very good Bill indeed, but as it stands it is not, and both because of many of its present provisions and because of its omissions I shall accordingly vote for the Opposition Amendment tonight.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The return of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), though welcome in itself and for himself, deprives me of the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on the unusual fluidity of the Front Bench opposite below and above the Gangway which I noticed just now. I should have liked to be able to congratulate the hon. Member on crossing that formidable gulf—[An Hon. Member: "Which side is the hon. Gentleman on?"] It is quite true that I am in the middle of the gulf at present.
  The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), in the course of his remarks, touched upon a great many points, some of which I should like to deal with before passing on to more general considerations of the Bill and the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member referred to a case in his constituency of a house with a rateable value of £105, the tenant of which had spent £2,000 on internal alterations and repairs and then turned it into five flats, and then, at the end of the 11-year lease, had to give it up without any compensation.
  I would say to him that it is really quite extraordinary, on a Bill such as this, to put up a case like that. We in this House do not know the terms on which the land was let to the tenant. It is not uncommon for property which is in a bad state of repair to be let to a tenant on a very low rent or upon the term that he puts it in repair or spends a sum of money on repairs. It may easily have been a term of the agreement in this case; one does not know, and, therefore, one cannot possibly form judgments based on such partial knowledge.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Surely the hon. Member would agree that in this case there has been a large expenditure by the tenant, who has converted what was one dilapidated house into what is now a good property of five flats and is of considerable value. But the tenant can get no compensation whatever. There was only 11 years of the lease to run. Does the hon. Member really think that it is fair that the landlord should take that property over, lock, stock and barrel, without any compensation whatever being paid?
  Mr. Bell: It may be perfectly fair, for three reasons which I will give the hon. and learned Member. First, it may be fair because the tenant took it over upon terms very much of that character. It was, as the hon. and learned Member said, in a very bad state of repair. The tenant presumably took it over on terms that he should spend some such sum upon it.
  Secondly, he bought the last 11 years of the lease knowing perfectly well that after 11 years had elapsed he would have to return the property to the landlord. He went into the transaction with his eyes open, knowing exactly what he was doing and he got what he bought. He bought it for investment, as the hon. and learned Member's argument shows. He turned it into five flats and sublet, and presumably worked out that it would pay him.
  Thirdly, and this is where the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was related to the main discussion on the Bill, he said that property of this kind should be included in the terms of the Bill whereas it is not because the Government have adopted the Rent Act scale. Property valued for rating at £105 in a provincial city like Gloucester is quite substantial property. Anyone can see that from the amount spent on redecoration and alteration.
  The hon. and learned Member, like myself, comes in contact pretty frequently with these cases in the courts, and he will know as well as I do that not much property of the kind that is let or rented falls outside the Rent Restriction Acts. The limit is £100 rateable value in London and £75 in the provinces. The house in Gloucester to which the hon. and learned Member referred is £30 outside the limit, which covers all small and medium-sized property.

  1829
  Why should the provisions of a Bill like this extend to larger property, occupied as a rule by quite wealthy people, people who always act with legal advice and fully understand the nature of the bargain into which they are entering? It is unnecessary for a Bill of this kind to extend beyond the limits of the Rent Acts. The point which the hon. and learned Member has made on that example is a bad one.
  The hon. and learned Member then referred to the provisions of Clause 9. I was rather astonished that he should refer to that Clause because there could not be a better example of how far the Bill goes in favour of the tenant than that Clause. Suppose a lease with repairing covenants in it expires. Do not let us get lost in the belief that when a long lease expires the man who holds it is probably the man who took it up 99 years ago. That is most unlikely. It is not very likely that it is in the same family.
  Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member is opposed to the hereditary devolution of property there are many on this side of the House who completely agree with him, but surely it is very remarkable that the son of the person who built the house should have no claim to its occupation while the son of the owner of the land should continue to have his claim on the land on which it was built.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman has put forward an extraordinary contention. I certainly did not put it forward. I do not wish to answer it in full. If I did so I should be leaving the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, which I am loth to do, and coming on to some matters of more general import with which I wish to deal later. I certainly did not say anything of that kind.
  What I said was rather the opposite, that not only was the lease unlikely to be in the ownership of the man who took it 99 years ago but was also unlikely to be in the same family, except in a small minority of cases. Therefore, we should be deluding ourselves if we based our view on any such family principle. These long leaseholds are usually in the hands of someone who has acquired them within the last 20 or 30 years, and they have repairing covenants in them. The Clause says that the terms of the repairing covenant can be disregarded. There is to be in place of it a newconception—it is also in the Housing Repairs and
  1830
  Rents Bill—"good repair," which is quite definitely a lower standard than that contained in most leases.
  In other words, this House is proposing, through this Bill, to interfere very sharply indeed with the contract between the parties, greatly to the detriment of the landlord and to the advantage of the tenant. It is the most extreme example in the Bill of the amount of what I would call social policy which is contained in the Measure. No Clause goes further in favour of the tenant and against the landlord than does this one. Not only does it whittle down the standard of repairs, but it goes further, and says that whereas under the contract the tenant is under an obligation to do those repairs, under this Bill the landlord must do them, if he wants them done, and he can recover the cost by instalments from the tenant. Under this Bill, therefore, it is the landlord who, at the termination of the lease, must find the capital to carry out tenant's repairs, and indeed something less than tenant's repairs.
  I wish to refer to another point dwelt upon by the hon. and learned Member. It is the question of the rent to be agreed by the county court. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that it is desirable that rent should be standard over the whole country. If we are to have a reasonable rent fixed, by all means let it be known that it does not depend upon local vagaries. But the hon. and learned Member will not achieve that result by relating it to the rateable value. There are few matters in which there are greater local vagaries than in the assessment of houses for rating. In the future, when all houses have been reassessed by the Inland Revenue, his proposal may merit more serious consideration, but it would be a rash prophet who would say when that process will be completed.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The main point is that there should be uniformity.
  Mr. Bell: I agree, but it is not easy to achieve uniformity in this world. We have to try to achieve it by statutory definition and hope that the vagaries of human nature in individual judges will not be too severe. Or we may do what the hon. and learned Member suggests, and base it upon rateable value, in which case we know that we shall get vagaries. I prefer to rely upon a system which may

  1831
  result in vagaries rather than upon the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member who has discovered a system under which we know there will be local vagaries and inequalities.
  I come now to some more general matters which were touched upon by other hon. Members including the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell). Incidentally, I always thought the right hon. Member to be a Cornishman, but he has described himself this evening as a Welshman. I cannot agree with a lot that he and some of his hon. Friends have said on this subject. This Bill, which I fully support, is being brought forward to meet present circumstances. If we examine it we find it to be a triumph of history over logic.
  A good many hon. Members have described particular conditions in their own areas and I am in no position to challenge what they say. But I know of other areas where the leasehold system has worked to great advantage. Southport has been mentioned, and in the City of Cardiff, an area which I know very well, the Marquess of Bute and his predecessors produced, under the leasehold system, one of the finest examples of urban development to be found anywhere in the world. It is quite a wonderful example of what may be done under the leasehold system.
  I appreciate that there are corresponding disadvantages with that kind of contemporaneous development, because it may and is often the case that many leases fall in together, which creates a local problem. I do not dispute, therefore, that there are circumstances at present which justify a Measure of this character. But let us get it clear in our minds that the leasehold system is one of the most beneficial elements of the English land law. Not all leases are building leases.
  The application of the lease system has had some good as well as some bad results. It is a way in which a man can buy the use of land and property for a certain time, and it is a very convenient system for those who do not wish to buy the freehold. Examples have been given of where it was convenient to be a leaseholder rather than a freeholder, and the fact is that if we abolished the leasehold system, as has been advocated by several hon. Members, we should have to invent it again in a matter of years.
  1832
  What this Bill does for the future of English land law is to say that there will be freehold and there will be leases for not more than 21 years. That in itself is rather drastic. No one will issue a lease in the future for 30 years, obviously, because it would carry with it all the consequences of Part I of the Bill. In future, neither landlord nor tenant will be capable of entering into the sort of contract which would pass the use of land for 22 years. We are wiping out all that flexibility. Because of the social evilsor advantages of the leasehold system it may be that that should be done, but I should like to have second thoughts about it.
  I prefer to consider this Bill as something dealing with a problem of the time and I am sorry that for the moment it is linked with the Rent Acts. One day, when the Rent Acts are dealt with, we shall have to reconsider this Bill because of that connection, and I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) when he says that we must not accept rent restriction as a permanent feature.
  Until we have lost it we do not realise how useful to rich and poor alike is a free balanced market in real property—something we have not had in this country since 1913. The lack of it is creating ever growing problems.
  When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was introducing his Bill he explained the difficulties experienced by anyone trying to run the Rent Restriction Acts. They started by a freeze which did no great injustice when put on in 1916, but as each year has passed personal injustices here and there to the tenant or to the landlord have obviously grown. If we petrify another section of the land law, that relating to long leases, as time goes on I think we shall begin to see what we lose by that rigidity just as clearly as now we see what disadvantages we have incurred in the past by the possibly excessive use of existing facilities.
  I am sorry to see hon. Members opposite hitching their wagon to this question of leasehold enfranchisement. They are making a mistake. As a party politician, perhaps I ought to be glad to see my opponents making a mistake and I ought to castigate them for it. But from the point of view of English land law it would be a pity if, for political reasons,

  1833
  we did a permanent detriment by suggesting that property should be either bought outright or taken on very short leases.
  This is not the policy of the party opposite in relation to many other matters. In the new towns they plumped for the leasehold system, I think with great justice, as a general system. In the Colonies the party opposite is strongly in favour of leasehold.
  Mr. Hale: Is it?
  Mr. Bell: I do not want to misrepresent. I had understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed to the growth of freehold ownership, certainly on the part of the white settlers. I thought that they were strongly in favour of leasehold tenure—
  Mr. Hale: Perhaps the hon. Member was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) dealt with the whole question of the difference in policy between a leasehold by the State with reversion to the State where we are recouping a development value and a leasehold by an individual; but so far as the Colonies are concerned I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about or what he has in mind. If he can refer us to one statement on the subject he will be calling my attention to something new. Generally speaking, we are in favour of the rapid and beneficial development of land everywhere and of making that land available to the great mass of the people.
  Mr. Bell: I was present when the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) made his impassioned attack upon the landlords, but I do not think that that related at all to what I am saying now. I am merely pointing out that the party opposite have attached importance to the long lease system in new towns. It still is my belief that the general attitude of hon. Members opposite has been that colonial Governments should retain a good deal of land ownership and use the long lease system. I accept that the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke may see a vital distinction between leases granted by the State and leases granted by individuals. However, I am not sure that that distinction will stand up to most of the arguments put forward
  1834
  today by hon. Members attacking the long lease system.
  I have a feeling that if long leases are granted by the State their attitude to the covenants at the end of the leases will be very different. We shall not hear so much about washing out the covenants at the end of the leases. They would be enforced down to the last iota. I criticised the example given by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester on many other grounds, but I noticed that it was one where the landlords were the Commissioners of Crown Lands, so it was held on behalf of a State Department. It was the Department which was enforcing the terms of the lease, and be it remembered that local authorities do not very much likeselling land in freehold. They do not even very much like giving tenancies. In my legal experience I have rarely come across even a tenancy granted by a local authority. They give revocable licences. There is a great deal of political inconsistency in the argument put forward from the benches opposite.
  So far as the general advantage of the country is concerned, I must say that the effects upon the convenience of the nation that would ensue from leasehold enfranchisement would be disastrous. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not yet faced up to all the implications of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House spoke about 25 years' purchase. That is very different from what was said at the Despatch Box by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend. He spoke, if I am correctly advised, of a purchase of the reversion at a sitting tenant valuation. That is utterly different.
  The proposals of the Father of the House are much more equitable, but also a little impractical. I do not think they would ever have much social impact or much effect. The proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend simply amounts to confiscation. That is always one way. The proposal of the hon. Member for Pembroke also amounted to confiscation, because at the end of the contractual tenancy under the present law the landlord is entitled to possession.
  Mr. Hale: I do not want my right hon. and learned Friend to be misrepresented. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Janner: Oh.
  Mr. Hale: I am sorry if I am to be interrupted. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) gave way. I have heard the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) speak on this subject on three occasions already. I have never spoken on it, but for two and a half years I have worked very hard. I have never been called in debate. If the hon. Member says, "Oh" when an hon. Gentleman gives way—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rising to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. South (Mr. R. Bell).
  Mr. Hale: I rise because the hon. Member said something about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), who so far, has made the ablest speech on this topic. He made it with great clarity and his only reference to this matter was when he was challenged by the Home Secretary as to his particular proposals. My right hon. and learned Friend read out as one of his proposals the precise wording of the Minority Report setting out the proposals for enfranchisement made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and myself. If the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South has read that Minority Report he has the particulars and he will find that he has misrepresented; and if he has not read the Report he ought not to have spoken for as long as he has on the subject without familiarising himself with the facts.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is lucid and fluent, but he is also mistaken. His right hon. and learned Friend said today that the criterion should be what the market value of the reversion would be if there was a sitting tenant with the protection of the Rent Acts.
  Mr. Hale: He gave two or three alternative suggestions. His speech is well within the recollection of the House.
  Mr. Bell: It is in my recollection, too. I was present not only for the greater part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend but also for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who raised this point. He
  1836
  had a slight dispute with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the actual words, before they eventually agreed on the words which were those which I have read out. Therefore, I think that I am correctly representing the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. West: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to have the matter placed in its proper perspective. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he was not prepared to make a full statement, but that he was putting out one or two ideas as to how the matter might be dealt with.
  Mr. Bell: When the Opposition put down a reasoned Amendment on Second Reading on the ground that a Bill does not contain a reference to a certain matter, one certainly expects to hear a few suggestions about how it should be dealt with. I should have thought that that was the least we were entitled to. I thought that this was the principal suggestion. It amounts to a form of confiscation.
  It is all very well to go back 100 years into history, but that is not the position. We are dealing in most cases with a man who has bought within about 25 years. The reversion is something which has a known value—the vacant possession on a certain date. Now we are cutting that down quite sharply.
  Mr. Hale: Are we?
  Mr. Bell: Of course. The difference between the value of vacant possession and possession with a sitting tenant enjoying the protection of the Rent Acts is very considerable. Therefore, the proposals which have been put forward by the Opposition amount to a form of confiscation. One could solve many knotty problems if one chose to decide that one part of society need not have justice but could be swept aside and told, "Take this and go away, and do not let us hear any more from you." That is all we have heard from the Opposition.
  There is one other point which I wish to address to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. It concerns the provisions in Part I of the Bill, under which a tenant can remain in possession at the termination of the long lease approximately on the terms of the Rent Acts. In general, I do not quarrel that in the circumstances of the time, but it

  1837
  will be hard on one class of case, and that is when a landlord has bought the reversion intending to provide a home for himself.
  It is not merely property companies which will be hit by this sort of legislation, for they usually manage one way or another. I am much more concerned about the private landlord, who is usually an ordinary sort of man and only a landlord because he has bought a reversion in property. I remember that when I was doing free legal advice work after the war a letter was written to me by a man who said rather sadly, "Surely the Rent Acts do not apply to me. I am not a landlord; I am an ordinary working man." The fact is that many landlords are individual people.
  In the case of a man who has bought a reversion with, say, seven years to run, intending to provide a home for himself, under the Bill he will have to go through the procedure under the 1933 Act of claiming possession of the property for his own use and occupation. Under the Rent Acts he has to prove that he reasonably requires the property for his own occupation, and he does not get possession if the tenant can prove that the balance of hardship will be on the tenant's side.
  That is fair enough in respect of ordinary Rent Act weekly or monthly tenancy properties, but it is a hardship to be imposed on a man rather suddenly in peace-time by a statute like this after he has paid money on a proper valuation for what he thinks is guaranteed vacant possession in not many years' time. I suggest—it is a detail which can be dealt with in Committee—that one should require him to prove that he reasonably requires the property for his own use and occupation but that he should not be put to the peril of the balance of hardship rule under the Rent Acts.
  Subject to those comments about matters of detail, I commend the Bill to the House in the light of the circumstances of the time, although I somewhat regret the violence which the Bill does to the law of contract. However, the Bill is a fair attempt to deal with an extremely difficult problem.
  7.54 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: It would not be unfair to say that the hon. Member for Bucking-
  1838
  hamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) seems to have been concerned not only about the form of law, in which I am sure that many other hon. Members will be interested, but also very much with the position of the landlord. He has put as ingenious a defence for the freeholder's position in leasehold as one is likely to hear, although I found it rather difficult to follow his argument when he said that if one had the kind of enfranchisement advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), it would be confiscation. After all, the hon. Member for Pembroke was dealing with houses which were actually built by working men or their fathers on leasehold land. The freeholders never had the house. I fail to see how even a lawyer can say that it is confiscation when we want to prevent the return to a freeholder of something which he has never had: which he never owned: which had always belonged to someone else.
  Unlike some Measures which we have had from the Government, the Bill is, at least, not wholly unsatisfactory, particularly in relation to business premises. For a long time I have been interested in this matter and gave evidence before the Departmental committee. Some of the worst hardships which have existed for a very long period, and for which there was practically no real protection at all in the case of the small shopkeeper and businessman, will be remedied by the Bill. The 1927 Act was of very little real practical worth in the courts, as will be known by anyone who has ever tried to invoke its aid. Shopkeepers could find themselves minus their premises and business.
  One must be fair about this. I feel that the proposals relating to business premises are a very distinct advance, and we have to be thankful for them. During the Committee stage we must look at the compensation proposals and the terms upon which a freeholder can get business premises back, for there are still too many loopholes which result in the scales still being weighted in favour of the free holder. Nevertheless, the provisions constitute a real improvement.
  In the case of residential property it is clear that a very great cleavage exists between the two sides of the House, as was the case on the Departmental committee. I noticed that "The Times" today said that only two members of the

  1839
  committee favoured enfranchisement. One certainly had on the committee the same clear difference in principle which has been demonstrated in the House today. The Government's White Paper makes it clear that there was a difference in principle, although the Home Secretary did not make it at all clear in his speech.
  The White Paper states on page 4:
  "The majority of the Leasehold Committee were opposed to the introduction in any form of leasehold enfranchisement, their opposition being based mainly on grounds of principle…."
  In its White Paper, the Government argued the case for the landlords rather in the way it has just been put by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. Paragraph 8 states:
  "As regards the first question, it would be harsh indeed on the landlord to require him not only to submit to the compulsory acquisition of his property by his lessee, but also to accept a price much less than his interest is worth."
  I do not understand the words used in those sentences, because one so often deals with building leases relating to property which has, in fact, never been the freeholder's at any time. How one can deprive him of it or give him less than the market value of something he never had I do not understand. This is clearly a political division on principle.
  I commend to the House and to leaseholders throughout the country the following words of the Minority Report, which was signed by two hon. Members:
  "…the conclusions of the Majority Report are based on fundamental tenets of the rights of landlords"—
  very much like the speech by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South—
  'which we do not share. On the contrary, we consider that nowadays, in general, the landlord's interest is an investment or financial interest whereas the tenant's interest is for use and occupation…."
  The Report continues—it is very much on the lines of our Amendment:
  "In our view, the time has come to recognise that, in general, tenants have a more special and specific interest in their homes and business premises than their landlords and to express this interest in terms of legal rights."
  One of the difficulties about leasehold reform has always been that residential leaseholders are scattered, and in the main are poor people. That was one difficulty which Lord Justice Uthwatt
  1840
  found in getting sufficient evidence of the evils of this system from various areas throughout the country. Nevertheless, on my own calculations, there are between 300,000 and 400,000 properties involved. At the moment, they are being protected by the Temporary Provisions Act, passed by the last Government and their fate will be determined by the present Bill. It was one of the things which the Labour Government did. I do not want to answer too many debating points from the other side, but the last Government did set up the Committee at the request of Members of this House, and it passed the Temporary Provisions Act, which was the only Government Measure passed for many years to deal with this problem.
  There have always seemed to me to be three major grievances arising from the leasehold relationship between freeholder and tenant which I would not have thought a modern democratic community would permit. First of all, there was the virtual handing over to the freeholder not only of the land—one could understand that—but of a house built by somebody else and sometimes by the leaseholder's ancestors. That seems quite unjustifiable, and not all the rhetoric or sophistry that we have heard from the other side can make that right in any circumstances.
  It is astonishing that outside some parts of the British Commonwealth this system does not exist. How have other countries been able to develop without this system, which we say has so many anti-social consequences and is so unjust to many people? Until the late Government passed the Temporary Provisions Act, people were being thrown out into the streets. I could give the House example after example, not only from Wales but from South London, and even from the constituency of Dulwich, of people who were thrown out, for the simple reason that they had come to the fag end of their leases or had broken covenants which were often harsh and unjust. That aspect of the matter will be slightly modified by the Government's proposals, although the proposals do not go nearly as far as we on this side of the House want.
  We have had no answer why one or other of the proposals for leasehold enfranchisement could not be considered and were not practical. If one does not

  1841
  like the system of purchase of the capital value over a number of years there is the possibility of extending leases for a much longer period. The Home Secretary has not considered them at all. Perhaps we might have some line from the Solicitor-General on this point when he winds up the debate.
  The second grievance is the special one of the provisions in the covenants about dilapidations. Hon. Members must know of the fantastic schedules which have been given to individuals when a lease has run out, which the individuals concerned could not possibly meet without most serious financial embarrassment. Here the Government's Measure will give some relief. It is fair to point out that if the landlord is to be allowed to increase the rent, plus repayments for repairs done, there is going to be a very serious weekly economic burden to be borne by the tenant. This will be bound to have repercussions on the economy of the country and a further cause of wage demands. Taking into account other difficulties between landlord and tenant, the difficulty seems to be a very pregnant one. We have heard nothing said about it so far, but the burden may be very heavy. However, dilapidation schedules, which now are perfectly valid, will be things of the past, and that will be all to the good.
  I was very sorry that the Home Secretary said that even from the rather cautious acceptance of some proposals of the Committee on the subject of covenants there had been a retreat. Many of the conditions which have been put into contracts of this kind have been an intolerable interference with the liberty of the individual. I am surprised to find them being defended by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They are quite out of keeping with the spirit of the times. There is all this nonsense about amenity contracts and amenity conditions; if they are necessary they are a matter for the town and country planning authorities and of the local authorities, because there is some public responsibility and some means of redress.
  If a local authority puts forward a condition in regard to development and it is felt to be unfair, there can be an appeal to the Minister. The matter can even be raised in this House. When it is put into a contract between two individuals, unless it is so monstrous that a court of
  1842
  law can intervene—and even then it is extraordinarily difficult to get action—it can often be so unfair as to be an intolerable interference with the freedom of the individual.
  Let me show how far this sort of thing can go. There was a case in Paddington of a young lady lodger. She went to the rent tribunal to get protection, because her landlady had asked her to leave the premises. The landlady said that she was perfectly satisfied with the tenant but she held a lease which had just come to an end and the condition of renewal was that all single ladies should go. She had only one in the house, and she had to go. The Chairman said: "If we give the lodger protection, your lease can be terminated. It is a pistol to our head, and we do not like it. That kind of thing is quite improper." One knows of other things equally indefensible, such as the dentist who was not allowed to put a name-plate upon his house. He was a young man, bombed out during the war from his surgery. He tried to carry on. Within five days of his name-plate appearing on the property he was told that he must take it down or else action would be taken in the Court.
  I know of older people whose families had gone away, and who tried to sub-let in order to give shelter to other people. In one case the bailiff sees a new gas stove going in. He noses round and finds that the house is being divided up for three or four families, and he says: "Unless notice is given to the tenants and the gas stove is taken out, we shall go to court and get possession." I could give many other instances of unjust covenants.
  I am surprised that the Government have been so timorous in this matter. I know there are other hon. Members who want to speak so I will conclude by saying that the whole relationship between the freeholder and his tenant under leasehold law seems to be feudal. I think it springs directly from the old feudal relationship. We are one of the last civilised countries in the world to have it, and I hope that it will soon disappear. An hon. Member opposite talked about his party conference at Blackpool. I am glad to think that in "Challenge to Britain" we have given a declaration to our own country of what we shall do about leasehold law. We stand for enfranchisement. I am certain that the

  1843
  constituents of Dulwich, where there are many leaseholders, will be watching with interest what their Member does on the Opposition Amendment.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Jenkins: I was rather interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that he knows so much about my division. I happen to know that he is connected with the London Leasehold Association and takes a considerable interest in the subject. He has done a good deal, incidentally, for the leaseholders of London.
  I made a speech and some suggestions to the Minister in the debate which took place on the White Paper. I shall ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the points which I then made, and one point in particular which I am going to repeat tonight. Since the time when that debate took place I have had an opportunity of consulting quite a number of land agents for large ground landlords and ground landlords themselves. In each of these cases they have been good ground landlords—they have made mistakes, no doubt—and have treated their tenants extremely well.
  The Financial and Explanatory Memorandum says:
  "the principal objectof the Bill is to provide security of tenure for certain tenants occupying residential premises under ground leases…".
  Quite frankly, speaking as a Member of Parliament who represents a constituency in which more people than in any other London constituency are living as tenants of ground landlords, I would say that, generally speaking, my constituents have been treated extremely well.
  But one outstanding complaint which these tenants make, apart, perhaps, from niggling, irritating insistence upon the carrying out of the clauses of their tenancies from time to time, is that, as their leases come to an end, they do not feel able to make the necessary outside and inside repairs during, maybe, the last seven or eight years, because they know that in any case they will be faced with dilapidations at the end of the period.
  Therefore, as the lease of such property comes to an end, the property itself becomes more dilapidated, and more and more of it goes into the category with
  1844
  which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government is seeking to deal in his Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. That being so, is there another way, other than the way which the Government have placed before the House in this Bill and the suggestion of the Opposition that there should be complete leasehold enfranchisement? Incidentally, I should be interested if, perhaps, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), if he speaks tonight, could explain to me out of his great knowledge of the English language and the encyclopaedias the definition of the world "enfranchisement." As far as I am concerned, it means just freedom.
  The Opposition do not want the Bill read a Second time because it does not contain anything about leasehold enfranchisement. I do not want to make a debating point out of this, but, as far as I can see, the Government have gone a considerable way in leasehold freedom, inasmuch as they have provided for certain tenants occupying premises under ground leases to have the legal right to remain in the premises which they now occupy. But that is not enough. The Bill is a good Bill, and I was very pleased to hear the complimentary things said about it by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
  I represent between 3,000 and 4,000 such tenants, and I live in another area of London in which large numbers of people are living under the same conditions. What such tenants want is security. In my view, it is not sufficient for the Government to bring forward this Bill which merely gives them security on a day-to-day, a week-to-week, or a year-to-year tenancy. It is true that it is going to clear away worries and anxieties from the minds of those whose leases have only three or four years to run, and for whom it would be impossible to find alternative accommodation. But, as this is the first step which has been taken for many years—if it has ever been dealt with before in an Act of Parliament—to deal with this problem, it seems to me that the Government should have advanced one step further.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he was putting into the Bill a code which is normally followed by good landlords. In other words, he is insisting in this Bill that what

  1845
  has been done by good landlords throughout the country shall be done compulsorily after the Bill becomes an Act. With regard to the extension of lease, my investigations have gone fairly far since I spoke in the last debate. I find that in London one ground landlord with about 360 houses has voluntarily offered 40 to 60 years extensions of lease to his tenants—in good time and before their anxieties were increased too much. Those leases are on very good terms, satisfactory both to the tenant and to the ground landlord, and I understand that good ground landlords in other places are doing the same thing. An increasing number, by virtue of the fact that leases are coming to an end at a fast rate every year are offering their tenants extensions on advantageous terms.
  The Conservative Party for many years has said that it believes in the principle of personal house ownership, and it stands for a progressive increase in the number of people living in their own houses. When a man wishes to buy a long lease of, say, 40 or 50 years, he can go to an insurance company, a building society or the local authority and get a substantial advance. It becomes personal property of some value.
  I believe that a man owning a lease of that length really believes that he owns the house, and I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend very strongly that, at some time before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, further consideration should be given to make it compulsory on landlords to give an additional alternative, as the lease nears its end, not only of the sitting tenant having the right to pay a fair rack rent, but the right to purchase either by an increase in ground rent or by a reasonable premium, which could be determined in the county court in the case of dispute.
  The sitting tenant should, in fact, be allowed to take on, with proper safeguards, a 40, 50 or 60 years lease according to the condition of the property. In that way, at least for 40 or 50 years, in many thousands of cases this problem would be staved off and would relieve the anxiety of those people whom all Members of the House are anxious to help.
  I sit for a constituency—though this is not a constituency speech—with a very large number of lessees of ground landlords and, having discussed the matter
  1846
  with them and with a number of ground landlords during the last few months, I feel that the Government should give further thought to this matter. They should go one step further towards the objective of hon. Members opposite. They should give one more alternative to the tenant, as a result of which there would be an advance in leasehold reform which would have substantial effects for many scores of years to come.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I listened with very considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member forDulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), and I hope that the Government will take note of his suggestions, although they do not go nearly as far as my hon. Friends would like. The hon. Member was floundering in waters which were not sufficiently strong to hold him up. He said that because a person has had a long lease of a certain property he should not be turned out at the end of his tenancy, or, at least, he should be given full security of tenure.
  He could have gone a step further and said that this Bill not only does not do what he wants but provides that at the end of a long lease the person concerned will become a statutory tenant under the Rent Acts. The Third Schedule of this Bill says that if:
  "…suitable alternative accommodation will be available for the tenant at the date of termination of the tenancy…"
  he can be pushed out of his home, no matter how much he wants to stay. Then if:
  "…the tenant or a person residing or lodging with him or being his sub-tenant"—
  leave aside the tenant part of this—
  "has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers…"
  he can be turned out. Further, if the:
  "premises comprised in the tenancy, and consisting of or including the relevant premises, are reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age or his father or mother…"
  the tenant can be turned out.
  The position with regard to the holder of a long lease is entirely different from that of a tenant who is holding over on a short tenancy and has become a statutory tenant. First, the Government are depriving of their homes a large number of persons who have a moral right, if

  1847
  not a legal right, to consider that they should be safe in their homes. All that they are being given as an alternative is a statutory tenancy of the house from which they can be turned out in the same way as a statutory tenant can be turned out under the Rent Acts, in certain contingencies. That is obviously wrong in regard to this matter.
  The interesting thing about practically all the speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite is that they have been based on wrong assumptions. I do not say that that has been done wittingly. I have been taking part in enfranchisement movements for something like 40 years, and I shall give the House the reason for that in a moment. Hon. Members opposite have been basing their contentions on assumptions which are entirely wrong.
  The hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) stated that the Liberal Party in 1902 were against leasehold enfranchisement. In reply to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), it is not very difficult to understand what enfranchisement means. It is a very simple word. It has not been used for the last few years merely. It was used 50, yes, nearly 100, years ago, and has been accepted as meaning enfranchising people by removing the chains from them—that is practically what it means—in respect of their homes.
  I would ask the hon. Gentleman, if he will be good enough to do so, to pick up "Towns and the Land," which was written much later than the time to which he referred. I think it was 1923.
  Mr. Hale: 1926, at the Kingsway Hall. I spoke on the motion that it should be approved.
  Mr. Janner: It was not written for 1926 but for 1923 to 1925.
  Mr. Hale: 1926.
  Mr. Janner: Let me quote that to show how even at that time what we are asking for today was being asked for by the party to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It said:
  "Subject to certain restrictions in the public interest the leaseholders of dwelling-houses shall have a right of compulsory enfranchisement on applying to the leaseholds tribunal."
  1848
  That is what Mr. Lloyd George and his party said long after what was said in the quotation the hon. Gentleman gave. It said the conditions should be that:
  "Enfranchisement of the property would not conflict with public interest or with the intentions of public authorities regarding the use of the land affected. That the tenant owns the building lease of the premises, or alternatively, a lease for a total term of not less than twenty-one years. That the property in question is wholly or primarily residential, and is occupied by the lessee who seeks to enfranchise it, or has formerly been occupied by him and is at present tenanted by some member of his family or by a sub-tenant on a short-term agreement."
  That was in 1923 to 1925. At that time the reasons which were put forward for that were that in Wales in particular incidents had occurred that are also referred to in this volume. It would be of use to the hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory about that, so that he could see why it is essential today, as it was essential 50 years ago, 60 and 70 years ago, that leaseholds should be enfranchised.
  Typical of a large class in all parts of the country is the case of a North Wales quarryman who, when starting his own home, bought the 60 years' building lease of his house on a mortgage which he paid off by degrees in the following years. Now, in approaching old age, this house represents his only capital as a home for himself and his wife, or as a gift he can pass to his children, or as a property he can let to secure an income. It is a vanishing security. Just when he is most helpless the lease will fall in and his investment will disappear, to be replaced by a bill for dilapidations. It is idle to assert that he knew all this at the outset. A home is a necessity. It is not an optional form of investment, and a home could only be secured by him on terms of that 60 years' building lease. The conditions under which he was compelled to make his bargain were intrinsically unfair.
  Dr. H. Morgan: Lloyd George said that years ago.
  Mr. Janner: That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) said today.
  Mr. Grenfell: Lloyd George did not originate this.
  Mr. Janner: I know that. I was answering the point made by the hon.

  1849
  Member for Handsworth. I was giving him chapter and verse, to illustrate to him that I was not just making it up. It was what the party to whom he referred felt at that time. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think, will remember that at that time a resolution of the Bethesda Urban District Council represented the feeling in a district where the sense of grievance against the leasehold system was particularly strong. It set out very clearly the ground of the complaint. In 1908, six years after the date mentioned
  Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to me. I do not want him to detain the House by making ail these references for my benefit. If he will send me the references I will look them up for myself.
  Mr. Janner: Yes, I know, but my case is that what was contained in those arguments prevails today. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter. Now I am able to pin him down by arguments he himself did not take the precaution or trouble to follow. This applies today; it is precisely the argument we are using today.
  They passed this resolution:
  "that the ground rents charged in almost all cases are much above the agricultural value of the land at the time the lease is granted, and it is unjust that the hard earning of the leaseholder, and his improvements should lapse on termination of the lease to the freeholder who has in many cases already benefited to the extent of hundreds per cent. on the original value of the land…"
  That resolution was approved by 77 English councils and 56 Welsh councils of that time, and not a single council to whom it was sent dissented from it.
  References were made to the type of house involved. That was at a time when those houses were beginning to fall into decay. The figures at that time, so far back, were these: out of 2,489 houses in the Festiniog parish, working men inhabited 2,052. They had themselves built no fewer than 1,500. The total cost of these buildings was £403,810, to which might be added, as spent upon public buildings, British and Board schools, chapels and school rooms, on leasehold land, a further sum which would bring the total expenditure on leasehold land up to £452,810.
  The ground rents on the larger class of houses, costing £300, would average £2; and the ground rents of the smaller, costing £130, would average £1. The
  1850
  total ground rent during the 60 years of the average lease would amount to £177,660 and would arise from 77 acres of land which, before building took place, was not worth 7s. 6d. an acre, although the rent which each acre fetched as building land was £39. That was the position then, and it is the position today.
  Let me turn to the next hon. Member opposite who spoke—the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). He quoted the example of Southport. Later there was a speech by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), who comes from Cardiff; of all places in the world, a man from Cardiff speaks against leasehold enfranchisement!
  Mr. George Thomas: I do not object to what my hon. Friend says, as long as he makes it perfectly clear that the hon. Member in question does not represent Cardiff.
  Mr. Janner: I know that, but it is another matter. I know Cardiff very well.
  Let us see what Southport people have to say about this. This comes from "Our Fight for abolition of the present leasehold laws," by Mr. Mark Simm, Secretary of the Southport Leasehold Reform Association, who had this to say about the beautiful Southport example which has been given this afternoon:
  "The curse of the present leasehold laws are the claims of avaricious landowners, who persistently refuse to sell land for building purposes, and as the landowners have neither the initiative nor the ability to build houses, the people had to make the best of conditions prevailing, namely, the 99 years lease. The scandal of the system is now causing considerable distress to thousands of leaseholders in Southport. Of the 23,178 dwelling houses, 904 houses and shops and 815 shops in Southport, two-thirds are leasehold. So, unless the present laws are altered, the landowners are going to rake in thousands of pounds, without so much as raising a finger."
  That is what the Southport people are saying; those are not my words. That is the answer to hon. Members opposite who quote Southport as an ideal place to illustrate the disadvantages of leasehold enfranchisement.
  Let me go a step further. Another hon. Member who spoke was the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower); he comes from South Wales, which so many of my hon.

  1851
  Friends know very well, as, indeed, I know it very well, too. What happened at Barry? The town of Barry was built up about 60 years and more ago, on waste land. They built docks at Barry. Since those docks were built that land has become very profitable and the leases of the houses which were put up there on waste land will in a few years all be falling in.
  Mr. G. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), like the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), at the last Election, were both in favour of leasehold enfranchisement?
  Mr. Janner: Of course they were, because they know that that is the only way out of the difficulty. They live in the district where there is this problem.
  Mr. Thomas: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Janner: Let me finish my argument.
  In Barry the houses more or less surround the dock, and the leases are falling in in the same way as at Pembroke dock, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) pointed out. The result will be that practically the whole town will be left with rent-controlled tenancies, at what rent?—at a rental that is a rack rent, and many of the people concerned have thought all along that the houses they occupied were their own homes.
  That is the problem and it is a very serious one. It is no good hon. Members saying that it only applies to some parts of the country. That does not alter the situation. If the hon. Member for Barry says, "Yes, Barry ought to be regarded as an exceptional place; we are only taking those places where leaseholds exist." London is not so "hit," to use a common expression, in that regard. I have received particulars from London as well. Let us take the main centres. The fact is that the Amendment we have put down is an Amendment which ought to be accepted readily by all people who have the slightest conception of what the leasehold system is like.
  I am going a step further than some of my hon. Friends. Some of my hon. Friends say that the purchase price should be higher than one based on the ground rents. I am in doubt about that. Quite frankly, I think that 25 to 30 years' purchase would be quite enough,
  1852
  but we can argue that at a later stage. The fact is that the principle of enfranchisement is the only one that can possibly be applied to a proper solution of this leasehold problem. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think this matter over again. He thinks that he is going some distance. The hon. Member for Dulwich thinks that he ought to go further—namely, to grant tenancies of 40 or 50 years. Why not go the whole hog; what is wrong in doing that?
  I put it to the Minister, because he is a reasonable man: Is it right that if people have spent the whole of their fortunes on building on a piece of land, which was worthless and on which ground rent for 90-odd years has been paid, their successors should, at the end, be told, "You and your predecessors have toiled for the person who had that piece of land which was worthless, and today you have to pay him what is practically a rack rent for the rest of your life"? That is not good enough, or the proper thing to do.
  I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is interested in Wales—and because Wales is particularly interested in this problem—to do something about it. He will have a very "rough house" if he does not do something about it. It is a problem which the Liberal Party have tried to deal with and the Labour Party have tried to deal with, and one which individual Members representing Welsh constituencies have to deal with. I hope that, even at this late hour, he will change his mind. I do not ask him to cross the Floor of the House—that would be too much to ask, although perhaps at sometime or another he will see the wisdom of doing that. All I ask him to do at present is to consult his friends and see that this Amendment is accepted.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will forgive me if I do not follow him into Festiniog and Southport and the depths of history of enfranchisement—I am not equipped to do so—but so far as the immediate history of the term "enfranchisement" is concerned, there is no doubt that confusion has been caused in the minds of the public about the belief of hon. Members opposite.

  1853
  People believe that Members opposite, in talking about enfranchisement, want to give the ground tenant something for nothing; that it means a complete gift of the land to the tenant. [Hon. Members: "No."] It may be a wrong belief, but it has undoubtedly got about that that is being put forward by hon. Members on the other side.
  Today, we have had from the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) a clear exposition of the alternative which is put forward to the Bill. We do not seem to be very far apart in practice on the two sides of the House. The proposal put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, I understand, that we should treat the ground tenant as a statutory tenant; that he should have the right to purchase the reversion, not at the vacant possession value, but as if there were a statutory tenant in possession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to give that to the ground tenant as a right.
  What the Bill intends is that the ground tenant should have, not the right, but exactly the same opportunity. The Bill will convert the ground tenant into a statutory tenant, and he is then in the position to say to his landlord, "I am a statutory tenant here. I will purchase as a statutory tenant in possession. You cannot oblige me to pay the vacant possession value of the property, but I will offer you the value of the property as with a statutory tenant in possession." And so in practice it comes down to the same thing, except that we differ as regards the right of the ground tenant to force the landlord to sell the property to him, which I understand to be the enfranchisement as put forward by hon. Members opposite, and, as in the Bill, the opportunity for him to make the offer to the landlord for the same value.
  Many ground tenants would not wish to take the offer of enfranchisement as put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend. It would involve that they would have to borrow from a building society, and the repayments of building society mortgage capital and interest, plus general rates, would amount to more than—certainly as much as—the statutory rent which is to be fixed by the Bill.
  Dr. Morgan: If what the hon. Member says is true, the man would be paying for
  1854
  his own house later on. He would be making a contribution towards ownership of the house and not necessarily of the land.
  Mr. Page: I am dealing with the proposition put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend. Other propositions, I gather, are put forward by hon. Members opposite, but I am assuming that the proposition of purchase by the tenant, as if there was a statutory tenant in possession, is as it were the official alternative that is put forward to the Bill. It is that alternative with which I desire to deal.
  Mr. Grenfell: What hon. Members on this side want to do is to enable those people all over the country who have built and paid for their houses to be able to own them. They built them at their own expense.
  Mr. Page: I quite understand that. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, it is his desire that the ground tenant should buy the house for which he has paid.
  Mr. Grenfell: He has paid for the house and he has built it. What he wants is an entitlement to it.
  Mr. Page: I am quite aware he built it some 99 years ago, though the actual tenant now did not build it but some predecessor in title did. Very frequently this matter is argued on the basis that the present ground tenant is the man who built the house 100 years ago. I should say there is only one in100 or, indeed, even one in 1,000 related in any way to the man who originally built the house.
  Mr. G. Thomas: What about South Wales?
  Mr. Page: I know some of the properties in South Wales, and I know very many properties in London, particularly in Islington, which is covered with ground leases. I know there is hardly a single tenant in those dwellings who is in any way related to the man who built the houses. That argument, although it may apply in some cases, is not general. Usually one is dealing with the person who is paying the ground rent.
  May I return to the point put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend. He referred to Clause 9 to discover what would be

  1855
  the standard rent of this new statutory tenancy, which the ground tenant will hold after the expiration of his lease. On the amount of that standard rent the value of the property depends, and also the amount which the ground tenant would have to pay for enfranchising his property or, in other words, purchasing it from his ground landlord.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman feared that Clause 9 would produce an exorbitant rent. I think his fears are unfounded. The Clause refers to
  "…a reasonable rent for the dwelling-house on a letting in that state of repair…"
  I think that it must follow that a reasonable rent is that which is the rent for houses in the particular neighbourhood in which it is situated, which, of course, will normally be statutory tenancies with standard rents. Although this Clause needs tidying up in Committee, the intention is that the ground tenant will become the statutory tenant at a rent which is similar to those of houses under the Rent Acts in the neighbourhood.
  So the ground tenant will get the opportunity of purchasing at a non-vacant possession value as opposed to the alternative suggestion of having a right to purchase at that value. I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend would agree that it would be fair, if the tenant is to be given aright to purchase at that figure, that the ground landlord should have a right to force the tenant to purchase at that figure? It seems only fair that each should have the same rights because there will be many landlords who will not wish to be saddled with a statutory tenant at the end of the ground lease. I have in mind the type of landlord who has purchased a few ground rents late in life, perhaps as a form of pension, thinking they will fall in at about the time he wants to retire. I am sure that hon. Members have come across that type of person and investment. Under this Bill such a man will be saddled with a statutory tenant, and if that statutory tenant is to be given the right to choose whether he will stay on or be enfranchised and purchase it, surely it will be reasonable to give the landlord a similar right to oblige the tenant to make up his mind whether he remains as a statutory tenant or takes over his home?
  1856
  Further, arising from this proposition, if the tenant is given the right to purchase at the non-vacant possession value, he is given the difference between that value and the vacant possession value, because he can move out of the house the next day and sell it with vacant possession. Would the proposers of this alternative make some restriction on the selling price for a period of time?
  Mr. Hale: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, he has asked four successive questions, every one of which is answered in detail in the reports if he had taken the trouble to read them.
  Mr. Page: I read the reports and I did not find any satisfactory answer to these points.
  Dr. Morgan: Where did the hon. Gentleman learn his political economy?
  Mr. Page: If enfranchisement is to take place on the lines put forward today, there is no doubt that we should be giving the ground tenant the difference in value between the non-vacant possession value and the vacant possession value of the property and, as far as I am aware, it has not been said here today whether it is intended under those circumstances to put any restriction on the sale price of the property.
  Now may I pass to the provisions in the Bill concerning business premises. In this respect the Bill goes far beyond the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee, and it is clear from the speeches today that both sides of the House are in fair agreement upon this part of the Bill. As hon. Members know, the present state of the law, so far as compensation or goodwill is concerned, is unsatisfactory; that it has been necessary, as the law stands, for the business tenant to prove not only the loss of what is frequently termed "cat" goodwill but also the loss of "dog" goodwill—the customers who follow the person rather than the place—before he is able to obtain the renewal of his lease. He had to prove both those types of loss first, and that gave him the right to renewal of his lease. If I read it correctly, the Final Report suggested that the alteration in that part of the law should be that the tenant should have a new lease if he proved that otherwise the value of his business as a going concern would be substantially diminished.

  1857
  The present Bill goes far beyond that. It gives the business tenant an absolute right to a new lease, subject to certain conditions. That seems to me to be not only fair as between landlord and tenant but for the public good, because security of tenure is so necessary in business development. In general, I feel that this Bill offers a satisfactory answer to questions which are of the utmost complexity and which raise the most difficult social problems. It is for these reasons that I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Granville West: I am very sorry that it has been necessary for me to rise now, but the Solicitor-General must have time to reply to the debate. It is necessary for me to put forward a view that perhaps has not been stressed from this side of the House. Some of my hon. Friends have been most anxious to participate in this debate and the House would have welcomed their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who sat on the Leasehold Committee, could have given much valuable information to the House on this complex problem.
  Mr. Hale: This is the fourth long debate through which I have sat from start to finish to try to avail myself of that opportunity. I am not in the least critical of that. Quite the contrary, because so much has been said with which I agree that there has not been much left that I could have added. I interrupt my hon. Friend only because otherwise his words might be interpreted in Oldham as meaning that I had not been here.
  Mr. West: My hon. Friend knows the great respect which we have for him and I assure him that there was no suggestion at all that he had not been present at our debates on this topic.
  It is clear that the issue upon which the debate has ranged today has shown a fundamental conflict between each side of the House. The debate has been concentrated on leasehold enfranchisement, but that does not mean that other provisions in the Bill which have not been debated at great length are not important, and, indeed, not subject to some criticism. I feel that I should deal for a short time with certain of the provisions in Part II of the Bill.
  1858
  I know that the Bill recognises the prima facie right of the business tenant to a renewal of his tenancy. That, of course, is an advance on the position under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. But while the Bill gives a prima facie right of renewal, it extends the grounds upon which the tenant may be denied that right. There are now some eight grounds in the Bill upon which the business tenant can be denied his right of renewal. This is a worse position than that which existed under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. There is one provision under which all that the owner of the property has to do is to say, "I want the property for my own purpose. I want to start a business there." If he went to a court and opposed the tenant's right of renewal he would succeed in his opposition.
  I had a letter today from a constituent of an hon. Member opposite dealing with this very point. He is a man in business who has taken a great interest in the White Paper published by the Government and has considered the proposals it contains. He said:
  "I am deeply interested in the subject as it vitally affects the livelihood of myself and family. Having read the White Paper, recently issued, in the earnest hope that something had been proposed to put right an injustice which seemingly is about to happen to me, I feel it my duty to bring to your notice a matter in which the White Paper proposals apparently fail to give protection to the tenant.
  I cite my own case: I am leasing business premises which I have held for 30 years. I apply for a new lease which the landlord is prepared to grant (at an exorbitant figure). I submit what I think is a fair offer and am prepared to go to arbitration if offer is refused.
  The landlord refuses to accept my offer or go to arbitration stating that, unless I accept his figure, he will take the premises himself…or, alternatively, reconstruct and develop them.
  Is it right that I should be held to ransom in this way?"
  That is no exception; it is the kind of thing which operates and, unfortunately, is the general practice of many landlords. I think the Uthwatt Committee, who issued their Interim Report on Tenure and Rent of Business Premises desired that there should be a code of conduct set up. They said in paragraph 51 of the recommendations:
  "Legislation designed to impose on a minority the code of conduct already in substance observed by the majority must leave no loophole for evasion, for those it seeks to

  1859
  hit will certainly try to devise ways and means of avoiding it. The measure must necessarily be sweeping in its application although by reason of its character—which is to enforce a kind of 'professional code' for property owners the moral standards of good landlords—it will be effective only for tie minority of landlords."
  It is that minority of landlords which impose considerable hardship on the business tenant.
  I turn to the question of compensation under the Bill. In their Report the Leasehold Committee set out their proposals. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act provisions were laid down for the payment of compensation for the loss of goodwill. In paragraph 21 of the Leasehold Committee's Report it is stated that:
  "Compensation should be assessed on the basis prescribed by the 1927 Act…by reference to 'adherent goodwill'…"
  It then sets out a certain exception.
  What does this Bill propose? The Home Secretary said that the proposals were rough justice. I was going to say that it was a rough and ready method. I think we all agree that it certainly is rough on the business tenant. Take the case of the gentleman who wrote to me. He has been in business in those premises for 30 years. If his landlord succeeds by saying that he wants to take the premises himself because the tenant will not pay an exorbitant rent, what compensation will the tenant get? Because he has been there for 30 years he will get twice the amount of the rateable value. Had he been there for only 14 years, or less, he would have had an amount equal to the rateable value.
  Is there anyone who suggests that a man who has carried on a business for 10, 13 or 14 years, who has devoted himself to his business, and built up a substantial business, has not acquired a very valuable goodwill attaching to that business? How can anyone say that an amount equal to the rateable value would adequately compensate that man for being deprived of his property and his business?
  Let us take another case. A man may have been in occupation of business premises for 20 years, and a speculator comes along, one of those people who do not comply with the moral code which the Uthwatt Committee would like to see set up, and six years before the ex-
  1860
  piration of the lease he buys the property. He does so because he wants to have the business. He refuses to grant a renewal and says, "I want the premises to carry on a business there myself." Under the terms of the Bill, he can carry on precisely the same business as that which the tenant has been carrying on for 20 years. He can acquire all the benefits of the goodwill, and all he has to pay is an amount equal to twice the rateable value. These are matters which will have to be considered in great detail if this Bill receives its Second Reading.
  Then there is another provision in the Bill which deprives a man who has carried on a business for some years, and who desires to retire from business at the expiration of his lease, of entitlement to compensation because he does not apply for a renewal of the lease. Although the premises have had attached to them adherent goodwill the benefit of which the landlord is gaining, the unfortunate business tenant is entitled to no compensation.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: And the landlord can carry on the business.
  Mr. West: That is so, as I tried to demonstrate earlier.
  Then there is the question of contracting out, to which attention will have to be given. I realise that there may be a genuine, if remote, case in which a landlord has premises which he proposes to occupy himself but for certain reasons he is not able to do so for a period of about five years. He therefore finds a person who quite genuinely, though I say equally remotely, will be prepared to carry on a business in these premises for a period not exceeding five years until the landlord is ready to take possession.
  In those circumstances the landlord is entitled to require the tenant to contract out with regard to the compensation provisions. I regard this as a most dangerous feature of the Bill because what is likely to happen in future is that it will be used not only in these remote if genuine cases, but landlords will refuse to grant leases for longer periods than five years so that they can insist upon the tenant contracting out of the compensation provisions of the Bill, small as they are.
  I suggest that upon those aspects of the provisions relating to business premises there is much to be desired, and as was said in the "Solicitors' Journal,"

  1861
  it seems quite clear that if this Bill gets a Second Reading it will need to be very substantially amended before it receives the Royal Assent.
  I wish to deal with certain matters relating to residential properties. The first matter with which I wish to deal concerns repairs. The provision regarding repairs is weighted in favour of the ground lessors. No provision whatever is made in this Bill in respect of improvements which the tenant himself has carried out. I have listened to what the Home Secretary said in this regard, but we are dealing with residential property, much of which is very old, where there were no bathrooms installed originally; where grates have been renewed and electric light installed, together with other amenities.
  All of this is of advantage to the landlord if he takes possession of the property. Although such improvements increase both the capital and the letting value, no compensation is to be paid to the tenants in respect of them, and no allowance will be made against the cost to the tenant of repairs which the landlord can undertake under the terms of this Bill. In my opinion it would be much fairer if those improvements were taken into account and set off against any amount for initial repairs, with the balance paid by instalments, perhaps by an addition to the rent.
  The next matter which causes us concern is what is meant by the expression "reasonable rent." The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me to understand that "reasonable rent" meant a reasonable rent in relation to the general value of the property to any tenant who might desire it in the open market. It is not to be a reasonable rent in relation to comparable property protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts. Were that so, many of our objections would disappear. If the expression "reasonable rent" means the current market rent which can be obtained from any tenant taking the vacant property, I feel that there will be an extraordinary position arising where tenants will be required to pay substantially more than is paid by tenants of comparable houses protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts.
  In discussing Clause 15 the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear, following an intervention of mine, that
  1862
  sub-tenants will continue on in the premises when the tenancy of the lessee terminates, and will be protected by the Rent Restrictions Acts, both as to tenure and as to rent. What is the situation if the lessee who himself has bought the property—which perhaps his predecessors have built, remains in the property? He has to pay what is called a reasonable rent which may be the current market rent. But if the subtenant, who may have paid a restricted rent for some time is in the property, he has protection which is denied to the lessee. I consider this unjust and unfair. So far as that provision is concerned, it amounts to a landlord's charter. This Bill is said to be of benefit to the tenant, but it favours the landlord.
  We have had many references during this debate to the sanctity of contract and we have heard something about good planning. It is clear that those arguments, which have become almost traditional in the defence of the leasehold system, are now disappearing. If there is to be an argument that the sanctity of contract no longer exists, we need only look at the proposals of the Government. They are now saying, "There is nothing in the sanctity of contract because we ourselves are proposing to vary the contract and the covenant with regard to repairs and the giving up of possession."
  Some hon. Members have talked as though the agitation for leasehold reform and enfranchisement was something recent. They have tried to suggest that in its origin the leasehold system has done much for the good development of the country. I wonder why it is that for over 60 years there has been an agitation for leasehold enfranchisement. I wonder why it is that there have been Royal Commissions to investigate what were the evils of the leasehold system if it has, in fact, rendered such good as many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think.
  No fewer than 18 Parliamentary Bills have been presented to try to deal with the problem. There have been Select Committees and Royal Commissions and there was the Leasehold Committee set up by the Labour Government to try to find a solution to this problem which has existed for over 60 years. What is the solution to this vexed question? Obviously, it must be the solution which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) put to

  1863
  the House and which is indicated in the Amendment. I wish more hon. Gentlemen opposite had been present when my right hon. and learned Friend spoke.
  He has been able to gather in two converts to our side. There is the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who started by denouncing leasehold enfranchisement because, he said, it would strike at the very foundations of the security of the banks, the insurance companies and the big institutions. He said that if we were to have leasehold enfranchisement for the ordinary working man so that he might own his own property under a freehold system, that would strike at the very roots of investments and securities of the big vested interests and that those interests must be preserved. To preserve them the working man must be denied the security of the freehold of his house.
  Then there was the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), who put a very strong case to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. There is no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have the leasehold property in their constituencies know that a real problem exists. The hon. Member for Dulwich knows, as does the hon. Member for Barry. They know the evil consequences of the leasehold system. That is why they have been trying to urge their right hon. and learned Friend to amend the Bill to meet the needs of many of their constituents.
  Sanctity of contract and the arguments in support of it have now disappeared. Nobody who has studied the problem has ever considered that there was any strength in the argument for it. On an earlier occasion I referred to the circumstances in which many working people have been compelled to take building leases to get land upon which to build their houses. They were denied the opportunity of getting freeholds. I have told the House of some of the onerous covenants which have been imposed upon building lessees, not because they freely negotiated the contract but because they had either to take it or leave it. They wanted a house in which to bring up their family and so they were driven to accept the conditions which the less or imposed. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is an absence of morality in many of these cases, and
  1864
  that being so, there can be no suggestion whatever that in those cases there should be any consideration at all given to the sanctity of contract.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke dealt with orderly planning and development, a subject referred to on the occasions of our earlier debates when it was said that the responsibility for planning and development now falls upon local authorities and town and country planning committees. It is no longer in the power of the private landowner to decide how a certain plot or area of land shall be developed; he has to have the consent of the planning committee, and the committee has regard to the public interest.
  Having regard to all the matters which have been dealt with in the course of the debate, to the unsatisfactory features of the Bill and to the fact that it makes no provision whatever for remedying the great evil which exists by giving the lessee an opportunity of enfranchising his property and acquiring the freehold, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide against the Bill.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am sure the House will agree that once again we have had an excellent and interesting debate on this subject. It is perhaps inevitable that in debates on this subject there should be some repetition of the arguments which were advanced in the debate on the White Paper. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) went so far as to reiterate the arguments advanced in the debates on the Select Committee which reported in 1889.
  When we had the debate on the White Paper I disclosed at the outset of my speech such interest in these matters as I had, and I must do so again. I am a trustee and a beneficiary of a trust which owns leasehold property. I do not think the trust is a ground landlord of any residential property. So far as I can find out, Part I will not affect the trust at all, but Part II will affect it, as it will affect every landlord and every tenant of shops, offices and business premises throughout England and Wales.
  If I were asked which was the most important part of the Bill and the Part which would have the most important consequences, important

  1865
  though Part I and the other Parts are, I should say without any hesitation that Part II is by far the most important. It is perhaps a pity that more was not said about that Part during our debate today. It has been generally well received. Certain criticisms have been advanced of parts of it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), but the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and other hon. Members opposite indicated their general broad approval of Part II. I am sorry that we were not able to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West expound his approval in one of his usual speeches.
  Mr. Hale: In the circumstances, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the word "broad" is perhaps inappropriate?
  The Solicitor-General: When I said "broad," I was not meaning anything personal. I did not want in any way to appear to commit him not to put forward arguments or suggestions on the Committee stage, which, no doubt, he will be attending.
  It is a pity that we did not spend more time on this Part of the Bill, because it is desirable that its provisions should receive the widest publicity, so that tenants may take advantage of them. In moving the Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the defects which have appeared in the operation of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927. That was an Act which was passed with the best intentions, but I do not think that anyone could say that it has worked well.
  The difficulty was to determine whether there was any adherent goodwill and, if so, what was its value. It was difficult to say whether that value was less than the loss of goodwill suffered by the tenant who had to move out. In many cases that resulted in very prolonged and complicated litigation. That Act did not result in every tenant who suffered a loss through having to move obtaining any compensation. By no means every tenant could show that there was any adherent goodwill.
  This Bill makes an entirely new approach, and I do not think that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend, appreciated that fact. It is a
  1866
  new approach in several respects. First, it extends the scope, covering a much wider field. Doctors, professional men and solicitors—and it is of the utmost importance that some solicitors should have their offices close to magistrates' courts—all come in under Part II.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West drew attention to the fact that the scope of Part II is wider than that of the interim Act passed by the late Socialist Government and replaced by one passed by this Government. He is quite right in that respect, and we should welcome any suggestions which he might put forward to enable us to bridge the gap and so protect those who are outside the scope of the interim Act and may be in danger—I do not know whether they will be—before this Bill reaches the Statute Book.
  Mr. Hale: I undertake not to interrupt again, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will say, here and now, that if evidence of grave abuse in this connection were produced it might affect the mind of the Government on the Committee stage, that warning might stop the sort of abuse which I had in mind, and which I indicated.
  The Solicitor-General: If we saw developing any signs of abuse of the sort which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we should explore every avenue open to us to stop it. We do not want the object of Part II defeated before it reaches the Statute Book. Under Part II, if a tenant has shown himself to be a good one, he will have the right to renewal, and a greater right than anyone else to the tenancy of those premises. But that is no more than what is already done by good landlords. They recognise that a sitting tenant has the first claim to the renewal.
  This part of the Bill seeks to convert bad landlords into good ones, in this respect. One thing which it will do is to prevent the purchase of the landlord's interest towards the expiry of the lease of business premises—of a factory, for instance—and the purchaser calculating what sum the lessees will be prepared to pay to avoid having to move out, and demanding that sum, which may bear no relation to the current contemporary rent. I think it will stop that sort of thing. Of course, if there is no renewal and the tenant is made to go, and he goes through

  1867
  no fault of his own, then the Bill provides that he is entitled to compensation. If he leaves on his own account, if he does not want a renewal, if he has shown himself to be a bad tenant, then he will not be entitled to compensation. So not only does this Part of the Bill seek to improve bad landlords, but it gives considerable incentives to tenants to be good tenants.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontypool criticised this Part of the Bill. He said—I could not agree with him, I am afraid—that a tenant under this Part of the Bill would be in a worse position than under the 1927 Act. I do not think that is true. We shall examine it, no doubt, in Committee, but I really do not think that is the case. Then he put forward the position of a man who wanted to retire at the end of his lease. If he does not want a renewal and goes out he will not get compensation, but if he wants to retire he would be a wise man just to dispose of his interest before the end of his lease so that his successor, if he wanted to carry on the same business, would step into his shoes for the purpose of the renewal. In that way he would get value.
  The reasons for allowing contracting out for that limited term have been explained by my right hon. and learned Friend. I personally do not share the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman that that contracting out provision is likely to lead to landlords refusing to grant leases for longer than five years. I really do not think there is any risk of that. Good landlords are just as keen to get good tenants as good tenants may be to get good landlords, and if they come together they usually like to stay together. So I do not really think that is a serious risk.
  The scale of compensation has received some criticism. We shall explore that in Committee. It is arbitrary. It may be said that some other bases are more logical, but there really are strong objections to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the basis put forward in the Bill because he said it bore no relation to the accrual of value to the landlord or to the loss to the tenant. It does not, I quite agree. It is not intended to. The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, largely broke down because of the difficulty of trying to assess what was the value of the
  1868
  adherent goodwill, and whether it in fact existed. We found that did not work, and it would be an error, I think, to take that course again, a course that was productive of much litigation, to the benefit of lawyers.
  Mr. West: I thought the Home Secretary said earlier in the day that it had served a useful purpose, and that 500 cases had been heard.
  The Solicitor-General: It certainly has served a useful purpose, and advantage has been taken of it, but defects have appeared, and one of the effects has been the difficulty in assessing whether there was any adherent goodwill and in determining what value it had. It would be a mistake to introduce that element into this new proposal.
  Under this proposal the scale is related to the rateable value. It is true it is not related to the loss that a tenant may suffer. That loss will vary, probably, in every case. There may be removal expenses, there may be loss of profits difficult to assess, and there may be the difficulty of valuation, and probably litigation.
  There is this further factor that has to be borne in mind. It is not in the national interest that proper redevelopment should be held up because the price the landlord has to pay to secure vacant possession at the end of the tenancy is too great. One has to have regard to that. The advantages—the very real advantages—of the rateable value basis are these: it is simple and it is certain. Both landlords and tenants know what sum the landlord will have to pay and the tenant will receive. Each can make his plan accordingly. They will not have to wait month after month until the result of lengthy litigation is known.
  It is quite true that it may not compensate the tenant for all the expense to which he is put in having to go at the end of the tenancy. In a great many cases the 1927 Act does not do that. What is also true, however, is that this basis gives some compensation to the tenant who is made to go. It might be that a few tenants would get more under the 1927 Act, but it is certainly true that a great many will benefit under these provisions which would get nothing under that Act.

  1869
  The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the Bill as a landlords' charter. I do not think that sort of observation is justified. Let us see what the Bill does—this so-called landlords' charter. First of all, it deprives the ground landlord of residential premises of the legal right to vacant possession on the expiry of the ground lease on or after 24th December, 1954, or on 24th December, 1954, if the lease came within the 1951 Act as extended. It depreciates very considerably the value of his reversionary interest, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out.
  Secondly, the Bill very considerably restricts the right of a landlord to get possession of business and professional premises at the end of the lease. Thirdly, it increases a landlord's liability to pay compensation to tenants for improvements. Fourthly, it restricts the landlord's power to enforce repairing covenants.
  I suggest that this catalogue suffices to dispose of the charge that this is just a landlords' charter. It is nothing of the sort. The truth is that we have tried to strike a fair balance and to do justice between landlord and tenant, and I believe that we have broadly found the right answer to these complicated problems and that, when it understands what the Bill seeks to bring about, the country will agree with us in that.
  I come to what has been the chief subject of the debate today and the main criticism of the Bill. There has been very little criticism of the content of the Bill, but the party opposite intend to vote against it, so they say, not on the ground that anything in it is radically wrong—they welcome many parts of it—but on the ground that it does not contain any provision for leasehold enfranchisement. I want to deal with that argument and, I hope, to deal with it fairly.
  May I summarise the argument for leasehold enfranchisement quite shortly? I think it can be put as follows: that in particular parts of the country, and notably in South Wales, the granting of ground leases in the past has been an abuse of power by the landlords of that time, an exploitation by them of the monopoly they then had of the land available for building. That is the argument repeatedly put forward from the benches opposite, and it is the argument which has been repeatedly put forward
  1870
  in the last 60 or 70 years. It is said that although these leases were entered into voluntarily, nevertheless, as there was no other land available, they were harsh and unconscionable and the parties to those leases should not be held to them.
  I say, in the first place, that I think it is a great mistake to argue from the particular to the general. I believe that the leasehold system generally has been of tremendous advantage to this country. I believe, too, that the building lease system has been a very great asset in the development of this country, certainly with regard to office buildings and things of that sort. The only criticism that has come forward of the building lease system, as I understand it, is where that system relates to residential premises.
  Mr. Grenfell: May I put it in one sentence: that the builder of the house has put everything he possesses into mortgaging the future of himself and his family, and he is not safe in his own house.
  The Solicitor-General: I am coming to that point which the Father of the House has made, I think, more than once, with the utmost clarity, in a moment. I want to try straight away to narrow the controversy. I have listened to the arguments throughout the whole of this debate, and the attack is not on building leases generally. What is said is that building leases granted last century in relation to residential premises are wrong—that the contracts then made were harsh and unconscionable.
  If I may digress for a moment to deal with the argument put forward by the Father of the House, I would say, first, that there is a great misconception widely held about the nature of a ground lease. That, I think, is recognised by most people. There has been no suggestion that the premium paid for a lease years ago should be returned when the lease comes to an end. The agreement to put up a building—I am speaking generally—at the commencement of the lease is really a form of premium which falls into the landlord's possession only when the lease comes to an end. There is nothing inherently wrong, in my view, in a building lease in principle. It is only in particular cases of building leases, particulary in South Wales, where it is said that it is harsh and unconscionable that the

  1871
  occupier should be required to leave the premises. Views may differ about what was agreed between people so many years ago.
  I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I was very astonished indeed to hear his light observations with regard to the sanctity of contract. I was very astonished to hear him speaking of contracts in that way. I do not for one moment suggest that this House should not interfere in some contracts that are made, but to say that a whole series of contracts should be torn up because a few particular cases may be shown to be hard or wrong would, I think, be unjustified. He referred to the title of some of these ground leases as a century old title with little reality except in law. I thought that was where the reality was expected to be. He referred to the title as a phantom title. It is the title under which the occupiers have occupied these houses since the leases were granted. While I do not suggest for one moment that this House should not interfere where it is shown that the contract is harsh and unconscionable, we ought, surely, to be careful how we interfere with contracts which have been voluntarily entered into.
  Mr. Grenfell Mr. Grenfell rose—
  The Solicitor-General: May I continue, because I am dealing with the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to ask: where did we stand on a matter of principle? He accused us of not saying. It is set out in the White Paper in paragraph 16. It is said there:
  "the Government are very far from conceding that occupying ground lessees possess such a right as a matter of principle."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to deal with the difficulties. Here again some of his observations surprised me. He talked about the difficulty with amenity covenants and brushed that on one side, saying that a little goodwill would get over it. He said that the difficulties about severance were very real. He did not show the way round them. All he said was that a little goodwill and commonsense would deal with that.
  With regard to the difficulty that desirable development might be prevented, the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued
  1872
  that there was no difference between development of freeholds and development where there are leaseholds. I well remember our arguments on the New Towns Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill in 1947, when we pressed that there should be a possibility of someone getting a freehold in a new town or in a blitzed area, and how the party opposite strenuously resisted those suggestions on the ground that the leasehold system was desirable to enable proper development to take place.
  Assuming that the argument is in some cases correct that the earlier lease entered into was harsh and unconscionable and an abuse of power, that, surely, could only be a basis for interfering in that agreement, voluntarily entered into, where the ground lessee or his descendant is the actual occupier of the premises. But the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee, after all the investigations, said that
  "such factual information as we have been able to obtain from South Wales and other localities where the leasehold system is predominant, suggests that relatively few ground leases of working-class dwellings are now held by the actual occupants…"
  The Committee said that the majority of the occupants held on weekly tenancies from intermediate landlords.
  I think it must be the fact that in the majority of cases either the original ground landlord has changed or the ground lessee has changed, or both, or the ground lessee has sublet. If any of these changes have taken place, they have taken place on the basis that the ground lease will end on the stipulated date—that must be accepted; the price paid for the reversionary interest will have had regard for that, and the price paid by the original ground lessee has had regard to that. It seems to me that in those cases it would be wrong to contend that because of the original injustice, assuming there to have been an original injustice, the bargains subsequently made between the successors of the ground less or and of the ground lessee, made on the basis that the lease will come to an end on a particular date, should now be upset and the balance tilted against one of the parties to the bargain.
  In that respect, we would not be seeking to alter the contract originally made, which is assumed to be unjust, but seeking to alter contracts subsequently made not

  1873
  on account of that injustice, if it existed, but on the basis that the lease ends on a particular date.
  Mr. Grenfell: A person undertakes a contract to build a house and to provide a place in which to live. If that house is no longer available for the person to live in, the purpose has temporarily not been served. There is a large proportion of people who build a house and do not outlive the lease; they transfer to mansions in the skies, as all good colliers do. But when the person is alive and has built a house at his own expense, and has made all his arrangements for carrying on his duties as a citizen and a lover of his country, there is no sense whatever in putting him at the mercy of the person who owns the title to the land.
  The Solicitor-General: I am afraid I have endeavoured to meet the argument on that, and there is no point in my repeating it now. I want to cover in the few minutes left to me a number of other points which were raised in the course of the debate.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the proposals about initial repairs. He said that that task cast too great a burden on the new statutory tenants. We will have an opportunity to discuss that in Committee, but he must recognise that the Bill does not cast a new burden on those tenants. It is casting a reduced burden. The liability for the repairs will almost certainly at the end of the ground lease be something considerably in excess of the amount of those initial repairs.
  Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to draw a comparison between the results of the reversal of the Knightsbridge decision and the position of the statutory tenants here. Surely no proper comparison can be drawn. The sub-lessee in the Knightsbridge case will be the sub-lessee at a rack rent. I do not see how we can draw any valid comparison between that position and the position of a ground lessee on a ground rent.
  It is very inaccurate in my submission for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that all this Bill proposes to give is a fictitious certainty of tenure. That may read very well, but it is misrepresentation. What I should like to ask even now is this, what kind of lease-
  1874
  hold enfranchisement do the party opposite propose. Nothing has been said of what they really propose in any debate we have had on this subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not commit himself on that matter. He studiously avoided doing it. [Hon. Members: "Why should he?"] I am entitled to ask and the country is entitled to ask the party opposite, Do they support the proposals put forward in the Minority Report or not? It is a perfectly easy question to answer.
  The Minority Report was signed by two of their members. They did not answer that question in the last debate and they refused to do it today, but one thing is clear beyond all doubt, in that Minority Report it is proposed that the landlord will get not only the capital value of the ground rent, but also a fair market value of the reversion with a protected sitting tenant. I know that that does not appeal to the Father of the House. Many advocates of leasehold enfranchisement strongly oppose that, including the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
  If the party opposite support that Minority Report, which will disappoint the enthusiasts of leasehold enfranchisement, they should make it clear. If they do not make it clear, they should make clear what they mean by the words "leasehold enfranchisement." If they fail to do that they are laying themselves open to the charge that they are seeking to obtain votes by false pretences.
  This Bill gives security to ground lessees of residential property within Rent Act limits. It gives the right of renewal in certain circumstances to tenancies of shops, offices and business premises. It provides for compensation if a good tenant is made to go. The party opposite in their 1951 Election manifesto said this:
  "We shall give security to householders and shopkeepers by leasehold enfranchisement and other changes in the law."
  This Bill gives security to many householders and shopkeepers and the party opposite propose to vote against it, against the security which it proposes, just because no leasehold enfranchisement proposals are contained in it, leasehold enfranchisement proposals which would benefit relatively few tenants. Because, for valid reasons, this

  1875
  Bill does not contain that, by their votes they seek to deprive the vast mass of tenants throughout the land of the benefits of this Bill which I commend to the House.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 264.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES

  [9.56 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt Hon. A. T.

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

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lindsay, Martin

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

  Arbuthnot, John

  Ford, Mrs. Patricia

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

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Fort, R.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

  Foster, John

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

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

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Barber, Anthony

  Gammans, L. D.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McCallum, Major D.

  Baxter, A. B.

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Glover, D.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Godber, J. B.

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

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

  Birch, Nigel

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Black, C. W.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

  Harden, J. R. E.

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

  Bossom, Sir A. C.

  Hare, Hon. J. A.

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Braine, B. R.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Sir Gurney

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Marples, A. E.

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

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hay, John

  Maude, Angus

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Maudling, R.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

  Bullard, D. G.

  Heath, Edward

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Carr, Robert

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Neave, Airey

  Channon, H.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nicholls, Harmer

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Hope, Lord John

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Cole, Norman

  Horobin, I. M.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Odey, G. W.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

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

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Hurd, A. R.

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

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

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

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Hutchinson, James (Scotstoun)

  Osborne, C.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Page, R. G.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S )

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Perkins, Sir Robert

  Deedes, W. F.

  Jennings, Sir Roland

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Donner, Sir P. W.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Kaberry, D.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Kerr, H. W.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

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

  Lambton, Viscount

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Erroll, F. J.

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

  Redmayne, M.

  Fell, A.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Renton, D. L. M.

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

  Vosper, D. F.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

  Robertson, Sir David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Storey, S.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Studholme, H. G.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Russell, R. S.

  Summers, G. S.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

  Wellwood, W.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Teeling, W.

  Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

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

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Wills, G.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

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

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  York, C.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Speir, R. M.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Sir Cedric Drewe.

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

  Turton, R. H.

  Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Vane, W. M. F.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Deer, G.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Adams, Richard

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Albu, A. H.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Janner, B.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Edelman, M.

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

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Edwards, Rt. Hon, John (Brighouse)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Baird, J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Balfour, A.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Bartley, P.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Bence, C. R.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

  Finch, H. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Benson, G.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Beswick, F.

  Follick, M.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

  Foot, M. M.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Forman, J. C.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Lever, Harold (Dheetham)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Boardman, H.

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

  Lewis, Arthur

  Bowden, H. W.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Glanville, James

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Gooch, E. G.

  Logan, D. G.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

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

  MacColl, J. E.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  McInnes, J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Grey, C. F.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Burke, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McLeavy, F.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Grimond, J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Carmichael, J.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Champion, A. J.

  Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hannan, W.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Clunie, J.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mason, Roy

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hargreaves, A.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Coldrick, W.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Collick, P. H.

  Hastings, S.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hayman, F. H.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E.)

  Monslow, W.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

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

  Moody, A. S.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Morley, R.

  Daines, P.

  Holman, P.

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

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Holmes, Horace

  Mort, D. L.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Holt, A. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Mulley, F. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Murray, J. D.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Nally, W.

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  1878

  1879

  O'Brien, T.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Short, E. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Wade, D. W.

  Orbach, M.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Oswald, T.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Padley, W. E.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Skeffington, A. M.

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

  Weitzman, D.

  Pannell, Charles

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Parker, J.

  Snow, J. W.

  West, D. G.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Paton, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Peart, T. F.

  Steele, T.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Popplewell, E.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Porter, G.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wigg, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Willey, F. T.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Rankin, John

  Sylvester, G. O.

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

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Williams, W. R. (Droylsdon)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

  Rhodes, H.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Richards, R.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Thornton, E.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Ross, William

  Timmons, J.

  Royle, C.

  Tomney, F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  [Sir Charles MacAndrew in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide security of tenure for certain residential tenants and for the renewal of certain business, professional and other tenancies, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present session requiring compensation to be paid by Government departments and local authorities in certain cases,

  (b) of the remuneration of assessors summoned under section eighty-eight of the County Courts Act, 1934, in proceedings
  1880
  under the said Act of the present session or Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Mr. Hylton-Foster added to the Select Committee appointed to join with a Select Committee appointed by the Lords on Consolidation, &c., Bills.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

  JURIES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the Juries Act, 1949, as to payments in respect of jury service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under the said Act of 1949 or under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948.

  ALIENS (IMMIGRATION CONTROL)
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Aliens Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1671), dated 19th November, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th November, 1953, be annulled.
  The case I should like quite shortly to put upon this Statutory Instrument is that the time really has come when the House should consider and be given the opportunity of considering and debating the whole of the law relating to aliens;and that while many of us on both sides of the House may approach this extremely important matter from different points of view, it is true that laws have been passed, Regulations have been made, actions have been taken over great number of years, without any Royal Commission sitting or any Select Committee reporting, and without the House being given an adequate opportunity of considering the very important questions which arise on this matter.
  On 5th August, 1914, the law relating to aliens was introduced. It was admittedly a day not singularly appropriate for prolonged or profound consideration. The day before, the country had embarked on a war to end war, on a struggle for liberty, on a war to try to restore the rights of human beings, a war which was to end in a new conception of the rights of human beings, a new evaluation of the rights of humanity, a new approach to the brotherhood of man.
  It is right to say, in fairness, that on 5th August, 1914, it was hardly possible to expect that an adequate opportunity would be taken of debating this matter. At the termination of Questions, when Orders of the Day were read, the House went into Committee of Supply and dealt with a very large number of Measures, including Navy and Army expenditure, a whole series of Revenue Resolutions and the Prize Courts (Procedure) Bill. At that stage the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. McKenna, moved the Aliens Restriction Bill.
  It is important to say at this stage that, however short the time for consideration, this was something new in out procedure, that we had boasted, as one
  1882
  of the fundamentals of our unwritten Constitution and our approach to life, our belief in the rights of political asylum, our belief in the rights of distinguished people to seek asylum in this country from political persecution, our determination that we are going to preserve in this island the rights of the individual, even though the individual be not of our own race. There was no time to refer to that then. That is why I make the point now.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in formally moving the Bill, added only these words:
  "One of the main objects of the Bill is to remove or restrain the movements of undesirable aliens, especially with a view to the removal or detention of spies. Information in the possession of the Government proves that cases of espionage have been frequent in recent years, and many spies have been caught and dealt with by the police. Within the last twenty-four hours no fewer than twenty-one spies, or suspected spies, have been arrested in various places all over the country, chiefly in important military or naval centres, some of them long known to the authorities to be spies. The arrangements contemplated by the Order have been designed with a view to cause as little inconvenience as possible to alien friends, while leaving effective control over dangerous enemy aliens."—[Official Report, 5th August, 1914; Vol. LXV, c. 1986.]
  That was the opening speech. It was the opening and closing speech on the moving of that Measure. It is right to say, in fairness—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member must not criticise the Act, only the Order which is before us.
  Mr. Hale: Fortunately that Act has been repealed. I am merely giving the historical sequence of the matter. The Act was repealed by the Act of 1919, under which the Order has been made. It is fair to say that that is the last full debate upon the subject of aliens until today, the last really effective debate. We have, from time to time, tried to raise the limitations placed on the House in considering Statutory Instruments on aliens, or limitations, under Speaker's Rulings, which restrict discussion of the Schedules to the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. It is only under those circumstances that the House has considered this matter. At that stage of the proceedings the Bill was ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister. It was

  1883
  presented accordingly, read the First time and ordered to be printed. The House immediately resolved itself into Committee on the Bill and the Bill was considered in Committee—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Ruling is quite clear. One must not criticise an Act of Parliament passed by this House.
  Mr. Hale: I am making no criticism whatsoever. I am just telling the House what was said on the last occasion so that we can move from that, reinforced by the views then expressed, to consider what would be the appropriate course to take today. I am not in any way criticising the Measure. I am only venturing to express the opinion—I hope with all reserve—that on 5th August, 1914, for reasons well known to all hon. Members, there was not an adequate opportunity for very full discussion. Indeed, the next thing that happened was that a Mr. Barnes—whom I suspect of being an incipient Bevanite of that day—asked if the terms of the Bill could be read, and the Bill was then read in full from the Chair so that hon. Members of the House might know what they were about to pass.
  Subject to an interjection of one, Sir William Byles, on Third Reading, two columns later:
  "I suggest to the House that by this Measure we are putting a very dangerous power into the hands of the Home Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1914; Vol. LXV, c. 1990.]
  those were his opening words, and then an hon. Member said "Sit down," and an intervention from Mr. Ronald McNeill to know if there was power to shoot spies wherever they ought to be shot and without unnecessary trial, that was the full extent of the discussion; because on that day the Bill was read the Third time and passed.
  It is a tribute to the methods of the House, to the celerity of the House and to our adaptable Constitution that a great number of Bills were passed through all their stages and the House adjourned at 7.30 p.m. That really was the last discussion, apart from an Order adopted in 1919.
  The House will have no doubt then that on 5th August, 1914, we abrogated almost every provision ever made for the
  1884
  protection of human rights so far as people not born in this country were concerned. Secondly, we abrogated on an undertaking that it would be used only in dealing with spies. Twelve months later a Committee of two was set up to consider and report whether the provisions were strong enough to prevent aliens entering into prohibited areas, or whether further measures were necessary. I wish briefly to—
  Mr. Philip Bell: Do you really mean that in 1914—[Hon. Members: "Order."]. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that in 1914 all the rights of aliens were abolished, that they could be executed without fair trial for murder? Does he mean that all the rights were abolished, or only some of them?
  Mr. Hale: The suggestion of a Tory Member that spies should be shot without trial was not, in fact, carried. But the hon. and learned Member will recall that the reference was to "spies or suspected spies"—and these were the days of Sir Phillips Oppenheim.
  But the hon. and learned Member, I will say in all seriousness, has made a fair point. There were some rights left. Let us consider this point in the light of what has happened since, in the years which have followed this abrogation of principle by this nation of ours. We have seen millions of people without rights at all, and I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for calling attention to it. We have seen—as was said by Hannah Are not, in "The Burden of our Times," one of the most moving books of our day—not merely totalitarianism, but the individual results of totalitarians. We have seen the alien driven from his home, driven away because of the lack of minority rights, wandering over Europe homeless and helpless, not knowing whether his family were the victims of internecine strife, of lack of justice, or driven into a concentration camp.
  We have seen the alien become, in the years in which we have lived, the lowest form of life that politics has ever known—lower than the slave camp where there were still some rights. We have seen him become the man who not only has no hope, no family with whom he can communicate, but who has no language any longer which he can speak, no tribunal in the world to whom he can appeal for

  1885
  protection, with no laws of any kind to which he has the right of appeal. This is perhaps the most damning indictment of our modern civilisation that can be made in any one of the spheres in which it ought to be considered and ought to be attached.
  It is not a small thing to say in this country to which Lenin and Marx came to seek sanctuary from persecution at a time when if we were to criticise it would be on the ground that we had too many people of foreign race. I am trying to speak in this manner because I am making no criticism today of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. Many of my colleagues who follow me may do so. I am limiting myself to one simple point, which is that the time has come when the House ought to have an opportunity to consider this legislation. This is no longer a matter which should be brought to us in the form of 30 or 40 Articles, many of them penalty Clauses depriving individuals of their rights, taking away the right of appeal to the courts and making provision for the possibility of deportation. This is no form for such a Measure to be brought before us.
  It is time, if we believe in human rights at all, for us peacefully to debate the matter and to consider all its implications to see what steps ought to be taken to provide such rights as can be provided. Our great fellow English-speaking nation across the water lived its most notable years and won its most notable fame in the days when the Statue of Liberty was shining a beacon light to the distressed people of Europe, when millions of people were herding into the steerage of boats seeking refuge there. They were welcomed by the words of Emma Lazarus:
  "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
  If there is one thing which has happened in the history of the last few years, it is that it is no longer true. I say this in no spirit of criticism. It may well be that one of the real reasons for a more humane treatment of aliens is the fact that before long there may be coming across the Atlantic refugees from McCarthyism and the sort of political antagonism that is preached there, and
  1886
  we ought to have machinery to enable us to accept these people as a re-export from America.
  On a previous occasion I mentioned that one would like reciprocity. One would like our example to be followed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), one of the most distinguished Parliamentarians in this House, might well have gone over to New York and expressed his views there whether they be right or wrong. It was one of the most foolish things that our American friends did when they refused a visa for him. It is a silly policy when we do it in corresponding circumstances here, and I hope that we shall not continue.
  I promised to make one other comment before I concluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) would have sought to catch Mr. Speaker's eye tonight to raise a matter of some importance which took place in the City of Liverpool within the last few days. Due to her unflagging energy, her initiative and her presence on the spot, it has already been brought very forcibly to the attention of the authorities. It may well be right that we should consider this case.
  I appreciate that in presenting any case to the House one is inevitably presenting it ex parte, for one does not have the opportunity of hearing all sides. However, I will, without comment, put the case as it was put to me by the hon. Lady, who was here this afternoon and would have been here tonight if she had not had to fulfil a very important political engagement elsewhere to which she has been pledged for some time.
  Last week in a court in Liverpool before the stipendiary magistrate a man of Chinese origin was brought up on a charge of opium smoking. It was not the first tune, I understand. I am informed that it was a case of a man harming himself and that there was no suggestion against him of introducing the drug to other people. Apparently he had become an opium addict. He is 73 years of age and has been in this country for 52 years. I am also told that he has been happily married to an Englishwoman for 25 years. He served in the British Navy for 19 years.
  On that charge he was brought before the court and recommended for deport a-

  1887
  tion, and, until the hon. Lady intervened, bail was refused because he had been recommended for deportation and he was kept in custody awaiting a Home Office order for his deportation.
  In speaking about these matters in the House, realising that one has heard only one side of the case, one needs to speak as temperately and as fairly as one can. I believe I can say that hon. Members on both sides of the House were really shocked when I related those facts, and certainly if those facts be true, both sides of the House would be shocked and would wonder how such an order came to be made. This man of 73 is to be deported, if the Home Secretary gives the order—I doubt very much whether he will; I say that at once in tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to a country of which he has no recollection. I forgot to add that the man's three sons in this country have expressed their willingness to give some undertaking about the man's future care.
  This is what can happen when we get before a court this curious conception of the alien as someone who has to have a different type of justice from anyone else. This is what can really happen in certain cases. That is why I suggest that in moving this Prayer I am raising, with due moderation and with due reserve, an issue of first-class importance affecting humanity.
  The House has spent the whole day discussing an issue in which human rights conflict with property rights, and every day in almost every subject we come up against that quite fundamental proposition. I do not believe that we shall have a proper approach to law at all until human rights are the foundation of law. I do not believe that we shall have a proper approach to international affairs until the brotherhood of man is the conception of the relationship of man and man, whether they be white or black, and no matter what language or faith may be theirs. I do not believe that we shall solve the major problems which the people of this country want the House to solve until we have tried to adopt that approach.
  That is why, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I move that this Order be annulled in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of producing to
  1888
  the House a Bill which will regulate our law relating to aliens, so that we may question it sentence by sentence and try to put the collective wisdom of the House at the disposal of people who for too long in this country have been deprived of full right to appeal to the law.
  10.29 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to second the Motion.
  Our debate tonight is possible under those enactments which, in the case of delegated legislation, enable the House to consider what is proposed and either to accept it or to reject it. That has long been accepted as business which is exempted from the Standing Order which would bring our proceedings to a close at 10 o'clock. The consequence is that in most cases the consideration of these Orders inevitably comes on late at night, when the House has had a busy day in other matters, and I suppose that it is to some extent a defect in our procedure—although a necessary one, because the time has to be provided somehow or other—that a great many most important matters are dealt with when the House is not very well attended, and when there is not the same opportunity for the full discussion which some of those matters require.
  This is particularly unfortunate in the case of the Order against which we seek to pray tonight. I ask hon. Members to be a little indulgent about it, because, as my hon. Friend said, this is the first opportunity we have had for very many years—and if this Motion is defeated it will be the last opportunity we shall have for a very long time—to consider the most important constitutional questions which are involved.
  I ask hon. Members to look at the Order. I do not ask them to read it now. It is entitled, "Statutory Instruments; 1953 No. 1671."It is a piece of delegated legislation. There are 27 pages. It has 35 Articles and six Schedules. The 35 Articles are divided into five sections. The first concerns landing and embarkation, and contains 12 Articles; the second concerns registration, and contains nine Articles; the third concerns special restrictions and exemptions, and contains three Articles; the fourth concerns offences and proceedings, and contains

  1889
  three Articles, and the fifth is supplemental, and contains eight Articles, dealing with arrest and detention, revocation of orders, the appointment and general powers of officers, and certain other matters.
  I shall not trouble the House by going through the six Schedules, but the Sixth Schedule contains a list of Orders which are repealed by this Order. There are 20 of them, the first made in 1920 and the last in 1952. They represent the whole gamut of delegated legislation on this subject for 32 years. What is it all about? That is shown in the Explanatory Note, on the last page. That is not a part of the Order, as it states, but is intended to indicate its general purposes.
  There is only one paragraph, which says:
  "This Order prohibits aliens, with certain exceptions, from landing or embarking in the United Kingdom without the leave of an immigration officer and enables conditions to be attached to the grant of leave to land. It contains provisions for registration, control and deportation. The Order is based on the existing Orders in Council listed in the Sixth Schedule, all of which it replaces."
  I do ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to say whether a document of this kind is a suitable subject for delegated legislation. I have listened to many debates on delegated legislation in this House. In some cases I have been in strong sympathy with those who wished to pray against it and annul it. In other cases I have been opposed to those who wished to do that. I have never myself believed that in our modern complex society it is possible to do without delegated legislation.
  I do not believe that in modern conditions any Government could possibly submit every necessary legislative enactment to the full process of Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading in both Houses of Parliament. Certainly not. But there are obvious dangers in delegated legislation however necessary, and for that reason the House appointed a Select Committee, of which I was for many years charged, among a number of other matters, with the duty of drawing the attention of the House to any unusual use by a Minister in any particular Order, of powers entrusted to him by the Act under which he had to make that order. I say that this is a document of unusual use of such powers.
  1890
  That is not saying that the Minister had no power to make it. Of course he had. And a great deal of it has been law for many years.
  It may be said that this document improves the law as it was under the existing Orders listed in the Sixth Schedule. So it does. Year after year on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill attention has been drawn to the matter, and at other times hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have called attention to the unusual nature of some piece of delegated legislation in the Aliens Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his deputy at the Home Office and the permanent officials there have done a very workmanlike job in this document. They have reviewed the whole of the delegated legislation, have dispensed with some of the powers they used to have, and have modified some others. I readily admit that the Order we now have is better than the series of Orders it replaces, but what the House must bear in mind is that in respect of no single one of these Orders, spreading over 32 years, has it had any opportunity whatever of proposing any amendment of any kind.
  Under our procedure we have power if we wish, by a majority of the House, to pray that an Order as a whole may be annulled. We have not, and never have had, any power to alter, modify, change, add to or take away from it in any way. We must take it as the Minister presents it, lock, stock and barrel. If that is the case in respect of each Order in Council taken separately, how much worse a thing it is when it is presented in a document of this kind, extending over 27 pages, with 35 Articles, 5 Sections and 6 Schedules?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There is nothing new about this. It is a consolidating measure.
  Mr. Silverman: Yes, the noble Lord is perfectly right in what he says.
  Mr. Jack Jones: That is a change.
  Mr. Silverman: There is not very much new in it. What we are asked to do tonight is to repeal all the Orders in Council of 32 years and put this Order in their place. It is quite true that we

  1891
  could not amend them before, but what I am saying is that when we are placed in a position of having a piece of delegated legislation, which is, in effect, a consolidating measure, it is all the more regrettable that we cannot dot an "i" or cross a "t" throughout the whole thing. Is that really what any of us contemplated as an effect of delegated legislation?
  It is true that we are not concerned here with a mere question of property. It is not a question of controlling industry, or rationing materials, or limiting prices or planning our economy. It would be an exaggeration to say that we are dealing with questions of life and death. Of course, we are not. What we are dealing with as things stand is a fundamental question of liberty, if not of life.
  It is not a question of whether the Home Office exercises discreetly or indiscreetly, with mercy or without mercy, the arbitrary powers which this Order confers upon it. Some Home Secretaries will administer the powers more widely than others, but what we confer upon this and subsequent Home Secretaries is the complete power over the liberty of every alien in this country without recourse to the courts. It is entirely a matter of the administrative discretion of the Home Secretary, answerable to this House politically, but answerable logically and judicially to nobody in the world.
  My hon. Friend, in the closing passages of a very eloquent speech, referred to an individual case. I know nothing about it, and I say nothing about the merits of it one way or the other, but it was a most dramatic instance of the exercise of the power of deportation, or would be if the power of deportation were exercised. What I want to point out to the House is that the deportation order made in the case is absolutely irrelevant. The court makes a deportation order, and it wastes its words. It has no judicial effect of any kind. It is only a recommendation to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary may act upon it or not exactly as he determines.
  Mr. Ede: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I differ from my two hon. Friends with very great diffidence. As I understand it, the
  1892
  position is that the court recommends that an order be made and the Home Secretary formulates and makes the order. The court does not make the order, and Home Secretaries, good and bad,—and who am I to differentiate between them—can ignore the recommendation of the court when they think fit.
  Mr. Silverman: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I thought that that was exactly the point which I was making. I said that the court made a recommendation and I thought I did, to that extent correct, if I may presume to say so, my hon. Friend who moved this Prayer; because he said the court made the deportation order. Of course, he knows as I know, and as I imagine all other hon. Members know, that the recommendation of deportation made by the court is completely irrelevant. It adds nothing to the powers of the Home Secretary, and it takes nothing away.
  Mr. Hale: I did say that I was quite sure that the present Home Secretary would consider the recommendation for a long time before he decided to act upon it.
  Mr. Silverman: I should not think that it required long consideration before the right hon. and learned Gentleman decided to act, or rather not to act, upon this particular recommendation if the facts which my hon. Friend disclosed are correct. But that is not my point. My point is that the Home Secretary would have the power, if the court expressly refused to make an order. He would still have the power, and the alien concerned would have no right to an appeal; no right to trial, no right to be heard and to call witnesses; no right to make a case of any kind.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Am I to understand that it is a fact that the Home Secretary can make such an order without the case having ever gone before a court?
  Mr. Silverman: Certainly; and he could make it in the case of an alien who had committed no offence of any kind; and I should be very surprised indeed if, in 40 years' exercise of these arbritrary powers, no mistake had ever been made. Of course, one readily admits that the greatest care is taken to avoid mistakes being made, but this House ought not to

  1893
  give to any Minister, or to any Government or any executive authority, unlimited discretionary powers of this kind.
  Supposing that every hon. Member of this House tonight agreed, perhaps after a man had been resident here for some agreed number of years, that the Home Secretary should have no power to deport without presenting some kind of petition or case to a court and having it tried and heard with full rights of representation on both sides and obtaining the judgment of judge and jury upon it, would that be an eminently reasonable thing to do? Supposing we say that it would. Supposing that we say we should like to see the powers of the Home Secretary limited so as to secure just that. There is absolutely nothing which this House can do about it unless we are prepared to reject the whole of this Order and leave the Home Secretary with no powers over aliens at all. I say that position is wrong, that it has gone on too long and that it ought to be changed. If it is necessary to reject this Statutory Instrument in order to persuade the Government to bring in the appropriate Bill which the House can consider at all the appropriate stages and amend in any way it sees fit, we ought to take that drastic course.
  It is not irrelevant to point out that the Act under which originally delegated legislation of this kind became possible was passed 40 years ago, on the day after the declaration of the First World War. It passed through all its stages, the debate being recorded in three or four columns of the Official Report without, apparently, there being a print of the Bill in the hands of hon. Members. All sorts of things are justifiable in wartime for war purposes, but we have continued this for 40 years and it is time to stop. It is time that a democratic society like ours, based on the rule of law, gave up these powers over liberty of movement without recourse to the courts as distinct from the rights of other citizens.
  At the time that the Home Office was considering its view on this delegated legislation and producing this document it would have taken no more administrative time in the office to prepare a Bill in the same terms. If the House had devoted a little time to a Second Reading, a Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading in order to make sure that the
  1894
  legislation that we have about aliens is the legislation we want about aliens, the time would have been well spent—much better spent than the time of Parliament is being spent under the direction of this Government in very many ways.
  I wish to draw attention to one abuse, as I assert with respect it is, of the powers of this Order. I do not make a party point about it, because it has been done by Home Secretaries of both parties in recent years. I think I may make the point that if I criticise the Executive tonight for doing it, I did criticise the previous Government for doing a similar thing in somewhat analagous circumstances. Article 1 of the Order says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Order, an alien shall not land or embark in the United Kingdom except with the leave of an immigration officer, and shall not so land or embark elsewhere than at an approved port or such other place as an immigration officer may in any particular case allow."
  That seems harmless enough, but it gives the Home Office, which is responsible to this House for the acts of immigration officers, complete power over the admission or refusal of admission of aliens. It is a power that they can exercise twice. They can exercise it when a foreigner makes an application for a visa. The visa may be refused. If the visa is granted it confers no legal rights on its holder because the immigration officer—visa or no visa—may still stop the foreigner or alien at the port when he presents himself for admission. I suppose that is a power which, even if there was a Bill, the House would confer—with safeguards and limitations—upon the Home Secretary of the day, but I do not believe that it was ever contemplated, or that this House really desires, that it should be used for mere purposes of political discrimination.
  Let me give an instance. There is an organisation of teachers calling itself "Teachers for Peace." It is a familiar kind of organisation. I do not know how many Communists there are in its central authority. I would not be surprised if they had a controlling voice in it. I dare say they have. The organisation proposed to hold a conference in this country, and a German teacher in Berlin who is 75 years old applied for a visa to come to this country to attend the conference. Whether that was stated in his application I do not know. It seems clear that the visa was granted, and he arrived in this

  1895
  country with his passport in order, and with a visa permitting him to land.
  When the immigration officer discovered the purpose of his visit he was told that he would not be allowed to land, and that as there was no flight back to Berlin that night he would be detained. He was locked up for the night in a detention building on the airport, and was guarded by police officers all the night. The next morning, before he was put on an aeroplane to be taken back, he was asked how much money he had. He had £8 10s., and this money was taken from him to pay for the hospitality we had afforded him—to pay for his detention.
  Two French teachers arrived to attend the same conference, and were turned back. They wrote a charming and courteous letter to "The Times," which hon. Members may have seen. It was not a bitter letter, but a charming, civilised letter. Do hon. Members think that we were really doing our good name in the world any good by these acts? Were we really protecting our liberties when the German teacher went back to Berlin and said, "I wanted to go to England to talk to other teachers about peace, and was sent back? How different it would have been if I had been a Nazi war ace going to Great Britain to be trained for the next war."
  This is not new. There was something like it in 1950—the Sheffield Peace Conference. I am bound to say that there was a difference between the attitude of my right hon. Friend, the then Home Secretary, and that of the present Home Secretary. Any hon. Member who reads the speech of my right hon. Friend, on that occasion and compares it with the answer given by the present Home Secretary the other day will see that we have advanced in repression since the change of Government. My right hon. Friend, did not exclude all the foreigners who wished to attend that peace conference. He did let in some of them.
  It was very difficult for me at the time and since to appreciate the grounds upon which he discriminated between some of the people about whom he had to decide. He seems to have decided that whereas Picasso was a harmless, non-political figure—which surprised me and a great many other people all over the world—he thought that Shostakovich
  1896
  was an active politician, although I do not know what means there are for active politics in that case. I did not quite appreciate the grounds upon which he discriminated, but the right hon. Gentleman did not rely for his justification of his arbitrary powers merely on the fact that someone was coming to a meeting or conference at which political ideas would be expressed of which he did not approve. He distinguished between the sheep and the shepherds and the dogs—the active leaders and those who merely came to listen.
  I think he was quite wrong, but if I understand what the Home Secretary said. the other day no one who comes to this country, no matter how worthy or distinguished, no matter what his antecedents may be, no matter his sincerity or integrity, if the ideas he wishes to advance are not those of the major political parties he will not be allowed to land. This is a denial of all liberty.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I remember the hon. Gentleman's speech when his right hon. Friend made the decision to which he has referred, and I remember the hon. Gentleman saying on that occasion that it would be logical if he refused all or none, but that to discriminate would be wrong. Apparently on this occasion his logic is being carried out.
  Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman will pay me the compliment—and it would be a very high one, which I am sure I do not deserve—of comparing the speech I made then with the remarks I have made tonight, I do not think he will find any discrepancy. If he does, I will be grateful if he will point out the discrepancy, but as I understand it, I am saying now what I said then, that the exercise of these powers for the purpose of preventing people from making purely political speeches is a wrong exercise of powers, an abuse of the discretion vested in him, and in itself an offence against the liberty of speech upon which our society and civilisation is founded.
  It is all very well to say that people may say or think what they like as long as a majority agree with it. You can do that in any country, no matter how totalitarian. As long as you say what everyone likes to hear you are perfectly free, whether you are in a democratic,

  1897
  Fascist, Communist, or any other kind of country. The test whether you believe in free speech is whether you are prepared to permit those whose opinions you most detest the opportunity of expressing them.
  We have always said here that if people conspire against our liberties, institutions or laws we are entitled not merely to protect them but to impose penalties, but we have always added that so long as their views, however subversive, do not go beyond the stage of thinking, talking and advocating them they commit no offence under our laws. Indeed, no one contests that. But what is being sought here is to say that what is right, permissible and legal for our own citizens, or aliens normally resident in our midst, is not permissible for other people. I say that is contrary to the long tradition of liberty in this country and that we ought not to tolerate it. That power is repeated in this Order.
  11.5 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: The House has listened to two interesting, if somewhat lengthy, speeches, and I have found myself in agreement with some of the things which have been said, particularly in regard to delegated legislation.
  In the closing sentences of his eloquent contribution, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) seemed to spoil his speech by casting a slur on British justice. He suggested that there was one kind of justice for the alien and another for the British citizen. He might have said that there are special laws or regulations which apply to aliens, but my impression of his suggestion was that there was an unfair kind of justice for the alien—
  Mr. Hale: I did not mean to say that. One knows that miscarriages of justice are apt to occur in this or any other country when one is not dealing with one's nationals whose customs one knows, and I said that there was always that danger. There was the case of the charge against an Italian and his remarks about stilettos, and there are other instances which could be cited. One should be very careful when trying other than one's nationals.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: The hon. Member has somewhat modified the suggestion that he made in the closing remarks of his speech.
  1898
  It has been made clear that the Order is a consolidating Order and that there is not a great deal in it which is new, and I shall confine myself to the one or two things in it which seem to me to be new.
  Article 12 deals with the disclosure of documents by aliens landing and embarking. It says that:
  "Any alien…shall, on being required so to do by an immigration officer or constable…declare whether or not he is carrying or conveying any documents…"
  and:
  "…produce to the officer or constable any documents which he is carrying or conveying…
  It also empowers the immigration officer or constable to search an alien and his baggage for any documents. It defines documents as:
  "…letters, memoranda, plans, photographs, pictorial representations and other written matter of any description."
  In the original Order of 1920 there appeared in addition "printed matter," and it would be helpful if the Under-Secretary would say why that has now been omitted. It may be that the Article is aimed at the control of obscene material as well as objectionable political matter. At all events, it would be helpful if we might be told why this is done.
  It is clear that the Article does not apply to aliens arriving in the United Kingdom who have first entered the Republic of Ireland and then come over to this country, whereas, if the alien had come direct to a British port the Article does apply, and he would be subject to search in respect of any documents he is carrying. I wonder why the fact that he goes to the Republic of Ireland confers an immunity on the alien in respect of search laid down in this Article.
  The other Article I should like to refer to briefly is Article 24, which deals with a particular exemption, and I should like to point out that there is something new in this Article in that—and I think it is quite satisfactory and gratifying—among the exemptions are members of the Armed Forces of all the N.A.T.O. countries who happen to be serving in the United Kingdom, and they are deemed not to be aliens for the purpose of this Order. We should welcome these exemptions in favour of the citizens of those countries contributing to Western Defence, but,

  1899
  personally, I could wish that this exemption could also be enjoyed not only by members of the N.A.T.O. countries who are serving here in the armed forces of their country, but by citizens of those European countries who are striving to achieve a measure of political and economic unity. I mean those of the States of the Council of Europe.
  There is a feeling which I certainly detected in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg, that it is the Government of the United Kingdom, in particular, which constitutes a stumbling block to the simplification of frontier formalities for travellers wishing to visit this country. Certain things have been done at Strasbourg, resolutions have been passed recommending various kinds of simplification of frontier formalities, and have gone up to the Committee of Ministers, but nothing yet has been done. What a gesture it would be for this country to extend the same preferential treatment to all citizens of the Council of Europe States as the N.A.T.O. countries enjoy in respect of their armed forces.
  Some progress has been made in this country, which has concluded agreements for the abolition of visas with all countries which belong to the Council of Europe, with the exception of Western Germany. It is perhaps too much to hope that the extension which I suggest should be adopted immediately, but I would urge my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend not to lose sight of the possibility of bringing the peoples of Europe more close together by removing unnecessary travel restrictions, and at least in one important respect promoting the ideals and objects of the Council of Europe.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a very few minutes, but as one who had the duty in the post-war period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) so pointedly reminded me, of administering the Orders that are now consolidated, I think I should be shirking my duty if I did not say a few words to the House.
  I regard the duties falling on the Home Secretary under the Aliens Act, under
  1900
  which these Orders are made, as being the most responsible that he has to discharge. It is quite true that matters of life and death may not be involved here, but there are residents of this country who, if deported to certain countries on the Continent, would have a very short life after they walked down the gangplank. A deportation order would be a sentence of death, probably preceded by torture.
  I am not going over the grounds that we debated in 1950. I could explain to my hon. Friend, if it were worth while at this stage, why I admitted the painter and rejected the musician—it was possibly because I am tone deaf. I support the plea of my hon. Friends that this matter should now be the subject of detailed consideration by the House, and that this consolidating Order—which I welcome as an improvement—should be presented to us in the form of a Bill. Part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) was an argument in that direction. He found certain points to which, I gather, if this were submitted in the form of a Bill, he would move Amendments, if merely to get an explanation from the Home Secretary why he wanted those particular powers.
  I very much doubt whether the House has ever realised the tremendous power put into the hands of the Home Secretary by this series of Orders. Let me read Article 20 (2):
  "A deportation order may be made in the case of an alien in the following circumstances, that is to say…(b) if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien."
  If the Home Secretary, in time of peace—I am not talking about a time of war—or as near peace as we are ever likely to get in this troubled world nowadays, deems it conducive to the public good that any alien should be removed, he makes a deportation order, the man is picked up, put on a ship or aircraft and sent out, and attempts made by lawyers to get writs of habeas corpus in the circumstances have been repeatedly rejected by the courts. The order of the Home Secretary is sufficient.
  That is why I say that this is the most important duty that the Home Secretary has to perform. Is it not a tragic commentary on the deterioration of civilisa-

  1901
  tion in the world that for the last 30 years this power—which I cannot think would have been given by any other Parliament, even in the beginning of this century—has been exercised, and is now regarded almost as one of the rightful duties to be discharged by the Home Secretary? I ask the House to realise that none of these powers which are now consolidated has ever been properly discussed by the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) dealt with the way in which the original Act was passed. We cannot blame the Parliament of 5th August, 1914, which faced the end of a hundred years of peace and was embarking on war in circumstances that no living man in this country had ever had to contemplate. We cannot blame them for the steps they took.
  I would suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should urge his right hon. and learned Friend that this House should, in the next Session of Parliament, have an opportunity of considering this Order in circumstances that will enable each Article to be subjected to the analysis made by the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North. I am sure that in that way we should be discharging our duties as the guardians of the public liberties, and I hope that we shall not be too much impressed by the suggestion that other countries do very much the same thing.
  In this matter this country has for centuries been a place where the alien and the outcast has been welcome to our great advantage. It is true that the Huguenots came in: others, who were turned out by the Edict of Nantes at the same time and came with them, declared themselves to be Unitarians and so lost the benefits of the Act of Toleration. They were determined to be persecuted. It is a great and noble tradition which this country owes it to the world to see re-established as soon as possible.
  I plead guilty to all the sins of which my hon. Friend accused me. I am not going to attempt to defend myself. All I can say is that from my great experience I think there ought to be some method of reviewing the great powers with which this House has invested the Home Secretary, and we ought to consider whether we cannot make his position vis-a-vis this House a great deal more plain than it is now.
  11.22 p.m.
  Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I think that the speech we have just heard from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has been most impressive. I believe that this Order should go through, but I agree that further consideration should be given to those points which he has brought forward. I am sorry he referred to the Huguenots as he did, because one part of me is Huguenot.
  Mr. Ede: I am glad.
  Mr. Blackburn: And the other part Unitarian?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I must admit that neither side is Unitarian. I never realised the Huguenots adopted the Unitarian faith.
  Mr. Ede: Some of them did.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Huguenot immigration here had, by and large, some valuable results. Some have not been as valuable as others. I have had brought to my notice recently a case in Scotland in which a deportation order is now under consideration. I shall not give the details, but it has shaken me considerably to think that this particular person is to be deported, that he is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, under sentence of death.
  I do hope my hon. Friend will assure the House that, while insisting that this Order, largely a consolidating Order, should go through, he will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary whether an opportunity at some not too distant date will be given to review the whole subject in detail. I do not understand why the Home Secretary deports a man from Scotland, but perhaps my hon. Friend will also explain that in his reply.
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: Everything that has been said this evening has put me in greater difficulty. The House has listened patiently, and with great interest, to people with constitutional knowledge dealing in the abstract with great principles of the liberty of the subject in this country.
  I rise to draw attention to a somewhat more local and personal aspect of the

  1903
  matter, something concerned with the moral behaviour of aliens, rather than their political beliefs and thoughts. It is precisely on Article 20 (2, b) that I base the subject of my speech and I ask for clarification, although I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has already given it. The Article says:
  "A deportation order may be made in the case of an alien in the following circumstances, that is to say—

  …(b) if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien."

  The House will remember that, in 1951, the Minister of Fuel and Power was anxious to recruit Italian labour for the coalmines. The National Union of Mine-workers concurred in the project, but in Nottinghamshire and certain other districts it met with opposition, though small colonies of Italian miners were accepted in other places. Since then the National Union of Mineworkers has withdrawn its approval, and I believe that no Italian miners now work in the coalmines in this country.
  The opposition to these miners was not based on trade union grounds, but arose out of the apprehensions of the villagers as to the effects on the life of the community through men of alien extraction living in hostels without their own womenfolk. Nottingham miners were criticised at the time and their fears were ridiculed. From the story that I have to tell perhaps they might be considered to have been wise in their generation.
  Some of these Italians were diverted to Cornwall to work in the tin mines there. The trade union raised no objection as it was difficult to get labour for various reasons, including the high rate of silicosis in the history of Cornish mining. The Italians came and about40 remained in Camborne, living in a hostel on the mine property. On 1st January of this year two girls, aged 13 and 12 respectively, were brought before a juvenile court as being in need of care and protection. This is the extract from a newspaper report of the case of the elder girl in the juvenile court:
  "…as a result of the diary entries—"
  one of the girls kept a diary—
  "the police had interviewed men mentioned therein. Medical examination of the girl estab-
  1904
  lished that offences had been committed. The facts had been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who had decided that no action could be taken against the men because of the lack of corroboration."
  In the case of the second girl of 12 a medical examination disclosed that an offence had been committed against her.
  Much has been said about the laxity of parents and the decline of the parental influence these days. One of these girls, her mother thought, had been attending week-day functions at her church; so it will be seen that there was no laxity in the home from the religious point of view. Both girls were intelligent; their school records proved it, and as a result of what has happened, I asked the Home Secretary to read the newspaper report and to begin his investigations at that point. The evidence produced before the juvenile court appeared to establish that these intelligent children of tender age had been violated and, without hesitation, I say that it is the worst case ever to come before our juvenile courts in my part of the country; certainly during the 30 years that I have lived in Camborne and I can claim a considerable connection with the juvenile court because, as a district education officer for many years, I countersigned every school report which went to that court.
  These children are, in effect, convicted, because they have been put on probation. It is not for me to comment on the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I have asked the Home Office to make the fullest investigation into this newspaper report which states that the names of some of these men were mentioned in the diary which was kept by one of the girls. It is not my purpose to ask that all the Italians working here should be repatriated but, after investigation, it would seem that some of these men have an evil influence on our community; it appears that their presence is not conducive to the public good.
  Mr. Hale: I do not want to be unfair to my hon. Friend who, after all, is making a constituency point; but what he is saying, in effect, is that either we should collectively deport a number of Italians because they have done something which they ought not to have done, but which has not been proved, or that we should deport a smaller number against whom the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that there is no

  1905
  evidence. If my hon. Friend cares to rely on organs of public opinion, he might also refer to, I believe, the "News of the World," where he will find that Englishmen, from time to time, commit offences of this kind.
  Mr. Hayman: I have every respect for my hon. Friend's point of view, but this is the worst case of its kind which has ever come before a juvenile court in Cornwall: and if we recruit foreign labour for our mines, we have also to take this factor into account.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that aliens convicted of no offence should be deported; that they should be deported because there might be some hypothetical case against them on the evidence of a young girl?
  Mr. Hayman: I am not a lawyer, but I believe in liberty and I do not know how long it has been within the power of the Home Secretary to take the action which this Article gives him. It seems that these powers have been exercised so surely to goodness they ought to be exercised where our young children are concerned.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the hon. Member not realise that if a case was brought to the notice of the Home Secretary after a trial this Order could be brought into effect? But the hon. Member is talking of a hypothetical case where there cannot be action by the Home Secretary, as he suggests.
  Mr. Hayman: I have read the newspaper report and that will appear in the Official Report. I feel that this is a matter which should have the consideration of the House when we are dealing with questions regarding aliens.
  11.35 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hour is somewhat late and my hon. Friend shortly will want to reply to the debate. I do not want to detain the House unduly. I only intervene because I happened to take part in that rather famous debate when the former Home Secretary stopped persons entering this country for the purposes of attending the Sheffield peace conference.
  Since then he has changed his ground a good deal and now he comes to the House and makes a plea for a vast reconsideration of these Orders in a liberal
  1906
  sense. Then he was exclusive, rigid and iron-minded, but now he poses as a liberal of extreme persuasion. But I am not sure that the plea the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others made for a considered review of all these Regulations and their framing in a new Bill would really serve the purpose at all. It may be that we could have a long debate about excluding from such a Bill Article 20 (2, b):
  "if the Secretary of State deems it to be conducive to the public good to make a deportation order against the alien."
  On that I agree that something could be done, but what is the good of putting into a permanent Act of Parliament Regulations which the House tonight is united in thinking are in the present age perfectly monstrous to persist in?
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) showed that this began with the 1914–1918 war and in the Sixth Schedule we see that it is by and large a series of wartime measures which have been consolidated and maintained in peace. I cannot believe that as we move forward into peace this House will be satisfied in having these Regulations brought forward in a Bill and having the Whips on in the debate, no matter which Government were in power. What I think would happen is we would debate lengthily about certain things and the Opposition would talk about excluding certain measures, but they would not succeed because the authorities behind this House would be arrayed in defence of the status quo and the powers in the Regulations would in the end be transcribed into permanent law. This House and the country will have to go through a considerable change of thought before we dare settle on what is to become permanent.
  The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) mentioned trade unions. I do not wish to be partisan in this matter, but, until we can persuade the trade unions to modify their attitude to those coming to this country to seek work I do not see how we can make this change. I am not talking principally about Italian miners. Hardly anyone can come from France, Germany, Italy, or anywhere without going through this rigmarole purely because the trade unions have asked for it. It is not as if there were a situation of extreme unemployment There is full employment and

  1907
  many think that the advent of these people from abroad would help our production effort. But the view has prevailed that not only must a Briton not be put back in the queue for employment by a foreign worker but also, in a situation of full employment, the last Briton must be given his right to move up to something better before a foreigner is considered for anything at all. The same sort of exclusiveness prevails over the entry of those of a different political persuasion. Until we can alter our frame of mind to a more liberal way of thinking it is not worth devoting the time of this House to the passage of these measures at all.
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I well remember the contribution of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) to the debate at the time of the banning of people who wished to attend the Sheffield peace conference. It was a notable contribution to the debate. The noble Lord is nothing if not ingenious. What he said tonight is not as wise as what he said before, but it is ingenious. He says, "We do not want to have a full discussion on a Bill, because we do not want many of these provisions to be permanent. Therefore, it would be wiser currently to leave these proposals in the Order until the mind of the country has changed on these questions of liberal immigration." But how is the mind of the country to be changed? I doubt very much whether the mind of the country will be dramatically changed by a debate at 10 or 11 o'clock at night which, for obvious reasons, cannot be fully reported.
  If, on the other hand, we had a Bill presented to the House of which notice has to be given, and which is given a Second Reading and a full Committee Stage, there can be discussion at meetings outside this House—and there are bodies all over the country which are passionately interested. If the noble Lord wished to convert the country to the kind of liberal views which he holds on this subject it would be better to follow that procedure than to rely on a consolidated Order such as we are discussing tonight.
  Other hon. Members have begun their speeches by apologising for continuing the debate. I do not think that any
  1908
  apology is needed. Those who have listened to the debate must recognise that we are not discussing a trivial issue. No one can complain about the continuance of the debate following the statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his knowledge as a former Home Secretary. He said we were discussing what he regarded as the most responsible duties which had to be discharged by the Home Office. If we are doing that we are entitled to examine the issue in considerable detail, even though it is late at night and we are not able to scrutinise all the parts of the Order, or to pick and choose which parts of the Order we like or dislike.
  The responsibility is all the greater because the position of aliens today is different from what it was before the war. It was bad enough then. The whole problem of those seeking political asylum increased during the years between 1930 to 1940; but since the end of the war it has been greatly increased in many directions. Many who have spoken in this debate have called to mind those who have been driven from Communist countries, and who can only be sent back to meet the penalty of death. They form the most important category of people we have to consider when discussing what sort of alien Orders we ought to have.
  But it is only fair to recognise that there is a new type of refugee in the world, of whom there are some in this country already, namely, refugees from the United States of America. I know many of them personally. [Interruption.] An hon. Member apparently muttered, "I bet you don't." If he is accusing me of being a liar, let him have the courage to get up and say so. I can give facts. These persons are refugees from the U.S.A., because of the McCarthy persecution. Some of them are in the British film industry. Some were referred to in an article in the "News Chronicle" recently. I have sent particulars of cases to the Home Office. The difficulty is, at any rate in one case which I recall, that I cannot raise the case in the House of Commons; I cannot give the name of the person concerned, because the immediate effect of doing so would be to cause difficulties for his family in the United States.
  If any hon. Member likes to contest that statement I will show him the corre-

  1909
  spondence I have had with the Home Secretary. I would be glad to raise the case. I went to the person concerned and told him I could raise it and probably get it reversed. This is the case of a distinguished American, and I do not wish to identify him by quoting all the facts, but I have known him for many years. He wanted to come and work here, and in normal circumstances he would have been allowed to do so, but he was denied the right by the decision of the Home Secretary. It is impossible to raise the matter publicly by quoting his name openly for fear of what would happen to the man's family in the United States.
  There are a certain number of cases in which the Home Secretary has refused the right to Americans to come and live in this country. I recall one case where the passport was absolutely clear as far as the United States was concerned, but the man was denied the right to stay in this country by the Home Secretary, to whom I took the case; and the only thing which prevents me raising it in public is because of the victimisation which would befall the man's family. Therefore we are not only dealing with persons from one side of the world, but refugees from another part as well, and I want to see this country retaining its traditions of liberalism, both in regard to Communist refugees and to American refugees.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) referred to the cases of those who were refused the right to come to this country to attend the Teachers for Peace conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields said he was not going to go over that ground. I understand his reasons, but I think it is a pity because if he looked into the details of these cases he would see that this Government and the Home Secretary have been applying these measures in a quite different way from what he did.
  As an illustration I will quote what was said by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Home Secretary. When we presented the case that he was wrong in excluding these persons he protested very strongly that it was wrong for us to suggest that the thing was done in any slipshod way. He said that the scrutiny of these persons had been done with the greatest care. He added:
  1910
  "I resent the view being put forward from both sides of the House that these decisions were left to some obscure person at the ports. May I say from the moment I knew that I should have to deal with this matter I have insisted on handling each of these cases myself."—[Official Report, 14th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1685.]
  For a Home Secretary to say that was surely an admission that the use of these powers to stop persons coming to a conference was a novelty. Obviously a Home Secretary cannot, in all cases of persons coming into the country, examine every detailed case himself, but in the case of the Sheffield conference he insisted on examining all the cases and deciding each of them for himself.
  I should like to know from the spokesman of the Home Office whether in the case of the four Frenchmen, two Belgians and two Germans who were prevented from coming to the Teachers for Peace Conference the decisions in each case were handled by the Home Secretary in the fashion outlined by my right hon. Friend or whether the matter was left to the immigration officers. If the latter was the case, it would certainly be resented by my right hon. Friend, because when in the previous case we suggested that it might have been left to the immigration officers he said that he strongly resented any such suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the letters which appeared in "The Times" from people who were prevented from coming to the conference. I do not see how anyone with any sense of the liberal traditions of this country could read those letters without some feeling of shame. I propose to read some extracts. As my hon. Friend said, they were written in extremely courteous terms. This is the letter from three Frenchmen who were prevented from attending the conference:
  "We should be extremely obliged to you if you would bring the following facts to the knowledge of the British public. We suppose the same facts have been more or less commented on in different quarters of the Press, but we think some direct and personal relation would be of more value to impartial readers. We had all intended to spend part of our holidays in London. We are three French teachers, and, as we had heard that a conference organised by the National Committee of Teachers for Peace was to take place in London on December 29 and 30, we intended to go and attend at some of the debates. We also wanted to visit London as tourists.
  The three of us were refused permission to land in Great Britain because we meant to go

  1911
  to that conference. Our luggage and handbags were thoroughly searched and it was obvious, in spite of the perfect correctness and consideration with which we were treated, that we were suspected of some serious offence which we were at a loss to guess. None of us attempted to hide the truth. We answered straightforwardly to the questions that were asked us, but we all have the impression that it took some time for the immigration officers to believe us when we repeatedly asserted that we had also come for other motives than the conference itself.
  We asked if the conference had been forbidden in London. The answer being negative, we asked why, then, we were hindered from attending it and refused permission to land. To which question they all answered, both at New-haven and London Airport, that they could not tell us why, that it was not a personal matter, but a Cabinet decision concerning foreigners intending to attend the conference. It was a heavy blow, both morally and materially. Morally, we had trusted the British democratic institutions, and, materially, people of our station cannot afford such a loss of money for nothing. We have just applied to the Home Office and asked wheher we could be given compensation, as we could not be supposed to know there were such arbitrary decisions against foreigners.
  We still cannot understand why, if a thing is legal in your country, we have no right to take an interest in it. That is the crucial point. In this case, has not the law been superseded by special police regulations? We will say no more about it except that our holidays are ruined and that we left England with a terrible feeling that the mere fact of crossing the Channel is in itself trespassing over—what?"
  I am sure that any hon. Member reading that letter will feel at any rate a little ashamed at the discourtesy shown to people coining to this country. To put it at its lowest, it is not a trivial matter that people who decided to spend part of their holiday in London and made all their preparations for doing so should have no indication beforehand whether they would be allowed to come in or not. They arrived and were met by the immigration officers and sent back, and their holidays were ruined. To put it at its lowest, it is a piece of discourtesy, but the issue of principle goes rather higher.
  So perhaps, as a matter of manners, the Home Office spokesman will tell us what answer has been sent from the Home Office to the letter which asked whether any compensation would be given to the people who were sent back in that fashion. After all, if they had studied the matter in advance, all they could have discovered as to how the Regulation would work was what was
  1912
  said on the subject in our debate by my right hon. Friend. They might have said to themselves, "Well maybe at any rate we have a chance of being treated like Picasso instead of Shostokovitch, and how are we to know we are to be regarded as dogs instead of sheep?" It seems to me that when three people want to come to this country they should be treated in a different fashion.
  This letter in "The Times" provoked another interesting letter, a few days later from the Headmaster of Alleyne's Grammar School, Stevenage. I do not know what his political views are, but from what I know about him from reading his letter he seems to have an archaic view about the liberal traditions of this country, and is rather shocked. In his letter he says:
  "On the second occasion a friend of mine, a French surgeon of some eminence, and an active member of the Radical Party, was refused entrance in the same way as your correspondents from Paris because he wished to attend a peace conference being held at that time in Sheffield."
  I am not sure whether that case occurred at the time of the previously mentioned Sheffield peace conference or not, but here is a member of the Radical Party in France—not the Communist Party—and an eminent surgeon. He is turned back, and apparently, if the test was being applied by the right hon. Member for South Shields, he was turned back because he was a dog, not a sheep. But here it is quite clear that this man had every right to come to this country and, on any liberal interpretation of the laws, we had no right to exclude him.
  But there was a third letter that appeared in "The Times", and perhaps in one sense it was the most remarkable of all. This was the case of a man who was sent to this country, invited by his own embassy here in London, to come to London on some official business, to discuss cultural relations. The letter did not disclose the name of the country, but it is a Western European democracy and a member of N.A.T.O. He carried a letter from his own Foreign Office, in English, stating the purpose of his visit. He happened to be a teacher, so when he got to the airport they said, "What are you coming for?" and when they looked down the list and saw that the man actually followed the "criminal" profession of teaching they were highly sus-

  1913
  picious and said, "We have got to look out for you. Are you here to go to the Teachers for Peace Conference?" He had never heard of it before, but said, "I am going to London, and very likely I will look in at the conference". After the authorities had spent several hours apparently telephoning the Home Office to find out whether he was to be allowed in, eventually he was allowed in. Again, it is a very polite and courteous letter, but it is a letter which also condemns the whole doctrine which the Home Office is seeking to apply in these cases. So I hope that in that case also a humble apology has been sent from the Home Office to this gentleman, if only in the interests of good manners.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Did he attend the conference?
  Mr. Foot: I do not know whether he did or not. It seems that eventually the authorities lost track of him.
  It would be interesting to know exactly how these Regulations are applied, because if the Home Secretary is not deciding each case, as was done in the case of the previous Government according to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, what exactly are the rules, and are they left to the immigration officials to decide? What do the Home Office do? Has it a list of all Communist meetings taking place in London, all the conferences being organised by the Communist Party in London, and has it seriously got members of the Civil Service employed in the Home Office going through the list of all the conferences and various organisations which the Communists are arranging, and sending out edicts to all the ports saying that they must watch out for all the people coming to these different conferences?
  That would really make the system watertight, but I imagine that if we are to do that a very large sum of money must be spent on it. But if we are not doing that, and are only picking them out here and there and saying, "We will spoil this man's holiday in order not to encourage others who want to take their holidays in Britain," it does not make any sense at all.
  On the grounds of sheer expediency, what is the use of doing it? What purpose does it serve? If these four French-
  1914
  men, two Belgians and two Germans had been allowed to go to the Teachers for Peace Conference, it would not have done us any harm. Nobody would have heard that this conference—which, I gather, only about 100 people attended—had taken place if it had not been for the mammoth publicity given to it all over the world by the ineptitude of the Home Office.
  If all those people I have mentioned were raging Communists, which I strongly doubt, what harm would it have done? It might have done them good to stroll around London for a little while. They might have found that there were very few Fascist cannibals in this country, and they might have taken that impression back to their own countries. What the Home Office has done is to send each of them back a petty martyr, and a standing proof that we have departed from many of our liberal traditions.
  What is the principle which underlies the policy of the Government? It has never been clearly defined, although the Home Secretary has said that the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend and adopted in fuller measure by him is not to allow propagandists into this country who intend to subvert our system of society. We are apparently screening the people coming to this country and, if we think they are going to seek to subvert our system of society, we are not going to let them in.
  "Propaganda" is a much-defiled word. The most famous people who have ever come here from foreign parts have been propagandists. On this definition of propaganda, St. Augustine would never have been allowed in. William III would never have been allowed to land at Torbay—and we should have been cursed by the House of Stuart ever since. Indeed, if the Prime Minister's ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, had vigorously applied this Order at that time, the present Queen would obviously not now be on our Throne. One could go on through the whole of our history and show how absurd it would have been, in century after century, if this principle had been applied by Home Offices in days gone by.
  I ask the Government to abandon this silly notion of trying to prevent people from seeing how we live in Great Britain.

  1915
  It cannot do them anything but good to be allowed here, and it cannot do us any harm. But it does harm all over the world if people believe that we are abandoning our liberal traditions. How long will it be before we discover that the way to defeat the Communists is not to behave like them?
  12.4 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: Some of the anecdotes quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) reminded me of the unfortunate experience of the elderly Frenchwoman who was obliged to come to this country as a refugee fairly early in the war. She was armed with a document of some kind which described her profession as "journalière," which, I understand, is French for "charwoman." She thought it advisable to translate this into English and consulted somebody as to its meaning in our language. She was given the too literal answer, that "journalière" should be rendered in English as "daily worker." Armed with that document, describing her as a "journalière; daily worker," she had the greatest difficulty in getting into this country.
  I am afraid that I have allowed some of the points made by my hon. Friend to divert me from what I intended to say. We have urged that it would be wise to annul this Order so that the law relating to aliens could be brought before this House in the form of a Bill. Many forcible reasons have been given why that would be the better course to adopt. I think that it would be better, not only for us in this House, but for the people in the country to have the facts and the law relating to the problem of aliens put before them with the publicity which a debate on a Bill would secure. All classes of people in this country have, since the 19th century, in the main, wanted to behave in a humane and civilized manner to aliens living here. In earlier periods of our history our record is not so good.
  In recent years the problem has become rather more difficult, and rather more likely to create the kind of problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) mentioned. That is because of the increase in the number of aliens, partly because of the war and partly because
  1916
  numbers of people found themselves swept here by the tide of persecution or came here to take part in the war side by side with us and found it impossible to return. After the war there were many tragic cases of elderly relatives and young children living in Europe with no one to care for them, whose nearest relative had been planted by the tide of war in this country.
  That was the problem which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to cope with, and as reference has been made to his conduct of those responsibilities at the Home Office, I should like to say that the way he dealt with that problem should command the highest praise. He dealt with it with a prudence and wisdom, which prevented the growth of violence and xenophobia which might have occurred, and with a compassion and generosity which means that many people in this country who are alive today owe their lives and liberty to his conduct of his responsibilities. But it resulted in an increase in the number of aliens in this country.
  It is true that when measured by the total population that number is but a tiny percentage, and no one except the most malacious would suggest that any of our problems, social or economic housing or food, is rendered any more difficult by the presence here of any aliens. It is true that the alien population of this country, naturally and inevitably, is not spread evenly over the country. There are certain areas where it is to be found in exceptional proportions. Those of us who represent divisions in great cities or certain parts of London have had this problem presented to us.
  What I want to put to the House is the position of an Englishman whose life in recent years has been such that the problems of housing and the cost of living have pressed with special weight on his family. He may be living in very overcrowded conditions, finding it difficult to make ends meet, has always been law-abiding and his interest and inclination has been to be decent and humane towards any human being of any race and colour. As time goes by he reads in a newspaper a paragraph describing an alien family—perhaps without parallel anywhere else in the country—well housed and perhaps well off, and someone tells him of an alien who has broken the

  1917
  law in a particular manner. Gradually, in his domestic difficulties, with the scraps of information he gets, he begins to wonder whether he should continue with the ordinary civilised standards with which he has begun. That is where a certain amount of danger lies.
  As I have said, since the 19th century we have been clear in this country of the ugly disease of xenophobia, hatred of foreigners because they are foreigners. If it has affected one or two people, it has never become general, and I think we ought to give attention at the present time to the fact that there are certain districts in the country where, if we do not consider the problem properly, this ugly disease might spring up. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne pointed out the kind of problem which can arise.
  In considering the conditions of aliens in this country and how to treat them humanely, we have to remember they are packed together and living in hostels. Is that really conducive to good relations between them and the rest of the country? I should like to see this matter dealt with, not in the inevitable hasty way in which we have to deal with it when it is brought before us as delegated legislation, but carefully and fully, not only for the advantage of hon. Members here, but because it would put the full facts of the law before the country as a whole. Once that was done, any danger of a growth of foreigner-baiting and mere stupid and vicious hatred of foreigners in any part of this country would disappear.
  This is a special reason which I would urge in addition to those that have been forcibly and eloquently put forward by my hon. Friends and by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields as to why this Order should be annulled and the Home Office made to bring forward a Bill that will help us and the country to understand this problem properly.
  12.13 a.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretory of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): This is the second debate which we have had on this Order in the last two months. I do not complain about that, because the subject is an extremely important one, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, it is one of the gravest
  1918
  responsibilities which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to discharge.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who moved the annulment of this Order, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who seconded the Prayer, were not correct in saying that this would be the last opportunity we would have to discuss the Order. The Order rests upon an Act which is renewed annually, and, therefore, there will be an opportunity to discuss it year by year until such time as there is permanent legislation.
  This Order is largely consolidating. It replaces 20 Orders and reproduces, for the most part, their principal features. It rearranges those features and it rewrites the orders and clarifies them. That fact has been acknowledged in all parts of the House. Some of the obsolete provisions have been omitted and the Order removes inconsistencies and anomalies. In my speech in November last I dealt fairly fully with the changes it makes, and it will not be necessary for me to go over that ground again.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields pressed very strongly for legislation. To do that he had to wear a white sheet, because he was Home Secretary for some six years and he failed to produce the legislation. He wore the white sheet very ostentatiously, and if I may say so penitence is one of the compensations of being in opposition. It is not so easy to indulge in it when one is on the Front Bench defending a situation.
  It would be out of order for me to pursue the question of legislation this evening, but I think I can say that there is something to be said, from the point of view of those who argue for legislation, for delay at the present time. This is not the opportune moment to go ahead with the most liberal form of legislation, and my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) emphasised that point in his speech.
  I should like to deal with the various points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Oldham, West and other hon. Members have spoken about the Home Secretary's powers of deportation under the Order. It is extremely difficult to try to define the grounds on which it

  1919
  would be proper for deportation to be carried out and, therefore, it would also be extremely difficult to fix, either in legislation, or in an Order, the grounds on which we think deportation should depend. If we tried to lay down rules in so many words, the result would inevitably be more hardship to those concerned. The Home Secretary, under the very wide discretionary power given him by the Order, can, and does, take into account all personal, family, and other considerations affecting the individual whose deportation is being considered.
  It is true that some cases for deportation do not come before the courts. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) referred to a case in which, I think, it is now known that the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute, but the hon. Member pressed that the Home Secretary should make an order for deportation. The effect of his argument would be that if rules for deportation were reduced in any sense to writing, they would have to be so drawn as to provide for the deportation of someone of whom he disapproved in the kind of way which he has mentioned tonight.
  Mr. Hayman: I have put to the Home Secretary in correspondence that he should exercise these powers now. I said in my speech that the powers have been exercised in matters of a dangerous sort. Here, it is a question of whether the aliens were conducive to the public good; the question I have raised is one of moral import, and Hansard will show, and as the hon. Gentleman will recall from the newspaper report, the Director of Public Prosecutions really withheld authority to prosecute because of lack of corroborative evidence. True, that is the legal position, but here we are concerned with something operated on those which are not strictly legal grounds.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is clear that the hon. Member wants very stringent powers to be given to the Home Secretary, that he wants them to be very stringently exercised. I can tell the hon. Member that the case is now before the Home Secretary and will be considered most fully and carefully in the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend always does consider such cases.
  1920
  There are many cases which come before the courts where a recommendation for deportation is made, but where the recommendation is not carried out for the very good reason that the Home Secretary takes account of things which cannot be before the court. Perhaps that would be more in line with the case raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). That is a case under consideration and I cannot say any more about it than that.
  Perhaps it would be right for me to say that of the 232 people against whom deportation orders were made last year there were only two who had come to this country before the last war. I think it would be of some value to the House if I gave the facts of those two cases. One was an Austrian woman who entered a mental home shortly before the war as a voluntary patient. She had come over here to take up domestic work. She was prevented from being sent back to her own country by the war. The Austrian authorities themselves suggested repatriation and the hospital authorities advised that it would be beneficial to this woman to return to her own people. An order was made for the benefit of the woman to enable her to be sent back free of cost.
  The other was the case of a man who had been recommended for deportation after conviction by a court. The Home Secretary—I believe it was the former Home Secretary—decided against deportation and that the man should be given another chance, and warned, but he committed another offence and, in those circumstances, one cannot have much sympathy with him.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised the case of a Chinese man. The man, aged 73, was recommended for de portation in Liverpool. He was sentenced on 18th January and fined £50 or three months in lieu. He could not pay the fine at once and was sent to prison—
  Mr. Hale: They refused to accept the fine.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The information I have is that he could not pay the fine at once and so was sent to prison. He was released on bail on 22nd January on payment of part of the fine and I can

  1921
  give the firm assurance that he was never detained under the Alien Order power at all. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the case and, of course, he is empowered to accept or reject the recommendation of the court in the light of all the circumstances, The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne complained about the arbitrary character of the powers of the Home Secretary.
  I think there is fairly general agreement in all parts of the House that there must be some measure of control over aliens. There is strong pressure from certain countries where there is substantial unemployment to immigrate into this country and some measure of control is necessary to deal with that. The choice before the House is whether we are to have fixed rules or whether we should give a wide discretion to the Minister who is to operate the controls. There are really serious objections to having fixed rules which could not possibly meet the infinite variety of cases one has to consider.
  If one attempted to draft such rules the control would be bound to be inelastic, and it would be impossible to consider individual cases on their merits. The advantage of the system we have is that cases can be, and are, considered on merits. The fact that there is discretion does of course mean that the question whether an alien can be admitted, or must be deported, rests on policy and not on a decision of the courts. But I think it is right to tell those who press for something more like fixed rules, or some system of appeal, that where you have a decision resting on policy, as we have decided to have, there is an appeal to the Home Secretary against the decision of the immigration officer. Advantage of that right of appeal is freely taken.
  Mr. Hale: The appeal is from Caesar to Caesar, from the employee to the boss. For the Home Office to be putting the view to the House that this can be regarded as some form of appeal is unfortunate. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press that. Perhaps he will tell us about the Chinaman. If he does deport him, can he say whether he will deport him to Chiang Kai-shek or to Mao Tsetung?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like, first, to know whether he came from
  1922
  Formosa or the mainland. I do not want to put too much weight on this, but I do tell the House that it is open to anyone who feels aggrieved by a decision of an immigration officer to take up the matter with the Home Secretary or with me.
  Several hon. Members raised the question of the admission of "Teachers for Peace." There is no restriction upon a person coming to this country because of the political views he holds. There is no ban upon Communists coming to this country as such. They are freely admitted to make private visits, to attend meetings of reputable bodies, and even to attend meetings of the Communist Party. The only ground, in such circumstances, for refusing them admission is one which is applicable not only to Communists but to anyone, namely, that they are personally objectionable in some way. But they can, and do. come here to attend Communist meetings.
  Meetings of the kind organised by the World Peace Campaign are quite different from those of the kind I have mentioned. That was recognised long ago. It was recognised by the late Government. The best definition has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend, who described them as meetings held under the guise of some harmless name intended to deceive the public about their aims, and which are the instruments of Communist propaganda. Those are the meetings for which we do not allow aliens to come in. I think that the reason will be self-evident to the people of this country.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Whether they agree with it or not, anyone could follow the argument that such a meeting for such a purpose with such a concealed object would be a meeting proper to forbid, but what is much less easy to understand is why perfectly responsible persons should not be allowed to attend a conference which is perfectly lawful.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: A great many things might be done, but for the present purpose I think there is agreement both between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields and my right hon. and learned Friend—
  Mr. Silverman: That is the danger.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: —that the right way to deal with this is to stop aliens

  1923
  coming in for this particular purpose. The meetings for which aliens have been stopped are all quite clearly of that character—the Sheffield Peace Congress. 1950; the National Peace Month, 1951: the National Assembly of Women, 1952, and again in 1953; the British Peace Committee's National Conference, 1952: the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 1952; the Authors' World Peace Appeal, and the recent Teachers for Peace Conference.
  I quite agree, of course, that some non-Communists have been involved in these conferences, and indeed I have no doubt that some non-Communist aliens have been refused admission on that score, but that is of the very essence of the reason why there has been refusal. It is because innocent people are brought here to be used for Communist propaganda purposes.
  Every alien wishing to enter the United Kingdom must obtain leave to land from an immigration officer. The United Kingdom visa is not, therefore, an entry visa. It is nothing more than a preliminary inquiry to save the possibility of difficulty and trouble afterwards. The visa issuing authorities are, of course, kept fully informed of Home Office policy, and a visa holder is very rarely indeed refused admission to the United Kingdom. But the visa issuing officer does not necessarily see the applicant and cases of refusal do occur for that reason.
  For example, a visa holder may come with a Ministry of Labour permit, and he or she may be found to be suffering from a serious disease when interviewed by the immigration officer. Obviously, notwithstanding the existence of the visa he cannot be allowed in. In Dr. Oesterreich's case the position is that he obtained a visa by telling the visa issuing authority that he was coming to this country for a personal visit to two friends. He did not say when applying for the visa that he was coming for the purpose of attending the Teachers for Peace Conference. That was discovered when he had come to the country and was being interviewed by the immigration officer.
  Mr. S. Silverman: He said so himself.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: He did not say so when he applied for the visa.
  Mr. W. Nally: In point of fact he obtained the original authority under a lie.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Hon. Members must put their own interpretation on the facts, but the facts are that he did not say he was coming to attend the conference, and that only became known when he landed in this country.
  Mr. Silverman: How did it become known?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It became known when he was being interviewed by the immigration officer.
  Mr. Silverman: He said so, then.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, when he landed.
  Mr. Foot: Is the Under-Secretary going to say anything about the three Frenchmen who came on holiday to attend the Teachers for Peace Conference, but were sent back? Is he going to say anything about compensation for their holiday which was ruined? There is also the person who came with a letter to the embassy of his own country in London and who was put through all this rigmarole and nonsense at the port. Is he going to try and escape all those questions? Is it good manners the way we treat people in this fashion?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: A very large number of questions have been raised, and to answer them in detail would take some hours. I have tried to answer the main points and give the gist of the Government's policy. As this does involve a question of policy I think I can say that in such circumstances no possible question of compensation can arise.
  As regards foreign forces in this country, which is a point of some substance raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) the position is that members of the armed forces of Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States if they are not on leave for more than 21 days, or absent without leave, are deemed not to be aliens for the purposes of this Order The reason is that the parties to the N.A.T.O. agreement, except Greece and Turkey, undertook to exempt from the

  1925
  normal aliens' requirements of their own countries serving personnel from the other N.A.T.O. countries. I understand that our forces in those other countries to which I have referred enjoy full reciprocity in this matter, and perhaps I should say that it has nothing whatever to do with the Visiting Forces Act.
  I have tried to deal with the principal points that have been raised. I recognise there are other points, and I will examine them carefully and, if necessary, I will let hon. Members know the answers. I believe that this Order generally commends itself in all parts of the House, and I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West will be willing to withdraw his Motion.
  Mr. Hale: I am sure that the whole House will feel that the Under-Secretary has replied most courteously to this debate, and has been most helpful. It would be flattering to say that I think that his explanation that aliens who carry Communist cards in their pockets or who carry muskets can come in, while people who do not carry either one or the other are subject to special powers. The Under-Secretary referred to the further possibilities we shall have of investigating this matter, and I am sure we will seize them when the time comes. I believe I am expressing the feeling of the House when I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  VALLEY AIRFIELD, ANGLESEY (USE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Oakshott,]
  12.29 a.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In assessing the potential importance of the airfields in the north-west corner of Wales, I think it is necessary to study the general problem of the siting of airfields in Great Britain and the fundamental increase in air traffic generally. If the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is not careful and not forward looking, then he will find in a very short time that the growth of air traffic and the development in the design of aircraft have outstripped the airport facilities. If such
  1926
  a situation is allowed to develop it will retard progress in the air and will create very dangerous bottlenecks in this country.
  The problems of air traffic control are becoming more and more complex, as the Under-Secretary is well aware, and terminal delays are becoming longer and more vexatious in this country with every month that goes by. It is obvious, therefore, that plans must be laid forthwith, and urgent measures taken to ease this particular problem. If we are to have smooth traffic flow into this country, safer landing and more rapid disposal of cargo and passengers then I suggest the present policy of concentration in two or three important airports must be modified. In my submission, the only sensible alternative is properly planned dispersal at key points on the coast of the United Kingdom. There will, of course, have to be internal air services to connect these great coastal terminals with the large concentrations of population, in addition to the ordinary road and rail facilities.
  In a small island like Great Britain, it would be a fundamental mistake on the part of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to site transoceanic air terminals merely in the big cities. There are many travellers who do not want to go to the big cities, and no doubt many who, once having landed in North Wales would never want to leave North Wales. Another factor in the same argument is that the development of air transport is so rapid and so great that air terminal buildings so far constructed are proving inadequate, and in some cases they are outgrown before they are completed. Another factor is that few airports have been located so that they can be readily expanded. Where, for example, in our great industrial and urban densities is there sufficient space available for modern airports? Where airports exist there is rarely sufficient room for adequate expansion.
  It is fair again to argue that the same degree of thought and planning has not been devoted to the design of airports as to the design of aircraft types, and this problem assumes very serious proportions when we realise how much the one is dependent on the other. I would go so far as to say that unless the Minister is at present investigating and reviewing

  1927
  the question of the siting of proper landing grounds, then the future free use of large, high-speed civil aircraft in this country will be seriously jeopardised. The introduction, for example, of the Comet service, operating to time-tables of almost double the speed of previous schedules, intensifies the problem.
  What will be the position when timetables and speeds of 600 to 650 miles an hour are commonplace? What is taking place at London Airport today? I am informed that in adverse weather conditions aircraft have to be guided in by instrument control, they have to wait, and they are stacked up over a wide area around the City waiting for landing instructions. I realise that at this stage this is inevitable, but I understand that there can be waiting periods of an hour or more before they can land. What will be the position when both traffic and speeds have increased substantially, in five or ten years' time? The delay will then be more serious. Operating costs will be raised and this may reflect itself in increased fares, and an increase in congestion will obviously have very many undesirable results.
  I have already said what I consider to be the solution to these difficulties so far as transatlantic services are concerned, and I recognise the existence of Prestwick as meeting part of the need. The only solution to the problems caused by over-concentration is the dispersal of control and the establishment of landing facilities along the coast, and, for transatlantic travel, such coastal airfields must be sited on the Western seaboard.
  At this early hour of the morning I make no apology for indulging in a piece of special pleading for the airport of Valley, in Anglesey. I do so not merely because it is in my constituency, and because Wales has been rather badly neglected in the sphere of civil aviation, but also because there are formidable practical and technical reasons why Valley should be one of the main airports on the western seaboard. The suitability of Valley is beyond question. I do not wish to weary hon. Members with a long disquisition on its merits. I mentioned them in a debate on civil aviation on 27th October last.
  1928
  I am grateful that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has seen fit to come here at this hour. He may recall that I enumerated the merits of Valley. This station fulfils all the necessary requirements and, what is of great importance, the weather conditions are excellent. It was used extensively by heavy aircraft travelling to and from America in 1944 and 1945. It is easier, therefore, to obtain statistics for this period. For example, during 1944 there were 257 diversions to Valley and only nine diversions from Valley. Diversions to Valley took place on 81 days, and diversions from the airport on four days only. That was in a period of 12 months.
  So much for the weather. In 1944, an average of 40 big airliners a day landed there, mostly Fortresses, Liberators, Dakotas and Skymasters. Again, the biggest single air operation in history—of its type—was carried out from Valley. Perhaps the Ministers will be aware that in May, 1945, over a period of about 30 days, 2,600 large aircraft, of the types which I have mentioned, carrying 40,000 personnel, were flown from Valley to the United States. Why was Valley chosen as the clearing station in this gigantic operation, which, I understand, was executed without a hitch? I can give the House the answer. It is because Valley is the best and most suitable airfield in Britain for transatlantic travel. I should say the same if Scottish Members were here. I am sorry that they are not. The service pilots who participated in this operation were unanimous that this was the case.
  On 28th May, 1945, when this operation was in progress, this is what the United States commanding officer said, as reported in the "Liverpool Daily Post" of that date:
  "I cannot understand why all this fuss is made about Prestwick being the best terminal point for a Transatlantic air service. It has nothing on Valley. There are much better weather conditions here to start with, and Valley has much better travel facilities to London. If the Americans had anything to do with it we would make Valley that terminal. It is one of the best airfields in Europe."
  Those are the words of the man who was in charge of the biggest air operation in history. They cannot be lightly dismissed.
  We all know that Prestwick won the day, and that Valley faded out, although it was, in fact, scheduled as a bad weather

  1929
  base. But why has it not been used as such? The number of diversions to Valley since 1946 have been negligible. I cannot help thinking that for one reason or another diversions to Valley have been discouraged. The Parliamentary Secretary informed me, in reply to a Question recently, that diversions from Prestwick are going to Shannon Airport, in Eire. I do not wish to imperil international relations by complaining about this, but surely Wales is not to be snubbed for the sake of any country? In this matter it is England first, Scotland second, Eire third, and Wales a very long way behind.
  The Minister says that these aircraft can go where they wish. Is it not the case that if they were diverted they would go to Valley? I really want the Minister to give some explanation about that. I know perfectly well that the Royal Air Force is in possession at Valley and Mona at present, but joint user is an accepted principle. My own view is that it would be easier to find an alternative adequate training station for the R.A.F. than to find a better transatlantic airport than Valley. I had intended to discuss the possibility of using the magnificent outer harbour at Holyhead as a base for seaplanes, but I have used up more time than I expected. Would the Minister say whether Coastal Command could not make the same use of the remarkable facilities that exist there? It was used during the war.
  In conclusion, I want to tell the Minister and the House quite dispassionately that feeling is growing daily in Wales about the neglect of civil aviation there, and the lack of interest shown by Government Departments when practical and reasonable projects are put forward for consideration. This is one matter which will be pursued until we have in the Principality an adequate airport for trans-Atlantic travel.
  12.52 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Although I realise that most of the points which the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) has raised concern civil aviation I am replying to him because the airfield at Valley is owned and used by the Air Ministry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is in his place, and both he and I will carefully study the hon. Member's arguments. I
  1930
  shall do my best in the next few minutes to reply to some of those arguments, and I hope I shall do so without causing any embarrassment to my right hon. Friend.
  No one will argue with the hon. Gentleman when he says that Valley is a good airfield. It is. It has three long runways, the longest of which is 2,000 yards, and it has adequate radio and other facilities. It is well known for being relatively free from fog. The Royal Air Force find it extremely useful as an advanced flying training school for Vampires, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is in full use. The hon. Gentleman's main concern was that not enough use was made of the airfield as a terminal point for transatlantic flights and claims that there was too much congestion at London Airport and other main terminal civil airports, and that these terminal points of civil air traffic should be dispersed more widely over the country, and that as part of that policy Valley should be developed and brought into regular use.
  Mr. C. Hughes: The congestion is growing.
  Mr. Ward: The present position is that, in addition to Royal Air Force functions, Valley is designated as an alternate airfield for aircraft on transatlantic routes. This means that transatlantic scheduled operators may use the airfield for diversion in bad weather. It is also what is known to the R.A.F. as a master airfield, which means that it is open to all aircraft, irrespective of size, number or owner in an emergency. It maintains a 24-hour watch and has a satisfactory standard of approach and landing aids. In 1947 it was designated mainly at the request of American civil operators as an alternate on transatlantic routes. But very little use was made of it in the winter of 1947–48 and in October, 1948, its designation was lowered to supplementary. It was then available in emergency, but not as an alternate airfield at the will of the operator in bad weather.
  In the following May, that is, May, 1949, Scandinavian Airlines asked for Valley to be restored as an alternate to Prestwick for the North Atlantic services, and it has remained as an alternate since then. But, once again, in fact, very little use has been made of Valley by the

  1931
  Transatlantic civil operators. In the past year there have been only four diversionary landings there, and they were not, in fact, by Transatlantic aircraft at all. I believe the aircraft belonged to Aer Lingus. This makes it fairly clear that, despite its advantages, it is not popular with civil operators. This is probably because it has geographical disadvantages—as well, I agree, as advantages—and it suffers because of its distance from the main centres of population.
  The hon. Member has suggested that it might be possible to transfer passengers on to feeder lines to take them to main terminal points; but that would defeat the very object he is trying to achieve. At some point or another one has to bring passengers to the main terminal points and so the congestion would remain. If, as traffic increases at the main airports, they become unduly congested, no doubt my right hon. Friend will take into account this important factor of convenience to the passenger on his onward journey from the terminal.
  I do not want to go too deeply into a hypothetical problem, but I would point out that many difficult problems of flying control would result if it were proposed to add a substantial number of civil aircraft to the large number of R.A.F., jet aircraft now using this airfield. That leads me to the point which the hon. Member made about finding alternative suitable training places. That is not easy. We are continually searching for suitable airfields, and many of the fields we have, both for operational and training purposes are in places where we would prefer not to have them, if alternative sites could be found. It has to be remembered that we live in a
  1932
  small, thickly populated island, and the hon. Member would be surprised if he knew how difficult it is to find new sites.
  So, I am afraid that the short, if disappointing answer, to the hon. Member's main point about the increased use of Valley for trans-Atlantic air services, is that facilities at civil airports combined with the facilities offered at present by Valley seem to meet the existing requirements quite adequately. If further civil requirements arise, they will be looked at together with the other considerations about the situation of Valley and its Royal Air Force use.
  On the question of the use by the R.A.F. of Holyhead harbour, I expect the hon. Member knows that there are two flying boat moorings there which are in charge of a civil agent. Coastal Command do not ordinarily use these moorings, but maintain them—as we do in a number of places round the coast—in case of flying boats having to make a forced landing in the neighbourhood. The main flying boat bases are at Pembroke Dock in Wales, Wig Bay in Scotland and Castle Archdale in Northern Ireland. I do not think that on present plans an additional main base is needed in Wales or anywhere else. There may be a case for stationing a Royal Air Force marine craft unit in Holyhead mainly for research and rescue duties and we are considering that matter at present.
  I hope I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member and I will certainly examine his speech in the Official Report to see whether there is anything I have omitted to answer fully.
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past One o'Clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Commercial Television
  Commercial Television
  B.B.C. (Additional Finance)
  B.B.C. (Additional Finance)
  Statutory Instruments (Publication)
  Statutory Instruments (Publication)
  Low-Power Station, Aberdeen Area
  Low-Power Station, Aberdeen Area
POST OFFICE
  Conveyance of Mails (Cost)
  Conveyance of Mails (Cost)
  Thefts and Fires (Losses)
  Thefts and Fires (Losses)
TRANSPORT
  Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel (Census)
  Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel (Census)
  Driving Offences (Number Plate Proposal)
  Driving Offences (Number Plate Proposal)
  Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge (Traffic)
  Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge (Traffic)
  Mersey Tunnel (Traffic)
  Mersey Tunnel (Traffic)
  Forth Ferry Service
  Forth Ferry Service
  B.T.C. (Capital Expenditure)
  B.T.C. (Capital Expenditure)
  Motor-Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  Motor-Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  Shattered Windscreens
  Shattered Windscreens
  Accidents, Whitehall
  Accidents, Whitehall
ROADS
  Trunk Road Expenditure (Accounting)
  Trunk Road Expenditure (Accounting)
  Dimsdale Crossroads (Safety Measures)
  Dimsdale Crossroads (Safety Measures)
  A40 Whitland—Carmarthen (Resurfacing)
  A40 Whitland—Carmarthen (Resurfacing)
  Great Cambridge Road (Widening, Edmonton and Enfield)
  Great Cambridge Road (Widening, Edmonton and Enfield)
  Safety Measures
  Safety Measures
  Forth Bridge Project
  Forth Bridge Project
  Accident Figures
  Accident Figures
  Staffin—Uig Road
  Staffin—Uig Road
  Bridges (Reconstruction Proposals)
  Bridges (Reconstruction Proposals)
  Level Crossing, Lincoln
  Level Crossing, Lincoln
  MERCHANT AIR SERVICE (RECOGNITION AND STATUS)
  MERCHANT AIR SERVICE (RECOGNITION AND STATUS)
  TRIESTE (BRITISH POLICY)
  TRIESTE (BRITISH POLICY)
  KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
  KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)
  ANGLO-AFGHAN TREATY
  ANGLO-AFGHAN TREATY
  FISHERIES DISPUTES
  FISHERIES DISPUTES
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
  UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Home-grown Barley (Stocks)
  Home-grown Barley (Stocks)
  Dairy Firms (Remuneration)
  Dairy Firms (Remuneration)
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Californian Canned Peaches
  Californian Canned Peaches
  Tea
  Tea
  Rationed Foods (Take-up)
  Rationed Foods (Take-up)
  Argentine Meat (Deliveries)
  Argentine Meat (Deliveries)
  Cold Storage, Kent
  Cold Storage, Kent
  Livestock, Kent (Slaughtering)
  Livestock, Kent (Slaughtering)
  Potatoes (Disposal)
  Potatoes (Disposal)
WEST INDIES
  Technical Education, Trinidad and Jamaica
  Technical Education, Trinidad and Jamaica
  Feedingstuffs (Production)
  Feedingstuffs (Production)
  Fruit-Canning Industry (Minimum Standards)
  Fruit-Canning Industry (Minimum Standards)
  Strike Situation, Grenada
  Strike Situation, Grenada
  Economic Proposals, British Guiana
  Economic Proposals, British Guiana
  West Indian Regiment (Revised Proposals)
  West Indian Regiment (Revised Proposals)
EAST AFRICA
  Groundnut Scheme, Kongwa and Urambo (Equipment)
  Groundnut Scheme, Kongwa and Urambo (Equipment)
  Kenya Screening Team, Tanganyika
  Kenya Screening Team, Tanganyika
  Flag, Uganda
  Flag, Uganda
KENYA
  Bombing of Terrorists
  Bombing of Terrorists
  Mau Mau (Finance)
  Mau Mau (Finance)
  Mr. Brian Hayward (Resignation)
  Mr. Brian Hayward (Resignation)
SINGAPORE AND MALAYA
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Marriage Laws and Customs
  Marriage Laws and Customs
  NIGERIA (HORSE KILLING METHODS)
  NIGERIA (HORSE KILLING METHODS)
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Funds (Information)
  Funds (Information)
  Animals (Humane Killing)
  Animals (Humane Killing)
  Self-Government (Consultations)
  Self-Government (Consultations)
ROYAL NAVY
  Dockyard Workers, Devonport (Holiday)
  Dockyard Workers, Devonport (Holiday)
  Dockyards (Working Days)
  Dockyards (Working Days)
  Navy Weeks
  Navy Weeks
  Wrecks, Milford Haven (Demolition)
  Wrecks, Milford Haven (Demolition)
  SHIPYARDS (BOILER PLATE DELIVERIES)
  SHIPYARDS (BOILER PLATE DELIVERIES)
  RETAIL PRICE INDEX (RELIABILITY)
  RETAIL PRICE INDEX (RELIABILITY)
  PENSION RATES
  PENSION RATES
SCOTLAND
  Building Control (Inquiry Committee)
  Building Control (Inquiry Committee)
  Civil Defence Zone Controllers (Appointment)
  Civil Defence Zone Controllers (Appointment)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Members (Parliamentary Salaries)
  Members (Parliamentary Salaries)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LORD DOVERCOURT
Sir Joseph Stanley Holmes, Knight, having been created Baron Dovercourt, of Harwich in the County of Essex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Hereford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Lord Morrison—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL
Read 2ª, and referred to the Examiners.

ATTACK ON ROYAL NAVAL LAUNCH
2.49 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any compensation has yet been received from the Chinese Communist Government for the killing and wounding of British sailors on the Royal Naval motor launch 1323 on 9th September, 1953.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, no compensation has yet been received. It was not until
486
January 22, that the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs sent a written reply to the Note of October 16 from Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires. The Chinese Government restate their version of the events of September 9, which lays the blame on the Royal Naval motor launch, and refuse to accept Her Majesty's Government's protest and claim for compensation. The text of this reply was received in London only on Monday morning and is being carefully studied.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, in view of the noble Marquess's reply, I think it only right that I should defer any further question until the Foreign Office has had further time to consider what is, on the face of it, a very disappointing answer.

SPEED LIMIT PROSECUTIONS
2.51 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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:—

1. the number of prosecutions for offences against the 20 m.p.h. speed limit, other than in built-up areas, imposed upon certain classes of goods carrying vehicles during the last convenient measuring period of twelve months;

2. the number of prosecutions for offences against the 30 m.p.h. speed limit, other than in built-up areas, imposed upon certain classes of goods carrying and passenger carrying vehicles during the same period; and

3. the number of prosecutions for offences against the speed limit imposed upon private cars during the same period.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I regret that the statistics cannot be broken down so as to provide precisely the information that the noble Lord has asked for. The reason is that the figures for those vehicles which have a fixed speed limit—that is to say, lorries and passenger-carrying vehicles—

487
are not kept in a form which distinguishes between offences committed within a built-up area and offences on the open road. The nearest available figures which I can give the noble Lord and which relate to England and Wales for 1952 are, however, as follows: (1) prosecutions for exceeding the speed limits imposed on goods vehicles—and this, I might explain to the noble Lord, includes in one figure prosecutions in regard to both the 20 m.p.h. and 30 m.p.h. limits imposed on goods vheicles—30,027; (2) prosecutions for exceeding the 30 m.p.h. limit on passenger-carrying vehicles, 3,697; (3) prosecutions of drivers of private cars for exceeding the 30 m.p.h. speed limit in built-up areas. 32,733.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply, might I ask whether he would be good enough to represent to his right honourable friend that it would be more convenient and more useful if, in future, the statistics were compiled in the divisions mentioned in my Question? Would he further agree that the fact that in the twelve months there have been only 3,000 prosecutions for all the passenger service vehicles of this country, both inside and outside restricted areas, shows that the law has not been enforced to any great degree?
LORD LLOYD: In reply to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to his representations about the form that the statistics should take in future. Whether this will be difficult or not I am not quite clear, but I will certainly ask my right honourable friend about it. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I could not agree with him as easily as that: I think there are other factors which have to be considered.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
2.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House a question on Business? I want to ask his help. Yesterday a very important statement was made about Kenya. Many noble Lords, and I myself, were in the House, but I had no idea that there was
488
to be such a statement. Will the noble Marquess consider whether there is some way in which the unofficial Members of the House might be notified in time so that they can be present to hear these important statements?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I am very sorry that the noble Viscount did not receive information. I think rather short notice was given.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The usual practice, of course, is to inform the other Parties, through the usual channels, of an important statement and that percolates through the whole of the ranks of the Party concerned. But I am afraid that in this case I must take the full blame on myself. Not enough time was given. I will see that it does not happen again.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should not dream of blaming the noble Marquess. No House could receive greater courtesy than this House does from him. I am thinking, however, of the unofficial Members, like myself, who do not know what is going to take place. If it were possible in the morning in some way to notify us, or even the night before, on the Motion for the Adjournment, it would be a great help to us in the discharge of what we conceive to be our duties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly look into it and see what we can do.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I thank the noble Marquess very much.

MASS MEDICATION
2.56 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH rose to draw attention to the infringement of the liberty of the subject, and the danger to the health of individuals, inherent in projects of mass medication, such as the addition of chalk to flour, iodine to salt and fluorine to public water supplies; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the battle for the liberty of the subject has to be renewed and fought in every age. No sooner has one encroachment been swept away than I another arises to take its place. The

489
passion to regulate the lives of others is deep-seated and hard to root out. It is most dangerous and most insidious when it arises not from motives of personal gain but from the desire to inflict benefit upon others. In this era, the greatest danger to human freedom is the specialist or the expert, the man who has soaked himself deep in some branch of research and who wishes to impose upon others the pattern of conduct which he thinks is best. I do not refer to scientists, for a true scientist is one who has learned to take a broad and balanced view, one who is imbued with a healthy spirit of scepticism and not with fanaticism.
This Motion was originally placed upon the Order Paper at the end of July. The immediate occasion of it was an announcement in The Times newspaper, which appeared to be officially inspired, that the Ministry of Food intended to make an order within a few weeks time requiring chalk to be added to whole-meal bread. If that had been done, it would have become impossible in this country to buy any bread to which chalk had not been added. I thought, and a number of my noble friends with whom I discussed this matter also thought, that this would be an outrageous interference with the liberty of the subject, and so I put down this Motion. Happily, that particular danger has receded. The Minister of Food has exempted "true wholemeal flour" from the requirement t that chalk be added to it. There is thus left a loophole through which those who do not want their flour tampered with can escape. It is not a very large loophole, because bread made from true wholemeal flour is not easy to find, and it is dearer than bread made from "National" flour, one reason for this, of course, being that the Minister of Food subsidises the price of "National" bread.
We have thus reached the position in which, by Government order, the vast: majority of the population are obliged to have chalk in their bread. The total amount of chalk which is used for this purpose in the course of a year is about 11,000 tons. In passing, I may remark that chalk is cheaper than flour, and as the mixture is sold at the price of flour, the millers have nothing to complain of. One is reminded of Tennyson's line:
"And chalk and alum and plaster are sold to the poor for bread."
490
The theory which underlies the addition of chalk to flour is that the population are not getting enough calcium in their diet—not enough for good health, it is said. For the purposes of this argument I am going to assume that there are a number of people who are not getting sufficient calcium, although many common foods, such as milk, cheese, yolk of egg, peas, beans, treacle and green vegetables, are good sources of it—and, of course, the water supply of London and of some other places also contains a considerable content of calcium. Even if it be true that some people are not getting enough calcium in their diet, are we entitled to force them to eat more of it by putting chalk in their bread? That is the fundamental issue of principle which is raised in my Motion. Another matter to which I must draw attention, and which is characteristic of all forms of mass medication, is that this procedure offends against the basic code of medical practice. The dose is administered without any examination of the patient, without regard to age or sex, without regard to physical condition, irrespective of whether it is required or not. In this respect, also, the procedure is obnoxious and immoral.
Let me now turn to another example, the proposal to add iodine to salt. This matter received considerable attention in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the year 1950. A Committee of the Medical Research Council had reported in 1944 that endemic goitre was on the increase and that this was probably due to reduced consumption of sea fish, which is rich in iodine. As these researches were conducted during the war, it would not have been entirely surprising to note that the consumption of fish had declined. A later Report, in 1948, long after the war was over, recommended that all salt should be iodised by adding ten parts per million of potassium iodide. In 1950, the Food Standards Committee of the Ministry of Food recommended that an order should be made requiring that all free-running salts should, within a year, have, not ten parts but from fifteen to twenty parts per million of potassium iodide added, and that within a further two years all other salt should be treated in the same fashion. If recommendation had been carried out, it would have become impossible for the consumer to buy salt which had not been iodised.
This proposal evidently occasioned some anxiety, for the Report of the Chief Medical Officer makes it clear that some people made representations that the incidence of goitre had been exaggerated. Others drew attention to the fact that some persons are hyper-sensitive to iodine, but this objection was brushed aside on the ground that the objectors had not supported their case by statistics. I pause here to draw attention to the fact that it hardly ever lies in the power of the non-official public to produce statistics on such matters, and if this is to be a sine qua non, we shall all soon be at the uncontrolled mercy of the experts. The final upshot of it was that the Medical Research Council recommended that non-iodised salt should be available wherever this was considered necessary on medical grounds—in other words, we should all have been obliged to obtain a doctor's prescription in order to be able to purchase unmedicated common salt.
So far, we have the matter as it was explained in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer for the year 1950. In the following year, the subject received only three lines, to the effect that unforeseen difficulties were being encountered in providing suitable packaging material, What these difficulties were, is not explained. In the Report for 1952, the last one issued, I could find no mention whatever of iodised salt. The last reference I have seen to it was an Answer by the Minister of Food on July 21, 1952, in which he said that there were a good many objections of a technical nature, some of which were quite serious. So it looks as if this plan, which was introduced with such a flourish of trumpets, is on its way out. The strange thing is that it was ever proposed. Even if it were true that goitre was prevalent in certain districts owing to lack of iodine, why should people in other districts be compelled to partake of it when they do not need it?
Here again, the fundamental objections to compulsory mass medication spring to light. The intake of iodine is obviously extremely variable, as sea foods are one of the principal sources of it. Iodine is a very potent and active chemical it is quite immoral to force it upon everyone without regard to the amount that he is already having without regard to physical
492
condition or any other circumstance which a doctor would consider in dealing with an individual patient. This is a negation of the art of medicine as hitherto practiced; it is also the negation of the liberty of the subject. Before I turn to the other example mentioned in my Motion, I should like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, informed me that, had it been possible, he would have been here to support me this afternoon. He desired particularly to refer to the chlorination of water supplies, which he considers has been carried to excessive lengths in recent times, leaving residues in public water supplies which may have physiological effects. This is a view which, I understand, will be supported particularly by adherents of the homeopathic school of medicine, of whom there are a considerable number in this country.
I now come to the latest example of mass medication—the addition of fluorides to water supplies. It is well known that fluorides are deadly poisons. On this account, sodium fluoride is largely used as a rat poison. At one time fluorides were used as preservatives in foods, but the use in foods is now prohibited by law. The addition of fluorides to the public water supplies must, therefore, be a matter of grave concern. This practice has been developed within the last few years in the United States, where there has been an intensive campaign to persuade local authorities to adopt it. The ground upon which it is advocated is that if a small quantity of fluoride is given to children regularly during the period of growth and tooth development, the teeth will be made resistant to decay. It was already well known that if larger quantities of fluoride, such as are found occasionally in naturally occurring waters, are taken in, the teeth are severely affected and show visible blemishes. It is now stated that if fluoride to the extent of one part per million is added to the water supply the teeth of children will become resistant to decay, but that no bodily ill-effects will follow. I would mention that the advocates of this proposal say that the proportion should be one part per million of fluorine, and they admit that it is not wise to go much beyond that.
During last year a Mission was sent from this country by the Ministers of Health and Housing to the United States

493
to investigate what was known there. They reported—and their Report has been published—that fluoridation of water supplies was a means of reducing the incidence of dental decay, and they recommended that in this country:
"it would be advisable in the first instance to add fluoride to the water supplies of some selected communities."
On December 3, the Minister of Heal the stated that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the Mission, Some towns, therefore, must look forward to the prospect of having fluorides added to their water supplies in order that an experiment may be carried out upon the whole of their citizens.
For the purpose of my argument I am going to assume that it is a fact that if children imbibe waters so fluoridated during the growing period their teeth will—for a time at least—be less liable to decay; it may be, of course, that the effect is not permanent. The first question that arises is: How does this happen? That question the Mission have been unable to answer. They say that this matter has not yet been elucidated, and they give no fewer than four different and inconsistent theories to explain it one thing, however, is clear, and that is that fluorine reacts with something in the teeth and, consequently, changes the nature of the teeth. If higher concentrations of fluoride are imbibed, the change becomes greater, and blemishes upon the teeth become visible. There is little doubt that the fluorine unites with the calcium in the teeth: scientific evidence of this is available. This leads to a very important question. The advocates of fluoridation admit that it can prevent dental decay only if it is administered to children. Their procedure, however, involves that it is administered to every member of the community for the whole of his life. What happens to the fluorine which is imbibed by adults? The teeth are not the only part of the body containing calcium: it is found in the bones, and elsewhere. If the teeth are no longer capable of combining with fluorine, will not fluorine combine with calcium elsewhere in the body?
An attempt has been made in the United States to answer this question by comparison of the vital statistics of areas having naturally a water supply containing about one part per million of
494
fluorine with others having much smaller amounts. Anyone who is familiar with statistical investigation must know that such comparisons are worthless, and the Mission very candidly state:
"While many Americans live in areas where the natural fluoride content of water is about one part per million or more it is extremely difficult to make a comprehensive analysis of mortality statistics, on the basis of previous exposure to fluorites, and no such analysis has been attempted."
Hence, I suppose, the recommendation to make a mass experiment, willy-nilly, upon some city or town in this country. An incidental but highly significant point in. the Mission's Report is the statement—and this has also been said by advocates of fluoridation in the United States—that it makes no difference what kind of fluoride is used to fluoridate the water supply. That statement appears on page 12 of the Mission's Report. But, strange to say, in one of the appendices, on page 65, they say:
"It has been reported that stannous fluoride is more effective than either sodium fluoride or sodium silicofluoride in preventing dental caries."
Is this a new scientific discovery, that it makes no difference to the human body whether it is treated with salts of sodium or salts of tin, or is this just a typical example of the slipshod way in which this subject has been treated?
That leads me to say something about the methods which have been used in the United States to push the fluoridation of water supplies and which, I am afraid, are beginning to be used in this country. The plan was originated and has been strongly advocated by dentists in the American public health services. Of course, all dentists are not advocates of it, and in this country Mr. Charles Dillon has contributed some significant criticisms in his articles in the Dental Practitioner, pointing out the general dangers to health and also the possibility that if fluorides do delay dental decay in earlier years of life, they may actually aggravate it in the later years. By and large, however, fluoridation has made headway by the specialist argument that it reduces dental decay, without regard to any other aspects of the matter. In the United States it has been put over by methods which in any other connection would be described as "high-pressure salesmanship." I do not suggest that the dentists who have advocated it have any

495
commercial interest but, in passing, I may note that there are commercial interests who would like to see it done. Fluorides are highly toxic chemicals which are by products of certain industrial processes, and they are, both literally and metaphorically, a drug on the market. Of course, the manufacture of machinery for putting them into the water supply would be a gain to those who manufacture this type of machine.
It is apparent that the experts who have advocated fluoridation have paid scant attention to the physiologists and pathologists who have drawn attention to the possible hazards to general health. I am going to quote one example of this from the proceedings of the annual conference of State Dental Directors, which was held in Washington, D.C., on June 6 to June 8, 1951. This quotation is from the speech of the Dental Director of Wisconsin. Referring to another speaker who had mentioned some possible difficulties, he said:
"I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term adding sodium fluoride: We never do that; that is rat poison. You add fluorides. Never mind that sodium fluoride business. All of these things give the opposition something to pick at, and they have got enough to pick at without our giving them more. But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't give you the answer to it. I can only prove to you that we do not know the answer, because we had a city of 18.000 people which was fluoridating its water for six or eight months. Then a campaign was started on the grounds of its toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out fluoride. It's tough. When we are having the Press in, and the public in, don't have anybody on the programme who is going to go ahead and oppose us because he wants us to study it some more."
That is rather an interesting sidelight upon the way in which this campaign has been carried on—and we are being asked to imitate what has been done in the United States. I could quote a good deal more of a similar character, but that sufficiently illustrates the nature of the campaign.
It is not my purpose to-day to argue in detail the case against adding sodium fluoride, or other fluorides, to water supplies, but the announcement by the Minister of Health that he approves of this being done makes it imperative that I should say something more about it. The whole question of the addition of chemicals to foodstuffs was exhaustively examined by a Select Committee of the American House of Representatives,
496
under the chairmanship of Congressman Delaney. They devoted a considerable amount of time to this particular question and took a great deal of evidence, both from advocates of fluoridation and from a number of eminent physiologists and pathologists who gave reasons why they considered this practice to be risky or dangerous. This evidence was made known, of course, to the members of our Mission, but it is dismissed in a very brusque fashion. They do admit, however, that
"Fluoridation involves a degree of calculated risk."
What does this comment mean? If the word "calculated" is intended as a synonym for "deliberate" or "intended," it is correct; but if it is intended to mean that the risk is known and can be estimated, then that statement is simply not true. Moreover, the benefit, if any, is confined to children, while the risk is distributed over the whole population.
What is this risk? I am going to quote now from a paper by Professor D. G. Steyn, who is Professor of Pharmacology in the University of Pretoria. South Africa is a country where natural drinking waters are found containing fluorides, and the effects have been the subjects of scientific study. Professor Steyn says:
"Fluorine is a dangerous poison in that its chronic harmful effects may not be in evidence until thirty or forty years after consumption of minute quantities of this poison had begun. In addition to our previous knowledge of the harmful effects of fluorine in drinking water, it was recently established that small quantities of fluorine in drinking water suppress thyroid activity, and in our fluorine areas endemic goitre is of frequent occurrence."
How does this tie up with the plan for adding iodine to salt in order to combat endemic goitre? Will the dosage of iodine be increased still further if fluorides are added to the water supplies? Professor Steyn continues:
"An aspect of fluorine poisoning which needs investigation is the characteristic of this halogen to form a chemical combination with calcium phosphate in the teeth and bones. The nature of chronic fluorine poisoning is such that in order to study it fully, experiments have to be conducted over a number of generations of animals, as the hones and teeth of each succeeding generation will contain more fluorine than those of the preceding generation. In this tendency of fluorine to accumulate in the hone system lies the greatest danger of chronic poisoning when small quantities of this poison are ingested daily over long periods."
Here, my Lords, I would make two comments. Have the Government the

497
intention of adding more chalk to flour, in order to counteract the immobilisation of calcium by fluorine? Do they intend to experiment for several generations on the unfortunate communities whom they select for what the Minister calls studies of the various aspects of fluoridation? Professor Steyn also points out that
"the ingestion of fluorine during pregnancy and lactation needs special attention and care as excessive quantities may harm mother and fœtus and suppress lactation, as this poison has an antithyroid action."
This brings me back to the fundamental principle, that procedures of this kind are the antithesis of rational medical science. The drug is administered to everyone, whether with teeth or without, whether young or old, without regard to physical condition or susceptibility. It is, therefore, a reckless and unethical practice. All such practices are an invasion of the liberty of the subject which should not be tolerated in a free country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, we have just listened to a detailed and extremely plausible story put forward by the noble Lord who moved the Motion. However, I should like to issue a gentle warning about some of the general things which he said. If one takes one's self back to the sixties of the past century, one finds that there was then a great deal of correspondence and many leading articles in The Times about the campaign by Edwin Chadwick Ito try to stop cholera, to try to make people drink clean drinking water, and to tidy up the town generally. I have not the exact quotation, but The Times said that they would rather die dirty than be cleaned up by the board which Edwin Chadwick was proposing to set up. I feel that that has a certain bearing on what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has just said.
One of the things which he said with which I do not agree is that the practice of putting drugs into various foods and water supplies is a negation of medical practice. There I cannot agree with the noble Lord, because I think that assumes a wrong view of what a doctor is for. A doctor does not exist primarily to cure his patients. Of course, he must cure them if they are sick; but he is there primarily to stop them from becoming sick. That is the prime reason why we have a National Health Service, and the
498
prime reason why doctors exist. I should have thought that if, by adopting a certain number of simple measures, you can prevent a certain amount of disease, then you are not only doing good for the community, but you are carrying out an economic work as well, which, of course, can be equally important.
The noble Lord referred to the amount of chlorine put into water at the present time. That practice was largely started during the war, to meet the danger of contamination of the water as a consequence of bombing. For that reason, all the water supplies in the country, including even the small ones, were chlorinated. So far as I know—and I know a little about it, because I was involved in some of the work at the time—there was no complaint that this would do anybody any damage. There were a few complaints that it made the water taste nasty—and it tasted filthy at times—but it did no harm whatsoever. I believe that an experiment on that scale, carried out over a period of four or five years, with no evidence of damage done to anybody, roust mean something.
The same point applies to what the, noble Lord said about putting chalk into bread. Put as baldly as that, the proposition to mix chalk will flour does not sound very attractive. But that, again, was the result of certain work done during the war, when the extraction rate of flour was stepped upwards, which meant that the calcium in the bread was turned into something insoluble. Calcium is an important part of diet, and if one does not get sufficient of it one tends to suffer from various complaints which are preventable by the addition of chalk to the flour. This was done during the war, and I believe there is still chalk in what is called "National" bread, because that is made from flour of almost the same extraction rate. But, so far as I know, there is no chalk in the white flour, and if people like to buy wholemeal flour there is no chalk in that, either. There is the choice for the public. If they want chalk in their bread, they can have it, but if they do not, they are not compelled to. Curiously enough, most of the people do not take to the white or the wholemeal flour, so there cannot be a great deal of feeling about it.
The same argument applies in regard to pulling iodine into salt to counteract goitre. I have heard figures given of

499
about 250,000 to 300,000 young people in this country who suffer from goitres, some of which are bad and some not. That is an appreciable number, and if this complaint can be prevented by the addition in small controlled quantities of iodine to salt, then I can see no objection to it, particularly as I believe that if such a scheme were to be introduced it would be possible, if one did not wish to have iodised salt, to buy non-iodised salt from the same shops where the iodised salt is sold. The question of putting fluorine into water is, to my mind, a much more difficult one. A great deal of work has been clone in the United States which shows that apparently it stops dental caries. I should have thought, however, that that is not entirely proved. and I feel sure that the Government will not embark on any widespread attempt to put fluorine in the water supplies, or if it is done, will merely raise the total quantity to one part per million, which, so far as I know, already exists in many of the water supplies of the country. That would merely bring up to that level those water supplies which are at present below it, and would not increase the amount of fluorine to an abnormal degree. As people have been drinking water with one part fluorine per million parts ever since water was first drunk, with no great trouble, I cannot see any particular danger in that. But fluorine can be a dangerous thing, and in big doses it could cause a lot of trouble. There are some countries in the East where there is a considerable proportion of fluorine in the water, and the people do suffer from serious bone damage. But there is no question of that occurring with the amount that we have now, and which, as I say, will never go above a normal amount. I do not want to follow the noble Lord through all the points he mentioned, but I trust that your Lordships will not accept his Motion.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, we must keep an even mind on this subject, although there inlay be some mass effects threatened. We must bear in mind, in the first instance, that what was written in the Scriptures,
"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick,"
must not be taken literally, because the attitude of the medical profession towards
500
I disease has changed radically in the last century. We are no longer agents for the recognition and treatment of disease, but are pioneers in efforts to prevent it. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "to guard is better than to heal." We do not aim at prevention—that is too wide a term to use. But we do aim to guard the helpless young and the people living in certain districts deficient in the requirements for a healthy life, and we do aim to protect them from the disadvantages under which they live.
Every new idea in medicine has had to fight for acceptance against opposition—not only from outside the profession but also from within it. Vaccination, anæsthesia and the resistance to Lister's teaching of antiseptic surgery are startling instances enough. But a new truth is often opposed either by a fixed opinion or by a bias, and one has to be careful to find out whether the opposition is based on scientific principles, or whether it arises because of this total conservatism which seems to have permeated into the Opposition side of the House. We must remember that the men who have brought new knowledge and made suggestions for increasing health are not men who are exploiting a new idea they are earnest, pious, men. Lister was one of the most pious men who ever walked this earth. And what did Ross, when he discovered that the mosquito was the vector carrying the infection of malaria, write in his notebook the night it was revealed to him?
"This day relenting God bath placed within my hand a wondrous thing, and God be praised!"
Those who make great discoveries are not trying to force something on to thinking people: they are trying to convince a majority of their fellow citizens that by a certain procedure disease may be prevented or its incidence lessened. I am shocked to find a Scotsman—I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, claims some attachment to that country—adopting his present attitude, because, after all, Scotland was the native country of John Hunter. John Hunter was the founder of scientific surgery, and when his friend Edward Jenner wrote to him and said, "I think so and so," John Hunter replied, "Why think? Why not try the experiment?" The noble Lord, Lord Douglas, seemed to be intent on

501
preventing us from trying the experiment. The experiment may be a bit more frightening if it is to be applied by mass methods, but it may be that the truth can be found only by that means, and not by observation of individuals; so I do beg the noble Lord to keep an open mind.
I myself have seen attempts at the improvement of the dietary attacked sometimes by methods akin to blackmail. In a recent debate, the salt that has be slogan, "See how it runs!" was condemned because it was not sodium chloride. An attempt was made to ruin the man who introduced that by propaganda to the people. They were asked: "Do you know what you are swallowing?—phosphates. What is phosphorus?—one of the most terrible poisons that can be swallowed. And that is what is in this salt that you can see how it runs!" But have we seen any holocaust as a result of taking salt that did run? of course, the noble Lord probably wants to go back to the day when we all rejoiced in going to the kitchen arid finding blocks of salt, grinding them together and getting it into salt-cellars. But we did not similarly rejoice when the salt all became caked in the salt-cellars. Does the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, object to the chlorination of water when troops are on the move? Does he object to the chlorination of water in war time, when drains have been blasted and when the water supply may be infected? Does he object to the ozonising of air? Most of our life to-day is based on the discoveries of Pasteur.
Let me deal with one or two of the special things which the noble Lord has mentioned. Iodine is an essential to the healthy functioning of the thyroid gland. Look at the condition of people who have a complete upset of their iodine metabolism. Fifty years ago, when I used to go to Switzerland to see Kocher operating on goitres, there was no idea of how this incidence could be prevented or diminished. Then, thirty years ago, when I went to Cleveland, in Ohio, I saw George Crile operate on twenty goitres in a morning. Do you think he enjoyed doing that? No; his whole object in life was to find out why these people were getting goitre, and how to prevent it. Only last week his son was over here, and I asked him how many goitres he did
502
in a day in Cleveland He said, "Possibly one or two, and some days none." I asked why, and he said, "Well, things evolve." I said, "Is it because you have iodized salt?" He said, "Well it may be, but we do not dismiss other possible factors. For instance, in goitre areas to-day half the vegetables that are eaten by the citizens are grown outside the district. They are grown out in the West, where the soil is saturated with iodine, and they get their iodine through canned vegetables." These things right themselves. But that is no reason why we should condemn those pioneers who, in the early days, first proved that a certain disease was due to a deficiency of iodine and, secondly, urged that steps should be taken by artificial means to meet the deficiency.
Then we conic to the fluorine question. We know that experiments have been carried out in New Zealand and other places. The British Mission that went out to New Zealand reported on the experiment there, and we know that it has been carried out in America. There are two alternatives available to help the youngsters: one can either make local applications of fluoride to the gums, or one can see that they get proper fluoride intake. Well, my Lords, Lord Douglas would wish that
"… the whining school Soy with his satchel, And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school …"
should have still another deterrent: that he is going to meet the dentist who will swab his gums with fluorine, whereas if he had a nice dose of fluorine in his morning tea or coffee there would have been no necessity. I wish to protest against the suggestion that "mass medication," as the noble Lord calls it, is contrary to the ethics and traditions of the medical profession. The proposal which he has criticised is not "mass medication"; it is a reinforcement of nature's supply in a particular district. In the matter of fluoride, it is ten years (and Lord Douglas talked about our being in a hurry!) since Weaver's paper in the British Dental Journal pointed out that the incidence of caries of the teeth in South Shields was half what it was in Tynemouth. There is not much hurry, surely, in suggesting that something should be done about this matter. If the noble Lord has not the reference, I have it here.

503
I must not detain your Lordships too long, but I must say that I object to the noble Lord's remark about "adding drugs to the water supply." All that is being suggested—if it is actually being suggested as a practical proposition at the moment—is the addition in a particular district of something in which nature has been deficient. The noble Lord referred to an experiment that was abandoned after six months of public outcry. I am not surprised, when I see the nature of the public outcry. There is no limit to the lengths to which the opponents of sanitary measures will go. From cancer downwards, the whole gamut of diseases are paraded as dangers. Take fluorinated water: it is all there in black and white, down in print. I am not exaggerating—that is what they have done. Lord Douglas, referring to fanaticism, applied that description to those who were urging that something should be done. Am I not justified in applying the term to the noble Lord himself, who complacently holds the last ditch and tries to prevent anything practical from being done in the matter? The noble Lord quoted Tennyson; I, too, should like to quote Tennyson:
"Let knowledge grow from more to more, But more of reverence in us dwell …"
3.49 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, the very wise speech to which we have just listened leads me to a conclusion which I reached before I came here—that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes on both sides in these matters. I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has said, and I listened with the greatest interest to the admirably documented discourse which he gave us. The other speeches also much impressed me. My own feeling is that the term "mass medication" is not quite appropriate. The word "medication" seems to me to savour of medicine; and medicine to most people—and I believe it is also suggested by the dictionaries—savours rather of cure. But a great many of the substances which are added to food or drink are prophylactic rather than curative; they are supplementary, very often, to something that is already in the food but is not believed to be present in sufficient quantities to give the greatest benefit and the greatest nutritional value.
504
Moreover, I feel that if a term of this kind is to be used it should be much wider—wide enough to include the so-called improvers, for which usually neither curative nor prophylactic advantages are claimed, although they may he dangerous. I think it should be wide enough to include abstraction of valuable elements. In fact, reading through, as I did last night, the revised Food and Drugs Bill I found that the first clause gives definitions which would cover all these aspects of the question. If not "mass medication," what should the expression be? I do not think we have got the right term. "Mass manipulation" or "mass interference" strikes me as rather more appropriate.
However, whatever the nomenclature, I want to make a particular point which has already been touched upon: that Government must have tremendous latitude in these matters, especially in emergency and more particularly in war. I myself, like the noble Lord, Lord, Amulree, was very much concerned about the question of the chlorination of water, because I was the chairman of the scientific committee which consisted mostly of medical men and included members of the Medical Research Council of the Ministry of Health, and other experts from outside. This body recommended that steps be taken as a matter of great urgency—and it really was a matter of great urgency, because although the question arose in the early days of the war we were looking forward to the time when we should be getting the blitz and we knew that the blitz might create great dangers for the population, owing, for example, to the fact that sewers and water supplies were adjacent. I do not think there is any doubt that those steps averted a very grave menace. Moreover, we could not at that time exclude the possibility that there might be a deliberate effort to introduce poison or dangerous bacteria from the air or by sabotage. Therefore I urge most strongly that there must be a great deal of elasticity in applying principles of this kind. In fact, my impression is that it is difficult to generalise in these questions and that every case has to be considered on its merits.
There are three particular cases, which, however, I am not going to discuss in detail. I understood Lord Amulree to say that if one consumed wholemeal bread one would not get any chalk. I have

505
been an advocate m this House, since the first year I joined it 1938, of the consumption of wholemeal bread, and I have reached the point now when no white bread ever appears in my household. I believe it to be a primary cause—I touch wood—of the good health that I have enjoyed. I shall come back to that point in a moment. So, at any rate, there is a cure; and every day more wholemeal bread seems to become available in the shops. Then let me take the case of the iodised salt. I am not competent to say more on that matter without having had an opportunity to check the facts, but my impression is that I always eat sea salt and that that is naturally iodised; so I may be taken as a biased witness in that respect.
I should like to say a few words about the addition of fluorine to water. I have been interested in that for some months, since a visit I paid to the London Water-works. I have read a good deal about the subject, but what, I have found to be the most illuminating document on the matter is a pamphlet by Colonel E. F. W. Mackenzie, who was until recently Director of Water Examination to the Metropolitan water Board, although he does not claim to commit the Board to his views, even though they published his memorandum. His claim is the same as that which your Lordships have heard to-day, namely, that the addition of a small quantity of fluorine to our water supplies would be followed by a huge reduction of caries in the teeth of children during the formative period. He supports his claim by a mass of evidence of large-scale experiments in America, and experiments on rather a smaller scale here but leading to the same result. At the time his pamphlet was published, no fewer than 1,700,000 people in twenty States of the United States of America had been receiving water with a fluorine content on the appropriate scale. The teeth of a large proportion of the children had benefited, and benefited greatly, and. it was expected that in many cases that improvement would be prolonged into later life. I think the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, rather throw doubt on that belief. I do not pretend to be a judge. It is claimed that no one, man, woman or child, was a whit the worse except in some districts where, as has already been said, natural fluorine was present in proportions much above what
506
is used in the case of artificially added fluorine, and then the damage done was the mottling of the teeth.
I find all this immensely stimulating and encouraging but there is the other side of it, and that side, I think, is very serious. It has been deployed already and I shall give only the points that rather appealed to me. To begin with, the pamphlet from which I have been quoting, which is a very fair presentation, admits that the poisonous nature of fluorine is a serious matter; but until I entered this Chamber, I had not been able to discover what the effects were. I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend has said on that subject, and it sounds pretty serious.
That raises the question whether, after seven or eight years, admittedly of experiment, there is enough knowledge of what the long-range effects of fluorine are on the human constitution as a whole. What the South African professor said seemed to me very important in that respect, but, in view of our own experiences of the long-range effects of what has happened to our daily bread, I think we have to be careful. After all, it was fifty years before it was realised what was the cause of the disease to our teeth which gradually followed the introduction of the steel rollers. Then, in the case of agene, it was twenty-five years after its introduction before the results of Mellanby's ex-perinaents were published. In view of that, my own feeling is that it would be more advisable not to hurry over this matter but to get some more experiments done. In any event, I agree with my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch that it is rather excessive to subject to this process the whole of the population, a large proportion of which will certainly object, in order that there may be benefit to a percentage—a large percentage if you like—of young children. The obvious way out is to find some way of giving fluorine, with it admitted benefits, to children during their formative years. In America various methods have been tried to do this by means of pills, tablets and even chewing gum, but without any real success. I have brought this point forward because I believe that possibly there is a way out.
In another part of this pamphlet, Colonel Mackenzie mentions that, as long ago as 1892, the late Sir lames Crichton-

507
Browne, in an extraordinarily prophetic address to the British Dental Association in the Eastern Counties, suggested as a specific cause of the rising incidence of dental caries the increasing abstraction of bran that was being practised in the milling of white flour, and he quoted Dr. George Wilson as having shown that the husky parts of wheat were the main source of fluorine intake. He regarded fluorine as the characteristic chemical constituent of tooth enamel and came to the conclusion that:
"a supply of fluorine, while the development of the tooth is proceeding, is essential to the proper formation of the enamel, and that any deficiency in this respect must result in an inferior enamel."
Does not that suggest to us a pointer? It looks as though the much abused bran which some of my noble friends and I have been defending for a very long time had merits which I, for one, had not guessed at. If Sir James Crichton-Browne was right, as he generally was, a perfectly natural as opposed to an artificial method of administering fluorine may be in sight. I therefore venture to suggest to the Government that they should bring this matter to the notice of their experts, and ask them to follow it up, for it would certainly be much easier to feed young children on wholemeal bread. We know that a great deal can be, and has been, done by Government action, in persuading mothers to give children other things, such as orange juice and the like, and it would not be difficult, I should think, to extend that persuasion in regard to wholemeal bread. It is already supplied in a good many of the private schools.
Before I conclude, I should like again briefly to refer to the question of agene, because that is a subject which, in ordinary circumstances, I should certainly have raised on the question of bread. I do not propose to go into it in full, however, because I am quite satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are doing their utmost to carry out the frank and definite assurances that my noble friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries gave the House on June 10—namely, that the Government will abandon the use of agene as soon as a suitable substitute can be found. I was informed on December 2 last by the noble Viscount, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in
508
a Written Answer to a Question, that good progress was being made with the investigation but that another three months would be required before a statement could be made. So, naturally, I am not going to ask prematurely for a statement. I have so much confidence in them that, if the Government want a little more time, as I think from an Answer given in another place they may, I shall not be troublesome in any way.
I should rather like to say why I think the progress is good. First, there has been a great deal of propaganda work by women's institutes all over the country, which seems to have had considerable effect, and also there is evidence that hard-headed businessmen are starting to apply the new measures which are beginning to take shape. There is undoubtedly a great increase in the consumption of wholemeal bread—anybody who looks in the windows of bakers shops will see the larger supplies of it. As I have said before, the amount of wholemeal bread now available is much greater than hitherto. Then, there is the spread of compost-grown bread. I myself have seen queues in the shops which advertise compost-grown bread. I was much stimulated to read that one of the largest producers of wholemeal bread (I have their advertisement in my hand) have now produced a form of compost-grown wholemeal bread. I have also an advertisement which appears in the weighty columns of the British Medical Journal, which includes these words—it is an advertisement in regard to some form of crisp bread:
"No extraction, nor the addition of agene or so-called improvers."
Only a few days ago I received a large poster put out by a large concern of millers and bakers in the West Country. It bears the caption:
"All our bread is made from flour free from chemical treatment."
Those things are pointers. Coming events cast their shadows before them, and I am now more confident than ever that this year will pretty nearly see the last of agene.
4.17 p.m.
LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, we have listened this evening to some very interesting speeches. I should like to support one thing stressed by the noble Lord

509
in whose name the Motion stands—in fact, it is inherent in his Motion; namely, his objection to the use of a large section of the public for the purpose of an experiment, whether they would wish it or not. Let me start with bread. As has already been said, one can get other kinds of bread—such as bread without the addition of calcium; therefore, I do not think that is so serious. One can get salt without the addition of anything to it, especially iodine. But in the districts where it is proposed to treat water with fluorine it would be difficult and extremely expensive if one were to try to obtain water from elsewhere. So I think there is a radical difference between the proposed experiment of adding fluorine to water and the addition of substances to either salt or bread.
With regard to the measures which have been adopted in the United States of America, many of your Lordships will no doubt have read the excellent Repot, which has been referred to, made by the United Kingdom Mission. I should like to restrict my remarks on this subject principally to things which have been said in this Report because, although the Mission have not given as much weight to the possible hazards and dangers as has been given elsewhere, they certainly have not ignored them. In section 26, which begins under the heading "Possible hazards," they quote the words of the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics. This Committee is usually known as the Delaney Committee, and the passage is taken from their Report—which has already been referred to in your Lordships' House to-day—to the House of Representatives. In effect it is a quotation of a quotation. The Committee stated:
"The area of controversy concerning the fluoridation of water arises over the question whether a sufficient amount of investigation and study has been completed to justify a recommendation of universal application of this procedure at this time. … The majority of scientific opinion is that fluoridation of drinking water in amounts up to one part per million of fluorine is safe. The view of the minority group is not that it is known that the ingestion of fluoridated water at one part per million will result in injury to health but rather that it is not known with any degree of certainty exactly what subtle physiological effects may ensue, and that a number of important questions still remain unanswered."
Those of your Lordships who have studied the Report of the American Select
510
Committee to the House of Representatives may feel that this minority group represents a considerable number of expert people, whose views cannot lightly be set aside.
If we turn then to the recommendations of the United Kingdom Mission we find that they themselves advise considerable caution. With regard to the "study centres," as they call them, which it is proposed should be set up to consider the subject of mass experiments, they say that before these fluoridation studies can be started It is necessary
"to obtain baseline information on the incidence of dental caries in children and adults in the selected communities …"
and so forth. They go on to state that it is also necessary
"to assess the required dose of fluoride to be added to water supplies in this country."
We have seriously to consider those recommendations. I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the addition of fluoride to a water supply, but it must be remembered—as has been stated in the Report to which I have just referred—that fluorine exists not only in water but also in food and the dust in the air, so that the total intake of a person is not limited to that which he gets by way of water. In conclusion, I would only urge, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has already done, that in this important investigation we should hasten very slowly, because it is obvious that before long a great deal of important information will be coming from those countries which are already making these experiments, and especially from those which have carried out this addition of fluorine to water on a very large scale. The figures they will provide, and the facts which they will discover, will put us in a very much better position in introducing this system into this country, should we so decide to do.
4.26 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I shall intervene for only a few minutes if you will bear with me. I was sad and sorry to note that Lord Webb-Johnson was less than fair when he criticised my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. But I am fortified because I know that Lord Douglas is ready to stand like Horatio—as indeed are other speakers in this House —when he brings forward Something which he believes to be right. But I was disappointed in the speech of Lord Webb-

511
Johnson. I wanted to hear him say something about chalk, but he never mentioned it.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I saw enough of chalk when I was in statu pupillari.
LORD CALVERLEY: The point is that we have it on the authority of Lord Hankey and others that we are now eating too much chalk. I do not know what effect it has—or perhaps I should say that I do know what effect it has in a certain direction. But your Lordships will not expect me to go into questions relating to constipation or anything like that, and I will leave that matter alone. With regard to chlorination I would just say this. Chlorination had to be carried out during the war, but I believe that the Water Board in London, not having had as much experience as authorities in other parts of the country, over-chlorinated the water here. The result, so far as I could judge, was that the water did not make a very good cocktail; and I did not drink it myself if I could avoid it. I am with Lord Webb-Johnson when he advocates the use, on medical advice, of iodine. We have in the North Midlands a disease called "Derbyshire goitre." I believe that it is now dying out because of the use of iodine.
I was much troubled, however, because Lord Webb-Johnson never mentioned agene. I wanted some cheap advice from him on the merits or demerits of agene. I am told that it is an American importation, and that it is especially well known in Wisconsin, which I believe is a great grain-growing State. We are told on high authority that there dogs go mad, and that if a politician bites a dog the politician goes mad also—indeed, that seems to have happened in the case of a few politicians who dwell in Wisconsin. To be serious, we laymen look towards, and are ready to listen to, our medical advisers, especially if they will give us a prescription for something that is very nice. But I should like to know whether our food is being tampered with, and whether our digestions are being ruined by too much chalk. With regard to this agene business there is only one good result that I can see, and it has been mentioned by Lord Amulree, who speaks with great authority on such matters. I gather from the noble Lord that agene makes
512
the flour rise; therefore there is plenty of gas in it, and gas is good for politicians, it may be said. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in replying to the debate, will be able to give us some authoritative statement this afternoon. I think that the people who live in this realm are being slowly murdered by agene, chalk and chlorinated water and the noble Lord may even tell us something about it.
4.30 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, all your Lordships will know by now of the great interest which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, takes in the question of foodstuffs and their purity, and this afternoon he has raised the subject once again. Listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Webb-Johnson and Lord Amulree, it seemed to me that they so successfully demolished his case that, but for the fact that I am speaking for Her Majesty's Government, and therefore ought to say something on the subject, it would not have been necessary for me to delay the House for more than a few minutes.
The noble Lord's Motion seems to me to raise three questions. First, are the projects that he has mentioned in his Motion—the addition of chalk to flour, of iodine to salt and of fluorine to public water supplies—really mass medication? Secondly, why are they thought to be necessary, and are they dangerous to the health of individuals? Thirdly, assuming they are justified on medical and scientific grounds, should they nevertheless be withheld or withdrawn, on the grounds that they infringe the liberty of the subject or that they carry with them the risk of injury to the health of individuals? I should like shortly to reply to these three questions.
Taking the first: are these projects really mass medication? Certainly the examples which the noble Lord quoted in his Motion are not medicaments as usually understood, but are more measures designed to ensure that the people of this country have in their diet a sufficiency of certain substances that have been found to be essential in order to maintain good health or prevent disease. It has been found that in the

513
diet of large numbers of the population there are serious deficiencies of these things, and the question is not one of treatment or cure, bat whether it is in the general interest that the diet of the people of this country should be adequate in these particular elements.
I should like now to go more fully into the specific examples which the noble Lord has given. First of all, he mentioned the addition of chalk to flour. I know that Lord Douglas himself is not under any misapprehension, and I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is not either. It may be, however, that some of your Lordships remember a debate last June in which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, talked of the addition of chalk to flour in the early 18th century, when there was a popular craze for white food, and the adulteration of bread with chalk followed, and quoted Matthew Bramble as saying "The bread I eat in London is detelerious paste mixed up with chalk" This, of course, is not the reason why chalk is nowadays added to the flour. It was recommended by the Committee on Nutrition of the British Medical Association that the consumption of calcium should reach 8 of a gramme per adult per day. The danger of deficiency still exists, in spite of the large increase in milk consumption during and since the war. And, after making proper allowance for wastage, the National Food Survey showed that in the first half of 1952 the national average intake of calcium would have been about 10 per cent. below this requirement, had it not been for the addition of calcium to flour.
The Committee on Medical and Nutritional Problems, which is under the Chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, has also strongly recommended the addition of calcium to flour and I can assure the House that this does no harm to anyone. I hope that that will set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, at rest. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, will know, the one permitted omission of calcium is from 100 per cent. extraction wholemeal flour. This is a concession to those who hold strong views on the merits of wholemeal flour. In any event, it is believed. that those who eat this flour are likely to get sufficient calcium from other sources. It may well be that the good health which the noble Lord, Lord
514
Hankey, enjoys—and we are all glad that he does enjoy it—is due to this, as well as to the reason he has given us.
The second example which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, quoted was the iodisation of salt. The Medical Research Council in 1943 set up a special committee to investigate thyroid diseases and to make recommendations for its control. The sub-committee reported in 1948 that goitre seemed to be on the increase, and they urged strongly that preventive action should be taken on a national scale by the addition of a trace of iodine to salt used for domestic purposes. This recommendation was en dorsed by the Committee on Medical and. Nutritional Problems of the Ministry of Health and was then referred to the Ministry of Food, so that the Food Standards Committee could investigate the technical problems of carrying out the recommendation. Since then, the practical problems of introducing the recommendation have been reviewed several times but have not been fully solved. As your Lordships may know, in 1950 the Food Standards Committee recommended favourably in a Report published in March of that year. Representations were received from a large number of people, including the medical profession, the trade, medical authorities, various women's organisations and members of the public. These representations were considered by the Health Departments and by the Food Standards Committee. In passing, I may say that in a number of countries where goitre is very common salt has been iodised for a number of years, and nowhere has there been any resulting harm; in fact, the experience of these and other countries is that nothing but good has resulted.
The practice has been current in Poland since 1935 and in Switzerland since 1922. One survey in Zurich from 1939 to 1944 showed that when the proportion of iodine was increased from 5 to 20 parts per million the proportion of infants born with goitre decreased from 25 per cent. to 6·8 per cent. It is interesting that experience in Switzerland suggests that in parts of that country the increased occurrence of goitre in recent years may be due to greater technical perfection in the manufacture of salt. For instance, up to 1900 the salt in the Canton Vaud, taken from a local mine, contained 10 parts of

515
iodine per million and during that time the incidence of goitre was low. From about 1900 the local salt was increasingly refined, and goitre started to increase to a high level until iodisation was begun in 1924. There have been similar experiences in West Virginia. In Canada, the iodisation of all salt for table or general household use has been compulsory since 1949, and we have not so far heard of any difficulties or ill-effects arising there. The Food Standards Committee, however, have not yet made their final Report, and no decision has yet been taken. I know that my right honourable friend the Minister of Food will take very careful note of the representations made by the various interests and, of course, of the remarks which have been made this afternoon in your Lordships' House.
The last example which Lord Douglas of Barloch gave was the fluoridation of water supplies. As the noble Lord will know, it is necessary during childhood and adolescence to take flourine, either in food or in drink, so that normal teeth and bone can be produced, and its absence in sufficient quantities may result in bad development. An interesting example of this, which the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, mentioned, was given by a survey in 1944 of 500 children aged twelve in North Shields and of the same number in South Shields. In South Shields, there are natural fluorides in the water, but in North Shields there are none. This survey found that the average number of permanent teeth decayed, missing or filled in North Shields was 4·3 and in South Shields was only 2·4. In North Shields, the percentage of children without any decayed, missing or filled teeth was as low as 4·8, while in South Shields it was 25·8.
Experiments, too, in the United States, which the noble Lord mentioned, have shown that where the amount of fluoride is of the order of one part per million there is a reduction of about 50 per cent. in the occurrence of dental caries among children, as compared with areas where there is little or no fluoride in the water. A Scientific and Medical Mission was sent to the United States and reported in July, 1953, that similar results could be expected in Britain, and as this is the only measure which up to the present time gives any promise of preventing or
516
reducing the incidence of bad teeth, the Minister of Health announced on December 3 that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Mission. I should say, of course, that there are a considerable number of areas in England and Wales where there is already enough fluorine in the water supply, in which case no more would be added. If the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, lived in one of these areas—and for all I know he does—he would take fluorine in probably almost the same quantity as we propose to add to water supplies to bring, them up to a regular dose of 1·0 to 1·5 parts per million. There is no scientific basis for the allegations that fluorides in such quantities have had any harmful effect on anyone, but I do know that there has been some confusion with industrial fluorosis, which is the result of a heavy concentration of fluorides in the atmosphere in the form of dust.
The last question which the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas, raises is that, even assuming that these measures are medically justified, they should nevertheless be withdrawn or withheld on the grounds that they infringe the liberty of the subject—I think he even said that they were obnoxious and immoral. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a much more difficult problem, and it seems to me that one can strike a balance only by going fully into each proposal. I do not think that the noble Lord suggests that, if it becomes known that certain elements which are essential to health are missing from the diet of a large number of people of this country, the Government should sit back and do nothing. Certainly I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, because in a debate we had on June 10 last year he made a quotation, and said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 182, col. 821):
"May I recall once more the Resolution that I quoted earlier—namely, 'that the health of the population should be the guiding principle to govern the nutritional policy of the Government …that in applying that principle to the case of bread, the health of the consumer should be the primary factor, and milling and other interests should be developed in harmony with this policy'."
He went on to say:
"My Lords. I am afraid it cannot be said that the health of the consumer has been considered first in this matter."
I know from that that Lord Hankey supports me when I say that it is essential

517
that the guiding principle should be the health of the population. And I should imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, would agree with that.
On the other hand, I agree that medical justification is not of itself sufficient to justify the adoption of any particular treatment. We must, of course, consider the political and philosophical implications of our actions. A man is on firm ground if he says, "What I eat is my own affair and no one else's. It does not affect other people, and therefore tie State has no right to dictate to me what I must eat." This point of view has the support of some of the best political thinkers, including John Stuart Mill—and this should appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. Mill would almost certainly have put the choice of one's diet into the category of what he called "self-regarding action." There is a passage in Mill's Essay on Liberty which I should think would apply very well to a person of Lord Douglas's opinions. The passage goes like this:
"Considerations to aid his judgment, exhortations to strengthen his will, may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others: but he himself is the final judge. All errors which he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem his good."
This, we would all agree, is a sound principle which Governments must recognise. The only trouble is that, like most political principles, it tends, in extreme cases, to clash with others which are just as good.
Nowadays, we believe that the Government have a general responsibility for ensuring the health of the people. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and others, when they urge us to ban the use of agene in bread, and the use of poisonous substances for killing weeds and insects, appear to accept this principle. It does not necessarily mean that the State must always act on scientific advice and force people to do what scientists think is good for them. We all know that the experts of to-day are sometimes contradicted by the experts of to-morrow—if not also by other experts of to-day. But I submit that the principle does mean that when an overwhelming case has been made out on scientific grounds, when we are convinced that what is recommended
518
is practical and cannot possible result in anything but good to the public health, then we must consider taking action of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, describes as mass medication. The Government would be failing in their duty if they did not take into account the great benefit to public health which would result, as well as giving due weight to the political scruples which the noble Lord has raised,
4.47 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH,LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH, replying to the debate, said: My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in what has been an interesting discussion. If would, not attempt to cover all the points which have been raised during the course of the debate. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Webb-Johnson, that the most important task which a doctor can undertake is to prevent disease rather than to cure it. I have held that view, and clone my best to promote it, for quite a number of years past, not with a great deal of success, perhaps; but still I am encouraged that two eminent members of the medical profession should put that in the first place. But let us go just a little stage further than that broad generalisation and consider its application to the kind of cases which we have been discussing this afternoon. If you are going to prevent ill-health, then I should have thought that the first question which you should ask yourself is: What are the causes of ill-health; and what are the causes, let us say, of what we have been discussing to quite a considerable extent this afternoon, dental decay? There is a good deal of knowledge about that subject. We know that there are a number of races—the Aboriginal races in New Zealand, the Bantus in Africa, and others—who had perfect dentition until they began to consume European foods and abandoned their traditional diets. We know that in countries such as this country and the United States undoubtedly one of the greatest causes of dental decay is the use of highly refined flour and other carbo-hydrates and the ingestion of large quantities of highly refined sugar. These are the admitted facts which are known to everybody.
Now let us apply the noble Lord's principles to this case. Is the administration of fluorine remedying the cause, or is it

519
in effect a medication? If you are to prevent this decay from happening, what you should do is to attack the cause. No noble Lords—whether those who sit upon the Government Front Bench or those who sit anywhere else—are suggesting that they are going to dictate to the population their method of diet to that extent and are going to eliminate the real causes of this trouble. That is my reply to the statement that this is not a measure of mass medication but is merely the restoration to the diet of something which is missing from it. That is certainly not the case, because it is well known that it is extremely exceptional for natural water supplies to contain even as much as one part per million of fluorine. Therefore, it is quite clear that so much fluorine is not a natural constituent of human diets. I submit, with all respect, that it is entirely misleading to say that this is restoring to the diet something which has been lost out of it—far from it.
Now let me refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said. I hope I have not cast any aspersion upon the medical profession in anything I have said. I do not doubt for a moment that they are earnest and pious men. But the noble Lord himself could no doubt give many illustrations of beliefs which were firmly held by members of the medical profession in times gone by but which have been abandoned and are now thrown upon the scrap heap. The fact that they were earnestly and piously held is not necessarily a proof that they were true; and what we ought to seek in all these things is the truth. So far as chalk in bread is concerned, I am not greatly worried about it, because I think in all probability it is quite innocuous. I doubt whether it does any great amount of good—I do not know that there is any proof that it does—but, at any rate, I think it is relatively harmless, and, therefore, I am not so much worried about it. But when it comes to iodine, which is proposed to be introduced specifically in order to prevent goitre, which is an iodine-deficiency disease, we are coming on to a somewhat different ground, especially in this country. Observe that the term "endemic goitre" is used in the report of the Medical Research Council. Goitre is not endemic in every part of this country. It is confined, as the word "endemic" means, to certain localities where it may
520
be true that there is a deficiency of iodine in the water supply or in the soil. In such cases it may be quite proper to remedy a deficiency of something which, generally speaking, is to be found in the diet but which may be absent in some particular place.
Even there I have the greatest hesitation in saying that we should force such things upon people willy nilly. I would hesitate very much about that. And when it comes to a case such as fluorine then, indeed, the arguments become, so I think at any rate, overwhelmingly strong, because in the first place it simply has not been proved that fluorine is innocuous. On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence to show that when it is taken in small quantities for long periods it can produce serious ill effects. The danger of this, which I endeavoured to point out when I opened the debate, is that attention has been concentrated upon one aspect of this subject only—namely, that it appears to produce a greater immunity to dental decay in the teeth of our children if it is administered to them during the period of growth. But in all the experiments which have been made so far, there is no conclusive evidence that that benefit continues indefinitely.
Only last August there was an article by Mr. Charles Dillon in the Dental Practitioner in which he referred to the case of South Shields, which is always brought up in this connection as a place where there is something approaching one part per million of fluorine in the water supply. He compared it with the case of Ipswich. where there is a very small fraction of fluorine in the water supply, and he presents in this article a little graph which shows that in the earlier decades of life it is indeed true that the incidence of dental decay in South Shields is lower, but in the later decades of life it shoots up and exceeds that in Ipswich. That is just one illustration, and among other things it shows that unless there has been a carefully regulated experimentation which is capable of removing all the extrinsic factors which may apply—and, as I have said, it is well known that the condition of teeth depends upon diet generally—and unless that experimentation has been so accurate and so complete as to eliminate all the other factors and to find out what the ultimate result of this one is, then there is no adequate basis even for the first part of the theory.
So far as the effects of the use of fluorides upon human beings of all ages and during the whole course of life are concerned, there has been no experimentation at all, nor, so far, has there been adequate equivalent experimentation upon test animals in this country or in the United States. But we do have the evidence which I quoted from Professor Steyn—that fluorosis is a serious problem in the Union of South Africa. It is definite and clear that this is a dangerous substance which produces ill effects; and, therefore, on that aspect of the case it seems to me that it would be most unfortunate if the Government of this country were to persist in the plan of making a mass experiment upon the citizens of some particular locality.
Lord Carrington, in his reply, dealt with the question of principle which underlies all this. It is perfectly true that in public affairs it is often necessary that one should try to balance up as evenly as possible all the many considerations of principle which can arise with regard to some particular course of conduct. The decision or judgment upon questions of that kind is undoubtedly a very difficult matter; it is the test of statesmanship. But I do not accept the principle that the only consideration which arises in cases such as we are discussing to-day is the health of consumers. I do not agree that the Government have an unlimited right to compel people to consume certain things or to read certain things or to do certain things without any freedom of choice being left to the individual at all.
Lord Hankey said, and very truly, no doubt, that in time of war many things had to be done to which in normal times we should not have consented. Salus populi suprema lex—but that is not the test which ought to be applied in these cases. It ought still to be open to people to
522
eat what they want, by all means, let the Government give them advice. I would go further than that and say, as I have said in connection with the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, that the. State has a right to prevent the introduction into the diet, for commercial purposes, of poisonous substances which are riot natural articles of food. But, conversely, I say that it is equally wrong for the State to insist upon the introduction in to a food of substances which are not natural articles of diet—at least in the quantities proposed—and to force them upon everybody. Why do these particular cases arise—chalk in bread, iodine in salt, and fluorides in water supplies? It is because the consumer will net know what has been done. The chalk in the bread is tasteless; the iodine in the salt is masked by the taste of salt, and the fluorides are tasteless and colourless. Therefore, you can inflict them on the population without exciting a revolt—and they certainly would revolt if you endeavoured to control other articles of food and compelled them to take these.
It is not, of course, my intention to carry this Motion to Division. I have no doubt that the Government, if they wanted to, could easily defeat the Motion, but I do not want them to be put in the position of having voted, against it, for I think the principle which underlies it is so important that it deserves the serious consideration of all of us; and it would be a very great pity for anyone to vote against it. Therefore. I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at four minutes past five o'clock.