Sitting of 2 June 1954

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
STROUDWATER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 17th June.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  UNITED NATIONS

    Economic Development (International Fund)
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what developments he is awaiting before deciding steps to participate in the establishment of the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Although, as I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 22nd March, Her Majesty's Government accept and support the principle of an international fund within the framework of the United Nations, they do not envisage being in a position to contribute to such a fund until substantial additional resources become available through disarmament. Since they further understand that other major potential contributing Powers cannot yet commit themselves to contribute, they do not feel that immediate steps towards the establishment of a fund are practicable.
    Mr. Craddock: Does not the Minister think that participation should be expedited notwithstanding the financial difficulty which he has mentioned? Does he not agree that we shall have to overcome this problem by making perhaps a smaller contribution at the outset?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is important that such a fund as this should be launched in the
    1252
    best possible circumstances. One of those should be that one should have adequate resources at its disposal. That is not the present position.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that our national income is increasing by about 2 per cent, per annum, that is £200 million? Could we not really afford £4 million a year for this very important international and Commonwealth purpose?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there would be the slightest value in starting such a fund with £4 million only. It would have to be something very much bigger than that. At the moment, there is no one prepared to contribute to it.
    Sir R. Acland: If participation is to be left until after disarmament has been achieved, does not that give the Russians more reason to refuse to agree to disarmament?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should not have thought that that was logic.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman misinformed about the replies that have been received? Have there not been a number of Governments who have said that they are ready to support it now?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think only on a very small scale. The major potential contributors have said that they are not willing to contribute.
    Mr. Craddock: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer from the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Marshall Islands Petition (Atom Bomb Tests)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been given to the British delegation to the United Nations Assembly in respect of the plea made to the United Nations from the Marshall Islands that no further atom or hydrogen bomb experiments should take place in their area.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Until the formal observations of the United States Government have been received and circulated by the United Nations Secretariat, the Trusteeship Council will not consider the

    1253
    petition. At the present stage therefore it is too early to instruct the United Kingdom representative on this issue.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Marshall Islands are 280 miles away from the scene of the explosion and yet have been affected by radio-active dust? In view of this danger to populations miles from the explosion of the hydrogen bomb, will he, in order to save human life, do his utmost to prevent further experiments until they can be controlled?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think that before I make any comment on that we had better see the formal observations of the United States Government about this incident.

    Refugees (High Commissioner's Report)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's representatives at the forthcoming Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations at Geneva to give support to the Five-Year Programme submitted by the High Commissioner for Refugees for the promotion of permanent solutions of the refugee problem.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Her Majesty's Government have only lately received the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees which sets out the full implications of his proposal for a 12 million dollar integration fund for refugees. This report is now being considered.
    Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman say that it is being considered sympathetically and favourably? Is he aware that there are 22 very important organisations dealing with social problems in this country who are concerned with this matter and who are very anxious that it should be dealt with in a full and sympathetic manner? Will he at a later stage be prepared to say whether or not he will give the instructions referred to in the Question?
    Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government—either the present Government or the late Government—to divulge instructions given to the representatives at international organisations in advance of their being acted upon. In
    1254
    the second place, I would prefer to say that this report is being considered by Her Majesty's Government without adding any adverb to the word "considered." We must guard against any suggestion that national refugees should be regarded as an international responsibility. That is a basic tenet of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and there may be some danger in this proposal of turning a national responsibility into an international responsibility.

    SUEZ CANAL ZONE (NEGOTIATIONS)
    Mr. D. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now resume negotiations with the Egyptian Government concerning the base in the Suez Canal Zone.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are at present being taken to reach a solution for the future of the base on the Suez Canal.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) on 31st May.
    Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the regrettable incidents to which he then referred and which have occurred on both sides in the Canal base will be difficult to stop so long as 80,000 British troops are cooped up in the Canal base against their own will and that of the local population? Is he further aware that whenever he decides to stand up to the resistance of the rebels on his own back benches and resumes negotiations for a peaceful settlement of this problem, he will have support from this side of the House?
    Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that certain conditions would have to be established before negotiations could be re-opened. One of those conditions was the maintenance of law and order.
    Captain Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that these crimes of violence and murder, as distinct from ordinary thefts, are inspired and that those who perpetrate them are to a large extent armed and

    1255
    trained by the Egyptian authorities? Is not the man who directs the crime even more culpable than the man who uses the knife?
    Mr. Lloyd: I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend that the extent to which the Egyptian authorities co-operate in tracing the perpetrators of these crimes is very important to the future of Anglo-Egyptian relations.
    Mr. Grimond: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we are in a vicious circle and that it is in British interest that the number of troops we keep there should be greatly reduced? If we are not going to be able to enter into negotiations with the Egyptian Government, can he say what other proposals he has?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government to seek to reach a suitable agreement with the Egyptian Government, but there is not much point in having negotiations just for the sake of having negotiations. The point is to have negotiations which one thinks will lead to a successful conclusion.
    Captain Waterhouse: My right hon. and learned Friend has spoken about the extent to which the Egyptian authorities co-operate in tracing the perpetrators of these crimes, but would it not be much better if they collaborated in preventing the crimes?
    Mr. Lloyd: In the last five or six weeks there has been much more satisfactory co-operation. I said that a very important thing for the future of Anglo-Egyptian relations will be the extent to which the Egyptian authorities help in these cases.
    Mr. Shinwell: If negotiations are not to be resumed on the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, may I ask how long it is the intention of the Government to retain such a large body of troops in the Canal Zone? Can we afford it?
    Mr. Lloyd: That opens very much wider points. We still desire, when suitable conditions exist, to reopen these negotiations and push them through to a satisfactory conclusion, but, of course, if that does not prove to be possible the whole situation will have to be examined.

    H.M. AMBASSADORS, PARIS AND WASHINGTON (ALLOWANCES)
    Captain Kerbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what factors in the cost of living in France have caused him to agree that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris should continue to receive allowances of £22,390 per annum, in addition to his salary of £4,500; and whether he will reconsider the allowances of £29,185 per annum paid to Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington.
    Mr. Nutting: The allowances of Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Paris and Washington are not related precisely to cost-of-living factors, but are based on actual necessary expenditure as assessed by Foreign Service Inspectors. As compared with 1938, the cost of living measured in sterling at Paris has increased by 330 per cent., while the allowances have been increased by 77 per cent.; the cost of living at Washington has increased by 230 per cent. and the increase in the allowances has increased by 125 per cent.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is not this a great deal of money to spend on entertaining? Cannot we economise a little? What are the Government going to do about this? Has this large amount of money to be spent all the time?
    Mr. Nutting: I am delighted to have that belated confession of the right hon. Member who belonged to the Government which, where expenditure was concerned, were the most prodigal that this country has ever known. It may interest him to know that of these allowances, which may seem high, in Paris more than £19,000 is spent on the maintenance of the residence and on housekeeping as well as entertaining, and in Washington more than £27,000 is spent on those matters. If the right hon. Member will study the answer he will see that the allowances have not risen by anything like the rise in the cost of living in both capitals.
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I will study any answer he cares to make to any question, but is not the £19,000 to which he referred as the cost of housekeeping and so on rather too high? Cannot those concerned live a little more modestly, as we have to do?
    Captain Kerby: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if he appreciates that these expenses in the case of our Paris Embassy amount to £430 weekly, and in the case of the Washington Embassy to £561 weekly? Does he not consider that these sums are excessive for housekeeping?
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir, I do not consider that they are excessive. Her Majesty's Government believe that they should maintain certain standards both in Paris and in Washington, and for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to complain at this moment of all moments about increasing expenditure is a little warm.

    B.B.C. NORWEGIAN BROADCASTS
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it has been decided to discontinue the Norwegian broadcasts in the British Broadcasting Corporation's Overseas Services.
    Mr. Nutting: No such decision has been made.
    Mr. Alport: Can my hon. Friend ensure that when this matter is considered the whole weight of his Department and of his right hon. Friend is put behind the continuance of these broadcasts, which make an important contribution to the good will which supports our export trade in Scandinavia, in general, and in Norway, in particular?
    Mr. Nutting: Of course I will take into account what my hon. Friend has said, but at the same time I invite him to take into account the importance of making such savings as we can in order to make extensions elsewhere.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman say when a final decision is to be taken on this matter? A report was issued some time ago; the Government received it 11 months' ago, but they have still not made up their minds about it. Surely it is time that some decision was reached?
    Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member is not quite correct in saying that the Government have not made up their minds. We have made up our minds and announced
    1258
    our intentions as regards the forthcoming financial year. The long-term implications of the report still require a certain amount of study, but the House will be informed of the conclusions of the Government as soon as possible.

    EGYPT (COMPENSATION CLAIMS)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with the Egyptian Government about compensation for British subjects murdered in Egypt.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As the House will be aware, all claims for death or injury arising out of the 1952 riots in Cairo have already been met. As regards subsequent incidents in the Canal Zone, I informed the House on 3rd February that the question of reparation is bound up with the wider question of claims and counter-claims. I have nothing to add to the statement I made at that time.
    Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister assure the House that this question will not be lost sight of and, when negotiations and discussions are resumed with the Egyptian Government, the question of compensation for these incidents and the fastening of responsibility directly on the Egyptian Government will be taken up?
    Mr. Lloyd: Our position is fully reserved on this matter.
    Mr. Alport: Will my right hon. Friend say whether compensation to the British officials whom the Egyptian Government dismissed wrongfully at the time of the trouble is included in the general statement he has made?
    Mr. Lloyd: I shall be grateful to my hon. Friend if he will put down a specific Question on that point.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the case of a soldier constituent of mine, murdered in Egypt two days ago, and ask the Egyptian authorities to use the utmost vigour in bringing the perpetrators of that outrage to justice?
    Mr. Lloyd: Most certainly we will.

    IRAQI VISA REGULATIONS (JEWS)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will intervene with the Government of Iraq so as to have removed the discriminatory regulations which they have imposed against British nationals of the Jewish faith travelling to Iraq, or other destinations via Iraq, by requiring them to hold special visas.
    Mr. Nutting: In 1950 regulations were issued by the Iraqi Government which stipulated that, among other categories of persons, Jews were excepted from the exemption from visa requirements granted to other passengers in transit by air. In November, 1950, H.M. Embassy at Bagdad addressed a Note to the Iraqi Government requesting them to modify these regulations so as to ensure that Jewish British subjects receive the same treatment as other British subjects. No reply to this Note having been received, Her Majesty's Ambassador is being instructed to renew these representations.
    Mr. Janner: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the last part of his reply, may I ask him if the position is not unwarranted and intolerable? That any section of British nationals should be discriminated against in this manner is quite out of the question. If the reverse were to apply, would there not be considerable difficulty from the other side? Will he see whether he can also do anything through the United Nations to assist in this matter?
    Mr. Nutting: I prefer to reserve judgment on the suggestion that we should refer the question to the United Nations. We prefer to deal with these matters through the diplomatic channels, and we have renewed our representations.

    INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES)
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish an estimate of the number of aliens and British subjects who, over the next five years, are likely to receive temporary immunity under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Universal Postal Union) Order,
    1260
    1954, and the corresponding estimate of the number of United Kingdom British subjects who will be granted similar immunity in other countries.
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish an estimate of the number of aliens and British subjects who, over the next five years, are likely to receive temporary immunity under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the World Meteorological Organisation) Order, 1954, and the corresponding estimate of the number of United Kingdom British subjects who will be granted similar immunity in other countries.
    Mr. Pitmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish an estimate of the number of aliens and British subjects who, over the next five years, are likely to receive temporary immunity under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Telecommunication Union) Order, 1954, and the corresponding estimate of the number of United Kingdom British subjects who will be granted similar immunity in other countries.
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish an estimate of the number of aliens and British subjects who, over the next five years, are likely to receive temporary immunity under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Customs Co-operation Council) Order, 1954; and the corresponding estimate of the number of United Kingdom British subjects who will be granted similar immunity in other countries.
    Mr. Nutting: Representatives of the United Kingdom will no doubt be attending meetings of all these organisations in different countries in the course of the next five years and will receive the appropriate immunities, but I cannot estimate the number of persons involved. So far as I am aware, no plans have been made for any meetings of these organisations to be held in the United Kingdom during this period; and I am not therefore able to say how many persons, if any, will enjoy the immunities and privileges set out in these Orders.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say why anybody attending these very routine kind of meetings should have the

    1261
    high privilege of diplomatic immunity? It used to be restricted, under a very old Act of Parliament, to ambassadors and their immediate servants. What is the reason for this extension of diplomatic immunity?
    Mr. Nutting: The first reason, of course, is the growth of international organisations. My hon. Friend will realise that it has been prodigious since the end of the war, and Her Majesty's Government have consistently advocated that the granting of privileges and immunities should be restricted to the minimum. But we have acceded to the Specialised Agencies Convention in respect of representatives of specialised agencies at the United Nations, and under that we are called upon to grant to anyone visiting this country to attend meetings of these international organisations the privileges and immunities specified in the Convention.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the answer of the Under-Secretary mean that a large number of British delegates will certainly receive these immunities abroad while probably a very small number will receive them here?
    Mr. Nutting: I would prefer not to specify whether the numbers will be large or small either way. What I want the House to realise is that full reciprocity will be granted.
    Sir H. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say why it is desirable that British subjects travelling abroad should have these immunities? Under what justification are they entitled to misbehave themselves?
    Mr. Nutting: I do not admit for one minute that British subjects travelling as representatives of this country will misbehave themselves. I think that is a most extraordinary suggestion. In addition, may I inform my hon. Friend that they are engaged in important diplomatic business and therefore should have the immunities corresponding to their duty.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that five of the Questions on the Order Paper are in identical terms to the Question of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), can the Under-Secretary say who sponsored or inspired them, and whether it was official or unofficial?
    Captain Duncan: Can my hon. Friend confirm that no British resident gets diplomatic immunity for meetings in this country?
    Mr. Nutting: Only United Kingdom citizens who are members of the secretariats of the organisations will receive immunities or privileges in this country, save in the case of the Council of Europe, where members of Parliament from this country attending as representatives of the Council of Europe Assembly will, of course, receive the same immunities and privileges as Members of Parliament receive anywhere in this country.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Which is none at all.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will furnish an estimate of the number of aliens and British subjects who, over the next five years, are likely to receive temporary immunity under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1954, and the corresponding estimate of the number of United Kingdom British subjects who will be granted similar immunity in other countries.
    Mr. Nutting: The number of persons who would receive temporary immunity under this Order is unlikely to exceed 20 in any one year. United Kingdom representatives and their staffs who qualify for temporary immunity while attending meetings of the Council abroad have, in the past, numbered about 40. I naturally cannot state whether the numbers will be the same in the future.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to prevent Communist agents coming to this country under this cover?
    Mr. Nutting: I can reassure my hon. Friend on two counts; first, that Her Majesty's Government take all the necessary precautions to ensure that Communist agents do not reach this country. In the second place, we have the additional safeguard that no Communist Government or State belong to the Council of Europe.

    KIDNAPPED DOCTOR, WEST BERLIN
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that all possible action is being taken to obtain the release of Dr. Trushnovich, who was kidnapped from West Berlin by the Russians on the night of 13th April, 1954.
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir.

    MRS. KHOKHLOVA (REPRESENTATIONS)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to enable Mrs. Khokhlova to rejoin her husband in West Germany.
    Mr. Nutting: As was stated yesterday in another place, there are no legal grounds on which Her Majesty's Government could make official representations in a case of this nature to the Soviet Government about a Soviet citizen. They hope, however, that the Soviet authorities will permit Mrs. Khokhlova and her child to join her husband.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the only crime that this man committed was to refuse to commit murder? If that is the case, surely Her Majesty's Government can make some sort of direct representation to the Soviet Government for the release of his wife and child?
    Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we have to proceed with a certain amount of caution and judgment in these matters. I should not wish to tie myself by any answer to a supplementary question given casually across the Floor of the House to any action which might prejudice the case of this woman.
    Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. While recognising that there is widespread interest in this Question, and that it is the sort of matter about which hon. Members would like to be informed, nevertheless, for the sake of future guidance, may we take it that it is now in order to ask Questions relating to matters which do not come directly within the province of the Foreign Office?
    Mr. Speaker: Ministers are the real judges of what comes within their province and what does not. A Minister
    1264
    can disclaim any responsibility by declining to answer a question. Sometimes it is difficult for the learned clerks at the Table and for myself to know exactly how far the responsibility of a Minister extends, particularly with regard to foreign affairs, with all these international associations.
    Mr. Stokes: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. Surely this comes within the Declaration of Human Rights to which we have all subscribed?
    Mr. Speaker: These are matters which have to be taken into consideration in gauging the extent of Ministerial responsibility.

    SUDAN (WHITE PAPER)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the transition in the Sudan.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Johnson: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask if he can confirm that the Umma Party have made vigorous protests to the Governor-General about the intervention by the Egyptian Government, particularly with regard to back benchers in the Sudan Government, and, in view of that, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think—by his answer I think he does—that it would be a good thing to enlighten the public about these matters and other things going on in Khartoum?
    Mr. Lloyd: It is true that a protest has been made by the Umma Party, and it may well be that a valuable way of deploying the facts would be through the medium of a White Paper.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA (ECONOMIC AID)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals of the Powers interested in South-East Asia for economic aid to the area.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The countries of South-East Asia are already receiving

    1265
    economic aid through the United Nations and under the Colombo plan. I am not aware that the Powers interested in the area are at present considering any fresh proposals for further aid.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister ensure, while discussions are going on among the Western Powers, that the fact is stressed that we are not only concerned about the defence of South-East Asia, but, as he has said, already we are giving great economic and technical aid and are prepared to give more?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the importance of the economic factors in the general settlement.

    ROUMANIA (SECRET TRIALS)
    Mr. McNeilasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that large numbers of Roumanian citizens have, after secret trial, been sentenced for legitimate activities arising from their membership of Jewish communities; that this is a violation of Article 3 of the Peace Treaty; and what steps he will take to ensure the fulfilment of the terms of the treaty.
    Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government have the fullest sympathy with the anxiety aroused in this country by current reports of trials of Jews in Roumania. Her Majesty's Government have however no details of these trials which were held in secret and are therefore unable to make either comment or representations regarding the reported charges or the sentences imposed. The Roumanian Government are, of course, already fully aware that successive British Governments have expressed their abhorrence of all forms of persecution.
    Mr. McNeil: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the normal obligation of heads of mission to find out all they can about these deplorable happenings? Does not he agree that he has an obligation to the House that he should let them know what he knows about these distressing happenings, which, of course, do not necessarily affect only one section of the community or only one religion?
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. Of course we shall pursue our inquiries into this matter and seek all the information we can get, but as the trials were held in secret that may be difficult. I shall certainly give the House all the information that the Government may be able to elicit.
    Mr. McNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he agree that whenever it is appropriate he will let the House have such information as he has? Further, will he agree that if his information confirms Press reports then the Government will take action, which it is obligatory upon them to take, to protest against these happenings?
    Mr. Nutting: I shall certainly consider the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. As to letting the House have full information, I will of course let them have all the information I can.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Cereals and Livestock (Deficiency Payments)
    Sir R. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he is now able to make a provisional and approximate estimate of the total cost to the Exchequer for a period of 12 months in connection with the actual prices secured for corn and livestock, and the minimum prices which the Government have guaranteed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): From the beginning of July, 1954, when the deficiency payments schemes come into operation, to the end of the current financial year the cost is estimated at £38·7 million and £34·7 million for cereals and livestock, respectively.

    Coffee
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Food the retail price of coffee immediately prior to decontrol.
    Dr. Hill: From 4s. 10d. to 6s. 2d. per lb.
    Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there has been a 50 per cent. increase since decontrol?
    Dr. Hill: There has been an increase; and there has been one in recent months due to a world shortage as a result of the disaster in Brazil last year.
    Mr. Lewis: Is not that exactly the kind of answer that we used to get from the previous Government? Were not this Government going to do better?
    Dr. Hill: To give such answers is usually, but not invariably, wrong.
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the intention to increase the price of coffee to 10s. per lb; and whether he will restore control of the price at a more reasonable level.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jeger: Would the hon. Gentleman pursue his researches a little further —but not quite as far as the replies that used to be given by the previous Government? Would he go back to the time when the decontrol of coffee was being put forward in this House, and would he recall the words used then, that the price could safely be left to competition and the trade? Would he regard the present terrific increase in price—the continued increases—as being satisfactory evidence of competition and decontrol?
    Dr. Hill: The recent increase in price is evidence of a serious disaster in Brazil which has resulted in a world shortage of coffee.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement regarding bulk purchase of coffee by his Department.
    Dr. Hill: I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) on 8th March and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 13th May.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are very glad to know that he has nothing to add? Would he give us the assurance that he has nothing to add to food prices?
    Dr. Hill: That comes strangely from the hon. Lady when one recalls what was added to food prices in the last year of her party's Government—18 per cent.

    Food Hygiene Regulations (Consultations)
    Dr. Broughtonasked the Minister of Food whether he has concluded his consultations with local authorities and representatives of the catering trade on the draft regulations to be issued by his Department under the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he has considered the submission of the National Caterers' Federation and other trade organisations regarding food hygiene regulations; and what action he is taking.
    Dr. Hill: In the light of suggestions made by the trade and other organisations on the first draft, revised heads of proposals have just been circulated to all these organisations for further comment.
    Dr. Broughton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the general secretary of the National Caterers' Federation appears to be uninterested in clean food and unmindful of the incidence of food poisoning, and is rushing about the country trying to create alarm and despondency in the catering trade? Is it true to say that this gentleman has succeeded in frightening the Government and that that is why the clean food Bill is being withheld from the House of Commons?
    Dr. Hill: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's early remarks, but I entirely dissent from the suggestion in the second part of his question that this gentleman has frightened the Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the public is no longer prepared to tolerate dirty food in dirty cafés, and will he make it clear to the National Caterers' Federation, and any other bodies opposed to the Government's plans, that the Government are resolutely determined to clean up things so far as the public supply of food is concerned?
    Dr. Hill: I share entirely the enthusiasm of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for cleaner food.
    Mr. F. Harris: Would my hon. Friend, therefore, carry that enthusiasm to the cafés of British Railways.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some anxiety now about this Bill? We appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's interest in it, and we ask him to use his good offices to see that it is among the first business to be considered when we return after the Whitsuntide Recess?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the question of the business before the House is one for the Leader of the House and not for me.
    Mr. Shinwell: In that case, why is the Leader of the House not present?

    Prices
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the cost-of-living index showed an increase between February and March in the prices of butter, cheese, eggs, tea, potatoes, tomatoes and cooking apples and, between March and April, further increases in cabbage, tomatoes and fish; and, in view of the importance of price stability to our national economy, if he will reconsider his decision to remove all controls.
    Dr. Hill: Even after the seasonal and other increases to which the hon. Member refers, the food section of the Index was in April at approximately the same level—within one-tenth of one point—as a year earlier. So high a degree of stability contrasts with the sharp rises during the last years of the previous Administration.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman keep these jokes for the pantomime season?

    Tea
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the announcement of further increases in the price of tea, he will reintroduce the price control of tea.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we have already had three price increases this year and that another price increase is in prospect while at the same time there has been an exceptional profit level for the tea trade? In view of this, would not he accept that there is a burden upon the Department to intervene?
    Dr. Hill: Price control at its present level would obviously not serve the hon. Gentleman's purpose. Price control at a lower level would mean a shortage of tea. To return to the position as it stood before the removal of the subsidy would mean, bearing in mind the increased consumption, a subsidy of £50 million, which would be equivalent to 3d. on the Income Tax.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the tea companies to see if they will pass on some of their increased dividends to the old-age pensioners?
    Dr. Hill: It is only fair to the tea companies to say that the increase in retail prices has not been ahead of, and indeed has not gone as far as the increase in auction prices.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the factors in this matter is the increase in wages which has taken place in south India, and that the proposals put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite would do the workers of that industry out of these increases in wages?

    Bulk Purchase Contracts
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement about the future policy of his Department regarding bulk purchase and long-term agreements for the procurement of essential foodstuffs.
    Dr. Hill: Yes, Sir. It is to restore the trade in foodstuffs to private enterprise whenever possible.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause some disturbance in the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that I am anxious to avoid introducing a controversial note in this matter, but that Government to Government understanding has become part of the pattern of Commonwealth trade? Will he try to avoid being too much impelled by doctrinnaire considerations in this matter?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman will realise that, where such arrangements have been brought to an end before the end of the contractual period, it has been with the full agreement and co-operation of the Governments concerned. There

    1271
    has been, and will be, no breaking of contracts entered into, except by full mutual agreement.

    U.S.A. Butter
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement about the proposed purchase of butter from the United States of America.
    Dr. Hill: I can add nothing at present to the reply I gave on 19th May to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In case the hon. Gentleman is still playing with the idea, will he bear in mind that grocers are now stocked up with more butter than the public can afford to buy, that their margarine costs less and tastes better than butter nowadays, and that this American butter is going bad so quickly that it will soon be fit for axle grease only? Do not touch it.
    Dr. Hill: I note the hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire that there should be less butter in the shops.

    Cold Storage Plant, Cardiff Docks
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Food what plans he has for the future management of the modern cold storage plant at Cardiff Docks; and if he will give an assurance that it will continue to be operated on a commercial basis.
    Dr. Hill: I cannot yet add to the reply given to him by my right hon. and gallant Friend on 17th May, except to say that the discussions with the industry are to open on 11th June.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister realise that the anxiety in Cardiff is a result of the fact that the Ministry will be handing over the purchase of meat and other products, and in the course of his discussions will he ask the meat trade to give an assurance that it will continue to use this cold store, as his Department has done?
    Dr. Hill: As the hon. Gentleman knows, at his suggestion there have been discussions, which are still going on, about the problem, and it will also be covered by the general discussions which are to open on 11th June.

    MALTA (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the present economic difficulties of Malta; and what further steps he proposes to relieve them.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The Malta Government has balanced its budget for the past two years and is not faced with serious immediate financial difficulties. But there is a difficult long-term economic problem, due fundamentally to overpopulation. This can only be solved by emigration. The Maltese delegation when here last week presented a programme for increasing emigration this year and a scheme for the vocational training of future migrants in the skills required in receiving countries. It was agreed that additional financial aid would be required for these purposes. As the detailed statement of the proposed assistance is long, I will, with the hon. and learned Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: While I thank the Minister for that answer, may I take it that he realises that Malta stands in a special position by reason not only of its geographical situation but also of its war service and that he will do everything possible to ameliorate its economic conditions?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we made a considerable grant—£475,000, if my memory serves me correctly—to aid emigration and to assist the Maltese Government in the present situation.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Government to join the Inter-Goevrnmental Committee on European Migration, which might do very much to help with the, emigration of Maltese at the present time?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
    Following is the statement:
    TERMS OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MALTA GOVERNMENT FOR EMIGRATION
    Her Majesty's Government welcomed the general lines of Malta's revised scheme of emigration for 1954–55 to cost £640,000 as set out in the Memorandum submitted by the Minister of Emigration. Two hundred thousand pounds towards this total is already available as a contribution from Her Majesty's Government in the Colonial Services Vote this year. Provided Malta meets from her own resources at least one-third of the total (i.e., £213,000) Her Majesty's Government is prepared to agree that the balance (i.e., a maximum of £227,000) should be met from the £475,000 paid over to Malta for general financial aid in 1952–53 and not used for that purpose.
    2. In order to satisfy the requirements of Parliament it will be necessary to seek Parliamentary authority for the issue of monies for the above purpose and for the Malta Government to refund to Her Majesty's Government a corresponding amount. The necessary supplementary estimate will be presented to Parliament in the very near future.
    3. Such portion of the sum of £475,000 as has not been expended by 31st March, 1955, for the purpose referred to above will be kept by the Maltese Government in a suspense account and further discussions will be held between Her Majesty's Government and the Maltese Government on the use of this money for additional expenditure on emigration in future years.
    4. Her Majesty's Government agrees in principle with the Malta Government's scheme for vocational training of prospective migrants as outlined in the Memorandum submitted by the Malta Government, and, subject to examination of the details of the proposal by I.L.O. or United Kingdom experts, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to provide up to £100,000 in approved capital expenditure for this scheme.
    As regards the recurrent costs estimated at £50,000 a year, Parliament has already been informed in a statement of 24th June, 1953, of the intention to ask them to allow the expenditure of funds available under the current Colonial Development and Welfare Act after 31st March, 1956, and Colonial Governments have already been told that they may proceed on this assumption.
    On this basis Her Majesty's Government agrees to provide up to £50,000 a year for the recurrent costs for the period until 31st March, 1960. For this scheme a supplementary allocation has been made to Malta of £400,000 under the present Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

    CYPRUS EARTHQUAKE (ASSISTANCE)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that more than £l½ million will
    1274
    be required to make good the loss and damage caused by the earthquake in Cyprus last September; that this sum will have to be taken from that island's general reserve fund unless help is forth-coming from Her Majesty's Treasury; that such a strain on the island's financial resources will retard its necessary economic development; that this is undesirable at the present time; and what steps he proposes to take to assist the island financially.
    Mr. Lyttelton: With the help of the grant of £500,000 which Her Majesty's Government are making towards the costs of reconstruction after the earth-quake, the Cyprus Government will have sufficient resources to complete their current 10-year development programme for the period up to 1956.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that so long as we remain responsible for Cyprus it is desirable to give it such aid as is possible, especially now, for not only economic but also political reasons?
    Mr. Lyttelton: As I told the hon. and learned Gentleman, we have already made a grant of £500,000, plus all the cost of the aid in kind provided by the Services. There is no evidence that the effects of the earthquake have retarded the development programme. Very shortly we shall be considering the Colonial Development and Welfare Act in relation to all these Colonial Territories.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Cyprus will have at least as favourable treatment as any other Colony suffering a national disaster?
    Mr. Lyttelton: We have already dealt with that. I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to judge of the generosity of the £500,000 which we have granted.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it not a fact that Cyprus is more prosperous today than it has ever been?

    GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will issue a White Paper indicating the

    1275
    Government's plans for the future constitutional development of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the statement made on 28th April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a plan should be stated well in advance in order to enable the Colony to make its own plans and to maintain consistency in constitutional policy?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little impatient. It was only on 28th April that a very full statement was made about the constitutional advances for the Gold Coast which were at that time described as the last before responsible self-government.

    COLONIAL EMPIRE (HELICOPTERS)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consideration has been given to the utilisation of helicopters in the Colonies for transport work, surveying, spraying and dusting of crops, forest fire patrols and many other uses; and if he will give consideration to the appointment of an aviation adviser.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The possibility of the use of helicopters for civil purposes in the Colonies has been kept under review. They are much more expensive than other types of aircraft. For reasons of safety, twin-engined helicopters would generally be required, but no twin-engined machines have yet been granted a certificate of airworthiness. In these circumstances, it is not considered that in the present state of their development it would be desirable to employ helicopters in the Colonies for the purposes mentioned by the hon. Member. As I can obtain technical advice from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply, it is neither necessary nor desirable that I should have a separate aviation adviser.
    Mr. Dodds: What a shocking answer to give about helicopters. Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a firm in this country which has been using helicopters for spraying for the last eight years? Does he not appreciate
    1276
    that in America the Post Office has made 40,000 flights from the top of a building in Chicago without any trouble? Does he not know that the Royal Navy has been using helicopters to bring wounded out of the Malayan jungle? Will he not get up to date? Does he still think he does not want an adviser?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman seems more eager to impart information than to elicit it.

  KENYA

    Teachers
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many education officers in Kenya have been seconded for rehabilitation work amongst those Kikuyu prisoners who have been placed in detention camps.
    Mr. Coldrickasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many out-standing vacancies there are in each of the African, Asian and European divisions of the education department of Kenya for European teachers; how many European teachers have been seconded or transferred from each of these divisions to the police, prisons or army; and when these teachers will be returned to their normal teaching duties.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The numbers of vacancies for male teachers in the three divisions are 16, 2 and 11, respectively. Ten teachers have been seconded to the Prisons Department for combined administrative and educational duties in emergency detention camps, but all of these should return to duty with the Education Department by the end of August. Two others have been called up for full-time duties with the Kenya Police Reserve, and it is not now possible to say when they will return to their normal teaching duties.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a body of opinion in the Colony which is opposed to this kind of action? Does he think that when we are building a multi-racial society it is a particularly good thing to take away key teachers from, for example, the Alliance High School and other good secondary schools in the Colony?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot agree that it is reactionary to draft into the emergency

    1277
    detention camps 10 teachers who will be returned to the Education Department by the end of August. It seems a sensible measure to take.
    Mr. Alpert: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that, important though rehabilitation in the detention camps is, it is even more important to ensure educational progress in the Kikuyu Reserve itself? Does he consider that the personnel who are available to supervise educational work in the Kikuyu Reserve are sufficient for the purpose?
    Mr. Lyttelton: That raises another question. As I have said, the secondment is only temporary. Of course, permanent education is more important than temporary measures.

    Wattle Bark Regulations
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions apply to the granting of permits to Africans for the growing and cutting of wattle bark in Kenya.
    Mr. Lyttelton: There are no restrictions on growing wattle, but in certain areas no bark may be stripped except under permit and between certain dates in the year.
    Mr. Craddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is information to the effect that loyal Africans were allowed to strip this bark before the war, but that the restrictions apply to those who are not regarded as loyal Africans, and will he say why?
    Mr. Lyttelton: If the hon. Member has any information on that matter, I shall be glad to look into it, but I would remind him that these regulations in regard to stripping the bark apply to all races, and that they only seek to prevent the trees being stripped when they are not fit to be stripped, and to enable inspection for quality before sale.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement of Mr. Michael Blundell upon this matter, and will he not look into his information again?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have said that if the hon. Gentleman has any information which he wants me to look into, I shall be very glad to do so.

    Anti-Mau Mau Incentives
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what new positive incentives he is offering to induce Africans, and particularly the Kikuyu peoples, to support the Government of Kenya against the Mau Mau conspiracy.
    Mr. Lyttelton: In broad outline, these include the intensification of African agricultural development, the provision of funds to help African traders, special grants for training and educational institutions, better housing and recreational facilities and increased wages. In the Kikuyu areas, greater confidence is being created by the protection afforded by villages and the support and assistance given to loyalists and their families.
    Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister agree that, in the final analysis, this would be the only way which will win over to us the better elements of the African population, and will he please pursue this to his fullest ability, in contradistinction to some other measures which are not quite so helpful in the present Kenya situation?
    Mr. Lyttelton: We have to restore law and order, but I agree with the hon. Member that, if we look at the long-term aspect of the matter, it is the sort of subjects which I have mentioned in my reply which are essential if we are to return to normal conditions.

    Death Sentences
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans in Kenya have been sentenced to capital punishment during the last 12 months; how many of these sentences have been carried out; and on what charges these Africans have been sentenced.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Five hundred and sixty-six and 289, respectively, in the 12 months up to 30th April. The charges were:

    Murder

    268

    Unlawful possession of arms, ammunition and explosives

    204

    Consorting with terrorists

    58

    Administering unlawful oaths

    27

    Acting with intent to further terrorism

    9

    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the great disquiet regarding these death

    1279
    sentences, whether he has seen the leading article in "The Times" of 6th May on this matter, and whether there have not been cases in which influence has brought about the release of certain men, while other men in exactly the same circumstances have been sentenced to death?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I do not accept in any way the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question implying that certain influences are at work. Of course, the prerogative of mercy has been used, and certain appeals have been allowed, but this has nothing to do with influence. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, what is deplorable is that there have been so many cases of breaking the law.

    Public Works Projects
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what public work projects are proposed for detainees in Kenya undergoing rehabilitation; and how far African representative bodies are being consulted in the choice of such projects.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Irrigation, re-afforestation, soil conservation, bush clearing and road building are examples of such projects. They are prepared in consultation with African district councils.

    GILBERT ISLANDS (PACIFIC BOMB TESTS)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied, in view of the fact that the inhabitants of two atolls in the Marshall Islands have suffered from the effects of nuclear-fission bomb experiments in the Pacific, that these experiments are unlikely to cause harm to Her Majesty's subjects in the Northern Gilbert Islands; and what action he is taking in this matter.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am informed by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific that no harm has been caused to British subjects in the Northern Gilbert Islands. Her Majesty's Government have already been in touch with the American authorities, who have informed them that tests are not carried out when there is any danger of the radio-active cloud drifting southwards.
    Mr. Iremonger: Has my right hon. Friend given consideration to the fact that it was obviously not envisaged by the American Government that any harm would be done to the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands? Will he also bear in mind the fact that the frigate birds and the fish which they catch and the other fish which the Gilbert Islanders catch travel vast distances over the Pacific Ocean, and that the interests of those people ought also to be seriously considered?
    Mr. Lyttelton: The Gilbert Islands are very much further away from the testing ground than the Marshall Islands. The nearest British island is 450 miles away. My hon. Friend will no doubt like to know that this series of tests has been concluded.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about any thermo-nuclear fission now taking place in the Conservative Party?

  SINGAPORE

    Students' Demonstration
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the incident which occurred in Singapore on 13th May in which 35 schoolchildren were injured when the police made a baton charge on 1,100 students as they were going to give moral support to a delegation which was going to interview the Governor; what was the cause of the disturbance; and if he will hold a public inquiry into the methods used to disperse these students.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Pupils in two Singapore schools petitioned for exemption from registration for National Service on the ground that this service would interrupt their studies. The Acting Governor agreed to receive a deputation, but it failed to keep the appointment. Instead, a crowd of some 500 pupils (mostly between 16 and 18 years of age) assembled to demonstrate and refused to disperse. The police then dispersed them with the minimum of force and without using batons.
    Later, about 100 re-assembled and began to stone the police, who broke

    1281
    them up with a baton charge. Forty-nine were arrested and have been charged with obstructing the police. Eleven of the arrested students suffered minor injuries. I am satisfied that the police used the minimum of force that was necessary, and the answer to the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware of the bitterness created in Singapore over the attack by the police on these young people, and will he reconsider his decision not to hold a public inquiry into the whole position?
    Mr. Lyttelton: No, I will not reconsider the decision, nor will I—
    Mr. Alport: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make a statement accusing the police in a Crown Colony such as Singapore of making an attack upon a number of school children in that Colony?
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members make themselves responsible for their statements.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I was about to say, when my hon. Friend intervened, that to describe this as an attack seems to me to be a very tendentious way of describing an incident in which the police were being stoned by 100 students.
    Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that five young people were injured in this attack? How could they have been injured if they were not attacked by the police?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid the hon. Member is misinformed on this matter.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that newspapers have already published pictures of the police batoning these young students, and, if he saw them and the way they were being batoned in the streets, surely he would not say that no force was used?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I did not say there was no force used. I have said that there was a baton charge, and, in my Answer, I said there were 11 of the arrested students who suffered minor injuries, but that no student was admitted to or treated in any hospital as a result of the incident.

    Civil Service Regulations (Dismissals)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the concern of the Government Employee's Union in Singapore over the new regulations for the dismissal of pensionable civil servants on the grounds of temperamental unsuitability or other defect of character; that these regulations, which were drafted without consultation with the trade union and which are now before the legislative council, are open to abuse on political or other grounds; and if he will take steps to withdraw them until consultation has taken place.
    Mr. Lyttelton: The purpose of the new regulations, which are of general application and have no special reference to Singapore, is to make it possible for pensions to be granted to officers who may be retired in circumstances which do not warrant dismissal and are not covered by the term "general inefficiency." The representations referred to have been made in connection with the introduction of consequential legislation in Singapore. They are evidently due to a misunderstanding which I hope has now been cleared up by the full explanation given during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Mr. Awbery: Will the Minister give an assurance that, if changes of this character are made in future, the union will be consulted before they are brought about?
    Mr. Lyttelton: On this particular matter, the Colonial Government and the Colonial Civil Servants' Association were not consulted before the regulations were changed, but Governments are free to decide whether or not they will enact legislation without which the change would have no practical effect in the particular territory. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the object of the Regulations is to be of benefit to the public service, and not to its detriment.

    GAMBIA (YUNDUM FARM EXPERIMENT)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any fuller report on the work done and

    1283
    experiments carried out at the Yundum Farm in the Gambia than that which appears in the report on the Colonial Development Corporation.
    Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir. I am placing in the Library a note summarising my information on the subject.

    NIGERIA (PROCESSING OF OIL SEEDS)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what policy has been decided upon by the Nigerian Government concerning the processing of oil seeds in Nigeria.
    Mr. Lyttelton: None as yet, Sir. A conference on this matter was convened in Lagos last month by the Minister of Commerce and Industries. The conference made agreed recommendations which will be considered by the Council of Ministers.

    NYASALAND (LAND ACQUISITION)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish as a White Paper, or place in the Library of the House, the evidence which persuaded him that he should negotiate with some of the larger estate owners in Nyasaland for the State acquisition of their land.
    Mr. Lyttelton: I have placed in the Library copies of the Report of the 1946 Land Commission and of the subsequent Planning Commission, study of which had led me towards conclusions which were confirmed by inspection on the ground.
    Mr. Hughes: Will not the right hon. Gentleman develop these resources, so that he can come to the conclusion that the acquisition of land for national purposes is essential to the development of civilisation?
    Mr. Lyttelton: Nobody has ever supposed that the acquisition of certain land was not necessary for development. We are talking about the acquisition of about 4 per cent. of the total area of land in Nyasaland.

    ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH (DISMISSAL)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    74. Mr. STOKES: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in view of the statements made in the Official Naval History of the War about the dismissal of Admiral Sir Dudley North from the command of the North Atlantic station in 1940 and the publicity recently given to it, he will now grant the demand for a court martial or public inquiry made in 1940 by Admiral Sir Dudley North, but then refused by the Admiralty.
    At the end of Questions:
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, perhaps I might answer this Question.
    No, Sir. Admiral Sir Dudley North was relieved because he no longer had the confidence of the Admiralty. He was, of course, given an opportunity to explain his conduct and the main facts were not in dispute. No court-martial or board of inquiry could then (or could now) have affected the loss of confidence. The Admiralty has a right to relieve an officer in such circumstances without further formality, and did so. It will not be overlooked that the Official History brings out the fact that there was evidence that confidence in Admiral North had, earlier, been shaken. In time of war, above all, it is essential that the Admiralty should have unfettered discretion to employ or to refuse to employ officers of any rank in accordance with the degree of confidence which they have in them.
    Mr. Stokes: When the First Lord says that Admiral Sir Dudley North was given an opportunity to explain, does he mean the rather short-tempered exchange of letters which took place between the Admiral and the Admiralty? Is that what he means?
    Mr. Thomas: Admiral North was asked to explain, and was entitled to explain at any length he liked.
    Mr. Stokes: That answer is entirely inadequate, in my opinion, from what I have seen. What does the First Lord say to the fact that last May no fewer than five full Admirals of the Fleet made

    1285
    representations to him in this matter, asking for an inquiry? Will he tell the House why he refused the inquiry?
    Mr. Thomas: It is perfectly true that five Admirals of the Fleet came to see me last year. Their primary object was to ask for an inquiry, hoping that this might avoid unwelcome publicity for the Navy and discussion in Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I told them I could not yield on the issue of lack of confidence in Admiral North and that I was prepared to face the publicity.
    Mr. Callaghan: Having regard to the fact that the lack of confidence in Admiral North was the result of the expression of his views about the treatment of the French Fleet at Oran, and the fact that his views on that subject were shared by many other people, does the First Lord think it is fair to bring that into account at this stage? Would not the First Lord agree that the signals that passed between Admiral Somerville and Admiral North were lacking in clarity? In order to enable us to make up our minds, would the First Lord consider at least publishing the instructions that were sent out when Force H was set up?
    Mr. Thomas: I will certainly go into that latter question. So far as bringing in the question of Oran is concerned, I think I am fair to do so, as that was one of the reasons taken into consideration by my predecessor the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time and by the First Lord of the Admiralty since then. As for bringing about increasing lack of confidence in Admiral North, I think I am justified on this occasion in mentioning that fact.
    Mr. Callaghan: Admiral Sir James Somerville, who commanded Force H at the time, made representations about the War Cabinet's instructions on the treatment of the French Fleet at Oran. He did exactly the same thing as Admiral North did when the French Fleet passed Gibraltar. Why single out Admiral North when Admiral Somerville, who is no longer with us and whose name is, in my view, very rightly unsullied, did the same thing? Does not the First Lord see that there is a differentiation in the treatment of these two men?
    Mr. Thomas: The Admiralty may well have thought the same about Admiral Somerville at that time. At a later date
    1286
    Admiral North caused further lack of confidence at the Admiralty and Admiral Somerville did not. As far as the signal goes, I do not want to say anything further which would be grievous to Admiral North, who I know naturally takes these things very much to heart. The signals from the Admiralty and from the Naval Attaché in Madrid reached Admiral North just after midnight on 10th September.* I am sorry to say that Admiral North took no action, knowing the French were on the move and not knowing whether they were going to occupy French ports or North African ports. He took no activity for bringing on at short notice the steaming of his ships, nor did he pass that signal to Admiral Somerville until 8 o'clock that morning.
    Mr. Stokes: This is quite preposterous.
    Sir R. Acland: On a point of order. No doubt your permission was asked that this Question should be answered out of turn, Mr. Speaker. Could the House know why, after 14 years, it is so important to have all this personal muck-raking brought out in public today? Could we not have waited a few weeks more until the Admiralty came to the top of the list for Questions?
    Mr. Speaker: In allowing the Question to be asked after time I thought it was, on the whole, in the interests of hon. Members that the Question should be asked. In justice to the House, I could not permit it to develop into a debate on events on which everyone's memory must by now be a little cloudy. There is always the risk of doing an injustice to someone in the matter. Might I ask that hon. Members who have an interest in the matter should try to arrange another occasion when the matter could be dealt with? I could not allow a debate on the matter.
    Mr. Stokes: I do not wish to continue the debate, but the First Lord's answer is quite preposterous. Is he not aware that the signals passed were not a bit as he described them, not a bit? I have seen them. This is not a thing that I can deal with at Question time, but can the First Lord explain why the present Prime Minister in his own history of the war today says that the
    *See reply to Question 47, c. 1954, Vol. 528.

    1287
    mistake occurred because of the duty officer at the Admiralty and for the mistake he received in due course the expression of their Lordships displeasure. That is all he got, while Admiral North got the sack. Does the First Lord consider that justice?
    Mr. Thomas: The officer who made the mistake at the Admiralty was relieved of his post.
    Mr. Speaker: We shall have to leave it there.
    Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that I am coming back to this matter very often.

DEPORTATIONS IN THE EMPIRE
Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that no British subject or protected person shall be deported from, or rusticated in, British Colonies, Protectorates or Trusteeship Territories without a preceding trial.
I ask approval for this Motion with confidence, for three reasons. The first is that the purpose of the Bill has been the stated aim of the Colonial Office since 1951. The second reason is that the purpose of the Bill represents the principles of British law which do not allow punishment without trial. No British subject can now be deported from this country. Even at the time of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, trial preceded transportation. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for the ugly word "rustication" but it is the Colonial Office word for the detention of persons in distant and isolated places. In this country detention is not permitted without trial, except in the very exceptional circumstances of war.
The third reason is that the Bill represents a principle of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9, of which says that no one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Nevertheless, although this is the stated aim of the Colonial Office, although it is the principle of our law, and although we have accepted this principle in the Declaration of Human Rights, deportations without trial continue in the Colonies.
I submit to the House that it is intolerable that in British territories practices should be carried out which have been rejected in our own territory. This is not only a matter of Seretse Khama or the Kabaka, or of those who are better known. There are other men, equally patriotic in their motives, who do not come into the limelight and who suffer from this practice.
One recent case is that of Mr. Kiwanuka, the Vice-President of the National Congress in Uganda. He was first charged with publishing a seditious article. Against the desires of the prosecution, he was allowed out on bail. Two days later, he is again arrested under a

1289
special ordinance and kept in detention until his trial, when his trial comes, he is not sentenced to imprisonment, but only to a fine. Thereupon he is arrested under emergency laws, transported to the northern regions of Uganda, and is still detained there without any public charge having been made against him or without having had a public trial.
I venture to say that if any British subject in this country had been treated as Mr. Kiwanuka has been treated in Uganda, the whole of the British Press, Conservative no less than Liberal and Labour, would have protested against that repudiation of the principles of British justice. My Bill would prohibit deportations or rustication without trial except under circumstances of war or of violent strife.
I am introducing this Motion today because of impatience with the long delay of applying principles which the Colonial Office adopted three years ago. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was our Colonial Secretary. In a debate on 8th March, 1951, he stated that he had begun consultations with the Governors and hoped to make a statement. Unfortunately, shortly after that debate, the Government were defeated, and that statement has not been made until this day.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly was modest in his statement to the House of what he had done. The present Colonial Secretary, 18 months later, on 22nd October, 1952, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. R. Robinson), said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly had
"asked Colonial Governments which had not already done so to provide by legislation that judicial process should normally be obligatory before a British subject or British protected person is deported from or rusticated within the territory."
He added:
"Most Governors have agreed and correspondence is proceeding in the outstanding Cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 119-20.]
That was 18 months after the correspondence had begun, but, nevertheless, the reply was encouraging. The statement was that most Colonial Governors had agreed. No further information was available until 15 months later and then
1290
the Colonial Office announced a retreat upon this issue. On 9th February, 1954, Lord Winster, in another place, asked what progress was being made. The Earl of Munster, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, replied, and all he could say was this:
"My right hon. Friend has received replies from Colonial Governments to certain questions addressed to them, and the points involved, which are numerous and complex, are under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th February, 1954; Vol. 185, c. 780.]
October, 1952, most Governors had agreed. February, 1954, the Colonial Governments had replied to certain questions, and these were under consideration.
I am asking the House to give me leave to introduce this Bill because, in my view, the time has come when we should not accept further delay upon this issue. The Government have shilly-shallied through-out 1952, throughout 1953 and throughout half of 1954. It is time that the House ended this dishonour in our Territories, and I submit this Motion so that that may be achieved.
Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am sure that the House requires no reference to the Declaration of Human Rights to express its detestation of the idea of deportation or rustication orders being made without some kind of judicial inquiry first. Of course, we all hate it. But I am rising to ask the House not to give the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) leave to introduce his Bill for a very good reason, because I believe that to do so would be to do grave harm to a cause which I am quite certain that he and I, and the whole House, hold high.
I do not want to fall into difficulties about the word "trial." I notice that in the hon. Member's Question for Written answer today, No.7, he has used the words "judicial process." I should like to adopt that phrase, if I may, because throughout the Colonies we have no form of trial which would do for universal application. It is better to call it "judicial inquiry" or "judicial process," by which I mean a place to which an independent person—or persons—comes, examines the evidence and weighs it up. That is what I think we ought to have before a deportation order is made.
If that is the way we feel about it, I see not the slightest reason why we should suppose that our colleagues in

1291
colonial legislatures do not also feel like that about it. There is no reason to belive that they lose their ordinary instincts of justice simply because they serve in a colonial legislature. I do not believe that they do.
The fact is, of course, that I do not know what the answer is to be to the hon. Member's Written Question. But I do know, because it is possible to find out, that the normal feature in colonial legislatures at present is to provide by legislation for a judicial inquiry before a deportation order is made. Of course, there are exceptions and every kind of variation, but it is now true to say that the normal thing is for a judicial inquiry to precede an order by legislative requirement.
The reason why I believe that the House would be ill-advised to give leave to introduce this Bill is purely this. The colonial legislatures, working in circumstances of varying difficulties, have only, in the course of time, made their own laws and legal provisions about their security, of which this matter is one. I think it would have the worst kind of result if we were to attempt, by the action of this House, suddenly and without full consultation, to override in different circumstances the views of all these legislatures. I believe that that would be a grossly retrograde step against all we seek to do.
Ever since the middle of the 19th century, at all events, the path we have all sought to follow has been that we should not legislate for self-governing legisla-
tures without first getting their consent. We hoped that as colonial government went forward more and more countries would be brought into that category. This House should not seek to act in a retrograde manner by dictating, without consultation with those colonial Governments, what should be done.
It might be asked, "Why divide?" We all know that a Bill introduced under this rule at this stage has prospects probably not so good as those of an outsider in the division of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale)—
Mr. Frederick Lee: An outsider has won it, anyway.
Mr. Hylton-Foster: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We all admire the spirit of "Never Say Die" about these things.
The risk is there. We know how remote may be the prospects of such a Bill, but the audience to which we speak about these matters is a very large one and contains a large number of people who do not know the truth of the matter. I believe that it would be a thoroughly bad example if it went forth to the Colonial Empire peoples that in this House, without consultation with them, we are prepared to introduce a Bill to redirect their own legislative measures about security.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.
The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 198.

Division No. 134.]

AYES

[3.50 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Champion, A. J.

Follick, M.

Awbery, S. S.

Chapman, W. D.

Foot, M. M.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Chetwynd, G. R.

Forman, J. C.

Bartley, P.

Clunie, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Bence, C. R.

Coldrick, W.

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

Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

Collick, P. H.

Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Blackburn, F.

Cove, W. G.

Granfall, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Blenkinsop, A.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Grey, C. F.

Blyton, W. R.

Crosland, C. A. R.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Boardman, H.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Grimond, J.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Daines, P.

Hale, Leslie

Bowden. H. W.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

Brookway, A. F.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hannan, W.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Deer, G.

Hargreaves, A.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Dodds, N. N.

Hastings, S.

Burke, W. A.

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

Hayman, F. H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Edelman, M.

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Herbison, Miss M.

Callaghan, L. J.

Fernyhough, E.

Holman, P.

Carmichael, J.

Fienburgh, W.

Holt, A. F.

Houghton, Douglas

Mason, Roy

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

Hoy, J. H.

Mellish, R. J.

Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Messer, Sir F

Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Mikardo, Ian

Sorensen, R. W.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Monslow, W.

Sparks, J. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Moody, A. S.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

Hynd, J. B. (Altercliffe)

Morley, R.

Sylvester, G. O.

Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Mort, D. L.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Janner, B.

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

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

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

Oldfield, W. H.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Oliver, G. H.

Thornton, E.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena

Oswald, T.

Timmons, J.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

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

Wade, D. W.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Warbey, W. N.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Pannell, Charles

Watkins, T. E.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Pargiter, G. A.

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

Keenan, W.

Parkin, B. T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Kenyon, C.

Pearson, A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Popplewell, E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

King, Dr. H. M.

Porter, G.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Lawson, G. M.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Proctor, W. T.

Wilkins, W. A.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Pryde, D. J.

Willey, F. T.

Lewis, Arthur

Rankin, John

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Logan, D. G.

Reeves, J.

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

MacColl, J. E.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Willis, E. G.

McGovern, J.

Rhodes, H.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

McInnes, J.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Roberts, Goronwy Caernarvon)

Wyatt, W. L.

McLeavy, F.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Yates, V. F.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Royle, C.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Short, E. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Manuel, A. C.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson and

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Miss Lee.

NOES

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

Drewe, Sir C.

Kerr, H. W.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Duthie, W. S.

Lambton, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Arbuthnot, John

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

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

Erroll, F. J.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Banks, Col. C.

Finlay, Graeme

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Barlow, Sir John

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Low, A. R. W.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Fort, R.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Birch, Nigel

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Bishop, F. P.

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

McAdden, S. J.

Black, C. W.

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McKibbin, A. J.

Bossom, Sir A. C.

Glover, D.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

Godber, J. B.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Gough, C. F. H.

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bullard, D. G.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Burden, F. F. A.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Marples, A. E.

Campbell, Sir David

Heath, Edward

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Carr, Robert

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

Cary, Sir Robert

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Mellor, Sir John

Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Molson, A. H. E.

Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Moore, Sir Thomas

Cole, Norman

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Colegate, W. A.

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Nabarre, G. D. N.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Neave, Airey

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Horobin, I. M.

Nicholls, Harmar

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Crouch, R. F.

Hurd, A. R.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

Nutting, Anthony

Davidson, Viscountess

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Oakshott, H. D.

Deedes, W. F.

Iremonger, T. L.

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

Donner, Sir P. W.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Osborne, C.

Drayson, G. B.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Peyton, J. W. W.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Turton, R. H.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Scott, R. Donald

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Shepherd, William

Vane, W. M. F.

Pitman, I. J.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Vosper, D. F.

Powell, J. Enoch

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Snadden, W. McN.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Speir, R. M.

Wall, Major Patrick

Profumo, J. D.

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

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Stevens, Geoffrey

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Ramsden, J. E.

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

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Watkinson, H. A.

Redmayne, M.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Wellwood, W.

Renton, D. L. M.

Studholme, H. G.

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

Robertson, Sir David

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Robson-Brown, W.

Teeling, W.

Wills, G.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Roper, Sir Harold

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

Repner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Russell, R. S.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Mr. Hylton-Foster and

Ryder, Capt. R E. D.

Turner, H. F. L.

Mr. Alport.

DEPORTATIONS IN THE EMPIRE
  ORDERS OF THE DAY
    HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.
    HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

      Clause 1.—(PROPOSALS FOR EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AS TO CLEARANCE AREAS, ETC.)
      4.2 p.m.
      Mr. A. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert:
      "similar copies shall be available on sale to the public at reasonable cost."
      This Amendment was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) during the Committee stage; the Lord Advocate said that he would look into the point, and, therefore, I do not propose to waste time discussing it. We should like to know whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State has any report to make to the House.
      The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The right hon. Gentleman is correct. His right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) raised this matter in Committee, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate undertook that the Government would consult the local authorities on the matter. Consultation did take place on 2nd April, and the local authority associations gave an assurance that copies would be available free of charge to members of the public, including hon. Members, of course, who cared to ask for them. The feeling of the associations was that it was not a matter where there should be the expense of printing and that they would make the facilities available. In those circumstances, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
      Mr. Hector McNeil: I do not wish to pursue what is not a major point. I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his reply. I wonder if he would agree to consult the associations on the next appropriate occasion and see whether they would advertise on each occasion that such facilities would be provided.
      1298
      I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has suggested an attractive halfway house, and, provided that the members of the public are aware of the facilities, I would regard this proposal as reasonable. I do not ask him to give such an assurance offhand—the matter will obviously require consideration—but if the local authorities will undertake to make copies available to interested members of the public, and if, on each occasion, they will advertise the availability of such copies, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment.
      Commander Galbraith: I will see that that matter is considered when a suitable occasion arises.
      Mr. Woodburn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 2.—(POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO RETAIN FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPATION CERTAIN HOUSES IN CLEARANCE AREAS.)
      Mr. James McInnes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38. after "authority," to insert:
      "without undue postponement of the clearance of the area."
      I have tabled this Amendment as a result of the undertaking by the Minister that it would be welcomed if it were made in the line preceding the one to which it was originally moved. I presume that the Minister will now accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) is quite right. Now that the Amendment has been moved in what we believe to be the correct place, I have much pleasure in accepting it.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 7.—(RECOVERY BY LESSEES OF PROPORTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RENDERING HOUSES FIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION.)
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, at the end, to insert:
      Provided that no sum shall be recoverable under this subsection unless the lessee or his agent within seven days after the service of

      1299
      such notice as aforesaid gave written intimation to the lessor of the service of the notice and of the purport thereof.
      The position at the moment is that where the immediate landlord is a lessee and is called upon by the local authority to carry out repairs, he can recover part of the cost from the lessor. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said in Committee that it did not seem to him altogether fair that someone should be called upon to pay money without having notice of it, and I thought it was the general conclusion of the Committee that it would be fair to make provision for cases of this kind. Accordingly, by this Amendment the lessor must be in formed that he will be liable for some of the expenses if the lessee is to recover.
      Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: I wish to express my thanks to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary for the way in which he has met the views that some of us expressed in Committee. I am very gratified that he has accepted the suggestion that we then made.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 10.—(AMENDMENTS OF PART VII OF PRINCIPAL ACT.)
      The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde): I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, to leave out" a period equal to the period," and to insert:
      "whichever is the shorter of the following two periods, that is to say—
      (a) thirty years; or
      (b) a period equal to that."
      This is a drafting Amendment which involves no change in the meaning of the Clause. The object of the Amendment is to adjust the drafting of the subsection so that there will be no doubt that it comes into operation only in the case where the estimated life of the house is less than 30 years.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McInnes: I beg to move, in page 10, line 1, to leave out subsection (6).
      The purpose of Clause 10 (6) is to amend subsection (1) of Section 114 of the principal Act, and this also links up with paragraph (i) of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 111 of the principal
      1300
      Act. The principal Act lays down certain conditions and requirements which must be observed before an applicant can qualify for an improvement grant. First, he must either be an owner or a lessee under a lease of which a period of not less than 30 years remains unexpired, and where the conditions will apply for not less than 20 years.
      The Bill seeks to reduce the period of 20 years to 10 years. During the Committee stage we endeavoured to ascertain from the Government why they desired to reduce the period. The Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that it was conceivable that a local authority might desire to demolish such a house because of some road widening scheme or some planning requirement. If that is the intention, the Bill does not make it clear. All it says upon the matter is that this may be done
      "as the local authority may determine."
      No conditions of any kind are laid down.
      If that is the position any local authority may, after 10 years, relieve an individual of all his obligations under the improvement grant arrangement. In these circumstances, he could dispose of his house and cash in at the expense of the State, and in the process he would escape his responsibility of repaying the improvement grant plus compound interest. Hon. Members on this side of the House feel that a Clause of this kind might encourage a racket; indeed, during the Committee stage we pointed out all our anxieties and all the dangers that were attendant upon the Clause.
      The right hon. Gentleman himself was not too happy about the Clause. He said:
      "I do not pretend that I, too, do not meet similar difficulties in working out some of the necessarily complicated references to the principal Act. … I think I am correct in saying that there is no alteration in that condition,"—
      that is, that a repaired house could not be sold.
      "If that is not correct, I will see that either my right hon. and gallant Friend or myself provide the right hon. Gentleman with the correct information as soon as possible."
      Later, he said:
      "The intention of the subsection is as I have stated. It would cover only a case where a house would not be retained in occupation for 20 years because of some road widening or other town planning scheme. I readily give

      1301
      an assurance that I will look at it very carefully again to ensure that the point about which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed anxiety is, in fact, covered and that such cases as he has mentioned could not slip through unobserved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1954; c. 425–7.]
      I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the matter again. If so, what has he discovered? Does he agree with us that such cases as we have indicated will slip through and that the Clause lends itself to all forms of abuse? If he has come to the same conclusion that we have, I assume that he will agree to the Amendment.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. A. C. Manuel: I beg to second the Amendment.
      After the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the deletion of this subsection, or, at any rate, agree that the matter should not be left in its present position. It seems a ridiculous proposition to substitute 10 years for 20 years in this case, when the only reason for the change is that within a 20-year period a local authority may want to carry out a road widening scheme. If something of that nature was going to be required, the Government could surely have dealt with the matter by incorporating some provision, other than that contained in subsection (6), giving a local authority the right, in individual cases, to demolish a house after a shorter period, if necessary.
      This provision seems to be some kind of a dodge to allow money to be paid out to many more people than have been paid out hitherto, and to protect property upon which money ought not to be spent. Public money will be granted in many cases where, under the principal Act, owners would not have qualified. I hope that we can have an assurance that the public purse will be safeguarded. If the Secretary of State is worried at the thought that schemes of local authorities may be retarded, all he needs to do is to give power to local authorities to take action in individual cases where street widening or anything of a similar character is involved.
      Mr. J. Stuart: I should like at once to assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) and the hon.
      1302
      Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that I did go into this matter after it was raised with a view to satisfying myself that we were not embarking on a dangerous course, and also that I gave the correct interpretation of the object and effect of subsection (6). I hope the House will accept my assurance that the explanation I gave during the Committee stage was correct.
      If hon. Members care to turn to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee they will find the whole debate set out in columns 424 to 427. As I said then:
      "… subsection (6) … aims at ensuring that, where the life of the house is less than 20 years, the conditions of grant shall apply for such shorter period as the local authority may determine, as long as it is not less than 10 years. The purpose of the subsection is to remove an obvious anomaly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 11th March, 1954; c. 425-6.]
      If we were to omit the subsection we should be retaining the condition that the house should be used for 20 years as a dwelling, so that if it were demolished for road widening or other improvement purposes earlier than that the applicant would find himself in the wrong, and if the local authority desired to do so it could demand repayment of the appropriate portion of the improvement grant. I agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire that we must safeguard the public purse, and I would point out that this subsection will operate only in very exceptional circumstances. The House may be assured that there is no danger of any dirty work in the matter. [Laughter.] I was trying to think of the right term
      Mr. Manuel: That one is all right.
      Mr. Stuart: I hope it is not unparliamentary. The House can rest assured that there will be no funny business. I hope that with that assurance hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment.
      Mr. Woodburn: The Secretary of State has not made the matter clear yet. The cases he has outlined seem to me to be covered quite well by Section 114 (2, b. ii) of the principal Act, which says:
      "if the local authority are satisfied that the breach, although not capable of being remedied, was not due to the act, default or connivance of the owner of the dwelling, they may, with the like consent and subject to such

      1303
      conditions as aforesaid, direct that the said provisions shall not have effect in relation to the breach."
      The purpose of that paragraph was to see that nobody cashed in on the grants given for improvements, that nobody was able to make any profit by selling a house at an increased price a few years after the improvements. A limit was put in. If, before the end of that time, someone wanted to get rid of the conditions, he could do so by repaying the loan. It seems to us that this subsection of the Bill quite unnecessarily permits the coming to an end of the conditions in half the time, in 10 years instead of 20. We do not think that any of the cases suggested by the Secretary of State are not covered by that proviso.
      I should like him to give us a further explanation of the kind of case that would not be covered. He said there was an anomaly, and that if a local authority demolished a house for the sake of a road improvement the local authority must be satisfied that the breach was not due to an "act, default or connivance" of the owner of the dwelling, but no local authority in its senses would say that it was due to the owner, if the local authority demolished a house for road widening. There may be something wrong in our reasoning, but it was not made apparent by the right hon. Gentleman.
      We see no necessity to loosen the provisions of the original Act in the way this subsection does. Has something happened since the Act was passed that causes a need for this extra relaxation? If not, the reason for it is purely imaginary, and it seems to me that this provision can be left out of the Bill. It could be embodied in another Measure, if need for it should arise. So far as I can see that need has not yet arisen. The right hon. Gentleman has not shown that it has arisen. Therefore, we are a little apprehensive that the subsection will permit a relaxation we do not think desirable.
      Mr. J. Stuart: By leave of the House, I would point out that such a case as road widening is not covered at the present time. The owner is left to rely on the discretion of the local authority, and a position, therefore, could arise in which the owner could be said to have connived at the demolition. At present,
      1304
      the conditions of grant continue for the full 20 years. Therefore, there may be cases, as I have said, in which they will run after the house has been demolished. The subsection is to deal with such exceptional cases as may arise.
      Mr. T. Fraser: I think the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House, although I am sure he is doing so inadvertently. He talks about the conditions attaching to a grant running after the house has been demolished. However, the conditions attaching to the grant are conditions about resale, conditions about tenancies. We cannot enforce the observance of conditions for the resale of a house that has been demolished. If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking only of houses demolished because of a road development or other scheme carried out by a local authority there is no point in writing in even the period of 10 years.
      If a local authority is obliged to carry out a scheme of road widening that involves the demolition of a house eight years after its owner got a grant for its modernisation, surely that owner is not to be penalised, since the house is being demolished at the instance of the local authority in eight years instead of 10?
      Under the principal Act, if a house were to be demolished in five, 10, 15, 19, 19½ or 20 years at the instance of the local authority the conditions would cease to apply, because by that Act, for the passing of which we on this side of the House had some responsibility, we said that the conditions should apply so long only as the house is occupied or occupiable. If the Secretary of State insists upon this subsection and it becomes law there will be insufficient limitation of the circumstances in which a local authority may reduce the period of the conditions attached to an improvement grant.
      If words mean anything at all this subsection means that, for instance, the Council of Hamilton, in my constituency, would be entitled to give an improvement grant to an applicant for it and to attach conditions to be observed for only 10 years. We believe that to be the only possible interpretation that can be put upon the subsection. If it is correct, then we consider the subsection to be quite absurd.

      1305
      It is proposed by the Bill that the local authorities shall take over unfit houses for patching up and that grants shall be made from public funds, from the Exchequer and from local rates, towards the maintenance of those houses, on the assumption that they will continue to be used for 15 years. By the Bill we shall make grants from public funds to private owners to enable them to modernise their houses, and yet we are permitting the conditions to be attached to the making of the grants to operate for so short a time as 10 years. I am sure the Secretary of State was wrong in the advice he tendered to us. In any case, we believe that when a house has to be removed for some public purpose, due to no fault of the owner and no action on his part, the conditions will immediately be removed. Conditions can attach to a house only as long as it is occupied or occupiable.
      I ask the Secretary of State to think about this again. The subsection leaves the door open very wide, and, with the explanations which we have had so far, my hon. Friends will find it difficult to accept that this subsection should remain part of the Bill. I am not offering any threats. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince us that it is necessary to make this modification and can give any examples or any experience of shortcomings in the principal Act which make this modification necessary, we shall be most willing to listen to him. So far, both in Committee and today, he has not been convincing.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes. 211; Noes, 178.

      Division No. 135.]

      AYES

      [4.30 p.m.

      Aitken, W. T.

      Drewe, Sir C.

      Lambert, Hon. G.

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

      Duncan, Capt. J A. L

      Lambton, Viscount

      Alport, C. J. M.

      Duthie, W. S.

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

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

      Erroll, F. J.

      Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Arbuthnot, John

      Finlay, Graeme

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C

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

      Fisher, Nigel

      Longden, Gilbert

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

      Low, A. R. W.

      Banks, Col. C.

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

      Barlow, Sir John

      Fort, R.

      McAdden, S. J.

      Beach, Maj. Hicks

      Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

      Macdonald, Sir Peter

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

      McKibbin, A. J.

      Birch, Nigel

      Garner-Evans, E. H.

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Bishop, F. P.

      George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Black, C. W.

      Glover, D.

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

      Boothby, Sir R. J. G

      Godber, J. B.

      MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

      Bossom, Sir A. C.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

      Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

      Gough, C F. H

      Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Gower, H. R

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

      Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

      Brooman-White, R. C.

      Grimond, J.

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Marples, A. E.

      Bullard, D. G.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

      Maude, Angus

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

      Mellor, Sir John

      Campbell, Sir David

      Heath, Edward

      Molson, A. H. E.

      Carr, Robert

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

      Nabarro, G. D. N

      Channon, H.

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Neave, Airey

      Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

      Cole, Norman

      Holt, A. F.

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Colegate, W. A.

      Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Nugent, G. R. H.

      Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P.

      Nutting, Anthony

      Cooper-Key, E. M.

      Horobin, I. M.

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

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

      Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Crouch, R. F.

      Hurd, A. R.

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

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

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

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

      Osborne, C.

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

      Hylton-Foster, H B. H

      Page, R. G.

      Deedes, W. F.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Peto, Brig. C. H. M

      Dodds-Parker, A. D.

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Peyton, J. W. M.

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Pickthorn, K. W. M.

      Donner, Sir P. W.

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

      Pilkington, Capt. R. A

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Pitman, I. J.

      Drayson, G. B

      Kerr, H. W.

      Pitt, Miss E. M

      Powell, J. Enoch

      Shepherd, William

      Tweedsmuir, Lady

      Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

      Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

      Vane, W. M. F.

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

      Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

      Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

      Profumo, J. D.

      Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

      Vosper, D. F.

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      Snadden, W. McN.

      Wade, D. W.

      Ramsden, J. E.

      Speir, R. M.

      Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

      Rayner, Brig. R.

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

      Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St Marylebone)

      Redmayne, M.

      Stevens, Geoffrey

      Wall, Major Patrick

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

      Ward, Miss I.(Tynemouth)

      Renton, D. L. M.

      Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Ridsdale, J. E.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

      Watkinson, H. A.

      Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

      Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

      Webbe, Sir H.(London & Westminster)

      Robertson, Sir David

      Studholme, H. G.

      Wellwood, W.

      Robson-Brown, W.

      Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

      Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

      Teeling, W.

      Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

      Roper, Sir Harold

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

      Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Russell, R. S.

      Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

      Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

      Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

      Touche, Sir Gordon

      Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and

      Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

      Turner, H. F. L.

      Mr. Wills.

      Scott, R. Donald

      Turton, R. H.

      NOES

      Acland, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, W. W.

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

      Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

      Hannan, W.

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Awbery, S. S.

      Hargreaves, A.

      Pannell, Charles

      Bacon, Miss Alice

      Hastings, S.

      Parkin, B. T.

      Bartley, P.

      Hayman, F. H.

      Pearson, A.

      Bence, C. R.

      Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

      Popplewell, E.

      Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Porter, G.

      Blackburn, F.

      Holman, P.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Houghton, Douglas

      Proctor, W. T.

      Blyton, W. R.

      Hoy, J. H.

      Pryde, D. J.

      Boardman, H.

      Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

      Rankin, John

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Reeves, J.

      Bowden, H. W.

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Reid, William (Camlachie)

      Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Rhodes, H.

      Brookway, A. F.

      Hynd, H. (Accrington)

      Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

      Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

      Hynd, J. B (Altercliffe)

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Beiper)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Brown, Thomas (Ince)

      Janner, B.

      Ross, William

      Burke, W. A.

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

      Royle, C.

      Burton, Miss F. E.

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Short, E. W.

      Callaghan, L. J.

      Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Carmichael, J.

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

      Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

      Castle, Mrs. B. A.

      Jones, David (Hartlepool)

      Skeffington, A. M.

      Champion, A. J.

      Jones, T. W. (Marioneth)

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

      Chapman, W. D.

      Keenan, W.

      Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

      Chetwynd, G. R.

      Kenyon, C.

      Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

      Clunie, J.

      Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Coldrick, W.

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Sparks, J. A.

      Collick, P. H.

      Lawson, G. M.

      Steele, T.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Cove, W. G.

      Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

      Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

      Crosland, C. A. R.

      Lewis, Arthur

      Sylvester, G. O.

      Cullen, Mrs. A.

      Lindgren, G. S.

      Thomas, George (Cardiff)

      Daines, P.

      Logan, D. G.

      Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      MacColl, J. E.

      Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      McGovern, J.

      Thornton, E.

      de Freitas, Geoffrey

      McInnes, J.

      Timmons, J.

      Deer, G.

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Dodds, N. N.

      McLeavy, F.

      Warbey, W. N.

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

      McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

      Watkins, T. E.

      Edelman, M.

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

      Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

      Mann, Mrs. Jean

      Weitzman, D.

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Manuel, A. C.

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

      Mason, Roy

      White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

      Follick, M.

      Mellish, R. J.

      White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Foot, M. M.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Willey, F. T.

      Forman, J. C.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

      Monslow, W.

      Williams, W. R. (Drayladen)

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

      Moody, A. S.

      Willis, E. G.

      Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

      Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

      Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

      Morley, R.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Grey, C. F.

      Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

      Wyatt, W. L.

      Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

      Yates, V. F.

      Hale, Leslie

      Mort, D. L.

      Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

      Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

      Oswald, T.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor

      Clause 14.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PART I.)
      Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, at the end, to insert "of that Act."
      This Amendment is simply to make clear that Clause 14 (2) refers to Section 9 (4) of the 1950 Act.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 15.—(REPAIRS INCREASE.)
      Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-hill): I beg to move, in page 12, line 38, at the end, to insert:
      (c) if the landlord has given to the local authority an undertaking in writing that he is prepared to make an agreement with them which will provide for the exchange of tenancies between a tenant of the landlord and a tenant of the local authority in appropriate cases and at the joint request of the tenants.
      Hon. Members will be aware that Clause 15 is the most important Clause in Part II of the Bill. It gives to landlords the right to increase rents by 40 per cent., provided that they do two things, or that two things obtain: first, that the house is in good and tenable repair and is not unfit for human habitation; and, secondly, that the landlord has carried out work to the value of three-fifths of the rent in the year prior to the service of the notice. I do not propose to examine those two conditions again. We have had arguments and fought tenaciously for our point of view, and we have had to succumb. The effect of this Amendment would be to add a third qualifying condition before the landlord would have the benefit of the increased rent.
      4.45 p.m.
      I suggest to the House that while it is an important Amendment it is not, and would not be, an onerous one to carry out. It is, in fact, quite simple, and is more dependent on administrative ability than on anything else. I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that some of my hon. Friends wanted to go further in this Amendment. Some felt that it does not go far enough, and they wanted to suggest, as a condition of the increased rent, that the property owners should be required to go to the corporation lists for their tenants, because they felt that this would lead to greater flexibility and better use of the available accommodation.
      I shall not follow that argument, but confine myself to the simple proposition
      1310
      that if landlords are to have the right to increase rents they should make those of their houses which fall vacant at a later date available to tenants of corporation houses, so that if tenants want to make a mutual exchange those houses will be available for such an exchange.
      I hope that the Amendment will be considered on its own merits and quite apart from the heated debates and discussions which we have had from time to time in Committee. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this Amendment there is no intention of obstruction or of delay. Quite briefly and frankly, I think that if we, by statute, are giving the right to landlords to increase their rents by 40 per cent. we have a right to expect them, in return, to observe certain obligations.
      This trouble would, I believe, be partly solved by ensuring that the present stock of houses is more fully utilised. The Amendment would make it easier to secure exchanges as between tenants of privately owned property and tenants of corporation houses. That is a difficulty which most of us who listen to our constituents' complaints every week or every month, or who have associations with local authorities, know is very prevalent in the various areas.
      Take the example of two tenants—one who is the tenant of a privately factored property and one who is a corporation tenant. The corporation tenant may be a widow in a three-apartment house. She, of her own volition and desire, wishes to go back to a decent type of tenement property, perhaps on a lower floor, and she is told by the corporation that if she can secure a tenant in a private property who is willing to exchange with her, the corporation will put no obstacle in her way; but she must, of course, ensure that the tenant who wishes to come to her house has an application lodged with the corporation for the requisite type of house.
      What happens is this. The tenant in the private property, who perhaps has had an application with the corporation for many years, is refused permission by the landlord to accept such an exchange. We have, therefore, the situation of two parties being dissatisfied and inconvenienced, who, because of the landlord's permission being withheld, are not permitted to suit each other and to meet

      1311
      each other's needs. This type of case can be multiplied by hundreds.
      I am informed by those in charge of the Glasgow Corporation that hundreds of such applications are made each year. The corporation tenants are told that if they can get tenants in privately factored property to make an exchange, the corporation will agree. They then go away seeking prospective tenants to exchange with them. Persons in privately tenanted houses who have had applications in since 1944, although not overcrowded to the extent that others are when making their representations, are told that if they can get corporation's properties the deal will be agreed, but always the obstacle is the private factor or owner of the property who will not agree.
      I want to say right away that it is not all factors who are pursuing that policy. There are some who have entered into agreements tacitly with the local authority to inform each other of the available accommodation. But this matter is, I think, so important that a little compulsion must be brought upon those factors who are not acting in a public-spirited manner.
      The Amendment would provide that where a factor was not prepared to act in that fashion he would not qualify for the increased rent. There have been occasions where the factor or agent has disagreed and where the tenant seeking this privilege has gone behind and beyond him and approached the owner of the property. The owner has then consulted with his agent, but even then has refused and made his decision known to the local authority.
      It has been part of the argument of property owners all along that the Rent Restrictions Acts were forcing them either to abandon properties or to sell their properties. My hon. Friends and I hold that that reason no longer obtains because, under this Bill, landlords are to receive a 40 per cent. increase in rent. There is an obligation on them, surely, to try to meet the wishes of their tenants in the matter of exchanges, particularly in respect of exchanges with tenants of corporation houses.
      This Amendment is a simple one. It is designed to focus public opinion on what we all recognise to be a problem in our areas. To some small degree it is
      1312
      working in some areas, but it should be more widespread. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the actual wording is not quite suitable but that he agrees in principle that something should be done, I am sure we can agree that a slight alteration could be made even at a later stage. If he accepts the substance, as most people do, let him make the effective change and we shall be very pleased to consult him on the matter.
      There is some support for this suggestion among hon. Members opposite because the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), in a speech on the Scottish Estimates in 1951, from which I could quote much more but will quote one paragraph only, had this to say when speaking of housing difficulties:
      "In some cases, if exchanges could be allowed, it would materially help to solve the problem, and I would appeal to owners of such property to give priority to public over individual consideration on the question of exchanges, which represent 33 per cent. of the genuine housing problems in my constituency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th July, 1951; c. 2339.]
      I believe that is the case and some solution of our overall housing problem is to be found in the adoption of a proposal such as this.
      I conclude by saying to the right hon. Gentleman that in Denmark, Holland and Norway there are such agreements prevailing now between local and government authorities on a wider scale. There is collaboration and better allocation of what housing accommodation exists. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment. It would not cost any money, but it would help to solve some of the problems of our people in Scotland.
      Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I think that the concluding sentences of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) about the best use of available houses form the great strength of this Amendment. Whatever else might happen the Secretary of State cannot be unaware of this problem. As my hon. Friend made clear, the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary delivered a speech on this problem, not in the dim and distant past, but since he became Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. I know from experience that a P.P.S. can make his opinion

      1313
      known to the Minister concerned. I am certain that the present Parliamentary Private Secretary has told the Secretary of State just what this problem is.
      In my constituency, and in Edinburgh generally, the corporation has been very helpful in this respect. The corporation has always been willing to make an exchange available if the person who wanted the exchange was an applicant on the list and satisfied all the requirements. We have always argued, and I have found people who would go much further than I would go saying, that a great deal of our housing problems could be got rid of by the best use of the houses which are available.
      In this Amendment, we are discussing the possibility of people exchanging houses. I will give a typical case. For a long time a woman in my constituency, who suffers from ill-health, is highly nervous and has one son, has been living in a house which she finds much too large for her needs. She has had her name on the corporation list for many years and the corporation is quite agreeable to her exchanging with a tenant of a corporation house who requires a larger house to meet her needs. The exchange would satisfy two people, but the private landlord says, "Oh, no, I am not going to permit this type of transaction." If he got hold of the house occupied by this woman it would be put up for sale and not for letting.
      Surely, in these days, this House ought to be doing its best to protect the rights of these people. As my hon. Friend said, we are not arguing on this Amendment about the change which is to take place in the rent. Rightly or wrongly—we think wrongly—the decision has already been made to increase the rent of these houses by a flat rate of 8s. in the £. Hon. Members from English constituencies probably know that that is the difference between our Bill and their Bill. They have a graduated increase, but in Scotland it is a flat rate of 8s. in the £.
      We are not seeking, in this Amendment, even to alter that decision. All we are saying is that if we are to give the landlord the right to increase the rent he should accept a responsibility. We think that by so doing we can satisfy the housing needs of many thousands in our country.
      1314
      This is a very simple Amendment, it is not complicated in any way. I think it would make a real contribution to our housing needs and prevent disturbances as between landlords and tenants and even between tenants and corporations, because far too often people are inclined to blame corporations for a hold-up. It would make possible the right of people to satisfy their housing needs and make a contribution towards solving our housing problems and difficulties. Because it has been moved by my hon. Friend—and, I hope, seconded—in such a restrained way, I ask the Secretary of State to say that he will accept the Amendment.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Woodburn: I want to add two points in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy). This is not an onerous condition. Obviously, it has been drafted so loosely as to be left almost to the good will of the landlord and the corporation to interpret according to common sense. There is certainly a penalty attached to it which would not be enforceable if the landlord were reasonable. As my hon. Friend said, many landlords are reasonable. Perhaps I might give one instance of how this could make a contribution to the saving of houses.
      A case came to my attention in Edinburgh, where the woman of a house became a widow. She was still tenant of the house, though her son and daughter were tenants of another house. The son and daughter wanted to take their mother into their house and they had an offer of a corporation house if the person in that house could exchange it for one of the houses in a certain outlying housing estate to get nearer his work. If this exchange had taken place the mother, son and daughter would have been in one dwelling, and another would have been set completely free for the landlord with no tenant in it at all.
      The Government, by this Bill, are giving authority to landlords to charge increased rents, and it seems an appropriate moment to give this extra power to the local authority. The power would rest very largely with the local authority and it would be at their discretion and that of the landlord to decide when these exchanges were appropriate.
      I would ask the Secretary of State to give this Amendment very sympathetic

      1315
      consideration. As my hon. Friend said, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred some other wording no objection could be raised to that, and it could be dealt with in another place, but the purpose is clear. It is not onerous on the corporation or on the private landlord and it would mean a greatly appreciated facility in many big towns in connection with the changing of people from one house to another.
      The Lord Advocate: I quite appreciate the moderation of the speeches that have been made on this Amendment, and I think everyone would agree that there is much to be said for a free interchange on the lines that have been adumbrated and for as much flexibility as possible in the changes of tenancy and occupancy of these houses. But with great respect, I wish to submit that the method that is proposed in this Amendment is not the way to achieve it. Indeed, instead of improving the provisions of the Bill it might well limit the effectiveness of the Clause were this additional, third condition to be incorporated.
      Let me briefly state the reasons why I ask the House to take that view. In the first place, the proposed third condition about the undertaking in writing to make an agreement for an exchange is extraneous to the main purpose of this Clause and to Part II of the Bill, because the Clause is designed to enable the landlord to have a sufficient increase of rent to maintain the house in good and tenantable repair. If additional conditions were to be imposed, such as the condition in question, the purpose of the whole Bill might be defeated.
      Mr. John Rankin: Why?
      The Lord Advocate: In the second place—and this may help the hon. Member to see why—the additional condition might go a long way to defeating the main object of the Clause.
      The additional obligation—because it is not left in the Amendment as a matter of arrangement or agreement, but there is an obligation imposed—might well be regarded as a further bar to a landlord making use of the provisions of the Clause in order to improve the house. The net result might well be a deteriora-
      1316
      tion of the stock of houses in the country, the very object which this Clause is designed to prevent.
      The third reason is a reason based upon precedent. During the Committee stage of the 1949 Bill, a Bill which, of course, was sponsored by the then Labour Government, an Amendment was moved to insert a provision that additional houses provided by works of improvement carried out on improvement grants should be let to tenants selected by the local authority from its housing list. It was a proposal very much on the same lines as this proposal although it was not identical with this Amendment. The then Lord Advocate resisted that Amendment, and it did not form part of the Bill when it left this House.
      Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that when this particular Amendment was moved it was supported by most Members on this side of the House and they are now trying to get the same thing enacted.
      The Lord Advocate: It was moved by the hon. Member when he represented my constituency.
      Mr. Willis: It was supported by other hon. Members on this side of the House.
      The Lord Advocate: That might well be, but a sufficient number of those Members were not collected to go into the Lobby to carry it and insert it in the Bill.
      Mr. Willis: It was defeated by hon. Members opposite.
      The Lord Advocate: I am talking about the 1949 Bill, when the party opposite where in power and we were not.
      Mr. Hoy: Is the Amendment right or wrong, that is the question?
      The Lord Advocate: I am coming to that. Let me repeat what the then Lord Advocate said. He resisted that Amendment which was on the lines of this one. because, he said:
      "… I am convinced that if we were to take the power of selection of tenants away from them,"—
      that is, the landlords—
      "they would be deterred from taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to the consequential detriment of the ultimate tenants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 26th May, 1949; c. 2679–80.]

      1317
      That is exactly the position as I see it in regard to this Amendment, and for those reasons I ask the House to reject it.
      Mr. McNeil: The Lord Advocate will not misunderstand me when I say that his was a most disappointing reply. It rests upon extraordinary grounds. It is singularly fortunate that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, are in the Chair because for the Lord Advocate to tell the House that his first reason for resisting the Amendment is that it is extraneous to the primary purpose of the Bill is ludicrous.
      It will be within your recollection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we had a very long discussion on whether a new Clause which the Secretary of State had put down was inside the Title of the Bill, and we were advised by you that strictly it was not, but that that was not necessary. In your Ruling, it was inside the terms of the Financial Resolution. Nevertheless, the Government found it appropriate or necessary to propose a new Clause which did not fall inside the Title of the Bill, and it seems, therefore, rather odd for them to give us a reason for refusing this Amendment that it is extraneous.
      Another reason which the Lord Advocate gives is that the purpose of the Clause might be defeated if the landlord failed to give this undertaking. Why should the landlord or his agent, acting in good faith, refuse to give such an undertaking? Nothing extraordinary is asked. He is not even being asked to part with any money under a Clause where he is sharing in a free gift scheme. He is asked to undertake a responsibility along with the local authority to be reasonable towards these people who are to be hit over the head by this part of the Bill. His third reason is that in a quite different matter a previous occupant of his office—
      The Lord Advocate indicated dissent.
      Mr. McNeil: It was quite a different matter. That Government were not proposing a handout to the landlords. What we are asking here is that the Minister should undertake, in agreement with the local authority, that tenants, both consenting, should be permitted to exchange. The only reason why the Lord Advocate and his colleagues cannot accept this Amendment is because my hon. Friend
      1318
      the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and his well-known friend Mr. Murray MacGregor have cracked the whip—
      Mr. J. McGovern: Not my friend.
      Mr. McNeil: Mr. MacGregor said to the Lord Advocate, "If you accept this Amendment we shall be forced to let houses which we want to sell."
      The Lord Advocate: He has said nothing of the kind to me.
      Mr. McNeil: The Lord Advocate will not deny that if he accepted this Amendment that would be the only substantial change. The Government have said that they want houses available for letting. They tell us that at every stage as a justification for this Bill. Here is an opportunity to make houses available for letting and to make a contribution in the cheapest possible fashion towards easing the position, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said.
      Here is an opportunity to make a contribution towards the unbalance in industrial communities of the use of housing accommodation, about which we all know and to which the Minister of Housing and Local Government drew our attention. I plead with the Secretary of State, if he is in earnest about making more houses available for letting, to look again at this matter. None of us is arguing that a huge contribution is necessary. We are arguing that it is an easy piece of machinery, and we are arguing that since this is the only time that this House will be likely to have any purchase power upon the factors, we should seize the opportunity.
      We all know of far-sighted and public-spirited factors who voluntarily co-operate upon such a basis. Many of them go to these towns and look at the augmentation which has been made to housing by public-spirited factors who find no disability in it. Why will not the Secretary of State accept the spirit of this Amendment and make obligatory this practice which has been tested and proved beneficial? There is only one reason why he could not accept the substance of the Amendment. The House knows the reason and, if the right hon. Gentleman refuses even to consider it, we must register our opposition.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. John Strachey: The speech of the Lord Advocate has brought me to my feet, because although he did not give us a reason why he could not accept this Amendment, the real reason emerged clearly from his speech. To put it in one sentence, it was simply that he considered that the landlords would not like it.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman even went so far as to say that the landlords would not like it to such an extent that if this proviso—and it is a proviso—were added to the Bill, many landlords would not operate the Bill and would not accept the 40 per cent. increase in rent. But there are many of us on this side of the House who believe that many tenants would welcome that very much. For all the amount of repairs they are likely to get out of this Bill, many tenants would much prefer that their landlords should contract out of the Bill, and so, from their point of view, that would be an added attraction of this proposed provision.
      As my right hon. Friend has said, the Lord Advocate is doing an injustice to some landlords when he takes that view. There are many landlords who, I think, would be willing to make these exchanges. Therefore, the force of this proviso would fall simply on those landlords, perhaps a minority, who are not willing to make these exchanges. If the Government and the Lord Advocate look at this matter again I do not think they will be able to find any valid reasons for avoiding the conclusion that, either by this or a similar method, they would give a considerable benefit to the tenants of Scotland if they made it obligatory on the worst landlords to facilitate exchanges as a condition—surely a minimum condition—of getting the substantial increase in rent which is to be permitted under this Bill.
      Every hon. Member here knows how real a problem is the one of exchanges. In so far as we can institute exchanges in a town or in a county constituency, it eases the housing problem considerably. Therefore it is asking very little to say that a Bill which is to give substantial benefits to the landlords should have this extra proviso in it, that as well as having the obligation imposed on them of carrying out a certain amount of repairs—and we fear that the obligation is
      1320
      a very paper one—there should be this obligation of not unreasonably refusing exchanges.
      I hope that the Government will give us a better reason for refusing this Amendment than merely saying that the landlords would not like it. It seems to me to be so stark an appeasement of the landlords that even the Government cannot stand by it. They should accept the principle of the proviso or think of some more respectable reason for refusing it than the one which has been given.
      Mr. McInnes: The shallow and sham arguments of the Lord Advocate have also brought me to my feet. The Lord Advocate contented himself with indicating that the Amendment was not placed in its proper place in the Bill and would upset the effects of the Clause, which deals with the 40 per cent. increased rental and so on. But the Lord Advocate should treat the House with greater courtesy than he has done on many occasions.
      He did not say a single word about the merits or demerits of the Amendment. He used as an illustration that part of the 1949 Act which deals with improvement, but he must realise that there is a tremendous difference between the Bill and that Act. The 1949 Act involved the Government in the payment of 50 per cent. subsidy and involved the landlord in payment of 50 per cent., but there is nothing like that in the Bill. There is the very opposite.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) was far too conservative in his estimate of the acuteness of this problem in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and the Joint Under-Secretary of State the right hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith) realise that in the city which they represent there are thousands of such cases, and the failure of the landlord to co-operate with the local authority creates ill-feeling and irritation among our people.
      Commander Galbraith: I have found that that applies equally the other way round, and that often there is a disinclination on the part of the local authority to do the exchange.
      Mr. McInnes: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has found that, of

      1321
      course, because the tenant of the private property is not on the corporation list for a house and, therefore, would be jumping the queue. In those circumstances the local authority is not desirous of anyone jumping the queue and the Amendment does not suggest it. The Amendment suggests that where there is a tenant of a local authority house and a tenant of a private factor house and there is mutual agreement an exchange can be made if the private factor house tenant is fairly high up on the local authority list.
      If the Lord Advocate finds it difficult in this part of the Bill to give effect to that solution of one essential aspect of the housing problem, would he be prepared to suggest that a new Clause might be inserted to give effect to the Amendment? Surely it imposes nothing on the Government and asks nothing of a monetary nature from the factor and the landlord. I ask the Lord Advocate to treat the Amendment with the courtesy that it deserves and to give the House a good reason why it is impossible to accept such an innocuous Amendment.
      Mr. Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) referred to me and to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary as having had experience of this problem. Goodness knows, I have the most bitter and continual experience of the housing problem of Glasgow in general and this exchange problem in particular. There is, I suppose, no part of the city worse housed than portions of Anderston. The difficulty of the tenants in these areas is very acute indeed.
      I have examined the Amendment carefully to see whether something along the lines of it was possible, all the more so because we had a similar problem when we were tackling rural housing. We inserted provisions which actually moved along this line, that is to say, anyone having a rural worker's house renovated accepted servitude—in the legal sense of the word—and for a period of 20 years the house was subject to tenancy and could not be used as an independent property. The proprietor could not take possession of it.
      I do not want to raise the temperature of the debate, but I must say that I never found hon. and right hon. Members opposite any friendlier towards that
      1322
      Measure because that provision had been inserted in it. A servitude of 20 years for a rural house was a considerable advantage to the community in question as a quid pro quo for the improved grant that was given. It should be remembered that those houses were to some extent taken out of the Rent Restriction Acts and, as far as I can see, the present Amendment would lead to something of the same kind.
      Obviously the words on the Order Paper are impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because of the words "appropriate cases." Who is to be the judge of "appropriate"? There would be four parties discussing the matter, and the words of the Amendment would mean that the landlord would have an absolute right of veto.
      Mr. Woodburn: Obviously it is first left to the reasonableness of both parties—the corporation and the landlord—and the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this proposal gives a certain degree of veto. If the tenant refuses to pay rent on the ground that the landlord has not complied with the condition of being reasonable, I take it that in the long run the sheriff would decide.
      Mr. Elliot: Look at the tangle of legal difficulties which we are getting into. This matter cannot be dismissed as simply as that.
      I have given the matter some consideration because I am most anxious that the problem should be dealt with. I agree that there are people who occupy houses which are larger than they need, who would willingly relinquish them in favour of smaller houses. One of the ways of dealing with the housing problem would be to make the situation fluid instead of it being frozen as it is now, and enable those people to relinquish the larger accommodation and move into smaller and more convenient houses.
      This problem is not confined to exchanges between people who are already, fortunate enough to get into a local authority house. The exchange is very often between two people who are in factor houses. The person who has got into a local authority house is a person who has already derived a considerable advantage. People who sometimes come to me in great distress are people who have not had this advantage and, owing

      1323
      to the enormous congestion of the list in Glasgow, see no possibility of obtaining the advantage. They wish to make a private exchange from factor house to factor house.
      I was glad to have the testimony of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) that there are many decent factors. Mr. Donald Macrae is one of my most continuous correspondents. [An HON. MEMBER: "He always replies?"] Yes, but I find that there are always thousands of worse cases on the list. There are many more highly-poignant applications on the books. A Frenchman said that when one bestows a benefit one makes one ungrateful and nine disappointed persons, and that is also true of houses. When one gets a house there are immediately nine people who come along to say that someone who has no claim whatever has obtained a house. They often think there is some personal spite against themselves.
      I want to see a greater number of exchanges, and I certainly think that that is one of the ways in which we can deal with the present situation, but I cannot feel that the words of the Amendment are possible because of the words "appropriate cases." I cannot honestly think they could be interpreted other than as by giving a veto to one of the four parties concerned. In any case, the Amendment deals only with a very limited sector of the problem, the problem of the people who are in a local authority house and who wish to exchange it for a private factor house—and there are not so many of them.
      5.30 p.m.
      I cannot see the way in which we can deal with this problem other than by the obvious one of increasing the total whole of houses and increasing thereby the desire of the factors to let houses, because people will not pay the price for a private house if they can get into a good local authority house.
      Mr. McInnes: Would the right hon. Gentleman not concede that in the drafting of the new Clause which it has been suggested might be introduced in another place it would be possible to find suitable words that would enable us to deal with what is, after all, a very acute problem?
      Mr. Elliot: I should be most willing to examine with a perfectly open mind such a Clause, if it could be drafted. I only say that I do not find myself in a position to vote for this Amendment today. I do not think it is a workable Amendment and it covers only a relatively small sector of the problem with which we are faced. But that a greater fluidity of tenants in tenantable property in good repair is urgently necessary in our city, and that there are many people occupying premises which they would be only too willing to relinquish, and which would thereupon give more accommodation to other people, I frankly concede; and I should be more than willing for us to find some way of dealing with that problem, if we could.
      Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman join us in pressing the Government to give an undertaking that they will, at any rate, try to find a way, and find appropriate words, to give effect to the purpose of the Amendment before the Bill comes back from another place?
      Mr. Elliot: Surely, the onus of changing the law is on those desiring to change the law. I have offered to consider in the most sympathetic way any words which could be found to deal with the matter. It may be that it is possible, and it may be that it is impossible, to find words to deal with it. I am only saying that I consider that these words suggested would not work; but I also say that if words could be found which would work, I should be willing to give them my friendliest possible consideration.
      But until there is a larger pool of houses, we shall not really find a great improvement in the situation. There is already some improvement in the situation, for we are all aware that the property market has shown a downward trend of recent months, and that the extreme prices being asked for properties are beginning to diminish as a larger supply of accommodation comes on the market. But I know very well that the shortage of housing in Glasgow is still so acute that any and every way of dealing with it ought to be explored. All that I say is that, on the arguments which have been brought forward, I am not satisfied that the proposed Amendment would make an improvement, and would not actually cause a worsening, of the situation before us.
      Mr. McNeil: Will the Lord Advocate help us? Is he willing to give the same kind of undertaking as the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) obviously would give if he were on the Front Bench?
      The Lord Advocate: If I could see how this could be done from a practical point of view, it might be different. Frankly, I cannot see how we can make a practical business of a proposal of this kind.
      Mr. McNeil: That is a different answer.
      Mr. Rankin: All that we are asking the Lord Advocate is not to find a particular form of words or even to make any decision; we are only asking him to give this matter consideration. Surely he will not tell the House that his terminology is so scanty that no form of words is possible to meet the case, which has been put not only from this side of the House, but which has the support of one with the wide administrative experience and the practical concern of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot).
      The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove knows the problem at first-hand, as every one of us knows it, in the great industrial centres of Scotland as well as in the rural areas. I think the right hon. Member agrees with us that something wrong is being done if we do not take the step that in principle, at least, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted and which the Amendment seeks to express. He knows very well that there are in Glasgow 112,000 human beings who are desperately wanting a house.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: Applications, not people.
      Mr. Rankin: I beg pardon; I said 112,000 individuals. There are 112,000 applications from people desperately wanting a house.
      I am certain the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us that it is quite wrong that any person in the city of Glasgow should prevent these people getting houses of some sort. That is what is happening in Glasgow. Property owners are withholding from circulation houses in the city which could contribute to a certain extent towards meeting the needs of these people. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will try to appreciate it
      1326
      also. If he does so, I am certain that if he wants to find a solution he will find the right words.
      Mr. Elliot: That is perhaps where we part company. It may not be possible to draft words which will cover this.
      Mr. Rankin: I am a firm believer in an old truism, to which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse to subscribe, that
      "Where there's a will there's a way."
      and that—[An HON. MEMBER: "Never say die."] I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wishing at this moment that he had thought of "Never Say Die" an hour or two ago.
      Mr. McNeil: In his case, it is "Never say 'Aye'."
      Mr. Rankin: There is another point that we must realise. By the Bill, a great deal is being done for the property owners of Scotland. They are getting £11 million of public money.
      Mr. Elliot: Really, my hon. colleague in the representation of the city of Glasgow is stretching the debate to a point where it would be impossible for us to come to practical conclusions.
      Mr. Rankin: Under the Bill, the property owners of Scotland are getting a great deal of monetary consideration.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: They do not deserve it.
      Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) says that they do not deserve it. [Interruption.] I am only quoting what he says, not necessarily subscribing to all his sentiments.
      Nevertheless, if through the Bill the property owners are getting that consideration, the Bill imposes an obligation upon them to play their part in the social purpose that housing ought to have in our great cities. They are not doing that at present by keeping houses out of circulation, as they are doing. I hope that the Lord Advocate, keeping that in mind, and knowing the strong support which he has from an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland and one of the revered members of the party opposite, will try to find the words in which to express adequately the wish and will of the House.
      Major Sir Frank Markham: I have endeavoured to follow this question with an open mind, and it is with great timidity that, as an Englishman, I venture to intervene in what is almost a Scottish debate. But so often we in England, it is said, follow in the path made by Scotland.
      One might be tempted to look at this matter in quite a different manner from that already indicated in the course of the debate. I think that all hon. Members agree that what is needed is greater fluidity all round—a greater facility for exchanges of houses to be effected. My first impression is that this Amendment, which, if accepted, will be a very dominant provision in the Bill, will have the effect of limiting exchanges.
      It says that no landlord may have any advantage from this Measure unless he gives to the local authority an undertaking in writing that he is prepared to make an agreement with it. That immediately prevents him from making any agreement with an adjacent local authority or with any other—
      Mr. Manuel: They will never do that.
      Sir F. Markham: This is where I am drawing a parallel between Scotland and England.
      Not only is the landlord prevented from making an agreement with any other local authority, but also this Amendment might limit the chances of fluidity of exchanges. Let us suppose that there is a bad landlord—we all know that there are bad landlords, just as there are bad tenants, and I wish we had none of either who says, "I have to comply with this provision in order to obtain an increase and, therefore, I will intimate to the local authority that I am prepared to make an agreement." That is all he needs to say, that he is prepared to make an agreement. But in fact he may never come to an agreement —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] One knows very well indeed that a person may say that he is willing to negotiate but that the negotiations may never finish. We have had wonderful examples from our Russian friends in that respect over many years.
      Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Is this a foreign affairs debate?
      Sir F. Markham: In addition to the opinon expressed by my right hon. Friend
      1328
      the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that someone has to decide what are the appropriate cases, my impression is that this is a provision designed to be a paradise for lawyers, and that it will certainly limit fluidity in the exchange of houses. I think, therefore, that it should be resisted.
      Mr. Willis: It is difficult to see how this Amendment can be a paradise for lawyers when its terms would depend upon the local authority and the landlord coming to an agreement. There are no legal technicalities in this proposed subsection at all.
      Mr. Elliot: May I say that I was following the point made by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said just now that these things will eventually come to the sheriff, and we cannot have anything more legal than that.
      Mr. Woodburn: May I appeal to hon. Members to bear in mind that we are working under a voluntary guillotine, and that if hon. Members continue to interrupt, the Government will not be able to finish their business.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Willis: Hon. Members opposite have expressed themselves in favour of trying to do something to facilitate the exchange of houses. There seems to be no disagreement about the desirability of doing that. It is desirable in order to ensure that the present housing accommodation is occupied in a more useful manner, and to make it possible for people to live nearer to their work. That also would assist in connection with transport problems, and there are a number of other reasons which make it desirable.
      The right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) says that may be desirable, but that this Amendment does not give us all that we want. But surely it is a good thing to get some of the things we want. I would remind the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove of an answer to a Question given yesterday by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman probably remembers the answer to which I refer. Surely it is better to get something, even if we cannot get everything we want, than to get nothing at all.

      1329
      This proposed subsection says that in return for what we give to the landlords we expect them to do something for the public. The landlords will get about £3 million or £4 million a year extra out of the people of Scotland. Surely in return for that they would be willing to be rather more co-operative in the future than they have shown themselves to be in the past about arranging transfers with local authorities.
      I cannot see where the difficulty arises. The landlord would say, "I am prepared to discuss with the local authority exchanges which may be arranged between my tenants and local authority tenants, or exchanges which may be desirable between those tenants. I am prepared to discuss them, and, in appropriate cases, to facilitate such exchanges." That is all this subsection asks, and for the Lord Advocate to drag in the 1949 Act is really stressing the argument a bit too far.
      In any case, many hon. Members on this side of the House who want this subsection included, wanted the Amendment which was not carried in 1949. So that argument is not a good one, and we are being logical about this matter. I suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should look at this matter again. It is an urgent matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman represents an Edinburgh constituency. I am not aware of what he knows of local life in Edinburgh, but this matter concerns thousands of Edinburgh people who try to arrange exchanges and find that they cannot do so.
      I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assist his own constituents to exchange their houses. It is necessary and important that it should be made possible if we are to secure that the best use is made of present housing accommodation. We cannot accept the refusal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We ask him to look at this matter again and at least to undertake to accept the principle embodied in the Amendment, and, if the wording is not good enough, to introduce an appropriate Amendment in another place.
      Mr. McGovern: When the Secretary of State left the Chamber I thought that probably this matter would have been settled by now, and that he had had a word with Murray MacGregor—who is
      1330
      really the villain of the piece—to find out the wishes of the landlords in Glasgow about this proposal.
      I find great difficulty in appreciating why this Amendment cannot be accepted. I would say to the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and others who base their objections on the wording of the Amendment, that in my experience over the last 24 years always, when questions of this kind are approached in that frame of mind, there exists a desire to oppose, rather than to reconsider the position and try to analyse the Amendment to see whether it is workable.
      The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that he was not wedded to the words of this Amendment; that if the Government consider that these words would not apply, that they are not the proper words, they can meet the situation by proposing something which will be water-tight or "legal-tight." Therefore, do not let us have any misunderstanding. These objections are merely to any agreement at all being reached.
      I have never seen a Bill go through this House in which there was so little compromise or give and take. We have not arrived at the stage of asking in the Amendment for any surrender of the financial dowry which is being given to the landlords. We ask only for some sort of understanding or agreement that would assist in many cases in which two families are involved. Both families may be in a certain amount of distress. One may be in financial distress and the other may be living in overcrowded conditions which cause disturbances of mind and heart.
      The result is that it is common for a person to say, "My family have gone now and I am in a type of house which is too dear for me. I know of a house occupied by a lady with a family. She wants to move into a corporation house. The corporation are perfectly willing, because the woman is on the waiting list, but we cannot get the consent of the private owner." I would not ask that a private landlord should have to take any tenant unless there were some guarantee that the tenant was a reasonable type of person who would pay the rent. We are talking now in terms of two families of a decent type.

      1331
      Some people present the objection that private landlords should not be dealt with in this way, but that they should have a right to select their own tenants without having anybody imposed upon them. Today, however, we live in a world where all kinds of restrictions have to be imposed and all kinds of compromise agreements have to be made. Alternatively, it may be said that a tenant might get into a corporation house from a private house and thus jump the queue; but the person would be on the corporation list.
      Not only that, if there is not the surrender of a corporation house, there will be no vacancy at all for a new tenant. This is the case of a changeover of two people which would satisfy two families and give the landlord the opportunity, if he is a decent citizen, of adding to the general satisfaction, convenience, comfort, health and mental stability of the community.
      We do not think that this is anything very great for which to ask. We have heard a great deal about the decent landlords—the good and the bad landlords. I have never discovered many of the good landlords. When one suggests something of this kind to them they are the most arrogant types of people that I have ever come across. When one wants to discuss in a reasonable way human problems of this description, they say, "Let the tenant leave the house and we will deal with the house in our own way."
      The Government call this "Operation rescue." For the tenants it will be "Operation disaster." The Government claim that this is a rescue Measure. We suggest a method here of rescuing people from difficult circumstances. After all, the Government are pouring into the laps of the landlords a 40 per cent, increase in rent. They are giving them 8s. in the £. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) should be here to tell us about old-age pensioners instead of handing out 40 per cent. to the landlords. The Government are giving the landlords, the people whom they consider to matter, advantages without putting any restrictions upon them.
      If the Secretary of State hands out £3 million or £4 million in added rental to landlords who have neglected their duties over the years, it is not too much
      1332
      to ask that they should act as decent citizens and show some consideration for their fellow citizens who are in distress. This proposal is worth while and that it would do a great deal of good if we could get agreement.
      I appeal to the Government to try to meet the situation. If the Government accept the Amendment at least they will have done some little thing, but up to now they have done nothing for the tenant and everything to safeguard the interests of the money-making landlords and racketeers. These vultures who own many of the properties in the City of Glasgow should be in the dock instead of being in the position of getting a 40 per cent, increase in rent. They should be compelled to accept tenants under this method of exchange. It is a reasonable activity which should be encouraged.
      Mr. Hannan: I should like to express, not only the disappointment, but the protest of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House at the way in which this reasonable Amendment has been received. The speeches from both sides have shown that hon. Members are aware of the problem, and whether the Government like it or not, they will have to face it. Of course, we accept the logic of the situation. The position is that the few good landlords will continue to do this on a voluntary basis; but the landlord who acts in an anti-social manner will be allowed to continue to act with his lack of a sense of public duty. The anti-social landlord will be rewarded by a 40 per cent, increase in rent.
      The Lord Advocate gave as his first reason for rejecting the Amendment the fact that the Bill deals with rent increases and not with tenancies. Surely, the two features are inseparable. Whoever heard of a tenant who was not subject to rent and rent increases? I hope that the House will agree that we are right in trying to keep within the rent pool a number of houses which will go outside, because when they become vacant they will be sold. Thus, they will be taken out of the pool of rented houses.
      6.0 p.m.
      All we ask is that landlords who want to obtain the increase should make the houses which fall vacant available for exchange in respect of a limited number of tenants—only corporation tenants. Some

      1333
      of my hon. Friends wanted to go further than this and bring in a wider range of tenants and ensure that houses which fell vacant should be offered to tenants on corporation lists. However we thought that it would be more reasonable to deal with the matter in this way.
      The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), on many occasions, when speaking for the Conservative Party in opposition, told Ministers of the Labour Government, "You may not be able to accept this form of words. I appreciate the difficulties, but it will be the responsibility of the Minister to help. If the Government agree with the substance of our argument, it should be possible for them to meet us." We have often said that if the spirit of compromise was abroad at Geneva or elsewhere, the agreements that we want would become accomplished facts. We feel so strongly about the Amendment that I have the agreement of my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.
      The Lord Advocate: With the permission of the House, perhaps I might say a word or two. I assure right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have given the Amendment very careful consideration. We sympathise with the general idea of encouraging the possibility of free exchange but, to borrow the language of the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), we cannot make it watertight or "legal-tight." There are practical
      difficulties in making such an arrangement compulsory.
      One difficulty is the provision that this is to happen in "appropriate cases." The difficulty from a practical point of view would be to decide when we have "appropriate cases" if the parties concerned—there are four of them—do not agree. The suggestion is that the dispute might go to the sheriff, but what is the criterion upon which the sheriff is to decide whether the circumstances are "appropriate" or not? The proposal would open up a vast field of discussion, difficulty and confusion.
      Another point which apparently has not occurred to hon. Members is that if we were to impose an obligation upon the landlord of a house to accept a tenant from the local authority, we should have to impose a similar obligation upon the local authority to comply with the exchange in "appropriate circumstances," whatever they were. Therefore, we should impose a very substantial limitation on the discretion of the local authority.
      For the reasons which I have stated, we do not see our way to make the general principle of exchange, no matter how estimable it may be, compulsory on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes. 187: Noes, 218.

      Division No. 136.]

      AYES

      [6.3 p.m.

      Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

      Clunie, J.

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

      Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

      Coldrick, W.

      Gibson, C. W.

      Awbery, S. S.

      Collick, P. H.

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

      Bacon, Miss Alice

      Corbel, Mrs. Freda

      Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

      Bartley, P.

      Cove, W. G.

      Greafell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

      Bence, C. R.

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Grey, C. F.

      Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

      Crosland, C. A. R.

      Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

      Cullen, Mrs. A.

      Hale, Leslie

      Blackburn, F.

      Daines, P.

      Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

      Blyton, W. R.

      Darling, George (Hillsborough)

      Hamilton, W. W.

      Boardman, H.

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      Hannan, W.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Hargreaves, A.

      Bowden, H. W.

      de Freitas, Geoffrey

      Hastings, S.

      Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

      Deer, G.

      Hayman, F. H.

      Brockway, A. F.

      Delargy, H. J.

      Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

      Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

      Dodds, N. N.

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Donnelly, D. L.

      Holman, P.

      Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Balper)

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

      Houghton, Douglas

      Brown, Thomas (Ince)

      Edelman, M.

      Hoy, J. H.

      Burke, W. A.

      Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

      Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

      Burton, Miss F. E.

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Callaghan, L. J.

      Fienburgh, W.

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Carmichael, J.

      Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

      Hynd, H. (Accrington)

      Castle, Mrs. B. A.

      Follick, M.

      Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

      Champion, A. J.

      Foot, M. M.

      Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

      Chapman, W. D.

      Forman, J. C.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

      Chetwynd, G. R

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Mort, D. L.

      Sparks, J. A

      Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

      Moyle, A.

      Steele, T.

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

      Oliver, G. H

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Jones, David (Hartlepool)

      Orbach, M.

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

      Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

      Oswald, T.

      Sylvester, G. O.

      Keenan, W.

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

      Thomas, George (Cardiff)

      Kenyon, C.

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

      Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Pannell, Charles

      Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Parkin, B. T

      Thornton, E.

      Lawson, G. M.

      Pearson, A.

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Popplewell, E

      Viant, S. P.

      Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

      Porter, G.

      Wallace, H. W.

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Warbey, W. N.

      Lewis, Arthur

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

      Watkins, T. E.

      Lindgren, G. S.

      Proctor, W. T

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

      Logan, D. G.

      Pryde, D. J.

      Weitzman, D.

      MacColl J. E.

      Rankin, John

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      McGovern, J.

      Reeves, J.

      Wells, William (Walsall)

      McInnes, J.

      Reid, William (Camlachie)

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Rhodes, H.

      White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

      McLeavy, F.

      Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

      White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Mallelieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Willey, F. T.

      Mann, Mrs. Jean

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

      Manuel, A. C.

      Ross, William

      William, W. R. (Droylesden)

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

      Willis, E. G.

      Mason, Roy

      Short, E. W.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Mellish, R. J.

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Wyatt, W. L.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

      Yates, V. F.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

      Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

      Monslow, W.

      Skeffington, A. M.

      Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Morley, R.

      Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

      Mr. Arthur Allen and

      Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

      Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

      Mr. John Taylor.

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

      Sorensen, R. W.

      NOES

      Aitken, W. T.

      Deedes, W. F.

      Horobin, I. M.

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

      Dodds-Parker, A. B.

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

      Alport, C. J. M

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

      Howard, Gerald(Cambridgeshire)

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Donner, Sir P. W.

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

      Doughty, C. J. A.

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

      Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

      Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

      Arbuthnot, John

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

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

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

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Banks, Col. C.

      Duthie, W. S.

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Barlow, Sir John

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

      Beach, Maj. Hicks

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

      Finlay, Graeme

      Kerr, H. W.

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      Fisher, Nigel

      Lambert, Hon. G.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

      Lambton, Viscount

      Birch, Nigel

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Langford-Holt, J. A

      Bishop, F. P.

      Fort, R.

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

      Black, C. W.

      Foster, John

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

      Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Bossom, Sir A. C.

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

      Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

      Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Garner-Evans, E. H.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

      George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

      Lucas, P. B.(Brentford)

      Brooman-White, R. C.

      Glover, D.

      McAdden, S. J.

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

      Godber, J. B

      Macdonald, Sir Peter

      Bullard, D. G.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

      McKibbin, A. J.

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Gower, H. R.

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Graham, Sir Fergus

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

      Campbell, Sir David

      Grimond, J.

      MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

      Carr, Robert

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

      Channon, H.

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

      Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

      Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

      Harvie-Watt, Sir George

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Cole, Norman

      Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

      Marples, A. E.

      Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

      Heath, Edward

      Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

      Cooper-Key, E. M.

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

      Maude, Angus

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

      Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L C

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

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Medticott, Brig. F.

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Mellor, Sir John

      Crouch, R. F.

      Holland-Martin, C. J

      Molson, A. H E.

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

      Hollis, M. C.

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

      Holt, A. F.

      Nabarro, G. D. N.

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Hope, Lord John

      Neave, Airey

      Davies Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Roper, Sir Harold

      Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

      Nugent, G. R. H.

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

      Touche, Sir Gordon

      Nutting, Anthony

      Russell, R. S.

      Turner, H. F. L.

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

      Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

      Turton, R. H.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

      Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

      Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

      Vane, W. M. F.

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

      Scott, R. Donald

      Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

      Osborne, C.

      Shepherd, William

      Vosper, D. F.

      Page, R. G.

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

      Wade, D. W.

      Peyton, J. W. W.

      Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

      Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

      Pickthorn, K. W. M.

      Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

      Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

      Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

      Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

      Walker-Smith, D. C.

      Pitman, I. J.

      Snadden, W. McN.

      Wall, Major Patrick

      Pitt, Miss E. M.

      Speir, R. M.

      Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

      Powell, J. Enoch

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

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

      Stevens, Geoffrey

      Walkinson, H. A.

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

      Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

      Profumo, J. D.

      Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

      Wellwood, W.

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

      Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

      Rayner, Brig. R

      Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

      Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

      Redmayne, M.

      Studholme, H. G.

      Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

      Rees-Davies, W. R

      Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

      Wills, G.

      Renton, D. L. M.

      Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Ridsdale, J. E.

      Teeling, W.

      Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Robertson, Sir David

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Sir Cedric Drewe and

      Robson-Brown, W.

      Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

      Mr. Oakshott.

      Clause 16.—(NOTICES OF INCREASE.)
      Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, at the end, to insert:
      "the dwelling-house was not a dwelling-house to which section (Application of foregoing provisions of Part II of Act to certain classes of dwelling-house) of this Act applies and that at that date."
      This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause, which I moved on 17th May, applying a special procedure to certain houses before an increase can be claimed in respect of such houses. Under this Amendment, every normal notice of increase has to contain a declaration that the house is not one to which the new special procedure applies, and this provision will avoid any risk of the landlord making use of the normal procedure when he is not entitled to do so, because, if he does so, he would render himself liable to heavy penalties under the False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 17.—(DETERMINATION WHETHER CONDITIONS FULFILLED TO JUSTIFY INCREASE OF RENT.)
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 20, after "form," to insert:
      "and shall serve a copy of the certificate on the landlord."
      Mr. McInnes: On a point of order. There is an Amendment to Clause 16 on the Order Paper in the name of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and
      1338
      myself. Is it not being called? During the Committee stage, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that Members would be provided with a copy of the prescribed notice dealt with in Clause 16. This would be an invaluable document to Members, but it has not been made available. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will keep faith with the undertaking which he then gave.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Although I think that the particular Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is in order, it is not selected.
      Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) has no quarrel with the Chair, and I am sure would not attempt to pursue it if he had, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but he has pointed out that the Secretary of State undertook that this document should be made available to us, and that it has not been made available. Could we have your advice as to what remedy we have?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Amendment is not selected, there is no remedy that I can think of.
      Commander Galbraith: May I say that copies of the prescribed form will be made available?
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps something could be said about it on Third Reading.
      6.15 p.m.
      Commander Galbraith: The effect of the Amendment is that a local authority, having granted a certificate of disrepair to a tenant, will serve a copy of the certificate direct upon the landlord, and that, of course, saves the tenant from having to do it himself. It meets a suggestion which was put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) during the Committee stage.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, at the end, to insert:
      A local authority shall not be precluded from issuing a certificate that the house is unfit for human habitation because they have been unable due to the housing shortage in their area to provide alternative accommodation.
      The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify the position concerning a very large number of houses all over Scotland. These houses are known by the local authorities to be unfit for human habitation, but the local authorities have not served any certificates to the effect that they are unfit because of the fact that they have been unable to rehouse the tenants. In Edinburgh, when a survey was made in 1946, it was found that 6,800 houses were unfit for human habitation, and, since then, no doubt, there has been quite a number more. On making inquiries about these houses, I found that the local authority has a list of the houses, but that neither the tenants nor the landlord is aware which these houses are.
      Under the terms of the Bill, in spite of the new Clause and the new Schedule which the Government have introduced, making it necessary, in certain cases, for the landlord to go to the local authority for a certificate before he issues a notice of increased rent, it seems that a large number of these houses are still in the category in which the landlord can issue a demand to increase the rent.
      Obviously, the intention of the Government, as expressed by their spokesman, is that there should be no liability to pay any increase in rent in these cases. How are we to get over this difficulty? The local authority is unable to act because it has never informed either the tenant or the landlord, owing to the fact that the authority was unable to rehouse the tenants of these houses.
      1340
      The Amendment seeks to protect the tenants, and to place the local authority in the position to inform the tenants so as to save tenants having to go through the procedure outlined in Part II to avoid paying the increase. If the Government want to protect thousands of tenants—this Amendment does not apply simply to Edinburgh, although I know the position in Edinburgh better than any other—from the possibility of rent increases to which they are not liable and save the tenants the bother of going through this procedure, they ought to accept this or some similar Amendment.
      Mr. Thomas Oswald: I beg to second the Amendment.
      We find ourselves in a rather delicate situation. Local authorities are debarred, in many instances, from issuing a certificate on an unfit house because they are unable to give alternative accommodation to the people concerned. Throughout the Scottish region the number of unfit houses is becoming a real problem for local authorities. In 1946, nearly 6,800 houses in Edinburgh were regarded as completely unfit. I am repeating the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, given in a reply to me. He said that a survey by the Edinburgh Corporation had shown in 1946 that 6,781 houses could be regarded as completely unfit. At a later stage we discovered that 39,108 houses in Edinburgh were looked upon as substandard but not necessarily unfit.
      A number of years have passed since 1946, but the position becomes increasingly worse. We do not see why local authorities should not be entitled, having issued a certificate to both tenant and landlord, to declare that a particular property is completely unfit. I mentioned, during the Committee stage, that there are properties that, with all the will in the world, we would find it impossible to rescue, as suggested in the documents coming from the Government. We are very much concerned with the situation wherein there are houses which we know to be unfit, but have not been declared unfit and no certificate has been issued.
      We are trying to safeguard our people in this respect. They ought to know that their houses are unfit and that they cannot be called upon to pay anything like the 40 per cent. increase for the carrying out of repairs that the tenants have paid

      1341
      for over and over again in the past, although no repairs have been carried out. We press the Government to consider the Amendment and give local authorities an opportunity of submitting certificates of that character.
      Commander Galbraith: There is a little misapprehension and misunderstanding here. Clause 17 (1) deals with local authorities having a duty to issue a certificate, on application. If a house is unfit there is no discretion left to the local authority. Upon the tenant applying for it and upon the local authority ascertaining that the house is unfit, the local authority has a duty, under the subsection, to issue a certificate of disrepair. The inability of the local authority to provide alternative accommodation does not arise under the subsection. In the circumstances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
      Mr. Willis: Oh, no. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is dodging the issue by telling us that the Amendment does not fit in with the subsection. It is true that if the tenant makes application the local authority cannot refuse a certificate. Our point is that the local authority already has the information that the house is unfit for human habitation. It is possible that a large number of houses is affected, because in Edinburgh there are between 7,000 and 8,000. It is quite possible that quite a number of people will not know of the provisions of this Measure and will not make application, in spite of the fact that they are living in houses which are unfit for habitation. They will be subject to the provisions of Part II, which allows the landlord to increase the rent by 40 per cent.
      Surely an opportunity should be provided to the local authority to inform tenants that their houses are unfit and so save tenants' having to use this procedure and ensure their obtaining the right which the Government think they ought to obtain, of being excluded from the operation of this Part of the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not face up to that position in his reply.
      Amendment negatived.
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, at the end, to insert:
      (2) Where the local authority have served a notice under section seven of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, requiring the execution
      1342
      of works on a dwelling-house in respect of which a notice of increase has been served under the last foregoing section, they shall, as soon as the first-mentioned notice becomes operative, certify accordingly in the prescribed form and shall serve a copy of the certificate on the landlord and on the tenant of the dwelling-house; and the certificate shall come into force as from the date of such service on the landlord.
      It might be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment could be considered together with others on the Order Paper relating to the same matter, in page 14, lines 23 and 33—the second one—and page 15, line 10.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that would be for the convenience of the House.
      Commander Galbraith: The effect of these Amendments is to place on the local authority the duty to issue a certificate whenever they have served a notice under Section 7 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950. I hope the Amendments will meet to a considerable extent the point which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made in his last speech. The certificate is to have the same effect as a certificate of disrepair under subsection (1) of the Clause enabling the repairs increase, together with the 1920 increase in the case of the old controlled houses, to be withheld.
      I hope the House will feel that this is valuable for the tenant, who gets the certificate without having to apply for it. The Amendments meet to some extent points made in the Committee, when it was maintained by hon. Gentlemen opposite that all the duty was on the tenant. We are changing the balance a bit and I hope that will meet with the commendation of the House.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. D. Johnston: I think the House will agree that the idea behind the first Amendment is fundamentally sound. Indeed, I think it was made in response to a point raised in Committee by my right hon. and hon. Friends. But, of course, it does not go very far, because a certificate cannot be granted under Section 7 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, unless the house is
      "unfit for human habitation but"—
      and this is important—
      "is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation …"

      1343
      The result of that will be that certificates will only be granted under the 1950 Act in the case of the better houses. The result will be that the worst housed of our population will themselves have to take the initiative in going to the local authority and getting the necessary certificate of disrepair. The better housed of our population, that is, those who live in houses which are
      "capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation "
      will not require to go to the local authority, because, under this subsection, the local authority itself will be able to take the initiative.
      That is unfortunate, and I think it is the more unfortunate when one looks at provisions of this type in the earlier Rent Acts. For example, under Section 22 of the 1920 Act—which I see is noted in the Schedule for repeal—it was possible for the local sanitary authority to initiate matters and to issue a certificate if they were satisfied that
      "either"—
      and I emphasise the word either—
      "the house was not reasonably fit for human habitation or was not in a reasonable state of repair."
      That conferred a very much greater benefit upon the tenant than does this Clause.
      Under the earlier Acts, it was also possible for a local authority to take the initiative under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and, if a local authority took that initiative, the certificate under that Act had the effect of stopping the increase of rent.
      I should like the Government to explain why they have narrowed the broad provisions of the earlier Rent Acts and why they have confined a certificate to be granted on the initiative of the local authority to those under Section 7 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which, as I explained earlier, are very narrow and only apply to those houses which are
      "capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation."
      In my submission, the Clause, while acceptable in its general principle, is far too narrow.
      Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put certain questions to me which, with the permission of
      1344
      the House, I will try to answer. It must be realised that the whole situation is changed, by this Bill, from that which previously existed. Local authorities will now be able to come in to an extent which they were unable to do before, and to take over the houses and deal with them. That makes a complete change in the situation.
      I feel that the houses—though it is impossible to be accurate in these matters—about which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, the worst houses, on which he laid stress, are just the houses which the local authorities will take over, and in that way they will be amply protected. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the field has changed, as he can see for himself, and, therefore, the provisions which were essential at other times are now no longer essential. I think that the Amendment meets the situation as far as we are able to meet it.
      Mr. Johnston: While the situation has changed, and while it may well be that the worst houses will be taken over under Part I of the Bill, is it not probable that certain of those houses will not be taken over for some years, indeed if ever, and, accordingly, should not provision be made in this part of the Bill for a certificate granted under the earlier Acts to operate?
      Commander Galbraith: The certificate under the 1923 Act is still operative in relation to those houses, as is stated in the Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, at the end, to insert:
      (2) Where a landlord has been refused a certificate from the local authority that both the conditions justifying an increase of rent are fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to Certain Classes of Dwelling-house) the local authority shall issue a certificate to the tenant and the landlord in like manner as in the foregoing subsection.
      I think that this is a necessary Amendment. Subsection (1) of Clause 17 provides for the tenant going to the local authority for a certificate stating that the two conditions justifying an increase in rent have not been fulfilled. As was explained to us during the Committee stage, if such a certificate is issued, not only does the tenant not have to pay the 40 per cent. increase, but the current rent

      1345
      is reduced by the amount of the rent increases imposed under the 1920 Act.
      This Amendment calls attention to the new Clause and to the new Schedule which have been added to the Bill, under which, in respect of certain classes of property, the landlord is required to go to the local authority to get a certificate stating that the conditions are fulfilled before he can get the increase in rent. The Amendment proposes that if the landlord is unable to get a certificate showing that the conditions have been fulfilled in order to justify an increase in rent, then, automatically, a certificate will be issued in like manner as on application it is issued under subsection (1) to the tenant and to the landlord, so that, as it were, in going to the local authority in respect of certain classes of houses, the landlord will be taking a gamble. He will either get a certificate and, therefore, receive his 40 per cent. increase in rent, or he will not get a certificate and will receive the present rent less the increases imposed under the 1920 Act.
      It seems to all of us on this side of the House that if this Amendment is not accepted there will be three classes of houses, those that will have the old rent, the pre-1920 rent, because a certificate has, been issued under subsection (1); those which will have the 40 per cent. increase because the certificate will be issued under the provisions of the new Schedule, and those which are obviously not in good repair because the local authority were unable to issue a certificate under the new Schedule, and yet the tenants of which would be called upon to pay the current rent. We think that the tenants should be protected, and that this is a reasonable Amendment.
      Mr. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.
      The Lord Advocate: I quite appreciate the reasons which have induced the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to put down this Amendment. There are some drafting objections to it, but I do not want to delay the House by going into them. We are quite prepared to consider whether an Amendment to give effect to what quite obviously the hon. Gentleman wants to do could be moved in another place on the lines indicated in his speech. If, in these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman can see his way to withdraw
      1346
      the Amendment, we will certainly do that.
      Mr. T. Fraser: I am most anxious to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: In page 14, line 23, leave out from beginning, to "served," and insert:
      "either of the foregoing subsections and have."—[Commander Galbraith.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, to leave out from "dwelling house," to the end of line 32.
      Linked with this Amendment is that in page 14, line 38, and that on page 15, line 3. This group of Amendments arises out of an observation made in Committee by Members on the other side, and, in particular, by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). They pointed out that if the landlord was successful in showing that the local authority had wrongly issued a certificate, the tenant, as defender in the proceedings, would be liable for costs as a result of the local authority's wrong decision. As will be seen in column 850 of the Committee proceedings, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking to consider amending the procedure.
      These three Amendments do three things. For the existing method of challenging a local authority's certificate they substitute a direct appeal by the landlord against the local authority's decision to issue the certificate. That procedure does not involve the tenant, and it is done in that way to save him the consequent expense. The Amendments enable the landlord to appeal against a certificate of disrepair whether granted on the ground of repair or of fitness, and give him a right of appeal also against the refusal of the local authority to revoke a certificate. They really give effect to the undertaking given by the Secretary of State. In this way we have tried to meet the criticisms made about the undue burden which might be put on a tenant.
      Mr. McNeil: The Committee will be indebted to the Lord Advocate for the concession contained in the Amendment. As he quite fairly says, it is now quite

      1347
      plain that the tenant who is the innocent bystander will not bear the expense of the action between the local authority and the landlord. We should have been even more indebted to the Lord Advocate had he spent a little more time in explaining the consequences of the other Amendments. He said, quite accurately but rather cursorily, that as the Bill previously stood the landlord would have had no right of appeal against a certificate in relation to unfitness, but that the landlord would now have an appeal on either ground.
      It is very difficult to understand this. What was wrong with the previous procedure? Was it an unjustifiable protection for the tenant? One may sometimes have a dwelling which is certainly in a good state of repair, but which does not conform to the normal standards of fitness for habitation. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) said when I was discussing this with him, it would be quite reasonable to point to a pigsty which was in a quite adequate state of repair, but that would not be a reason for concluding that it should be a habitation.
      6.45 p.m.
      I am not quite clear whether the Lord Advocate meant to open this door. I am always anxious to credit him with the worst intentions in these things. The "Chief Whip" of the Lord Advocate does not live in this House. He is a gentleman called Mr. Murray McGregor, and when that "chief whip" cracks all sorts of curious things happen. On this occasion however, I am not anxious to credit the Lord Advocate with such a mean intention. Perhaps, with the permission of the House, he might explain further why he has thought it necessary or desirable to alter the situation in this respect.
      Mr. McInnes: I agree that the Lord Advocate has gone a long way towards meeting the desires expressed in Committee. Nevertheless, I invite him to look at paragraph (b) of the proposed subsection (5)—that is, the Amendment in page 15, line 3. That reads:
      "in the case of a certificate which the local authority have refused to revoke under subsection (3) thereof, to have been revoked on the date on which the local authority refused to revoke it."
      As the Bill originally stood if, on appeal, the sheriff decided in favour of
      1348
      an aggrieved landlord the certificate was revoked as from the date of the sheriff's decision. That has now been amended and following the sheriff's decision, the revocation of the certificate will take effect as from the date of the local authority's refusal to revoke.
      That is back dating it maybe two or three years, or months—dependent largely on when the sheriff gives his decision. It is a departure from the wording of the original Bill. I do not !mow whether it is an unintentional departure, or whether the draftsmen have put it in to give the landlords the benefit of the additional time. I should like to know why it has been found necessary to add the words:
      "… on the date on which the local authority refused to revoke it."
      The Lord Advocate: As regards the point raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) about the challenge of the certificate on the ground of fitness, it is true that a provision of this nature was not in the original Bill. The position is that the Government had put down Amendments in Committee to make this change, but, in view of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider the whole of this procedure, they were not proceeded with further at that stage. We are now incorporating them because it was then recognised that there would obviously have to be modifications in view of the new procedure.
      In Section 16 of the Housing Act, 1950, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt recollects, it is already provided that the owner of a house may challenge the issue of a notice under Section 7 of that Act and thereby dispute the necessity of doing the work that is described in that notice to make the house fit. In other words, under the Housing Act an owner may challenge in court the local authority's decision as respects the fitness of a house for human habitation. This Amendment gives a corresponding right under this Measure, because it would be anomalous if it were given under one and not under the other.
      I will look into the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) as to the dating back to the date of the refusal to revoke, and I will give him an answer to it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 33, leave out "giving," and insert "granting."
      In line 33, at end, insert "or subsection (2)."—[The Lord Advocate.]
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 34, to leave out "the landlord has executed," and to insert:
      "there has been executed by or at the expense of the landlord."
      This Amendment is concerned with subsection (3) in the matter of the revocation of certificates of disrepair. The subsection says that when the landlord has executed the work necessary, then the local authority, on the application of the landlord, shall revoke the certificate. But at times, of course, while the landlord pays for the work, he does not execute it for himself; it may be executed on behalf of the local authority. Therefore, it would be unfair if he could not get his certificate of disrepair revoked because he had paid for the work but had not actually done it himself. In those circumstances, we propose to insert these words so that the revocation shall take place if the work has been executed by or at the expense of the landlord.
      Mr. McNeil: We take note of the Government's usual tenderness of heart towards these people who do not discharge their moral obligations, and of whose interests the Government are taking care.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In page 14, line 38, at end, insert:
      The local authority shall serve on the landlord notice of their decision on any application made by him under this subsection.
      In page 15, line 3, at end, insert:
      (5) If the landlord of a dwelling-house is aggrieved by the granting of a certificate under subsection (1) of this section, or by the refusal of the local authority to revoke under subsection (3) thereof a certificate granted under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, he may appeal to the sheriff by giving notice of appeal within twenty-one days after the date of the service on him of the copy of the certificate or of the notice of the decision of the local authority to refuse to revoke the certificate, as the case may be; and if on the hearing of the appeal the sheriff is satisfied that, at the time when the certificate was granted or, as the case may be, the local authority refused to revoke the certificate, the conditions justifying an increase of rent were
      1350
      fulfilled, he shall revoke the certificate and thereupon it shall be deemed—
      (a) in the case of a certificate granted under subsection (1) of this section, never to have been in force;
      (b) in the case of a certificate which the local authority have refused to revoke under subsection (3) thereof, to have been revoked on the date on which the local authority refused to revoke it.—[The Lord Advocate.]
      In line 10, leave out subsection (6).—[Commander Galbraith.]

      Clause 18.—(APPLICATION OF LAST FOREGOING SECTION TO CERTAIN INCREASES UNDER RENT ACTS.)
      Amendment made: In page 15, line 38, leave out "given," and insert "granted."—[The Lord Advocate.]

      Clause 19.—(PASSING ON OF REPAIRS INCREASE TO SUB-TENANT.)
      Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, to leave out "two," and insert "four."
      As the House will remember, in Committee we moved to increase the length of time that the notice should be given to a tenant, and, accordingly, we feel it right to do similarly with regard to the subtenant.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 21.—(RESPONSIBILITY OF LANDLORD FOR REPAIRS.)
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 17, line 23, after "thereto," to insert:
      "and of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920."
      This is a technical Amendment. The Clause as drafted does not effectively substitute the new provisions for the provisions in the 1920 Act which they replace, and the Amendment is designed to get over this technical difficulty.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 22.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REPAIR.)
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, after the second "any," to insert "act."
      This is a clarifying Amendment. Subsection (1) as it stands follows a similar provision in the Rent Acts which refers only to neglect or default of the tenant. While no difficulty appears to have arisen from the absence of the word "act," it has been represented that the words

      1351
      "neglect or default," which are rather negative terms, may not cover positive acts. It is reasonable that the subsection should cover matters of that kind, and, consequently, this Amendment has been put down.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 23.—(EXCLUSION FROM RENT ACTS OF LETTINGS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS, ETC.)
      Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 18, line 17, to leave out from "where," to the end of line 18.
      This and the six following Amendments to page 18 all hang together. They are designed to meet points expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who considered that the original wording of the Bill could be improved. We have done our best to meet him in this respect, and I hope that he will be satisfied.
      Mr. Patrick Maitland: I must apologise for not being able, in Committee, to make the remarks which I feel it my duty to make now, because I was at that time serving on another Standing Committee which was dealing with the Mines and Quarries Bill.
      Paragraphs (b) and (d) of this subsection lift from the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts those houses built by a development corporation or by a Scottish local authority association. As a result, I have received representations from constituents living in the new town of East Kilbride, and this point may very well crop up elsewhere. Therefore, I feel it my duty to state the anxiety that these people feel—
      Mr. T. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) is seeking to discuss these paragraphs in Clause 23 (1) and not the Amendments which are before the House. With respect, I should think that he would be out of order in doing so.
      Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to follow this somewhat complicated matter. It seems to me that the point of the Amendment as it was moved by the Secretary of State
      1352
      is a very narrow one, and I do not think it would bear the weight of argument that the hon. Member was trying to place upon it.
      Mr. Maitland: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it possible at this stage to seek an assurance from the Secretary of State on two points?
      Mr. Speaker: It is not possible on the Report stage, which is merely a tidying up performance after the Committee stage. It is not really an occasion for speeches on the Clauses of the Bill.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State was kind enough to say that these Amendments were put down to give effect to some requests which I made during the Committee stage, and I should like to thank him very much.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 19, after "(a)," insert:
      "the interest of the landlord belongs to."
      In line 24, after "(b)," insert:
      "the said interest belongs to."
      In line 26, after "(c)," insert:
      "the said interest belongs to."
      In line 26, leave out "where."
      In line 28, after "(d)," insert:
      "the said interest belongs to."
      In line 33, after "(e)," insert:
      "the said interest belongs to."—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 19, line 12, after "1950," to insert:
      "or with the assistance of a local authority under section two of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923."
      The purpose of the Amendment is merely to rectify an omission. The subsection lays down the conditions under which tenancies held by housing associations are exempted from the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Amendment proposes to include those houses, belonging to such associations, which were provided with the assistance of local authorities under Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1923.
      Mr. D. Johnston: Before the House accepts the Amendment, I feel that we ought to know a little more about its effects. As I understand, Section 2 of the

      1353
      Housing Act, 1923, provided for a local authority advancing funds to a housing association or guaranteeing its overdraft or any loans which it might obtain from a building society. The local authority might then impose such conditions as it thought fit upon the authority which was building the houses. The effect of this Amendment seems to be to take those houses, which up till now have been covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts, out of the operation of those Acts. The Amendment might well affect houses owned by associations like the Western Heritable Investment Company.
      Commander Galbraith indicated dissent.
      Mr. Johnston: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, but will he tell us under what Act the loans were made to that company?
      I do not think we should accept this Amendment, which has the effect of still further limiting the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, without being told how far it is likely to operate, and in relation to what types of house and the total number of houses it will operate. Until we get that assurance I suggest that we should not accept the Amendment.
      Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member is correct in what he said about the Housing Act, but the Amendment could not possibly apply to a concern such as the Western Heritable Investment Company. It applies only to housing associations, and not to public companies of that nature. The Government are of the opinion that housing associations are reputable people who trade on a non-profit making basis or have the rates of interest on their capital fixed by the Treasury. We consider that they should have the opportunity of fixing the rents of their houses.
      If we did not have this provision they would be entitled to increase their rents by two-fifths, and we consider that it is much better that, being reliable authorities, they should have the opportunity of maintaining flexibility and not have to jump into an increase of two-fifths or any other amount, which they might feel inclined to do if they were not free to act as they see fit and reasonable. It is for that reason that the Amendment has been moved, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
      Mr. McInnes: I have endeavoured to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument about housing associations, but the Amendment merely says:
      "or with the assistance of a local authority under section two or the Housing, &c., Act, 1923."
      Section 23 refers to houses provided by local authorities themselves, by a society, by a body of trustees, or by a company. The Western Heritable Investment Company is obviously a company, and I am not sure that the reference in the Amendment to this Section of the Act of 1923 would not apply in the case of such companies.
      Commander Galbraith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). The hon. Member must refer to the opening words of subsection (2, a), which are:
      "the premises comprised in the tenancy were provided by the housing association …"
      They have to be provided by the housing association.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, at the end, to insert:
      "and those premises were provided by the housing association before the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-three."
      During the Committee stage the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) suggested that it might be possible for an industrial concern to promote a housing association for the purpose of freeing houses provided for its workers from the control of the Rent Acts. By requiring that the houses have to be provided by a housing association before the publication of the Bill, I believe that the Amendment meets the fears which the hon. and learned Member expressed.
      Mr. D. Johnston: I am obliged to the Secretary of State and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Amendment entirely meets the point I made in Committee.
      Mr. T. Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend has said that he accepts the Amendment, as I do, because it meets the point he made during the Committee stage, but I should like to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State what the position is in relation to houses provided

      1355
      by a housing association between 13th November, 1953, and the date when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I take it that those houses will be controlled, but a new Clause which the Government thought fit to move earlier provides that all houses provided after the Bill becomes an Act will not be controlled.
      It seems to me—and I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong—that, having regard to the Amendment, the Clause, and the new Clause to which I have referred, the only houses held by housing associations which will in future be controlled by the Rent Restrictions Acts are those which have been provided between 13th November, 1953, and the date when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
      Commander Galbraith: I should like to think that over before giving a definite reply, but I do not think it arises on the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston), which was that houses now rent-controlled might be turned over to a housing association, and freed.
      Mr. Fraser: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman clear up this question? The Government, quite understandably, gave way to the argument that my hon. and learned Friend made in Committee, but before they thought of the new Clause that takes all the houses built after the passage of the Measure out of rent control altogether. Therefore, will not the effect of these provisions be that only the houses provided between November last year and the passage of the Bill and owned by housing associations will remain within rent control?
      Commander Galbraith: That is right. They will remain controlled.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 26.—(STANDARD RENTS FOR NEWLY CONVERTED PREMISES.)
      Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 26.
      This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which excludes from the Rent Acts dwelling-houses converted or erected after the commencement of this Measure.
      Amendment agreed

      Clause 29.—(INCREASE FOR RISE IN COST OF SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER PRE1939 LETTINGS.)
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 25, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 5, and to insert:
      (1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy or is occupied by a statutory tenant; and.
      This and the next two Amendments, and the one to page 25, line 35, are linked together, and it would be convenient if we could discuss them together.
      The Clause as it stands enables the landlord to increase the rent only in respect of services he has contracted to provide. The Amendments will enable him to claim an increase not only in respect of a rise in the cost of the services he is obliged to provide under the terms of his contract with the tenant, but also in respect of any other services he provides to the tenant. The Amendments seek to overcome the difficulty which would otherwise arise, where the landlord provides these services for his tenants although there is no agreement in writing to that effect. The safeguard to the tenant is provided by the last of these Amendments, which enables the tenant, if the landlord ceases to maintain a service, to treat that as an additional burden under the Rent Acts, and to withhold a portion of the rent accordingly.
      Mr. McInnes: What portion?
      The Lord Advocate: A portion of his rent according to the value of the service which is dropped. The tenant will be entitled not merely to withhold the increase paid in respect of services the landlord ceases to provide, but to have his rent reduced by the whole cost of providing the service.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. McNeil: This is not a major matter, but there are two points that puzzle me. I am not at all sure about the first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to uncontracted services. Would this mean that the landlord would be able to provide any service he thought desirable and to pass on that cost? The second question is, who decides the value of the services withdrawn in respect of which the rent can be withheld?
      The Lord Advocate: The answer to the first question is, no. The answer to the question, who is to decide the portion of the rent to be withheld, is in Section 2 (3) of the Act of 1920.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 12, at end, insert "and."
      In line 13, leave out line 13, and insert:
      (b) services for the tenant are under the terms and conditions of the letting to be provided, or are provided, by the landlord.—[The Lord Advocate.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 25, line 17, after "made," to insert:
      "after the commencement of this Act."
      This Amendment is related to the next. The effect of the two is that in respect of the rise in the cost of services provided by the landlord the rent can be increased by agreement in writing between the parties or on a determination of the rent tribunal only if the agreement or determination is made after the commencement of the Measure. The Clause as it stands would give a legal sanction to any increase in rent resulting from an agreement entered into in the past. It is known that agreements have sometimes been made between the parties to a lease for the payment of extra rent in respect of the increased cost of services provided by the landlord.
      These agreements made in the past have been attempts to contract out of the Rent Restrictions Acts and would not be countenanced by the courts. The Amendments ensure that if any earlier agreements have been made of that kind, the landlord and tenant will nevertheless have to start again after the Bill is in operation, and either reach agreement afresh or have the rent fixed by the tribunal. In other words, the Amendments provide a protection for the tenant.
      Mr. Woodburn: We were a bit puzzled about exactly what was the purpose of the Amendments. I gather they cancel out these extraordinary agreements. The tenants have to start afresh—
      The Lord Advocate: Both parties.
      Mr. Woodburn: Yes. I thought that was the meaning of the Amendments, but, having been caught before by some of the legal phraseology, I wondered whether I was right or whether they would allow the one party to contract out
      1358
      and the other to be left in the lurch. I think we welcome the proposal, on the whole.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 27, after "time," insert:
      "after the commencement of this Act."
      In page 25, line 35, at the end, insert:
      "subject, however, to the provisions of the next following subsection—
      (3) Where any such agreement or determination as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection has been made in respect of services which the landlord is not under the terms and conditions of the letting liable to provide, any withholding or restoration of those services (whether in whole or in part) shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of section two of the Act of 1920 (which relates to the effect on recoverable rent of the transfer of burdens and liabilities between landlord and tenant) as a transfer from the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of a burden previously borne by him."—[The Lord Advocate.]

      Clause 32.—(REPAIRS INCREASE, ETC., NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR VALUATION AND RATING.)
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 26, line 35, to leave out from "dwelling-house," to "under," in line 36, and to insert:
      "in respect of which a repairs increase is recoverable."
      This is a drafting Amendment and is an endeavour to make clear what the Clause was designed to achieve.
      Mr. D. Johnston: Is it right to describe this as a drafting Amendment? I should have thought that its effect was to apply Clause 32, which is the Clause dealing with repairs increase
      "not to be taken into account for valuation and rating"
      only to those houses where a repairs increase was recoverable and accordingly to limit the effect of Clause 32, which, in any case, is an objectionable Clause, to houses upon which the necessary repairs have been carried out and the increased rent was recoverable.
      The Lord Advocate: It is true that the Clause is intended to apply only where a repairs increase is recoverable. If the repairs increase ceases to be payable because the conditions justifying the increase are not fulfilled, the Clause will no longer apply. The Amendment is designed to make that clear.
      Amendment agreed to

      Clause 33.—(LIMITATION OF OWNER'S RATES ON CONTROLLED HOUSES.)
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 27, line 39, to leave out line 39, and to insert:
      "ending on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, or in the case of a local authority with respect to which special provision is made in a local Act, for the corresponding financial year."
      This Amendment gives effect to an agreement with the local authority associations that the ceiling for owner's rates for the purposes of the Clauses should be fixed at the amount of the rate which the county or burgh levied in the year 1953–54, the rates in force when the Bill was introduced. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that the Government would put this Amendment down.
      Mr. D. Johnston: The Lord Advocate has said that this Amendment has been put down as a result of an agreement with the local authorities. My understanding is that all three local authority associations have objected to this Clause in its entirety because the Clause sets out to limit the owner's rates on controlled houses. As far as I understand it, the only agreement to which they have come is this: if this Clause is passed, they would prefer that a definite date should be inserted, as is done by the Amendment, rather than that the matter should be left in the form set out in the unamended Clause.
      This Clause is bad for a variety of reasons, most of which I mentioned in Committee. It is bad because the Sorn Committee on valuation and rating is sitting in Scotland at the moment. It is bad because it seeks to impose a greater liability on tenants than on owner-occupiers. This Amendment is an additional reason for thinking it bad, because it is retrospective legislation. The responsibility of the landlord of a rent-controlled dwelling is now to be limited to the poundage of rates imposed upon him in 1953–54. In most local authority areas in Scotland the rate poundage is rising, and if the words of the Bill were unamended the landlord would clearly be required to pay a greater poundage than will be the case under the Amendment.
      I well remember that when the present Opposition were in power there were
      1360
      howls of protest from the Conservative Party when retrospective legislation of a financial character was proposed. It was often forgotten that retrospective financial legislation was introduced by the Conservative Party when in power in 1940.
      What is the justification for introducing this provision? Why should the Clause be amended so that the landlord gets the benefit of the lower poundage of the 1953–54 rate instead of paying the higher poundage of 1954–55? Secondly, how will this work when local authorities are making up their budget? I should have thought that it would be most inconvenient for local authorities in making up their budgets. They must already have made them up for the year.
      Thirdly, the benefit which is conferred upon a landlord is passed as an increased burden to tenants and owner-occupiers, with the result that their burden, which they presumably assessed at £x per annum, is now to be increased by £y, £y being the difference between the 1953–54 rate and the 1954–55 rate.
      This is a most objectionable Amendment, and we shall require some further explanation of it than that with which the Lord Advocate started—his explanation that this step had been taken with the full agreement of the local authorities.
      Mr. McInnes: I should like to support the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston). It was rather slick of the Lord Advocate to imply in his opening remarks that the Clause was accepted by local authorities. In fact, they have made very strong and vigorous objections to the Clause.
      I do not know what private arrangements were made between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the year in which the financial operations were to commence, but I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this aspect: the financial year up to 15th May, 1954 has been completed, all assessments have been paid until the end of the financial year and local authorities have now embarked upon another financial year. Yet the Tory Party, in order to keep faith with their friends, desire to introduce this limitation of owner's rates.
      I have previously accused the Lord Advocate of being discourteous to the

      1361
      House, and even at this stage he does not seem to have learned his lesson. I tell him quite candidly that he must treat the House with the knowledge that we on this side understand the Bill just as well as he does and, in addition, that we are conversant with many of the conversations which have taken place. We know that at no time have the local authorities agreed to this Clause.
      If the Amendment is made and the financial year ended 15th May, 1954, is inserted in the Bill, precisely what extra work will be thrown upon local authorities in making the necessary adjustments in view of the fact that they have now embarked upon a new financial year, commencing 16th May, 1954? In my opinion, local authorities will be placed in a most awkward position and will be involved in a tremendous amount of additional work. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let us know precisely what took place at these conversations. I put it to him categorically: did he insert 15th May, 1954, at the specific request of the local authorities?
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Manuel: I also wish to register my protest on behalf of the Scottish local authorities against this provision. Those of us who have been active in local authority work know that 15th May, so far as Scotland is concerned, involves a great deal of work for the chamberlain's departments. The necessary assessment notices have been sent out and a new financial year starts on 16th May each year. The assessments have gone out and the rates have now been paid.
      Is it the intention that because of this date in the Secretary of State's Amendment the local authorities will now have to turn round and assess overpayment of owner's rates so far as the rate of poundage is concerned in each local authority area in Scotland, and make an adjustment in the owner's rates?
      The Lord Advocate indicated dissent.
      Mr. Manuel: The Lord Advocate shakes his head. Will he tell us how this is going to be done?
      This date ought to be 1955 and not 1954. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to recognise that, so far as our information goes, if the local authorities and the local authority asso-
      1362
      ciations abhor one thing more than another in this Bill, it is the freezing of owner's rates. We shall have all the repercussions from that. The Government having got the principle through, having steam-rollered it through, are now going to scrape the barrel to the bottom to get a little extra. I hope that the Lord Advocate can explain what agreement he had with the local authorities.
      The Lord Advocate: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak a second time on this Amendment.
      Several hon. Members have asked whether there was an agreement, or what agreement there was, with the local authorities. Of course, the local authorities originally did not like the limitation on owner's rates.
      Mr. McNeil: Originally?—wholly and exclusively.
      The Lord Advocate: Provision to that effect is incorporated in the Bill. Negotiations took place with the local authorities in regard to the fixing of a year, in respect of which these calculations are to be made.
      I say, as I said earlier, that an agreement was arrived at with them that the ceiling on owners' rates for the purpose of this Clause should be fixed at the amount of the county or burgh rate fixed in the year 1953–54. That is what I said originally, and that is the fact.
      Mr. McInnes: Should I be correct in assuming that that agreement was come to in December of last year, in anticipation that this Bill would become an Act of Parliament on April of this year?
      The Lord Advocate: I understand that is not so.
      The next point made was that this was retrospective legislation. With the greatest respect, this is nothing of the kind. It is not retrospective legislation, it is fixing a date in the past in order to get a date line for calculations. I am asked by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to describe in detail the amount of extra work which this will involve on the local authorities. My answer is that it will involve absolutely no more work on them. Under the Clause as it originally stood, the calculations had to be made on a certain basis. We are merely altering the year to be used for the purpose of calculation.
      Mr. Manuel: The Lord Advocate is quite wrong. Quite apart from the date, he is going to tell the local authorities that owner's rates will be frozen at the present figure. They have now to reassess a proportion of owner's rates and spread it over shopkeepers, owner-occupiers, municipal tenants and other occupiers, in the area. That means that another assessment will have to be made. That will require another column on their valuation roll.
      The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 33 he will see that that is not the result at all. Clause 33 (1) says:
      "In the financial year first commencing after the passing of this Act and in every subsequent year the owner of any dwelling-house … shall be relieved of liability to pay …"
      owner's rates, on a certain basis. All that we are doing is to change the year we use for the purpose of calculation. The calculation has to be made on the Clause as it stood originally, and the Amendment does not involve more work on the local authority. It merely means that they have to use a different year for the purpose of calculation.
      Mr. McNeil: I hope that the Lord Advocate will bring more candour and knowledge to this discussion. It is quite regrettable that the House should have thought for a second that there was any agreement in principle existing on this subject. The Lord Advocate sprang to his feet with a cheerful smile, and said that this was agreed with the local authorities.
      In fact, it was not agreed with the local authorities.
      The Lord Advocate: All I said is, what I am still saying, that there was an agreement with the local authorities' associations as to the year which was to be adopted as the ceiling for the owner's rates.
      Mr. McNeil: I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of precisely what happened. The Government refused to listen to the local authorities' appeal against this appalling principle under which the owner's rates were to be frozen and the rest of the community were to carry the burden. But they would not listen to that, and the local authorities came to the Secretary of State and said, "If you are going to rob us of our bank books you might at least leave something in the blind man's tin, by adjustment of rate equalisation grant."
      To prevent the local authorities losing any of the benefits that came to them from one calculation, the right hon. Gentleman then substituted this date. But it is a bad principle. The local authorities had opposed this principle. This amount to the extent of which they are to be robbed does not make it a good principle, and for that reason we propose to divide the House.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 212.

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morley, R.

      Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

      Hynd, H. (Accrington)

      Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

      Sorensen, R. W

      Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

      Sparks, J. A.

      Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

      Mort, D. L

      Steele, T.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

      Moyle, A.

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

      Oliver, G. H

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Orbach, M.

      Sylvester, G. O.

      Jeger, Mrs. Lena

      Oswald, T.

      Thomas, George (Cardiff)

      Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

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

      Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

      Paling Will T. (Dewsbury)

      Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

      Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Thornton E.

      Jones, David (Hartlepool)

      Pannell, Charles

      Timmons, J.

      Jcnes, T. W. (Merioneth)

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Keenan, W.

      Parker, J.

      Viant, S. P.

      Kenyon, C.

      Pearson, A.

      Warbey, W. N.

      Key, Rt. Hon C. W

      Popplewell, E

      Watkins, T. E.

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Porter, G.

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

      Lawson, G. M.

      Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

      Weitzman, D.

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

      Proctor, W. T.

      Wells, William (Walsall)

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Pryde, D. J.

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Lindgren, G. S.

      Rankin, John

      White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

      Logan, D. G.

      Reeves, J.

      White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      MacColl, J. E

      Reid, William (Camlachie)

      Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

      McInnes, J.

      Rhodes, H.

      Wilkins, W. A.

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

      Willey, F. T.

      McLeavy, F.

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

      McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Ross, William

      Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

      Mann, Mrs. Jean

      Shackleton, E. A. A

      Willis, E. G.

      Manuel, A. C.

      Short, E. W.

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

      Mason, Roy

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Mellish, R. J.

      Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

      Wyatt, W. L.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

      Yates, V. F.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Skeffington, A. M.

      Monslow, W.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

      Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

      Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.

      NOES

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

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Holland-Martin, C. J

      Alport, C. J. M.

      Deedes, W. F.

      Hollis, M. C.

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Dodds-Parker, A. D.

      Holt, A. F.

      Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Hope, Lord John

      Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

      Donner, Sir P. W.

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

      Arbuthnot, John

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Horobin, I. M.

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

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

      Banks, Cot. C.

      Drewe, Sir C.

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Barlow, Sir John

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

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

      Beach, Maj. Hicks

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

      Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

      Duthie, W. S.

      Hylton-Foster, H. B H.

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Birch, Nigel

      Finlay, Graeme

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Bishop, F. P.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W

      Black, C. W.

      Fleetwood-Hesketh,R. F

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Kerr, H. W.

      Bossom, Sir A. C.

      Fort, R.

      Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.

      Bowen, E. R.

      Foster, John

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

      Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Po11ok)

      Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.

      Braine, B. R.

      Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

      Garner-Evans, E. H.

      Lucas, Sir locelyn (Portsmouth, S)

      Brooman-White, R. C.

      George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

      Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

      Glover, D.

      McAdden, S. J.

      Bullard, D. G.

      Godber, J. B.

      Macdonald, Sir Peter

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

      McKibbin, A. J.

      Burden, F F. A.

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Gower, H. R.

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Campbell, Sir David

      Graham, Sir Fergus

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

      Carr, Robert

      Grimond, J.

      MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

      Channon, H.

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

      Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

      Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

      Cole, Norman

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

      Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Cooper-Key, E. M.

      Harvie-Watt, Sir George

      Marples, A. E.

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

      Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

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

      Heath, Edward

      Maude, Angus

      Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

      Crouch, R. F.

      Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

      Mellor, Sir John

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Molson, A. H. E.

      Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Proposed words there be inserted in the Bill.
      Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 41, leave out from first "in," to "entitled," and insert "that year."—[The Lord Advocate.]
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 28, line 14, to leave out from "dwelling-house," to the end of line 17, and to insert:
      "in respect of which a repairs increase is recoverable under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act."
      This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee that the Government would put down an Amendment at the Report stage to limit the effect of the Clause to houses in respect of which a repairs increase is payable. An Opposition Amendment designed towards this end was withdrawn in view of the undertaking which we gave.
      Mr. Woodburn: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 36.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART II.)
      Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 28, line 35, after "Schedules," to insert:
      "and Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to certain Classes of Dwelling-house)."
      This is really a drafting Amendment. The House has already accepted a new Clause, which I moved on 17th May, and, at the same time, with the new Clause we discussed the new Schedule which appears later on the Order Paper
      1368
      entitled, "Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to Certain Classes of Dwelling-house." This Amendment arises out of those additions to the Bill.
      Mr. Woodburn: I am not quite clear whether the Secretary of State wants to discuss the new Schedule now, or whether this is merely a preliminary to the Schedule and does not imply the Schedule being disposed of without further question.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we discussed it on the occasion of our last consideration of the Bill on Report.
      Amendment agreed to.
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 29, line 40, after the second "tenant," to insert:
      "(as defined in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920)."
      This is also a drafting Amendment. It extends the category of the tenants who are to be protected and it is linked with the Amendment to page 29, line 41, which follows this one on the Order Paper. The effect is to alter the definition of "statutory tenant," and the Amendment is designed to make clear that that term embraces all types of statutory tenants, and in particular covers a widow or the contractual tenant who retains possession of the premises. Recently, the House of Lords found that these people were entitled to be covered, and it is desirable that they should be covered in this Clause, which is not the position at present. These Amendments seek to give the widow the benefit of the new decision.
      Mr. T. Fraser: I have the greatest sympathy with this Amendment, but I am confused about the effect of it because it proposes to add after the second "tenant," the words:
      "(as defined in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920)."
      Might I read what Section 12 (1, b) of the 1920 Act says:
      "The expression 'standard rate of interest' means, in the case of a mortgage in force on the third day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the rate of interest payable at that date, or, in the case of a mortgage created since that date, the original rate of interest."
      That is the definition which the Government propose to give to a tenant. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had got things mixed up a bit.
      The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the 1920 Act he will see that it is paragraph (g). I do not think he has read paragraph ((g).
      Mr. Fraser: I distinctly heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary say to the Lord Advocate "paragraph (g)" and he anticipated what I was going to say, namely, that the Government have obviously committed a drafting error because they put on the Order Paper paragraph (b) and they should have put down paragraph (g). They are more interested in the rate of interest than in the tenant, and they put down the definition of a rate of interest to cover the tenant.
      The Lord Advocate: If there is any question of confusion I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we mean paragraph (g) and that this is a misprint.
      Mr. Hoy: The Amendment quite obviously cannot pass as it is because we could not accept the definition of a rate of interest as covering the rights of widows. Might I suggest that we should have a manuscript Amendment to put it right.
      The Lord Advocate: The simplest way would be to withdraw the Amendment and to do what we intended in another place.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that a manuscript Amendment would meet the case.
      Mr. Ross: Can we have an assurance that the manuscript Amendment will not be Clyde built?
      The Lord Advocate: I think we had better withdraw the Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. We will not move the next Amendment to line 41.
      Mr. Hannan: Withdraw the whole Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 38.—(DETERMINATIONS OF SHERIFF TO BE FINAL.)
      Amendment made: In page 31, line 8, at end, insert:
      (2) The provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (5) of section one hundred and sixty-six of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, shall apply to any appeal to the sheriff under subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act as they apply to appeals to the sheriff under that Act.—[The Lord Advocate.]

    New Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF PART II OF ACT IN APPLICATION TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF DWELLING-HOUSE.)
    1. For the purposes of subsection (1) of section fifteen of this Act, the conditions justifying an increase of rent shall be deemed not to be fulfilled in respect of the dwelling-house unless the local authority, on the application of the landlord and on being satisfied that the dwelling-house fulfils both the conditions justifying an increase of rent, have certified accordingly in the prescribed form; and where a certificate has been granted under this paragraph in respect of a dwelling-house, any such certificate of a sanitary authority and any such order of a court as is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section (Application of foregoing provisions of Part II of Act to certain classes of dwelling-house) of this Act which is then in force in relation to the dwelling-house shall cease to have effect.
    2. In subsection (1) of section sixteen of this Act (which requires that a notice of increase shall contain certain declarations) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
    "(a) a declaration that at the date of service of the notice there is in force a certificate granted under paragraph 1 of the Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Act in Application to Certain Classes of Dwelling-house) to this Act;
    (b) a declaration such as is mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act;
    (c) a declaration that the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing or that the sheriff has determined, that work has been carried out as specified in the last-mentioned declaration."
    3. The provisions of subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act (which subsection confers

    1371
    on the landlord of a dwelling-house a right of appeal to the sheriff in certain cases) shall apply in relation to the refusal of the local authority to grant a certificate under paragraph 1 of this Schedule as it applies in relation to the refusal of the local authority to revoke under subsection (3) of that section a certificate granted under subsection (1) thereof.
    4. In the First Schedule to this Act—
    (a) for sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
    "(1) The service of a notice of increase containing such a declaration as is required by this Schedule shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) of section fifteen of this Act as the production of satisfactory evidence that work has been carried out as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection if, but only if, before the service of that notice, either—
    (a) the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing that work has been carried out as so mentioned; or
    (b) the sheriff, on the application of the landlord, is satisfied that work has been carried out as so mentioned and has determined accordingly;
    and, where the landlord and the tenant have so agreed or the sheriff has so determined, the validity of a declaration shall not be questioned on the ground that the value of the work stated in the declaration to have been carried out on the dwelling-house is less than that required by the foregoing provisions of this Schedule"; and
    (b) paragraph 5 shall be omitted.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
    This new Schedule was discussed in connection with the new Clause which was debated in the House on 17th May, the relevant paragraphs in the OFFICIAL REPORT for which will be found in columns 1837 to 1845.
    Schedule read a Second time.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, at the end of paragraph 1, to insert:
    Provided that in considering any such application an appropriate officer of the local authority shall visit each dwelling-house in respect of which an application is made and shall consider any representations made by the tenant of the dwelling-house and shall issue to the tenant a copy of any certificate issued to the landlord.
    I do not think these words need very much explanation and it is perfectly clear what we are after. When a landlord
    1372
    applies for a certificate under paragraph (1) of the new Schedule, we suggest that the appropriate officer of the local authority should visit each house in respect of which an application is made and should consider any representations made by the tenant before reaching a decision. Then when a decision is reached we believe that a copy of any certificate issued to the landlord should also be issued to the tenant. It is a reasonable proposition.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This Amendment gives some extra protection to the tenant and it is reasonable. I hope that the Government will accept it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I hope the Opposition will not press this Amendment because, in practice, this would increase very greatly the work of the local authorities. In every case of an application for a certificate of repair under the new procedure now proposed, the local authority would have to require an officer to visit every house, hear the representations of the tenant and issue to the tenant a copy of any certificate issued to the landlord. I suggest that this long and detailed procedure seems hardly necessary because under the Schedule as it is the local authority is allowed to issue a certificate of repair on being satisfied that the house fulfils both the conditions for justifying an increase in rent.
    In the first place, the local authority can be trusted to carry out these functions and to take the proper steps before issuing a certificate. And, secondly, the Amendment would mean, almost without exception, that a visit to the house would be necessary, but yet the local authority might already have sufficient information in its possession to act without proceeding to the unnecessary business of a special visit. By the Amendments which we have discussed here we have already added to the safeguards of the tenants in the Bill and, as has already been stated both in Committee and in the House, landlords who are irresponsible and who make false declarations are liable to severe penalties.
    I trust, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. Hoy: That is rather an extraordinary answer. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the local authority may have the information on which to give a decision. If, on the other hand, it has not got the information, how can it issue a certificate? On whose authority? On the authority of the landlord? Is he to say to the local authority that the house conforms in every way and is the local authority to accept his word? Or is it to be the tenant?
    It seems to me to be an extraordinary position that the local authority will grant a certificate with regard to any dwelling-house in its boundaries without having made an examination of the property concerned. Before he decides to reject this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman must show on what authority and on what information and evidence the local authority will act. Unless he can do so, I do not see how he can reject the Amendment. We certainly could not accept legislation without any assurance that a certificate will not be issued without evidence. I am certain that the Secretary of State will want to reconsider his reply and will want to say a further word or two before he asks us to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. David J. Pryde: This is a perfectly reasonable and logical Amendment, and the reply of the Secretary of State demonstrates how far removed are the Government Front Bench from the ordinary walks of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) said, on what ground is the local authority to act?
    This Amendment makes it essential that before a certificate is issued there shall be an examination to allow the local authority to know just what is wanted or what is not wanted. There are any number of local authorities who have not up-to-date information regarding property within their boundaries simply because they have not made a survey for a considerable time. Why, then, should the Secretary of State say casually, "Oh, the local authorities can be trusted to issue certificates legitimately." Yes, but they can only be trusted to do so if they have the necessary data, and that can only be obtained by means of an examination.
    So I appeal to the Government Front Bench to reconsider this matter. When
    1374
    the Bill was drafted they were bound to see that it would involve a considerable amount of work, and on the Committee stage we pointed out how much new work would be required for the administration of the Bill. We pointed out that it would require new staff for every local authority in Scotland. That is the reason why there is such determined opposition on the part of our local authorities who are carrying far too heavy financial burdens already. Will the Government then accede to our request to them to accept the Amendment?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that my hon. Friends will not withdraw this Amendment for two reasons. The first is that the Amendment is perfectly reasonable; the second is that the reason adduced by the Government in asking us to withdraw it was thoroughly unreasonable. The Minister said that the Amendment, if passed, would add considerably to the work of the local authority. Manifestly that is not so because the local authority will already have visited the house for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Bill.
    Three things are asked for in this small Amendment. One is that the local authority should send an appropriate officer to inspect the house. The second is that it should consider any representations made by the tenant. The third is that it should issue a copy of the certificate to the tenant.
    As to the first, I have already pointed out that the local authority will, of necessity, have visited the house. Therefore it is unreasonable for the Government to say that this Amendment will add to the work of the local authority; and it is untrue. As to the second point, to consider any representation made by the tenant would involve the collection of facts and the taking into account of facts coming from the person best able to know, namely, the tenant. That would not add to the work of the local authority.
    The third point is that the local authority shall issue to the tenant a copy of any certificate issued to the landlord. Why should there be discrimination against the tenant? It seems thoroughly unreasonable, and the Amendment makes the reasonable suggestion that the tenant should be treated on equal terms with the landlord. I urge my hon. Friends not

    1375
    to withdraw this Amendment, and I beg the Government to accept it in order to improve the Bill.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State seems to have had in mind that this procedure would require to be adopted in a large number of cases if my Amendment were accepted. May I call his attention to the fact that it is a proviso to paragraph 1 of the new Schedule, which is limited in its application to houses referred to in subsection (2, a) of the new Clause, the rubric of which is
    "Application of foregoing provisions of Part II of Act to certain classes of dwelling-house."
    Referring to that paragraph, we find that the dwelling-house to which this Schedule applies, and to which my Amendment applies, is:
    (a) any dwelling-house in respect of which there was in force at any time during the period between the thirteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, and the commencement of this Act—
    (i) a certificate of a sanitary authority under the Rent Acts that the dwelling-house was not in a reasonable state of repair; or
    (ii) an order of the court under the Rent Acts suspending an increase under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 until the court is satisfied that the necessary repairs have been executed.
    Surely the position is that the new Clause, together with the Schedule, applies to a very limited class of property in respect of which the local authority has issued a certificate of disrepair since the Bill was published or in respect of which a sheriff court has made an order. All we ask is that if the owner of any such house should make an application for a certificate, and the conditions justifying an increase in rent are fulfilled, the local authority should at least see the house before issuing the certificate.
    If the local authority has itself issued a certificate of disrepair since the Bill was published, or if a court of law has issued an order certifying disrepair or unfitness for human habitation since the Bill was published, surely no local authority will do less than my Amendment asks. I thought that if the Government were going to resist my Amendment it would be on the grounds that it was quite unnecessary and that no local
    1376
    authority would ever dream of considering an application for a certificate in respect of this limited class of property without first of all sending a technical officer along to inspect the house and to consider any representation made by the tenant.
    I should have thought that any reasonable local authority would do that. I cannot imagine that a local authority would not do it. I do not know how else a local authority could know whether a house in respect of which it had already issued a certificate was no longer entitled to the certificate of disrepair but was, instead, entitled to a certificate of fitness for human habitation and, being in good and tenantable repair, warranted the increase in rent.
    I appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise that this is not an unreasonable Amendment. It is a provision to which most local authorities in Scotland would give effect in any case, even if it were not written into the Bill. I ask the Secretary of State even now, if he cannot accept the Amendment because of some advice which he has had, or because of drafting difficulties, at least to say that he will look at the matter again with a view to putting down an Amendment in another place, if he thinks it is necessary.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I really do not think it necessary to accept the Amendment and to do what is proposed. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) himself seemed to doubt the necessity for it.
    The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said that officers of the local authority would already have visited the house. If the Amendment were accepted, those officers would have to visit the house again after the Bill became an Act. That is why I am against the Amendment. There is no point in duplicating work and forcing local authority officers to carry out unnecessary work.
    Obviously, where a local authority has not got the information upon which to act, it will have to obtain it, and in order to obtain it, it will visit the houses about which it does not already have the necessary information. The Amendment would require it to visit all houses whether it had the information or not, and that is unnecessary. On those

    1377
    grounds, I ask the House to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Schedule negatived.
    Schedule added to the Bill.

    First Schedule.—(PROOF OF PAST REPAIRS BY LANDLORD.)
    Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 32, line 9, to leave out from "work," to "has," in line 10, and to insert:
    "(the nature of which shall be specified in general terms in the declaration)."
    The object of the Amendment is to eliminate the possibility of an ambiguous interpretation. We think that the words which we are substituting for those at present in the Schedule will be better understood.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 32, line 17, after "such," to insert "continuous."
    During the Committee stage there was some dubiety expressed about the period of three years during which the expenditure test was to run, and I gave an undertaking that we would put the matter right. The introduction of "continuous" makes it clear that it must be a continuous period of three years.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.15 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 33, line 13, at the end, to insert:
    6. If in such a declaration as is required by this Schedule any person makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceedingly thirty pounds.
    The new paragraph provides for a penalty on summary conviction for knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in the declaration regarding the expenditure test in the notice of increase served on the tenant. During the Committee stage several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, as the Clause stood, it was necessary in order to secure a conviction to prove that the false statement was made knowingly and wilfully and that that imposed a heavy onus upon anyone seeking to establish that an offence had been committed.
    1378
    The Amendment has been drawn to meet that criticism. The new paragraph will strengthen the safeguards for tenants by making it easier for a case to be made out against a landlord who declares wrongly that the expenditure test has been met.
    Mr. Woodburn: We are at a loss to understand how the Government have come to change their mind on two points. We could understand the Government wanting to make it easier to convict someone who committed an offence, but we cannot understand why they want to make it easier for a man after he commits an offence.
    Originally, the Government proposed penalties of £100 and six months' imprisonment, presumably on the grounds that they could not convict the man. Now, when they are going to convict him, evidently the fine must be reduced. I do not know whether the landlords have now discovered that they are more likely to be committing offences and want to make sure that their bluff will not be called in this sense. As there is a possibility that they might be convicted, have they made some approach to the Government that the fine should be lighter? It seems to me that if landlords are going to commit an offence, it is still an offence even though they are likely to be more easily convicted. The other offence would probably have been a theoretical offence which could never have been brought home to them, but it is now an offence which, presumably, may be brought home to them.
    It would be interesting to have a further explanation from the Government as to why there has been a sudden outburst of leniency. The Government are increasing the rent by 40 per cent. and reducing the fine by 66 per cent. That is the wrong way round.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I ask the Lord Advocate whether a landlord facing these dire possibilities would be entitled to legal aid?
    The Lord Advocate: That depends upon the extent to which the legal aid scheme is extended or otherwise.
    In reply to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), there has been no approach by anybody in

    1379
    connection with this matter. The Amendment represents a sincere desire to meet a point made during the Committee stage. The reason for the penalties of imprisonment for two years or a fine, or both—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both?"]—certainly, 'both"; that is possible—is that these are penalties provided under an existing statute, the False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933, which still stands. This is an endeavour to extend the provisions to a case where a person does not go as far as knowingly and wilfully making a false statement but recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular. Obviously, the maximum fine should not be as high as if he was knowingly doing it.
    Mr. Pryde: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee how the fine squares with another part of the Bill, which provides that the sheriff could rule that it was a mistake on the part of the landlord and put it right?
    The Lord Advocate: Here, we would not get a conviction unless he makes a declaration which he knows to be false in a material particular.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, at the end, to insert:
    (c) the floor area of a dwelling-house shall be ascertained in such manner as the Secretary of State shall prescribe, and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or far bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in any part of a dwelling-house which is of less than a specified height.
    During the Committee stage, there was a certain amount of discussion as to how the floor area was to be measured in regard to the expenditure test and how expenditure was to be allocated. Accordingly, we thought it would be wise that the Secretary of State should be given powers to issue regulations on this subject, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
    Mr. Manuel: Since we are to have regulations, and I am very pleased about it, because I know the difficulties which we have had about excluding certain areas in computing the cubic air space may I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us an idea of the type of specification which he will
    1380
    bring in, and what actually will be provided in the regard to the floor space and the height of the room?
    Commander Galbraith: I really have not in my mind at the moment what the regulations might do, but I would give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to bear in mind exactly what he said.
    Mr. T. Fraser: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the regulations referred to in the Amendment are to be made by Statutory Instrument to be within the control of this House? If so, my hon. Friend would not feel so anxious about the matter, but if they are not to be Statutory Instruments under the control of the House, it is a different matter. Would the Lord Advocate tell us how this is to be done?
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Before my right hon. and gallant Friend replies to that question, may I express the hope that he will not commit himself to introducing these regulations by means of Statutory Instruments? Where shall we be getting if we are to have regulations telling experts how to measure up a room, and these regulations are brought up on the Floor of the House? This is about the limit. All that is necessary is a directive, and that is all I myself asked for during the Committee stage. Surely it could be done without bothering the House any more about it.
    Commander Galbraith: They will not be within the control of the House, but will be regulations made in the ordinary way.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Third Schedule.—(REPEALS.)
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 28, at the end, to insert:

    9 & 10 Geo. 6, c 42

    The Water (Scotland) Act, 1946.

    Section fifty-seven so far as relating to house or a building which contains a house or a part of such a building.

    This Amendment is consequent upon the new Clause which has already been incorporated in the Bill. Under Section 57 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, the principle of limiting the liability of trustees is already incorporated. We have now put into a Clause of this Bill a similar provision, and the provision of

    1381
    the Water (Scotland) Act is no longer necessary. Consequently, that provision is being repealed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 35, line 32, in column 3, at the beginning, to insert:
    "In section eight, the proviso to subsection (3)."
    This Amendment is in the same category as the last one, as it repeals a provision of an Act now superseded by the new Clause limiting the liability of trustees.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.27 p.m.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    We have had long discussions in connection with this Bill, and a long Committee stage, occupying in all 24 sittings. In Committee, I said that the Government would welcome Amendments to improve the Bill, and, as a result of both the Committee stage and the Report stage, I believe that the Bill has been improved, with the help of both sides of the House.
    The main discussion concentrated on Part II of the Bill. It was never suggested during our discussions that the preservation of our existing rent-controlled houses was not essential. That being agreed, differences arose over the method of achieving this important objective. All I would say about one of the main differences is that the Government could not favour the imposition on the local authorities of the burdens, financial, administrative and legal, which would have been involved in taking over three-quarters of a million rent-controlled houses.
    The Bill proceeds along other lines, which the Government believe to be both workable and right. It enables the houses to remain in existing ownership and offers to landlords the possibility of obtaining rents sufficient to enable them to keep the houses in repair. As hon. Members must now be well aware, this increase in rent cannot be charged until the house is put into repair, and the increase will not continue unless the landlord keeps the house in repair.
    The amount of the permitted increase is based upon the recommendations of
    1382
    the Hutson Committee as to the increased cost of repair, and this is the only increase in respect of which the landlord is permitted to increase the rent. Our Committee discussions concentrated as much on the conditions governing the increase as on the increase itself, and as a result of those discussions in Committee additional safeguards have now been provided in the Bill in the interests of the tenant.
    It is generally admitted that, while there are bad landlords, all are not bad; neither are the houses of all the good landlords good houses. Therefore, we provided, on Report stage, a special procedure for the houses which, in the recent past, have been the subject of statutory action by the local authority and may, therefore, be regarded as what we call "suspect" houses. This point is dealt with in the new Clause which was added to the Bill, and in a Schedule.
    In regard to this new special class of houses, no landlord can obtain the repairs increase unless he has proved beyond doubt that he is entitled to it; that is to say, that he has carried out the necessary work. As to the future, the Government believe that it may reasonably be expected that a landlord, having claimed the increase, will continue to keep the house in repair, using the increase for that purpose. If he does not, the tenant can obtain a certificate of disrepair.
    We believe that as the result of the Bill it will be possible to preserve in repair those houses which are not beyond the landlord's financial ability to put into, and to keep in, repair. Further, we also hope that much greater use will now be made of the improvement grant provisions introduced in the Act of 1949 by the previous Government, and amended by Part I of the Bill.
    It may interest the House to know that, since the Committee stage, discussions have taken place with local authorities about this policy. We agreed, as did the Committee, that there must be no discrimination between applicants for grant, and in issuing guidance to local authorities on this point we intend to stress that what really matters is whether a house can be usefully improved. With the shortage of houses continuing, we feel very strongly that no opportunity should

    1383
    be neglected of bringing houses up to modern standards wherever possible, provided that the houses are structurally worth the expenditure of the money necessary to carry out the work.
    In regard to the Clauses of the Bill dealing with slum clearance and patching, there are provisions in Part I, mainly financial, to enable local authorities to render more tolerable for tenants those houses which are now either beyond repair altogether or beyond the landlord's capacity to repair, and which cannot yet be demolished. The House will be glad to know that when my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland discussed with the local authority associations on 2nd April the form of the proposals to be submitted under Clause 1, no difficulty was found in reaching agreement.
    There should be no question of any local authority finding the preparation and submission of these proposals an unduly burdensome task. In addition, the local authorities readily undertook to make copies of the proposals available to members of the public who might be interested to see them. This will be done without charge. This meets the point which the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) raised during the earlier proceedings on the Bill.
    The next point upon which we concentrated was slum clearance, because patching is in no sense a substitute for it. Patching should be carried out only where the output of new houses does not permit local authorities to rehouse, within a reasonable time, all who are at present living in unsatisfactory houses. Unfortunately, especially in urban areas, many local authorities are faced with this regrettable situation.
    It will be possible, under the Bill, to spend quite substantial sums—£150 or more on a house—in making houses more habitable pending demolition. There may also be houses on which the local authority can go further and carry out works to bring them up to modern standards. In certain cases, no doubt, a private owner would be unable to undertake such expenditure, but a local authority might be able to do so, with satisfactory results both to the tenant, who would benefit from the better
    1384
    accommodation, and also to the local authority, by reducing the lists of those requiring new houses.
    I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House now, because we have already had long discussions on the Bill, and because there is not a great deal of time left for the Third Reading. We have spent the best part of two days on Report, in addition to the long Committee stage, to which I referred. But I wish to reiterate that in this Bill the Government have done their best throughout to hold a fair balance.
    We knew at the outset that this was going to be a very thorny and difficult problem to tackle, but nevertheless we felt, very soon after taking office, that in addition to getting an accelerated speed of new building, which I am thankful to say has been achieved, it was also vital to ensure that many old houses should be put into a better state of repair, for the very good reason that they must be retained in occupation until such time as new housing is able to meet the requirements of all those in need of houses.
    Mrs. Alice Cullen: Twenty-five years too late in commencing.
    Mr. Stuart: I would point out to the hon. Lady that six of those 25 years were during the lifetime of the previous Administration. However, I do not want to go into all that, because I have no wish to take up too much time.
    This means that more money must be spent on repair work. We have done our best to ensure, by the safeguards in the Bill, for example by the expenditure test, that the tenant will not be exploited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is the case. We have put in safeguards additional to those which were originally in the Bill. This increased rent was referred to by one right hon. Gentleman opposite, in relation to the English Bill, as a "mouldy turnip." That has not been said in connection with the Bill affecting Scotland.
    I suggest that we have held the balance fairly as between the landlord and the tenant, and have endeavoured adequately to safeguard the tenant's position. I believe that as a result of our long discussions we have reached satisfactory

    1385
    conclusions. At any rate, I can assure the House that the intentions of the Government are sound and honourable—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I repeat that the Government's intentions are sound and honourable, and I trust that, in operation, this Bill will benefit those whom we wish to help in the bad housing areas. I commend the Bill to the House.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. McNeil: It is obvious that I must be brief. I do not reproach the Secretary of State, but I do reproach the Government, of which he is a member that, on an important Bill such as this, we are left with only 1½ hours for the Third Reading. No one can argue that there has been any time wasted on Report. I doubt whether, with a Bill of these dimensions there has ever been comparable progress. When we are left with only 1½ hours for Third Reading the Scottish people will know that this is how their affairs are treated by a Tory Government.
    In closing, the right hon. Gentleman said an extraordinary thing. He talked about the houses which, as we all agree, need to be converted and modernised. He said—and I think I am right in saying it was for the first time—that he would have to depend on the local authorities doing that job, which he did not think private enterprise would be able to do. What extraordinary contrast there is! The people who created this problem which we are asked to face have been handled tenderly and rewarded substantially in reply to each one of their pleas. Even at this very late stage we have seen the Government make concessions to the factors and the property owners.
    On the other hand, the local authorities, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman tonight tells us he will have to depend for this work of conversion, have been repudiated, pushed aside, and treated more frugally—not to say more shabbily—in this Bill than in any other Scottish Housing Bill. Neither the Scottish people nor the Scottish local authorities will forget that strange contrast; the people who do the damage are to be rewarded; the people who must do the repairs are to be robbed.
    The Secretary of State made a special point, as he has done throughout the
    1386
    whole of the debate, of using the Hutson Report as the justification for this scale of increases. The right hon. Gentleman again makes an assumption, completely unwarranted, which the Government have made at all stages of the Bill. It is that these increases will be applied exclusively to repairs. A committee of greater standing, the Ridley Committee, whose terms of reference were not so carefully and oddly chosen, has reported on this subject. It told us that the previous increases were not applied in the way intended.
    It must never be said on the other side that any of my hon. or right hon. Friends have ever denied the need for repairs. Even at the very latest stage we indicated that if the Government would find a form of words by which these increases would be applied exclusively to repairs, we would back them. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, whatever his intentions may be—and we believe them to be good—looking at the experience between the two wars, the intentions of the people who are to operate these increases taken from tenants and in some part from public funds will not be nearly so honourable. Operation Rescue has never in their view been anything but Operation Plunder.
    It is true that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have from time to time accepted minor Amendments which we have proposed—Amendments which have rectified anomalies and have created a little more defence for tenants and thus made the Bill more workable, but no substantial Amendment of principle has been accepted from this side of the House. I have grave doubts about the extent to which the Bill will work, and I am sure that if tenants in Scotland decide to exert their rights, the sheriff court will be choked with a queue of appellants which neither the Government nor the court will want. If that happens the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will bear the blame.
    The factors and property owners have fared well because the tenants have not been aware of their rights and have been afraid to ascertain what they were. Let us hope that this time—and even the right hon. Gentleman must pay lip service to this hope—the tenants will be aware of their rights and that they will exercise them. Then we shall see this miserable

    1387
    shabby Bill reduced to the fraud and pretence that it is.
    We all hope that the Secretary of State is right about slum clearance, but I doubt it for reasons which I have previously given and which have been given also by hon. Members with much more experience than I have. One would have thought that if the Government were genuinely interested in this matter, more direct and generous methods would have been proposed for this purpose.
    We note the undertaking which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to give tonight when he said that the Joint Under-Secretary had had an agreeable meeting with the local authorities and had agreed on the style and shape of the planning devices provided in the Bill. I hope that that really does mean that the Secretary of State will take a back seat, as we have urged him to do from the beginning, and will let these local authorities, who are very anxious to deal with their problems and who are very skilled to do so, so far as their resources permit, deal with these problems without let or hindrance from the Government and with much more assistance than they are at present provided with.
    This is a shabby Bill. Where it is straightforward it is probably ineffective. Where it is deceitful it deserves not to succeed. We shall vote against it. The people, no doubt, will vote against it, but I repeat that if the people exercise their rights within the scope of this Bill it will be proved, as we have all along indicated, to be an inoperable as well as an unjust Bill.
    8.48 p.m.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Throughout the debate much attention has been paid to the position of tenants in various categories. I wish to detain the House for only a few minutes to refer to one category of tenants before this Bill passes from us.
    By Clause 23 we remove some of the protective provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts from tenants of the new town corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association. Many of us will have received some correspondence on this subject, and I am particularly concerned to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to take
    1388
    note of a point that has been made by the tenants' associations, in particular of the new town of East Kilbride. Since the problem could arise elsewhere if the new town policy is continued, there is an important principle involved.
    The difficulty that has arisen in the minds of some of these new town tenants, and which is voiced by the tenants associations, is this. They are not quite sure that they are to continue to enjoy security of tenure. They have received assurances from the Development Corporation concerned, and it is not my purpose now to cast any fresh or extra doubt upon the value of those assurances.
    I would only say that the White Moss, Westwood and Murray Residents' Associations and the East Kilbride Community Association have all communicated with me to the effect that they would like to have these assurances about continued security of tenure reinforced by an authoritative statement from an elected source. One of the anxieties voiced by them is that they are tenants of an authority which is not elected, and against which they can have no counter-appeal or redress.
    Mr. McInnes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that on the first day of the Report stage he voted, along with his colleagues, for the exclusion of the very houses that he is now speaking about from the operation of the Rent Restrictions Acts, under the new Clause moved by the Government?
    Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for recalling that point. I was able to vote quite happily, knowing the intentions of the Government and believing in the assurance I have had in writing from my right hon. and gallant Friend, which I have passed on to the tenants' association, and with which, so far as they go, I think they are content.
    But there is a problem arising out of this matter which may arise in other new towns, and which it is important to bear in mind. The anxiety of tenants derives from the fact that—in East Kilbride, at any rate—they are nearly all tenants of the new town corporation, because they work in the new town, in a factory or some new enterprise which has been started up.
    They ask what will happen if they should become redundant or get the

    1389
    opportunity of working somewhere nearby and want to change their jobs. Will they continue to have security of tenure? My right hon. and gallant Friend has been kind enough to go into this matter with me in correspondence and has given me an assurance that the development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association would not act capriciously when the opportunity arose to renew the missives to let.
    I want him to confirm that that will be so and that, should there be a ground for complaint by individual tenants, that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be accessible to protests and representations about this matter. That is the simple assurance for which I ask.
    Mr. William Ross: Raise it in Parliament.
    Mr. Maitland: The hon. Member suggests that I can raise the matter in Parliament. It is not the first time that I have raised problems of the new town of East Kilbride in Parliament. None-theless, an important principle is involved. I am confident that my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me the assurance for which my constituents ask.
    I wish this Bill God speed and congratulate the Government on their courage and their triumphant boldness in bringing about a great project for uplifting the state of our people.
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. William Ross: This is a rather nauseating Bill, and the support which it has received is just a little more nauseating. What is being talked about now, at a time when we cannot do anything about it, is what we spoke about in Committee, and upon which we received no support from hon. Members opposite. We raised the matter again on the Report stage, and again the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) raised no voice. He voted against it.
    The Secretary of State said that the Government's intentions were honourable. There is a well-known road which is paved with good intentions.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member should know about it.
    Dr. H. Morgan: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) ought to know better.
    Mr. Ross: I have been preaching to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) about it, and have tried to warn him that he will be travelling that road—
    Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience?
    Mr. Ross: I speak from the experience of a bystander who has seen English Members like the hon. Member for Louth travel that road to the destruction of their souls.
    Mr. Osborne: Cheer up.
    Mr. Ross: The road to Scottish slumdom has been paved with good intentions. All the safeguards the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Lanark have praised and asked us to accept are the safeguards that have been in other Measures to deal with the same problem. Measures which enabled increases of rents to be charged to stop the slip to slumdom.
    I do not doubt their sincerity in saying that the intentions are honourable, but today the right hon. Gentleman is relying, as the Tory Party in 1921 and at other times relied, on the good will and the faith of the landlords, and the landlords have no social responsibility in this respect. They are in housing to make money out of it, and what extra money comes to them by the Bill will not go to the improvement of housing but to the improvement of their own position, just as in the past when they got increased rents the money went to them and not to the improvement of housing.
    This is a shocking Bill. It is shocking for the slum owners who are condemned to continue to live in patched up houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Slum dwellers."] It is shocking—
    Mr. Osborne: Wake up.
    Mr. Ross: At least the House has woken up now, as it does not do when the hon. Gentleman is speaking.
    This is a shocking Bill for slum dwellers, who are to be condemned to continue to live in patched up houses. It is shocking for the tenants of landlord property, who are faced with a 40 per cent. increase in their rents—8s. in the £. It is a shock to the ratepayers, who themselves, apart from the owners, are to

    1391
    shoulder the burden of any future increases in the rates, that would have been carried by the landlords.
    It is a shock for the Scottish Special Housing Association tenants, of whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lanark belatedly has spoken, who now lose their security of tenure and the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is a shock to any intending tenant of new property because now the sky's the limit so far as rent is concerned. Rent control is completely removed.
    This is a strange way for the Government to protect the people. Here, in this shabby Bill, is enshrined the Government's social philosophy, "Let the local authorities come to the rescue of the landlords and take over their liability. When all the profit has been squeezed out of the property, when the property is only a slum, let the local authority take it over. Force it upon the local authority."
    Where is the freedom of the local authorities the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used to speak about? They now are to have the distasteful role of owners of slum property, and, what is even more repugnant, the uneconomic task of patching up these slum properties and of keeping in existence pitiful property fit only for destruction. The Bill relieves the private landlords of unprofitable property, and leaves them the profitable property. Moreover, the Government generously ensure that they will be able to pocket a 40 per cent. increase in rent.
    The safeguards are of no use. They have been proved failures, and yet they are to be renewed and perpetuated. This is serious indeed for all concerned about the Scottish slums, those vicious places in which people cannot possibly live decent lives. They struggle; they do well; but if any of them fall by the wayside, that is as much the social responsibility of the Government who force through a Bill like this.
    I do not think the Bill will work. Consider the burdens which are placed on the tenants in meeting this 40 per cent. increase. The initiative is always with them. The tenant must act. He must have the knowledge, the will, the persistence, to pursue his rights. He must do battle with local authorities, with officials, with lawyers
    1392
    and with sheriffs. How will old folk react to this kind of treatment? Can we imagine an old couple fighting these battles?
    This is a challenge to the sincerity of hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. James Carmichael: Particularly the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore).
    Mr. Ross: Where is the hon. and gallant Gentleman? He was so concerned about the old people and their place in the queue. Tonight, by their votes, hon. Members opposite will be putting the landlord before the old people—8s. in the £ from the old people to the landlord. This is a challenge to their sincerity, and it is no negative action but a positive action which they can take to assist the old people. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) is laughing.
    Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mr. Ross: I cannot give way; we are sufficiently guillotining ourselves.
    The poor will be further impoverished by this Bill. It is the act of a weak, irresolute and tottering Government. With all the ruthlessness of the weak, they have pursued their vindictive policy.
    Mr. Carmichael: They are staggering to their doom.
    Mr. Ross: They realise that they are tottering. They realise that their days are numbered and they are hastening the Bill with indecent speed through the House to carry out their pledges to their landlord masters. After tonight the Bill will go to another place. If it gets lost on the way there will be no tears shed in Scotland.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that the Government would bear a heavy social responsibility if they passed the Bill. We on this side of the House will be happy to take our share of that responsibility because we believe in the Bill, and we believe it will help those very people about whom the hon. Member was speaking.
    We believe that in imposing upon local authorities the obligation to make a survey of all the houses within their district, with a view to deciding which

    1393
    need reconditioning and repairing, we are taking the first step in restarting the campaign to clear the slums which has been held up by the war and its aftermath.
    Mr. Rankin rose—
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak later. We are all having to limit our speeches.
    We welcome the Bill because it will restart the clearing of the slums and the reclaiming of the old and worn-out houses; and we welcome it because it will make it possible for owners of rented houses and tenements to keep those houses in proper repair.
    My right hon. Friend has reminded us that the Committee stage extended to 24 sittings. During that long Committee stage no one claimed, so far as I can remember, that the two-fifths increase in rent imposed by Clause 15 was not justified arithmetically. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it would be impossible for them to do so, in view of the evidence brought before us by the Hutson Committee, by the Girdwood Committee in England and by the expert evidence of such impartial bodies as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, all of which showed the enormous increase in the cost of repairs which has taken place in recent years.
    Our discussions turned upon whether rent increases ought to be allowed at all—hon. Members opposite told us constantly that they ought not to be allowed—or whether, as some of us on this side of the House feared, the inducement offered by Clause 15 would be insufficient to achieve what we wanted to achieve, and whether the conditions for securing the repairs increase were so stiff that no more than a few landlords would be able to comply with them. It would be improper and out of order if I were to traverse that ground again. I am sure that all of us hope that the houses will, in fact, be repaired. I am sure we can all join together in hoping that that will come about.
    What I think has divided us during the long Committee stage and the subsequent stage of this Bill is the question of priorities. We on this side of the House believe in "operation rescue." We want to see the repairs done. We, therefore,
    1394
    make that a top priority, accepting the corollary which must stem from it that there must be some increase in rent. If I do not misunderstand the position hon. Members opposite make their top priority the fact that there should be no rent increase at all. That leads them to the impossible position that they want repairs to be done and at the same time are denying the means to carry them out.
    I think that it is important that the whole of the rent increases should be available for repairs. That will involve an amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1952. It would not be proper that I should urge that here on this occasion, but I hope that we shall see the necessity of securing that amendment so that the whole of the repair increases shall be available, without deduction of taxation, for the repair of houses.
    I am very glad indeed that the Government have introduced, on the Report stage, the Clause which has excluded from the operation of the Rent Acts houses which will be converted or built after this Bill becomes an Act.
    Mr. Manuel: More shame on the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues on that side of the House deny the wisdom of encouraging the building of houses to let—
    Mr. William Hamilton: At reasonable rents.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: —the wisdom of converting old houses into modern smaller units which could be let to the people of Scotland. Yet the present position is that if these rebuildings are done, if conversions are made, the rents at which the converted or the constructed houses are let for the first time become the standard rents, and they are subject to rent control, subject only to review by the rent tribunals.
    "The uncertainty about the rent that will be fixed by the rent tribunals has undoubtedly led to people who intended to do these conversions either not undertaking the operation at all, or doing them and then offering the houses for sale. One thing is quite certain and that is that the opportunities that will now be available to owners of property in Scotland under this Clause will lead to an increase

    1395
    in the number of new and converted houses which are offered to let.
    The improvement grant is a good thing, and I am glad that the Government were able to introduce a Clause which has allowed the 50 per cent. improvement grant to be obtained, even if the capital cost of the whole work has exceeded £800. In my view, there was no justification for the arrangement under which a landlord was eligible for a 50 per cent. grant if the work in respect of the improvement cost up to £800 but if the cost was any higher there was no grant whatever. Now, there will be the 50 per cent. grant up to a total of £400, and anything above this figure will have to be carried by the landlord.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) expressed his fear in Committee that in many cases local authorities were refusing to sanction improvement grants or were using their powers discriminately and excluding certain classes of applicants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the assurance during the Committee stage that he would confer with local authorities about this, and we must be very glad indeed that he has tonight announced, as the outcome of his conferences, that the local authorities are behind him—
    Mr. Manuel: They are not.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: —that there will be no discrimination, and that grants will be available in accordance with the wishes of Parliament and of the Government.
    We are all imposing upon ourselves tonight a self-denying ordinance. I will jettison much of what I had to say and content myself by saying that I am delighted with, and proud of, the Government, who have had the moral and political courage to introduce a Measure of this kind at this time.
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) ought perhaps, to have declared some kind of interest before he began his speech. We are dealing—let us get at the bare bones of the question—with a 40 per cent. increase in the rents of half the population of
    1396
    Scotland, affecting, in round figures, 750,000 out of 1,500,000 houses.
    We were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that the average rent of those 750,000 houses was £15, which means that the average rent increase for that number of houses will be £6 a year. That works out at approximately £4½ million a year to the landlords. That is what the Bill does and nothing else. It gives the landlords in Scotland £4½ million a year. Very shortly, the House will be discussing—it will be presented, at any rate—a Supplementary Estimate for about £250,000 for another purpose. We shall see the difference in the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite to that Supplementary Estimate and to this £4½ million as a present to the Scottish landlords.
    The people who will be affected are, in the main, low wage earners and old—age pensioners—the lower income groups. I said in Committee that not many millionaires live in the houses to which the Bill relates. They are occupied by people on the £4, £5 and £6 a week level and the old-age pensioners. What will happen when the 40 per cent. increase is imposed on them?
    I say to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns that we on this side vehemently deny the justice—the arithmetical justice, as he called it—of the two-fifths increase. Assume that the Bill is put into operation. If a landlord is to qualify, he must during the previous 12 months have spent £9 on a house with a rent of £15. Is there anyone who could make a decent house of any of these houses by spending £9 a year on it? It would not get even a coat of paint for £9. But, for spending that £9 in the previous 12 months, the landlord will get £6 a year for all time. That is the present that is being made to the landlords.
    Let us have a look at the people who are affected by this provision. The old-age pensioner, if he is in receipt of National Assistance, is getting his rent paid and he will immediately apply to the National Assistance Board for an increase. In other words, we are providing public money via the Assistance Board to private landlords. We are rewarding them with public money for their own neglect.

    1397
    What about the lower wage earner? We are concerned here with the flat rent, the house with a £15 a year rent about which the Joint Under-Secretary of State spoke. An increase of £6 in the rent is about 2s. 6d. a week, and 2s. 6d. a week is rather a serious matter for a family that is living on £6 a week. Inevitably this will set in trend wage demands. Indeed, the "Daily Mail" mentioned this subject in its leading article on 27th June, 1952. I quote:
    "Most landlords are 'small' men who have put their savings into bricks and mortar. Their reward is to live in poverty while their tenants may be reaping a rich harvest by sub-letting."
    It then goes on to say:
    "We realise that if rents were raised the consequential increase in the cost-of-living index might lead to another lot of wage demands. But that should not be allowed to perpetuate an injustice."
    That is the position in which we shall find ourselves. The people living in these 750,000 houses will feel the increase of 40 per cent. They are then either going to apply for public money to counteract that increase, or they will press for more wages. One cannot blame them.
    I do not think that the Bill will work. If tenants exercise their rights—and this party will do everything to ensure that they know what their rights are—with the local authorities and the sheriffs' courts, those two bodies will be stultified. But if it does work then we shall be faced with this twist in the inflationary spiral which will not be good for the national economy.
    This is a bad Bill; it is dishonest and hypocritical. It tries to solve a problem which, in fact, it will not solve. It is only in line with the rest of the Government's policy, returning something to a small section of the community—the land lords, the brewers, the steel owners, and so on. It is all of one pattern, and the public will not be deceived.
    The Government have had a foretaste of the Scottish reaction to this Bill in the local council elections. What happened in those elections will happen to a greater degree in the General Election. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is very loquacious in the House and in Committee on almost every conceivable subject, but he has been singularly silent on this issue. His constituents will, no doubt, be anxious to hear what he thinks about this Bill. Does his silence mean
    1398
    consent, or does it mean something else? We should be as anxious to know as the people of Kelvingrove.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. Elliot: I have no hesitation in replying to the invitation of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). I am more than glad to be invited to address the House. It was my intention anyhow, but I am now responding to an invitation. We have been silent to a large extent throughout the 24 sittings of the Committee stage because we were unwilling to delay the passage of this Bill, not because of any lack of argument or lack of will to defend the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Fife, West, has proved too much. According to him, a much larger rise than what is proposed in the Bill is necessary. He asks what can be done with £9, and he says that it will not put on a coat of paint. What is the remedy of hon. and right hon. Members opposite? It is for the houses to be taken over by the local authorities, in which case a much larger rise than this will be necessary, according to the hon. Gentleman.
    If that is the remedy of the hon. Gentleman I shall have great pleasure in going to his constituency of West Fife and explaining it. In Kelvingrove they will much prefer a smaller rise, even if the matter is in the hands of the individual property owners and factors, than a rise of double the amount at the hands of the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman was really arguing against any increase and at the same time arguing for a much larger increase. The emotional appeal is against any increase, the economic argument is for a much greater increase. The hon. Gentleman was distinct from his colleague the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in advancing both of those arguments simultaneously. It was said of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, at a previous sitting, that he was less like the wrath of God than usual; tonight he got back to his original form.
    The difficulty in which the House is, and indeed the country is, is one not confined to this country. It is a difficulty with which other European countries are familiar, and in many of which the conditions are even more acute than here. In France, for instance, where they have failed to take the inevitably

    1399
    unpopular step of increasing the charge for the maintenance of property to correspond with the increase in the cost of maintenance of property, they have gripped themselves in a vice from which it is now proving difficult to escape.
    The average age of a house in France is 100 years, and their rate of building in no sense corresponds with ours. Do not let us under-estimate the tremendous things we have done. Everyone knows it is not the work of one party or another. Great steps have been taken. New cities are arising on the confines of many of our old cities. Drive out of Glasgow along our main roads and see the great blocks of property going up which would be a credit to any country. And that rate of construction, I am glad to say, has increased in recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying not to be controversial. I am doing my best merely to reply to one or two criticisms which have been brought forward.
    Do not let us forget, therefore, that this difficulty—the rent problem—applies not only to our country. It has been emphasised by far-sighted men, not of one party or another, and not only in our own country. The strongest challenge to the Government to act on this question has come from Tom Johnston, a former Secretary of State, a man who has carried out a great deal of public work in Scotland, a man who in previous years, at any rate, was honoured and respected by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as on this side of the House.
    All the stronger is his challenge to Parliament to deal with the house-property of Scotland which was falling into desuetude and decay by the failure to grapple with the increased cost of keeping it up. That was a very strong challenge, which it was necessary for us to meet. So these steps have been taken. Admittedly they are unpopular. Admittedly they will produce difficulties, legal problems as well as physical problems. But they must be faced if the housing of Scotland is not to decay.
    We are already carrying out a great effort in new housing without which nothing else we do would be of the slightest use. The only committee which will eventually bring down house rents is the housewife, the factor, and the
    1400
    factor of the empty house down the street. The purpose of what we are doing here is to work in conjunction with the enormous effort on new housing which is going on, and to bring the upkeep of the older houses in some respects into harmony with the amount of expenditure required to construct, and subsequently to maintain, new houses.
    We know the enormous expense entailed by new housing just now. The cost of a new local authority house in Glasgow is about £2,000 plus. Undoubtedly, one can maintain, or even recondition, an old house, making it a satisfactory house, for a much smaller sum that that.
    Mr. McGovern: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about repairs, surely he forgets that in 1922 the landlords had a 25 per cent. increase in rent for the purpose of carrying out repairs and that, as the committee has said, they did not spend the money but put it into their own pockets.
    Mr. Elliot: No committee has ever said anything of the kind.
    Mr. McGovern: It has.
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), whose power of argument we all admire, and whose fertility of speech we pant unavailingly to imitate, sometimes spoils an excellent case by almost ridiculous exaggeration. The suggestion that an enormous proportion of the money was simply pocketed by the landlords—
    Dr. Morgan: It is true.
    Mr. Elliot: I beg hon. Members opposite not to detain me unduly. I wish to give time to other hon. Members who desire to speak.
    Mr. McGovern: There is no hurry. We would rather hear the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Elliot: I am glad to have these tributes paid, but I fear that they are said more in jest than in earnest.
    The contention that the money, on the whole, has not been spent on repairs is not borne out by reports of committees; and what has been said about high rates of expenditure is justified up to the hilt by the Reports of the Girdwood and Hutson Committees.
    Mr. Rankin: Look at Anderston.
    Mr. Elliot: I do not need to be told by the hon. Member to look at Anderston. I have looked at Anderston for a long time quite successfully.
    We want to ensure that the money is spent upon the upkeep of property, which is the purpose of the Bill. The situation is not improved by denunciations such as the hon. Member for Shettleston launches against the providers of house accommodation on every possible occasion, as he did tonight when he talked about vultures. Vultures are not good house-builders. Very few people have ever seen houses either built or maintained by vultures. If the landlords of Scotland corresponded to the hon. Member's description, there would be no city of Glasgow at all. It would be a heap of crumbling ruins.
    The hon. Member ought to know better than to run down his native city like that. The city of Glasgow is a great and noble city, but it has certain very black spots, and unless we deal with the problem of the slums, as we propose to do in this Bill, the black spots will extend.
    I have not the time to go into the question of "Operation rescue," but we all agree that it is a good thing. The only question is as to how far it will be successful. Well, we must all do our utmost to make it successful. I trust that the legal quibbles which hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently intend launching will not extend to the working of "Operation rescue."
    I am, however, dealing frankly and squarely with the most controversial point of the Bill—the difficulty of whether a limited increase in rent should be allowed. The hon. Member for West Fife seemed to assume that every house in Scotland had been kept in a tenantable state of repair by the landlord. He based his case, on every single one of the 750,000 rents being increased, which could not be so unless every single one of the houses had been kept in good repair and had had considerable sums of money spent on it in the last year. That was the concession given by the hon. Member for West Fife to the landlords. I do not go as far as that.
    There are many cases in which next to nothing has been spent, and which the rents should not be increased. I would
    1402
    be happier if I could think that every house in Anderston was in a good state of repair, and that there were going to be increases of rent, rather than that many of the houses there should be, as they are now, crumbling away into ruin. In fact, in some cases, no rent at all is charged, and my constituents, having no rent to pay, are still more vociferous in their complaints. Quite naturally so. They prefer a sound roof over their heads to living in places where the rain comes through on to their beds and they have the shadowy satisfaction of not having to pay any rent.
    We are dealing with a problem of great urgency. Admittedly, the Bill in itself will not be the solution to our problem. But, taken in conjunction with the enormous increase in house building, it will help the solution of our problem. It is a step in the right direction. In virtue of that fact, I commend it confidently to the House.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: However much we disagree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot) on many of his points of view, we agree with him that the problem which this Bill faces is the greatest single domestic problem with which we in Scotland have to deal. What amazes me is that hon. Members opposite, who have called this "Operation Rescue" and have told us that the Bill will clear the slums, whereas it will perpetuate them, have been remarkable by their absence from the Chamber during this Third Reading debate. Very seldom have there been more than four or five Conservative back benchers from Scotland on the benches opposite to deal with this Bill. That is a good example of just how much serious intention they have with regard to this Bill.
    This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and the interesting thing about the very long time that has been spent on it is that the more we have seen of it, despite the occasional concessions which we have wrung from the Government, the worse it has become. The Bill is an interesting exercise in political draftsmanship—a very ingenious exercise—because it conceals the bitter pill of a 40 per cent. increase in rents in the sugar of an expenditure test, and the Government have proceeded to add another sugar coating

    1403
    to the expenditure test by the part of the Bill which deals with alleged slum clearance.
    The fact is, of course that here we have a Bill which is to try to solve the housing problem in Scotland by an increase of 8s. in the £ in rents charged to tenants, without any sort of adequate guarantee as to their protection. I am sure that the people of Scotland will be very interested to learn from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) that his only doubt about the Bill is that the 40 per cent. is not really adequate, and that the conditions which surround it seem to him to be too steep.
    The Bill will go from here to another place containing such conditions that the Government will be betraying the real interests of hundreds of thousands of tenants of Scotland. I do not attribute that to conscious wickedness on the part of the Government, but to the fact that they are tackling a problem which it is impossible to solve in terms of private enterprise. It is impossible today to meet the housing needs of the people and to make a profit out of doing so. One of the most illuminating asides of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove was his tribute to the great housing schemes which are going up in all our great cities. That is the kind of municipal Socialism that we on this side of the House have been struggling to get for a generation.
    The housing problem of the people of this country, whether in the new houses that are going up or in the old houses that we want to maintain in repair, can now be solved only by means of public service principles and by social ownership. That is the fundamental reason why we condemn the Bill and, even at this late stage, would prevent it from coming into operation. I do not think that the people of Scotland realise the full implications of the Bill. They will not do so until they get the notices of increase served upon them. But there is already evidence that they are stirring on this matter.
    Some of my hon. Friends led a delegation to the Secretary of State for Scotland representing 2 million Scottish people, from trade unions and from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, as well as from many other organisations associated with
    1404
    the great Labour movement in Scotland. Many of us in this House have already presented petitions from about 100,000 citizens of Scotland, but that is nothing to the volume of protest that will come from the people of Scotland once the Bill has passed through Parliament and has reached their doorsteps. Then the Government will get the verdict of the people.
    We have taken a long time on the Bill. We have done our best to protect the people, and the Government have not treated us very well. It is time that the Bill went as an Act to the people of Scotland to let them know how this Government, because they represent the landlords rather than the tenants of Scotland, have betrayed the people in regard to their basic necessity, shelter.
    9.38 p.m.
    Mr. Woodburn: Comment on the Bill is almost unnecessary, because of the time that has been left to us. When we think of the importance of the Bill to Scotland and the fact that we have had barely a couple of hours to discuss the Third Reading, we realise that that is in itself a commentary on the time-table that has been arranged for so important a Bill.
    The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who spoke last from the Government side of the House, did so for a solid quarter of an hour of that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] It is in startling contrast to us. It was Government time. The Guillotine was to fall at 10 o'clock, so the right hon. Gentleman knew that he was speaking in time that was required for other hon. Members. Everybody has exercised self-restraint and discipline in regard to the time-table; only he took as much out of the very limited time available as he could.
    He might not have intended to do so, and he may have been provoked, but I call his attention to the fact that he was careful to see that the Government lost no time during the Committee stage. Now, it does not matter. He can occupy some of the time and deprive some hon. Members of the opportunity of speaking. If it had not been discourteous to the House I would have given up time myself for back benchers who wanted to speak. I think that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will agree that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove anticipated his speech and carried out a good deal

    1405
    of the defence of the Government. I do not suppose that the Minister will be left with a great deal to say after the speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove.
    This Bill has four parts. Three of them are simply a cover for the fourth part, the 40 per cent, increase. A good deal of the rest is a bluff. The right hon. Gentleman talked to us about repairs. We are not against repairing houses, nor are we against tenants paying for repairs, and I am prepared to say that the tenants are not against paying for repairs. What they object to is paying for repairs and not getting them. Their experience from 1920 onwards is that they have been paying for repairs and that some landlords have simply been putting the money into their pockets. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that was stated in the report of one of the commissions investigating this matter.
    I say right away that there are landlords in the country who have kept their property in good repair, and there are tenants who have kept the landlords' property in good repair. I was speaking to one of the most important of these people in Edinburgh, and he told me that he would not be able to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill to increase rents because his houses are in such a state of repair that he cannot qualify under the Bill.
    Our objection is that it is not the people who are doing the repairs who will get the benefit from this Bill, but those who have allowed their houses to sink into slums. The decent landlords, to whom the tenants might be willing to pay an increased rent, will not benefit from this at all. Therefore, good landlords will get very little out of this Bill, because, unless they can spend the money, they will not be able to increase the rents of their houses.
    There is no real assurance that the other people will get their houses repaired, because, after a certain qualification, the rent goes up, even if the houses remain slums until they crumble into dust. We are faced with a Bill which is based largely on misrepresentation and false premises. Let us take the basis for repairs. We are told that a committee was set up to decide what increase in costs was necessary to meet the increase in repairs. The Secretary of State asked
    1406
    that committee to report on the increase in costs between 1939 and after the war. Actually, the costs on the basis of 1920 were not reached until 1943. In other words, the 1939 costs were far below the 1920 rates on which the previous increase was settled.
    Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt, also deal with the question of rates in that connection.
    Mr. Woodburn: The committee in question was not dealing with rates, but with increased costs of building. It was asked to find out what were the increased costs of building between 1939 and after the war instead of the increased costs between 1920 and after the war, or between the rates in 1943, which were the equivalent of 1920, and after the war. We are faced with an argument based on entirely false premises and are asked to agree to a 40 per cent. increase in the cost of repairs.
    Throughout this Bill, all that we have maintained is that if there is to be a 40 per cent. increase in repairs, that increase shall be devoted to repairs. Is that unreasonable? When we ask for 40 per cent. to be devoted to repairs, we are actually giving the landlords a bonus, because they are already getting the 25 per cent., which was supposed to be devoted to repairs in 1920, to put into their pockets. Many have put it into their pockets.
    If landlords are only to put 40 per cent. into repairs, then they are actually getting a 25 per cent. increase which they are not bound to spend on repairs unless they so desire. Therefore, we thought it quite unreasonable that the Government should come forward with the Bill under the guise that it was going to provide repairs, when, at the same time, they were not prepared to put in the Bill provisions guaranteeing that the extra money would be spent on repairs. There are a great many things about the Bill which we think are quite wrong, and although it may accomplish something we think that it will not accomplish what it set out to do.
    The Government have given an increased interest to owners of property who make improvements. No figures were produced to justify that. I have given instances where under the old scheme what I called decent landlords were able, with the consent of the tenants.

    1407
    to recondition their property in Glasgow, and got the tenants' agreement to an increased rent. They actually had other people clamouring for reorganisation of their houses on the same basis. That proved that the previous scheme could work.
    The Government are to give the owners an extra percentage, which, if it leads to a great success we may not, in the long run, grudge. At the moment we think it is another gift to the landlords, unjustified without further evidence. We regard this as a landlords' charter with a few bits of sugar, as my hon. Friend described them, included to sweeten the pill and get people to swallow the 40 per cent. increase.
    Many people, thinking that it will result in repairs, will welcome the Bill. If they think that the result of an increase will be a compulsion on the landlords to repair and maintain the property I am certain that they will be disappointed. Instead the recompense and gratitude the Government will suffer from the disillusionment, resulting from their failure to take the steps necessary to ensure that the landlords use the money for the job the Government intended them to do.
    The landlords themselves complain that the Bill does not give them the increases which they want. Some quite frankly admit that what they want is not an increase for repairs but an increase to make up the lack of interest on their capital. The increase cannot be devoted to both things. The Government should be quite straight about it. If the increase was meant as an increased return on the investment of capital it Should have been so stated. If it was intended for repairs it should, like a directional subsidy, have been directed towards repairs and, as we asked, put into a repairs fund.
    We regard this as a bad Bill and at the end of the debate we intend to register our disapproval in the Division Lobby.
    9.48 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith: We have had a good-natured and short debate on Third Reading. I must admit that while listening to it I felt—as I have felt throughout the course of the Bill—that there has been something quite unreal about many of the debates we have had. Indeed, I cannot help feeling now and
    1408
    then that the other side have been some-what shamefaced about much of the opposition they have offered to the Bill.
    Mr. Willis: Wait until the next Election. You will see whether it is unreal.
    Commander Galbraith: If I can fit it into a Third Reading speech I will deal later with the hon. Gentleman and his campaign in Edinburgh, East.
    What I felt was so unreal was when the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) complained that the Government had only left himself and his hon. Friends one and a half hours for the Third Reading. He knows as well as I that they could have had very much longer had they used to the best advantage the time at their disposal on the previous day.
    Mr. McNeil rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time.
    Commander Galbraith: There is another matter that I found unreal—
    Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that the House is becoming disorderly because of the resentment caused by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accusing us on these benches of taking time which we ought not to have taken, while today we have actually kept a House because his own side did not do so?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has called attention to the disorderly character of the debate. I hope he will assist me in maintaining a higher degree of order.
    Mr. McNeil: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the disorder was created by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman making his accusations, when the Government had on the Order Paper four new Clauses and a new Schedule.
    Mr. Speaker: Opinions greatly differ on these matters, but there is no excuse for disorder.
    Commander Galbraith: There is another matter that I found rather unreal about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He used words like "shabby " and "pretence"—big words which he spoke

    1409
    very loudly indeed, but he spoke them so softly when he was in office that we never heard anything about a method of solving this problem.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) asked me a question in relation to the security of tenure of the tenants in the new towns, and his objection seemed to be that in the meantime there is no elected authority in these new towns. I can only say to him that the new town corporations are highly responsible bodies, and I could not imagine them acting otherwise than in the best interests of the communities over which they have guardianship for the time being.
    We had a speech, as usual, from the hon. Gentleman for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The hon. Gentleman is rather inclined to exaggerate on this matter. We heard the usual things from him, as also from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), about slum dwellers being condemned to live in patched-up houses. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is far better for a poor man, and his wife maybe, to live in a patched-up house than to live in one that is not patched-up. He knows perfectly well that there is no possibility of rehousing these people until more housing accommodation is available. The fact is that this Government is doing more to make that housing accommodation available than hon. Members opposite ever did. The hon. Member for Fife, West was well and truly dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who pointed out that nothing like the 750,000 houses could possibly qualify.
    Again, the hon. Member for Fife, West made somewhat misleading statements when he said that all that is necessary is for the landlord to spend £9 and then he gets his increase for ever and ever, amen. But he forgets the two other conditions which are attached and which must be maintained. That is what I complain about hon. Members opposite. They go about the country misrepresenting this Bill. That is something of which they ought to be ashamed. The hon. Member for Fife, West made no real constructive criticism of this Bill. He called it a bad Bill and a dishonest Bill, and there were
    1410
    other words that he used, too. Let the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tell us about what happened in the local by-election. I have never in my life seen or heard such misrepresentations of the intentions of a Government or the purposes of a Bill as were put forward during that election.
    This Bill helps the landlord to maintain his property and helps local authorities to improve and bring up to modern standards houses the owners of which lack the financial resources to do so themselves. It enables local authorities to provide better conditions, for a temporary period, for the tenants of unfit houses, and to exercise greater control over slum property. It prepares the way for slum clearance and redevelopment, and it makes these operations easier for local authorities both financially and otherwise. In my opinion, it gives ample protection to the tenant.
    We have had our disputes over the Bill, but I suggest that as it leaves us it is a better Bill than it was when it was introduced. It can do much for the good of the people of Scotland. No other proposal has been put forward on this matter and I suggest that we now forget all these disputes and discussions. I plead with the House to forget these things, to get behind the Bill and make it work, and not endeavour to frustrate it as the hon. Member for Fife, West suggested would be the proper course. As Scotsmen, let us get behind it and make it work, and so benefit the housing conditions of the people.
    It is my sincere belief, as it is of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that if the Bill is taken together with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, which we are now considering in Committee, and with the Government's great housing policy, we can, co-operating together, give the people of Scotland better housing conditions than they have ever had before. If hon. Members opposite frustrate the purposes of the Bill they will be to blame for those housing conditions. I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 205.

    Division No. 137.

    AYES

    [7.39 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Carmichael, J.

    Follick, M.

    Adams, Richard

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Foot, M. M.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Champion, A. J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Chetwynd, G. R

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

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

    Clunie, J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Coldrick, W.

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Collick, P. H.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Bartley, P.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Grey, C. F.

    Bence, C. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

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

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Blackburn, F.

    Crosland, C A. R.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Boardman, H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Daines, P.

    Hannan, W.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hastings, S.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hayman, F H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Holman, P

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Donnelly, D. L

    Houghton, Douglas

    Burke, W. A.

    Dugdale, Rt Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Edelman, M.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fienburgh, W

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Morley, R.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Sparks, J. A.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Mort, D. L

    Steele, T.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Moyle, A.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

    Oliver, G. H

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Orbach, M.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Oswald, T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

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

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Paling Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thornton E.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Pannell, Charles

    Timmons, J.

    Jcnes, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Keenan, W.

    Parker, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon C. W

    Popplewell, E

    Watkins, T. E.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Porter, G.

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

    Lawson, G. M.

    Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

    Weitzman, D.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rankin, John

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Logan, D. G.

    Reeves, J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    MacColl, J. E

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    McInnes, J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Willey, F. T.

    McLeavy, F.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ross, William

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Willis, E. G.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Short, E. W.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mason, Roy

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Yates, V. F.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Monslow, W.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Mr. Wallace and Mr. John Taylor.

    NOES

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

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Holt, A. F.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hope, Lord John

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

    Arbuthnot, John

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Horobin, I. M.

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

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Banks, Cot. C.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John

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

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

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B H.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Birch, Nigel

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon L W

    Black, C. W.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh,R. F

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Fort, R.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Foster, John

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Po11ok)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.

    Braine, B. R.

    Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas, Sir locelyn (Portsmouth, S)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

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

    Glover, D.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Godber, J. B.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Burden, F F. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Gower, H. R.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Campbell, Sir David

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Carr, Robert

    Grimond, J.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Channon, H.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

    Cole, Norman

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Marples, A. E.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

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

    Heath, Edward

    Maude, Angus

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Heave, Airey

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Nied, Basil (Chester)

    Russell, R. S.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Turton, R. H.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

    Scott, R. Donald

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Vosper, D. F.

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

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Osborne, C.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Page, R. G.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Speir, R. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Powell, J. Enoch

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

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Wellwood, W.

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Stoddart-Scott Col. M.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wilts, G.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Teeling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Robertson, Sir David

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

    Mr. Studholme and

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Mr. Redmayne.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 138.]

    AYES

    [9.58 p.m

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Osborne, C.

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Page, R. G.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Hall, John (Wyoombe)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Pitt. Miss E. M.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Powell, J. Enooh

    Banks, Col. C.

    Heath, Edward

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Raikes, Sir Viotor

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Boll, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Redmayne, M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Holland-Martin C. J.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Birch, Nigel

    Holt, A. F.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hope, Lord John

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Black, C. W.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Roper, Sir Leonard

    Braine, B. R.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

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

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hylton-Foster H. B. H.

    Scott, R. Donald

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Bufford, D. G.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Burden, F. F. A

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Joynson-Hicks Hon. L. W.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Kerby, Capt, H. B.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Carr, Robert

    Kerr, H. W.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Channon, H.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Speir, R. M.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Legge Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

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

    Cole Norman

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Colsgate, W. A.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

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

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col, J. C.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Craddock, Beresiord (Spelthorne)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Studholme, H. G.

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Teeling, W.

    Davidson , Viscountess

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    De la Bère, Sir Rupert

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Donner Sir P. W.

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

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

    Doughty C. J. A.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Thornton-Kemsity, Col. C. N.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Touohe, Sir Gordon

    Drayson G. B.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Drewe, Sir C.

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

    Turton, R. H.

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

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Duncan Capt. J. A. L.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Marples, A. E.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Elliot, Rt Hon. Hon W. E.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maude, Angus

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Fort, R.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Watkinson, H. A.

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Webber, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Neave, Airey

    Wellwood, W.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Nioolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Glover, D.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Godber, J. B.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wills, G.

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)

    Gower, H. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and

    Grimond, J.

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

    Mr. Legh.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Hargreaves, A.

    Palmer, A. M F.

    Adams, Richard

    Hastings, S.

    Pannell, Charles

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Parker, J.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Herbison, Miss M

    Parkin, B. T

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Holman, P.

    Pearson, A.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Popplewell, E.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hoy, J. H.

    Porter, G.

    Balfour, A.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bartley, P.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bence, C. R.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Proctor, W. T.

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

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pryde, D. J

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rankin, John

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Reeves, J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Boardman, H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Rhodes, H.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hen. A. G

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bowden, H. W.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Ross, William

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Shackleton, E. A. A

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Short, E. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Keenan, W.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S)

    Carmichael, J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Champion, A. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Steele, T.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Clone, J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Collick, P. H.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    McGovern, J.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McInnes, J.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thornton, E.

    Dairies, P.

    McLeavy, F.

    Timmons, J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Wallace, H. W.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Warbey, W. N.

    Deer, G.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

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

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mason, Roy

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Edelman, M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    West, D. G.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Follick, M.

    Morley, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Foot, M. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N E)

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mort, D. L.

    Wigg George

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    Moyle, A.

    Willey, F. T.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C

    O'Brien, T.

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

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willis, E. G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Orbach, M.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hale, Leslie

    Oswald, T.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W

    Paget, R. T.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hamilton, W. W.

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

    Yates, V. F.

    Hannan, W.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

    Bill read a Second time.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Studholme.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    RAILWAY PENSIONERS
    Motion made, and Question proposed,—That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]
    10.9 p.m.
    Major Sir Frank Markham: I venture to detain the House for a little longer in order to discuss once again the question of railway pensioners. I have already raised this subject on the Adjournment twice in the course of this Parliament—in June, 1952, and in March, 1953; and I venture to raise it again on the good old theory that if constant dripping will wear away stone, constant Adjournment debates may soften the heart of the British Transport Commission even further than it was softened last year.
    I think the position is well known to the House—how, back in 1912, when the National Insurance Acts were introduced, the railway companies contracted out for their administrative and clerical staffs and gave an assurance to the House, through hon. Members who were directors of railway companies, that the men would not suffer by this contracting out or by reason of the provision by the railways of their own pensions scheme.
    The same assurances were given by teachers' employers, by local government authorities and by the Civil Service. The strange anomaly is that while in the case of teachers, local government officers and civil servants the pension scales have been made good and brought up to what are regarded, at any rate, as minimum pension scales, those of the railwaymen have lagged so far behind that it has for several years been a scandal. I do not think that there is any more suitable word to describe the position which the British Transport Commission inherited when nationalisation was introduced, or what has continued, with only a minor amelioration, since.
    I do not want to criticise the British Transport Commission and, indeed, if this debate were wider. I could say, with
    1416
    several other hon. Members, how marked has been the improvement in many fields by the administration and the service rendered by the British Transport Commission to this country in the last 18 months or so.
    I want to concentrate on the fact that last year the British Transport Commission, through the Minister of Transport, announced that it would be prepared to do something towards ameliorating the position of the worse grades of pensions. Many may remember that the old pre-First World War scheme was that in return for a contribution of a penny or twopence a week, railwaymen were entitled to pension of 8s. or 10s. a week. These rates were not increased during the war years nor during the two world wars. There are now many single men whose total pension is well below £84 per year and many married men whose pensions are much below £140 a year.
    We had the assurance last year that the British Transport Commission would set aside approximately £40,000 to help all those with less than £140, if married, or £84, if single, and it was estimated that this would assist 6,000 pensioners. A few days ago in this House, in response to Questions asked by hon. Members opposite, and others, it was brought out that instead of 6,000 of these pensioners being helped, only 2,860 had in fact been helped, and instead of the scheme costing a minimum of £40,000 it was costing an estimated £33,000.
    One of the causes of this is the interpretation by the British Transport Commission as to what constitutes a pension. To my mind it has chosen an interpretation which reacts very unfairly on many of these men. Hon. Members will remember that the pension is based on 40 years' service, and that at the end of that time a man receives a gratuity of one year's salary plus an annual pension of one-half of his annual salary.
    The British Transport Commission has included 10 per cent. of the gratuity or lump sum as being part of the annual pension. I suggest that that is an entirely erroneous definition, and by that interpretation it has deprived possibly as many as 2,000 men of assistance under its own scheme which was propounded to this House a year ago. In any case, the ceiling of £84 for a single man or £140 for a married man is too low, and it ought to be increased. I think that puts

    1417
    the situation very simply as regards the present pre-war pension scheme with which the British Transport Commission is dealing, and for which we in this House have some responsibility.
    In contrast with the treatment of railwaymen, the local government officers, the teachers and the civil servants were assisted by Government money being made available to bring their pensions up to what might be regarded as the reasonable minimum. This has not been done in the case of the railways, even though the railways have been nationalised. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he might take up this point, through the Minister, for consideration by the Treasury.
    Now I turn to quite another matter. The Transport Commission, by adhering to old rules, seems to be treating some of its men most unfairly as regards the pensions position. If a clerk retires at the age of 60, after 40 years' service, he gets his lump sum, and he gets his pension of 50 per cent. of his last year's salary. But if he is retained after the age of 60 by British Railways, as fit and able to continue, and with his skill and knowledge helps the nation in a time, very often, of acute labour shortage, the Transport Commission holds back his lump sum gratuity. The Commission gives him his full pay but keeps back the pension, and for his extra years of service there is no increase in his pension or lump sum; but the man still suffers from the deduction of his pension contribution of at least £25 a year.
    It can be said, therefore, that by continuing to employ these men after the age of 60, which is necessary in the national interest, the Commission is making a profit out of them by holding back their gratuities and not improving their pensions. This is a point that should be looked into by my right hon. Friend the Minister, in conjunction with the Transport Commission.
    Mr. Percy Morris: We are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for raising these matters. Will he make it clear that conditions are not the same in each region? In some regions they are very much worse than he has described.
    Sir F. Markham: I agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his assistance. I am trying to give the broad
    1418
    general picture, and not to make it any worse than it happens to be in the area that I know so well—that is, the old London, Midland and Scottish region. I agree with the hon. Member that conditions were worse in some other regions, Hence the even greater need for a sympathetic approach by both the Ministry and the Transport Commission.
    I have received many letters, principally from the Bletchley and Northampton areas, and also from the T.S.S.A., the British Railways Superannuitants' Federation and from the Retired Salaried Staffs' Association; and, as every Member of the House knows, the great trade unions have been helping to fight this battle for many years.
    All that we can point to since the war years is the rather meagre advance by the Transport Commission in helping 2,860 out of 31,000 possible cases for assistance. The Commission has spent less than this House was given to understand it would spend, and I think that the time has come when the Ministry and the Transport Commission, together with the Government, should evolve a bold and generous scheme for these men, who have given a lifetime of service in building up and making the railways so efficient.
    I know that there are many other Members who could raise these issues far better than I can. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) has received letters from constituents bringing out these points, and the hon. Members for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) and Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) probably have more information on these points than I have, but I am sure that all will agree with me that the present position with regard to these railway pensioners is a scandal, and should be rectified. I believe that the Transport Commission has already helped to start the improvement, but I want it to go further. If necessary, the Commission should come to the Government for assistance, as the civil servants, the local government officers and the teachers have done in the past.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Ralph Morley: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has paid careful attention to what has been said so persuasively by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham), and that

    1419
    he will convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport the urgent need for some improvement in the pensions of this particular class of occupational pensioners. Railway superannuitants have had the rawest deal of any section of the occupational pensioners in the whole of the country. As the hon. Member said, the railway companies contracted out of the National Health Service in 1912 so that none of these men and women are in receipt of the State pension.
    At the time of contracting out, the companies promised the railway workers that their interests would be looked after and they would not suffer because of the contracting out. These people paid a proportion of their salaries ranging from 3 per cent. to 8 per cent. towards their contributory pensions. Many of those who retired before 1939 retired upon pensions between £2 and £3 a week. At the price levels in 1938 and 1939, they could, with great care, have jogged along on a pension of that nature. Obviously, it is quite impossible now and many of these people have fallen into dire penury. They are suffering real poverty.
    Like the hon. Member, I have had many letters on this subject of poverty among these pensioners, but had I the time I could quote many of them. One lady aged 65 wrote to me recently from St. Annes-on-Sea, in Lancashire. She told me she had had 40 years' service on the London and North-Western Railway and her pension is £100 a year. She is 65 years of age and the National Assistance Board allow her £1 10s. 6d. a week. Her rent is £1 12s. 6d. a week and she has to pay 10s. for her electric fire and cooker. She has nothing left for clothes, stockings, pleasures or anything of that kind. The whole of her pension goes on food, rent, electricity, laundry and household cleaning stuffs. Miss Margaret Stewart, who has written an article on this subject in the "News Chronicle," has received hundreds of letters from railway super-annuitants giving details of extreme poverty. She has kindly shown them to me, but I have not the time to quote them now.
    Last year, the Minister listened very sympathetically to us and he promised that he would see there was an increase in these pensions and that it would apply to 6,000 people. As a matter of fact, the increase has only applied to 2,860, fewer
    1420
    than half of the 6,000 people to whom it was promised. The reason for the small number of people receiving an increase has been the very low ceiling which has been placed upon the increase. It is £140 for a married couple and £84 for a single person, and this is even below the National Assistance Board's scales.
    A ceiling of £140 compares very unfavourable with the ceiling of £550 for those pensioners who have received benefits from the recent Pensions (Increase) Act. Also, there is no disregard in this scheme of other income beside the pension whereas in the Pensions (Increase) Act, which applies to civil servants, teachers, police and local government pensioners, there is a disregard of £104, so these people are most unfavourably placed.
    I know that the Transport Commission has very little money to spare, but the Minister might be able to squeeze a little more out of them and by raising the ceiling bring more of these pensioners in.
    In the other pensions assistance schemes under the three Pensions (Increase) Acts which we have had since 1948 the Treasury has been responsible for finding the additional money, and I should think the Treasury might be persuaded to find additional money for this purpose. After all, it will be a declining liability. Most of these people are in their 70s or 80s and, like myself, they cannot expect to be much longer in this somewhat muddied vale of tears. Therefore, the liability on the Treasury would decline steeply from year to year and soon come to very little.
    We recognise that the Minister is a very able man. He has piloted complicated Bills through this House with great skill and he has an able assistant in his Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure the ingenuity of these two combined could persuade the Treasury to be a little generous and to make available a decent sum of money in order to give these old servants of the community a chance of having a decent living in the few years left to them.
    10.26 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) has said, this is the third successive year in which he has raised this matter on the Adjournment. The first year my right hon. Friend

    1421
    listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House deploying the case for an increase in railway superannuitants' pensions and he promised to ask the British Transport Commission to see what it could do to meet the case which had been so persuasively and eloquently presented.
    Last year, my right hon. Friend was able to announce that he had achieved a measure of success and that supplementation would be made in the case of those annuitants who were in greatest need. In this third Adjournment it is my duty to answer those hon. Members who have expressed themselves as being not satisfied with what has been done. My right hon. Friend is sorry that he cannot be here himself, but he has already left London to open the Woodhead Tunnel and to inaugurate the electrified line between Sheffield and Manchester, so I trust that the House will forgive him for his absence.
    Naturally, I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend said on previous occasions. He mentioned the complete insolvency of the superannuation schemes which the Transport Commission took over. At present, the Commission is paying 75 per cent. of the cost of the pensions, which amounts to £7 million a year.
    Hon. Gentlemen have raised several points with which I will try to deal. In the first place, last year my right hon. Friend gave an estimate which had been provided by the Transport Commission of the number of beneficiaries who were likely to receive a supplement. It is true that the number is substantially fewer than 6,000. It is 2,900, of whom 2,650 are railway superannuitants. It was an estimate made in perfectly good faith, but it has turned out to be wrong for a number of reasons.
    For one thing, the B.T.C. did not know that a large number of the annuitants who were recorded as married men had become widowers. It did not know that quite a large number of them are in good employment, bringing them in an income in many cases very much in excess of £50 a year. Others, it was not fully realised before, are in receipt of National Insurance pensions. All of this goes to show that the number of those in very great need is less than had been supposed. That should be a matter of satisfaction to all of us.
    1422
    In any case, the British Transport Commission is spending under this scheme very nearly as much as was estimated. It costs the Commission £39,500 per year, of which £33,900 is paid to railway annuitants. Almost the whole of the balance is paid to annuitants of London Transport.
    My hon. and gallant Friend complained that the amount of benefit had been substantially reduced because lump sum gratuities had been taken into account. I do not think it will be disputed—I hope it will not be—that it is fair and reasonable that that should be done. My right hon. Friend indicated last year that that was likely to be done, because he spoke of "retirement benefit" and not simply of "pensions."
    I think that it was only fair that that should be done because, as hon. Members have mentioned, there is a considerable diversity between different schemes. In some of them a lump sum is paid; in other cases a somewhat larger pension without a lump sum is paid. It would have resulted in injustice as between the different men if those who had received a lump sum did not have it taken into account when the supplementation of their pension was being calculated.
    Ten per cent. of the lump sum paid is estimated to be the annual value. I think my hon. and gallant Friend felt that that was an unreasonable figure. It is, of course, not expected that an investment would bring in 10 per cent. per annum, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will consult Whitaker's Almanack, as I have done, to see what would be the charge for a man between 60 and 65 to buy an annuity, he will find that it is fairly near 10 per cent.
    Sir F. Markham: I am not questioning my hon. Friend's figures as to investment and so on. My point is that if 10 per cent. of the lump sum is added to the gratuity, theoretically, every year, in 10 years the lump sum is obviously exhausted, and, in any case, after the 10-year period no longer has any influence on the pension and, consequently, the pension should be increased.
    Mr. Molson: Since the lump sum and the pension are both supposed to be paid out of the pensions scheme, it is obvious that the lump sum has to be taken into account.

    1423
    The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) suggested that a special Treasury grant should be made to cover a number of the cases which he had in mind. That goes rather beyond the case which has been made in previous years. I do not know on what principle the Treasury could make a grant for the relief of particular categories of people who are outside any pensions scheme otherwise than through the Assistance Board. It seems to me that any compassionate allowance without the test of need applied by the Assistance Board would appear to all those who are not in receipt of that special benefit as unfair discrimination in favour of a certain category of people.
    Mr. Morley rose—
    Mr. Molson: I have too little time left to give way.
    A number of representations have been made to my right hon. Friend during the past year. He did not feel justified in again bringing pressure to bear upon the British Transport Commission, and he has not done so. He has, however, faithfully passed on to the Commission the views expressed. Amidst all its problems and financial difficulties, the Commission has again considered whether it can afford to be more generous to this category of its old workers.
    The Commission has reluctantly come to the conclusion that, having regard to all its other commitments and difficulties, it would not be justified in making any further eleemosynary grants to the pensioners, who are now only one category of retired railwaymen. I am very sorry not to be able to give any more comforting answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, and I am afraid that that must be taken to be the Commission's final answer.
    In the two or three minutes remaining, I should like to turn my eyes to the future, in respect of which I can announce something a little more cheerful. As the House is aware, there have been negotiations between the Commission and the trade unions for a comprehensive pensions scheme, to include the wages grades who have not generally been included in the scheme that we have been discussing earlier. The last few months have been profitably spent in working out the rules of the scheme. Final agreement was reached recently between the Commission
    1424
    and the trade unions, and they have now presented a complete scheme to my right hon. Friend. He hopes to be able to make a statement in the fairly near future.
    I am not able to announce any supplementary scheme for those who have retired, but I hope we can feel that other railwaymen will be provided for the future with a much more generous and comprehensive pensions scheme than that which we have been discussing.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Percy Morris: We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement. The disappointing feature of it is that his right hon. Friend has failed to encourage the B.T.C. to make provision for this diminishing number of people who are below the Public Assistance level.
    What the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the future is correct, but in view of the fact that this is a diminishing problem, surely it is not asking the right hon. Gentleman very much to request that he should encourage the B.T.C. to find some money to lift these people out of the penury in which they have been for some considerable time.
    The insolvency of the Superannuation Fund is entirely due to conditions which have arisen after two world wars. The men have continued to contribute to the Fund in the hope that they would have a reasonable pension when the time arrived. In respect of the gratuity, described as a "lump sum," some of the men incurred a mortgage on the homes in other parts of the country for when they retired. It was a great disappointment to them to find that they would not be getting the maximum benefit from that amount.
    I beg the hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Minister of Transport to go back to the B.T.C. and say that in view of the small number of people involved, the serious plight in which they find themselves, and the comparatively small sum of money involved, the Commission should do something to ease the burden and not let these people die of sheer want.
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  N.A.T.O. STAFF (IMMUNITIES)
  N.A.T.O. STAFF (IMMUNITIES)
  CHINESE NATIONALIST TROOPS, BURMA (EVACUATION)
  CHINESE NATIONALIST TROOPS, BURMA (EVACUATION)
  CHINESE PRISONERS OF WAR, KOREA
  CHINESE PRISONERS OF WAR, KOREA
  FLOUR IMPROVERS
  FLOUR IMPROVERS
NIGERIA
  Civil Servants (Conditions of Service)
  Civil Servants (Conditions of Service)
  Agricultural Project, Mokwa
  Agricultural Project, Mokwa
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Development Authority (Progress)
  Development Authority (Progress)
EAST AFRICA
  Kenya (Financial Assistance)
  Kenya (Financial Assistance)
  Visitors, Tanganyika (Information)
  Visitors, Tanganyika (Information)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Drainage and Irrigation Scheme, Boerasiri
  Drainage and Irrigation Scheme, Boerasiri
  Rice Production
  Rice Production
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Constitutional Development, South-East Asia
  Constitutional Development, South-East Asia
  Co-operative Banks
  Co-operative Banks
  Development Corporation (Projects)
  Development Corporation (Projects)
  British Subjects (Entry Restrictions)
  British Subjects (Entry Restrictions)
  Deportation and Restriction (Powers)
  Deportation and Restriction (Powers)
  EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS, CYPRUS (PETITION)
  EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS, CYPRUS (PETITION)
  MALTA (LONDON TALKS)
  MALTA (LONDON TALKS)
ROYAL NAVY
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Civilian Clothes (Regulation)
  Civilian Clothes (Regulation)
  H.M. Ships (Names)
  H.M. Ships (Names)
  SERVICE ATTACHES, MOSCOW
  SERVICE ATTACHES, MOSCOW
  SHIPBUILDING, ABERDEEN (ORDERS AND REPAIRS)
  SHIPBUILDING, ABERDEEN (ORDERS AND REPAIRS)
  AIR MINISTRY DILUTEE EMPLOYEES
  AIR MINISTRY DILUTEE EMPLOYEES
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SHARED LINES)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (SHARED LINES)
ROADS
  Black Spot, Hathern
  Black Spot, Hathern
  King's Ferry Bridge
  King's Ferry Bridge
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Trunk Routes, Birmingham (Derestricted Stretches)
  Trunk Routes, Birmingham (Derestricted Stretches)
  Double Carriageway Scheme, Barking By-Pass
  Double Carriageway Scheme, Barking By-Pass
  Linthouse Tunnel (Itemised Estimate)
  Linthouse Tunnel (Itemised Estimate)
  Accidents (Causes)
  Accidents (Causes)
  HELICOPTER (TETHERED FLIGHT PERMISSION)
  HELICOPTER (TETHERED FLIGHT PERMISSION)
  POPULATION CONFERENCE (U.K. REPRESENTATION)
  POPULATION CONFERENCE (U.K. REPRESENTATION)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS)
  EMPLOYMENT (DISABLED PERSONS, WALES)
  EMPLOYMENT (DISABLED PERSONS, WALES)
  B.E.A. (CABLE PRICES INFORMATION)
  B.E.A. (CABLE PRICES INFORMATION)
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION (LOANS)
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION (LOANS)
SCOTLAND
  Stone Quarrying (Employment)
  Stone Quarrying (Employment)
  Development Value (Claims and Charge)
  Development Value (Claims and Charge)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Counterpart Funds (Grants)
  Counterpart Funds (Grants)
  East-West Trade
  East-West Trade