Sitting of 17 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)
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (by Order)
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read the Third time, and passed.
FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Merchandise Marks Acts (Prosecutions)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions his Department has undertaken or initiated, between 1st February and 5th April, 1954, under the Merchandise Marks Acts, in respect of false trade descriptions as to material content of consumer goods, including the advertising of such goods to which false trade descriptions had been applied.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): None, Sir.
    Miss Burton: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise what a very misleading statement he made to the House on 6th May in HANSARD, column 698, when we were discussing these matters, when he told the House that the Board of Trade had initiated prosecutions in 95 cases?
    2246
    Is he aware that the "Drapers Record" took that up and queried it, and that to give the answer now as "None" shows, I suggest, that the previous answer was misleading?
    Mr. Strauss: I thought it was clear from the context that I had dealt separately with the question of prosecutions under the Merchandise Marks Acts. I was there referring to prosecutions generally and to a specific answer of my right hon. Friend. The particulars of those prosecutions will be found in the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 8th April, 1954, to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). Let me say, in answer to the hon. Lady, that if anything I said or, rather, omitted to say in that particular sentence caused anyone to misunderstand me, I express my regret to the House.
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what decision he has reached concerning the initiation of prosecutions, respectively, against the makers of the Downland Curlew full-size down pillow, and against Arthur Mortimer & Company (Wools), Limited, Bradford, manufacturers of Argyll double knitting wool, labelled as containing wool and nylon.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The Board of Trade has commenced proceedings in the first case. No decision has yet been reached in the second case.
    Miss Burton: Concerning the second case, is the House to take it that the Board of Trade condones wool labelled "wool and nylon" having only 1·2 per cent. nylon content in the same way as it condones sheepskin gauntlet gloves called "hide"?
    Mr. Strauss: The hon. Lady should draw no such conclusion except that in a case which may come before the courts I am not prepared to add to the information already given.

    Gloves (Examination)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what tests, technical or otherwise, were made by the experts whom he asked to examine the gauntlet gloves submitted to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South; and for what reason they were not given a technical examination by is Departmental experts.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The experts whom my right hon. Friend consulted applied a surface microscopical test. They have now had the opportunity of considering the result of the tests made by the British Leather Manufacturers' Research Association. Both sets of experts are now agreed that, while the wearing parts (namely, the palm and the back) are of hide, the remainder is probably hair sheepskin. There are no technical experts on the staff of the Board of Trade to carry out such tests.
    Miss Burton: I am sorry to seem disagreeable, but does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that I did not discuss the backs? I told him that these gauntlets were made of sheepskin. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will refresh his memory. He took me to task very severely on that. Now I am proved to be right. He has been very courteous on these matters this afternoon, so may I ask him, as he said that the Board of Trade would initiate prosecutions if it was proved wrong, whether it will now prosecute in this particular case?
    Mr. Strauss: Let me assure the hon. Lady that she is never disagreeable. On the previous occasion the hon. Lady spoke of the expert evidence on which she relied, and I gave particulars of the expert evidence upon which we relied. I am sorry there was a difference, but I am very glad that subsequent discussion has led to agreement among all parties. I do not think that I did anything more in that debate than to reply to a very vigorous attack by the hon. Lady.
    In answer to the last part of her supplementary question, I would say that the revised opinion of the experts does not alter the decision, conveyed by my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question by the hon. Lady on 8th April, that there were not sufficient grounds for prosecution.
    Miss Burton: On a point of order. If, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been proved wrong in a statement, and as he gave a guarantee to the House that he would initiate a prosecution if these gauntlets were made of sheepskin, is he not now compelled to do so?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. Lady may attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment if
    2248
    she is not satisfied. We have had a very long supplementary question, and we must get on.
    Mr. Robens: The Parliamentary Secretary did say to my hon. Friend that if it was found, subsequently, that these gloves were made of sheepskin he would initiate a prosecution. He is now saying that he did not say that. It is in HANSARD, column 696, and we must ask him to keep to his bargain.
    Mr. Strauss: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not guilty of any such alteration of plan. If it had been moved that they were made of sheepskin certainly the position would be altered, but the fact that they contained some sheepskin does not alter it sufficiently.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate the matter now. There seems to be a conflict of evidence on this.

    Calico Printing (Commission's Recommendations)
    Mr. Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to take action with regard to the recommendations of the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on the Calico Printers Federation.
    Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on this matter when he has completed his discussions with the industry.
    Mr. Holt: While it is proper for the Minister to discuss this matter with such bodies as he thinks may help him, will he give an assurance that the Government have no intention of thereby shuffling out of their responsibilities to face the issues involved merely because they may have had some recommendatons which do not fit the Commission's recommendations? Furthermore, in view of the gathering of forces understandably but short-sightedly opposed to these recommendations, does the Minister not think it is time that the Government gave a lead as to exactly how sympathetic they are to the recommendations of this Commission?
    Mr. Strauss: It would be wrong for me to attempt to add to the previous answer given by my right hon. Friend on 4th May on this important and complicated Report

    2249
    until we have had time to consider the opinions expressed by such bodies as the Cotton Board.

    Book Import Restrictions Agreement (Publication)
    Mr. Hollisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Her Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 22nd November, 1950, gave his support to the international agreement for the removal of restrictions on the import of books, that British representatives of all Parties gave their support on 30th September, 1952, to the recommendation of the Assembly of the Council of Europe that this agreement be ratified, that on 22nd December, 1952, the British representative on the Committee of Ministers called on all States which had not ratified that agreement to ratify with the minimum of delay; and whether he will therefore publish the ratification of the agreement at the earliest possible moment.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Yes, Sir; I am aware of the support which has been forthcoming from the United Kingdom for the international Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials, of November, 1950. The text, incorporating a statement that Her Majesty's Government have ratified the Agreement, will be published shortly as a Command Paper in the Treaty Series.
    Mr. Hollis: While that answer will give great satisfaction as far as it goes, is my right hon. Friend not aware that it is somewhat of a mystery why there has been this inordinate delay between ratification and publication of ratification, and that this delay has given what appears to be quite unnecessary opportunity to the critics of this country to blaspheme?
    Mr. Amory: I would remind my hon. Friend that the announcement of ratification by Her Majesty's Government was published in the Board of Trade Journal in April, ratification having taken place in March. It was also published in part of the Press at the same time.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Has Spain yet ratified the agreement and lifted the ban on the import of British goods and periodicals?
    Mr. Amory: I believe that the answer is "No."

    Factories, Development Areas
    Mr. Collickasked the President of the Board of Trade how many Government-financed factories or extensions of over 1,000 square feet have been built in the Development Areas since 1952; and the number of new factories and extensions built in other areas in the same period.
    Mr. H. Strauss: In Development Areas, according to the latest information available, 94 factories and extensions of 1,000 square feet or more financed by the Board of Trade under the Distribution of Industry Acts were completed between the beginning of 1952 and the end of May, 1954. Figures are not readily available of factories financed wholly or partly by other Government Departments.
    In other areas, during the same period, 2,315 new factories and extensions of over 5,000 square feet were completed. No figures are available of factory building below 5,000 square feet in these areas.
    Mr. Collick: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that even on the figures which he has given, far too great a proportion of new factory buildings is going up in non-development areas, at the same time as his right hon. Friend refuses permission to Birkenhead to build one new factory? Will the Minister not do something to reverse the tendency which his figures disclose?
    Mr. Strauss: If the hon. Member studies the figures, he will find that we cannot make the direct comparison which he seeks to make. The answer contained in the first part of the reply does not include buildings built in the Development Areas by private enterprise.
    Mr. Collick: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary must agree that quite apart from the figures for private enterprise in Development Areas, the figures that he has quoted for the other areas show that far too great a proportion of new factory buildings is going up in non-Development Areas.
    Mr. Strauss: The figures are not susceptible of that direct comparison because those relating to other areas refer to all buildings, but those for the Development Areas refer to only a certain number of Government-financed buildings.

    Herrings (Exports to Israel and Middle East)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Annual Report of the Herring Industry Board that lack of support from Her Majesty's Government has resulted in the total loss of the Israeli market for cured herring to our competitors; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Amory: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I very much regret the loss of this trade, but Israel is very short of sterling and other exchange and we cannot determine the way in which Israel lays out her scarce foreign exchange. I am afraid, therefore, that there is not at present any action that Her Majesty's Government can usefully take in this matter.
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the continued refusal of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to underwrite exports of cured herring has resulted in the loss of valuable oversea markets, particularly in the Middle East, to our competitors; and whether he will arrange for some relaxation of the stringent conditions at present applied to this commodity, which render it impossible for herring exporters to take advantage of the facilities which are available to other industries.
    Mr. Amory: The Export Credits Guarantee Department is prepared to underwrite exports of cured herring sold on normal short credit terms. I know of no change in circumstances since the reply given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19th May, 1953, which would justify giving guarantees for sales on longer credit terms than are given for comparable consumer goods or for any other modification of E.C.G.D. conditions.
    The Department is, however, prepared to discuss with the herring industry any new problem which may now be facing them and to seek to provide appropriate facilities.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conditions at present imposed by E.C.G.D. are largely responsible for our failure to hold the
    2252
    Israeli market? Will he look into the whole business of the conditions that have been imposed at present upon this industry by E.C.G.D., having the Israeli market particularly in mind, because it is the lack of credits which has lost us this market to the Dutch?
    Mr. Amory: I am prepared to agree that that is one of the factors involved in the loss of this business. Certainly, I will have another look at it, but I am not hopeful that we can do anything more. I agree that herrings are a capital form of food, but they are not capital goods, and I think that the ordinary normal limits for consumer goods is appropriate to herrings. It would be most unsound to keep them.

    Hong Kong Knitwear and Rubber Footwear
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of knitwear imports from Hong Kong for the first five months of 1952, 1953 and 1954, respectively.
    Mr. Amory: Figures for the first five months of this year are not yet available. Recorded imports of knitwear in the first four months of 1952, 1953 and 1954 were, respectively, £37,500, £35,000 and £61,300.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the Minister aware of the concern that is felt by both the employers' and the employees' organisations in this matter? Is he further aware that goods are being offered to this country at prices which scarcely cover the cost of the raw materials contained in them? Are any steps contemplated in this matter?
    Mr. Amory: I would remind my hon. Friend that Hong Kong is a British Colony in the sterling area and it would be quite contrary to the Government's policy to attempt to impose either quota restrictions or a tariff scheme against Hong Kong products. 1 am aware of the concern, but the proportion of imports of knitwear from Hong Kong is at present only about 7 per cent. of the total imports of knitwear into this country. We are keeping the question under consideration, but I cannot hold out any hopes to my hon. Friend that there is any positive action we can take.
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the concern felt at the rapid increase in the volume of imports of rubber footwear; and what steps he will take in the matter.
    Mr. Amory: I am aware that United Kingdom manufacturers of rubber footwear are concerned about imports of these goods. Most of these imports come from Hong Kong and it would be contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government to impose quotas or duties on imports from Hong Kong or any other colonial territory.
    Mr. Macpherson: Will the Minister investigate this matter with the Hong Kong Government to see whether the competition at present is entirely fair and, if it is not fair, will he go further into the matter to see whether action cannot be taken along the lines of that which was taken before the war?
    Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend has any information in support of his suggestion that this competition may not be fair, I shall be very glad if he will let me have it. I have no such information at present. I would remind him that at present the imports of footwear from Hong Kong are not up to their pre-war level.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister not take steps to verify whether or not there are sweated conditions in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Amory: We are in very close touch with the Colony on this question and the information and advice which we have at present is that there is nothing which could be referred to as sweated conditions.

    British Lion Film Company (Receiver)
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade why a member of the firm of accountants professionally employed for many years by British Lion Film Corporation to handle their accounts has now been appointed as receiver to that company.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The National Film Finance Corporation, with whom the choice lay, considered him to be the man best qualified for the task.
    Mr. Wyatt: Since the reason for the appointment of a receiver was the unsatisfactory financial affairs of British Lion, is it not rather unsatisfactory to appoint somebody who was responsible for the presentation of those financial affairs?
    Mr. Strauss: Nothing, I think, has come to light which reflects in any way adversely on the auditors. There is nothing either unlawful or unsuitable in this appointment. It is perhaps worth remembering that this firm of auditors was employed as auditors of the British Lion Corporation at the request of the National Film Finance Corporation.

    East—West Trade
    Mr. Wyattasked the President of the Board of Trade under what international agreement Her Majesty's Government is prevented from permitting the export of an unlimited quantity of generators of more than 750 kilowatts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. Amory: There is no formal international agreement. It is, however, the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as it was that of the previous Government. to operate security controls in conjunction with other friendly Governments.
    Mr. Wyatt: Have we not now arrived at a most ridiculous position? The Minister last told us that he himself allowed these generators to go, but that he fixed a limit to them. Has not the Prime Minister stated that he is anxious that all these controls should be removed, as far as possible, and to some extent have they not already been removed? Has not the President of the Board of Trade continually told us that the reason why they have not all been removed lies in the negotiations in Paris? But this matter has nothing to do with them. This control could be removed by the Minister.
    Mr. Amory: I think it has very much to do with the consultations taking place in Paris, because the quantitative limits are agreed in consultation with the other countries.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on changes made or contemplated in the list of goods permitted for export to China.
    Mr. Amory: There have been no recent changes and none is contemplated.
    Mr. Davies: Can the Minister now tell the House whether our lists of controls are wider than those of the Consultative Group on East-West trade? Following his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in December, can the Minister say whether he is allowing motor-cycles to go to China, because at that time it was not permitted to send motor-cycles while it was permitted to send small cars?
    Mr. Amory: The present embargo list results from the United Nations resolution of 1951, and, therefore, any question of altering that list is a matter for the United Nations. The lists operated by the various countries who approved that resolution are substantially in agreement.
    Mr. Davies: A group of Chinese business men is now coming to this country. Is the House to be told that we as a nation cannot make any alterations in that list without first consulting the United Nations? If we have to consult the United Nations, has the Board of Trade made a tentative approach with the idea of changing it?
    Mr. Amory: The list is a matter for the United Nations. We supported the resolution and have accepted the obligation of that list. I would remind the hon. Member that the businessmen who are coming here from China shortly, I understand at the invitation of the Federation of British Industries, are coming here to discuss normal trade—and I am glad to say that there is plenty of scope for normal trade outside the present embargo list. They are not coming here to discuss the embargo list.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason he refused a Lincoln firm a licence to export £750,000 worth of engineering products to China.
    Mr. Amory: The goods in question are marine diesel engines and, in fulfilment of our obligations under the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, we do not allow the export of such engines to China.
    Mr. de Freitas: Are not many of these engines of the type which has been used
    2256
    for a long time in ordinary commercial trade in the upper rivers of China? Is it not a fact that if we do not supply them we shall lose the great goodwill which we have in the China trade for essential imports, and that in the long run my constituents may well be prejudiced if other industrial countries cash in when the embargo on these engines is removed?
    Mr. Amory: Again, I am afraid, the answer is that these engines are on the embargo list which was adopted as a result of the United Nations resolution. We are, therefore, bound by that list. The hon. Member suggests that other nations may be willing to supply these goods, but I would remind him that by far and away the greater proportion of industrial exporting countries have also subscribed to that resolution.
    Mr. de Freitas: What I am worried about is the long-term position and the loss of our goodwill as a nation which has traded with China for a very long time. I am not saying that these countries will now violate the embargo.
    Mr. Amory: In present circumstances, I do not think it would be a wise move on our part to take any action to have the existing list altered.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister undertake to consult the Prime Minister about this? Is he aware that some of us were kept in employment in large-scale industry for years as a result of the enormous goodwill which we have in China? Rather than lose that goodwill, could not we take the initiative in order to show the Chinese people that we intend to remain as friendly as we possibly can?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Member and the whole House knows the interest which the Prime Minister is taking in all these questions.

    Trading Estate Factories, Sunderland (Employment)
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons who were employed in the North-Eastern Trading Company's factories in Sunderland on 1st November, 1951.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Figures for 1st November, 1951, are not available. On 30th September, 1951, these factories were employing 1,470 men and boys and 4,074 women and girls, making a total of 5,544.
    Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that we are now employing in these factories more than 1,000 fewer people than we were when his Government came into office and that this is a most disturbing matter? Will he bestir himself about it and face the particular problem which has caused this considerable decline in the number of employed in these factories?
    Mr. Strauss: As the hon. Member is aware, the figures for the factories of the North-Eastern Trading Estate Company generally show that employment was higher at the last available date than it has ever been before, but I cannot say that that applies in every section. The main cause for the decline in the area about which the hon. Member asks was the textile recession. Everything that we can do will, of course, be done.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Building Societies (Interest Charges)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to control building society interest charges.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): No, Sir.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware of the public concern on these matters? Is he aware that the statements put out by the building societies are most unconvincing, to say the least?
    Mr. Maudling: It is not the policy of the present Government to interfere with normal commercial relations in these matters.

    Tax Litigation (Treasury Costs)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give instructions that a limit should be placed on the extent to which his Department may incur costs in litigation in cases involving taxes and duties, and that these costs should be limited to the amount of money in dispute, particulars of which have been sent to him.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. When an important question of principle is at stake it may be necessary to incur
    2258
    costs in litigation in a particular case in excess of the amount of money in dispute in that case. This position has not, however, arisen in the case of which my hon. Friend was good enough to send particulars to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir W. Smithers: Do not the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor realise that often it costs more than it is worth to enforce Government regulations, which are always a burden on industry?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view. He gives me full opportunity to do so. He will, how-ever, understand that when the decision in a particular case may affect the decision in quite a number of other cases, one cannot possibly apply the arbitrary rule which he suggests in the Question.

    Anglo-German Exports (Subsidies)
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the terms of the agreement between the United Kingdom and the Federal German Government whereby both countries agreed not to subsidise exports.
    Mr. Maudling: Following the talks which my right hon. Friend and I had with the German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs in Bonn last month, a joint Anglo-German statement concerning the restoration of conditions of normal competitive trade was issued to the Press on 4th June. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he has any information from Dr. Erhard, the Minister of Economics, about the discussions now going on between the German industrialists and shipbuilders about the proposition to subsidise, to the tune of £4 a ton, steel, which is to be put into German export shipping? Is he aware that both sides in that agreement undertook that no unfair incentives would be given to exports?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that that matter arises on two Questions which appear later on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not the case that the Germans have agreed to change the present taxation arrangements which subsidise their exports, but only at the end

    2259
    of 1955? Will the Economic Secretary explain why there is this long delay, and why we have not reached an agreement with them to remove these subsidies much sooner?
    Mr. Maudling: I think the right hon. Gentleman has failed to observe that this undertaking by the German Government is an entirely unilateral one which is not given in exchange for any action on our part, and that it is being taken by the German Government in advance of any similar action by many other European countries who are still continuing this practice.
    Mr. Stokes: But the obviation of sin is always unilateral.
    Mr. Maudling: I should not like to contest with the right hon. Gentleman either the question of sin or its obviation.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling now is, taking the figure for October, 1951, as £1.
    Mr. Maudling: The internal purchasing power of the £ sterling is estimated on the basis of the latest figures to have been 18s. 11d. in April, 1954, compared with 20s. in October, 1951. The calculation is based on the price index for all consumer goods and services between 1951 and 1953 and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the figure for last February was 19s. 2d. and it has now fallen to 18s. 11d., will the Economic Secretary say what has happened since last February which, despite the good intentions of the Government, has reduced the internal purchasing value of the £?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I anticipated that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his usual acuity, would have spotted that point. This is almost certainly a seasonal movement, because precisely the same movement took place in 1953.

    Income Tax, Wales and Monmouthshire (Receipts)
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Income Tax he received in the last financial year
    2260
    from persons resident in Wales and Monmouthshire, making approximate calculations similar to those which enabled him to calculate the amount of Income Tax received from the seven crofting counties of Scotland.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I estimate that in the financial year 1952–53 the amount of Income Tax payments attributable to residents of Wales and Monmouthshire was between £30 million and £45 million. Approximations which were sufficiently accurate for the crofting counties of Scotland cannot be used to the same extent for the more varied sources of income in Wales and a more precise estimate could not be made without an inordinate amount of labour and expense.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this answer represents a tremendous advance on anything else which has ever come from his Department?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That always happens under this Government.

    German Shipbuilders (Steel Rebates)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the rebate on steel to German shipbuilders offers an artificial incentive to exporters of a type which the United Kingdom and the West German Government have agreed to eliminate; and whether he will discuss this problem during the course of the future negotiations;
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the rebate to be granted on steel prices for German shipbuilders, conflicts with the financial and economic agreement recently reached with Western Germany; and what representations he will make on this issue.
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports only and we are making urgent inquiries.
    Mr. Grimond: Can we take it from the Economic Secretary that, if the present reports are accurate, and they are extremely circumstantial, this would be a breach of what was understood to be an undertaking by the Germans, and that strong representations will be made to them to eliminate this subsidy?
    Mr. Maudling: The agreement was a Government to Government agreement and covered Government practices. It is a wise thing to make urgent inquiries, but possibly not so wise to reach hasty conclusions.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman agree to let the House know as soon as possible the result of the inquiries, because of the very great interest and importance of the matter to the shipbuilding industry in general?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall be very glad to do so.

    TATE GALLERY (ADMINISTRATION)
    Captain Kerbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the large number of changes in the senior staff of the Tate Gallery in recent years, and to criticism of the administration; and whether he will set up a committee of inquiry to examine the administration of the Gallery in detail.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 15th June to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher).

  AGRICULTURE

    Pigs (Atrophic Rhinitis)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress is being made with the production of a 'vaccine to protect pigs from atrophic rhinitis.
    The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): The precise infective agent responsible for atrophic rhinitis has not yet been determined. Until it has, there is little prospect of the successful production of a protective vaccine.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the Minister in close consultation with the veterinary surgeons of Scandinavia, where the disease is rife?
    Sir T. Dugdale: We refer to all the people who know about this disease, and
    2262
    we are in touch with Canada as well as with Sweden, but at present we do not know precisely what is the infective organism.
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of the pig disease, atrophic rhinitis.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the pig disease atrophic rhinitis, commonly called twisted snout, was introduced into Great Britain by an apparently healthy Landrace pig imported from Sweden eight months ago; and what steps he is taking to prevent the disease being spread in Great Britain from Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by apparently healthy Land-race pigs imported from Sweden within the last few months.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Major Anstruther-Gray), on 27th May. Since then, I have made orders prohibiting the importation of all pigs, except for immediate slaughter, from the Channel Islands and Northern Ireland, both of which recently imported Landrace pigs from Sweden. I have not thought it necessary to extend this prohibition to the Isle of Man, because the Landrace pigs imported there are being detained in the island and are isolated from other pigs.
    Mr. T. Williams: Has this disease afflicted, or is it afflicting, any of our pigs?
    Sir T. Dugdale: If the House will bear with me for a few moments, I will give the latest information. The disease has been confirmed in three young pigs, as I informed the House recently. They came out of an in-pig gilt which was imported from Sweden and auctioned at Peterborough last year. The first case was confirmed on 19th May and the other two on 1st and 3rd June. Two of these pigs have been slaughtered and the third has been kept alive under observation at the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge.
    These three pigs, in turn, were moved on to three separate farms and all the 659 pigs on those farms have been under suspicion. The slaughter of one entire herd of 443 pigs on one of these farms

    2263
    was completed yesterday as the disease was clearly spreading there. A post-mortem on these animals is being carried out at once.

    Farms, Anglesey (Piped Water)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture the number of farmers in Anglesey that have a piped water supply; and what percentage this comprises of the total number of farms on the island.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No precise figures are available, but it is estimated that about 15 per cent. of farms in Anglesey have a piped water supply. The position should improve when the county council's comprehensive mains supply scheme is completed. My Department will grant-aid approved schemes for connecting farms to the mains.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the figure of 15 per cent, is very low compared with the rest of the country, and that the county water committee are finding it extremely difficult to make progress with their water scheme, in spite of splendid efforts, because of the high capital cost? Can he assist the county water committee in view of the large amount of unemployment in Anglesey?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I cannot reply to all those questions by way of Question and answer, but I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that Anglesey has done very well during these last 11 years. Although the percentage is much lower than in other parts of the country, the figure for Anglesey has improved from 5 per cent. in 1941–43 to about 15 per cent. today, which is very much greater.

    Coal Board Farms (Management)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that four divisions of the National Coal Board made losses on their agricultural estates in 1953, he will take steps to have the farms concerned taken over by his Department.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir.
    Sir W. Smithers: If the Minister puts farmers under supervision and dispossesses them, why does he not adopt the same procedure with Government Departments? Had he not much better hand these estates over to experienced farmers who know their job?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The Coal Board is an independent statutory body. My sole concern as Minister responsible for the administration of the Agriculture Act in England and Wales is to see that the Coal Board, like any other owner or farmer, complies with the rules of good estate management and good husbandry.
    Mr. Robens: Has the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to complain at any time about the husbandry on N.C.B. farms?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not as far as I am aware.

    Calf Subsidy
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the benefit from the calf subsidy has now passed to the breeders who have put the price of bull calves up by a sum approximating to the subsidy, and, in view of this fact, if he is satisfied that this subsidy ought to be continued.
    Sir T. Dugdale: It is not possible to say what proportion of the subsidy goes to breeders and what to rearers. The subsidy was introduced to encourage both the breeding and the rearing of more calves suitable for beef production. I am satisfied that it is having a good effect and should be continued.
    Mr. Stokes: I know that. I must disclose my interest, as I have been busy tearing bull calves; but does the Minister really believe that the breeder has any influence on whether the calf is a bull or a heifer? It has nothing whatever to do with the breeder. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that day-old bull calves, with which the breeder had nothing whatever to do in producing and nothing whatever to do in rearing, have now doubled in price? Is he aware that, in consequence, those who, like myself, set about looking after the poor animals, are being driven out of the market?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The subsidy has a very desirable effect and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's bulls are contributing to that. This year we have over 530,000 steer calves under a year old, compared with 415,000 two years ago.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously answer my question? Why does he allow the breeder of the day-old bull, which the breeder did not really

    2265
    help to produce very materially and did nothing to keep in sustenance, to collar the subsidy? He is aware that that is what is happening?
    Sir T. Dugdale: He has to keep it for eight months before he gets the subsidy.
    Mr. Stokes: No, that is done inside the cow.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the suggestion which is contained in the Question, that breeders of calves can dictate prices, is not correct? Is he aware that calves are sold on the open market and that the breeders of calves are in a position entirely different from that of manufacturers of implements, who can retain their implements in store until they can obtain the price which they want for them?

    Myxomatosis
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Minister of Agriculture how far the rabbit disease of myxomatosis has now spread.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Since the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 20th May, outbreaks of myxomatosis have been confirmed in Anglesey, Pembrokeshire, West Suffolk and West Sussex.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Can we take it that we now have evidence that since the warmer weather has come the disease is spreading more quickly?
    Sir T. Dugdale: I think that that may well be the case.

    Fatstock Marketing Scheme (Objections)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will publish a list of those who have lodged objections with him against the Fatstock Marketing Scheme, gazetted on 26th March last.
    Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those who made representations or objections to me or to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland on or before 12th May, 1954.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister confirm or deny that the National Farmers' Union have turned down the
    2266
    Fatstock Marketing Scheme, that they have refused to operate it?
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, the exact position is that my right hon. Friends and I have invited the promoters of the scheme to say whether or not, in the light of objections, they would proceed with it. If they do decide to proceed, a public inquiry will be held.
    Following is the list of persons who duly made representations on and objections to the draft Fatstock Marketing Scheme on or before 12th May, 1954.
    Association of Multiple Retail Meat Traders; Constitutent members of the Joint Committee of Animal By-Products Trades; Food Manufacturers' Federation (Incorporated); Joint English and Scottish Livestock Auctioneers Consultative Committee; Livestock Producers' Association; National Association of British Market Authorities; National Council of Associations of Fresh Meat Wholesalers; National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations (Incorporated); National Sheep Breeders' Association; Parliamentary Committee, Co-operative Union, Ltd.; United Kingdom Fellmongers' Association; Urban District Council of Wellingborough; T. P. Dunlop; Commander Stephen King-Hall, Kt., R.N. (Ret'd); J. Laity; J. S. Merricks; J. L. Murray; Major R. B. Neve; Mrs. D. J. Nutland; C. O. Westrop; W. H. S. Williams; G. Wood; Belfast Co-operative Society, Ltd.; Belfast Livestock Salesmen's Association; Belfast Master Butchers' Association; North of Ireland Cattle Traders' and Stock Owners' Association; Northern Ireland Master Butchers' Association; Pigs Marketing Board (Northern Ireland); Aberdeen Northern Marts, Ltd.; Scottish Association of Sausage and Cooked Meat Manufacturers; 28 Scottish producers jointly represented by T. Duncanson, solicitor; Scottish Federation of Meat Traders' Associations (Incorporated); Scottish Offal Merchants' Association; Federation of Scottish Animal By-Product Trades; Skinners' Association of Scotland; John Swan & Sons, Ltd.; Westfield Farm (Blairgowrie), Ltd.; J. B. Crichton; W. Dempster; D. Donaldson; W. Lyon; L. J. Thompson.

    FORESTRY COMMISSION CANDIDATES, WALES (TESTS)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture what educational tests are given to prospective candidates for employment by the Forestry Commission in Wales; and whether candidates are given the opportunity to answer either in English or in Welsh.
    Sir T. Dugdale: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to candidates for entry to a Forester Training School. Candidates for the schools are selected by

    2267
    interview, at which they may speak in Welsh, and by an elementary written examination the papers for which are available in Welsh. An essay may be written in Welsh, but other questions must be answered in English.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that several Welsh candidates have been rejected by the Forestry Commission because the interview has been held in English and because the examination papers have been set in English? Will he ensure that in future the facilities referred to in his reply will be granted to candidates from Wales if they so desire?
    Sir T. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman has not got this quite clear. Selection boards sit from time to time in both Cardiff and Shrewsbury. At each board a Welsh-speaking person is a member of the panel. It is true that the essays may be written in Welsh, but other questions have to be answered in English because the Forestry Commission is one service throughout England, Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to understand that in the employment of the Forestry Commission in Wales there are not adequate people to conduct these interviews in Welsh?
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, there are always Welsh-speaking people there.

    SEA DEFENCES, CANVEY ISLAND (STRENGTHENING)
    Mr. Braineasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to direct the Essex River Board to complete the work of repairing and strengthening the sea defences of Canvey Island by waterproofing the top of the walls with suitable material.
    Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. It is for the river board to decide what works should be done, and the improved sea defences they have constructed for the protection of Canvey Island are fully in accordance with the standards recommended by the Waverley Committee. I have no reason for suggesting to them that they should waterproof the top of the walls.
    Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Essex River Board has already issued a statement that there is still an element of risk in the case of
    2268
    Canvey Island? As the Waverley Committee specifically recommends that where there is a risk of overtopping this work should be carried out, will my right hon. Friend look into the matter again?
    Sir T. Dugdale: Not in this case. It is for the river board to make recommendations. The works on Canvey Island are, if anything, above the standard recommended by the Waverley Committee, that is, the standard sufficient to withstand the flood of 1953.
    Mr. Braine: In view of the importance of this matter to the security of my constituents, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity to press it on the Adjournment.

  CIVIL DEFENCE

    R.A.F. Reservists
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is now intended to bring forward the date for the commencement of training of Royal Air Force Reservists in mobile Civil Defence columns; and how many columns it is intended to form.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): Arrangements are being made to bring the scheme, which was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Defence on 2nd March last, into operation as soon as possible after the necessary legislation has been passed. The Bill for the purpose has been introduced in another place and I shall be glad to give fuller explanations of the scheme when the Bill reaches this House.
    Mr. Albu: Does that mean that the date which was originally given, I believe by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, for the scheme to come into operation in 1956 has now been brought forward?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the training will start in 1955.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that only about 30,000 of R.A.F. National Service reservists are to be transferred to these mobile columns? If so, what is to happen to the remainder?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The remainder of what?
    Mr. Shinwell: There are 80,000 available, whom the R.A.F. cannot absorb and use. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned with 30,000 of them. What of the rest?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry, but I shall have to ask the right hon. Gentleman for notice of that question.

    Training
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Civil Defence Corps and of the Auxiliary Fire Service have completed their training; and what proportion have not yet commenced training.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: According to returns furnished by the local authorities, approximately 9 per cent. of the Civil Defence Corps and 21 per cent. of the Auxiliary Fire Service have completed the training syllabuses at present prescribed and approximately 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively have not yet started training.
    Mr. Albu: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that the number of those who have completed their training is in any way satisfactory?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is fair to remember that the recruitment has been spread unevenly over several years and, therefore, statistics in the form of percentages are apt to be misleading. After making allowance for that, may we again co-operate in trying to get everybody to take their training and complete it as quickly as possible?

    Bombed Area Casualties (Removal)
    Mr. Albuasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has yet been reached on the responsibility within the Civil Defence Corps for the removal of casualties from a bombed area.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Agreement has been reached with representative associations of local authorities that the collection of casualties after air attack shall be carried out by a reconstituted Ambulance Section of the Civil Defence Corps with increased duties. Discussions have also taken place with the St. John
    2270
    Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society.
    A regulation under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, conferring on local authorities the function of arranging for casualty collection will be laid before the House today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and, when it has been approved, local authorities will be sent advice.

    Hydrogen Bomb
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange a Civil Defence demonstration at Westminster to inform hon. Members what action would be taken in the event of a hydrogen bomb explosion over London.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Civil Defence exercises are held from time to time in different parts of the country, but it is a self-evident proposition that Civil Defence arrangements and services will be necessary to deal with the after effects of attack from the air by whatever agency caused or on however large a scale and I do not think that a demonstration such as that proposed by the hon. Member is necessary for the purpose suggested.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why these Civil Defence exercises are necessary in Coventry but not here?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think we did discuss that point—
    Mr. Hughes: We did not.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We discussed the question of the Coventry exercise. I think it has been made public that, in accordance with the general feeling of the House, I am meeting a deputation from Coventry, and I would rather not go into that now.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define more clearly his policy of dispersal in the event of an hydrogen bomb explosion over London.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not yet in a position to add to the statement which I made in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) on 27th May, but I would point out that in my reference in that statement to dispersal I had in contemplation measures to be taken in

    2271
    advance of attack and not, as the hon. Member appears to contemplate. after it.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this answer is even more unsatisfactory and nebulous than the last one? Has he any idea at all of what is to be done to save the population of a big city like London?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, I have ideas. The matter is under the most serious consideration, but I do not think I can make a statement for a little time yet.

    SECRET TRIALS (PUBLICATION)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority, and for what reason, permission was given to an ex-Law Officer to publish extracts selected by himself from the record of trials in which he had been engaged as a Law Officer and which the presiding judge had decided should be held in secret.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It was decided in November, 1945, not to object to the publication of accounts of wartime trials held in camera, subject to the material being first submitted for examination and to the deletion of any information which it would still be contrary to the interests of public safety to disclose. I was satisfied that there was no security objection to the articles to which I believe the right hon. Gentleman to be referring.
    Mr. Stokes: That may very well be, but is the Home Secretary aware that I was refused access to these documents in 1948 by a former Attorney-General? Is he aware that a person who wished to make this publication quite recently applied both to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Lord Chief Justice and was refused? Will he answer my Question by telling me by whom and on what authority permission to publish was granted?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the decision in November, 1945, that in 1948, and I think another decision to which he refers, were all made by the Government which he ultimately honoured by joining.
    Mr. Stokes: But that does not answer my Question. May I ask the Home
    2272
    Secretary whether he thinks that it conforms with the best etiquette of his own profession that this should be done? Is it not most unfair that people who live in this country and who, in their own opinion, were punished unfairly should have these things dragged up for the purpose of providing newspaper articles when responsible authorities have refused publication of them?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The right hon. Gentleman must take up a matter of public taste with his noble ex-Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: No, I propose to go on taking that up with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

  WALES

    Tinplate Industry (Redundancy)
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations he has received from the Lloyd Committee on the problems of redundancy in the tinplate industry in West Wales; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I informed the House in the debate on Welsh Affairs on 2nd February last, the programme of road works in Wales which the Government have authorised is based on recommendations made by the Lloyd Committee I understand that the Committee will shortly be submitting to me further recommendations on matters which it has recently been considering. I will inform the House of any action which the Government may propose to take as a result of the Committee's advice.
    Mr. Griffiths: While welcoming the decision to build new roads which are required, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the growing uneasiness and concern about the fact that development is taking place all the time and that, so far, very few factories are there to provide employment?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is my constant concern. I share with the right hon. Member pleasure and relief in the absorption of redundancy which has taken place up to now, but I do not let that obscure the problem, which is very much in my mind.

    Rural Depopulation
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now accept the recommendation of the Council for Wales to set up a corporation to deal with the problem of depopulation in rural Wales, in view of the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up a Commission for the Highlands of Scotland according to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Crofting Conditions, Command Paper No. 9091.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The establishment of this Commission, whose powers will be restricted to purely agricultural matters arising out of the peculiarities of the crofting system in Scotland, does not affect the Government's decision not to establish a development corporation for rural Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated, the Commission will deal exclusively with matters relating to crofter holdings, which do not exist in Wales, and its work will not in any way cut across the functions of local authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the problems of the Highlands of Scotland and of rural Wales are very similar? Is he further aware that Wales has been very badly treated by comparison with Scotland? Will he be good enough to look at the problem again, in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the rural parts of Wales?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: At any rate, I know about the urgency of the problem in Wales. I would point out to the hon. Member that one aspect of the problem is being investigated by the Welsh Sub-Commission of the Agricultural Land Commission, and that there is no similar body in Scotland. I think the roads aspect of the Welsh problem is very important. The Crofting Commission will not have any powers to deal with roads and sewerage.

    MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will reconsider his refusal to separate the Ministry of Agriculture from the Ministry of Fisheries, in view of the national importance of the
    2274
    fishing industry; and if he will now take steps to set up a separate Ministry to solve its problems and attend to its development.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): It would not, I feel, be a good arrangement to have a separate Department for every industry of national importance. These two industries have been long associated departmentally and, after all, there are many ancient links between fish and chips.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the association of powers and responsibilities to which he has referred is inflicting loss and damage on the home and foreign industry and also depriving British consumers of fish food and encouraging foreign trade rivalry? Will he take expert advice on this, which is really a national problem?

    INDO-CHINA (FIVE-POWER STAFF TALKS)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the staff talks in Washington.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my reply to Questions on this subject on 15th June, but I must emphasise that any examinations undertaken are without commitment.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in view of the warning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we need to cut defence expenditure there will be a Treasury official present to see that they do not get involved in financial commitments?

    INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC AGENCY (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to make a statement on the progress of the discussions on President Eisenhower's proposal for an International Atomic Agency.
    The Prime Minister: Conversations are continuing between the United States and Soviet Governments and Her Majesty's Government are being kept closely informed. But I am not able to make any statement at present on the progress of President Eisenhower's noble theme.

    INTERNATIONAL SITUATION (THREE-POWER TALKS)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the present international situation, he will reconsider taking the initiative in an effort to arrange a meeting at top level, representing the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this country, in an attempt to lessen the tension.
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps on this somewhat delicate topic I may be permitted by the House to take refuge in metaphor. Many anxieties have been expressed recently at the severe character of the course of the Grand National steeplechase, but I am sure that it could not be improved by asking the horses to try to jump two fences at the same time.
    Mr. Dodds: As the whole nation wishes the right hon Gentleman godspeed in this important visit to America, will he bear in mind that there are many people who would like to see President Eisenhower pay an occasional visit to this country for discussions and that many more people will be bitterly disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman fails to seek an early meeting with Mr. Malenkov, with or without President Eisenhower?
    The Prime Minister: My statement was meant to cover that aspect.

    BRITAIN AND CHINA (DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what success has been reached at the Geneva Conference with regard to the exchange of ambassadors between Her Majesty's Government and the People's Government of China.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government have agreed that the Chinese Government should send a Chargé d'Affaires to London having the same position and duties as the British Chargé d'Affaires in Peking.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that we all hope that this exchange will lead to peace in the world?
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware, if I may be permitted to say so
    2276
    without presumption, that for those who particularly advocated this step it is very good news indeed which he has just given to us? Is he further aware that this is a long delayed justification of the initiative originally taken by Ernest Bevin, in 1950?

    GERMAN ARMY SURRENDER DOCUMENT (POSSESSION)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the original instrument of the surrender of the German Army at present in private possession to be recovered and placed in the national archives.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It seems to me that Field Marshal Montgomery set a valuable precedent by retaining in his own hands the original document of the battlefield surrender to him at Lune-berg Heath of more than half-a-million well-trained enemy soldiers.
    The fact that such trophies will hereafter be the personal property of the British Commander-in-Chief in the field should be an incentive to all young officers in the British Army to repeat the episode on the half million scale whenever the public interest requires.
    I do not think that any addition to the Queen's Regulations is necessary. The practice may form part of the unwritten law. Its adoption would in any case be optional.
    Mr. Thomson: While everybody agrees in paying tribute to the brilliant military record of Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that there will be astonishment throughout the country that the right hon. Gentleman, above all people, with his high sense of constitutional propriety, should defend the purloining by a military leader of a document of surrender which belongs, above all, to all who contributed to the victory? Would not the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider the constitutional propriety of the course he is advocating?
    The Prime Minister: I have considered the propriety, but I think the course that I recommend is far preferable to the use of the word "purloining" by the hon. Gentleman which, in my opinion, is

    2277
    grossly unfair and ungrateful to a man to whose great achievements we all awe so much.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Is not it clear that the retention of this document by the distinguished officer in question is a small but very well-deserved tribute to one who made an imperishable contribution to our common victory?
    The Prime Minister: I may say that had this document not been retained by the gallant Field Marshal it would have passed into American hands and been entirely out of the control of this country.
    Mr. Stokes: Does the Prime Minister realise the impossible position he is getting us into? Would he say, for example, that Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick would be entitled to keep the original document reporting his own interview with Rudolf Hess?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what that has to do with it. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to be concerned in any way with procuring the surrender of 500,000 enemies of this country there would be no objection raised to his keeping the receipt for that transaction. But I can assure the House that there is no chance of anything like that happening.
    Mr. Stokes: No, but the Prime Minister has wilfully misunderstood me. I am not complaining that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery should have a record, but surely the original document should be the property of the nation. While he may be entitled to a copy surely that should be sufficient.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: It is after half-past three and we cannot carry this further.

COLONIAL SERVICE (REORGANISATION)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. BRAINE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in reorganising and reshaping the Colonial Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.
Mr. ALPORT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Colonial Service.
At the end of Questions—
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With permission I will now answer Questions Nos. 79 and 80.
Her Majesty's Government have reached certain conclusions in regard to the reorganisation of the Colonial Service. A full account of the proposals seemed too long for inclusion in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have therefore arranged for them to be published today as Colonial No. 306. Copies of this paper are now available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Braine: While not wishing to anticipate the contents of the White Paper, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that many people in this country and in the Colonial Service will wish to congratulate him on the speed with which he has acted in this matter, following the representations which were made to him?
Mr. Lyttelton: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to renew his congratulations when he has examined the White Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he has an announcement to make to the House about business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 21sT JUNE AND TUESDAY, 22ND JUNE—Report and Third Reading: Television Bill.
On Tuesday, after the Television Bill, we shall ask the House to take the Report and Third Reading of the Long Leases (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 23RD JUNE—Supply (18th Allotted Day): Committee.
It was proposed to take the Finance Bill, but in response to the Opposition's request for a debate on foreign affairs, a Supply day is being made available for this purpose.

2279
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proposes to open the debate, if the House so desires. In view of these arrangements he will not now make a statement on Tuesday.
THURSDAY, 24TH JUNE—Further progress will be made with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 25TH JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether some form of communiqué will be made available in good time before the debate on Wednesday, so that hon. Members will know what has been happening at the Geneva Conference?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot answer that directly, but I will see that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is transmitted to the right quarter.
Mr. A. Henderson: Regarding my Question No. 51 to the Prime Minister, which was not reached this afternoon, asking if he would arrange for the publication of a White Paper on the public proceedings and speeches at the Geneva Conference, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would indicate now that such a White Paper will be published and, if so, whether it can be produced before the debate on Wednesday?
The Prime Minister: There will be one produced about Korea, but we thought it better to wait, on the subject of Indo-China, until the actual discussions are effectively concluded.
Mr. H. Morrison: It was announced that the Foreign Secretary would make a full statement on Tuesday on the Geneva Conference, so that presumably the drafting of that statement is in hand and it would have been completed in good time. Could not that be used as the basis of a White Paper to be circulated to the House, say on Monday, or Tuesday at the lastest? That would merely be circulating to the House a statement which, otherwise, would have been made verbally. Presumably, it is possible for that to be done?
Mr. Crookshank: I am sure that that will be considered, because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is always anxious to meet the convenience of the
2280
House. But I hope the House will also consider the convenience of my right hon. Friend to some extent, in view of the great pressure under which he has been all these weeks.
Mr. Attlee: Has the Lord Privy Seal any statement to make with regard to any decision about Members' allowances?
Mr. Crookshank: It is hoped that it will be possible to make a statement next week.
Mr. Woodburn: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that he will consider the Motion in the name of myself and of all the Scottish Labour Members with regard to the proceedings on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, asking that the House should recall this Bill from the Committee in view of the fact that it has now become impossible to deal with it without impinging on the six days provided under Standing Order No. 61 for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates?
May I say to the Lord Privy Seal that the Scottish Labour Members have not impeded the progress of this Bill. There are 84 Government Amendments and only eight from the Opposition. Although a temporary arrangement was made yesterday so that we might facilitate progress, even this morning 26 new Amendments and one starred new Clause have been put down. Yet we are expected to finish before Tuesday. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to consider the Motion asking the House to recall the Bill until such time as the Scottish Estimates have been considered?
Mr. Crookshank: I have no knowledge, nor can the House have any knowledge, of what happened in the Scottish or any other Committee upstairs which has not reported. As for any Motion which it is proposed to put on the Order Paper, I cannot say anything about it until I see the Motion.
Mr. Beswick: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet recovered from his surprise at the question I asked before, about the possible shelving of the Food and Drugs Measure? Can he say whether that Measure is to be proceeded with or not?
Mr. Crookshank: No. My surprise continues.
Proceedings on the Landlord and Tenant Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and the said Estimates referred to the Scottish Standing Committee:—
Class V, Vote 10, Department of Health for Scotland;
Class V, Vote 12, Housing, Scotland.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 23, page 19, lines 28, 33 and 35 and Clause 37, page 27, line 42 and page 28, line 2, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

    Clause 23.—(TENANCIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES.)
    3.42 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 19, line 28, to leave out Subsection (3).
    I suggest that it would be convenient to deal at the same time with the other two Amendments to the Clause, in lines 33 and 35.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) argued in Committee that living accommodation occupied by an employee of the tenant should be protected under Part II only if it was comprised in the same tenancy as the tenant's business premises. The Amendment produces that result.
    The second Amendment in page 19, line 33, is an important one which embraces a considerable concession to the point of view advanced in Committee. It substantially widens the scope of Part II in relation to mixed tenancies comprising both business premises and living accommodation occupied by the tenant. In the case of such mixed tenancies Part II as at present drafted applies only to the business premises.
    Those who were on the Committee will remember that when a Government Amendment to clarify the position was moved the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) urged strongly that the living accommodation ought to be covered as well, and he divided the Committee on the point. The effect of the Amendment

    2283
    in line 33 is to protect the living accommodation as well as the business accommodation, subject only to the limitation which is introduced for cases where the business use is in breach of covenant. Where the tenancy covers a shop and the flat above it, with the tenant living in the flat, he will be protected in the whole premises. If a doctor uses part of his house as a consulting room, his whole house will be protected, and not just the consulting room. The Amendments affect only premises outside the Rent Acts limits, because mixed premises within the Rent Acts limits are excluded from Part II by Clause 42 (1, d), because they are already protected by the Rents Act.
    The third Amendment excludes from Part II a tenancy where the business use is carried on in breach of covenant against business use and where the landlord has not consented to or acquiesced in the breach. That is the corollary of the two previous Amendments. If what the landlord let to the tenant was a house and if he imposed this restriction against business use, the tenant ought not to get protection in the house under Part II simply because he has contravened the restriction and used the house for business purposes.
    I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend will agree that the Amendment applies only to a restriction against all forms of business use or to a restriction against one or more of the classes of business which are mentioned in the definition of the word "business." The Amendment does not affect the tenant whose lease allows him to use the premises for one type of shop but not for another, or as an office but not for light industry, or for wholesale but not retail trade. A tenant who is in breach of a restriction of this type is not excluded from Part II, although the breach may be a ground on which the landlord can oppose the grant of a new tenancy under paragraph (c) of Clause 30 (1). I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that we have met them on the major point which is the question of mixed premises.
    Sir Frank Soskice: I wish to express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for acceding to the view advanced in Committee about
    2284
    premises occupied for residential purposes. by a tenant who carries on business at the same premises. That view was advanced by the Opposition, and my hon. Friends are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for acceding to it.
    There is one purely drafting point which I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider. Is he satisfied that the drafting which he has selected achieves the purpose he has in mind? The words he uses are to the effect that premises are included when they are occupied by the tenant and persons employed by him for the purpose of the business by reason of which the tenancy is one to which the Bill applies.
    Perhaps the Solicitor-General will consider the point as well. Is it certain in the case of a shop with a flat over it, with a tenant living in the flat, that the flat is a part of the premises occupied for the purpose of the business? That is a drafting question which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe indicated assent.
    Sir F. Soskice: The third Amendment in line 35 does not spring from any violently expressed desire from our side of the Committee. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that the position was not unreasonable. Suppose a tenant is in breach of a restriction which prevents him from carrying on business, in principle I should have thought that it was not unreasonable that there should be some remedy in the case of a tenant who breaks the provisions of a restrictive clause in his tenancy.
    I note, and it is of great importance that the subsection is not to be applicable if the landlord or his predecessor in title has consented to the breach or the immediate landlord has acquiesced in it. That is an absolutely essential safeguard, because, if it were not for the safeguard, many tenants who, half unwittingly sometimes, transgress a restrictive provision of this sort would find themselves deprived of the advantage which the second part of the Bill gives. I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that that would be a very deplorable result.
    I feel some apprehension as to whether the new provision may not give rise to uncertainty and litigation in some cases. Subject to that apprehension, I should have thought that the provision was not unreasonable.
    Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I am not satisfied about what will be the effect of the first two Amendments. I fully acknowledge the declared intention of the Home Secretary to mitigate the rather drastic consequences of the exclusion of subsection (3), but I am not at all sure that what the first Amendment gives with one hand is not taken away by the second Amendment with the other hand.
    As I understand it, the object of subsection (3) was to exclude everyone from the benefits conferred by the Rent Restrictions Acts other than the tenant or the employee who, by the effect of this subsection, is made to stand in the shoes of the tenant. What the first Amendment does is all right because it sweepingly discards subsection (3) and thereby gets rid of an objection about which we complained in Committee and which would undoubtedly work profound injustices if it were allowed to stand.
    That concession having been made, the next Amendment seeks to recreate the very objection which we raised in Committee. It goes on, in other words, to repeat and define exactly the same situation as we found in subsection (3), namely, that the protective benefits of the Rent Restrictions Acts are not to apply unless the person concerned is either the tenant or the employee of the tenant. If that interpretation is right, it invalidates the very thing which I believe that the Home Secretary is anxious to achieve. Perhaps he can elaborate on that view a little in order to satisfy us and people outside who are seriously concerned about the matter and feel that this will have precisely the same effect as the subsection would have had if it had remained as it was.
    I am not at all certain that the third Amendment will not open the door to injustices. This is a situation in which one can get a multiplicity of cases with a variety of circumstances, all of which ought to have specific and individual consideration in order that there should be no possibility of wrong or injustice being done to the tenant. While the proposed Amendment provides some benefit, it may nevertheless have some very unpleasant consequences for the tenant.
    I concede that if a tenant is carrying on premises such as a house for wrong purposes for which a private dwelling
    2286
    should not be used, there may be some ground for its effect, for no one would object to the tenant being put out bag and baggage in such a case, but prohibition clauses are today drawn with such flexibility of language and magnitude of field that it is possible to get a case in which serious injustice may be done to the tenant, and, consequently, he ought to have the opportunity of going to court to prevent dispossession in such a case. Surely there should be some line of demarcation in a proper case where there has been a breach of a prohibition which is not of the character about which any decent person would agree straight away that the tenant should go.
    If right is to be done in the matter, there should be some modification or some halfway house between what is left out of the Bill and what is sought to be put in it by means of this provision. While I agree that certain prohibitions ought to be provided for, I ask the Home Secretary, if he cannot consider a modification instanter, to look into the matter between now and when the Measure gets to another place and see whether there can be some scaling down, some modification, so that a tenant who is guilty of a breach of some prohibition of a different character to the one to which I have alluded may be protected even if the landlord or someone else has to have compensation.
    Mr. David Weitzman: With reference to the third Amendment, there is a good deal in the last observations made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) with regard to the question of a breach of a prohibition, however expressed. What we are doing there is to deny a tenant a very valuable right because there has been on his part a breach of a prohibition which may have been a considerable one or a very small one. I should have thought that it would be possible to give the tenant some relief in the case of a technical error or small breach, as in the case of forfeiture, where the court constantly gives relief. It would be a good thing if the Home Secretary looked at the matter again to see whether he can help in that way.
    There is also a drafting point which seems rather important. I suppose the Home Secretary would agree that it is

    2287
    rather unnecessary to put in words which really bear no meaning and might create doubt. The beginning of the third Amendment speaks about the tenant carrying on a business and so on in breach of a prohibition, and the concluding words of the paragraph are:
    "… unless the immediate landlord or his predecessor in title has consented to the breach or the immediate landlord has acquiesced therein."
    If the immediate landlord has consented to the breach and acquiesced therein, there is no breach. He can only be in breach, after all, if a breach has been committed, but if the landlord has waived the breach or has consented to it, no court will uphold the plea that there has been a breach. The breach will have gone, and it seems to me that these last words are clearly unnecessary. The reason I raise this drafting point is that, when we have words like these, there is a danger of creating doubt, and I respectfully suggest that the Clause should be looked at again from that point of view.
    4.0 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly look at the points of drafting which have been raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and will look into the wider point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I do not think the latter would expect me to commit myself at the moment, but I will certainly look into it. I should also like to express my thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite for his welcome for this Clause.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I should like to mention one other point which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look into in reference to this Clause. I heard you, Sir Charles, put the Question on the first Amendment, and I understood that we were discussing all these three Amendments together, and that you have acquiesced in that course.
    The Chairman: I have agreed that it would be better to discuss these three Amendments together.
    Mr. Hale: I want to confine myself to the third Amendment. At three o'clock in the morning, I found the first two Amendments exceedingly worrying, but I have long since formed the conclusion
    2288
    that any view which I might have formed on the meaning of a complicated Clause is invariably wrong. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) took the view that I was wrong, and the Home Secretary himself also says I was wrong. I therefore think that there may be a prima facie case to be made out for the fact that I am mistaken; at any rate, I found these words very confusing.
    The difficulty is in considering the third Amendment. The question is what powers will be given to the tribunal. The tribunal has to decide whether the tenant has rights or whether he has lost his rights. In the new subsection which the Government now put forward, the question whether we give any more validity, utility or purpose to these words depends entirely on the extent to which we give the courts some discretion. The whole series of Amendments which we are now discussing is based very largely on the analogies of the Rent Restrictions Acts and on the procedure of those Acts, and instead of the complexity of having two or three different systems prevailing in almost every single case, we now get back to what the court thinks is reasonable.
    In the third of these Amendments, there are two disputed clauses and two questionable phrases. Here again, one is in a difficulty if one did not have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee, because all the references are to pages and lines of the Bill which no longer exist. I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant when he said that there was pressure from this side in Committee on some of the Amendments, and when he referred to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). Having read every word of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the discussion, I do not know to what he was referring. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South was moving one Amendment, which the Home Secretary said was a landlord's Amendment and which he said he would refuse, because he did not want it to be thought that he was taking one side against the other, and the fact that he was refusing what he called a landlords' Amendment would indicate that he was keeping to a middle course.

    2289
    Then another hon. Member said that he moved an Amendment for exploratory purposes because he wanted an explanation, and I was not surprised to read what followed. When I left the consideration of this matter, I thought that no one had suggested that Clause 23 should be amended at all. I am wrong, but if somebody could tell me by whom it was said, whether it was overlooked by the reporters, or where it may be found, it would help me to understand the situation.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman will find the report in columns 365 to 370 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, but I know that, of course. That is the place where Clause 23 was discussed, and those are the speeches to which I have made reference. What I want to know is where anyone on this side suggested that Amendments should be made. These are the speeches by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South and others in respect of an exploratory Amendment which the right hon. and learned Gentleman resisted in order to show that he was standing up to the landlords. It is no use arguing about those matters now. I had read the OFFICIAL REPORT, but apparently the interpretation which I placed upon it was not the right one.
    The reason I venture to address the Committee on these Amendments is this. Clause 23 strikes me as being the most generous Clause in the Bill, and I personally was very surprised and pleased when I saw the Clause in the Bill. I am not trying to be funny or ungenerous. I hardly expected from a Conservative Government a comprehensive Clause of this nature which carries out the Minority Report of the Leasehold Committee. This was the effect of the unanimous Report of that Committee, and the proposal in this Clause was the personal work of the late Lord Uthwatt. Very little has been said, except by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, about Lord Uthwatt, and so I hope the Committee will bear with me while I say that we are indebted to that very distinguished man for a very distinguished piece of public service. I myself very much appreciated the opportunity of being brought into contact with that great and generous-hearted man,
    2290
    a man of great ability as well as simplicity, who was one of the most distinguished men of his generation.
    The Committee will agree that, as far as business premises are concerned, this is a comprehensive non-class-war Clause. I do not believe in the class war. I believe in taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor because it does the poor material good and it does the rich spiritual good. If we are talking about tenants, whether we mean of a small retail shop or a small factory, security matters to both, and I am glad that something is done in this Clause in that respect, because it is certainly the best—indeed the important—Clause in the Bill.
    Let us now come to the question of the newspaper shop. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will say that the newspaper shop in residential premises is generally protected, and, generally speaking, so it is, but there are many that are not. This applies particularly to the case of weekly tenancies which have gone on for years and about which nobody knows what are the precise terms. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now introduces this Clause which has never been discussed in which he uses the words "however expressed." I do not know anything about leasehold law, and I hope I never shall. I have never made very much of an effort at understanding law, and I am quite convinced that, had I ever made such an effort, I should not have succeeded; but one does get practical experience and one knows what the problems of the people are.
    One of their problems is that these terms were expressed in little booklets formerly costing ld. apiece, which were varied about every six months. When a new issue appeared, someone altered part of it, and at one time one found that one could do certain things, and at another, according to the different edition of the booklet, they were prohibited. Thus, at one stage one could carry on a business, and at another stage one could not, because these terms varied from time to time.
    These are the facts about the newspaper shop, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the term "however expressed" in this Clause, how are we to get over that difficulty? I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman

    2291
    that the county court has always been found to be a court of rather more equity in its jurisdiction and a rather more realistic system. It has always been put forward and established as a court in which successful decisions may be arrived at by the judges in dealing with these day-to-day problems as far as the Rent Restrictions Acts are concerned. When they consider hardship, they have to balance it against hardship in an imaginative way and to say, "Does it hurt one person more than another?" There is no legal formula and there is no way which can be argued about. The county court judge is usually a decent man, and if there is a certain amount of human misery on each side, he has to decide between them.
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put this part of the Bill into a very much more healthy and happy state, he will give the county court judge the power to act reasonably and to say in appropriate cases, "This is a tiny technical breach which was caused by misunderstanding. There was nothing deliberate or perverse about it. We shall disregard it." Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman do that, and he will make this a much healthier Bill, will cut out a lot of litigation and uncertainty and will come very much nearer to doing justice.
    Mr. William Wells: The Amendment before the Committee is far too strictly framed to be in the interests of justice. In our everyday life we are familiar with the change that takes place in the development of a district. It is common knowledge that large housing estates go through a change of economic circumstances, and when a district becomes less prosperous than it was before there is tacit disregard on all sides of covenants of this kind.
    I am sorry that I was unable to hear the Government's explanation of the Amendment. If the Amendment is agreed to, there will be districts where such covenants have been disregarded for many years and then, as a result of the Amendment, the landlord will be able to give a business tenant the advantages of this part of the Bill. I very much regret that the Amendment has been put forward by the Government at this stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 19, line 33, leave out from "tenancy," to the end of line 35, and add:
    "to which this Part of this Act applies, means the property comprised in the tenancy, there being excluded any part thereof which is occupied neither by the tenant nor by a person employed by the tenant for the purposes of a business by reason of which the tenancy is one to which this Part of this Act applies."
    In line 35, at the end, add:
    "() Where the tenant is carrying on a business, in all or any part of the property comprised in a tenancy, in breach of a prohibition (however expressed) of use for business purposes which subsists under the terms of the tenancy and extends to the whole of that property, this Part of this Act shall not apply to the tenancy unless the immediate landlord or his predecessor in title has consented to the breach or the immediate landlord has acquiesced therein.
    In this subsection the reference to a prohibition of use for business purposes does not include a prohibition of use for the purposes of a specified business, or of use for purposes of any but a specified business, but save as aforesaid includes a prohibition of use for the purposes of some one or more only of the classes of business specified in the definition of that expression in subsection (2) of this section."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    4.15 p.m.

    Clause 37.—(COMPENSATION WHERE ORDER FOR NEW TENANCY PRECLUDED ON CERTAIN GROUNDS.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 27, line 42, to leave out from "tenancy" to the end of line 46, and to insert:
    "premises being or comprised in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier or for those and other purposes."
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take this Amendment with the Amendment following on the paper, in page 28, line 2, to leave out "holding" and to insert "premises."
    These Amendments slightly relax the conditions to be complied with by the tenant in order to qualify for the double rate, that is, twice the rateable value, and they are largely consequential on the Amendment to Clause 23 which we have just been discussing; not the Amendment on which there was some difference of opinion, but that which was

    2293
    generally approved about bringing in the mixed premises.
    The Amendments I now propose secure that the tenant receives compensation at the double rate, provided that the business has been carried on in the premises for 14 years. It is not necessary in the case of mixed premises that the residential accommodation as well as the business accommodation shall have been occupied by the tenant or his predecessor in title during the 14 years. Everyone will agree that that helps the position of the tenant, in case he comes into occupation of the residential portion of the premises afterwards.
    The other change is that it will no longer be necessary for the business to have been carried on by the tenant during the 14 years. It will be enough if the business has been carried on by the occupier of the premises for the time being, whether he was the tenant or whether the business was carried on by the freeholder and passed from the freeholder to the tenant.
    I do not think there is anything controversial in these Amendments, which consequentially improve the position of the tenant.
    Sir F. Soskice: Again, speaking for myself, inasmuch as the proposed Amendment very slightly enlarges the scope of the provisions providing for the double rate of compensation, I welcome it, but I must confess that it only goes an infinitesimal part of the way that we would like to see it go.
    We have had very considerable discussion on this Clause, and we hoped, when there appeared on the Order Paper an Amendment dealing with compensation, even on the very niggardly scale which has been described by one hon. Member after another, the Home Secretary's hard heart would have melted with pity and induced him to bring the compensation provisions slightly more into line with reality. He has not done so.
    He has now proposed this entirely artificial compensation structure giving far too little to a person who may be forced to remove from his premises and to incur the very large expenses that almost any removal inevitably occasions. I cannot embark on any large-scale discussion of the scope of compensation and I should not like to incur the displeasure
    2294
    of the Chair by seeking so to do; but it would be wrong to say nothing, when we are dealing with a change in these provisions, about the utterly niggardly scope of the new proposals.
    What the Home Secretary has done is to say, "Suppose we have the case of the resident tenant over shop premises. The residence shall be brought within the words "and other premises," and equal occupation by the tenant or by anybody else for the requisite period shall bring about a double scale of compensation." So far so good, but it is a very little "far." I hope that my hon. Friends will be grateful for the minimal relief that they get out of the Amendment. When we get to the discussion on compensation, I hope that the Home Secretary will be thoroughly ashamed that he has not been able to go further.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope I am not any slower than other hon. Members in appreciating the effort that the Home Secretary has made, both in Committee and here, to rescue himself from the shame he must feel about certain harsh provisions that are contained in the Bill. The Committee are now presented with an alleged concession on this point of compensation. It is so meagre, so slender, as almost to be an affront to the tenant who will be faced with the situation for which this Amendment is intended to provide. Basically, this situation cannot be justified at all. In fact, it cannot be too strongly condemned. I do not hesitate to say that this part of this Bill is nothing more or less than sheer confiscation.
    Machinery is created under the Bill by which, in a whole series of circumstances, the court may refuse the application of a tenant for a new tenancy, and the most absurd, the most outrageous grounds—I think from (a) to (h)—are put forward in the Bill upon which, assuming that the landlord can establish his objection, the court is bound, willy-nilly, to reject the tenant's application. Thereupon this unheard-of and monstrous situation arises. The tenant, who may have involved in these premises a life's work and a very substantial fortune in terms of goodwill or custom or business or association, is incontinently dismissed from it by a mere meagre, slender, flimsy, monstrous payment of twice the rateable value.

    2295
    The Committee really needs to bring its mind to bear upon this. I repeat that this is sheer confiscation. The amount is not within any measurable distance of the sum which could honestly and morally be calculated as proper payment to the tenant in compensation if he has to get out. The extraordinary callousness of the matter is demonstrated by the fact that there is no nuance or shade of distinction between one extreme case and another.
    It does not matter here what the circumstances are, what the merits are or what the equities are. What does matter here is that an outrage is being put on the tenant, in that he is having to abandon his goodwill, his livelihood, everything he may have worked for in a quarter century, everything he and his work may have produced. He is to be paid the same miserable scale of compensation whether it is a case of a fortune being involved or merely an ordinary case involving very little value indeed.
    This is something which no one can defend. It is amoral. The Home Secretary could not defend it either by argument or by screening it by the angelic look he usually brings to his face when he deals with these matters. He just cannot be excused in this matter, and this certainly cannot be defended. It should go out from this Committee, as I hope it will in no unmistaken way, with a strong voice, that we absolutely denounce and condemn this attempt on the part of the Government to dispossess these tenants, not only of their property so far as premises are concerned but also of their property so far as the business and the goodwill and the work of a lifetime are concerned.
    I join hands, of course, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) in wonderment at the amazing concession that this Amendment is supposed to make. It is so slender that it can hardly be seen at all and, whatever its worth, it is quite inadequate to meet the grave consequences that will ensue from the operation of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 2, leave out "holding," and insert "premises."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    New Clause.—(COMPENSATION FOR POSSESSION OBTAINED BY MISREPRESENTATION.)
    (1) Where under Part I of this Act an order is made for possession of the property comprised in a tenancy, or under Part II of this Act the court refuses an order for the grant of a new tenancy, and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained, or the court induced to refuse the grant, by misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by the tenant as the result of the order or refusal.
    (2) In this section the expression "the landlord" means the person applying for possession or opposing an application for the grant of a new tenancy, and the expression "the tenant" means the person against whom the order for possession was made or to whom the grant of a new tenancy was refused.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    After what I may term the delectable abuse which I had on the last Amendment—delectable because so charmingly expressed, even if the content was so strong—I hope now to get a faint smile of welcome from the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas). I say that because this is the answer to the fear he expressed that a landlord, having got possession of a house at the end of a long lease ostensibly for redevelopment, would be able to sell the house at a profit. The hon. Member may remember that at the time I offered to consider anything, to quote my own words,
    "… to prevent what, to put it bluntly, would be a bogus application by a landlord."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30th March, 1954; c. 318.]
    I hope that I have met that point, because the same point was made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in relation to Clauses 12, 30 and 31.
    In addition to criticisms on Part I, similar criticisms were made on Part II by a number of hon. and right hon. Members. The new Clause enables the court to award the tenant compensation

    2297
    for damages or loss sustained if it is shown that there was
    "…misrepresentation or the concealment of material facts…"
    It applies both to an occupying ground lessee of residential premises against whom an order for possession has been made under Part I, and to the business tenant who is refused a renewal under Part II.
    As will be apparent to all my legal confrères Wherever they sit in the House, the wording of the Clause is based upon Section 5 (6) of the Rent Act, 1920, which is virtually reproduced mutatis mutandis. I hope that in so meeting the wishes expressed in Committee, I may get a faint smile of welcome for the new Clause.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Iowerth Thomas: I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for the very slight concession he has made. Despite its smallness in relation to the other and wider principles which we discussed in Committee upstairs, it is a help. It is evident that the arguments which we deployed in Committee have brought about some very good results, and I trust that our hopes of what may follow will be realised.
    Mrs. Eirene White: I, too, welcome this new Clause as far as it goes, but, not being one of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's legal confrères—or consoeurs, I suppose it should be—I am a little puzzled that it does not go somewhat further. It very properly proposes to deal with the landlord who has obtained his order by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, by enabling the court to award damages to the tenant, but if the premises of which the landlord has obtained possession are still available would it not be possible and proper for the court to return possession to the tenant, if he so wished, instead of awarding him damages? I can appreciate that in certain circumstances that would not be possible; the tenant may have made other arrangements. But should it not be within the competence of the court, in cases where the premises are still standing and are not tenanted by other persons, simply to say to the former tenant, "You can go back if you so desire"?
    The other matter which I should like to mention is the one on which I had a
    2298
    little brush with the Solicitor-General in Committee. It concerns the case of a landlord who, not by misrepresentation but perfectly bona fide, proposes to do something in the way of redevelopment under Clause 13 and then, because of circumstances of which he may not even have been aware at the time he made application and the court granted it, does not proceed with his plan for redevelopment. The new Clause gives the tenant no redress in that case; it is confined to cases where there has been definite misrepresentation. In cases where a landlord had been perfectly bona fide in his action the tenant might have suffered just the same degree of inconvenience and financial loss, but because the landlord has acted in a bona fide manner the tenant has no claim, even if the terms upon which the order was made by the court have not been fulfilled. I should be very glad to have those points explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman before we pass the Clause with our congratulations to him.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I rise to pay my own tribute to the Home Secretary for having made considerable amend for what has happened in these proceedings up to now. I have no doubt that he has considered whether there might not be a reinstatement of a tenant in the case of misrepresentation by the landlord. Having regard to the pattern of the rest of the Bill, I can appreciate the Home Secretary's difficulty in providing for reinstatement under this Clause. The Home Secretary is entitled to say, "I have provided that in such a case the landlord will have to pay to the tenant such a sum as is shown to be sufficient and ample compensation for any damage or loss which the tenant has suffered as a result of the order or the refusal of a new tenancy." In practice, that would probably work out sufficiently well, and it should certainly do so so as to indemnify the tenant. In those circumstances, I should like to acknowledge the fact of the Home Secretary having conceded the principle contained in this Clause.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). I thought she made a most important point when she spoke of the landlord who obtains possession under Clause 30 (1, g), which refers to the case where he requires

    2299
    possession for the purpose of demolishing or reconstructing the premises in question.
    We can conceive the case of a landlord who obtains possession of the premises under the provisions of that subsection and who, subsequently, for various possibly legitimate reasons, fails to do anything about it. The tenant has been deprived of his premises and his livelihood, the landlord has done nothing, and those premises are standing vacant. I feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have been able to expand the provisions of this new Clause so as to protect a tenant against an unfortunate event of that kind, and I shall be very glad if he can comment upon that point.
    Mr. Weitzman: I shall not detain the House for more than a moment. I support two of the arguments which have been put forward as against the point of view expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Although we are grateful to the Government for a considerable concession, I do not think it goes far enough. It is quite true that compensation will be given in certain cases. If a person is deprived of premises, money compensation is a good thing as far as it goes, but if the tenant is deprived of those premises because of a misrepresentation or a concealment of fact, it is surely right that the premises should be restored to the tenant whenever possible.
    It is quite clear that that could not be done in many cases—third parties might have acquired rights, for instance—but if the misrepresentation or concealment of facts has been made within a very short time of the order and no one has acquired any rights in the matter, I cannot see why it should not be possible for the tenant to return to the county court and ask the learned judge to rescind the order and restore the tenancy. I should have thought that that would have been the proper thing to do in common justice.
    If this remedy is to have effect in the case of misrepresentation or concealment of facts, why do not the Government go further and apply it in cases which fall under Clause 30 (1, f, g and h)? If a landlord intends to redevelop, an order is made accordingly, and the landlord
    2300
    then fails to carry out his intention, I should have thought it would have been a very good idea to extend this concession to the tenant, who may have lost his livelihood. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at this question once again. In common justice, some further concession ought to be made.
    Sir F. Soskice: As we have here, besides the Parliamentary Secretary, who is always of the greatest help, not one right hon. and learned Gentleman but two, I am glad to say—and I take the opportunity of offering heartfelt congratulations to the Solicitor-General—I hope they will be able to meet the points that my hon. Friends have made on this new and useful Clause, for which we are, as we have said, grateful to the Home Secretary.
    There is one tiny question I have to ask. There is, I think, no doubt that the new Clause does not take away any other right that may exist in damages for fraud or misrepresentation, if there is such a right in any given case? I think it could not possibly take away such a right, but I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General agrees with me. If there had been any doubt, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have stated it. We thank him, and hope that he will give consideration to the points we have made.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps the House will give me leave to say a word in reply to what has been said. I should like to assure the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that those advising me and I myself did consider the question of reinstatement. It is a very difficult matter. It is very difficult to eliminate the cases where it would not be possible, and to decide an arbitrary time limit, and so on. We came to the conclusion that the difficulties were too great, but I have noted the debate, and although I cannot hold out any great hopes, I am willing to have another look at that point.
    The second matter is one that raises difficulties also, because it connotes the position where the landlord has obtained possession on the strength of a bona fide intention to redevelop. We have put in the new Clause the grounds of misrepresentation and concealment, so anything short of bona fide intention will be covered. We must postulate bona fide

    2301
    intention to occupy or redevelop the premises, but the landlord may be prevented by a change of circumstances from carrying out his intention. It is difficult to judge such a matter. It is often connected with a great many other operations going on. We found great difficulty in finding the reasonable and equitable method of dealing with a man who is, ex hypothesi, completely innocent in the matter. Of course, there will be a number of cases where a man has run out of money in the middle of his building operations, and so on.
    So we found that both these points were too difficult. All I can say is that I have tried to approach the problems put to me with sympathy. I do not want to raise false hopes, but I will have another look to see whether anything can be done. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken—
    Mr. Hale: The court apparently is the county court. Does the new Clause restrict the amount of damages the court can award? I am asking for the Home Secretary's view, because what he says will count. What my hon. Friends say on the sidelines will not count.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that it does, but I will certainly go into that point. If there is any doubt about it, I will see whether they can go to the county court. In exactly the same way as they go to the court for other purposes under the Bill, they should go to the county court for this purpose. I will see whether it needs any clarification. We have a provision in Part IV for going to the county court, and I should like to look into that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in the name of the Home Secretary, in page 1, line 13.
    Mr. C. Hughes: On a point of order. I should be grateful to have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether the new Clause in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and of other of my hon. Friends and my own—(Enfranchisement provisions)—is to be called. It is of fundamental importance to us on this side
    2302
    of the House and, as far as we are concerned, there cannot be enough discussion about it. Many hundreds of thousands of people are anticipating that there will be a detailed discussion of this problem today. I wonder whether you could guide the House by telling us whether you propose now or later to call that new Clause so that it may be discussed.
    Sir F. Soskice: Further to that point of order, and before you rule on it, Mr. Speaker, may I, with great respect, add this? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, this is, of course, the focal point of the Bill from our point of view, and although we must bow to your Ruling, and should not think for a second of questioning it, we should all feel deeply disappointed if we were not able to deploy our arguments and vent our feelings on this crucially important matter. On Second Reading we put down an Amendment, as you will remember, emphasising the anxiety we felt at the presence of this Bill without any leasehold enfranchisement provisions, and I, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, made it clear that I did not tie down the Opposition to any particular form of enfranchisement provisions.
    The only point I would bring to your notice in asking for your guidance is this. We here do, as we in Committee did before, set out specific proposals. We have proposed that there should be a specific compensation figure in the event of the enfranchisement right being exercised before a certain period, before the end of the expiry of the lease, and a different figure in the event of its being exercised later. As there is very deep anxiety and feeling on the matter, I hope, if it is at all possible, we shall be able to ventilate our views upon it. We have here put down on the Paper specific proposals which we hope we shall be allowed to discuss if at all possible, consistently with the rules of order. If you could allow us to discuss the new Clause, we on this side of the Committee would be profoundly grateful to you.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, perhaps I had better say a word on this. I know the importance that is attached to this matter by hon. Members of the Opposition, and I therefore gave it great consideration. The House will recollect

    2303
    that the Second Reading debate was very largely occupied with a discussion of the question of leasehold enfranchisement in general, as was bound to be the case as the Question before the House was a reasoned Amendment criticising the Bill because it did not provide for it. The House will also recollect that after that, in Standing Committee, an Amendment similar to that now standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) received very full discussion. Indeed, towards the close of the proceedings at the Committee's first sitting the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said:
    "We have had a full and thorough debate on this."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th March, 1954; c. 38.]
    Yet it went on for most of the next sitting as well. The House, on Second Reading, and the Committee upstairs came to a conclusion on a Division, and both Amendments were lost, and thus the House and the Committee, after full discussion of the matter expressed their view against it.
    It is not usual to explain one's reasons, and it is only because of the deep anxiety that is felt about the matter, particularly in Wales, but in other parts, too, that I make this statement to the House. In view of those discussions, I could not find it compatible with the essential revising and tidying purpose of a Report stage to have a discussion on the Report of a matter which had been so thoroughly discussed and so clearly decided.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should not argue with me on that, because my decision is final. I hope we shall not discuss the matter. I reached my decision after considerable care and consideration, and I am bound to adhere to it now. It was only out of deference to the strong feelings which some hon. Members have on this matter that I expressed my views. It is a thing which I would not normally do. I hope the House will not now attempt, under the guise of points of order, to argue about my decision, because that would be out of order and, in the interests of good order, I cannot allow it.
    Mr. Hale: May I, with respect, call one point to your attention, Mr. Speaker? I do so with great respect, for I am sure the whole House is grateful to you for what is admittedly a departure from practice.
    In your concluding words you said that your judgment in this matter was based on your conception of the essential tidying nature of the further consideration stage of the Bill. I respectfully submit to you that the Rulings on that matter previously, referring to the further consideration stage as that type of business, have been in cases where the whole House has formed the Committee.
    Although I hesitate to do so, may I venture to intrude a purely personal consideration in making this respectful submission to you? I was one of two members of the Leasehold Committee which sat for two-and-a-half years on this matter and which produced a detailed Report of its recommendations for leasehold enfranchisement. The Clause now submitted to you is the first time this House as a House—I am not talking about the Committee upstairs—has had an opportunity of considering a detailed proposal for leasehold enfranchisement. During the debate on Second Reading the Home Secretary opened his case by saying that no one had ever been able to prepare a detailed proposal for enfranchisement and he had never seen one. He said he could not visualise how the difficulties could be overcome. This is the first time the House has had an opportunity of dealing with such a proposal.
    I sat through the debate on the Government White Paper and through the debate on the Second Reading of the 1951 Bill. I sat through the debate on the White Paper of 1953, and through the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I am here on the Report stage. Anyone who cares to read the debates will find that my opinions, my name and my observations were canvassed in Committee once every five minutes almost throughout the debate. My views have been criticised. Opinions have been attributed to me which I have never expressed. I have been told that I did this or that or the other, and not once have I been able to catch the eye of the Chair to make a considered observation on the matter.

    2305
    I have listened happily to the four or five speeches of two of my hon. Friends, but I have never been allowed to say a word myself. With great reluctance I tore myself from the House in the early hours of the morning in order that I might be here today and speak about leasehold enfranchisement.
    With great respect, the House has never had an opportunity of considering it in detail. Upstairs we are a Committee of only 40. I am quite sure that no one desires to obstruct in this matter and that no one desires to produce an unnecessarily prolonged discussion, but I submit that this matter ought to have reconsideration.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if the hon. Member has had bad fortune in the past in catching the eye of the Chair. He has not had it on this occasion, and he has delivered himself of a speech to which I listened with great care and to which I have given full consideration. It is, however, a wrong conception of the Report stage to say that when a Standing Committee does its work thoroughly it should always have its decisions reversed or discussed again in the House. The Standing Committee is a powerful organ of the House entrusted with a certain purpose. I am afraid I cannot have any more discussion of this matter. Hon. Members have displayed their anxiety. I have had to give my Ruling in accordance with what I thought was right.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I raise another point? You were good enough, Mr. Speaker, in the course of your observations on this matter, to say that the two things which had helped you to come to your decision were, first, that a full discussion had taken place upstairs, and, secondly, that the matter had been voted on. What you have said this afternoon will naturally go into the official record and undoubtedly will be studied by Speakers who follow you in the Chair. I take it that we can assume, can we not, that what you have said will not be taken as a precedent for the future?
    Mr. Speaker: If I can ease the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I do not see how precedent concerns us very much. Each case must be considered on its merits, and circumstances alter so much from Bill to Bill according to the subject matter. No one will feel bound by what I said.
    2306
    but I wish to repel the suggestion that the Standing Committee is not a powerful and important body of this House whose decision ought to be respected by the House.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is a fact that some of the Amendments on the Paper were fully discussed upstairs and were voted on, and of course the Opposition were voted down. Since then the Government have been good enough to have second thoughts, and we shall later see them putting them into the Bill. If what you said earlier were taken as a precedent for the future, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might seem invidious.
    Mr. Speaker: That is what the Committee and Report stage are for. Very frequently the Government are not able to accept the precise terms in which an Amendment is offered but are so impressed by the arguments that are adduced in its favour that, in the interval between the two stages, an opportunity is taken to put the matter in proper draftsmanship form. But that is not the case here. There is no Government Amendment giving effect to leasehold enfranchisement.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Of course I do not question your Ruling for one moment, Mr. Speaker, but in the course of your observations you said that this matter had been considered within the terms of the Clause put down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). If I may say so with respect, I wholly accept that and I quite understand that it ought not to be debated again, having already been fully discussed.
    May I refer you to my proposed new Clause, which contains elements which are not in the previous Clause? This is a question of putting this Clause so that it will give the Government an opportunity to look at it, to hear the arguments and to see whether, with these new terms, the Government would be prepared to accept that method of enfranchisement. I submit that that is something new upon which there might be a discussion on the question of enfranchisement, if only to give the Government an opportunity of considering it and of seeing whether they would be prepared to pursue enfranchisement, at all events to the extent adumbrated in the Clause which I have put down.
    Mr. Speaker: The discussion has illustrated the value of what the right hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) was impressing upon me a moment ago—the desirability of sticking to precedent in these matters. I have made an exception in this case, not to create a precedent but of explaining the position to hon. Members because I knew they felt keenly about it.
    In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), I considered both these proposed new Clauses and, having decided, for the reasons which I have given, that I could not select that in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), I could not prefer to it the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester. They amount to the same thing.

    Clause 2.—(TENANCIES TO WHICH S. 1 APPLIES.)
    5.0 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "tenancy," to "the," in line 3, on page 2, and to insert:
    "as respects which for the time being the following condition (hereinafter referred to as 'the qualifying condition') is fulfilled, that is to say that."
    There are two Amendments which are consequential on this Amendment—that in page 2, line 5, to leave out "or were" and that in page 2, line 7, to leave out "or have been." With your permission. Mr. Speaker, it may be convenient if the three Amendments are taken together. They are, in fact, nothing more than drafting Amendments to meet a point raised in Committee.
    At present the definition of a Clause 1 tenancy is contained in Clause 2(2). Subsection (1) is merely introductory. This arrangement, and especially the reference to the tenant's family in subsection (1) was criticised in Committee as misleading. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) in particular emphasised that point. This Amendment runs the two subsections together and makes it clear that the scope of the protection offered by Part I of the Bill is the same as the scope afforded by the Rent Acts.
    2308
    It might be convenient for the House if I also mention that it has been suggested that it would be simpler for all who have to interpret Part I if, instead of defining a Clause 1 tenancy by reference to the Rent Acts, the qualifications were set out in full. I can assure the House that the Government have considered that. To do that, however, would produce the opposite of simplification and would add enormously to the complexity of Part I. Hon. Members who are familiar with the case law on this subject will be aware of the great complexity of that case law. To attempt to reduce it to some simple propositions which would have to be incorporated in the Clause would be impossible. That is why the Amendment does not go to the length suggested by hon. Members.
    Sir F. Soskice: I must confess that I feel very deeply disappointed at the way in which the Government have sought to deal with this point, which arose on Clause 2 of the Bill. They do not seem to have begun to understand the points made from our side of the Committee during our discussions upstairs. We were anxious, and sought to provide for the point in Amendments we put down to Clause 2 (1), that there might be the case of a tenant going away to another part of the country, leaving, for example, his old father, or his parents, or some one in that sort of relationship to him, or even a friend or someone to look after his house in his absence, and in consequence of his so doing the premises in question would no longer be within the scope of Part I of the Bill.
    The Government stated that the Measure can only apply to houses within the limits of the Rent Acts, and this Amendment is designed to emphasise that. Here again, a question of principle arises between those of us on this side of the House and those on the Government side. The Government say that the Rent Acts' limits should be the only limits applicable. We say that that is quite wrong, that the whole Bill is really founded upon the understanding that in the case of these long leases the right of the tenant is to be preferred to the right of the landlord.
    We say that because morally the tenants of these houses occupied on long leases are entitled to consider themselves the owners of the houses. These are

    2309
    houses which have been occupied for many years by the tenant, his predecessors or previous tenants, not predecessors in the sense of family relationship, at a ground rent. The basis of our complaints that there were no enfranchisement provisions in the Bill as it stood rested upon the view that these tenants on long leases, paying £2, £3, £5 or £10 a year ground rent, and having paid that for generations past, were morally entitled to consider the house their own, and, in fact, do so.
    Therefore, we say, as a matter of principle, that it is quite wrong simply to limit the scope of the Bill to the Rent Acts limits in its practical application. In cases such as that which I have just indicated, the tenant on a long lease which has come to an end, who thinks that under this Bill he is getting security of tenure, may find the following sort of thing happening. I instanced in the Committee stage a tenant going elsewhere to get a temporary job or going to visit his parents in the North of England and leaving someone in the house for a considerable period. We thought that that tenant would lose the security which he thought he was going to get. The Government Amendment makes it more certain that he will lose that security. We think that that is absolutely wrong.
    Therefore, the fundamental difference of principle between the two sides of the House is that we say that the security of the tenant should be founded on the principle that he is entitled to go on living in the premises, or continue to have the advantage or enjoyment of the premises, and, if he wishes, to go elsewhere, be absent for a period of months or go next door and let his father live in the house, and that that house should be his. We sought to enlarge the phrase "his family" by including the words" or a member of "his family, and that argument was put forward.
    In this Amendment, I understand that not only have the Government in no way moved in the direction of meeting that point of view but have actually gone backwards. They have said that the Rent Acts limits are to apply, and they have put a blue pencil mark under that provision; they have underlined and emphasised it as strongly as they can. I must confess that, disappointed as I was with this aspect of the Bill previously, I
    2310
    think it is now worse than before. I should certainly give the advice to my hon. Friends not to assent to the change now proposed. I think that we ought not to agree to it. The Bill, bad as it was before, was better in that regard than it is now proposed it shall be.
    This is a device to make the ring round the protection of the landlord stronger than before. I hope that we shall divide upon this Amendment if the Government persist in seeking to make this change.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply to what the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has said. He referred to what he said in Committee upstairs. He drew attention to the case in which the tenant has gone away, and he suggested that the tenancy should be protected by Part II if the tenant has gone away without any intention of returning and has left, say, his parents in occupation. The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it is the object of Part I of the Bill to remove the anomaly whereby the occupying lessee is outside the Rent Acts. That has always been made perfectly plain on behalf of the Government.
    Therefore, Clause 2 provides that the tenant is protected by Part I if, apart from the fact that the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value, he would he protected by the Rent Acts. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that we should deal with the kind of case to which he has referred it will be necessary to deal with it in the Rent Acts as a whole. As a matter of fact the kind of case to which he has referred is very unlikely to arise—
    Sir F. Soskice: If I may say so—it must have been my fault—I apparently did not make my position clear. I said that the point of principle between the Government and this side of the House about this matter is that we feel that the security here should be wider in its application than the present Rent Acts security. It is because the Amendment limits and underlines the limitation to the Rent Acts security that we object to it.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, I think, underlined the point I am making, that he is trying to extend these two Clauses outside the limits of the Rent Acts. The

    2311
    purpose of the Government is to deal with this type of tenancy on all fours with the Rents Acts. Perhaps I should say that the case to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred is a very unlikely one. If a tenant has left his premises without any intention of returning, leaving a relative in occupation of them, it is very probable indeed that the occupant will, in fact, be a sub-tenant.
    Mr. W. T. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is now doing precisely the opposite to what the Home Secretary promised to do when he said that he would look at this Clause. The hon. Gentleman is now saying, "What we are trying to do is to restrict this to the Rent Acts, because that is all that we promised to do." That is precisely what the Home Secretary did not promise to do.
    If the Joint Under-Secretary will refer to column 84 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings he will see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) raised with him the question of bringing back into this Bill the provisions contained in the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951, and asked that consideration should then be given to an Amendment which had been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) to include the words:
    "or a member of his family resides."
    In reply the Home Secretary said:
    "I will certainly consider the point. I was aware of the drafting of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, but if hon. Members opposite feel that attracting the Rent Act is not sufficient I will be pleased to discuss the matter."
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): Will the hon. Gentleman read the passage just before that which made it clear that my right hon. and learned Friend was merely dealing with the attraction and use of the words:
    "or a member of his family resides."?
    Mr. Williams: Certainly, but the point 1 am making is that on that occasion we on this side were of the opinion that at that point the Home Secretary was giving an undertaking to look at the matter again with the intention of extending it. At this point he is not extending it, but limiting it still further.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the Joint Under-Secretary wish to conclude his remarks? The remarks of the hon. Member may have been intended as an interjection, but they seemed like a speech.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before the Joint Under-Secretary finishes his speech, will he reply to the following point? It appeared to me that he forgot the fundamental underlying the whole of this Bill, and certainly underlying what we desired to do when this matter was dealt with in Committee upstairs. We surely have to remember—and perhaps the hon. Member will address his mind to this point—that the premises referred to here really amount to the ancestral homes of many poor people. I use that phrase advisedly. They have lived in these leasehold premises for some time, as have their progenitors before them. Now, when the lease is falling in, it is surely only right that they should receive all the security that we can give them, Rent Acts or no Rent Acts.
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If I may conclude what I was saying with the leave of the House, I would point out that the hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in any way suggested to the Committee that he was proposing to enlarge this Clause beyond the Rent Acts. All that he said he would do was to consider the wording of the Clause so as to see that, in fact, it carried out the intention of the Government which was to give the same protection to these tenants as is given by the Rent Acts, and to make such changes as were necessary having regard to the different circumstances.
    I thought that I had explained why it has not been possible to deal with this matter otherwise than by direct reference to the Rent Acts, which was the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and the one with which my right hon. and learned Friend was dealing. The Amendment, in fact, makes no difference to the effect of the Clause. All that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he would do was to look at the drafting to see that it gave effect to what was desired. It certainly is not the case, as the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has said, that the Government have gone back on it.

    2313
    I can assure the House that this is a purely drafting Amendment. It is, I believe, an improvement on the words originally in the Clause, and for that reason I recommend its acceptance to the House.
    Mr. Granville West: Surely the Joint Under-Secretary is not right in the statement which he has just made to the House. It is quite obvious from what the Home Secretary said in Committee upstairs that he was prepared to consider the very point mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, South (Mr. W. T. Williams) drew attention to in column 84 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee upstairs, the Home Secretary said, dealing with the question of the—
    The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman will begin at the bottom of column 83 he will get his context right.
    Mr. West: If it would be of any assistance to the House, I should be prepared to read the whole debate. Surely, what is being discussed here is the effect of this Clause, and the Committee upstairs was not satisfied that it was wide enough to include the members of the family. That was the subject which was discussed at great length, and about which the Home Secretary stated:
    "I will certainly consider the point."—
    that is, extending the Clause to cover the members of the family—
    "I was aware of the drafting of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, but if hon. Members opposite feel that attracting the Rent Act is not sufficient"—
    again, that emphasises the point of the discussion—
    "I will be pleased to discuss the matter."
    That is clearly an undertaking by the Home Secretary to give the matter further consideration, but, instead of doing that, he has, in fact, limited the operation of the Clause. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), in column 85 of the same Report, said:
    "In view of the undertaking given by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment."
    Today the Home Secretary has not come forward in fulfilment of the undertaking
    2314
    which he gave upstairs, but, instead, has limited the scope of the Clause.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to my invitation to read the introductory observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech which preceded the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend, because it is important to bear those words in mind. It is a very short passage, and I will remind the House of it. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said:
    "I felt sure that the Home Secretary would appreciate that this is really a drafting point and that there is nothing on party lines between us on this issue."
    At the end of his speech, he said:
    "The drafting as it stands invites confusion, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider clearing it up with a view to meeting the point of substance which is contained in the Amendment."
    My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would consider the point.
    These are drafting Amendments, intended to clarify the drafting. At no time was it ever suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that it was the Government's intention to increase the protection beyond the Rent Acts.
    Mr. West: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said:
    "The drafting as it stands invites confusion, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider clearing it up with a view to meeting the point of substance which is contained in the Amendment."
    He was referring to the Amendment which was before the Committee. The Home Secretary said in reply:
    "I will certainly consider the point"—
    meaning, surely, the point of the Amendment.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I refresh the right hon. and learned Gentleman's. memory by asking him to look at column 83 of the Report, towards the end of his right hon. and learned Friend's intervention, where he said, again replying to the debate that had gone before:
    "If the hon. Member and his right hon. and learned Friend think that there could be an improvement here on Rent Acts case law, I should be pleased to consider the point."
    This is not drafting; it is something more.
    "Perhaps they will have a word with me before the Report stage."
    If he was going to do nothing why should we consult him?
    "At the moment, our intention is to make the Rent Acts case law apply, and in that sense the Amendment would not help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 9Th March, 1954; c. 83, 84 and 85.]
    It is quite obvious that he had every intention of going further than the present Amendment does.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I do not want to deal with the point about what undertakings were given. I want to deal with the fundamental point that is at issue here, and that is that the Government have decided that people who hold tenancies for a considerable period and whose families are dependent upon retaining those tenancies and who were led to believe that something would be done to enable them to retain those tenancies, are now to be thrown upon the mercy of the Rent Act which is being whittled down in respect of every kind of holding and tenancy that exists at present.
    Apart from the question of quibbling, it is quite obvious what my hon. Friends
    meant during the Committee stage. They meant that they wanted the removal of the injustice by which there is being pushed into the Rent Acts a series of tenancies which ought never to be near them in consequence of the fact that those tenancies have lasted for the period of 49 or 99 years as the case may be.
    It is a grave and gross injustice that a family should have to leave their house because a member of that family who happens to be the leaseholder—the person in whose name the lease is held by assignment or whatever it may be—has to leave the house. Even the most rapacious of landlords has appreciated that fact in the past, and whilst they have made offers of a nature not acceptable in many instances, they have at least tried to appear to be decent and to give the tenant the option of purchasing the lease. But here we are going further. We are saying that not only will we not do that, but that we are going to throw the tenant out. It is an abominable thing that any Government should have in mind that kind of action.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 203 Noes, 230.

    Division No. 151.]

    AYES

    [5.25 p.m

    Albu, A. H.

    Cellick, P. H.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cove, W. G.

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Daines, P.

    Holman, P.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Baird, J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Bartley, P.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Deer, G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bence, C. R.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

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

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Beswick, F.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Janner, B.

    Blackburn, F.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Follick, M.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Boardman, H.

    Foot, M. M.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Janes, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Kennan, W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Kenyon, C.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Grey, C. F.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    King, Dr. H. M

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Champion, A. J

    Hannan, W.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Clunie, J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Coldrick, W.

    Hastings, S.

    Logan, D. G

    MacColl, J. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    McLeavy, F.

    Popplewell, E.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Porter, G.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thornton, E.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Rankin, John

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Mason, Roy

    Reeves, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Rhodes, H.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Monslow, W.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Moody, A. S.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    West, D. G.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Ross, William

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Morley, R.

    Royle, C.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Shackleton. E. A. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Short, E. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Moyle, A.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Willey, F. T.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Nally, W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Williams, Ronald(Wigan)

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

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    Oldfield, W. H.

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

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

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

    Oswald, T.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Willis, E. G.

    Padley, W. E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Yates, V. F.

    Pannell, Charles

    Sparks, J. A.

    Parker, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parkin, B. T.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.

    Paton, J.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Holt, A. F.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Horobin, I. M.

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Duthie, W. S.

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Black, C. W.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Kerr, H. W.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fort, R.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Brain, B. R.

    Foster, John

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Garner-Evans, E. H

    Lindsay, Martin

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Glover, D.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Bullard, D. G.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Longden, Gilbert

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Grimond, J.

    Low, A. R. W.

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Channon, H.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Cole, Norman

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Colegate, W. A.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hay, John

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maclean, Fitzroy

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

    Heath, Edward

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Summers, G. S.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Teeling, W.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Redmayne, M.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Marples, A. E.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Maude, Angus

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

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

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Tilney, John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Mellor, Sir John

    Robson Brown, W.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Turton, R. H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Russell, R. S.

    Vane, W M. F.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Neave, Airey

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Shepherd, William

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Watkinson, H. A.

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

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wellwood, W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

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

    Speir, R. M.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Osborne, C.

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

    Wills, G.

    Page, R. G.

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

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Storey, S.

    Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "matters," to insert:
    "other than the limits of the Rent Acts."
    This Amendment is really new presbyter—I do not know whether to say writ large or writ small. It has the same purpose as the Amendment which has not been selected and which precedes this one on the Order Paper, in that its intention is to extend the security of tenure granted by this Bill to all tenants who otherwise come within the framework of its provisions, irrespective of whether the houses which they occupy come within the financial limits of the Rent Acts or not.
    If I may refer to the debate that took place substantially on this point in Committee, in introducing this Amendment there, I referred to the history of the proposal, reported in column 88 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, which says:
    "This proposal has a history. It was proposed by five members of the Leasehold Committee, including hon. Members not on this side of the Committee, and was rejected in paragraph 38 of the White Paper, in which it is stated:
    'The Government do not favour the proposal in the Supplementary Report signed by five members of the Leasehold Committee for a special security of tenure scheme for tenant-occupiers of houses outside the rateable value limits of the Rent Restriction Acts. As stated above, the vast majority of
    2320
    houses are within those limits and, as regards the remainder, the Government are not aware that the absence of protection is causing such a degree of hardship as would justify the enactment of a new and necessarily somewhat elaborate system of control'."
    —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D. 9th March, 1954; c. 88.]
    It is our purpose in raising this Amendment today to suggest that the line of reasoning put forward by the Government as a basis for their rejection of this proposal is really not an adequate one. The kind of hardship which occurs in cases outside the limit of the Rent Acts is not the same as the kind of hardship within the limits of the Rent Acts.
    Our proposition is that it is fundamentally not just, in all the circumstances of today, that the protection of this Measure should be denied to people who have over a long period lived in houses and whose occupation of their house is part of the economic structure on which their family life is based. We say that it is right and proper that people living in houses which are the subject of long leases should have the opportunity when the leases expire of deciding whether they wish to continue living in the same house as before.
    It is a matter of common knowledge—I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would have been the last to deny this or even to question it—that the economic changes which have occurred in the last few years, the

    2321
    difficulties that have been caused by the war and the shortage of houses, which even the famous 300,000 houses a year of the Minister of Housing have not yet removed, affect all classes of the community.
    In the Committee stage I perhaps made the psychological error of quoting some remarks of the late W. S. Gilbert, that
    "Hearts just as pure and fair
    May beat in Belgrave Square
    As in the lowly air
    Of Seven Dials."
    The Home Secretary, rather too blithely and too readily, accepted that somewhat flippant quotation as an invitation to treat the whole Amendment as one that was not put forward seriously. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made his own contribution to the quotations from W. S. Gilbert and said that he expected that I, having made my quotation, would make an appeal for what he called
    "the specious poverty usually associated with indigent peers who occupy large houses on long leases."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 11th March, 1954; c. 96.]
    I should have thought that it would ill become Members of this House at this time to reflect on the financial difficulties of Members of the other House who are performing their duties under circumstances of difficulty.
    Mr. Hale: Did my hon. Friend say "indigent" or "indolent"?
    Mr. Wells: The Home Secretary said "indigent." Whether there are such indigent peers I, occupying the humble walk of life that I do, will not know.
    The point that we are making is put forward in all seriousness. I do not think that the Government in putting forward, as they did, their rejection of this proposal in the White Paper on the grounds that there were not a great many houses and that the degee of hardship was not really very severe, were addressing their minds to the real problem or to the question of principle that was involved.
    5.45 p.m.
    The question of principle, as we see it, is that the landlord of properties of this kind is, generally speaking, a person who is getting a return on somebody else's investment. He did not build the houses, his predecessor in title did not build them—there is no reason why he should not get just treatment himself because of
    2322
    that; but it is a factor to be taken into account.
    We believe it is a serious point that five members of the Leasehold Committee, having heard all the evidence that they did and having given their attention to all the aspects concerned, came to the conclusion that the right solution to this problem was to extend the security of tenure offered by this Bill to all occupants of houses of this kind.
    The Amendment offers a logical and just approach to the problem. It is based not on whether one tenant is rich or another is poor, but is based on the consideration that the house in which people live is the foundation of the family unit and that in the circumstances of the present time, with which all in the House are well familiar, it is right to take measures to preserve for all people who live in this class of house the protection that the Bill offers to only a limited number. I hope that the Government will address themselves with rather more seriousness than they did during the Committee stage to the arguments that will be put forward by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The arguments which have been produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) are very cogent indeed, and I want to add only one or two others. One might underline once again the difference between the legislation that we are dealing with and that relating to houses which were rented on a weekly tenancy, which is quite a different matter.
    Tenants who had unprotected weekly tenancies quite certainly had to be protected against being turned out; but we Are dealing here with long tenancies, which have been held for considerable periods of years. One cannot lightly turn out on to the street, in this age anyhow, on grounds which perhaps were understandable 100 years ago and which appealed to people in those days, men and women without any protection at all and particularly those who have cared for their homes and who have seen to it that their families were brought up within the confines of a house.
    This is not a question of rich or poor or anything of that sort. It is a question of principle as to whether a person who,

    2323
    or whose predecessors, had built a house shall be entitled to keep himself and his family in that house. That is a quite different proposition.
    What will happen to a house the rateable value of which is higher than the limits imposed by the Rent Acts if, say, one person is the actual lessee—the assignee of the lease—and he and his family and his brothers and sisters, perhaps with their families, are living in the house? Unless this Amendment is accepted they can all be turned out, and, what is more, not only can the landlord have a benefit to which he obviously has no right at all, in getting possession of a house, but he can sell it if he wants to, because it is no way controlled, and he can convert the place into flats within the limit of the Rent Acts so that the premises will be unprotected.
    Under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, it is intended that if there is any conversion of tenancies, the portions of those converted premises which are ultimately left are no longer to be within the provisions of the Rent Acts. I do not know whether the House appreciates what this means. It means, in fact, that not only are we taking away from hundreds of thousands of houses in the country the protection given by the Rent Acts and gradually, as the tenants die, reducing more and more the limits within which there is protection, but now, when leasehold tenants are expecting something of a protective nature in respect of leaseholds, the Government are saying to them, "We are not going to give you any protection at all."
    That may sound very well to the Government, but it does not sound well to us and it will not appeal to the people. It is a deliberate attempt to take protection away from people in their dwelling-houses, and it will throw into confusion many families who have hitherto led a family life under the same roof. We have always commended that kind of family life. We want it to continue. It is the sort of thing that magistrates in our courts today are commending. They want that kind of life to be rebuilt. Unless this Amendment is accepted, the Government will be taking a step which will destroy the kind of family life which social workers regard as so desirable.
    2324
    There is one other point. What about the person who is the lessee living in the house and whose livelihood consists of letting rooms in the house to boarders and lodgers? There are quite a number of houses of that nature which have had protection afforded to them. The rateable value in many cases may not be within the limits which are at present referred to in the Rent Acts. But what happens to them when this Bill becomes law?
    The Government ought to reconsider this point. Instead of dealing with it in the way they propose, we suggest that they should make up their mind that it just will not do at this time to have ideas which are contrary to those held by all right-thinking persons. If they look at it from that point of view, they will see that what is being asked for by my hon. Friends and by those who have the interests of the people at heart is the proper step to take.
    Mr. George Thomas: Like most hon. Members, I tend to look at the proposed legislation from a constituency point of view. I remind myself that there are 30,000 houses under the leasehold system in the City of Cardiff. I cannot say how many of them will have a rateable value above that included in the Rent Acts, but I am quite sure that a considerable proportion will have. In the ancient City of Llandaff and in the districts of Penylan and of Cyncoed, which are not distinguished for their radicalism, there is property which will fall within the terms of the Amendment.
    I recall that it was not so long ago that the party opposite were talking about a property-owning democracy. This Bill does not give us that, but what it does offer is a risky security of tenure, and if that is taken away there is absolutely nothing left of leasehold reform. I should have thought that when we were taking even security of tenure from these people we would have heard the voice of the Conservative Party in South Wales—I see one lone representative of North Wales present here by accident—because there is nothing that will cause more anger amongst our people than the realisation that the Government have introduced a Measure in which steps have been taken to see that the landlord has the right to evict people

    2325
    from property which might be, of greater rateable value than the general mass of property in our areas.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: One question which I should like to put to the Minister is why the Government make a discrimination as between one tenant and another? It surprised me because, to strike a political note, I thought that both parties were waging a battle for the votes of the middle classes. One can clearly assess the effect of this Bill on those who are the occupants of houses of the nature covered by this Clause. They might be defined as people in the middle-class strata of society.
    6.0 p.m.
    I hope the electorate will be made fully conscious of the fact that a Government concerned with a property-owning democracy are prepared in this Bill to introduce a certain amount of discrimination. There are residential parts of Cardiff and also of the coastlines of South Wales and North Wales which will be affected by this policy of discrimination. As my hon. Friend has said, the people living in those houses, who theoretically own the property in which they live, will not be owner-occupiers. although they call themselves that. Why should they suffer this discrimination?
    The Government offer protection for other types of property below these levels. They offer protection under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, which is now going through this House, to millions of people who are ordinary tenants. Yet they discriminate against people who, through their energy and self-denial and life work, have become the owners of their own houses. Surely these people, who are the backbone of our social life, should be entitled to the same protection as the others?
    Whilst I anticipate that if we divide on this Amendment we shall be defeated in the Lobbies, I trust that the people outside this House will be made conscious of the act of which the Government are guilty.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: We are discussing a crucial Amendment and I should like the Home Secretary, even at this late hour, to bring his benevolent and analytical mind to bear on the serious defect which the Amendment exposes. Clause 2
    2326
    (2) dedicates the Bill to sheer dispossession. There seems to be a desire on the part of the Government to get the tenant out, and the Bill succeeds in that doctrine just as it succeeds in connection with business premises. The Government are determined that the landlords shall get into their hands easily, gradually and definitely all the property in this country without distinguishing whether it consists of dwelling-houses or business premises. This Clause, on the threshold of the Bill, sets out to do what subsequently the entire Bill ensures is done, and that is to achieve dispossession of the tenant.
    Formerly the working-classes were mostly affected by the question of premises and as they had to be protected it was necessary to introduce the Rent Acts. Property was scarce in those days, and in order to avoid the exploitation of such homes as there were, and to prevent tenants from being thrown out on to the streets, that legislation was introduced. What the Government had better wake up to is the fact that the middle-classes are coming into the same position. With the scarcity of houses they are now faced with the same problem, and it is no case to make out that houses outside the limit of the Rent Acts are not apt and proper to be brought into the protective provisions of this Bill.
    This is what will happen. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said that the one thing a tenant needs most at the end of his lease is security of tenure, to be able to continue living in his house. I should like to refresh the memory of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and, in the glow of that refreshment, to see whether he cannot do something to put into practice what his words indicated, that the tenant at the end of his lease should be able to feel that he could continue to live in the home in which he has been living.
    What this Bill does at the end of the lease is to say that the tenant will go out. Unless he has either a long tenancy within the definition of this Clause or unless he pays a rent within the Rent Acts, the tenant has "had it"—to use a familiar current expression. Why is the Minister depriving the tenant of his security of tenure in favour of the landlord getting the property? Nine times out of 10 the landlord does not want the property to live in; he wants vacant

    2327
    possession in order to sell it and make a good profit.
    I ask the Home Secretary to put into one side of the scales the claim of people to be allowed to stay in their homes, which they have had for 21 years or more and where they have brought up their families, and to put into the other side of the scales the fact that the landlord only wants the property to exploit it. It is only honest and decent and reasonable that this House, which is reputably here to protect the interests of people, should be asked to protect the interests of these people and not to exploit them in this way.
    I cannot understand the reason for discriminating between houses of one category and houses of another when it is a question of security of tenure. The whole concept of security of tenure is a roof, not in the sense of value but of shelter. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary with his analytical and searching mind, briefed as undoubtedly he must be, to point out to the House how he justifies that refinement of discrimination between a house worth §X and a house worth £X + Y. Where there is a shortage of houses and where there have to be hardships to tenants, who will be put out because the landlord is only out to get a profit from the property, I cannot see how we can advocate with any sense of justice or rhyme or reason this difference between the rent of different houses. It is an absolute mockery. It is putting an affront upon the conscience of the country.
    That being the case, I should like to feel that the Home Secretary has been roused out of that calmness with which he receives the observations which pass from this side of the House in an attempt to improve not only his Bill but the reputation of the Government. This is not a political matter at all. This is a matter in which, in common fairness, almost in some cases as an act of charity, I ask the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to come down on the side of the man who is to be given this house merely for the business of profit or whether he is going to protect the individual and his family who may even have built the house and let them remain there to have the shelter which they previously enjoyed. I
    2328
    do not think that there is a decent person in the country who could deny that proposition. I do not believe that the Home Secretary in his heart of hearts—and he must have several hearts, hard and soft—believes that he can accept the proposition that is embodied in the Clause. I ask him to let his soft heart prevail for once over the hard one.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps it would have been better if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department had spoken first. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was on the point of rising, but I think that as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has called me it would perhaps be convenient if I now made such observations as I have to offer.
    The Clause limits the protection of the Bill to premises within the rateable values of the Rent Acts. The marginal note to the Clause indicates that it sets out to give
    "Protection to residential tenants on termination of long tenancies at low rents."
    The question arises whether the Clause lives up to that phrasing.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman is reading the rubric to Clause 1. This, of course, is Clause 2.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I stand corrected. That is quite true. The rubric to this Clause refers simply to the fact that it deals with certain types of tenancy, but what I have said still holds good—the Bill and this part of it in particular extends to certain classes of tenants of residential property protection, including in the case of some of them the protection of the Rent Acts. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) and by others from this side of the House, we desire to see this portection extended to premises which are above the limits set by the Rent Acts. For the life of us, we cannot understand why the Home Secretary resists this appeal. It seems to us so reasonable and proper that we cannot understand why he continues to say no.
    Upstairs in Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman, day after day, turned down every suggestion, however reasonable, made from our side of the Committee. In the end some of us began to wonder whether Molotov had not

    2329
    strayed into our proceedings. We became so used to hearing the word, "No." It looks as if on the Report stage we are to have the same answer, either from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from the Joint Under-Secretary. Why not make a break. Let the Home Secretary accede to the request of my hon. Friends. I realise that this proposal was not a recommendation of the full Leasehold Committee, but five very responsible and respected members of that Committee did make a recommendation to this effect.
    6.15 p.m.
    The reasons they put forward for it appear to us to be admirable and such that the Government should now accept it. Is it true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said upstairs, that the people who are now outside the protection of the Bill do not need such protection because they as a class can well look after themselves? It is quite obvious from the speeches of my hon. Friends this afternoon that there must be very many people in such a financial position as to warrant such protection and who should have the protection of the Bill. I agree that peers of the realm, or at any rate some of them, can stand on their own feet.
    Mr. Hale: I ask my right hon. Friend to let me interpose for a moment. This really is an issue of principle and we must deal with it as such. It does not matter whether they are peers or peeresses or paragons, or barristers or doctors or widows or anything else. This is part of a great historic process, of the battle against an incubus. We must not say that because some have a bob in their pockets we do not want to give them protection. We want to do this because it is right.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend. I assume that all of us desire when dealing with Bills of this kind to do what is right and to act justly towards all sections of the community. All that I am doing at the moment is to advance an argument to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to show that the reasons he used in the Committee stage were not as strong as he appeared then to believe them to be. I listened at the time very carefully to what he said and he appeared to be saying that
    2330
    although very large sections of the community needed protection and must be given the protection of the Rent Acts it was not necessary to extend that protection to all classes because the upper classes so-called were well able to take care of themselves.
    I would point out to him that the rateable values laid down in the Rent Acts are not all that high. They are £75 in the country and £100 in London. There are today, for example, ladies whose parents have died and who are settled in large family houses of relatively high rateable value. Such often have difficulty in moving because of the housing shortage. Many of them live in leasehold property bought many years ago. In our view they should have been given the protection which the Rent Acts give to other sections of the community. Why not?
    I hope that even now the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see his way to bring in these people within the provisions of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says, there is no reason why they should not be brought in, not only because they are living in poor financial circumstances so that it is right on the ground of need but also because it is right in itself that this protection should be extended to them. I hope, therefore, that when the Joint Under-Secretary replies he will not give us the answer which the Home Secretary gave us in Committee. We hope that this habit of saying "No" to every suggestion from this side may be broken and that, for once in a way, the Joint Under-Secretary will say "Yes."
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I should begin by reminding the House that this Amendment would extend the scope of Part I of the Bill to ground lease houses outside the Rent Acts with rateable values of £100 a year in London and £75 elsewhere. We are dealing here with a fairly substantial type of property. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) was almost humming Noël Coward's tune, "Poor Little Rich Girl" in his speech. I accept that these houses are not all great houses, but we are dealing with substantial property.
    In recommending the scheme implemented in Part I of the Bill, the majority of the Leasehold Committee pointed out

    2331
    that as recently as 1945 the Ridley Committee had reported against any extension of the rateable value limits of the Rent Acts and the Leasehold Committee observed that revaluation for rating might well take an increased number of dwellings outside those limits. Nevertheless, it went on to express the view that in the absence of any evidence of widespread or serious hardship among tenants of these larger properties it was undesirable to recommend the extension of control on Rent Act lines. Let me say quite candidly that the Committee acknowledged that its evidence on the existence of such hardship was limited in scope. I do not want to mislead the House on that—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was nine years ago.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Five out of 10 members of the Committee, as has been mentioned this afternoon, signed a supplementary report recommending that such tenants should be given, not the protection of the Rent Acts, but a prima facie right to a renewal of their tenancy—
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: And much better.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is not quite what the Amendment proposes. The hon. and learned Member may take the view that it is better, but it is quite different from the Amendment.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I cannot allow this to go on. The whole trouble is, of course, that in the proposal of the Government on this question protection is utterly illusory because the rent which is charged is market rent and the Ridley Report was directed to genuine Rent Restrictions Acts cases and rack rent cases and had nothing to do with ground leases. The whole analogy is misleading.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Of course I agree with the hon. and learned Member that what was proposed by the Leasehold Committee was something entirely different from what is now proposed by this Amendment. To suggest that there is a parallel between the two is misleading.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is the difficulty in which the House finds itself this afternoon. Under the scheme advocated in the supplementary report, not only would the grounds on which the landlord could claim possession be wider than they are now under the Rent Acts, but also the rent would be on a temporary market basis and capable of revision as each succeeding new tenancy was granted.
    In seeking a means of giving security of tenure to occupying ground lessees, the Government, of course, have examined the position of tenants of other types. Immediately we do this we find, first, that rack rent tenants generally have the protection of the Rent Acts where those Acts apply, and secondly, that it has never been considered necessary in the field of rack rent tenants to extend such protection to tenants of houses above certain limits of rateable value.
    The line taken by the Bill in making the distinction between the two classes of house is a reasonable one because it follows a principle which has already been accepted. The basis of it is that ground lessees of large houses are in no different case from rack rent tenants of smaller property, for whom protection has never been considered necessary unless it could be shown that the hardship devolved specially upon ground lessees rather than upon the tenants of larger properties generally. No hon. Member this afternoon has attempted seriously to make a case to that effect. We would have to do that if we were to justify the proposal now before the House. It would be inappropriate to give protection to ground lessees alone whilst denying it to other tenants of larger properties.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The whole essence of this discussion is that ground lessees are in a class apart. We are legislating specially and particularly for them. Our case is, why leave some out?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The case that has been put is that it is wrong to distinguish between the ground lessees of the larger houses and the ground lessees of the smaller houses, and the answer I am giving is that in fact we find that precisely the same distinction is made in the other class of property, namely, the house let at a rack rent.
    Mr. Hale: By the Government in 1952.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: By all Governments up to this present date. There is no difference between the rack rent tenants and the non-rack rent tenants—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The question is whether it is a bad distinction which ought to be done away with now.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not want to embark on the subject, but there were a considerable number of years in which it lay in the power of the party opposite to abolish the distinction. I do not want to go into that.
    Mr. Janner: Is not any distinction at all to be drawn between the requirements in the case of a weekly or monthly
    tenancy and requirements in regard to a leasehold for 99 years?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I entirely accept that there is a difference between rackrent tenancies and long-lease tenancies. The case that has been put is that it is wrong to distinguish between larger and smaller houses and the answer is that we have already made that distinction. I believe the argument is a sound one. The Government regard it as a sound argument, and in those circumstances I regret that we cannot see our way to accept the Amendment.
    Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 223.

    Division No. 152.]

    AYES

    [6.30 p.m.

    Albu, A. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newpert)

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

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

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

    Manuel, A. C

    Allen, Schefielde (Crewe)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C

    Mason, Roy

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Grey, C. F.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Baird, J.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bartley, P.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Monslow, W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Hamilton, W W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hannan, W.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Benson, G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morley, R.

    Beswick, F.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hastings, S.

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Moyle, A.

    Boardman, H.

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

    Mulley, F. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

    Holman, P.

    Nally, W.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Holmes, Horace

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oswald, T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Padley, W. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pannell, Charles

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Janner, B.

    Pargiter, G. A

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

    Parker, J.

    Carmichael, J.

    Jager, George (Goole)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Paton, J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pearson, A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Popplewell, E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Porter, G.

    Collick, P. H.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Keenan, W.

    Procter, W. T.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Daines, P.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Rankin, John

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Reeves, J.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Deer, G.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Ross, William

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Royle, C.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Fienburgh, W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Short, E. W.

    Follick, M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Foot, M. M.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Thornton, E.

    Willey, F. T.

    Snow, J. W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, Rev. Llywely(Abertillery)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

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

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Willis, E. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    West, D. G.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wheelden, W. E.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Yates, V. F.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Wallace and Mr. J. T. Price.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Galbraith, T. C. D. (Hillhead)

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Glover, D.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Godber, J. B.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Gower, H. R.

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maude, Angus

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Morrison, John(Salisbury)

    Birch, Nigel

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Neave, Airey

    Black, C. W.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Boothby, Sir R. J. G.

    Hay, John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Heath, Edward

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Hollis, M. C.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Osborne, C.

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

    Horobin, I. M.

    Page, R. G.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Channon, H.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Redmayne, M.

    Cole, Norman

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Kaberry, D.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Kerby, Capt. H. B

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Robson-Brown, W.

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

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

    Russell, R. S.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petessfield)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Linstead, Sir H N.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Scott, R. Donald

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C

    Shepherd, William

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Longden, Gilbert

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

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Duthie, W. S.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

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

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Storey, S.

    Fort, R.

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

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Foster, John

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Summers, G. S

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Cloydon, E.)

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Wills, G.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Tilney, John

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Mr. Vesper and Mr. Richard Thompson.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Turton, R. H.

    Wellwood, W.

    Amendments made: In page 2, line 5, leave out "or were."
    In line 7, leave out "or have been."
    In line 13 leave out:
    "which comprises such premises as aforesaid."
    and insert:
    "as respects which the qualifying condition is fulfilled."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out:
    "not satisfied that the tenancy is,"
    and to insert:
    "satisfied that the tenancy is not."
    This Amendment is designed to meet the views expressed by hon. Members in Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who raised this question in an Amendment, and my right hon. and learned Friend undertook to consider the position.
    As Clause 2 (3) is drafted, when a landlord during the last 12 months of the tenancy wishes to find out whether on the term date the tenancy will be one to which Part I applies, he can apply to the court for an appropriate declaration. The onus rests upon the tenant to satisfy the court that at the term date the circumstances are likely to be such that Part I will apply. If the tenant cannot do this the court must make an order that Part I will not apply, the effect of which is to remove the tenancy for ever from the scope of Part I.
    As amended, the subsection will mean that when the landlord applies to the court for a declaration the onus will be upon him to satisfy the court that at the term date the circumstances are not likely to be such that Part I will apply. Shifting the onus in this way will make it difficult for the landlord who can get no response from communications sent to the tenant, but the Government feel that, in view of the strength of the arguments pressed against the provision as originally drafted, that is a change which should be made.
    Sir F. Soskice: I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for the change which he has proposed. As he said, it shifts the onus from the tenant to the landlord. We have always thought that that was obviously where it should rest. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that this will make it difficult for landlords. We have no objection to it being made difficult for landlords to throw people out of their houses, and that is really what the subsection is designed to do. The change will make it more difficult for landlords to achieve that purpose. I thank the Government for having introduced the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 31, leave out from "done," to end of line 32, and insert:
    "the qualifying condition was not fulfilled as respects the tenancy."—{Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "by act of the parties or by any enactment."
    The Amendment is designed to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). The purpose is to make it clear that a long tenancy includes a tenancy extended by the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "and," to the end of line 5, on page 3, and to insert:
    (a) if that property is a dwelling-house to which the Act of 1920 applies apart from the Act of 1939, the expression "rateable value" has in relation to it the same meaning in this subsection as it has in the Act of 1920 in relation to such a dwelling-house;
    (b) if that property is not such a dwelling-house, the said expression has in relation to it the same meaning in this subsection as it has in the Act of 1920 in relation to a dwelling-house to which that Act applies by virtue of the Act of 1939.

    2339
    The Amendment appears formidable, but in fact it is purely drafting. It gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I think that the House will agree that, though still difficult. the wording is an improvement on the original drafting.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sure that this is an improvement but how on earth we are to know whether or not it is an improvement unless the hon. Gentleman explains, I do not know. I think that we might ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us how this complicated formula changes the Bill and what improvement it makes.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It does not change the Bill at all. It is purely a matter of drafting on a very difficult subject. Perhaps the best way to explain this somewhat technical matter is to say that we are dealing here with three classes of house. We have the so-called old control house; that is to say, those houses which have been subject to the control of the 1920 Act at some time. We have the new control houses; that is to say, the houses which have been subject to the 1939 Act at some time. Thirdly, we have those houses which have not been controlled at all.
    Under the original drafting they were grouped in two paragraphs and the line was drawn to include the old control and the new control in one paragraph and the non-controlled houses in the second one. The line has now been drawn between the first and the second, so that we have the old control in the first paragraph and the new control and the not-yet-controlled in the second paragraph. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman follows, but that is the explanation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(TERMINATION OF TENANCY BY THE LANDLORD.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out subsection (3).
    This is the first of no fewer than 17 Amendments to Clauses 4, 6, 7, 13 and 14. The Amendments are designed to introduce, or are consequential upon the introduction of, a revised time-table scheme for Part I. It will probably be for the
    2340
    convenience of the House, and it will assist in understanding this long series of Amendments, if on this Amendment I may be allowed to give the broad outline of the new proposed scheme, and then to move the other Amendments formally or to say just a word or two with regard to them when necessary. If one can take that course, I hope that I shall be able to explain the effect of the changes.
    Those who were present in Committee will remember that two points came up for criticism. The first, which arose on Clause 4, was the criticism put forward with considerable force which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) will agree was not listened to at all unsympathetically. The criticism was that it was a defect in the Bill as originally designed that if a tenant did not reply within two months to a notice served upon him by his landlord he would lose the protection of Part I.
    The second criticism related to the timing within which the various steps should be taken. Since the Committee stage we have given very careful consideration to the way in which those matters can be dealt with and the criticisms met. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was informed before today, in accordance with the promise given to him, of the suggestions which we were putting forward.
    To deal with the first point, the proposal is that we abolish completely the provision that, if the tenant does not reply within two months saying whether he wishes to remain as a statutory tenant, he loses all right to a statutory tenancy. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will regard that at least as satisfactory.
    The scheme that we propose is, broadly, as follows. The landlord will serve a notice inviting the tenant, but not requiring him, to elect to retain possession. if at the end of two months the tenant has not replied to the notice—that is one condition—and if at that time the tenancy is one to which Clause 1 applies—that is, broadly, that the tenant is living on the premises—the tenant will not lose his right to a statutory tenancy. That is to say, if he is there but has not answered, he is not deprived of his right to the tenancy merely because he has not written a letter within the two months.

    2341
    The next step following upon that will be this. If the landlord's notice was one proposing a statutory tenancy, the landlord will be able to apply to the courts to determine the terms of the statutory tenancy. If the notice was a notice by which the landlord indicated that he wished to resume possession, the landlord will be able to apply to the court for an order for possession on the grounds given in the notice.
    If the landlord takes either of those steps, it must mean that notice of those proceedings in the county court will be served upon the tenant, and the tenant will have the opportunity of appearing and of being represented in court. If he fails to appear—surely it would be most unusual at this point for a tenant who wanted to remain in the premises not to have taken some action—the court will, of course, be able to deal with the matter ex parte, but—I am sure that the House will agree with this—it will not be able to deal with the matter without steps being taken to ensure that the tenant has notice of the landlord's application. It will be appreciated that up to that moment the tenant has not been deprived of any right which he might obtain under the Bill. It follows that inaction on the part of the tenant will not deprive him of his rights.
    The second point to which I should draw attention is this. Where the tenant does not reply to the notice inviting him to elect, and where the tenancy two months after the service of the landlord's notice is outside the scope of Clause 1, the landlord's notice will operate to terminate the tenancy and no question of a statutory tenancy will ever arise. That second point is a necessary feature of the scheme. Otherwise, there would be no sensible way for a landlord to bring to an end a long tenancy where the tenant was not living in the premises. That is the reason for the provision. If we did not have that provision, the landlord would have to go to the county court where the tenant was not residing in the premises within the two months after the service of the notice and ask the county court to determine the terms of a statutory tenancy for which there was no indication that there was any desire on the part of the tenant.
    This scheme constitutes a very considerable improvement upon the proposals originally contained in the Bill. We made
    2342
    it clear at that time that we were not at all happy about the idea that the tenant would lose his rights if he did not write a letter. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite also expressed their concern. On that point, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not only recognise that we have made a genuine effort to meet the difficulty but also say. even if he does not think that we have gone to the fullest extent, that he thinks we have gone a very long way indeed.
    Sir F. Soskice: While I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for the obvious trouble that he has taken over this matter and for the explanation which he has given, I must say that I am left in a state of considerable disquiet by his new proposals. They are undoubtedly an advance if they work in the way in which he has set them out, but I should like to ask him a question about them.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt compendiously with 17 Amendments, but none of those Amendments has the effect of changing subsection (1), which at present reads, and even if the Bill is amended in the sense proposed will continue to read:
    "The landlord may terminate a tenancy to which section one of this Act applies by notice given to the tenant in the prescribed form specifying the date at which the tenancy is to come to an end (hereinafter referred to as 'the date of termination'), being either the term date of the tenancy or a later date. …"
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken the admittedly less convenient course of going in detail into all the Amendments, I might not have had to ask my question. However, I now wish to ask him whether, under his new proposals, it is not still the case that when the landlord serves a notice on the tenant to terminate the tenancy at a particular date specified in the notice, it has the effect, as at present is the case under the unamended Bill, of terminating that tenancy unless the tenant elects to remain. I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to assist me, and perhaps he would do so now by indicating which change puts an end to that state of affairs.
    The Solicitor-General: I will gladly seek to do so. Although we were all very familiar with this matter when it was going through Committee. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will

    2343
    share with me the difficulty which is experienced in picking up all the details again.
    Subsection (1) is not affected and it is not intended to be, because the notice given by the landlord will terminate the existing tenancy. It is subsection (3), which we are taking out, which affects the statutory tenancy. The effect of subsection (3) as it was—I am sure that it is my fault for not having explained it—was that if the tenant did not reply within the two months he lost his right to the statutory tenancy. Now when the letter is sent to him inviting him to elect, he will not lose his right provided that within two months following the receipt of the letter—it may be the date of dispatch; I cannot for the moment recollect it—the tenancy is one which comes within the scope of the Bill. It is only the right to the statutory tenancy which is affected.
    Mr. Hale: Which Amendment says that?
    The Solicitor-General: Subsection (3) is deleted by this Amendment, and it is subsection (3) which we are now discussing. Then, we find that we have a new subsection (4), which deals with the requirement of notice.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: That does not really cover the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend said that notice could be given which might terminate at the end of the actual lease, and that at that stage the tenant lost all his rights. It merely completed the process, and there was no protection for him. We are now taking out subsection (3) and inserting new provisions about notice. All I am asking is where does it say—I have no doubt it does somewhere—when this action is to be taken?
    Sir F. Soskice: Before the learned Solicitor-General answers that question, as I was in possession of the Floor may I continue by saying—and following up what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has just said—that I do not want to distress the House by a parade of legal difficulties which, quite clearly, only a limited number of hon. Members would enjoy as we do. But am I not right in saying that subsection (3) has the effect that, unless the tenant
    2344
    elects the tenancy comes to an end? It says no more than that a notice given under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is in a certain form, and the subsection does not have the effect which the Solicitor-General attributed to it, nor would the removal of that subsection have the result of bringing about the consequence that the tenancy did not come to an end although the tenant did nothing in reply to the notice.
    It may be that, tucked away somewhere in these 17 Amendments, there is one which has that effect, and I entirely sympathise with the Solicitor-General if he has not got it at his fingertips, because both he and I have been engaged in some rather troublesome matters in another sphere, which might have put this matter out of his mind for the moment. He will, however, agree with me that it is quite impossible to expect agreement from this side of the House, anxious as we are to safeguard the position of tenants who, through inadvertence or for one reason or another, do not reply, from the consequence of having their tenancy terminated as a result of that inadvertence.
    I should be very grateful if the Solicitor-General can point to some particular Amendment which has that effect. If he will tell me that, somewhere in this list of 17 Amendments, there is such an Amendment, although he cannot put his finger on it, it will go some way towards assuaging my own anxiety. Personally, I do not know where it is, and I can find nothing in the Amendments which I have studied which will have the effect of reversing the operation of subsection (1), which, in turn, says that the landlord can, by serving such a notice, bring the tenancy to an end.
    The Solicitor-General: I think I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because really the error is on his part. I make no criticism of him, but he has attached importance to subsection (1) and has disregarded subsection (4), and the two run together in this Clause. We have subsection (1) giving the landlord power to terminate the tenancy. Subsection (2) prescribes the time within which notice is to be served. Subsection (3) says it shall not have any

    2345
    effect unless it complies with certain requirements. The Amendment we are now discussing will take out subsection (3), but subsection (4) provides that a notice given under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it contains either proposals for a statutory tenancy or notice that, if the tenant is not willing to give up possession, the landlord proposes to apply to the court for a resumption of possession. So that the notice has to do these two things, and it is only effective if it does them.
    One of the Amendments contains a further requirement as to how the notice under subsection (1) shall be operative. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Amendment in page 5, line 16, he will see that, in one of the consequential Amendments to Clause 6, we are to take out the provision requiring any election on the part of the tenant to retain possession.
    I know it is most difficult to follow, through this series of 17 Amendments, the object of these proposals, but it is as I have indicated, and I believe myself that the Amendments are entirely effective to secure what I have said; but, of course, we will listen to any criticism advanced, and I shall do my best to satisfy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that these Amendments do achieve that object. With great respect, I think it is the fact that subsection (4), taken with subsection (1), vitiates the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking to make.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am glad to hear that the learned Solicitor-General does not make any criticism of me, and I hope he will not mind my making one very gentle reflection upon him when I say that it is just a trifle confusing to be told that the relevant subsection is subsection (3), and, when I point out that subsection (3) simply requires the notice to be in a certain form, for the Solicitor-General to tell me that it is not subsection (3), but subsection (4). I would now point out that that subsection only requires the notice to be in a certain form; both subsections (3) and (4) do no more than that. I do not feel any more enlightened by the Solicitor-General's reference to subsection (4) than I did by his reference to subsection (3).
    However, we would not wish to seem ungracious. and if the Amendment does
    2346
    achieve the result which the right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is to achieve, we would be very grateful for that measure of relief, but I think the Solicitor-General will agree that, after studying the Amendments as best we can, we cannot satisfy ourselves that they do achieve that result. We have asked the Solicitor-General to indicate how that result is achieved, but he evidently finds himself in some difficulty about it. Many as are the excuses which he may have, it is a little unusual to take so much on trust even from his very great legal acumen.
    I hope the Amendments will do what the Solicitor-General says they will do, and, if so, we would be very glad to welcome them, but it is taking a step rather in the dark to agree to Amendments upon which we cannot be satisfied that they will do what the Solicitor-General wishes them to do and which he no doubt means them to do. That is the first point which I would make in answer to this group of Amendments.
    The second point is that, here again, the disagreement on principle between the two sides of the House emerges. The Solicitor-General says that a new system will not be applicable unless, in fact, the tenant is a tenant who is in possession, and he then pointed to the characteristic of his new scheme which he feared would leave us somewhat dissatisfied. I can assure him that it does. From beginning to end of our discussions on this Bill we have emphasised over and over again the fact that here we are dealing with a special kind of property in which the real owners of the houses—morally, at any rate—are those tenants under long leases whose leases are now coming to an end.
    Starting from that general standpoint, it follows as a matter of axiomatic logic that from our point of view it is not satisfactory that, if when the notice comes the tenant happens to be away from the house in which effect he owns, he may lose that tenancy which he is entitled to regard as belonging to him and affording him a refuge.
    I understand that the Solicitor-General accepts that the Government have gone only half-way towards meeting that point of view, but that they have gone some way I frankly and gratefully recognise. They have also gone some way to meet the case of the elderly lady mentioned

    2347
    during the Committee stage who may inadvertently leave the notice on the mantelpiece and forget about it. The Solicitor-General finds some difficulty in pointing to the words which have that effect.
    Speaking for myself, if we are left in that situation by the Solicitor-General, I cannot help feeling, reluctantly, that the only advice I can give to my hon. Friends is that we must by our vote say that we cannot accept the Amendment and the series of Amendments. We cannot take things on trust in that way, especially things which go only halfway to meeting our point of view. This is a half-way measure. As a measure it is valuable, particularly as coming from the stony-hearted Ministers who have listened to our pleas during the discussions on the Bill. Even a half-measure is better than no measure, just as the Bill is only half a Bill. We cannot be satisfied with this half-measure, which may turn out later to be nothing at all.
    So, with considerable reluctance, I advise my hon. Friends not to agree to leave out subsection (3) and, by implication, accept the series of Amendments, unless we can be sure that there is much more behind them than we have been given to understand. If the matter is left as it is, I advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.
    The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I would say that the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) is really wrong about this matter, especially when he says that I have sought to confuse the position by referring first to subsection (3) and then to subsection (4). The right hon. and learned Gentleman first referred to subsection (1), and I drew his attention to the scheme to remind him of it. I asked him if he would consider it.
    It is clear that the Amendment does what I said. Under subsection (1), there is power to give the notice. Subsection (2) specifies the time, and subsection (3), which is now under consideration, says that the notice has to comply with certain requirements. Subsection (4) says that the notice must contain either proposals for a statutory tenancy or a notice that the landlord wants to resume possession. It is true that only the power to give notice
    2348
    and a statement of what the notice shall contain to be effective are in the subsections, but the Amendment to Clause 6 to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention, in page 5. line 16, effects the operative change.
    As the Bill stands it provides—and this is the crux of the matter:
    "Where on the service of a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy the tenant has elected to retain possession, then as from the termination of the tenancy by the notice the Rent Acts shall apply."
    7.15 p.m.
    The statutory tenancy under Clause 6 arises upon that election. The Amendment that we hope to make in page 5, line 16, is to take out those words. The effect will be that where a tenancy is terminated by a landlord's notice proposing the statutory tenancy, the statutory tenancy will arise automatically.
    It may be my fault, and if it is I willingly accept responsibility for it, for not having emphasised that particular Amendment particularly, but I did draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to it, saying that that Amendment dealt with the matter of the election.
    I hope that I have convinced the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these matters of drafting are satisfactory to effect the broad outline of the scheme which I had outlined and which, I gather, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not regard as wholly unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I listened carefully to what was said by the Solicitor-General, whom I congratulate on his recent honour. I believe that he has done his best, but it is obvious that he is purely a mechanical mouthpiece for some department that has pushed this Amendment on him.
    The Solicitor-General is playing a game of shove-ha'penny. He is getting rid of one Clause and pushing another Clause into its place, and although he is getting rid of trouble from one Clause he is creating fresh trouble with the one that he is substituting. It is right that subsection (3) should go, because it constituted an absolute trap for the tenant. I am not surprised, after the trenchant exposure which it got, that the Government have said they will abolish it. I should like to know why the proposed

    2349
    new Clause is necessary, making the landlord go out of his way to use paper, ink, envelope and stamp to write a little epistle to the tenant and send him an invitation. If the Solicitor-General will give me his august attention for one moment, I will tell him that I do not think he is as naive as all that, because on that basis it becomes all nonsense.
    Why is there such solicitude for the feelings of the tenant that the landlord must write this letter of invitation to him? Having got rid of subsection (3), the Clause is all right without putting anything else in. All we do by putting something in by way of substitution is to create a situation in which all sorts of complicated legal points and disputes arise which only create difficulty instead of helping the matter.
    That brings me to the next point which has to be considered by this House. These matters have to go to the county court if there is any dispute, complication or doubt as between the tenant and landlord. If there is any sinister motive in this kindly invitation to which the Solicitor-General has alluded, it is enshrined in this scheme which the Solicitor-General so kindly offers to the House, for the tenant must go to the county court. There is no legal aid in the county court. As a result a tenant will have to face the risk of fighting the case, which may go from the county court to the Court of Appeal and, if he is unlucky, from there to the House of Lords. That would involve an immense amount of cost, which a tenant would not dare to face. The result is that the tenant is bound to be deprived of justice in this matter. There is nothing else he can do but capitulate. It simply leaves the landlord in possession and able to do anything he wishes.
    I ask the Solicitor-General to look at this matter again. There is really nothing in this Clause containing the invitation which adds anything—here is a sinister implication in it. I ask the Solicitor-General to see whether, having dispensed with subsection (3), he cannot now dispense with what he is now—I think foolishly—seeking to put in its place.
    Sir F. Soskice: Perhaps I may have permission to address the House quite shortly again. This is, of course, part
    2350
    of a network of most complicated provisions. I have in mind what the Solicitor-General has pointed out with regard to Clause 6. I see the working of it and the machinery, and I am obliged to him for referring to it again.
    There is, on the other hand, the other point of principle which I raised. I feel that in this highly technical matter the House might possibly feel that it might pass on with some advantage to other matters of what I may term general application. Possibly it would be the wish of hon. Members on both sides that we should not go on discussing this highly-complicated technique. Nevertheless, I feel quite confident that I am voicing the opinions of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side when I say that they feel that this change which the Government have introduced does not go far enough. It does not cover the kind of case where one has a tenancy which is not within the scope of Clause 2—the Solicitor-General said within the scope of Clause 1 but I think that he meant Clause 2.
    In those circumstances, we feel that even the changed system which the Government propose may work considerable injustice in a number of cases. I therefore feel that I shall be voicing the opinions of my hon. and right hon. Friends if I suggest to the Government and to the House generally that we might take a decision on this now, and I think that, if my hon. Friends will agree with my advice, we should not take the removal of subsection (3) on trust.
    Mr. John Hay: May I ask one question of my right hon. and learned Friend, and refer, in a way, to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels)? What is the exact effect of this notice in writing to the tenant asking whether he wants protection or not? On that point the House should be apprised, because no one has yet said what is to happen if the invitation is declined. I do not think that in his opening remarks my right hon. and learned Friend explained the first step quite fully enough to make it clear.
    The Solicitor-General: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, in outlining the scheme I did deal specifically with the particular stages and the

    2351
    effect of non-compliance by the tenant at each stage. I really feel that I should not take up the time of the House by repeating it. Perhaps my back was turned on my hon. Friend so that he did not hear me, but I did deal with that point in detail. The invitation is expressed to the tenant. If he fails to comply with it he does not lose any of his rights under the Bill. [Interruption.] The object of it is to enable the landlord to find out, in the first place, whether the tenant wants to stay on.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Could not that be done without putting it in an Act of Parliament?
    The Solicitor-General: Of course it could.
    But following upon that notice, if the tenant does not reply it is open to the landlord to take steps in the county court which will involve service upon the tenant of the notice of those proceedings. That, I should have thought, will enable one to be sure that no tenant will be deprived of his rights under this Bill without notice from his landlord of his intention to secure resumption of possession.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 213.

    Division No. 153.]

    AYES

    [7.26 p.m.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hale, Leslie

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hannan, W.

    Moyle, A.

    Baird, J.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Nutley, F. W.

    Bartley, P.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Nally, W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Hastings, S.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Bence, C. R.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Oswald, T.

    Benson, G.

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Berwick, F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Paget, R. T.

    Blackburn, F.

    Holman, P.

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pannell, Charles

    Boardman, H.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parker, J.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parkin, B. T

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Paton, J.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Pearson, A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Janner, B.

    Popplewell, E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Porter, G.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Rankin, John

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reeves, J.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Keenan, W.

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Clunie, J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Rhodes, H.

    Coldrick, W.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Collick, P. H.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Daines, P.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Royle, C.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Short, E. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Logan, D. G.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Deer, G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    McLeavy, F.

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

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Flenburgh, W.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Snow, J. W.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Follick, M.

    Mason, Roy

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Foot, M. M.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E

    Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Monslow, W.

    Sylvester, G. O

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moody, A. S

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Grey, C. F.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morley, R.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

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

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Fife)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Thornton, E.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Willis, E. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Yates, V. F.

    Weitzman, D.

    Willey, F. T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor

    West, D. G.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Alpert, C. J. M.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Osborne, C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

    Page, R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hay, John

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bell, Philip (Boltom, E.)

    Health, Edward

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Birch, Nigel

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Profumo, J. D.

    Black, C. W.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hope, Lord John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Braine, B. R.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Robson-Brown, W.

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

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

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

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Bullard, D. G.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Shepherd, William

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Kaberry, D.

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lambton, Viscount

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Channon, H.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cole, Norman

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

    Colegate, W. A.

    Lindsay, Martin

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

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Stoddart,-Scott, Col. M

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Storey, S.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Summers, G. S.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Crouch, R. F.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Teeling, W.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Deedes, W. F.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Dishy, S. Wingfield

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Tilney, John

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Drayson, G. B.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Turton, R. H.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Vesper, D. F.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

    Marples, A. E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Maude, Angus

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Fort, R.

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

    Wellwood, W.

    Foster, John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Galbraith, G. D. (Hillhead)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Wills, G.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Glover, D.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Godber, J. B.

    Neave, Airey

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Nicholls, Harmer

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Gower, H. R.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, after "unless," to insert:
    "it specifies the premises which the landlord believes to be, or to be likely to be, the premises qualifying for protection and."
    This and the following four Amendments are either consequential or incidental to the scheme which I have already outlined. The only new details to which I need draw the attention of the House are that this and the next Amendment insert two further requirements which the notice must now contain. It is obviously desirable that the notice should specify the premises which the landlord believes to be likely to qualify for protection, and this Amendment deals with that point. The following Amendment deals similarly with further information which the landlord has to give.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 29, leave out from "possession." to "the," in line 30, and insert:
    "at the date of termination of the tenancy, of all the property then comprised in the tenancy."
    In line 34, at end, insert:
    (4) A notice under subsection (1) of this section shall invite the tenant, within two months after the giving of the notice, to notify the landlord in writing whether he is willing to give up possession as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection.
    In line 43, leave out:
    "paragraph (a) of subsection (3),"
    and insert "subsection (4)."
    In line 44, leave out:
    "as mentioned in that paragraph."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF RENT ACTS WHERE TENANT RETAINS POSSESSION.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 16, leave out from "Where," to fourth "the," in line 18, and insert:
    "a tenancy is terminated by the landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out from "defined," to the end of the subsection.
    This Amendment raises a point which hon. Members on this side regard as absolutely crucial to the Bill. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we have pressed strongly for the insertion of provisions
    2356
    for leasehold enfranchisement and have failed. Having failed in that regard, we say that the least that should be provided is that the security of tenure which the Bill confers upon tenants of ground leases on long lease should be a real and not illusory one. That carries us to the question of the rent which the tenant has to pay when he remains as a statutory tenant after his long lease has come to an end under the provisions of the Bill.
    I think it is common ground between hon. Members on both sides that as the Bill stands the rent which would normally have to be fixed by the county court judge is the ordinary market rent. That results from the words which I seek to leave out, read in conjunction with Clause 9 (4), which deals with the fixing of rent and which says, in its material provisions:
    "… the rent determined by the court shall be the rent which, irrespective of the personal circumstances of the parties, in its opinion would be a reasonable rent for the dwelling-house on a letting in that state of repair and on those terms."—
    that is to say, in the assumed state of repair and on the assumed terms of the continuing statutory letting.
    The result of those words is that a county court judge, seeking to interpret the provisions of the Bill, would, in our view and, I understand, in the view of the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General as well, have to ask himself, "What is the reasonable rent?" He would have to answer himself, "The reasonable rent is what the person could get on the open market with this house on the terms of his lease in the state of repair in which it is assumed to have been at the time of the letting."
    How would that impinge on an individual tenant? The tenants we are dealing with are people, as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have said over and over again, who, in Wales, for example, but in many other parts of the country as well, because not only Wales is concerned, have been paying ground rents of £2 or £5 or £7 a year for many years past, and who have adjusted their personal economies to that liability, accustomed themselves to paying rent on that scale for the houses they think are their own. That comes to an end. Then it behoves the county court judge to fix the rent they are to pay. He fixes the rent and the tenants will suddenly find themselves confronted with a burden of rent

    2357
    of 30s. or £2 or even, perhaps, £2 10s. a week. That is how the Bill works at the moment, and it is common ground that it works in that way.
    To say to a tenant who, as I have said—and I cannot repeat it too often; it is so crucial to the understanding of this matter—thinks the house is his own, and who has been accustomed to paying that lower ground rent, "The only terms on which you may go on living in your own house now that, because of an accident of history—because that is what it is—your long lease has come to an end are that you must pay 30s. or 40s. or 50s. a week" is grossly unjust to him. As I have said over and over again, and as my hon. Friends have said, this is giving a security in name which is illusory to a large extent in fact.
    Add to that consideration the fact that in most cases the tenant will also be confronted with a very substantial bill for accrued repairs, according to succeeding provisions of the Bill. Assume that one of these tenants is paying a ground rent of £5. At the end of his long lease he is told by the Government he is to have security of tenure. He then asks on what terms. It turns out that the terms are to be a rent not of £5 a year but of 40s. a week and a bill for accrued repairs under Clause 8 of, say, £50 or £100 or £150, or, in the case of old property, £200.
    The Government are giving security with one hand and taking it back with the other. We have called that an illusory security. It is spurious security. It means that tenants will be faced with financial burdens they cannot conceivably shoulder. Elderly and retired people, as many of them are, cannot possibly shoulder what in their eyes are enormous financial burdens. Tenants will find that, having thought they were living in their own houses, they are to be turned out, many of them in their old age, and forced to go elsewhere for cheaper accommodation. That is how the Bill works at the moment, and that is a very bad feature of it.
    7.45 p.m.
    We tried in Committee to improve the Bill in this respect. We first asked if our understanding of it was correct, and the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General confirmed that it was. We then asked if this would be the kind of consequence, and they were forced to concede that that kind of case would constantly arise. We
    2358
    on this side fear that it will not only constantly arise but that it will be the normal case, that that is what will normally, in general, happen, so that large numbers of these tenants will just have to leave premises which will become far too expensive for them. If that really is the situation which arises from the provisions of the Bill, the Bill becomes somewhat of a mockery, and a particularly cruel mockery, a particularly cruel deceit practised by the Government on these unfortunate tenants who think they are getting something under it.
    That, shortly, is the point. I know full well the strength of feeling on this matter that there is among many of my hon. Friends, and I know they will be most anxious, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, to voice their feelings. I hope that we shall have observations in the same strain from the one, two, three Members of the party opposite on the back benches who have found time to join the discussion on this important Bill. If there are any elsewhere in the building, we hope they will participate also. The debate would be greatly enriched. They may be keeping away largely because they feel that if they were to speak in the debate they would be obliged to speak against the Home Secretary. Perhaps that is one of the reasons the benches opposite are so bare when we are discussing this all-important Bill. One can only regret, if that is the reason, that it should be so, and we hope that some will take courage and come in and support justice and right for once.
    I have put the point. I do not want to put it again. Doubtless it will be put in other words by hon. Friends of mine and, I hope, by hon. Members opposite, too, but I hope more than anything else that the Home Secretary at long last will realise that if he is really in earnest about doing something for tenants he cannot leave the Bill in this perfectly deplorable state, and will have a change of heart and try to make this Bill come somewhat nearer to conforming to the realities of this case.
    Mr. G. Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that we consider this matter to be at the very heart of the Measure. I happened to be in my own constituency one night this week with my hon. Friend

    2359
    the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), addressing a meeting summoned to consider the proposals of the Bill. It was a largely attended meeting, for there are no words that arouse fiercer emotions in Cardiff than the words "leasehold system." The Home Secretary, who has been appealed to by my right hon. and learned Friend, will know, from his constant visits to the Principality, that above all a Welshman values his home. Like the Englishman, he likes to say his home is his castle—till the lease runs out, when it belongs to the ground landlord.
    However, even though he loses his house, he asks for a fair deal in the rent that he will have to pay for the house which he himself bought. Normally the length of a lease is 99 years, but in West Wales there are many leases of 50 years' length, and it is possible for people who bought a house within their lifetime to see the house they bought going back to the ground landlord and having to pay rent all over again, as though they had not bought the house at all.
    I ask myself how this proposal is to work out in Cardiff. I hope the House will forgive me for referring constantly to Cardiff, but Cardiff suffers so savagely under the present system that it is a perfect example which any hon. Member might quote. I had an example in Canton, Cardiff, of a little shop where the ground rent has been £4 a year. With the lease running out in two years' time, the ground landlords are willing to renew at £350 a year. Thus we have an idea of what rents would be charged, if the ground landlords are willing to charge a ground rent like that in place of a lease on a little shop on the main road of Canton.
    I have read with great care the deliberations of the Committee stage, and I understand that in assessing the rent which must be charged to the tenant the county court judge is to assume that the house has been put into a good state of repair. He starts from there. That can well lead to the position that, as the leases of the 30,000 leasehold houses in Cardiff fall in, instead of paying £3 a year ground rent the tenants will pay £3 a week rent under market values of a house assumed to be in good condition. If this Amendment is not carried the
    2360
    finance corporations, who have done nothing to create communal values in Cardiff, will be coming in and stealing our communal wealth for themselves.
    There is another aspect which I would bring to the attention of those who are responsible for the Bill. Who will be dealing with the former owner of the house who now becomes the tenant? In nine cases out of 10 the ground lease is owned by some finance corporation. In 1938 the Marquess of Bute sold half of the City of Cardiff to Western Ground Rents. Altogether 20,000 houses were sold, hundreds of public buildings, public houses, and chapels. All sorts of places were sold. We have lost our birthright in Cardiff and we were hoping for a Measure which would restore the homes to the people, not such a proposal as this which makes tighter than ever the grip of the ground landlord upon the little man who bought his own home.
    This is a piece of downright dishonesty, legalised or sanctioned by the processes of the law. This is the sort of thing which swept David Lloyd George to this House, fighting bitterly against the injustice which took away the homes from the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman frequently uses the phrase, "A property-owning democracy." He did not say who would own the property. Now we know; it is Western Ground Rents, Mountjoy Estates and such firms.
    The House must forgive me if I speak with some heat on this matter, although it would be hard to find a Welshman who does not become heated when he speaks about it. We have suffered—as Londoners suffer and as they suffer in Lancashire—very severely under these proposals. There is no security of tenure for the working man under these proposals, and unless the Amendment is accepted, only people with a good income will be able to meet both the rents and the cost of repairs which will be saddled on them. Under another Schedule in the Bill, if these terms are not honoured—if the rent is not paid and the cost of repairs is not met—the Government propose to give the ground landlord the right to put these people on the street, as we have seen them put on the street in other days. I earnestly hope that the House will see that the Amendment is carried.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I want briefly to support the Amendment.

    2361
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, this problem is not confined to Wales or to any one part of the country. It exists in an acute form in London.
    We on these benches attach particular importance to the Amendment and, although it was rejected in Committee, I hope that on this occasion we shall be able to persuade the Home Secretary of its justice. It is widely thought that one of the principal objects of this Bill is to give security of tenure to ground lessees when their leases come to an end. It does nothing of the kind. Unless this Amendment is accepted the grossest deception will be practised on these ground lessees, as they will see when their leases end.
    The Bill as it stands not merely does not give security of tenure, but it constitutes the delusion of giving security of tenure without in fact doing so. I have a typical example in my constituency of what is happening today. Mrs. Plant is the owner of a ground lease in the house in which she has been living for a number of years. She is paying the normal ground rent under a ground lease. The lease will expire in a year or so. Already the ground landlords have approached her and asked her to pay a rental of 35s. a week for the house. If the Rent Acts applied, the house would command a rent of something like 15s. to 16s. a week, compared with comparable houses in the neighbourhood, nearly all of which are subject to the Rent Acts. In addition to the rental of 35s. she is being asked by the ground landlords to pay £55 or £60 for repairs. If she does not comply she is threatened with eviction.
    If the Bill is passed in its present form that is the position in which she will find herself; the only right she will have will be the right to compete with any other member of the community—to get a tenancy of her own house in which she has lived for years not at a Rent Act controlled rent enjoyed by most others in the borough, but at whatever rent the landlord can persuade any of the thousands of people who are looking for accommodation to pay when there is no controlled rent.
    As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent the landlord from benefiting from the scarcity value of accommodation which exists all over London today. There
    2362
    is nothing to prevent the court from taking into account the scarcity value if the court has to fix the rent under Clause 9. Unless the Amendment is accepted there will be no real security of tenure at a reasonable rent for the people whom the country thinks this Bill is designed to protect. The present position is intolerable. People have been living in these houses for many years, but when their leases come to an end they are threatened with eviction.
    The position of those ground lessees is infinitely worse than that of those who enjoy statutory tenancies, as most people do in the country today. The statutory tenant is protected under the Rent Acts, but these ground lessees not only have no protection under those Acts but when the ground lease comes to an end, they have no protection, but are at their landlord's mercy. They have to negotiate at arms length to try to get a rental for their own house in circumstances in which the Rent Acts do not apply. Because of their inferior bargaining position, because of the scarcity value of all housing accommodation throughout the Metropolis, they are at a great disadvantage. The only way in which that disadvantage can be corrected is by the acceptance of this Amendment.
    8.0 p.m.
    One of my constituents, a neighbour of the lady about whom I was speaking just now, was recently driven into a mental home because of the worry and anxiety to which she was subjected by the exorbitant demands of the same landlords, and because she feared that in a year or two, when her ground lease expired, she would be without any protection and be out of the house. That sort of thing is happening all over the country. I do not understand how the Home Secretary, who sits there and professes humane, generous sentiments and consideration, can resist the repeated instances which we have given of this kind of tenant. The pressure is enormous. Justice demands that the Amendment should be accepted. In view of the overwhelming number of illustrations which hon. Members on this side of the House can bring before him, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accede to our request and accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Hay: I think that hon. Members opposite are rather overstating the case here. What the Bill proposes is a scheme of protection for the tenant who would otherwise be evicted from the house. That was the recommendation of the Leasehold Committee. It is a practical method of dealing with what everybody accepts to be a difficult problem, and I do not think that any useful purpose is served by trying to say that individual people are to be put in a great deal of financial difficulty because they will no longer have to pay a ground rent of £5 or £7 but a fair contemporary market rent for the premises.
    Mr. Hale: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me for intervening but my doing so might simplify and shorten matters. It is not even a fair contemporary market rent but a fair contemporary market rent for the premises, valued at 1954 prices for a house built in 1855. The judge has to be asked to assume that the house is in full repair and that these onerous conditions have been fully complied with. Then there is to be put on the tenant a statutory cost of repairs and the landlord is to be given the right to apply and say that the repairs are not sufficient to obviate the landlord doing something, and the position is to be left that new housing and rent Acts can still apply, and increases may result from that. The judge is to be asked to fix a figure which is a contemporary assessment, and the wretched tenant is to be forced to go to the court and to pay costs—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member must not develop an intervention into a speech.
    Mr. Hale: I was not thinking of doing so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I may seek to catch your eye later to do that. I have not got it clear in my mind, I admit, what is to happen about the arrears of rent. It will take months for these things to be assessed, and the wretched tenant, after nine or 10 months of anxiety, may be confronted with a bill of several hundred pounds for arrears as well.
    Mr. Hay: I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy-
    2364
    Speaker, he will develop at some length the points he has been making.
    The point I was making was that I think hon. Members are deluding themselves and the public if they really think that any county court judge, faced with the task which this Bill will impose upon him to fix a rent for this sort of premises, will have regard to scarcity values and all the other points which have been developed in the speeches which we have heard on this Amendment. I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham, West himself who said earlier that county court judges are bound to deal with these matters reasonably, as ordinary sensible people—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall rose—
    Mr. Hay: I have already been interrupted once, and I should like to finish my sentence before giving way again. I think that the county court judge, faced with the task of deciding what would be a fair rent for premises of this kind, will apply his mind reasonably and will not apply scarcity values.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. The point of my intervention is germane to what he is saying. I have followed what he has said, but is he not forgetting that the Bill lays down the sort of consideration which the judge must take into account, which must, as I understand it, be market value, which must take into account scarcity value which exists.
    Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct; the Bill prescribes market value, but different people may have different ideas of what may be market value. If I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected. The whole basis of assessment in this Bill is that it will be left to the discretion of the county court judge if the parties cannot agree.
    The Bill places a premium on the parties agreeing, to begin with. It is just as much to the advantage of a landlord not to have to be taken to the county court, with all the attendant expense, as it is to the tenant not to have to go to a county court. So there is a premium on agreement.
    Let us take this further fact into consideration. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the right

    2365
    hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) spoke of scarcity values, but there is less scarcity value today in housing than there was. As we build more and more houses so—one is assuming that the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill will have its full effect—we shall be gradually overcoming the scarcity of houses. I believe that the factor of scarcity values will in a short time become a less and less important matter to be taken into that calculation.
    What is the alternative if we do not have a scheme such as that proposed by the Bill? If nothing is done and leases are allowed to come to an end the tenants evicted will have to go elsewhere; they will become a charge on the local authority who will have to find housing accommodation for them. In that case those people will certainly have to pay much more than the £5 or £7 which they have been paying under their ground leases so they will equally encounter that financial hardship which I believe has been overstressed in the debate on this Amendment.
    Similarly, if those people manage to find a rent-restricted house they will have to pay much more than £5 or £7 a year. I suggest that it is gravely overstating the case to pretend that the very reasonable proposal of the Government, put forward not with an eye to abstract justice but to provide something that will work, is the best one that could be devised in the very difficult circumstances of this case. I suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed and that hon. Members should realise that there is far more in this matter than the mere recital of a few cases of individual hardship. No doubt there are a great many deserving cases, but one must look at the matter from the strictly practical point of view of what the country can do to help those people who are undoubtedly in a difficult situation which is largely not of their making.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: The Government's rent proposals are similar to their decisions on other matters which are contained in this Bill. Their attitude to the Bill as a whole has been determined and based upon misconceptions as to the extent of the problem. I believe that the Home Secretary will agree that when discussions on this Bill began on Second Reading and in Committee the assumption was that the problem was really non-existent.
    2366
    I hope that Members opposite will pardon me for referring once more, as was done in the Committee from time to time, to the much quoted paragraph 61 of the Leasehold Committee's Report. Both right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have on several occasions, first on Second Reading and secondly during the Committee stage, excused their inactivity in this matter on the ground that the problem did not exist or that, if it did, it was a problem so insignificant in character and size that no special legislation was required to deal with it.
    I hope that in the light of the new facts that have become available, the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend appreciate and admit that it is their duty to withdraw the Bill in its present form and to introduce other legislation based on the rent Clauses.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is traversing too wide a field at the moment. We are not dealing with the Bill, but with an Amendment to the Clause.
    Mr. Thomas: The substance to which I am referring is the same, although perhaps the terminology is different. The Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend have repeatedly said that the problem does not exist because the majority of the people, particularly in Wales, which is the storm centre of this matter, are occupying houses as ordinary tenants. That is what was said during the Committee stage and what is repeatedly being said by the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite.
    What are the facts? I want the Minister to apply his mind judicially in regard to this Clause because, by experience, he has allowed his mind to be influenced by the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has at his disposal the knowledge that the Majority Report of the leasehold Committee was based on the assumption that this problem did not exist. I cannot understand why the information which I disclosed partly during the Committee stage, and to which I will add this evening, was not before the Committee. The Minister has assumed that the Committee had all the available information before it, but obviously it did not.
    Let us take the problem as it now exists. I have been able to collect information from only 31 of the many

    2367
    local authorities in South Wales concerning people who occupy houses which they own, or, at least, which they believe they own. For all practical purposes, we always define them as owner-occupiers, but this Clause indicates to these people that they are not the owners. In South Wales alone, some 124,000 houses will be affected by this Clause. We have to consider what will be the effect on these owner-occupiers. What is their position going to be as compared with the other tenancies?
    8.15 p.m.
    As several of my hon. Friends have indicated, it is proposed on the expiration of their leases to convert these people into statutory tenants. Instead of paying £1 a year for living in their own house, which may be valued at £1,000, they will, as a result of this Clause and having regard to the facts which the county court judge will take into consideration, have to pay an annual rent of £60 or £70 a year, and that after they have borne the cost of the initial repairs to put their house into a good condition.
    Do not the right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that these people who by their labours, their sacrifice and their self-denial have become the owners of these properties, are entitled to better treatment? These properties are now to be taken away from them, and they may be charged a rent of £60 to £70 a year instead of the £1 a year which they have paid hitherto.
    Why does the Minister insist that the rent of these properties shall be determined by the existing market value? Why did he say in the speeches he made during the Committee stage that the county court judge would have to examine and assess the trends in the respective localities? The reason is that he assumes that the majority of the ground freeholds have been bought by what is termed the intermediary landlord. He regards it as fair and just that these properties should be valued on an open market value in order to compensate the ground landlord who bought them in expectation of early possession in order to get a fairly quick return on their investments.
    It is deliberately argued that the speculative type of landlord went about the community on the look out for properties
    2368
    that were early coming to the point of expiration so that he could get possession of them and cash in. Let us argue strictly commercially or legally that there may be some commercial or legal value in that way. But the majority of the landlords in South Wales are really the original landlords who owned the houses when they were first built. Therefore, is it fair that the ground landlords who were in possession 50, 60, 70 or 80 years ago, and in fact when the houses were built, should be entitled to have this type of free market rent assessed on their properties? They have not invested a penny piece. They are not in the position of the speculative type of landlord. The speculative type of landlord has probably invested £400 or £500 in certain properties, and it may be argued that in the circumstances he is entitled to a return. But we have no right to treat in the same terms the ground landlord who has never spent a penny on the properties that he is taking over.
    I ask the Minister to accept these figures which I have quoted, namely that 124,000 people in South Wales own their own properties. I can give typical examples of a few towns. Take Llanelly, a typical little Welsh town in an industrial valley. Out of a total of 8,911 houses in Llanelly, 4,900 are owned by the people who live in them. Take poor poverty-stricken Merthyr Tydvil as an example. Despite the history of that town, out of a total of 17,000 houses 4,000 are owned by the people who live in them. In Barry 33 per cent. of the people live in their own houses. Take salubrious Porthcawl on the coastline, where 60 per cent. of the people live in their own houses. In Newport, out of a total of 25,000 houses 8,000 are occupied by people who own them theoretically.
    I desire the Home Secretary and the Solicitor-General not to be so much influenced by the consideration of giving a fair return and doing justice to the speculative type of landlord who has come in and bought these properties before the expiration of the leases, but to give consideration to the people who are now being transformed by this Bill into statutory tenants. Having regard to their sacrifice and effort in the past, they should have some just reward and compensation, and the rents of their houses should not be left to the mercy of the

    2369
    trends of an open market, but should be subject to a more equitable assessment by the provisions of the law.
    The Solicitor-General: We have had a debate which I am sure is very familiar to those hon. Members who were present during the Committee stage. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) emphasised more than once that the things that he was saying had already been said over and over again. Listening to this debate, I was able to reflect on the greater facility, fluency and charm that the speeches had gained—I will not say by repetition—and I can only hope that my reply to those speeches will equally have improved.
    The point raised here is the question of the rent of the statutory tenancies under this Bill. The point has been used to develop the familiar arguments on leasehold enfranchisement, and I think that hon. Members in all quarters of the House are very familiar with both sides of that case. I do not want to say very much about that tonight, because I am sure that I should weary hon. Members opposite, but I should like to deal with one or two of the points which were made by hon. Members opposite.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend said that the ground lessees of these houses were morally right in regarding the houses as theirs. The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) referred to them as the owner-occupiers. We can agree or disagree about moral rights, but I would ask the House to bear in mind that by this Bill we are seeking to effect a change in the legal rights now held by ground lessees. Apart from the provisions of the Leasehold (Temporary Provisions) Act, the position is—and it must not be forgotten—that the ground lessee, whatever may be his moral rights—and we need not argue about that, because it does not bear upon the point—has no legal right to remain in possession on the date of the termination of his lease.
    Mr. Janner rose—
    The Solicitor-General: I would prefer not to give way at the moment. The hon. Gentleman can follow me if he wishes, or I will give way later on, but I am trying to put forward a logical
    2370
    argument and I shall be able to put it forward much more shortly if the hon. Gentleman does not interrupt.
    Mr. Janner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have much more to explain if I do not interrupt.
    The Solicitor-General: I shall be perfectly willing to give way later on. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly on these matters. Many hon. Members do on both sides of the House. There are different views on this matter, as there are on so many things.
    I am trying to bring the attention of the House back to the legal position under the law before the Leasehold (Temporary Provisions) Act was introduced. Whatever may be the moral rights, there can be no dispute that when the ground lease came to an end the ground lessee had no legal right to remain in possession. The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend seeks to attack this Bill. He called it a cruel mockery because under this Measure we are seeking to give to ground lessees a legal right to remain in possession.
    Mr. Janner: Nonsense.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense"—
    Mr. Janner: It is nonsense.
    The Solicitor-General: —and he is quite at liberty to think so, but if he applies his mind to this Bill I think he will find that it is nonsense on his part to say that there is no legal right.
    Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way now? Will he tell the House why he is harping on the question of legal rights when in another Bill which he is introducing he and the Government are stating that agreements can be superseded by imposing higher rentals even when the agreements exist for a lower rental? How can he use this argument now?
    The Solicitor-General: I can use this argument now, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I am using it if he will only listen. It may be a rather rare experience—
    Dr. H. Morgan: Do not be rude.
    The Solicitor-General: I am only saying that the position before the Leasehold (Temporary Provisions) Act was this, that the right of a ground lessee to remain in possession was entirely nonexistent. Under this Bill a legal right to remain in possession is given, and whether it is sufficient or not, we can disagree upon it, but I should not have thought that we would disagree about it. It is from that premise that our argument continues.
    8.30 p.m.
    There are two things the ground lessee is given. One is the legal right, and the other is that he is relieved—and maybe to a very considerable extent—of the burden of liability for repairs which normally rests on his shoulders at the end of the lease. This Bill takes a great deal of that burden away from him.
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was moving this Amendment, he referred not only to the rent, but to the accrued repairs as if a repair obligation imposed by this Bill was something in excess of the obligation resting upon the tenant under a ground lease. That, of course, is erroneous.
    Sir F. Soskice: No.
    The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he reads the speech which he delivered, will see that he did suggest it. I should be glad if I had misunderstood him, but I think what I have stated is correct. After talking about the high market rent, he went on to talk about the accrued repairs and what a heavy burden they imposed upon the tenant. But the burden for liability for repairs is there under the ground lease and this Bill gives some relief from that load, so that quite clearly the tenant is here getting two things, some degree of security—we may differ as to how extensive it is—and some degree of relief.
    The question raised by this Amendment is what rent should a tenant pay in future for premises which he has under permanent legislation no legal right to occupy after the date of the expiry of the tenancy. In Committee we have fully debated this question of what rent should be paid, and I need only say that we have carefully weighed the arguments that have been advanced, and we have come to the conclusion that the fair thing
    2372
    to do is to provide that the rent should be based upon the market value.
    Dr. Morgan: The market value of what, the house and the land or the house alone?
    The Solicitor-General: On the market value of the property that is being rented.
    We have taken as a test the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, to the extent that it provides a protection from the charging of an extortionate rent. There is a great deal of force in the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), because, if we consider what rent should be paid for this property, we have properly to contrast not the rent which the tenant was paying before his ground lease ended but the rent he would have to pay to secure other premises at the end of his ground lease.
    We believe the situation is best met by the provision of a fair market value coupled with the deprivation of the landlord's right to possession, coupled with giving a tenant relief from some part of the burden of liability for repairs, and that means depriving the landlord of some part of his right about repairs. Looking at it not only from the point of view of the interests of the tenant but also from the point of view of the landlord, we say that the fair provision is to provide that the rent should be as is stated in the Bill.
    Mr. Janner: I hope that the Solicitor-General will try to direct his mind to a few principles that prevail in law. If somebody enters into a contract under force and signs that contract, he is not liable, because he was a party to something over which he had not complete control at the time he entered into his agreement.
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take that simple proposition one step further with regard to what we are talking about, he will realise that a serious position arose at the time when these leaseholds were granted since, because people were compelled by circumstances, they were forced by landlords who had useless land to enter into a contract which was unconscionable. That is the position, and if we in Parliament have any duty imposed upon us at all,

    2373
    it is to protect the public against unconscionable actions of that kind. The fact that this has not been done for many years does not mean that, when we come to consider the situation now, we are not entitled to say it shall not happen again.
    It may be that it was not such an acute position before. However, I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary, who is also Minister for Welsh Affairs, to the fact that the position has become serious. Town after town is finding that its housing list and the homes of its people are becoming the possession not of the people who made the homes, who not only used bricks for building them but used a home influence in order to build the character of the people living in those homes. It is part and parcel of the existence of all towns, but particularly of towns in Wales, that the character of a place depends upon the fact that people utilise their homes for the purpose of having family lives. Consequently we have developed in these towns a type of character and life which will be destroyed entirely unless we protect it against the type of contract that was entered into 50 or 100 years ago—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): This may be important but it is well beyond the, scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. Janner: Naturally I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that we are dealing with the question of what rental is to be imposed when this Bill becomes law. We cannot do that in a vacuum. We have to consider what we are dealing with. At the present moment we are dealing, not with a rented house in the ordinary sense, but with a home in respect of which we are to charge a rental, and whether that is justified and reasonable, and whether we as the Parliament of this country, watching the interests of the nation as a whole, are entitled to continue a wrong which has been a serious one and which now becomes a concrete one.
    Therefore, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate the reason why this application for a different type of approach is being made. It is not our job as a Parliament to allow injustice to be done. If we are to attempt to give some kind of justice to
    2374
    a tenant who is a lessee holding a long lease, we cannot do it in this way. We must be reasonable and do something to show that that person's position is being considered and that the violence that was done to moral duty at the time that the lease was granted should not be perpetuated.
    Let us not make it impossible for that person to continue the tenancy and let us not say that we are granting security when this is a mere lip-service to security. The Government should give the security by enabling the tenants to continue in possession at a rental which would not be the rent charged if the original injustice had not been done to them. We are not asking for anything that is in the slightest out of the way. On the contrary, we are being very reasonable indeed in our request.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: I remind the House that Cornwall was once known as West Wales and that today we in Cornwall have very much in common with the Welsh people. One of the things we have most in common with them is the desire to own the freehold of our houses. If it is said that we are trying to change legal rights, that may be so, but what we are really trying to establish is what Celtic people believe to be moral rights in relation to property. David Lloyd George was swept into the House of Commons on a tide of indignation on this subject, and 40 years ago seven Liberal Members were returned for Cornwall on this issue. among others.
    The fact which has been overlooked hitherto is that in the last century in my county it was the practice for rich landlords to insist upon long tenancies when their tenant people wanted to build houses. In recent years they have been shamed into selling the freehold. If the Government place this Bill on the Statute Book it will be very difficult for the small man anywhere to buy the freehold of the property upon which he wants to build a house. For the party opposite to talk about a property-owning democracy is just so much humbug.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Weitzman: I know the Home Secretary is a person who would not be ready to allow an injustice to be suffered if he recognised that injustice.

    2375
    I would therefore like to add a few words by way of additional plea to what has been said by my hon. Friends.
    I listened very carefully to the argument of the Solicitor-General to see what justification there was for the Government opposing this Amendment. As I understood it. his objection was this. He said that legally the owner of a house under a lease paying ground rent has no legal right to remain and could be turned out at the end of the period. We know that that is true in law, but there is not a single person who does not recognise what an unfair position that is. Even the Government recognise the unfairness of it, because they have brought forward certain proposals, which we say are not sufficient.
    We start on the basis that this is not, in a way, a party matter, for hon. Members on all sides of the House recognise that the position of a lessee when his lease comes to an end is a deplorable one and that something has to be done to remedy the position. A great deal has been said about conditions in South Wales and other parts of Wales. I have no doubt that the problem is acute there, but it should not be thought that the problem is limited to Wales; the problem exists all over the country. In my constituency—a very important part, and probably the most important part of London—the Finsbury Park area contains hundreds of houses held by tenants on ground leases. Many of those tenants have approached me and many of them have leases which are coming to an end. They are faced with a terrible problem. What are they to do?
    A typical case is of a tenant who has invested his or her life savings in buying the ground lease of a house. The person pays £10 a year ground rent. Part of the house is sublet and, under the terms of this Bill—the Knightsbridge case having gone—the sub-tenant is allowed to remain there at a controlled rent of probably a few shillings a week. But what happens to the ground lessee? What is his position in the payment of rent? He used to pay £10 a year ground rent. Now, if he does not agree with his landlord on his rental, he has to go to the county court judge who must
    2376
    apply the provisions of Clause 9 (4) to fix the terms of the rent.
    If we examine the provisions of that Clause we find that it must inevitably mean that the county court judge has to fix the rent according to the market value and, indeed, according to the scarcity value. The result in the case of the house in my constituency would be that the tenant would have to pay a rental of £150 or £200 a year—15 or 20 times as much as he paid before. It does not stop there. Under the provisions of the Bill he has to pay for repairs.
    The Solicitor-General said that the tenant was liable under the terms of his lease for repairs to the house and therefore he ought to pay for dilapidations. We all know what monstrous provisions those terms are and how they mount up after a year. Just think what it means. At the end of the period, to put the premises, not into the state of repair required by the lease, but into the state required under the terms of this Bill, a tenant may well be faced with a bill of something in the region of £200, £300, £400, £500, or more. Those are the initial repairs. The tenant is then given the right to remain as a statutory controlled tenant in the premises in which he has lived for years paying £10 a year ground rent and he has to pay to his landlord £200 a year rent and £500 a year for initial repairs. What an enormous burden that must be to him.
    Hon. Members may reduce the figures a little if they wish, but I am certain that the figures which I have given are accurate in regard to the case I have mentioned. The security given to a tenant under those circumstances is undoubtedly illusory, Such a tenant may be a working man or a member of the middle classes, but whatever his income, how can he possibly afford to remain in the premises when paying that rent and also paying by instalments for the initial repairs? Surely this is a monstrous injustice.
    I suggest that this should not be a party matter. Everyone recognises that something must be done, and we are concerned about the measure of relief and what should be done in order to remedy what is a recognised grievance. I think that if the Home Secretary, with his ideas

    2377
    of justice, looks at the case in that way, whatever views he may have about landlords and their rights surely will realise that it is a monstrous injustice that under this Bill tenants are given a security which is not a security at all. When we compare the amount which a tenant has to pay with the amount his sub-tenant will have to pay it is obvious that an injustice is being done. I ask that the Government should look at the matter again and recognise that our pleas are well-founded and that this is a real case where something should be done to remedy an injustice.
    Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I do not wish to detain the House, but I think it right on a matter which all hon. Members on this side of the House regard as one of important principle, that one should voice one's plea even though it may take time. This is almost the last opportunity for hon. Members, at any rate in this place, to try to get the Government to change their minds.
    Having listened to the defence of the Solicitor-General, I still believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) was correct in describing the Clause as now drafted as a cruel mockery. It is a cruel mockery, because a great many people have been led to believe that, although they would not be allowed to purchase the freehold of a house which they themselves had built—or their relatives had built or bought—at any rate they would have the opportunity of staying on with the full protection of the Rent Acts. What they find, of course, is that the protection of the Rent Acts goes some way only so far as security is concerned, and even that is hedged about with a number of difficulties for them, and in favour of the landlord.
    Financial protection is completely denied to them under the terms of this Clause. There is no rent protection. In fact, this Clause is an addition to decontrol for a considerable number of houses, because once the statutory tenancy finishes there will be no form of rent control at all over these properties. I think that it would have been better and more honest if the Government had admitted that, instead of, as I think, misleading a great many people into the
    2378
    belief that they would be statutory tenants and fully protected.
    It will be a cruel injustice to tenants if they find that not only do they not get protection, but also that at the end of their lease they will be forced out of the premises by the burden of the economic rent and the other factors which will impose so much financial liability upon them. One must consider this Amendment and this Clause in connection with that dealing with repairs. The repairs, are to be paid for by the tenants under this Bill, which we consider is unfair and unjust. On top of the open market rent, there is to be the weekly or monthly instalments for repairs. This will be a crushing burden.
    Examples have been given. I give two further examples from a different area in London which shows what this double payment will mean. One, in Sutherland Avenue, Maida Vale, is an example where the ground rent had been £9 a year and it was converted on the end of the lease into a rack rent of £108 a year. The other was in Adelaide Road, Hampstead, where there was a ground rent of £4 per annum which was turned into a rack rent of £180 a year.
    The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said that we could not expect the rents to remain as they were when the agreements were originally entered into. If he had read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Committee upstairs, he would have noted that we did not suggest that. We said that there must be some advance. We suggested various alternative proposals which would have put some ceiling upon the rent. We suggested various ways limited in some instances to the rateable value and in some cases to a figure midway between what the ground rent was and what the standard rent is.
    On all these Amendments we were defeated on every occasion by the massed ranks of the Government supporters who came in from coffee outside the Committee room as soon as a Division was called. Having failed to get, in certain conditions, the right for leaseholders to purchase the property which they built or bought and have maintained, it was our duty to see that if they stay on they do so on conditions which do not make the offer of a statutory tenancy a mockery

    2379
    and a fraud. We must come to the conclusion that an open market rent plus the repairs payments which, inevitably, are bound to be heavy, means that many tenants will not be able to stay on under the provisions of the Bill, and that makes a mockery of that alleged protection. The ground landlord will obtain possession of the premises, when the statutory tenancy normally ends by death or after transfer in any event. But in the meantime these financial provisions make the so-called protection of the tenant quite illusory.
    Even at this stage I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have another look at the question. I am unable to understand the attitude of the Home Secretary. In Standing Committee he said:
    "… I think it would 'be wrong to deal the landlord a double blow"…
    The tenant is to be dealt a double blow; he is to pay an increased rent and also to pay for repairs—
    "to deprive him of the right of vacant possession and also limit the rent…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 16th March, 1954; c. 165.]
    Why on earth should the landlord have vacant possession? It is not his house. He never built it or bought it. I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) was talking about the Welshman's castle, he said that it was going back to the ground landlord. It is not going back to the ground landlord because the ground landlord has never had it, though he is to get it under the Bill.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it would be wrong to deprive the landlord of the right of vacant possession and also to limit the rent. The landlord will get possession. This Bill merely puts off the period of time before the ground landlord will get possession. Surely, in the national interest it would be worth while to place some limit upon the rent other than the open market condition. Otherwise, it is only too true to say that the description of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend is correct and that this portion of the Bill is a cruel mockery. We appeal to the Government to have another look at this injustice.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. Hughes: In his speech the Solicitor-General talked of legal rights and moral rights. He then suggested that we should leave the moral rights and went on to define the legal rights of the tenants. That is symptomatic of the attitude of the Government towards the entire leasehold problem. They disregard the rights of the tenant and have a careful regard for what they believe to be the rights and interests of the landlord. We look at this entire problem believing that the tenant has an incontrovertible moral right to the premises, and we cannot see it from any other angle.
    I hope the House will see fit to accept the Amendment, because the Clause, as it stands, shows a callous disregard for the interests of the ordinary tenant in Great Britain today. In passing, may I say that it is disgraceful that when we are discussing a matter of such importance to the nation the Government Benches should be so empty. Perhaps it is due not so much to indifference as to shame. I can only hope that the electorate will in due course be informed of the attitude of hon. Members opposite towards the Bill.
    From time to time the spokesmen of the Government have said that the Bill gives the tenant "a square deal." It does no such thing. All this talk about giving security of tenure to the tenant is bluff. The security of tenure given by the Bill is tenuous and emasculated and a complete sham.
    For example, the provisions about rents, which we seek to improve through this Amendment, are unconscionably harsh upon the tenant. Take an ordinary street of houses. The houses on one side may be subject to the Rent Acts, the tenants paying anything from 10s. to 15s. per week, while the houses on the other side may be subject to the provisions of this Bill, the tenants paying four, five, six or even 10 times as much as the other tenants. This Clause will create a new category of rents. We already have the houses which are subject to the Rent Acts. We shall now have the houses which are subject to this Bill, upon which a far higher rent will be levied.
    There is a great deal of talk about wage restraint these days. We have looked at the rent question from the position of the tenant and said that the rent will probably be exorbitant. Let us

    2381
    look at it from the standpoint of the landlord. What will the landlord get out of it? What will big, inhuman, combines like the Western Ground Rents get out of it? In Committee I cited a case brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). It concerned 1,730 houses at Pembroke Dock owned by a landlord named Sir Thomas Meyrick. My information is that the original income from the houses, on the basis of a ground rent of £3, was £5,190 per annum. Some years ago the ground rent was raised to about £20 per house, which brought this man's income to £34,000 per annum. What will be the position of that particular landlord under the Bill when it becomes law?
    My hon. Friend has gone into this matter very carefully, and, as I understand it, the position will be this. This landlord will have his income from these houses increased from £34,000 per annum to £100,000 per annum. This is only one case, and yet the Solicitor-General talks about legal definitions, disregarding moral rights, and this at a period when we are supposed to be passing through a serious economic crisis and when trade unions and workers are being asked to practise restraint in relation to wages. Yet the Government can put through the House of Commons a Bill by means of which one individual will have his income from these houses raised from £34,000 to £100,000 per annum. Is this the way to reduce the cost of living?
    This is really a serious situation. This is not an ordinary minor issue; it is a national issue with which we are dealing. I appeal to the Home Secretary, who is a Minister of the highest integrity, even at this late stage of the Bill's progress to reconsider the matter, because unless he does so these provisions, particularly with regard to rents, will create further economic instability for the ordinary people of this country.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The House must be fully aware by now of the very great importance which we attach to this Amendment. To us it is one of the most important, if not the most important, now that others have been ruled out of order, that we have on the Order Paper. I do not know whether it is any use my adding my voice to what has already been said so eloquently by so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side, but I,
    2382
    like them, find it very difficult to understand the attitude of the Home Secretary.
    In many directions we have a great admiration for him, and we realise that he is a Minister of the very highest integrity. I cannot help feeling that, as speaker after speaker from this side of the House put the case for this Amendment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have felt very unhappy. No doubt, he may feel himself to be the prisoner of his own party's policy, but I should like to think that, for once in a way, he would rise above the views of the ordinary back benchers on the other side and do something for so many hundreds of thousands of people who will undoubtedly suffer if this Bill becomes an Act as it is now worded.
    The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who was the only hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House, took the view that this Bill did something for the leaseholder whose lease was coming to an end, but no one has denied that fact. What we on this side of the House say is that a very large number of them, and probably a majority of them, will find that the so-called benefit coming to them from this Bill will be largely illusory. The whole core of the problem from their point of view is what rent they will be called upon to pay when their leases come to an end.
    It is all very well to say that in this Bill we give the residential tenants under Part I security of tenure, but that security is for many completely illusory unless such tenants are financially able to stay on in the house which either they themselves or, more likely, their forebears built, and which they in all likelihood have improved by putting in electricity and probably a bathroom as well. These improvements will be counted by the county court judge, not in their favour in order to reduce the rent, but against them in order to put it up. That is quite wrong. The procedures which lay down how the county court judge is to come to his decision about the rent to be charged are unfair and bear extremely heavily on the tenant.
    Therefore, we beg the Home Secretary to realise that it is no use passing this Bill unless it effects what it sets out to do. I believe that in his heart he wants to help those people who, under the present unjust leasehold system, are likely

    2383
    to lose their property. I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to give them security of tenure. We do not suggest that the tenants should stay on at the present ground rent. There should obviously be some increase, but the market value basis suggested here, plus an additional amount for repairs, will make it impossible for very many hundreds of tenants to stay on in houses which up till now they have thought were theirs. Therefore, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said that Part I of the Bill was a cruel mockery, he said what was true.
    At this late stage we ask the Home Secretary to get up and say that in the drafting of the provisions the Government have gone much too far. The Bill will not help people to remain on in properties in which they have spent their lives and hope to finish their days. Quite the reverse. Let him say that the provisions which fix the rent will be made to accord more with the facts of the situation. Clause 9 lays down that not only have various considerations to be taken into account in fixing the rent but that the county court judge shall also fix the rent irrespective of the personal circumstances
    of the parties. That is a direct invitation to him not to take account of the surrounding circumstances which the Solicitor-General, and on occasion even the Home Secretary himself, have told us will be taken into consideration.
    I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends expect, in view of the weight of evidence that has been placed before the House, that the Home Secretary will not sit there silently on the Government Front Bench, as he has been sitting there most of the evening, but that he will get up and, in spite of the policy of his party, will say that what he has heard has convinced him that the evidence is overwhelming that something should be done to alter these provisions in the Bill so that those who are now in possession of premises and hope to continue to live there shall find that the rents which the county court fixes shall be such as they can afford. I appeal, therefore, to the Home Secretary, for unless we get an assurance from him, we shall have to press this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 208: Noes, 194.

    Division No. 154.]

    AYES

    [9.15 p.m

    Aitken, W. T.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hay, John

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Heath, Edward

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hope, Lord John

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Birch, Nigel

    Duthie, W. S.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Black, C. W.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Braine, B. R.

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Fort, R.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Foster, John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Glover, D.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Godber, J. B.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Gough, C. F. H.

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

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gower, H. R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Channon, H.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lindsay, Martin

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Cole, Norman

    Grimstan, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Storey, S.

    McCallum, Major D.

    Osborne, C.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Page, R. G

    Studholme, H. G.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Summers, G. S.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Pitt, Miss E. M

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Teeling, W.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Redmayne, M.

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

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Tilney, John

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Turton, R. H.

    Marples, A. E.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Maude, Angus

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

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

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Shepherd, William

    Wellwood, W.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Neave, Airey

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wills, G.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

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

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Vosper and Mr. Kaberry

    NOES

    Adams, Richard

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe).

    Follick, M.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Foot, M. M.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Baird, J.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Bartley, P.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Logan, D. G.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Bence, C. R.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Grey, C. F.

    McLeavy, F.

    Benson, G.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Beswick, F.

    Grimond, J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hannan, W.

    Mason, Roy

    Boardman, H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H

    Messer, Sir F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Monslow, W.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hastings, S.

    Moody, A. S.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

    Morley, R.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

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

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holman, P.

    Mort, D. L.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Holmes, Horace

    Moyle, A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Nally, W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Orbach, M.

    Clunie, J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, T.

    Coldrick, W.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Padley, W. E.

    Collick, P. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Paget, R. T.

    Cove, W. G.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Janner, B.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Dairies, P.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pannell, Charles

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Parker, J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Paton, J.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pearl, T. F.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, G.

    Edelman, M.

    Kenyon, C.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Flenburgh, W.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Rankin, John

    Sparks, J. A.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Reeves, J.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Ross, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Willey, F. T.

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Short, E. W.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

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

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thornton, E.

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

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willis, E. G.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Yates, V. F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Weitzmann, D.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    West, D. G.

    Amendment made: In page 5, line 26, at end, insert:
    (2) The said Acts shall not apply as aforesaid, if at the end of the period of two months after the service of the landlord's notice the qualifying condition was not fulfilled as respects the tenancy, unless the tenant has elected to retain possession.—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 7.—(SETTLEMENT OF TERMS OF STATUTORY TENANCY.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that section one of the Act of 1949 (which enables standard rents to be varied by a tribunal in certain circumstances) does not apply to the standard rent of the dwelling-house during the period of the statutory tenancy."
    This is a very small point. The Amendment is only for clarification. It represents no change of policy. I must confess that when the matter was raised in Committee I said, or certainly one of us said, that the Amendment was unnecessary. On further examination we believe that it is desirable to put the matter without doubt. Since the standard rent under Part I is, in the absence of agreement, determinable by the court, it is unnecessary and undesirable for it to be subject to the jurisdiction of the rent tribunal as well. We always took that view. We thought we had expressed it, but these words put it beyond doubt.
    Mr. Janner: I should like an explanation of this. It is not quite as simple as it may appear on the surface. In the event of a landlord and tenant agreeing upon a rent, is the Home Secretary going to leave the tribunal with power to vary the rental and make it a reasonable one? That is what obtains at present under the Rent Acts, and I gather that the policy of the Government is to bring the
    2388
    whole of these houses within the provisions of the Rent Acts.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Agreement by the parties is one method of settling the rent, and, if they do that, the last thing I want is to encourage anyone to go to a court.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 20, leave out from "shall," to "cease," in line 21.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out from "if," to the second "the," in line 22. and to insert:
    "by the beginning of the period of two months ending with the date of termination specified in."
    I suggest that we consider with this Amendment my proposed Amendments to page 6, line 37, and to page 7, line 18.
    We have discussed the question of the new timing arrangements and these are part of them, although they are connected with a special point. After the discussion we have had and the vote we have taken, I do not think that the House will want me to go into it again, but I am at the disposal of the House if special points are raised.
    Sir F. Soskice: Personally, I think the Home Secretary ought to tell us what the extra point here is. Admittedly the previous Amendment has been carried, and this being, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, consequential to the previous Amendment, we should ordinarily be disposed to accept it as merely consequential. However, if there is a further point we think we ought to know what the further point is before we can be expected to agree.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad to explain. I was not seeking to avoid giving an explanation, but, as I indicated, trying only to suit the convenience of the House. The substantive one of the three Amendments meets the difficulty raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Committee, when they indicated that they wanted to allow more time for negotiations by the parties, that is to allow the landlord to apply to the court at a later date.
    9.30 p.m.
    One of the speeches which I had in mind was that of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) dealing with the Amendment in which he suggested a period of six months instead of four months. The Government Amendment meets the point in this way: the landlord will be able to apply to the court up to two months before the date of termination specified in his notice. Where he is giving the minimum of six months' notice, the Amendment will make no difference because four months after the service of the notice is the same in point of time as two months before the termination. If he gives a longer notice then the period during which he can go to the court and during which negotiations can be conducted is correspondingly lengthened.
    We feel that it is desirable to make the landlord apply at least two months before the date of termination in order that in the ordinary case the county court can settle the matter before that date. We feel that this would be an improvement. It would not be achieved by the Opposition's Amendments, put forward in Committee, suggesting that the landlord should give only two months' notice. The first two of these Amendments are merely incidental to it.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Government have met the point which I put forward in Committee. Although the Amendments are not in the form which I proposed, they meet the point which I had in mind and have the same objective.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out paragraph (c).
    Mr. Speaker: Would it be convenient for the hon. Member to take both his Amendments together?
    Mr. Skeffington: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was about to suggest that. The second Amendment proposes to leave out paragraph (d).
    The point of the Amendments is this: in the landlord's notice which proposes a statutory tenancy, four matters are listed upon which it is enacted that there must be agreement between tenant and landlord, otherwise the notice will be ineffective. Paragraph (c) specifies the initial repairs, as defined later in the Bill—whether there are any, and, if so, what they are—which have to be carried out to the dwelling house which is subject to the notice. Paragraph (d) deals with repairs as modified by the provision which follows.
    We desire to delete these two paragraphs on two grounds. The first is the substantial point that if our later Amendments on repairs generally were called and carried it would be consequential that there should be no reference to them here. My hon. Friends in Committee and on Second Reading made their position very clear about the additional unfair financial burden which they think will be placed upon the new statutory tenant in the matter of repairs to the house which has been his but which, when he becomes a statutory tenant, is no longer his.
    If, despite the examples of acute hardship which we have given and the difficult economic consequences which are placed upon the tenant when he is asked to pay for the initial repairs plus the open market rate, the House decides to fix this burden upon the tenant's shoulders, we suggst that the subject matter of repairs should still not come in this landlord's notice. For on thing, it will make the notice a good deal more complicated and of great length. The average tenant in any case, when notices of this kind are furnished, will probably be upset and certainly greatly worried that the conditions under which he has lived in his home hitherto are about to be completely changed.
    It is suggested that this matter should be the subject of separate negotiations at a much later stage. It would be very much better for the landlord and tenant to meet and discuss this matter unofficially before it is the subject matter of

    2391
    any notice. Otherwise he may feel forced to agree rather than risk being taken to court. In any event, he wants to be free to argue about the extent of the repairs really necessary. For all these reasons, we feel it would be logical and fair, in working out this part of the Bill, if the matters the subject of paragraphs (c) and (d) were not incorporated in the notice.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think it would be convenient if I said a word now. I shall try to make my words on the general question of repairs, which it is difficult to keep out, as short as possible, but it is a matter we have got to discuss. I find some difficulty in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) about repairs being left out of the notice. Whatever view we have ultimately come to, we have all felt that the dilapidations problem is one of the most difficult which arises at this time. We have been trying, in approaching it in our different ways, to see what is the fair thing to do.
    The difference between us is the difference of emphasis on the general position of the tenant. I have listened to practically every speech today except for two short absences, and I see, and I have always felt tremendously impressed by, the arguments about family occupation for, say, 100 years where it has gone through two or three generations.
    On the other hand, I had to bear in mind the case where the landlord lessor has bought the premises in the expectation of vacant possession and has paid a price that reflected the then existing potentialities of the selling price. I have also been impressed by the corollary to that, of the tenant who has bought the fag end of a lease for a small amount, which was small because of the uncertainty at the end of the lease. That is the difficulty, and I can understand the different emphasis given by different hon. Members, and when I differ from them I differ with regret.
    With that background, when one comes to the question of repairs one has to try to hold the balance. Again, of course, there is a great difference between individual Members as well as between the sides of the House on that point. It is important to remember not only the change in the repairing liabilities but one
    2392
    other point which I should like to make, because it is useful that people should remember it.
    One improvement in the position of the tenant is that he cannot be turned out for breach of repairing obligations under his ground lease. However serious his failure to repair, he is entitled to remain as a statutory tenant when the ground lease comes to an end. Moreover, he is protected during the term of the ground lease because of Clause 16 and the limitation on enforcement by the landlord.
    I emphasise that because I was impressed by what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hayes and Harlington said in moving this Amendment, and by what has been said before about the fear in which people are put. I want us to make this clear. This is much more important than a party advantage. We have had, and shall have, many opportunities for urging different points of view. I am not asking for an absence of criticism, but I want it to go out, and I want as many people as possible to realise, that now they cannot be turned out for a breach of repairing obligations. And it is only fair to say that in this respect the Bill goes a good deal further than the majority of the Leasehold Committee.
    The second point, which really comes to grips with the Amendment, is that the liability of the tenant for repairs under the ground lease is replaced by the provisions for initial repairs. The House will remember that the position which still obtains is that, in regard to initial repairs, the tenant cannot be asked to pay more than is necessary to bring the house into good repair according to the definition. We left it that it might be less because the landlord might not want to spend so much: the amount can be lower than the maximum where the parties agree. Apart from that agreement, it is good repair subject to the court saying what is good repair according to the general conditions, including the changing conditions of the locality. Again I think it is right that in the majority of cases that would be considerably lower than the standard of repairs under the ground lease.
    That is the position and, in view of that, it seems right that it should be put into the notice and brought before the tenants in the way we have suggested in

    2393
    the Bill. I know that hon. and right hon. Members opposite think that we have not gone far enough, but it is a considerable advance. It removes a great deal of the fear of which we have heard so many descriptions in the course of the Bill. Therefore I hope that, on reflection, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will leave the Clause in its present form, saying that while it is not all they want, it is an advance and an improvement of the position of the tenant. It is a good thing that should be stated, that the tenant should realise it, and should then make up his mind on the lines I have suggested.
    9.45 p.m.
    Sir F. Soskice: Once again I find the Home Secretary's answer neither convincing nor satisfactory and I will try to put succinctly my reasons for expressing that opinion. It seems to me that these two Amendments raise a short specific point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has explained. It is that Clause 7 (2) says that the landlord's notice, in effect, is to come to an end unless certain things have been agreed, including this matter of accrued repairs. The only way in which he can stop it becoming ineffective is by going to court.
    Let us consider the position of a tenant whose long lease is coming to an end. The landlord says, "You must agree as to these matters which are set out in paragraphs (c) and (d). If you do not, I shall have to take you to court, and in a short space of time. Are you going to make up your mind now or do you want to be taken to court?" It does not require very much imagination to picture the frame of mind of an ordinary tenant who is threatened with that alternative.
    Suppose that the landlord is of a grasping nature, the tenant will either agree to more than he ought to agree in order to avoid proceedings before the court or, supposing he seeks to stand out for what he regards as his due right, he will be taken to court. All that my hon. Friend's Amendment seeks to do is to say that the tenant should not be confronted any more than is inevitable with that alternative and that we should leave out of the Clause those paragraphs dealing with matters which may be difficult to get fixed up to the satisfaction of both parties
    2394
    within four months, thereby lessening the risk of the tenant being dragged to court or agreeing to more than he should agree to.
    I have not heard from the Home Secretary any answer to that. If these things are left out of the category of things to be agreed upon, they can be decided upon later. Either they can be agreed upon or, if agreement becomes impossible, the court can decide the matter later. Why put these things in the forefront, with the result that in many cases the tenant will be forced morally into agreeing to a greater burden than he should carry or to being taken prematurely to court?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am inquiring quite sincerely on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman bases the advantage of making two bites at the cherry here. I have not got his argument on the point.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The provisions of subsection (2) state that a landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy shall cease to have effect if, before the expiration of four months from the giving of the notice, certain things have not been agreed upon and, if those things have not been agreed upon, he has failed to take the tenant to court.
    If we want to prevent the tenant from being at risk of an overbearing, grasping landlord, those things to be agreed upon obviously should be as few as possible. If one draws up a list of things that must be agreed upon, the tenant who does not want to go to court will do his best to agree and will be very tempted, and indeed will be under very strong pressure, to agree to a burden which is higher than that which he should carry. That is the short point of the Amendment, which seems to me to be unanswerable.
    The Home Secretary, with the permission of the Chair, dealt with the rather wider scope of the accrued repayments. Following in his footsteps, I should like to put shortly what seems to us the answer to what he said on a matter which again is of very great importance in the structure of the Bill. I do not like to deal with theoretical possibilities. Let us take a practical case.

    2395
    Take the case, which I assumed in an earlier speech, of a tenant, perhaps getting on in years, who has lived in a house with a ground rent of £5 a year and whose long lease is coming to an end. He will be called upon, and according to the Solicitor-General rightly called upon, to pay a market rent. That market rent, let us assume, is £2 a week for that house in which he lived on a ground rent of £5 a year. He has to pay £2 a week and it is an old property, 100 years or 70 years old, which may easily require £50, £70, £100 or £150 to be spent on repairs. They may well be repairs which under the terms of some obscure, ancient lease made decades ago devolved on the tenant. Very likely he did not know of it, or, if he did, he has forgotten—or perhaps his grandfather knew of it.
    He has to pay £150. The Home Secretary says that it is all right, he has security of tenure because Clause 16 prevents the landlord from doing much about it. But Clause 16 does not prevent the landlord from saying to the tenant, "If you do not pay the £100 the court has fixed, I will sue you and get judgment for that £100." The landlord may get that judgment executed and the tenant will not be able to pay the £2 per week market rent which, ex hypothesi, he has been ordered to pay by the county court. Under the terms of the statutory tenancy he can be turned out if he does not pay the £2 per week market rent.
    I have said before and I say again—I do not think anything I have said has been displaced by anything said by the Home Secretary—that the security of tenure is illusory. The tenant has to pay much more than he can afford and his efforts to pay the rent may be impeded because there is a judgment against him for the £100 for accrued repairs. If he does not pay the rent he will be turned out because, under the Rent Restrictions Acts, the landlord can get an order because of the non-payment of rent. If he does not succeed in maintaining the payments it will he a final order and in due
    course out he will go. I am afraid that I have transgressed the rules of order but I thought that was with your implied permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because the Home Secretary was allowed to deal with this point, and perhaps we have your permission to raise the wider issue of accrued repairs.
    Two matters arise on the Amendment: first, the point made by my hon. Friend who moved it and to which we have had no answer that seemed adequate to me; secondly, on the wider issue, we put it with all the emphasis of which we are capable on this side of the House, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to help tenants in the situation I have described, he cannot consistently in logic leave them in the sort of situation I have described, and that situation will recur over and over again. We shall constantly have cases of tenants living in an old house with a ground rent being suddenly confronted with a financial burden which they cannot conceivably meet.
    The inevitable consequence of failure to carry that burden must be that in due course the tenant will be evicted, and therefore the security which the Bill purports to offer him is—as I have said and must go on repeating because it is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of this Bill—a purely illusory security. That is what we object to. The advice I give to my hon. Friends in these circumstances is that we should mark the view I have put forward and which has been put forward by my hon. Friends in similar terms by registering in it the Division Lobby. I hope that they will agree, because it seems to me that this again is one of the fundamental points about which we have received neither a satisfactory proposal nor any satisfactory explanation, or any defence from the Home Secretary.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes. 185.

    Division No. 155.]

    AYES

    [9.55 p.m

    Aitken, W. T.

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

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Birch, Nigel

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Bishop, F. P.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Black, C. W

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornsby-Smith., Miss M. P.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Horobin, I. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridge)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J

    Redmayne, M.

    Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Channon, H.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cole, Norman

    Kerr, H. W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Colegate, W. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

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

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    Linstead, Sir H. N

    Shepherd, William

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    McCallum, Major D.

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Storey, S.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Studholme, H. G.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Summers, G. S.

    Finlay, Graeme

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Ford, Mrs. Patricia

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Teeling, W.

    Fort, R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Foster, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Marples, A. E.

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

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Tilney, John

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Maude, Angus

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Glover, D.

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Godber, J. B.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Turton, R. H.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Gower, H. R.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J K

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Vosper, D. F.

    Grimond, J.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Neave, Airey

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Noble, Comdr, A. H. P

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wellwood, W.

    Harvey Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)

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

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Heath, Edward

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

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

    Wills, G.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Osborne, C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Page, R. G.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Hope, Lord John

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES: Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Kaberry

    NOES

    Adams, Richard

    Brockway, A. F.

    Deer, G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Edelman, M.

    Baird, J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Bartley, P.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Bence, C. R.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Champion, A. J.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Beswick, F.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Follick, M.

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

    Clunnie, J.

    Foot, M. M.

    Blackburn, F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Collick, P. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Daines, P.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Bowden, H. W.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grey, C. F.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Davies Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hale, Leslie

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Messer, Sir F.

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

    Hannan, W.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Monslow, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Hastings, S.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morley, R.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Holman, P.

    Mort, D. L.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Holmes, Horace

    Moyle, A.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Nally, W.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Orbach, M.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert(Morpeth)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Padley, W. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Janner, B.

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

    Thomson, George(Dundee, E.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Thornton, E.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Pannell, Charles

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Parker, J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Jones Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Paton, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Peart, T. F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Keenan, W.

    Popplewell, E.

    West, D. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Porter, G.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rankin, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Reeves, J.

    Willey, F. T.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Rhodes, H.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Logan, D. G.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ross, William

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    McLeavy, F.

    Royle, C.

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

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Willis, E. G.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Yates, V. F.

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

    Short, E. W.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Mason, Roy

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Amendments made: In page 6, line 37, leave out from "made," to "for," in line 38, and insert:
    "by the beginning of the said period of two months."
    In line 39, at end, insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not have effect if at the end of the period of two months after the service of the landlord's notice the qualifying condition was not fulfilled as respects the tenancy unless the tenant has elected to retain possession.
    In page 7, line 3, leave out from "that," to end of line.
    In line 5, leave out "paragraph (b) of."
    In line 18, leave out from "made," to end of line 21, and insert:
    "earlier than two months after the giving of the landlord's notice proposing a statutory tenancy, so however that if the tenant has elected to retain possession it may be made at a time not earlier than one month after the giving of the notice;
    (b) shall not be made later than two months before the date of termination specified in the notice."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

    Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REPAIRS DURING PERIOD OF STATUTORY TENANCY.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, to leave out from the beginning, to "are," and to insert:
    "and any of the initial repairs."
    It would be convenient to consider at the same time the Amendment in page 7, line 41, to leave out "carrying them out," and to insert:
    "ascertaining what repairs are required as aforesaid and in carrying out such of the initial repairs as are so required."
    and the Amendment in page 8, line 17, at the end, to insert:
    "and, where there are any initial repairs so required, the amount to be included in the payment for accrued tenant's repairs in respect of the cost incurred by the landlord in ascertaining what initial repairs are so required."
    The three Amendments meet a point raised during the Committee stage by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). I promised to meet the substance of his Amendment, although I

    2401
    could not accept the form in which it was placed before the Committee. The purpose of the Amendments is to include survey fees in the payment for initial repairs.
    Sir F. Soskice: I am sure that the Home Secretary will realise not only from what I but many of my hon. Friends have repeatedly said that we shall not be very pleased with his Amendments. I suppose that the survey fees for the purpose of ascertaining what repairs are due to be carried out in the case, for example, of one of the old houses which I have mentioned might be anything from 15 to 20 guineas, if not more. The Home Secretary shakes his head. I do not know for what figure he thinks the surveyor would carry out the survey on property of that sort. Surveyors have to be paid, and, naturally, they want reasonable remuneration for their services.
    His Amendments seek to put the fees as an extra burden upon the shoulders of the tenants. If the tenant had not already got very heavy burdens to bear, perhaps there would be a case for saying that, as between the landlord and the tenant, that necessary expense, if the repairs are repairs which should have been borne by the tenant, should at any rate be partly shouldered by the tenant as well as by the landlord.
    However, as I have said, our main objection to this part of the Bill is that in its practical application it will confront tenant after tenant with the prospect of bankruptcy or eviction or both. It seems to me that in these circumstances it is bordering on the vicious to seek to add to the tenant's burden the extra fees payable in order to ascertain the amounts of the repairs to be carried out.
    After all, what will be the practical situation. It may be that many landlords will have done absolutely nothing about it, and probably have not even carried out the repairs which they them. selves should have carried out, nor called upon the tenant to comply strictly with the provisions of a repairing covenant. When the tenancy or the long lease comes to an end, the landlord will look around to see what is his situation with regard to these particular premises, and, no doubt, many landlords will be delighted to see that there is an extra burden which they can put upon the tenant beyond the burden of the accrued
    2402
    repairs and the market rent, which the tenant has to pay. These landlords will seek to exact the cost of the surveyor's fee if the Bill enables them to do so, and landlords who have a tinge of unscrupulousness in their make-up will think that the burden of the surveyor's fee is just another turn of the screw to be put upon the tenant.
    It may be said that, if the Government have already plunged as far as that in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, this is just another drop in the ocean with which they are overwhelming the tenant, and, therefore, it could be said that there is no violent and deep principle involved in it. They have gone so far and it perhaps does not make any serious difference if they go a bit further in their campaign against the tenant, but I am quite sure that the Home Secretary will realise that, when he assented to this proposal, he was doing something which would please no person who is well disposed to this very large number of tenants who will have this weight put upon their shoulders by this Measure.
    Sir Patrick Spens: I want to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for this Amendment. I take an entirely different view about this matter from that taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice). I think that the position of the tenant and the ordinary lay landlord, who will have to interpret this Act, will probably be extremely miserable unless a surveyor is brought in to assist the lay landlord. The big landlords have their own expert advisers; it means nothing to them, and the tenants will not be charged anything on that account. The small lay landlord who has taken up a repairing covenant under a long lease will bring in a surveyor of good standing, who has the job of interpreting—and who can interpret—the provisions of this Bill, and who will do as much to restrain the landlords from making exorbitant demands on the tenant as anyone else. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite speaks as if every landlord and surveyor is not to be trusted. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman tempts me into saying that—
    Sir F. Soskice: I did not say that all landlords were unscrupulous or that all surveyors were, and the right hon. and

    2403
    learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not do so. I have never done so, and I do not believe it to be so. What I said, as I am sure he will agree if he will calm himself, was that there are some landlords who are unscrupulous, just as there are some tenants who are. It is incumbent upon a Government which really means to do justice as between landlord and tenant not to go out of its way to put the scrupulous tenant at the mercy of such unscrupulous landlords as there may be.
    10.15 p.m.
    Sir P. Spens: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that the expert advice of a surveyor is as valuable as the expert advice of the profession to which both he and I belong. They both have standards of honesty and honour which have to be kept up, and he ought to know that bringing in a surveyor in cases like this is likely to be of benefit to the tenant. Therefore, I approach this matter from a different point of view from that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I asked for this provision because I know that the big landlords have their own surveyors who will deal with all these things in accordance with the provisions of the Bill as we pass it. It will cost the tenant absolutely nothing. It is for the lay landlord who does not know and cannot interpret the Bill and who wants extra advice that the Amendment has been put forward. It is in the interests of the tenant and not of the landlord that I want the honourable profession of the surveyor brought in to interpret these provisions, and I am certain that it will be very much in the interests of the tenant in most cases that this honourable and expert advice should be given.
    Mr. Hale: I thought that the Home Secretary would not have reason to thank his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) for his assistance by the time he sat down. We are, however, very grateful, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us useful information, including information about where the Amendment came from. It apparently came from the surveyors' association, at the request of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington. South.
    2404
    He said that the surveyors' profession was an honourable one. So it is, but so is the profession of the lawyers and that of the doctors, but when a surveyor or a doctor goes into the witness box to give expert evidence he invariably gives evidence for the side which has called him. Those of us who have been in workmen's compensation cases will agree with me that we always know what the employer's doctor or the workman's is going to say before he goes to give evidence. If I did not know that the workman's doctor was giving evidence for the workman, I should get another examination.
    I would ask the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South whether he has seen the sort of schedule of dilapidations that surveyors can produce, and whether he thinks that it is an impartial document. Is he not aware that this system has been practised for well over 100 years and that many complaints have been made about it? Does he not agree that the surveyor often makes a list of demands for repairs and replacements that would turn a hovel into a palace—they are so expensive? Has it not always been necessary to employ another surveyor?
    What is the suggestion in this case? That a small additional burden should be put on the camel's back of the tenant. We should see what this burden means. As I read the Clause, it covers not only the items that the surveyor would require to be done but the surveyor's seeing that it is all done. If I am right, we reach the situation in which the landlord has given a notice which is of no effect. The tenant has said, "I want to continue in occupation, if I can do so at a reasonable figure." The landlord and tenant have failed to agree. The surveyor goes in as an agent of the landlord.
    I would ask the House to remember that we have heard for years the argument in this matter of landlord and tenant that the landlord renders a useful service in preserving property because of his expert knowledge and experience and his lifelong devotion to the task of being a landlord. The landlord is helping to keep the property in condition because he says what repairs have to be done. He brings in his expert and his inherited knowledge of a thousand generations of landlords. It may be now only 30 or 40 generations, because the assistant

    2405
    editor of Debrett has rather exposed this theory about indigenous Peers.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South now tells us that the poor wretched landlord does not know anything about houses, and has to ask his surveyor. How can he talk about repairs and say, "The mantelpiece is in a bad condition. You must put in a new mantelpiece," or "The decorations are bad and need replacement?" How can the landlord do all that without expert advice? A company director needs advice. Everybody knows that a company director has to have accountants and solicitors, and that he takes their advice. That is the system. I have seen it at work.
    The landlord says to the tenant, "We cannot agree, so I shall fetch in my surveyor." The surveyor serves a schedule of dilapidations on the tenant and says, "These are what we think are important to do, and if you are not satisfied you must go to the county court judge". The poor wretched tenant is just beginning to get a rough idea what this Bill means, but he already has a better idea than most of us have in this House. I do not think that any of us understand the Bill but it is beginning to develop in our minds that there are a few snags about it.
    The poor wretched tenant seeks legal advice. The solicitor says, "I have a good common law clerk, I will get him to read the Act." He comes back and tells the tenant, "This is really a question of repairs. How can I advise you about a new mantelpiece? You must have a surveyor."
    Of course he must have a surveyor. What is the good of going to the county court with expert evidence on the one side and not on the other? It is no use a solicitor saying to the county court judge, "My client does not think that the room wants doing." The county court judge says, "There may be much in that, but I have a surveyor's expert evidence and it has been said that this should be done."
    There we are. The poor tenant has to get a surveyor—another 15 guineas gone. But that 15 guineas is only for going into the house, typing out a list and making a report. There is no agreement. The surveyor to the landlord gives a figure of
    2406
    £300 and the surveyor to the tenant says that it should be £100. We go to court, and there is another 10 guineas a time to get the surveyor to the court.
    And I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say to his profession that if they want to serve the community it would not be a bad idea if they laid down a scale of charges for appearing in court. Not so long ago I was asked by an expert witness—a specialist—for a fee of 200 guineas. But let us be reasonable and call it 10 guineas£I want to put the case with moderation. We now have a figure of 25 guineas aside.
    Then the unhappy county court judge says, "What can I do? There is a surveyor on each side, and one says one thing and the other another. I shall have to call in an expert surveyor to advise me." One knows that this has happened. Every time one had a complicated workmen's compensation case the colliery doctor said one thing, the miners' doctor another, and the judge said he must have an assessor. That is 20 guineas, of course, because the surveyor has to be paid as a county court assessor, so now we are up to about 70 guineas. I am told that it is 80 guineas, which shows I am being moderate and not overstating the case.
    By this time the tenant is asking the pawnbroker what he can pawn. By now the tenant really does not know what he is to do. This is the whole accumulated series of burden's. The poor wretched man has lived in the house for six months without knowing what his obligations are or what will happen. At the end of it all the county court judge, trying his best to do what is reasonable, will have to saddle the tenant with a burden of several hundred pounds in costs, surveyors' fees, repairs—landlord's repairs which the landlord claims he had to do because the tenant could not—and arrears of rent.
    We are now adding to that. We are entitled on Report to wonder how this came about because you, Mr. Speaker, said—and I ventured to express, with some respect, some dubiety about your Ruling at the time, but having thought it over I no longer contest it—that the object of the further consideration stage was to tidy up. Certainly one expected the

    2407
    Home Secretary, than whom no one is more courteous, more helpful to the House or more patient—and indeed, very few Ministers speak with greater clarity on a complicated subject—to consider the matters which had been raised and the representations made during the Committee stage. In some respects he has met us, although on matters more of detail than of substance, if I may say so without being ungenerous. We did not expect the light to descend upon him on his way from Committee stage to the Report stage of this Bill, as it did upon St. Paul on his way to Damascus.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member cannot have heard what I said. I said that the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) in the Committee stage was unnecessary. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General then said:
    "There is provision in Section 146 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, for the recovery of such items in certain circumstances. We would like to have an opportunity of considering whether an Amendment should be tabled to have survey fees included, and I would be grateful if the Amendment could be withdrawn."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1954; c. 193.]
    Upon that my right hon. and learned Friend withdrew his Amendment. That is why I raise the matter now.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged. I understand the position now. I had overlooked it.
    It is not unreasonable that I did so, because in the course of 42 columns of the debate on that day the whole subject occupied precisely half a column. That half column contained not merely the opening speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) but the reply of the Solicitor-General and the responding speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    It is a little unfortunate that the Solicitor-General, in his brevity, should have referred to such an inappropriate Act. He referred to the Law of Property Act, 1925, which refers only to business premises and could have no bearing of any kind upon this matter. That Act is specially concerned with such matters as goodwill value.
    Mr. Mitchison: That is the 1927 Act.
    Mr. Hale: These are matters in which I have never had to do any research. I had the good fortune to pass my examination two years before those Acts were passed. I have looked at the matter from the outside on many occasions. I took in a conveyancing partner and absolved myself from the duty of mastering it.
    This Bill really will not work. In effect, in all these provisions the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, "In respect of the business of long leaseholds, where a man has occupied a house which, usually, his ancestors built and paid for, and where he clearly has a moral claim to the property, we do not want to face the moral issue that arises in South Wales, where tenants are turned out on to the streets, together with their furniture, and are left homeless and helpless. So we will introduce as much as the landlords will allow us to introduce. We shall give tenants a modest security, with burdens they cannot bear.
    We shall deal with this matter in the same way as we dealt with the question of imprisonment for debt. Public conscience revolts against people being imprisoned for debt, so we will abolish it. In this case we shall make an order for them to pay, and commit them for contempt of court if they fail to comply. We shall throw tenants out because they fail to pay a rent which they cannot afford; because they fail to pay costs which they cannot afford, and because they are unable to bear the burden placed upon them by the Bill. That is how we shall absolve our consciences from throwing people out of houses."
    I suggest that I have been able to show, by illustrating the effects of the last few Clauses, that the Bill will not work. There is one good thing about a bad Bill. It stimulates activity. It may be that had the right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench shown a little more sense, and a little more sense of justice, it would have been accepted. It may be that in the stir of public business it would have lasted for some years. It may be that one would have said, "Well, we have dealt with this matter, perhaps not as well as we might have done, but we have dealt with it." It may be that

    2409
    in that way the right hon. and learned Gentlemen might have avoided some of the difficulties which usually follow temporising with land leases.
    10.30 p.m.
    In discussing these three burdens we are dealing with a moving history which goes back for centuries. We are taking part in that moving stream of history which has gradually forced action. Over the centuries we have seen Tories resisting improvement, and right forcing the granting of concessions. That has been the history of Ireland. It was the history for a century of a million people dying of famine before Ireland got a little amendment of tenant right of the battle of land reform going on a battle which will go on.
    I hope that my hon. Friends will say in no uncertain terms that when a Labour Government comes back the first thing that Administration will deal with is this question of leasehold enfranchisement, the removal of these burdens and the giving of security to people. We stand by our faith that a man is entitled to a home and should, as far as possible, be free from an unnecessary burden of rent.
    Mrs. White: I had always supposed that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) was a close relation of the Forsyte family, and the fact that he has persuaded the Government to accept this proposal confirms me in that opinion. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come here almost with tears in his eyes and with a break in his voice, and to say, "Look at these small lay landlords who cannot cope with their property and who must be helped to obtain professional advice in order to secure their rights."
    But, after all, we are dealing here with ground landlords, not with the owners of small rack-rented properties. How many of these landlords are such poor, pathetic creatures that they are quite unable to secure their rights? It is not only the occasional small ground landlord who exists here and there who is going to benefit from this Amendment.
    I think I am correct in supposing that our dear friends, Western Ground Rents of Cardiff, will be able to claim a considerable portion of their expenses under this Amendment. They will be able, I think I am correct in imagining, to claim considerable sums of money in respect of
    2410
    their permanent professional staff, because there is nothing here about having to employ an occasional surveyor. If people have permanent surveyors on their staff, they will be able to claim expenses which they may put forward as having been incurred.
    It seems to me that that is one of the ultimate meannesses about this Bill. It gives a certain security, but, having done that, it then proceeds to lay every possible burden on the tenant and to do everything possible in favour of the landlord. This surely was one thing which even the Government had not thought of, but which, one can only suppose, was put into their minds during the Committee stage at the indirect insistence of the professional persons concerned. Even if the Government could not accept the other major points put forward from this side of the House, at least they might have resisted this rather mean Amendment. I very much hope that we shall express our indignation by rejecting it.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: This Amendment is one of the meanest and most despicable of proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, the Government have been inspired by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). I am not going to question the honesty of the surveyors' profession, but I do know that the surveyors' fees that are chargeable are to a great extent determined by the assessments of repairs. The surveyor who estimates repairs at £10 receives a comparatively small fee. What would the fee be if the assessment were £200? This proposal is an incentive to any surveyor engaged about his master's business, who knows the tenant will bear the cost, to discover every little defect or excuse for a repair he can, and so to inflate the assessment of the estimate of the repairs.
    Under the Rent Acts all that is required to satisfy a court about the state of repair of a property is a certificate from the local authority's inspector. The Solicitor-General, in Committee, said he did not want to quarrel with the Rent Acts. If the local authority's inspector's certificate is acceptable in determining the state of good repair of property under the Rent Acts, why is his certificate not of equal value and not equally acceptable

    2411
    in determining what is required to put into a state of good repair property affected by the Bill?
    We have heard much about the poor, illiterate, uninformed landlords, but who are the people who are to bear this additional burden of expense? In Wales, particularly, it is the older generation of people who occupy these properties. They, in the autumn of their lives, are to be burdened with this additional cost. This is exploitation of the most honest, good-living social types in our community. Acceptance of this Amendment means robbing them of their assets, their homes. I hope we shall express our indignation at the Government's acceptance of this proposal by a vote.
    Mr. West: I appeal to the Home Secretary to give another thought to this Amendment. It really is a mean thing that is proposed. What is being done?
    The landlord, who is to be recompensed for the expense involved in ascertaining the repairs required to the property, is getting the capital value of property he has not paid for; he is getting a property someone else has built and maintained, and all the services for which someone else has paid. Now the Government say this man, the owner, who is now expropriating this property, should have this cost borne for him by the tenant. It really is a shocking and a mean thing, and I hope that the Home Secretary will say that he will have another look at this matter. If not, I am sure that my hon. Friends will feel that they must register their indignation in the Division Lobbies against it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 179.

    Division No. 156.]

    AYES

    [10.40 p.m.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Baird, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reeves, J.

    Bence, C. R.

    Janner, B.

    Reid. Thomas (Swindon)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rhodes, H.

    Beswick, F.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Ross, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Royle, C.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Short, E. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Keenan, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Kenyon, C.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Coldrick, W.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Collick, P. H.

    McLeavy F.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Deer, G.

    Mason, Roy

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thornton, E.

    Edelman, M.

    Monslow, W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Moody, A. S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Morley, R.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Foot, M. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mort, D. L.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moyle, A.

    West, D. G.

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

    Motley, F. W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Grey, C. F.

    Nally, W.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hale, Leslie

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willey, F. T.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hannan, W.

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Hargreaves, A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Hastings, S.

    Pearson, A.

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

    Hayman, F. H.

    Peart, T. F.

    Willis, E. G.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Yates, V. F.

    Holman, P.

    Popplewell, E.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Porter, G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Rogers.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

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

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

    Osborne, C.

    Alpert, C. J. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Page, R. G.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Heath, Edward

    Perkins, Sir Robert

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hope, Lord John

    Redmayne, M.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Horobin, I. M.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Birch, Nigel

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Black, C. W.

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

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Bowen, E. R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Russell, R. S.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Braithwaite, Sir Gurney

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    Kaberry, D.

    Shepherd, William

    Bullard, D. G

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

    Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E

    Kerr, H. W.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Campbell, Sir David

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lindsay, Martin

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

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Cole, Norman

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

    Colegate, W. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Summers, G. S.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    McCallum, Major D.

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

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

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Teeling, W.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

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

    Tilney, John

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Drewe, Sir C.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Turton, R. H.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vosper, D. F.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Marples, A. E.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Foster, John

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Fraser, Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maude, Angus

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

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

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Mellor, Sir John

    Wellwood, W.

    Glover, D.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Godber, J. B.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Neave, Airey

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Gower, H. R.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Wills, G.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Grimond, J.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury).

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
    Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 41, leave out "carrying them out," and insert:
    "ascertaining what repairs are required as aforesaid and in carrying out such of the initial repairs as are so required."
    In page 8, line 17, at end, insert:
    "and, where there are any initial repairs so required, the amount to be included in the payment for accrued tenant's repairs in respect of the cost incurred by the landlord in ascertaining what initial repairs are so required."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    (7) Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained the rent payable under the statutory tenancy together with the amount of any instalments payable in respect of repairs shall not in respect of any period of a year exceed twice the gross rateable value of the dwelling-house on the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, or when it was first assessed, whichever first happens.
    This is another Amendment which I move with faint hope of its being accepted. I move it because I think it is important that it should be discussed and

    2415
    considered by the House. It is akin to efforts we have been making to try to put some limit on the amount of the financial burden which devolves upon the tenant when the statutory tenancy begins, the long lease having ended.
    The framework of the Amendment is that the rent payable under the new statutory tenancy, which the county court judge is empowered to fix, shall not exceed, with the amount of any accrued repairs, a certain sum. It is not to be more than twice the gross rateable value of the dwellinghouse as it was at a certain date.
    We have followed closely the Government's scheme in the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. In that Bill, the Government have adopted the gross rateable value of the house to which the repairs relate so as to fix a ceiling above which the landlord cannot increase the rent when he has done the repairs which that Bill deals with. We have adopted the same device, subject to certain slight changes which the necessities of the case require. We envisaged the tenant I have been describing, who in an assumed case finds that after paying a ground rent of £5 a year he has to pay the market rent; and then he finds that he has to pay the bill for accrued repairs, which in the assumed case I estimated as £150 yearly.
    In an endeavour to erect some protection to prevent tenants from being victimised and turned out of premises, we propose in this Amendment that the total of the rent, and on top of that the total of the instalments due in respect of acccrued repairs, is not to exceed twice the gross rateable value of the dwellinghouse. The Amendment had to state a date on which the gross rateable value of the house was assessed. We have taken the date of 1st September, 1939, or when the house was first assessed.
    We start, therefore, by selecting the gross rateable value as it was at that time, that is to say, a value which can be measured by relation to a fixed period, the period selected by the Government for the Repairs and Rents Bill; and we say that we will try to come to the aid of tenants faced with a burden which they cannot bear. We try to do so by saying that whatever the tenant has to pay—40s. weekly and the instalment of the £150—
    2416
    together shall not exceed the aggregate of twice the gross rateable value of the premises.
    I confess that this Amendment is not one with which I am pleased. We have put it on the Order Paper as a second best. The county court judge, under the terms of this Bill, is required to assess the market value of the rent. If he is to be required to put upon the tenant's shoulders the burden of the market rent, we say let us put some ceiling on it. We think the market rent is a wrong rent to make him pay, but if the Government are insisting on giving the landlord the right to exact that amount of rent, we say that there should be this ceiling.
    I move the Amendment with faint hope, for the Government have made clear that they are not prepared to abate the advantages of the landlord under this Bill. I suppose there is no likelihood that the Government will agree that there should be a ceiling, an upper limit, to what the tenant may be called upon to pay, but I put forward the suggestion in this spirit: if the Government wish the tenant to pay a great deal more than he was paying before, let the Government at least consider, as a kind of half-way house an upper limit upon the total amount which he may have to pay per week.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that Amendment. He must have been impressed by the feeling that has been evinced from this side of the House; he must have been feeling some degree of shame about the Clause which he has flung at us. He has a further opportunity. He can go back to the Home Office and sit in quietude in his own study and reflect on whether he has not been a bit harsh. He has had time to do so since the Committee stage, but that has not produced much effect.
    He has today seen what the feeling of the whole House is on this matter. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having tasted of it and realised the vehemence and sincerity of it, will have another think about the matter. If he is frightened to go to the landlords and say: "What you are getting by the Bill is too large a measure," let him pluck up his courage. Let him say to them: "You must give away a bit of the rich booty which you are getting."

    2417
    That is what we are saying in the Amendment. It is our second best, but I hope the Home Secretary will realise that we are desperately sincere in asking him to put some limit to the intolerable financial burden on tenants who are threatened with eviction from their homes.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The present Amendment and other Amendments were discussed in Committee. That discussion will be found by anyone who wants to use it for some sinister purpose—I cannot see any other reason for his going to find it—in columns 193–218 of HANSARD, for the fifth sitting.
    As we had that discussion, I hope the House will forgive me for not traversing in detail the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) put forward in his speech. The Solicitor-General dealt with the general question of rents. The only fresh point which the right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend raised was the relevance, according to his argument, of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill which has recently gone through this House.
    That Bill is concerned, broadly speaking, with old rents, that is standard rents fixed by reference to a letting made in, or before, 1939. It is only for such rents that a repairs increase is available. The Bill does not seek to revise those rents to a modern level, but to provide an increase to prevent the landlord being out of pocket, if he keeps the house in repair.
    11.0 p.m.
    Now the "stopper," to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, in the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, the limit of twice the gross rateable value, is a convenient method of scaling down the increases in cases where the landlord is already getting a fairly high rent and, therefore, should not need the full increase. It is no part of the philosophy of the "stopper" that tenants should not be called upon to pay a rent higher than twice the gross value of the premises. If the tenant is already paying such a rent, the Housing Bill does nothing to reduce it.
    That has no relevance to this situation. We had to work out what was a fair way of arriving at the rent of the new Rent Acts tenancy, which the tenant under the ground lease gets under this Bill. There are various circumstances in which he
    2418
    may have acquired the tenancy and the landlord may have acquired the rights, and these have been canvassed ad nauseam in our discussions. We think we have arrived at a fair compromise between the interests of the two sides. I know there is a dispute about it, and I am sorry we are so far apart. I do suggest, as we have stated our views so clearly and so often, that we should express our views in the Division Lobbies and proceed to the other parts of the Bill.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is one aspect of this matter that I really do not understand at all. That is, why the Home Secretary should reject this measure of twice the gross rateable value in relation to Clause 8 (6) when, according to himself and the provisions in the Bill, twice the gross rateable value is regarded as the proper limit for compensation.
    When we get to Part II of the Bill, and it is a question of compensation for business premises, twice the rateable value is quite adequate. But, when we try to import it into these provisions of this absolutely chaotic and harsh Bill, then, for some reason or other, the Home Secretary does not think that this measure, this yard-stick, of twice the gross rateable value, ought to be accepted. I cannot understand that.
    Perhaps, later on, whoever is going to reply to the arguments now being put forward, might explain the curious situation as to why there happens to be magic in this term of twice the gross rateable value when it comes to compensation on the landlords' side, to serve the interests of the landlords, but when it is proposed in respect of the tenant, and its purpose is to operate in favour of the tenant, it is rejected out of hand.
    It is a curious infirmity on the part of the Government that they do not appreciate the interests of the tenant as against those of the landlord. No doubt that can be understood on that side of the House, but I should like to serve notice on the Government that it is neither understood, nor appreciated, on this side.
    There is an important element here. First of all, this Amendment is intended to be an addendum to subsection (6), which provides that the provisions of the Second Schedule are to have effect where the landlord fails to carry out the initial

    2419
    repairs. Any reasonable person who cares to scruitinise the Second Schedule will satisfy himself at once that those provisions are quite inadequate, if not irrelevant, to the interest of the tenant in respect of the point we are considering at the moment.
    This Amendment seeks to put a limit when it is absolutely essential in the interests of justice that there should be a limit, otherwise the calculation of the assessment of the sums will get completely out of hand, and the result may be that, in fact, the cost will be so burdensome to the tenant that he will lose every other right to which he is entitled under the Bill because he will not be able to sustain a continued holding because of the excessive cost of these repairs. It becomes essential to do something about this, and in my submission it is an outrage on the tenant's rights and interests not to do it.
    What has happened? It is hoped by the promoters of the Bill that the landlord and the tenant may be able to agree on these matters, but if they do not agree then they have got to go to court. Incidentally, the fact that the poor tenant is being forced into court without legal aid is forgotten as being of no consideration. They have to go to the court to resolve this matter, and the first difficulty we come up against is, how has the court to decide this point? The machinery provided for the purpose in Clause 9 (4) is absolutely inadequate.
    The court has to decide what is the amount that has to be paid. It is perfectly clear that the court will not have any other method open to it of dealing with this matter. There is no other practical calculation which can be made in order to adjudicate upon this matter with any finality. The open market figure is to be adopted. That really is an outrage altogether on a tenant's rights.
    It is all very well for the Home Secretary to use phrases like, "We ought to hold the balance between landlord and tenant." It is nonsense to talk about holding the balance when the Government are tilting it all the time in favour of the landlord. This is not holding the balance at all. It is weighting the balance in favour of the landlord. I cannot understand why the mind of the
    2420
    Home Secretary cannot adjust itself to some sense of balance in this matter. It is most essential to apply that test.
    At the moment, on one of the most vital elements in the whole purpose and structure of the Bill, namely, what the tenant has to pay, the position is left at large because, I repeat, it will not be in accordance with whether what the tenant has to pay is excessive or not, or whether he will get any benefit from the Bill at all. As the Bill stands, that is the last thing he will get. He will not get any benefit, because every time the open market price is charged any benefit he can get under the Bill is absolutely destroyed. In nine cases out of 10 it will be impossible for the tenant to sustain the holding under those terms.
    Even at this hour of the night, when we are approaching the witching hour of midnight, surely the Home Secretary will bring himself to look afresh at this matter. No doubt, suffering from the consequences of last night's sitting, his mind is a little tired—and no doubt his heart is a little numb as well—but I do really ask him to look at this point because it is something which requires putting right. If he looks at it with the intention of doing the right thing by the tenant—of holding the balance, as he put it—he may not accept this particular Amendment but he will do something which will at least embed the principle in the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. West: As the Home Secretary will realise, hon. Members on this side of the House are very disturbed about many features of this Part of the Bill. Those who are familiar with the problem will realise how absurdly the Bill will work out in practice. A man may have bought two houses, in one of which he resides and the other one, next door, he lets. He has bought the two houses and maintained them. The lease expires and the ground landlord takes them over.
    The position will then be that the tenant who has been paying a weekly rent is protected under the Rent Acts. His rent is limited. The value placed upon his rent—or the maximum limit of the rent—will be twice the gross value of the property. The owner, who bought the house and maintained it will, when his lease expires, be called upon to pay to the ground landlord, when the ground

    2421
    landlord takes over without compensation the current market rent. That might be three or four, or even five times, more than that which his next door neighbour will have to pay. Yet that next door neighbour will have to pay his restricted rent to the same ground landlord as the person who, in fact, bore all the expense of the property and has to pay this vastly increased rent.
    There is no logic or reason in it. It is an absurd situation. It therefore seems reasonable to expect that the Home Secretary will try to bring into this Bill some sense of fairness and justice with regard to the leaseholder who is now being converted into a weekly tenant. We know that it is very difficult to expect the Government to have very great consideration for tenants. Those of us who sat on the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill know full well from our discussions on that Bill, as we know from our discussions on this one, that the Government have done everything they possibly can to protect the interests of the landlord at the expense of the tenant.
    There has been no suggestion whatever in either of the Bills which have come before the House of the tenant's interests having been protected. On every conceivable count everything that could be done in the interests of the landlord has been done, and I think the people of the country ought to be made aware that the Government really are seeking to serve the landlord class at the cost and expense of the tenants.
    11.15 p.m.
    What is the gross value of a property? It is that value fixed by officials of the local authorities to ascertain the contribution which the owner will have to pay towards social services. It is upon that basis that rates are paid. It is regarded as the economic value of the property. More often than not it is the value fixed by the Inland Revenue authorities. It is regarded as the proper market value. Our proposal that the gross value of the property should be increased to twice that amount, for the purposes of giving the landlord that protection which the Government seeks to give him, I feel is over-generous.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that as far as I am concerned I have strong views about the landlord system which I have expressed in the
    2422
    House before. The landlord ought not to have the current market value when expropriating a property belonging to someone else. We know the system and how it grew up, and it is idle for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say when the lease was granted 100 years ago the landlord rarely foresaw that the property would revert to him or his descendants. That is humbug, and those who have had anything at all to do with these transactions know that. Not only is the ground landlord getting the capital value of the property but the unfortunate lessee is required to pay a higher rent than tenants of comparable property.
    Again, how does this system work out in practice? Our complaint in the past has been that when the lease has expired, or is about to expire, the ground landlord uses his power of expropriation and his power to enforce dilapidations to demand unjust terms from the tenant on the sale of his property. In the case of Crown lessees, the Bill actually worsens their position. Formerly, although the ground landlord was prepared to utilise his powers to extract as much as he could in terms of cash on the sale of the property, he has been actuated more often than not by moral considerations and hesitated to eject tenants because of the indignation which would be created, and he has been content to demand from the ground lessee a sum we have considered exorbitant in the circumstances, but a sum which will be less than he can now demand under this Bill.
    I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that under this Bill and under the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill the Government have pursued a consistent policy of trying to serve the interests of the landlord at the expense of the tenant. I hope that my hon. Friends when we come to a decision on this matter, will decide to take it to a Division, unless the Government have second thoughts about it.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: It is very difficult to discuss this matter fully now, having regard to the very lengthy debates which took place on it during the Committee stage, but it provides additional evidence of the Government's discrimination against tenants and the undue preference which they give to this class of landlord. My hon. Friend the Member

    2423
    for Pontypool (Mr. West) referred to the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. In that Bill the Government saw fit to apply the stopper principle. They imposed a ceiling of twice the gross value of the property. In that case they were dealing with 5 million properties. It is admitted that in the inter-war years 50 per cent. of the rent-controlled properties became decontrolled and were, therefore, let at rents decided by the market value.
    Only a few landlords are concerned here, because they are substantially large corporations, or people with very large estates, and the Government are telling them, "You are not called upon to contribute a penny to place these properties in good repair. The cost is to be borne by the tenants, and because you have not to bear any financial responsibility we are going to allow you the privilege of having your rents determined for you by the county courts, with no restriction or limitation whatever. They will be determined entirely by the view taken by the county court judge, after he has examined the trend in respect of the free market value in the locality."
    Where the tenant bears the cost of repairs the sky can be the limit so far as the rent is concerned, but where the landlord is called upon to bear the cost of repairs the Government are imposing a limit. The stopper principle will apply in such cases. That appears to be a very unbalanced view on the part of the Government. They are discriminating against the tenants of the new landlords who come into existence at the expiration of the leases.
    The Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend have been arguing consistently that the rents of these properties shall be determined by the free market price. During the Committee stage I called the attention of the Minister to a report presented by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in May, 1951, and in their White Paper, "Housing—The Next Step" the Government themselves referred to that Report.
    The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
    "The rent a dwelling may be expected to fetch in a free market on the footing described above is its 'gross value'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 18th March, 1954; c. 198.]
    2424
    Therefore, all that we are asking the Government to do is to give further consideration, because during the Committee stage the Minister said that he was attracted by the point about the maximum, and that he would give further consideration to it.
    I do not know what unworthy influences have been brought to bear upon the Minister, but that attractiveness which he saw in the proposal on the Committee stage seems to have disappeared. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman very seriously to consider what the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said. The Government have shown an inclination during the whole discussion on the Bill today to ignore entirely what we on this side of the House have to say on the matter. I do not think that the Minister should ignore the views expressed by this very responsible authority.
    I should like to hear the Minister's reasons why this recommendation has been ignored. The Government were so enamoured of the Royal Institution's recommendation that they adopted it in the Repairs and Rents Bill. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if any body of tenants is entitled to have the privileges and the protection of the upper limit of the stopper principle, it is surely those men and women about whom I have been speaking. They have a top priority to claim this protection.
    It is argued that it is for the court to decide and to take a very reasonable view, having regard to all the circumstances. Having given the court that latitude, I think that a responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Legislature at least to indicate the amount to be paid. That is necessary when we realise the disparity, the diversity and the variety of conditions that come within the purview of I do not know how many county courts in this country. Even within the geographical province of a county court there is the most glaring and extreme disparity in rents paid by persons living in similar properties.
    Where people are living in comparable properties, we should avoid disparities in the rents paid, and which are bound to reveal themselves unless this Amendment is accepted. It is patent to the Minister that what will happen in my constituency and

    2425
    in all the constituencies throughout Wales is that one house will be controlled by the Rent Acts and will be rented at 2 guineas or —2 5s. a month, while a similar house next door will be rented at £3, £4 or £5 a month.
    11.30 p.m.
    Scarcity value is not measurable; it is not uniform; conditions vary. Very often scarcity values are determined by the location of industry and the changes taking place in industry. For instance, in the South Wales coalfield, because of the reorganisation of the mining industry and the closing of old mines, miners are compelled to seek occupation in other parts of South Wales, and they have to look for other homes. So the scarcity value in South Wales is determined by local considerations.
    If the stopper, or maximum, is a good thing in limiting rents paid for more than 5 million properties within the purview of the Rent Acts, then the principle is a sound one to be applied to these new tenancies created as a result of the expiry of leases. Unless we can get some satisfaction from the Government I hope we shall express by a Division our resentment and disappointment, and I should be willing to persist all night to obtain a concession from the Government on this matter.
    Mrs. White: I have no doubt the Home Secretary would like to pass rather quickly over this part of the Bill. He suggested that as we had a fairly full discussion of the matter in Committee we need not refer to it again now, and could come fairly rapidly to a conclusion on it. He cannot, however, be surprised that a number of us on this side of the House wish to argue this principle. For the reasons which you stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are not able to debate again what we still regard as the main issue, leasehold enfranchisement. Not unnaturally, we think we should spend a fair amount of time on what is the second major point, the level of rent. Our contention is that the concessions made in the Bill to the ground leaseholders are likely to prove spurious if nothing is done about putting some kind of limit on the level of rent.
    We all know the circumstances in which many of the people concerned are placed. There are many hundreds of
    2426
    them in the constituencies of my hon. Friends from Wales. I personally have virtually no constituency interest in this matter, but being a good Welshwoman I have the strongest possible sympathy with those in the Principality who are affected by the Bill.
    Mr. Skeffington: What about poor old England?
    Mrs. White: The right hon. and learned Gentleman resists us in his ingratiating way. He is always having a battle with his conscience, and he has won another of those endless tussles of his. Once more he has succeeded in persuading himself that nothing is required to be done. I put it to the Home Secretary that what will happen in many of these cases is that there will be the landlord in a much more powerful position than the tenant; and many of the older tenants will be really frightened of the idea of having to go to the courts. Let it be remembered that no kind of definite ceiling is stipulated.
    Let us suppose that some of these tenants come to those of my hon. Friends who are lawyers and ask for advice. My hon. Friends will be unable to give any advice because they will not be able to advise what sort of rent should be agreed with the landlords. These people will have to go to court, where they will get a purely arbitrary decision on the part of the judge. They may, probably, say that they have no money and cannot, therefore, engage lawyers; and, consequently, they will ask if they can obtain legal aid. Then they will be told, "No, we are sorry, but there are no legal aid provisions for this kind of case." They will have to bear the whole expense themselves.
    Faced with these disquieting facts, what will they do? They will feel completely defeated and will tend to agree to anything which the landlord proposes; that is what is likely to happen. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) who pointed out that whereas the better type of landlord behaves in a manner which is not too unreasonable when leases fall in, even those "better" landlords will find themselves positively encouraged to ask for higher rents. Indeed, far from giving protection, this Bill is doing a positive disservice to tenants, who will be worse

    2427
    off than if this Bill was never passed at all.
    I notice that the Home Secretary looks doubtful, but I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there are scarcity values in our industrial areas; and particularly in the older industrial areas, where this Bill will be an undoubted disservice. It will encourage landlords to ask for more than they would otherwise ask. If only this Amendment, or some similar Amendment was accepted, the whole position would be altered.
    If only some kind of definite ceiling for rents was provided, then my hon. Friends could say, "Well the landlords cannot charge more than such and such and people can be advised to pay the maximum or, because of such and such circumstances, we advise something rather less." There would be something to go on. When one is dealing, by and large, with the big people on the one side, and really small people on the other, and there are no legal aid provisions applicable, it is the duty of Parliament to frame legislation which reflects some sort of justice.
    We on this side of the House have tried again and again to meet the position, because we realise that with different levels of control in existence it is not easy to legislate with regard to controlled rents. I do sincerely feel, however, that we are fully justified in once more expressing very emphatically the view that, without some provision of the kind which we suggest, even the good which the Government are trying to do through this Bill will be found to be very largely vitiated.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I do not want to keep the debate going, but I should be lacking in my duty if I did not speak in support of this Amendment. Like other hon. Members, I was here throughout last night, and I should like to escape and have some rest tonight. But I feel that I am under an obligation to ask the Minister if he will meet us by saying that at least the principle proposed here is a good one.
    Surely there is some limit somewhere that can be put upon the landlord as to what he can shake out of the tenant, because in the majority of cases it is the little person against the big combines.
    2428
    It is the big combines which own the city of Cardiff, and the same applies in West Wales. It is the little people whom we represent and for whom we are asking that there should be some limit.
    We do not adhere firmly to the words of this Amendment. When the Bill goes to another place the Minister could easily have inserted an Amendment enshrining this principle and containing figures which he preferred. It is no use the Government saying that this is not a landlord's charter if there are to be no brakes at all on the landlord. Where are the rights of the little man? All that is being offered is that he can stay in the house, but if the cost goes up beyond this proposed level he will not be there long. Believe me, when the first family is evicted, because they cannot meet the cost under the terms of this Bill, the Government will pay a heavy price, because the public will never forgive them.
    Mr. Hale: Surely the Home Secretary proposes to say a word? This is too important a matter to be treated in a cavalier way. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to approach this matter from the point of view that what is happening is that something new is being incorporated into county court proceedings. As I read this Clause, there is nothing in it which gives the county court judge a discretion in this matter. He has to find out what is owing and make an order for the payment of that sum by instalments, and that will be in addition to the current rent. The sum total may reach a very heavy figure. All this will be put in an order which cannot be revoked.
    It may be that a tenant will be in fairly good circumstances and that the judge will make an order which is reasonable. But I see no provision for revision of any order which is made. Normally, when a county court judge makes an order for payment by instalments, if the tenant fails to keep up the payments, he can be brought back to the court on a judgment summons; and nearly always there is a reduction and the repayment of the original debt is suspended while the arrears are being paid.
    If, in the most important of human relationships, that of man and wife, there is a separation, no man can be ordered

    2429
    to pay enough to keep his wife and family. All that he can be made to pay is what he can afford. He must be allowed to keep enough to live on. The court can tell the wife, "We are sorry, we do not think that £2 a week is sufficient for your maintenance but that is all that can be obtained."
    Here there is no such provision of that kind except in so far as it is implicit in the instalments ordered by the county court judge who fixes the initial figure. The penalty for failure to pay is eviction. I hope that I am wrong, but, as I understand it, there is no right to go back to the county court to have the order revised. A decision is made, and once a tenant has failed in his obligation there is to be eviction.
    11.45 p.m.
    It may be that in drafting the Amendment we have put an arbitrary figure of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not approve. It may be that he would like to reconsider the matter and put some limit. Surely there is to be some limit. Everyone knows that there may be cases where the instalments are too much for the tenant. He may suffer a change of circumstances, or illness. He may have to reduce his payments.
    I hope I am wrong, but, as I understand the position, the landlord can throw him out; the tenant depends entirely upon the landlord in this matter. There is no further appeal to the county court judge. The tenant has failed to carry out the conditions imposed by the court. He loses his home, and may perhaps have to leave the village in which he has lived throughout his life. He may be thrown on public resources, to start life afresh. I cannot think that that is the intention of the Government.
    It is an affront to the House in a matter of this importance if the occupants of the Front Bench opposite are not prepared to make a reply to the speeches to which we have listened. It would be regrettable. It is not our fault that the House has had an exacting time. Everyone wants to go home. We do not arrange the business. There have not been many measures of alleged social reform introduced during the last two or three years. I tried on a public platform the other day to recall half a dozen, but I could not do so. There was a day
    2430
    when we were accused of introducing too many measures of social reform, and it was said that we were making it difficult for the Civil Service to deal with them. That has ceased.
    In a matter of this importance, whether the hour is late or early, we ought to know what are the Government's intentions. This is a matter which affects the life, the liberty, the freedom and security of many of Her Majesty's subjects. We ought to be told whether the Government intend to impose a limit, and whether they are prepared to give the county court judge discretion to order a reduction of payments when it is right and equitable that that should be done; or whether they are going to say, as so often in the historic past, that when they talk about landlords new principles emerge; that when they are dealing with the power of the landlords and those who have owned the land for centuries, they are not going to permit any invasion of their rights, even if that meant the invasion of the rights of the humble members of the community.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely we are to have some reply from the Solicitor-General. I know that the Government is anxious to make progress with the Bill, as I understand that it is suggested that another place should deal with it next week. Therefore, the Government consider it essential that this House should part with the Bill to-morrow. Many of us were here throughout last night, but even so we think that there is still time for a few brief words from the Solicitor-General in reply to the cogent arguments advanced from this side of the House.
    Time and again during our discussion the occupants of the Front Bench opposite have sat mum. That is treating the Opposition and the House with scant respect. If, when the Labour Government sat where the right hon. and learned Gentleman now sits, they had treated the House in a similar fashion there would have been uproar. We are dealing with a matter of great moment to thousands of people, and the House and the country expect at least some sort of reply, if there is one that can be given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman smiles. I find nothing to smile about. It is a serious matter. We insist on some reply, even if it is the usual negative one.
    Mr. W. T. Proctor: I am sorry that the Government Front Bench are not giving us a reasoned reply to the very powerful case that has been put forward. This is a social problem. The Government pride themselves upon the number of houses that they are providing for the people, yet here they are turning people out of their homes.
    I would direct attention to the fact that these arrangements are very advantageous to the landlord. The repairs that he receives to his property at the end of a lease are an Income Tax-free bounty, given by the tenant to the landlord. This very harsh arrangement would be modified by the Amendment. I appeal to the Government to say that when the Bill gets to another place they will do something to modify it. They should accept the Amendment. Those of us who have been here all night will be very anxious to assist the Government to get the Bill if the Government will agree to the very reasonable proposition that has been put before them.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Might I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Can I move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity to reply?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already spoken on this Question, and we cannot report Progress when the House is sitting. That is a matter for the Committee of the House.
    Mr. C. Hughes: It is a matter of elementary justice that a ceiling should be fixed for rents. I am sorry that the Home Secretary, who is usually so fair-minded and treats us so courteously, should seem to be failing in his duty in explaining to the House why he is not prepared to meet us in this matter. Surely it should not be difficult for him and the Solicitor-General, with the resources that they have at their disposal, to devise some formula acceptable to both sides of the House.
    If a ceiling were fixed beyond which rents could not be raised, the tenant, the county court judge and the landlords would all know where they stood. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to let the House hear his views on this matter. Let me give him an example.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: But I have spoken on this matter, and I cannot speak twice.
    Mr. C. Hughes: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, formidable and cogent arguments have been brought forward.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Tell me one argument that we have not heard 50 times in the Committee.
    Mr. C. Hughes: The arguments that were placed before the Committee have been reinforced, and cogent new arguments have been brought forward. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a house which has been in a family for a period of a century, and for which a ground rent of £5 is payable under a long lease, should be converted overnight to one with a rent of, say, £2 10s. or £3 per week? That is the issue. Cases of very great hardship may arise and exorbitant rents may be levied.
    We are not saying that all landlords are unreasonable and unfair. There are good landlords who will levy reasonable and moderate rents, but we know there are other types of landlords. When we were discussing the Bill in Committee, the Home Secretary, at one stage, said words to this effect: the possible proportion of good landlords to bad landlords might be in the ratio of two to one. If that is true, many tenants may expect their rents to be exorbitant.
    After all, this is one of the fundamental points of the Bill and I feel it would be discourteous to the House if the Home Secretary did not give the House the benefit of his honest views on this matter. I think he should give the House an undertaking, because feeling is running very high on this side of the House, that he will look at this matter again and that we might expect some reasonable formula, which might be discussed in another place.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. C. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    (7) Notwithstanding any agreement or statutory or other provision the landlord shall not be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house on the ground of breach by the tenant of any repairing obligation during his long tenancy or of any non-payment by the tenant in respect of any accrued tenant's repairs of or any obligation under his statutory tenancy in respect of any disrepair that had occurred before the statutory tenancy.
    I propose to be brief. There was a discussion about this subsection in the

    2433
    Committee, but it is not yet quite clear what the position of the tenants will be in relation to a breach of a repairing obligation.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of order. Have we no remedy against an hon. Member on the other side of the House who has not, so far as I know, been in any of the debates, who comes in now and is continually muttering so that we cannot hear what is being said.
    Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members should not interrupt.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the muttering on the other side of the House, of an hon. Member who has not presented himself to the House throughout the debates.
    It may well be that, owing to financial difficulties and embarrassments, a tenant has not been able to fulfil certain obligations. There may be, for example, a defective roof in the house, which would be expensive to repair, and obviously the tenant would be anxious that there should be a proper roof but, owing to lack of money, the tenant may have been patching the roof over a period of months and years.
    When the lease expires, the tenant, because of his financial failure to put a new roof in the house, may be penalised out of all proportion to the omission. Let us take the case of a poor person, perhaps a widow or a spinster, who has inherited a house which has been in her family for a very long period. She may be on pension. She may be in receipt of National Assistance. A person of that kind would not be in a position to spend a great deal on the house.
    Nevertheless, under the Bill, as it is at present, that person may be evicted from the house, because she is unable, through lack of means, to fulfil the repairing obligation. Can the Home Secretary say what would be the position in those circumstances? Can he say if there would be an arbitrary eviction, or would there be some protection for a person in impoverished conditions if there was a breach of an obligation which might be quite trivial.
    12 midnight.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I beg to second the Amendment.
    2434
    We are quite clearly concerned here with Part IV of the First Schedule, which says:
    Any failure by the tenant to make a payment for accrued tenant's repairs, or any part or instalment of such a payment, at the time when it becomes due shall be treated as a breach of the obligations of the tenancy for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the First Schedule to the Act of 1933 (which relates to recovery of possession where the rent has not been paid or any other obligation of the tenancy has not been performed).
    It is quite clear that people of limited means are the people who are going to be hit most by the provision, and unless the Amendment is accepted by the Government, we feel that the poorer section of the community are going to have a very thin time indeed. It may be we are wrong, and that the Home Secretary will be able to satisfy us. I hope he will. I am anxious lest in days to come anyone will point a finger at me and say that I remained silent whilst a thing of this sort was saddled on people, because we must not forget that most of us here are young enough to see these chickens come home to roost. I should like my conscience to be clear on this sort of matter.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and I should like to make one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Few people will ever point the finger of scorn at him at all, but the number who will point the finger of scorn at him for remaining silent will be infinitesimal.
    The Amendment seeks to do two things. The first is to prevent a landlord being able to get possession in the circumstances that during a long tenancy or during the succeeding statutory tenancy there was a breach of a repairing covenant. I should like to deal with that point first, because in my view there is no difficulty about it. That object is already covered by the Bill, as drafted.
    During the long tenancy, if the landlord takes proceedings to enforce a repairing covenant, the tenant can apply for relief under Clause 16. If he does, a court order for possession is rendered of no effect except as regards costs and the tenancy is treated as if it were for a term ending seven months after the date of the court order. At the end of

    2435
    the long tenancy the grounds on which the landlord is entitled to possession, as is laid down in Clause 12 and the Third Schedule, do not include a breach of the repairing covenants of the ground lease.
    During the statutory tenancy, any act or default which occurred during the long tenancy is not a ground on which the landlord can apply for a possession order under the Rent Acts. That is provided by Clause 10 (2), and if the hon. Member for Anglesey will look at Clause 10 (1) he will see that the tenant is relieved of his repairing liability under the terms of the long tenancy. There was an Amendment down on Committee stage on the subject, and at that time we went into the matter. We have considered it very carefully and on the first point we are satisfied that there is no difficulty at all and that hon. Gentlemen need have no fear.
    The second object of the Amendment, which is that during the statutory tenancy the landlord should not be able to get possession on a failure to make a payment for approved tenant's repairs, is different. As we see it—and naturally we are more hopeful than are others about the working powers of our own child—in many cases the obligation under the long tenancy will be reduced, either by agreement or by the court, in accordance with the changed conditions, and the payment for the accrued tenant's repairs will represent a substantially smaller liability for the tenant. Also he will be entitled, of course, as I have said, to arbitration by the county court on the amount of these initial repairs and on the method by which he has to pay.
    When there has been the initial scaling down—when, if necessary, the matter has been to the court either as to scaling down or as to method—there is then a substantial improvement in the tenant's position, and paragraph 17 of the First Schedule provides failure to make payment as a ground for possession if the court thinks fit. As I say, we have considered it carefully and I think that that is the true position in regard to this matter.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out "either."
    2436
    This is an Amendment on which I have very strong support, because I see some names added to mine which I am not usually fortunate to have under mine on the Paper. It may also be of convenience to the House if I discuss with this Amendment that in line 38. Together, they meet a drafting point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) and by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels).
    The purpose is to make entirely clear that, where the court determines that initial repairs are to be carried out, the upper limit is either the good repair standard or what the landlord has proposed, whichever is the less. The result is that initial repairs cannot exceed the good repair standard except with the consent of both parties.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 38, leave out from "or," to "in," and insert:
    "the carrying out of any repairs not specified by the landlord."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

    Clause 13.—(LANDLORD'S APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION.)
    Amendments made: In page 11, line 7, leave out from "Where," to "apply," in line 9, and insert:
    "a landlord's notice to resume possession has been served and either—
    (a) the tenant elects to retain possession, or
    (b) at the end of the period of two months after the service of the landlord's notice the qualifying condition is fulfilled as respects the tenancy,
    the landlord may."
    In page 11, line 12, at end, insert:
    Provided that the application shall not be made later than two months after the tenant elects to retain possession, or, if he has not elected to retain possession, later than four months after the service of the notice.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, at end, to insert:
    "the obtaining, or if that is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances."
    This is not a consequential Amendment, but I think I can deal with it quite shortly. During the Committee stage suggestions were made that this part of the Clause wanted tightening up, and we undertook to consider strengthening it because it was said, in particular

    2437
    by the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), that the Clause as it stood might make it too easy for the landlord to recover possession.
    The effect of the Amendment will be that not only has the court to be satisfied that the landlord has made preparations relating to the obtaining of the requisite permission or consent, but also, in fact, that he has obtained such consent, unless it has not been reasonably practicable to have done so in the situation. I hope that the hon. Member will welcome this change.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 11, line 29, to leave out "date of."
    This Amendment is linked to the one on page 12, line 11, and the two of them are simply drafting Amendments. It is not necessary to mention the date of termination here because in fact the definition is done in Clause 4.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 11, leave out from second "the," to "give," in line 12, and insert "termination of the tenancy."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT NOT ORDERED TO GIVE UP POSSESSION.)
    Amendments made: In page 12, line 21, leave out from beginning, to "the," in line 22, and insert:
    "in a case falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of the last foregoing section."
    In page 12, line 24, leave out from "of," to second "the," in line 26, and insert:
    "the period within which an application under the last foregoing section may be made the landlord has not made such an application."
    In page 12, line 29, leave out "two months," and insert "period."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 22.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)
    Amendments made: In page 17, line 44, leave out "and."
    In line 45, after "1939," insert "and Act of 1949."
    In page 18, line 2, leave out first "and."
    In line 3, after "1939," insert:
    "and the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949."
    In line 33, at end, insert:
    "qualifying condition" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (1) of section two of this Act.
    In line 35, leave out from "the," to "1949," in line 36, and insert "Act of." —[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 23.—(TENANCIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES.)
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 19, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    (5) For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be occupied by the tenant for the purposes of a business carried on by him when the tenant is an individual and the premises are occupied by a company in which the tenant holds not less than one half in value of the issued share capital and are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the company.
    This is the first Amendment dealing with Part II of the Bill, relating to the security of tenure of business, professional and other tenants. It raises a new point, which was not discussed in Committee, and to understand it it is necessary, first, to look at subsection (1), which says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, this Part of this Act applies to any tenancy where the property comprised in the tenancy is or includes premises which are occupied by the tenant and are so occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by him or for those and other purposes."
    The object of the Amendment is to extend the protection given by Part II of the Bill to the case of a tenant who does not carry on the business himself but forms a company to do so, and where, because of the tenant's interest in it, the company does not formalise its arrangements with the tenant in such a way as to render the company the tenant itself. While it may well seem that this is not a very important case, the situation frequently arises, in practice, where the tenant of premises uses them for the purpose of a business of which he is virtually the owner, or is the owner in conjunction with what, in simple non-technical language; one would call a partner, who owns another part of the capital of the venture.
    It seems to me to be a manifest injustice, or at any rate is likely to lead to a manifest injustice, that where a man

    2439
    invests his money in a business and carries it on at particular premises for a number of years, and everybody assumes, quite understandably, that the business and the tenant are really one and the same, when this Bill becomes law the tenant and any partner he may have in the business should have the rude shock of discovering that they are not protected by the Bill because of the mere technicality that the tenant was one individual and the business was, in law, a different individual, namely, the company.
    As I have said, it appears to be a point not of very great importance, but I have found out from other practitioners of the law far more experienced in these matters than I am that it is a very common occurrence. It is one that I think should be dealt with by this Bill. Indeed, it would be unjust if it were not so dealt with. I hope that even at this late hour the Government, even if they are unable to accept the Amendment at this stage, will give it very careful thought and perhaps introduce an Amendment in another place dealing with the point. It is in that expectation that I have moved the Amendment.
    Mr. G. Thomas: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: I regret to have to inform the hon. Gentleman that we cannot accept this Amendment. One reason is that its drafting is quite inadequate to deal with the purpose which lies behind it. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not want me to explain that in detail at this hour of the night, but it would require a very long and complex Amendment to cover the point he has in mind and to make sure of covering it satisfactorily. The words "controlling interest" would require rather comprehensive definition.
    This does not mean that we are not sympathetic to the point he is raising, and we have already given it very careful consideration. As I say, it would mean a very lengthy, complicated and involved piece of drafting to deal with the point. While we will consider it again, it seems undesirable to complicate this already complicated Bill still further to meet a case which I doubt very much is likely to arise so very often, and which, if it does arise, it will almost certainly be within the power of the tenant to remedy.
    2440
    The tenant can assign his tenancy to the company in which he has a controlling interest. A covenant against absolute assignment might be a bar, but, if there is no such covenant, the assent to the assignment could not be unreasonably withheld. Or, if the tenant does not wish to do it that way, he can sublet to the company, in which case the company will come within Part II of the Bill.
    While I think that the ventilation of this point at this late hour has served a useful purpose in that it may perhaps help to draw particular tenants' attention to this point, one has to weigh in the balance the desirability of leaving it to them, or, alternatively, putting in, as I say, a very lengthy and complicated piece of legislation which might cause more confusion and might not enable tenants to realise the full extent of their rights under the Bill. We shall give further consideration to the matter. We are not unsympathetic to it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that, but I am not expressing any undertaking that anything can or will be done. In these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Hale: Would it not be possible in general words to give the county court judges power to determine in this matter? Most efforts in this House to express complex questions in long series of words fail, for reasons that are well known to all of us. The more one tries to cover a matter in detail the more surely one fails to do so. I should think we could by general words give the county court judge power to come to a conclusion in the matter, by reasonably satisfying himself that here is a tenant who is carrying on business in a company in which he has a predominant interest, or in the management of which he is participating, and that this is the tenant's business in the sense that he has a predominant interest in it. Could not some such words be put into the Bill in another place? That might improve the Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: I will certainly have a look at that, but I think one has also to have a look at the position of the landlord, for one would not want matters to go as far as the county court without the landlord's being able to find out where he stood. However, without giving any undertaking, I will consider the matter.
    Mr. W. Wells: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 25.—(TERMINATION OF TENANCY BY THE LANDLORD.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 29, at the beginning, to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection."
    It would be convenient to take, at the same time. the Government Amendment proposed in page 20, line 38. These Amendments are designed to meet the criticism made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who in Committee moved an Amendment that was supported in a rather unusual coalition by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). We undertook to look again at the drafting of this Clause, and particularly of subsections (2) and (3).
    The Amendments make provision for a tenant who has the right to more than 12 months' notice to quit to get longer notice. Where the tenant has the right to more than six months' notice to quit the interval of time between service of the notice under the Clause and the date of termination specified in the notice will be not less than the period of notice and not more than the period of the notice plus six months. I hope that this will satisfy this unusual but most friendly combination, that we have met the case they made in Committee.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Let me carry the unusualness a step further by thanking the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen on behalf of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and myself for this Amendment. We think it an excellent one, both of us being in favour of it, but, personally, I am surprised that it has been proposed by the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 34, after "landlord," insert "(a)."
    In line 38, at end, insert:
    "and
    (b) where apart from this Part of this Act more than six months' notice to quit would have been required to bring the tenancy to an end, the last foregoing subsection shall have effect with the substitution for twelve months of a period six months longer than the length of notice to quit which would have been required as aforesaid."—[The Solicitor-General.]

    Clause 30.—(OPPOSITION BY LANDLORD TO APPLICATION FOR NEW TENANCY.)
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 23, line 34, after "requirements," to insert:
    "(including the requirement to preserve goodwill)."
    This is an Amendment to subsection (1, e).
    The subsection enables the landlord to obtain possession by providing alternative accommodation, and this Amendment fulfils a promise which was made during the Committee stage to see whether any strengthening of the wording of the paragraph was needed, and to ensure that goodwill was taken into account in providing alternative accommodation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    12.30 a.m.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 24, line 4, to leave out paragraph (g), and to insert:
    (g) that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to cover the case where a building is to be put on a bare site and it fulfils a promise to meet two points made during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). The first point was whether, under paragraph (g), a landlord could obtain possession for the purpose of redevelopment of a kind which could be carried out while the tenant was in occupation of the premises.
    I think that the word "reasonably" in line 5 of the original sub-paragraph is sufficient to give the court discretion, but

    2443
    this Amendment makes the matter clear beyond any possibility of doubt. The second point is that under the sub-paragraph as drafted, a court might be held to have jurisdiction on the question whether a landlord's scheme was appropriate and suitable; but the local planning authority would here be the responsible body, and it would be an impossible position if possession was refused because the court considered that the plans were unreasonable after the planning authority had approved them. This Amendment makes impossible any such divided jurisdiction, and I commend it to the House.
    Sir F. Soskice: This Amendment is one which I do not think improves the Bill and it is one on which we, on this side of the House, have considerable reservations. What it does is simply to put in another form the provisions in Clause 30 by which a landlord who wants to demolish or reconstruct premises is afforded grounds on which he can oppose the tenant's application for a new lease.
    There are other Amendments down to leave out sub-paragraph (g) of Clause 30, and another to leave out sub-paragraph (h), and a third to leave out the words, "or partly for the purposes." Might I ask whether it would be in order if we discussed these together, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because they all apply to the grounds on which we base our opposition?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Amendment concerning sub-paragraph (g) has not been selected, nor has the other in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman —the third to which he referred. The second one to which he referred has been selected.
    Sir F. Soskice: Then it would probably be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the Amendment to leave out paragraph (h) together with the present Amendment. I will try to put our objections as shortly as possible.
    Clause 30 is of very great importance. It sets out in a number of paragraphs various grounds which can be urged by the landlord in the opposition raised by him to a request from the tenant for an extension of a business tenancy. We take
    2444
    the view that the reasons alleged in paragraphs (g) and (h) are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the tenant's application and should not be in the Bill at all. Paragraph (g) relates to a desire by the landlord to reconstruct and paragraph (h) to his desire to occupy the holding or part of it for the purpose of carrying on a business himself.
    The Bill is based on the general assumption which we think valid that the rights of the occupying tenant should take preference over the rights of an investing landlord. Broadly, it should not be a ground for defeating the tenant's right to have his tenancy extended in order to carry on his business that the landlord wishes to rebuild or reconstruct the premises. That is what I might loosely call an investment purpose. It means that, generally speaking, the landlord has in mind to combine the premises with some other premises and create a new income-earning asset of an investment character. It is something which he wishes to hold and possess as a landlord.
    Similarly, so far as paragraph (h) is concerned, we think it entirely irrelevant and inappropriate to what is under consideration that the landlord should again be entitled to defeat the right of the tenant by saying that he wishes to carry on some business on the premises—or he may say even less, that he wishes to use only part of the premises for that purpose.
    A point is not improved by repetition, as hon. Members will agree. I have stated it, and it is not as if we were stating it here for the first time. But we wish to place on record our disapproval of this aspect of the Clause, because we think, as we have constantly urged, that a tenant's rights should be regarded as antecedent to these desires on the part of the landlord.
    No doubt the Government will not agree with that point of view. They have put down their own Amendment, and they were adamant in their refusal when we urged these arguments in Committee. But I am hoping against hope that the Home Secretary will give this matter further consideration, bearing in mind that, broadly, he has accepted the principle on which we say that the Bill should be founded.
    Mr. Hale: I do not wish to detain the House and what I have to say may be expressed very shortly. It seems to me

    2445
    that here there is an alteration of substance. The word "reasonable" has been altered. Reading paragraph (g) as originally drafted it states
    "that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord reasonably requires possession"—
    for his purposes. That gave the county court judge or the tribunal the option of saying, "This is a subterfuge. This demand for reconstruction is to get the tenant out." It gave the county court judge or the tribunal a chance to consider the matter.
    In the Amendment the word "reasonable" is given a different connotation and position—
    Sir Ian Fraser: Do not be so cross; it does not suit you.
    Mr. Hale: I am trying not to take up the time of the House, but if I get the sort of opposition from hon. Members opposite which has just been going on I shall detain the House—let there be no mistake about that. Hon. Members will be aware that if I do decide to detain the House I shall do so.
    We are talking about a matter of great gravity and because hon. Members were kept last night we have tried to cut the discussion short, and in the last few minutes we have let pass a number of things which we should like to have opposed. We have tried not to keep people up, but if I get the sort of imbecile comment which has just come from the other side of the Chamber I shall have to change my attitude. If hon. Members wish to jibe across the Chamber I shall have to deal with them in my own way. If the hon. Member opposite wishes to say something I will give way.
    Sir I. Fraser: I merely said, 'Do not be so cross; it does not suit you."
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. Member, but if he had said it so that it could be heard properly it would have been better.
    To resume what I was saying, a landlord will only have to say that it will pay him to reconstruct, that the house is in poor condition, and the tenant is not one whom he wishes to keep. As I understand the present wording, the landlord would be entitled to possession because under the Clause he is entitled
    2446
    to end the tenancy if he intends to demolish or reconstruct. He has only to establish before a county court judge that he genuinely intends to reconstruct. The word "reasonably" only applies to the fact that he could not do it without getting possession. The tenant is put in a difficult situation. I think that the word "reasonably" should remain in the Bill.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The difficulty we were in was the need to avoid a divided jurisdiction between the planning authority and the tribunal. That is why the alteration is put in that way. I would like to have a look at the point, and to study the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). This is not a point of political difference. It is an effort to find the best way to express our requirement.
    Regarding the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) the difficulty arises from the importance one attaches to the temporary letting of the growing business. One has to consider it in the case not only of shops but also of industrial undertakings, where expansion is desired in the future but immediate use is not. It is a difficult point. I cannot make a firm promise, but I will look into it.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Will the Home Secretary also bear in mind the case of blocked buildings. The University of London seven years ago turned out people and pulled down property, but it has still not been able to erect anything on the land. Is there to be any guarantee that it will be possible to go on with plans before people are turned out?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is an interesting point which I will look at.
    12.45 a.m.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I must say a word about paragraph (h). The Home Secretary has not said anything in reply to the observations which have been made. As long as a landlord submits the ground that he wants the premises wholly or partly to carry on his business the county court judge is compelled to order the tenant to give up possession and that he is no longer entitled to a new lease.
    That is an absolutely fantastic ground upon which to get the premises back. What aggravates that situation is that

    2447
    the tenant, having been got out on that pretext—it may be nothing more than a pretext—gets no compensation whatsoever for his goodwill. In this fantastic situation, the court, under the operation of the Clause, is bound to give possession. The only condition imposed is that the landlord should be in possession of the premises for five years after he obtains them.
    On payment of a nominal sum of only twice the rateable value—in this context the Home Secretary likes twice the rateable value and in another context he dislikes it very much—a sum it may be of only £100, the landlord may acquire a business worth literally thousands of pounds. On a matter of such moral consideration I cannot imagine how the Home Secretary can remain reticent and not say a word in justification or explanation of this extraordinary provision.
    A most unusual element is that all the landlord need do is to go to the county court and say that he intends to occupy the premises. Overnight, the intention may evaporate. He may not occupy the property, but may exploit it by selling the goodwill and the premises for a large sum. It is far too late for me to elaborate this matter, but I ask the Home Secretary to concentrate upon it for a few moments and to ask himself whether it is a decent thing that the landlord should perform this act of deprivation upon any individual citizen who has a business and goodwill.
    At this late hour—in a double sense of the words, both in regard to the stage of the Bill and of the night—I ask the Government to look at these points and, perhaps in another place, to modify them in a way that will not compromise with decency and will do what is right.
    Sir F. Soskice: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak again to thank the Home Secretary for what he said in reply to me. I extend that to what has been said by my. hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). If you, Mr. Speaker, should select our Amendment to leave out paragraph (h), I shall not move it, in view of what has been said by the Home Secretary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 24, line 13, at the end, to insert "or as his residence."
    During the Committee stage, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) moved an Amendment to enable the landlord to obtain possession for his own occupation where he intended to use the premises for residential and not for business purposes. My right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary. expressed sympathy with the principle and undertook to meet the point on Report, and this Amendment gives effect to that.
    Perhaps I should say, in case anyone has any misgivings on the subject, that to obtain possession the landlord will have to intend to use the whole of the premises and not part of the premises. In other words, he will not be able to recover substantial premises in order to use part of them. I think that will allay the suspicions that have been felt in some quarters over this Amendment.
    Sir F. Soskice: I do not think we ought to accept that without posing a query. This, again, offends against the principle that the pre-eminent right is the right of the tenant to go on carrying on his business on the premises. I quite agree, that an Amendment enabling the landlord to obtain the premises for living in them, is not as objectionable, by a long way, as the proposal that he should be able to obtain the premises simply as an investment.
    We have our reservations about that, but I do not think we shall seek to voice them by going into the Division Lobby. Nevertheless, we feel there is very considerable doubt to be felt as to whether the landlord's desire to live in the premises could be held to entitle him to oust the tenant from the premises in which he is making his living.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 24, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "and at all times since the purchase or creation thereof the holding has been comprised in a tenancy or successive tenancies of the description specified in subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act."
    This Amendment deals with a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) on subsection (2) of the Clause.

    2449
    The effect of the subsection is that the landlord cannot seek possession for his own occupation unless, broadly speaking, he is a landlord of five years' standing. The right hon. Gentleman said that this bore hardly upon the shop-keeper who had bought premises next door to his shop in order to extend his business. Having bought the premises, he might not be able to let them for five years. The object of the subsection is to prevent the landlord buying over the head of the sitting tenant, just as his lease is coming to an end, with a view to turning the tenant out and getting the premises himself.
    If the premises were empty when the landlord bought them, and if, since buying them, he has let them until he is ready to occupy, there is not the same need to make him wait for five years before he is entitled to possession. The effect of the Amendment is that the landlord must be of five years' standing only if the premises have been let to a business tenant throughout the period since the landlord obtained his interest. If they were empty at the time of the acquisition, or have since become empty, he can apply for possession without waiting for the five years to run out.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: May I, quite quickly, thank the hon. Gentleman and the Government for meeting our wishes in this way? As I understood the explanation, it covers the point quite adequately and we are grateful.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 21, leave out subsection (3).—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

    Clause 32.—(PROPERTY TO BE COMPRISED IN NEW TENANCY.)
    Amendment made: In page 25, line 32, leave out from "holding," to "those," in line 34.—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

    Clause 34.—(RENT UNDER NEW TENANCY.)
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to move, in page 26, line 7, to leave out "there being disregarded," and to insert:
    "Provided that the county court judge in fixing the rent may take into consideration whether or not, and to what extent, the sitting tenant is reasonably entitled in all the circumstances to the benefit of—"
    2450
    The purpose of this Amendment is very important, because the Clause as drafted provides that certain very important items should be disregarded in fixing the new rent for the statutory tenant. In my submission, that would result in grave injustice to the tenant because it would mean, for instance, that all the improvements that have been made, the goodwill of the business and all the work the tenant had put into the business and the premises would be completely disregarded under the Clause. He would be in exactly the same position as a complete stranger, getting no benefit in addition at all.
    What I am anxious to do is to substitute the following words for the present words "there being disregarded," namely,
    "Provided that the county court judge in fixing the rent may take into consideration whether or not, and to what extent, the sitting tenant is reasonably entitled in all the circumstances to the benefit of—"
    and in that way give the tenant the benefit of items (a) to (d) in the Clause. That will mean that the county court shall take into consideration any effect on rent of the fact that the tenant has been in occupation of the holding; any goodwill attaching to the holding by reason of the carrying on by the tenant or his predecessor of the business; the value of any improvements which the tenant has done and for which in the ordinary way compensation would be payable if he quitted the holding; and in the case of a holding comprising of licensed premises, any addition to its value attributable to the licence if the benefit of the licence fairly belongs to him.
    Unless that is done the tenant will be put in exactly the same position as a stranger. It means that anyone who comes along and asks for the premises will be treated in exactly the same way as a tenant who has built up the goodwill and has been there for years and years, and should be given reciprocal considerations.
    Inasmuch as the rent which the Bill insists has to be paid by the tenant is the open market rent, the sitting tenant, in my submission, should have consideration to the extent I have mentioned, and so modified that items (a) to (d) may be taken into account when the fixing of the rent is being considered by the county

    2451
    court. Surely the sitting tenant is entitled to some sort of preferential treatment as against a stranger who has never done or contributed anything to the premises, has never done a scrap of improvement, has no goodwill or anything of that kind, and has not even previously been in the premises at all.
    I urge the Home Secretary to take that into consideration. Further, as the Clause stands it is extremely vague. The provision it makes purports on one view, to avoid the rent being increased by reason of items (a) to (d) but the Clause has the second construction which I have already mentioned. Having said that, I do not propose at this late hour, to prolong the matter any further.
    1.0 a.m.
    Mr. Skeffington: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."
    I gather that the Amendment is an important one and has been moved and seconded, so that discussion can be continued tomorrow, but it is understood—
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should first move to adjourn the debate, if he is to move before the Amendment is disposed of. The Question is now before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman moves that the debate be now adjourned I think that that would be in order.
    Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. I beg to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."
    With respect, Sir, you cut me off short of what I was going to say. On the Motion that this debate be resumed this day—Friday—I merely wanted to say that, as this Amendment has been moved and seconded, discussion can be continued, but it is understood that the remaining stages of Report and Third Reading are completed tomorrow, as announced in business of the House before the Recess.
    Sir F. Soskice: I do not think we can be held to give undertakings of that sort. We have made very good progress, and
    2452
    it has been quite apparent that it has not been the intention of my hon. Friends to waste time.
    If the Motion is that the debate be resumed later today it is certainly one which we would not think to oppose for a moment, but if the Motion is made conditional upon an undertaking I am afraid that the condition upon which it is made is one to which we cannot respond. I take it that the Motion is made, without conditions, that the debate is resumed later. I am glad to accede to that. I hope that the Third Reading will be finished, but I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. Crookshank: I see the point of view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the undertaking has been given by the Opposition by the acceptance of business on the last Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition. In my view, that undertaking stands. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is repudiating his Leader's acceptance of the business—[Interruption.] Certainly. That is the way in which business is transacted in this House and I must make that clear. I dare say that there will be no difficulty over the matter when we come to it.
    Sir F. Soskice: By leave of the House, may I say that I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to introduce difficulty into this matter. I have said that I hope we shall finish. Indeed, I will go further and say that I anticipate that we will finish today. But with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, to try to foist an undertaking on us in that way is not quite up to his usual standard as Leader of the House. I think I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that I hope and anticipate that we will finish today and see that the Bill receives its Third Reading.
    Mr. Crookshank: I hope that those anticipations will be fulfilled, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I had to make it quite clear that when the business is arranged and announced to the House, and accepted by the House, I take it that is what is going to happen. However, in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that he anticipates that that is what will happen I do not think we need to say anything more.
    Mr. G. Thomas: May I say one last word? In my part of the country this is the most controversial Measure seen in this Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised that we have reacted strongly.
    Debate to be resumed this day.

  POWER STATIONS (RATING)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Oakshott.]
  1.7 a.m.
  Mr. E. H. C. Leather: I should like to raise a question of some complexity with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I appreciate that from the point of view of the rules of order I am treading on delicate ground, and I hope that I shall be able to keep within them. There is both a general problem relating to the question of power stations and to the unfortunate people who have to have them in their districts. It is of great interest to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) and other hon. Members, and, in my particular case, there is a particular problem which complicates it.
  I do not want to try to urge any solutions on my hon. Friend. Indeed, I do not expect to have any positive undertaking from him, but I hope to get from him an acknowledgment that the present system is most extraordinarily unjust. Indeed, it is nonsense; it has not worked out at all as anticipated in the set-up, and there are certain precedents which we may call upon to put it right.
  The present system was set up in 1948 and it is a system whereby the electricity industry as a whole contributes a lump sum, about £12 million to the Exchequer, which, in turn, doles out on a formula to all districts in the country. When this matter was discussed on the Adjournment a year or so ago it was suggested we might help to solve the problem by means of certain adjustments in the Exchequer equalisation grants. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm tonight that we will hear no more of
  2454
  that. It has been discussed and shelved, and the committee which reported said that they could not think of anything to do, and did not intend to do anything.
  The first and principal point I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, which may not have been made before, is the severe burden placed on districts which happen to have power stations within their precincts. In Portishead, there is a very severe problem today with the maintenance of the roads. All the local services, leading up to the very gates of the power station, have to be provided by the local authority. In this case, about 4,000 tons of ash per week is carried up and down the local authority's roads. That is a quite exceptional burden, which ultimately rests on the local ratepayers, because they have to pay the additional cost of maintenance which falls upon them purely by reason of the accident that they happen to have a power station in their area.
  In many districts there is also the very severe problem—depending on the coal which is burned—of soot, grit and dust, which gets into the drains and clogs up the sewers. This throws an additional burden upon the ratepayers. Finally, certainly in Portishead and probably in the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends, a very heavy burden is thrown upon the ratepayers because of the need for additional housing subsidies for workers employed purely in the power station. In Portishead, about 100 houses have already been provided for the workers in the station, and a programme for another 100 will shortly be started. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has the details, but in Portishead the subsidy which has to be found by the ratepayers for the present 100 houses, without taking into account the further 100 proposed, takes up far more than the whole of the council's share of the central pool.
  We have the ridiculous situation in which urban districts with power stations have to find amounts of money, which are enormous for them, to pay for these additional facilities, housing subsidies and road maintenance, for which they get very little relief from the central pool, whereas neighbouring districts, with no burden thrown upon their ratepayers, get an enormous windfall. The situation is exaggerated by the fact that the formula

  2455
  in relation to the sums granted from the central pool is based upon the total rateable value of the district.
  In the case of Portishead, the total sum granted out of the pool is about £569. The council has to find more than that for housing subsidies alone, whereas in the next district, five miles away, no burden arises in connection with power stations, and it gets a gift from the Exchequer of about £1,300, which is more than double the sum received by Portishead. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that whatever else it may be the present system is certainly unjust.
  I believe I am right in saying that my hon. Friend's Ministry, the gas industry and local authorities have been having certain discussions during the past few months, and have now reached agreement upon a scheme to be introduced in the near or distant future—I do not know which—to solve exactly the same problem in the gas industry. I believe that the Ministry is about to propound the solution.
  I suggest that there is no inherent difference between the problems existing in the gas and electricity industries respectively, and if my hon. Friend can give an assurance that he will treat the problems of the electricity industry in the same way as he proposes to do in the case of the gas industry—as I think he will find he will be able to do—he will go a long way towards removing a burden which is causing a great deal of financial hardship to the district of Portishead and all those urban districts which happen to be unfortunate enough to have power stations within their boundaries.
  1.14 a.m.
  Mr. Ernest Thornton: I should like to support the case put forward by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). In doing so, I want to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the serious situation developing in the Kearsley Urban District Council, which is an important part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. Before 1948, the electric power station represented two-thirds of the council's rateable value—£66,000 out of £110,000. In 1948, large extensions
  2456
  were nearing completion and the council had reason to anticipate that its rateable value from this source would double, which would mean a very substantial increase in the total rateable value of the district.
  On that basis, it is not surprising that certain progressive and ambitious policies were pursued in anticipation of a rise in rateable value. It is evident, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North has pointed out, that the scheme worked out in 1948 has been unfair in its application to urban district councils which have been unfortunate enough under these circumstances to have a large power station in their area.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give serious consideration to this problem, and will see what can be done. I also hope that he will not think that the brevity of my remarks—I have tried to keep them within two minutes—is a measure of the importance which I attach to this problem.
  1.15 a.m.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I rise to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) who has within the boundaries of his constituency the Portishead power station. In my constituency, there is a similar establishment, the Stourport-on-Severn electric generating station, which has an installed capacity almost identical to the Portishead power station in Somerset. The power station at Portishead is 284,000 kilowatts installed, whereas Stourport-on-Severn is 300,000 kilowatts installed, and they are, therefore, very nearly the same size.
  I wish, briefly, to quote the exact figures of rateable value that have ressulted from electricity nationalisation in connection with the Stourport-on-Severn power station. On 31st March, 1948, that is, the day before vesting date for electricity nationalisation, the total rateable value of the Stourport-on-Severn urban district was £108,750. On the following day, 1st April, 1948, the figure fell to only £44,245, a drop of £64,505 overnight—more than 50 per cent. A large part of that sum had to be made good by the ratepayers from other sources in the ensuing period. It meant, in fact, a substantial increase in the local rates.

  2457
  To be strictly fair in the matter, there is, of course, a compensating grant from the British Electricity Authority, and in the first year after nationalisation that amounted to £14,231. But it declines at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and the amount of the annual grant will, therefore, be extinguished in the year 1958–59.
  The biggest industrial establishment in the Stourport-on-Severn urban district is the British Electricity Authority's power station. I consider that, in present circumstances, that power station is making a totally inequitable contribution to the rateable value of the area. I recognise that, in all good faith the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1948 were framed, following electricity nationalisation to allow for a contribution to be made by power stations, but, in practice, it has not worked out as hon. Members of this House or those engaged in the electricity industry, or local authorities, originally anticipated.
  My hon. Friend very wisely made reference to conversations taking place between the gas industry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in regard to the revision of rating arrangements and contributions to rateable value to be made by the gas boards in various parts of the country. I hope that those conversations will be brought to a successful conclusion. However, it is infinitely more important that something should be done about the electric power stations because they are so very much larger, both in terms of hereditament value and in terms of the contribution which they ought to be making to the rateable value of the areas concerned. I ask my hon. Friend whether he can give us any hope, those of us who represent constituencies within which these electric power stations are sited, that, at an early date, revision will be considered for the contributions made by the British Electricity Authority to the local rates of the local authorities concerned.
  1.21 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) for having given me notice of the matters he wished to raise in this debate. He said in his speech that he would tread
  2458
  delicately, and he did, in a very reasonable manner, and kept within the rules of order. It seemed to me that though he was delicate he was dogged and determined, because it is now nearly half-past one and the last time he went to bed was on Tuesday night.
  Mr. Nabarro: Me. too.
  Mr. Marples: The same is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and of myself as well, so if my contribution to the debate is a little blurred I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me. He has been most assiduous and diligent in his efforts to help his constituency over this question, because he raised it on the Adjournment 18 months ago.
  Before I answer him, however, I should say a word on the observations of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster. I should think that the constituency of the hon. Member for Farnworth is not troubled by not being wealthy or not having sufficient rates, because it made representations to the Ministry to have a standard of building by both private enterprise and the local authority higher than that of the rest of the country.
  I remember that it asked for 8 ft. ceilings, whereas the rest of the country was content with a modest 7 ft. 6 in. One could be led to the conclusion, therefore, that it has surplus funds to dispose of in erecting rather lavish buildings. I will look at the figures and they will be taken into consideration when we discuss this matter in the Ministry. As I have only a few minutes to answer the debate I hope the hon. Member will not think me discourteous if I do not say more on that matter now.
  Mr. Thornton: But the hon. Gentleman will agree, will he not, that what he has just said about my constituency also indicates civic pride and a desire to serve the people?
  Mr. Marples: It indicates both that it would like a lot of money spent on building and that it is a reasonably wealthy district.
  I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that, in principle, rates were not intended even in the 1948

  2459
  Act to be equivalent to the services rendered to the individual ratepayer. If that were a general principle, then, for instance, ratepayers without children would not contribute to paying for the education of other people's children. I shall try to say something in a moment on that subject in relation to the Act.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North has placed me in a dilemma. He spoke of difficulties and asked me what was being done about them. So did the other two hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. Any remedial measures we may take will involve legislation, and if I embarked on a dissertation on legislation I should incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, and that I would not do. So I am at a disadvantage in answering specific points put to me by my hon. Friend. However, I shall try within the rules of order to deal with them.
  This is a complicated matter. It may be said that the 1948 Act, in certain respects, is bad; but in the case of Somerset, and the urban district council concerned, a bargain was struck. They knew, when they did this deal, what the rating would be for that particular power station. They knew what would happen when they had that area given to them, and the rating has not been altered since then.
  The second point is that if the 1948 Act is bad—it may or may not be, and in any case we cannot discuss change of legislation tonight—the arithmetic applied to the principal formula laid down in that Act has been applied. If we are to criticise the 1948 Act we must take all of it and not just one part, and say that that has been unfavourable.
  My hon. Friend has spoken of what the local authority has had to provide for the power station in relation to what it gets from the power station; but he must consider all of the 1948 Act. We have to strike a balance sheet; we have to tot up all the items. In this particular case at Portishead we transferred an area containing docks of £402 rateable value. That was another thing in the deal with the local authority. There has been industrial development as well, and there is an Exchequer equalisation grant, also.
  Here are some figures. In 1954–5, the Somerset County Council received
  2460
  £959,000 under this same Act and that is one of the many factors to be taken into consideration. The precepts were reduced on all county districts, and there is a capitation payment of £5,020. All these items must be taken into account, and I must point out that the urban district council did not object to the proposals which were put before the Minister, nor did it object when the draft order was made. They calculated, I suppose, that the proposal would be beneficial, and it was only after the transfer that they complained of this particular item.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster asked about the gas industry, and said there had been tried a new method in that industry. He asked whether there could be the same arrangement for the electricity industry. The answer is that we have nearly, but not quite, agreed on a new formula for gas, and on 16th March a Ministry circular, No. 29 of 1954, stated that prolonged discussions had taken place with the Gas Council and representatives of the local authorities associations, and that a substantial measure of agreement had been reached.
  Here again, legislation is needed, but what we should like to do is to consider, first, through internal discussion at the Ministry, how the new proposals for the gas industry work out; and if they are satisfactory we could apply some allied principles to other industries of a similar nature. We should like to try the new method of rating in the gas industry first, and if it goes reasonably well, then apply it to other allied industries.
  Mr. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend mean merely to let a period elapse before working out a new formula for part of the gas industry, or will he need a period of several years? I ask that because those local authorities with power houses in their areas will suffer considerably during a long trial period.
  Mr. Marples: One has to be careful in applying a new principle, which would need legislation all round, to a series of industries. We must wait and see what happens. One remembers the fate of the groundnut scheme. We must realise that it is better to have a pilot scheme.
  I wish to mention one other point. I think it is agreed that local government finance as a whole has not worked out as it was thought that it would. There

  2461
  are anomalies and inequities which are being considered in the Ministry. Some years ago we were asked about the development charge and I remember saying from this Box that we would consider it. The same thing happened with the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, and I say now that we will consider what can best be done to level out the inequities in local government finance, short of legislation. It may be that legislation will come into our considerations at a later stage, but I will make certain that the points raised in this debate are included in the agenda when these matters are discussed.
  2462
  We shall take fully into account the inequities caused by the rating of the power stations. I do not think I can go further than that tonight. This is one of many anomalies and the only way to deal with the matter is to take them as a whole. I will ask my right hon. Friend to take into account the representations which have been made tonight when he considers the reconstruction of local government finances as a whole.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  United States and Canadian Fruit
  United States and Canadian Fruit
  Tourist Travel Facilities (North Devon)
  Tourist Travel Facilities (North Devon)
  British Textile Designs (Japanese Infringements)
  British Textile Designs (Japanese Infringements)
AGRICULTURE
  Production Incentives
  Production Incentives
  Atrophic Rhinitis
  Atrophic Rhinitis
  Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme
  Apple and Pear Marketing Scheme
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murder and Manslaughter Convictions (Young Persons)
  Murder and Manslaughter Convictions (Young Persons)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  School Crossing Patrols (Holiday Periods)
  School Crossing Patrols (Holiday Periods)
  Australian Royal Commission on Communist Activities
  Australian Royal Commission on Communist Activities
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Health Services
  Industrial Health Services
  Wages and Salaries
  Wages and Salaries
  NATIONAL SERVICE (IMMIGRANTS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (IMMIGRANTS)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  World Health Organisation (Budget Increase)
  World Health Organisation (Budget Increase)
  Darlington Hospital Committee (Dismissed Officials)
  Darlington Hospital Committee (Dismissed Officials)
  Cedar Court, Sutton
  Cedar Court, Sutton
  Nurses (Working Hours)
  Nurses (Working Hours)
  Out-Patient's Departments (Waiting Periods)
  Out-Patient's Departments (Waiting Periods)
  Aged Sick
  Aged Sick
EDUCATION
  Technical Teachers
  Technical Teachers
  Technological Grants
  Technological Grants
  New Schools
  New Schools
  School Places
  School Places
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Training College (Expenditure)
  Training College (Expenditure)
  NAURU ISLAND (PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY)
  NAURU ISLAND (PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, GLENROTHES
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, GLENROTHES
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Industrial Injuries Fund
  Industrial Injuries Fund
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Caerphilly Castle (Repairs)
  Caerphilly Castle (Repairs)
  Cement Supplies
  Cement Supplies
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Crawshaw—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATEMENTS BY SERVING OFFICERS
2.37 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether the Press reports of a speech made in Paris on the 24th day of May, 1954, by Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery accurately represent the views of Her Majesty's Government on the possible or probable use of atomic weapons in the event of war; and (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to restrain responsible military leaders from making statements on policy which are calculated to bedevil the efforts now being made for international understanding.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, from the Press reports, it appears that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery's statement on May 24 was not in conflict with the views expressed by Her Majesty's Government in paragraph 13 of the Statement on Defence, 1954.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is the noble and gallant Lord aware that, when I asked a similar question about the hydrogen bomb, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House two days later said that it was not in the national interest that any statement should be made?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: If the noble Viscount had attentively read the Statement on Defence, he would have seen what Her Majesty's Government's policy was in that respect.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I take it that this is the position. I remember Macaulay saying, when referring to John Hampden:
"The essence of war is violence, and moderation in war is imbecility."
In spite of that fact, this question of the circumstances in which we should use these weapons is essentially a political matter. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will agree with that, and I am sure that the noble and gallant Field Marshal would agree with that. It is obviously within the power of the U.N.O. Council, of which we are a member, to give instructions, as they think wise, as to what shall be said by the military leaders about these matters.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I will read the paragraph in question and if noble Lords are still in any doubt perhaps a further Question might be put down. The relevant passage is:
"If by some miscalculation in Communist policy or by deliberate design a global war were to be forced on us, it must be assumed that atomic weapons would be employed by both sides. In this event, it seems likely that such a war would begin with a period of intense atomic attacks lasting a relatively short time but inflicting great damage and destruction."
LORD KERSHAW: Does the noble and gallant Lord contend that the statement he has just read out is entirely analogous with the statement made by the noble and gallant Field Marshal?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I will repeat what I said in my reply. I said that I did not think that Lord Montgomery's statement on May 24 was in conflict with the views expressed in the White Paper.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble and gallant Lord must be aware that we

1187
have tried very hard to get the Government in this House to declare their policy on the hydrogen bomb. We were told that it was considered unwise, for reasons of State, to make a declaration. How, then, can it be that two eminent soldiers, within two days or a few days of one another, declare that in case of war we are going all out with this new weapon?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I do not think that that is an exact reproduction of what either soldier said. In any case, it is a question for Her Majesty's Government to consider. The hydrogen bomb does not appear in this context.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No, but the hydrogen bomb is the latest development of the atomic weapon. I should like to ask the noble and gallant Lord this question. Is this statement by the assistant head of N.A.T.O. made with the consent of the N.A.T.O. Council, or which is the body that controls utterances by serving officers under N.A.T.O.?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Responsible officers must take the responsibility for their own statements. The question of who controls the statements of those officers depends on the circumstances of the time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But does the noble and gallant Lord really mean that any serving officer under N.A.T.O. is at liberty to make a declaration on policy without consulting the political heads of the Organisation?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I could not answer that question without notice because it does not arise out of this Question.
2.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what rules govern statements on Government policy by officers on the Active List.]
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, the rules governing statements on Government policy by officers on the Active List are laid down in the Queen's Regulations for each of the three Services.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble and gallant Lord inform us what the rules are?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I will, if he wishes, write to the noble Viscount and give him the relevant paragraphs in Queen's Regulations.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: As I have taken the trouble to put the Question on the Order Paper, I think it is not too much to ask for an Answer to be given now. Should I not be correct in saying that officers on the Active List are not permitted to make statements on policy?
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I would refer the noble Viscount to Queen's Regulations, and if he has a further Question, perhaps he will put it down.

THE MALTESE NATIONAL ANTHEM
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the case that spectators at the Queen's Birthday parade in Malta were circulated with an instruction to the Services not to salute during the playing of the Maltese National Anthem, and whether, if this is the case, an apology should not be offered to the Government of Malta for this grave discourtesy, and an assurance given that in future on this occasion the practice of not saluting during the playing of the Maltese National Anthem will be discontinued.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I regret that at present I have insufficient information to let the noble Lord have a full Answer, but if he will put his Question down again for next Thursday I am assured that my noble friend will then be in a position to give a full reply.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course, I accept the noble Earl's reply and I am grateful to him for saying that he will obtain the information for which I have asked. I am sure he will appreciate that I put down the Question at short notice, in order to enable a reply to be made as soon as possible after the events took place in Malta.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.43 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House a question arising out of Business to-day? Among the list of Bills to be considered to-day is the Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill. That Bill was printed just before the Whitsun Holiday and, of course, our opportunity to consider it was rather interfered with by the holiday and by the fact that people were apart from each other. What I am asking the noble Marquess is whether he can see his way to give us a little longer time—say, for instance, until one day next week—before we take the Second Reading of the Bill. It must be considered in the context of the rather wider matters about which the noble Marquess knows quite well, and I think that it would be desirable, from everybody's point of view, if we could have a little longer to look into it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl for asking his question, and also for giving me notice that he proposed to do so. I have looked into this matter and I think there is substance in what the noble and learned Earl has said. No doubt the holiday has interfered with people's arrangements, and in view of that I suggest that we postpone the consideration of this Bill until next Thursday, which would give the extra week which is required. I would propose that next Thursday the Bill's Second Reading should be placed as first Order on the Paper.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who on this occasion, as on so many others, has done what he can to consult the wishes of the House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, before the Second Reading of this Bill, would the noble Marquess bear in mind the question of giving us some detailed information as to the functions of the people who are to be abstracted from their military duties?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will certainly look into that matter.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Thank you.

HOUSING (REPAIRS AND RENTS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, your Lordships have lately had the opportunity of discussing the English Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, and if such a Bill is necessary for England it is certainly more so for Scotland, where housing conditions have always been relatively worse. Of course, the main attack on the housing problem, both in Scotland and in England, must be by way of rapid building of new houses, and by the elimination and the rebuilding of the slums. Those must be the two main lines of the Government's attack upon this problem. But if there are other lines which can profitably be followed and which will result in people having better houses more quickly, then I submit to your Lordships that it is the duty of the Government to go ahead.
This Bill is no substitute for slum clearance, but it faces up to the realities, which are that, clearly, all the slums cannot be demolished at once. The Bill therefore provides means by which people who have to live in these conditions for some years further will be able to live in rather more comfort and enjoy rather greater health. In Scotland there are some 750,000 houses of this type which need additional money spent on them if they are to be put into good and tenantable repair. That is almost half the total Scottish figure, so noble Lords will see that this is a considerable problem and one which we could not neglect. The fact is that all such houses have been controlled since 1939, and a great many of them—some 400,000—have had the rents controlled since 1920. As a result, I think it is clear that with the rise in costs, about which I shall say a word in a moment, it has been virtually impossible for the owners to prevent these dilapidations from taking place. Therefore, the Bill proposes to assist an owner to discharge his obligation to put a house into good and tenantable repair by allowing him to charge an additional rent, subject to certain conditions. I hope, therefore, that nobody will challenge the general objective of this Bill, which is to put this very

1191
large class of houses (about half of the Scottish total) into good repair, because that must be for the benefit both of the tenant and of the community.
Part I of the Bill deals largely with financial assistance to local authorities who wish to take over these properties and to put them into temporary repair, pending ultimate demolition. The Exchequer is going to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of acquisition, and, not only in the case where a local authority has to buy the house, but in every case where the local authority owns such a house, £7 5s. a year for fifteen years will be paid towards the cost of the work which is to be done on it. I think it is perhaps worth noting that these figures were calculated when interest rates were at 3½ per cent.—they are now 3¼ per cent. It may be a modest gain and may represent only a few pounds per house, but nevertheless it is in the right direction. Our experience and that of local authorities has usually been the other way. Houses which look like being occupied for a comparatively long period will obviously need more spent on them, but houses which are going to be occupied for a short time before demolition will need less. I think on the whole that the local authorities should find these terms—an Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost of acquisition, and £7 5s. a year for fifteen years towards the cost of the work that has to be done—reasonably attractive; and certainly I think that dealing with this class of house and putting them into good repair fills a gap in existing legislation, and will be of significant benefit to many thousands of tenants. There may be other points on Part I which noble Lords will want to raise, but I think that is the main point of Part I of the Bill.
The main provision in Part II is that which under certain conditions allows the owner to raise his rent by a maximum of 40 per cent., provided that he puts the house into good and tenantable repair—a phrase well understood, of course, by all the local authorities of Scotland. The 40 per cent. rise has been calculated on the consideration that since 1939 the costs of repair have trebled—that fact has been established by independent committees in Scotland and in England, and their findings have coincided. There can be no doubt that there has been a threefold
1192
rise in the cost of repair. During that same period, rates have risen by 41 per cent., and during that time, also, such necessary charges as charges for management and insurance have risen by anything between 30 per cent. and 65 per cent. So I think, whatever method is adopted, there is bound to be a rise of rent, whether this problem is dealt with by allowing the owner to charge some additional rent or whether, as in the case made by noble Lords opposite, the houses are taken over by the local authority. In either case, it seems to me, a rise of rent is inescapable, and 40 per cent. would seem to be the least that could be given.
The Opposition in another place (and I take it that noble Lords opposite will repeat the case here, because it is the case of the Opposition) said that, although the principle of this may be right and we should deal with this problem, nevertheless the method is wrong; that all these houses should be handed over to the local authority, and they should do the repair and the reletting. Now that is a serious argument and it is a possibility, and with that I must tell your Lordships why we have rejected it and regard it as financially and administratively undesirable. First of all, the acquisition of 750,000 houses would be a severe tax on the capacity of the local authorities for years to come. That might not be a decisive reason against the method proposed. If there were any decisive advantage, either financial or administrative, I think that objection would not be conclusive. But taking the sum of over £200 a house, which is quite a modest and, I think, a fair sum to take, the acquisition of these houses would cost £150 million. The loan charges would have to be met, and on average the loan charges would add more than the rent increases proposed under this Bill. In addition to the loan charges, the local authorities would have to do the repairs, and of course would have to add something more for that. And so we have come to the conclusion that at the end either the tenant or the ratepayer, or indeed possibly both, would be worse off than they are under the scheme which the Government propose in this Bill. So, on both financial and administrative grounds, we reject this alternative.
May I, for a moment, deal with the criticism which suggests that this Bill is—as it has been constantly described outside these Houses of Parliament—"a Bill

1193
that lines the landlord's pocket." It is perfectly right that we should be vigilant in this matter, but this Bill is a very different Bill from the Act which is so often quoted, the Act of 1920. In that there were no qualifying conditions. The tenants' safeguards were inadequate, and it was possible for an unscrupulous landlord to put the additional rent in his pocket and not to do the repairs. The propaganda (noble Lords will forgive me for calling it so) by the Socialist Party outside this House, has suggested that this Bill and the Act of 1920 are closely parallel. Well, that simply is not so; because into this Bill we have been scrupulously careful to put conditions which will protect the tenant. For instance, before the landlord can charge the increase he has to make a public declaration that the house is in good and tenantable repair. He has to declare that within a reasonable period he has spent the necessary monies on repair, and, as noble Lords will remember, that is three-fifths of the rent in the previous twelve months or six-fifths in the previous three years. If a landlord makes a false declaration, he is subject to very heavy penalties. He can go to prison for two years, or be fined, or both. In addition to that, he can be asked to forfeit any increase of rent which he was allowed under the 1920 Act. I would suggest that this, on top of the safeguards in the Bill, is really sufficient, and that no reputable landlord will run such a risk—indeed, I think it is fair to say that no landlord will run such a risk.
Under the Scottish rating system—and here, of course, there is a difference from the position in England—any increase in rent at once attracts an increase in rates, and it is therefore necessary, if the whole of the 40 per cent. increase in rent allowed is to be available to the landlord to carry out repairs, to take two steps: to exclude the increase of rent from the rateable value of the house and to put a ceiling upon the poundage of owners' rates. Clearly, I think, but for this provision we should have had to give a much bigger increase of rent to cover the cost of repairs and to include the extra element for owners' rates, and the result would have been that both the owner and tenant would have had more rates to pay. These provisions are, of course, temporary—and I have explained the reason for them—pending the Report
1194
of Lord Sorn's Committee which is examining the whole of the rating system in Scotland.
Under this Bill we do one other thing of considerable importance. This applies to houses both in the town and in the countryside, although often when we talk of house properties in Scotland we tend to talk of the problems of the towns and rather to neglect the equally important problems of the countryside, To-day, as your Lordships know, it is possible for a landlord to spend a maximum, in the normal case, of £800 on the improvement, as distinct from the repair, of an existing house and to get a grant of 50 per cent. of what he spends, with a maximum of £400. Now labour is not short in the building industry, and supplies of materials are no longer so short. There is no reason therefore to prevent the landlord from spending what he can afford—or what he thinks he can afford—on improving his cottages. Therefore this Bill abolishes the upper limit of £800. A landlord can now spend, in improving his cottages, any sum he likes, but the maximum grant is retained at £400. If any noble Lord would like some figures, I can give some which will, I think, show that already, in anticipation of this, and as the result of some measures we were able to take a little earlier, landlords all over the country are beginning in a large way to improve their cottages; and I look forward to many thousands of people benefiting from this clause.
I think that those are the salient points of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, who I understand is to reply on behalf of the Opposition, will have noticed that I have argued the merits of the measure in a singularly non-controversial and benevolent way. I hope he will not think it necessary to stir up any synthetic indignation, because I have the right of reply, and I should be most distressed to have to alter my tactics and to make any of those comparisons in the field of housing which might cause him acute discomfort. This Bill is one of the ingredients in a comprehensive housing plan. Under it, new houses are being built at a record rate. Under it, for the first time since the end of the war, we are able to turn to slum clearance and the reconstruction of the centres of cities and towns. Under it, we are able to assist persons to improve and to repair their

1195
properties. Under it, we are enabled to give those who have to live a little longer in slum conditions a chance to do so a little more comfortably and more healthily. Under it, the individual is given greater encouragement to build for himself. Therefore, in this pressing social problem of housing in Scotland—where it is relatively worse than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom—I put forward this Bill as a practical measure which will fill a serious gap, and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, the first thing I wish to do is to congratulate the noble Earl on the way in which he has introduced this Bill to us. I congratulate him particularly on his cheerful demeanour, but if the attitude of those who are especially affected by the Bill were properly represented in this House—I am afraid that I am not capable, synthetically or otherwise, of voicing properly the indignation that is felt about the Bill in Scotland—I fear that the noble Earl would not be quite so cheerful after that was done. He threatens me—for I take what he said as a threat—that if I dare to say anything seriously derogatory of the Bill, before the end of the day I shall be dealt with in no uncertain manner. That does not deter me from saying that the popular opinion with regard to this Bill is that it represents the Government running true to type, that it is another instance of the Government intention, while they have the power, to treat favourably a section of the community to whom they are well disposed, the housing landlords.
I use the term "housing landlords" because I am within sight of other types of landlord against whom I make no reflection, whom, indeed, I hold in high regard for the way in which they have carried out their responsibilities as landlords in the true sense of the term: "lords of the land." The housing landlords' turn has come, just as the brewers' turn came right at the beginning of this Parliament, when the Government came to their rescue in the matter of the new
1196
towns and wiped out the idea of putting the licensed trade in the hands of the State, in the same way as is done under the State management scheme in Carlisle and other districts. We have other instances of this kind of benevolence exercised by the Government in the disposal of road transport and steel. And there are still further instances of this policy which is dictated by the Government attitude that, while it is right to allow unremunerative public services to be carried by the taxpayer, it is the Government's duty to see that, where services can be exploited for profit, such profit should accrue to private individuals and not to the community as a whole.
The housing of the masses of the people is an outstanding example of a realm which, allowed free scope, what is described as "private enterprise" could exploit to its own advantage, for houses are in universal and urgent demand. Since the First World War, however, there has been a very definite reaction against such exploitation, and successive Governments have had to bring the question of housing prominently into the national economy. Great problems of finance are involved, and these are notoriously causing much concern at local and national levels. Notwithstanding what has already been done, the demand for housing accommodation is still far from being fully met, and if this latest attempt by Her Majesty's Government to tackle the problem from a new angle goes some way to ease the position, it will be of that much value, although it may be inequitable and unjust in its working.
I am afraid that it is too much to believe that the Bill will do what its sponsors hope. There is strong disapproval of the Bill, as I have indicated, in many quarters, and hundreds of organisations have protested, including many local authorities. Petitions signed by tens of thousands of citizens have been sent to St. Andrew's House, and the Minister of State himself received a deputation representing two million people, comprised in the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Co-operative Party, and the Scottish Labour Party. There can be no denying the hostility to the Bill that exists in Scotland.
One vital consideration which seems to be ignored by Her Majesty's Government

1197
is that their desire for restraint in respect of claims for increased wages is rendered quite nonsensical when regard is had to the proposal to increase rents by eight shillings in the pound. Such a rise must result in new wage claims, as the Scottish Trades Union Congress representatives have pointed out to the Minister of State. There are tenants who have been treated very shabbily by the landlords or, more correctly perhaps, by the paid agents of the landlords—for I feel sure many landlords never see for months, and perhaps even for years on end, the property from which rents are being extracted. If they had seen them they would have been ashamed of the source of their income and might have had more consideration for the miseries which the tenants were enduring and afforded them some relief.
I do not wish to claim that all landlords have been evil and all tenants paragons of virtue. That would be far from a true picture, for I have heard of wanton destruction by tenants, while, at the same time, I have learned of decent tenants striving their utmost to improve the tenement dwellings in which they were obliged to live. They themselves did painting and papering work which was legally the responsibility of the landlord. Some went far beyond that, and at their own expense made improvements, such as putting in electric light, installing new taps and sinks, and even installing modern fireplaces. When they left at the end of their tenancies, the landlords cashed in on that by selling the dwellings, instead of allowing them to go to other tenants—selling them, I may say, at grossly inflated prices. No wonder the Ridley Commission, reporting in 1945, said:
"We received a considerable volume of evidence to the effect that the permitted increase of 47½ per cent. had not been applied for the purpose for which it was designed but had been regarded as an added increment to the landlord's income. There is evidence of a tendency among owners to look upon house property as an investment to give perpetual income without much expenditure on repairs and replacements."
That is more eloquent proof of the exploitation of tenants than I could give from my own knowledge, for it is convincing evidence given under the authority of a body led by a respected noble Lord who is well known in this House. Evidence of this kind, which is commonplace knowledge to thousands of
1198
tenants who have been paying increased rents to landlords since 1920 and getting nothing done for their homes, causes widespread opposition to the proposal in this Bill to make another gift to the landlords of a further 40 per cent. increase in rent.
Part II of the Bill deals with this proposal and I am confining myself to that aspect, leaving my noble friend Lord Greenhill, with his unrivalled knowledge of local government in the largest housing authority in Scotland—indeed, the largest in Great Britain; and I think it is quite probable that the City of Glasgow is the largest single housing authority in the world—to deal with the local authority aspects of the problem. Part I of the Bill covers 324,000 very old houses and Part II covers 426,000 dwellings which are of varying ages up to 100 years. It is, therefore, a big problem that we have to face, and I feel that the tenant's position is not secure. The only thing he can be certain of is that it the clear intention of the Government that he shall hereafter pay an additional rent of 40 per cent. We must endeavour to safeguard his position, and it seems to me that your Lordships' House has the duty of securing safeguards which the Bill at present lacks. For example, there is reference to a condition that, to carry the additional rent burden, the dwelling-house must be "in good and tenantable repair." But there is no definition of that condition which, as shown is much too vague. I ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us now what that phrase actually means. It could cover a great many requirements and we should like to know what they are. The reference is in Clause 16 (1) (a) (i). Again, in Clause 17, there is provision for a "prescribed form" to be served by the landlord upon the tenant when he demands higher rent. We require details in that connection as well.
Another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the House is in relation to the letting of dwellings by landlords who are having the benefits conferred upon them by this Bill. I consider that it is reasonable to ask that the landlord should, as an acknowledgment of these benefits, co-operate with the local authorities in dealing with the allocation of houses. To enable tenants to obtain houses suitable to their needs, I feel sure a method of voluntary transfers could frequently be effected, and it does not

1199
seem to be beyond the bounds of reason for the necessary liaison to be established between private householders and the housing departments of local authorities. These may be looked upon as Committee points, but I mention them now as outstanding points in order that they may be considered before the Committee stage of the Bill is reached.
I hope that the noble Earl, the Minister of State, and the Scottish Office are not building too great hopes upon this Bill, or that it is imagined that its passage into law will re-establish the owners of houses for letting in their former position. They have had their day, and in recent times many of them have been found wanting. To the best and most worthy of them circumstances have not been kind, and the great development of housing as a public service, which must continue, seems to me to spell the end of the era of house-building for letting purposes as a profit-making investment by private individuals. Indeed, the noble Earl will not deny that this is becoming evident at the present time, because, of all the houses built in Scotland since the end of the Second World War, only 1 per cent. have been built by private enterprise for letting. That clearly shows the tendency to which I refer. Personally, I favour individual owner-occupancy, and I believe that there are great possibilities in that direction. I hold the view that the citizen who provides himself with a house of his own is a public benefactor, and that he should be encouraged. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently announced a scheme of house purchase, involving an initial deposit of only £70, which he considers attractive; but he must realise that, even at its best, this scheme is entirely beyond the capacity of workers earning ordinary wages of £8 or £9 a week. The proposal would involve a payment of at least £3 a week, and clearly we should have to change completely the whole financial set-up in connection with housing if we wished to make a success of owner-occupancy for the masses of our people. But this Bill looks back and not forward. That is, perhaps, its greatest fault.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am somewhat embarrassed at being put into bat so early in the day as this. I
1200
came prepared to make a few remarks later, but I have been held to perform now and I apologise for having to do so. I welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction, although it is only the tottering, uncertain step of a small infant. A great deal is left to be done by this and, possibly, successive Governments. However, so far as it goes, I welcome it. I wish to refer to only one part of the Bill, which is the only one of which I can claim to have any reasonable knowledge. I refer to Clauses 10 and 12, which are dealt with in paragraph 4 of Part I of the Explanatory Memorandum, and which deal with improvement grants. I should like to examine for a few minutes the working of these grants as they exist at the moment. I have done several reconstructions under these grants and know a good deal of what is going on in my own county.
I think this matter requires looking into pretty carefully. Considerable enthusiasm was displayed all over the county when the first grants came out last year, and a very large number of applications were put into the local authority under these grant schemes—those are probably the figures quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Home. But I should like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that, of those people who applied for assistance under these grant schemes, the number who have carried out the work, or had it carried out for them, is a miserable trickle of the total that originally went in—that is so in our case, at any rate. The reason is that the conditions with which one has to apply are too onerous. For example, if you wish to put in a bathroom and indoor sanitation—which, when all is said and done, is a good improvement to a cottage which has not already got it—that can often be done in the countryside, to which I am referring particularly, for a sum of around £150. I have a cottage to which I desire to make those improvements. In order to qualify for the grant I have to put in the bathroom and provide a scullery up to the specification requirements of the local authority. That is all plain sailing and above board.
But before I can qualify for the grant, I have also to knock out the windows of that house and replace them with windows equal to one-tenth of the floor area, and to provide heaven knows how much more heating in the winter. Is

1201
it necessary to have that light in a bedroom? In addition, as this house happens to be a shepherd's house (he is an oldish married man whose family is away, and there is ample accommodation for him and his wife) I should have to use a sub-standard bedroom which exists there at the moment as a bathroom. But, again, to qualify for the grant I have to provide another bedroom, in spite of the fact that this man does not require it. The total cost to me of improvements I desire to carry out will be of the order of £500, and if I get a 50 per cent. grant that will be £250. It seems to me that it would be better to allow me to put in a bathroom at round about pound;150, and give me the grant on that. That would materially improve the living conditions. At the moment, these houses are allegedly in good tenantable repair, but they need these improvements.
The crux of the matter is: what is "good tenantable repair?" If you provide a bathroom in the improvements, as I have done in certain cases, it is alleged that you are bringing your house up to modern lettable standards, in good tenantable repair. You go to the inspector of taxes, and he says: "Rubbish! That is impossible; you cannot get it under maintenance." So one is "caned" on that score. Another score on which one is penalised is that although you are allowed to charge a higher rent which is agreed by the local authority—and quite fairly agreed—if that house is occupied by your own farm servant, under the Agricultural Wages Act you can charge him exactly 6s. a week for the house, and no more. Supposing I had to house somebody else's farm servant, I could charge that man, or the farmer to whom I let the house, an increased rent. That seems to be quite wrong. The landlord gets no encouragement to carry out these improvements, and when he does try to benefit a large number of your farm employees he has to squander money. If he has only a limited amount, he is not allowed to spread it on improvements and get the grant. It seems to me that somewhere there should be an alleviation, so that the money available could be made to go further in providing comfort for the individual.
Then there is the point about the rating value—agricultural houses are mostly de-rated, anyway, and possibly this is not quite so cogent a point as it
1202
might have been. I see that the amount that would be obtained by putting up the rates (if that were allowed) in a town, may now be obtained by spreading it as a general increase in rates, over the unfortunate landlords who are struggling with agricultural properties. That provision is to be found in Clause 36 (2), and, if I have read it aright, that seems to be rather unjust. It may be that I have not understood that provision, because I have found some difficulty in understanding this Bill. With those few comments, I would commend this Bill to your Lordships for the good that it will undoubtedly do.
3.26 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, having heard the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am more than ever convinced that this Bill ought to be dropped. Obviously it does not please landlords, I know it does not please tenants, and I can say that it does not please local authorities, and they are the three bodies who are most concerned with this Bill. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl who introduced the Bill this afternoon on his non-controversial approach and on the conciseness with which he has stated his case. Not having had the advantage of entering your Lordships' House from another place, I hope that I shall be equally uncontroversial, because I agree with the noble Earl that this is a Bill of immense importance and one which, as we all recognise, deals with a problem that must be tackled. The question is whether we are dealing with it in the best way. My own feeling is that we are adding far too much complicated legislative machinery in the problem that we are hoping to tackle. As your Lordships know, there is already a considerable amount of legislation; the 1950 Act in itself is a tome to go through and understand.
This particular Bill deals not merely with clearing the slums—or, rather, the preservation of slums in a less objectionable way than that in which they have to be preserved at the moment—but also introduces, in Part II a measure of recompense to the landlord for improvements or repairs carried out on these dilapidated houses. I should like to say a word or two about that matter in order to correct what I believe is a widespread

1203
misapprehension. The landlord who owns a house to-day is not necessarily the landlord who suffered most financially when rent restriction was introduced. The effect of rent restriction was that a great many people found it impossible to keep their properties, and they disposed of them at prices which they had to accept and which were remunerative to those who bought. I was told—and it surprised me—of a Glasgow house factor who was able to buy some of these properties at one and a half or two years' purchase. He took all the revenue from those houses for a year or two, ploughed it back in the way of improvements and, after the expenditure of that money for a number of years, was able to draw a substantial dividend on his original outlay. Therefore I feel that a large number of landlords are shedding crocodile tears at the sufferings they have had to undergo, and there is a good deal of make-believe about their complaints. After all, as I see it, it is not the duty of the State to safeguard investors in house property from losses on their investments, and in any event the public good overrides the good of individuals.
The local authorities, while they come into every aspect of this Bill, are very much concerned in regard to Part I. If, as the noble Earl said, it is mainly a financial matter, I should like to raise the question of whether the 50 per cent. acquisition grant and the £7 5s. 0d. per year for repairs is adequate. The noble Earl will know perfectly well that local authority associations and Members of another place have raised this matter, and I myself see no reason why there should be a difference between the Exchequer grant for new houses and that which is given under this Bill. The noble Earl will be well aware that the finances under this Bill are to be included in the housing revenue account and in the housing repairs account, along with the accounts of new houses. If it seems proper that the Exchequer contribution should be three to one in connection with new houses, what possible justification can there be for a fifty-fifty basis under this particular Bill? Although I have taken the trouble to read what Members of another place, both on the Government side and on the Opposition, have said, I must admit that I have seen no convincing reason why a distinction
1204
should be drawn between the grant for new houses and the grant for these bad houses.
Local authorities are not happy, either, about the additional duties imposed upon them. The master of works, for example, already has a great many duties to perform in order to see that houses are kept in a condition which is not dangerous. In Glasgow there are large numbers of these houses—I have not the figures here—and the medical officer of health is against this Bill on the grounds that he wants to see these slums demolished and not titivated up or patched up in order to make them habitable for another ten or fifteen years. The housing committee are not happy about it. They want to get on with the building of new houses, and not the perpetuation of these, at best, dilapidated houses. On the whole, therefore, we do not think that the Government are going about it in the right way.
I have no authority for saying what noble Lords on this side think is the appropriate remedy to take, but my personal inclination would be to say this. If, as I maintain, landlords are not being injured to the extent that they say they are, and if we believe that this is a social necessity which must be carried out, why cannot the expenditure, aided by generous Government grants, be met wholly by the local authority? The local authority could collect from the tenant, by modest additions—not 40 per cent. additions—on the weekly rent in the same way that the tenant now has his rates collected, and in that way recover, if not all, then a great part of the cost incurred in repairing the house. It seems to me a simple method. It would not be necessary, in those circumstances, to have so complicated a measure to deal with the different problems which arise, and it would, I think, work equally as well as the Government's proposals to deal with this admittedly severe problem.
This is not the occasion when one need deal with detailed Amendments—the Committee stage is, I gather, the appropriate time to do that—but there is one clause which it has been suggested I should ask the noble Earl to withdraw from the Bill. That is Clause 14 which, I am informed, has been inserted since the Bill was first introduced in another place. I admit that my lack of legal

1205
training makes it difficult for me to understand the significance of this legal wording, but I am assured that, from the point of view of local authorities, the Bill would be better without it. Perhaps the noble Earl would indicate whether he can promise that that will be done. I think that is all one need say at this stage. The local authorities are apprehensive about this Bill. They would prefer to see a clean sweep of the slums rather than a perpetuation of repaired slums. They do not think they are being treated generously enough in the way of financial assistance. With reference to that particular grant, I should like the noble Earl to indicate that the Government are prepared to reconsider the 50 per cent. allocation to which they have so far adhered.
3.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, after the speeches on this Bill and the two Bills concerned with it, which have been discussed at great length in both Houses, it seems rash for someone who has not closely followed all the debates to intervene. I apologise for not having read the statements by so many Members, in both Houses, who have great knowledge of this subject, but I think there will be agreement that the spate of legislation is so great nowadays that many noble Lords on all sides who have other work to do have difficulty in reading all the debates in Parliament.
I feel that it is right to give a welcome to this Bill as being the first endeavour to deal with a difficult subject. There has been a challenge before the country for many years, and this is the first Government which has endeavoured to tackle it. I understand that a number of suggestions have been made, both in another place and here, on the English Bill, which have not been accepted, and it seems that there is little prospect of the same suggestions being taken up now for the Bill applying to Scotland. My personal concern has been much more with agricultural land, property and buildings than with town property, and I feel it right to remind the House of the great advantage that has existed in past years because of the various rural housing grants which have been made available for agricultural cottages and buildings. Under this Bill they are extended. If the
1206
rural housing grant had not been introduced a great many years ago the cost on public funds to-day for the improvement of farm cottages or the building of new cottages would be enormous. A great deal has already been accomplished in this way, but it is common knowledge that the cost of improving farm cottages, especially in out-of-the-way places, is much more than £800—it is often £1,200 or £1,500, or even more. Therefore, the permission to spend more than £800, for the same amount of grant, will be of valuable assistance to the housing of the population of the countryside.
Perhaps it is fair to mention that the provision of houses in the countryside by landowners is not a matter of investment; it is done to provide houses for persons employed in the countryside. Agriculture alone, of all industries, has had to provide those houses in the past, and even up to the present time, though responsibility now has been taken over much more by the State. It has been upon the landowner that this responsibility has fallen, and, while it is correct to express acknowledgment of the fact that grants have been made for the purpose, the expenditure by the landlord has necessarily been considerable. Therefore, the benefit has been to the industry and to the occupiers of the houses, rather than to the individuals who own them.
I make these remarks before coming to the urban side. I feel that there is a justification also to-day for assistance to enable these houses to be greatly improved. In Scotland, the position is more difficult than in England, for various reasons, notably our rating system. In consequence, the advantage to the landowner there, so far as I understand, of this Bill will be less than in England. In Scotland, owners will still be faced with a greater difficulty in improving houses in towns than is the case in England. Today, and on other occasions, it has been stated that outside this House there is criticism of the Bill and hostility towards it, especially among local authorities. That may be so; but it is acknowledged that something must be done, and it is agreed that more is necessary than is proposed under this Bill. I feel it is fair to ask that there should be a bigger contribution than has been made so far. In Parliamentary circles, one finds among members of all Parties further away from politics a much greater recognition of the

1207
fact that in Scotland attention is needed to the subject both of rents and repairs and of rating. I hope that the Government will go further with this matter as soon as they possibly can.
I understand that at different stages suggestions have been made for reducing the upper limit in this rent restriction. I should like to express surprise that the Government have not taken the opportunity to do so in this Bill, and thereby to modify and reduce gradually the problem which is before us. Is it not fair to suggest that a start must be made with the higher valued houses? The sooner this is done the quicker we shall get to the bottom of the problem. It has been said that local authorities do not like this Bill. There have also been suggestions that local authorities should be obliged to sanction the grant, even though they are opposed to doing so.
THE EARL OF HOME: The improvement grant.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: The improvement grant. As the local authorities have a responsibility in this matter, and as they retain the freedom and independence which it is right they should have—and all of us who are members of local authorities value that—they have also, I feel, a responsibility to do the best they can to carry out this Act as helpfully as possible, and to secure the improvement of the houses in their areas. I would say, in connection mainly with the agricultural houses, that the saving of public funds from the use of these grants in the past, which has avoided the necessity for the building of new houses, has been of great benefit to the nation. I hope that the landward side of this Bill will be found useful, as well as the urban side.
3.46 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the gallant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, accepted the noble Earl's invitation to tread on the tail of his coat. It was magnificent. I almost found myself shouting "Up with the soutars of Selkirk, and down with the Earl of Home!" But I followed his speech as carefully as I could, and my criticism of it would be that the great bodies he spoke about as
1208
condemning the Bill are really political bodies; they are bodies with, at any rate, strong political affiliations. I do not think anything else could well have been expected from them, at least, just now.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, made a most interesting speech with a great deal of which I agree. I should like to point out to him, however, that the whole origin of what he said is the trouble to-day is the Rent Restrictions Act. I am not saying that that Act was a good Act or a bad Act, necessary or unnecessary, but it certainly is responsible for an awkward situation to-day. I will go further back and say that in the year 1909 I was employed by a large concern which had great housing interests. Looking back, it is astonishing to note what great improvements were being made at that time in the housing of poor people. At that time, one looked forward to a great and continuous improvement in country cottages and in urban houses for poor people.
What killed the whole of that progress was the introduction of the taxation of land values in the 1909 Budget. I remember, when we were in that little cubby hole, our temporary Chamber, my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham rising and saying precisely what I have just said, and in support of him I gave the House some actual details of houses that were constructed in London at that time. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, sitting opposite, would not at first believe me and I had to emphasise the point. I had to impress upon him that I knew my facts before he would accept them from me. It is the interference of the Governments of the day in housing conditions that has bedevilled the whole situation; and that is what we are up against to-day. That has to be the excuse and justification for a great many provisions in this Bill that the noble Lord may not quite like.
The Bill is an effort to deal with the present situation and, as such, it must be accepted. At the same time, there are a few points to which I should like to refer. I am afraid I am going to refer to them a little quickly. For one thing, I naturally rejoice that the £800 limit has gone. When the £800 limit was imposed, I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to-day will remember that I criticised that limit very much indeed. I want to

1209
say how it has worked. I am not doing this just to say, "I told you so," but because I want to show the House how these things work. Not very long ago a friend of mine was put in a very difficult position because it was absolutely necessary for him to repair a number of condemned houses in the country. The worst of a grant is that everybody engaged in work for which the grant is to be given always endeavours to see how much of the grant he can extort for his particular section of the industry. The man who is in the weak position—namely, the proprietor who has to do the work—has a very difficult time, because he finds costs rising.
I have forgotten the exact number, but I think about half a dozen houses were to be improved, and it was hoped to get the improvements which had been specified by the sanitary inspector carried out for an average of £800 a house, for which a grant would be obtained. The estimates came out and I think they were roughly about £1,000 a house. The proprietor was told, "That is all right. What you should do is to spend £200 a house now and then you put in a new claim for the rest of the £800. Mr. So-and-so is the man to trust the work to; he will get it through." I submit that that is a bad system to have in any country. It raises in every one of your Lordships' minds a number of questions to which I do not propose to suggest any answer. But look at the position of the proprietor. What is he to do? Which is the greater crime—to let poor people live in filthy and horrible conditions which are detrimental to civilisation, or to evade an Act of Parliament? He cannot do anything else; he has not got the money, and he does not get enough out of the property. As a matter of fact, this particular project fell into abeyance because, when the whole thing had been arranged and settled, the tenant refused to pay interest on the repairs; and so the scheme was quashed. I mention that to your Lordships as an example of how an arbitrary limit like £800, which everybody knows is too low, works in legislation. I hope we shall avoid mistakes of that kind in the future. My Lords, I am bound to say that I thought the noble Earl's speech was far too conciliatory to the Opposition.
LORD GREENHILL: He has given us nothing.
LORD SALTOUN: When he spoke about the declaration that the proprietor has to sign and swear to before he can get paid his grant, I am bound to say that the noble Earl frightened me. He went on to say that if the proprietor swears to something which he may believe to be true but which is not true, he may go to prison for two years. Certainly that will prevent any man from rashly undertaking to repair a cottage.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think that here there is a danger of misunderstanding. The only declaration that a landlord has to make is in respect of the money he has spent on repairs to a house. He has to declare that he has spent so much, either for the previous year or for the previous three years.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Earl; that removes that difficulty. There are three other questions and one observation that I should like to put. I make the observation first, that I do not think that the inducements held out under this Bill are sufficient to make a man spend money unless he has to spend it. Under this Bill a man who spends money will be poorer in the end than he was at the beginning, but it makes a proprietor who is in the position that he must spend money on repairs at any rate less poor. In fact, if the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, wants a really remunerative occupation in his spare time, he could find it in showing landlords in Scotland the benefits which they receive under the Bill and which he talked about in his speech. But I do not think there is anything they will gain by it.
I should like to ask the noble Earl how, if these improvements and the money paid in respect of the improvements do not appear in the valuation roll, they are dealt with. Will there be a separate column for them? The noble Earl knows how much we depend on the valuation roll. I should very much like to know how that is going to be dealt with. With regard to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, is it possible, when a grant is to be given in respect of repairs, that when one is ready one can get some sort of compulsory order from the local authorities to go on with the

1211
work—something analogous to the conditions laid down in regard to concreting a byre for milking, in order to avoid income tax? I think that is a very important point, and one which ought to be considered. Another question has been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. Clause 14 of the Bill limits a liquidator's liability to the funds he has in his hands on behalf of the creditors of the company. The Institute suggest that it ought to be "the creditors or members of the company," because the members may very well not be creditors; and they want to be sure that the liquidator is safe in all cases. It is a question of interpretation and I should be obliged if the noble Earl—
LORD GREENHILL: Would the noble Lord mind telling us whether he is right in referring to Clause 14? I think that deals with trustees, does it not?
THE EARL OF HOME: It is the same one.
LORD SALTOUN: I think so. I conclude by saying that I think the machinery of the Bill provides a useful way of meeting the present situation, but I shall be very much surprised if the conditions for proprietors do not have to be improved in order to make the Bill more widely useful.
3.59 p.m.
LORD BOYD-ORR: My Lords, I will not detain the House with any detailed consideration of any aspect of this Bill, which has been well described as "a halting step to the solution of a great national problem." I congratulate the Government on building their 300,000 houses—all Parties agree on their achievement and I hope that they will reach and exceed their target for next year. But whilst these new houses are being built, other houses are going out of repair, and dilapidations are increasing. These slums will increase, and in some areas will get worse. We all agree that these slums are a running sore on the body politic, and are a great crime. It is impossible to rear decent human beings in sub-human conditions. This Bill deals with Scotland. I should like to refer to some of the conditions in Scotland before the war. In proportion to population, in Scotland, there were six times as many people living in houses unfit for human
1212
habitation as in England. To-day, there are 750,000 such houses, and half the people of Scotland are living in houses not considered fit to rear a decent family in. I wonder whether noble Lords have seen some of these slums. Two years before the war I visited every country in Western Europe and asked to be taken to the slums in the cities; and they had nothing to show us to compare with the slums in Glasgow, these huge filthy tenements, which a former Conservative Secretary of State described as "tiled up passages of misery." They still exist.
I am going to make a suggestion which I hope the Government will seriously consider. These slums are a national problem—they are more than a Scottish problem. Conditions being so bad in Scotland, Scotland should have received special consideration. I would say to the Government, when you are allocating materials and men for housing, instead of going by 11–80ths—raised to 13–80ths —if you are allocating in accordance with need you should say that, in proportion to its population, Scotland should have six times as much timber and other materials needed as England is having. One of the difficulties, of course, is expense, and the Government have generously proposed that 50 per cent. of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Bill should be defrayed from the Exchequer. In view of the worse conditions in Scotland, and the need for greater expenditure of money there, I suggest that the Government consider a contribution of 75 per cent. from the Exchequer and 25 per cent. from the local authority, to encourage them to go ahead and get rid of these slums. If that cannot be done for the whole country, could it not be done for certain towns and areas where conditions are so very bad?
The Bill, very wisely, takes account of conditions where the owner is unable or unwilling to carry out necessary repairs. I think the Government might have some sympathy for some of these owners. I do not know whether it was so in England, but I know that in the West of Scotland, with which I am conversant, in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century tradesmen and thrifty people saved money. They knew nothing about the Stock Exchange, but they invested their money in stone and land, and they built houses; and if they looked after

1213
themselves and got a return of 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. it was considered a good investment. These people bought or built these houses as an investment for their old age. With the restriction of rent and the increase in the cost of repair a great many of these owners, however willing they were, however much they might regret seeing tenants living under these conditions, were quite unable to carry out the repairs they would have liked to carry out. Not only were they unable to carry out the repairs but many saw that income which they had expected to live on gradually vanishing.
It has been suggested that the local authorities might take over the whole of these houses. If they cannot do that, may I suggest that they should be encouraged, by bigger grants, to take over as many as possible from people who have not the money to repair these houses? Where compensation is warranted, give the owners compensation, and let the local authorities go ahead with a big drive to get these abominable slums cleared. There are other conditions in Scotland, apart from the conditions in housing, which need attention—some of which will come up for consideration at a later stage. I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will give favourable and sympathetic consideration, without any political bias, to any suggestions which will improve the Bill, and which will enable us to accelerate the rate of getting rid of these slums, so bringing about the day—which is very important for the health of this country and in order to stop the spread of Communism and crime—when every one of Her Majesty's citizens will have a decent house to live in where he can bring up his children to be the decent kind of citizens we should like our children to be.
4.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think there has been universal agreement among your Lordships who have spoken that this matter of houses falling into disrepair is a national problem which must be faced. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, made a response to my plea for moderation in his attack upon the Government by voicing the representations of, I think he said, two million people outside who were united in opposition to this Bill. I should like to ask him: what else could
1214
the Government have done? Could they have done what the last Government did for six years, which was precisely nothing? What would the Opposition do if they were in power now? It being Ascot week I thought I would look up the form, and I got the Election prospectus of the noble Lord's Party. It contained not one single word about repairing houses; so, as social reformers, they met this pressing social problem with masterly inattention, and it was not until 1953, when goaded and shamed by a Conservative Government, that they put into their 1953 Challenge to Britain the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has made to-day. There has been a belated conversion, and not for the first time a Conservative Government have been first in the field on a particular aspect of social reform.
However, the Opposition have put forward this proposal that the local authorities should take over the houses, repair them and re-let them—and I think Lord Greenhill's words were, "at a modestly increased rent, rather less than the 40 per cent." Well, I do not think the noble Lord should encourage anyone in that assumption, because, as I pointed out earlier, the local authorities would have to buy the property, which would mean loan charges which they would have to meet; and they would have to do the repairs. Then I think the tenant would find he had to meet a greater increase than 40 per cent.; or, if he did not, then the ratepayer would have to carry the burden. I think that, of the two schemes—that of the Government and that of Lord Greenhill and the Opposition—the noble Lord would find, on looking at the figures, that his would be the more expensive from the point of view of the tenant and the community.
LORD GREENHILL: Much as I dislike controversy, I think (I am relying on my memory) the Secretary of State, in a statement in another place, spoke of 2s. 6d. per week as being the likely additional cost.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know what the actual sum of money is, but whatever it is, whether it is 2s. 6d. or not, I think it would be more under the noble Lord's scheme than it would be under ours. I do not think we ought to put this administrative burden on to local authorities when it can be borne by the

1215
owner. Certainly we ought to give the owner the first chance to do it. After all, look what the local authorities are already undertaking. We have asked them, and they have responded with great success, to undertake a great drive for new houses, which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, and others have said must be the main line of attack. They are doing it. We have asked them to begin attacking their own slums. I think it would be bad administration to place this additional burden on them when I think it can be done by the owners.
Both Lord Mathers and Lord Greenhill said, "Very well, if you must have this scheme, although we disagree with it, let us have different financial arrangements. The 50 per cent. is really not fair to the local authorities: the ratio in most housing grants is three-to-one in favour of the local authority, therefore why 50 per cent. in this case?" But surely the answer is that the building of new houses and the patching-up (with which in this case we are dealing) of houses which are going to be temporary are so different in scale that they deserve different treatment. I think one can justify different treatment. After all, the charges on a local authority for new building may be loan charges of, perhaps, £70 per annum for sixty years or so—perhaps more. Here, the loan charges are £14 10s. for fifteen years. There is a considerable difference in scale, and I think we can justify a difference in treatment. I think we have achieved a fair balance as between taxpayer and ratepayer. I do not see any hope of agreeing with the noble Lord on this, so, perhaps, the only thing for us to do is to agree to differ upon it. We have done our best. There are much more generous subsidies available to local authorities for the building of new houses.
Lord Boyd-Orr said it was clear that this is not the end of the story—indeed, there is no end to the story of trying to solve the housing problem. Nevertheless, as I was saying, there are some very special subsidies which local authorities can get if they want to tackle slum clearance. The Exchequer contribution for a typical four-apartment house is now £42 5s. a year for sixty years. Where the cost of providing houses in a central area is high—in other words in cases of slum clearance—there is an additional contribution of up to £20 per house per annum
1216
for sixty years. So a local authority can take advantage of these two and obtain a total subsidy of £62 5s. for sixty years, which might be payable for four-apartment houses built for rehousing purposes in a slum area. Some people do not think that goes far enough, and it may be that in future years we shall have to step this up. It may be that we shall find that there is not sufficient progress under the present provisions—I do not know. But there are special provisions of which a town council can take advantage, and there is in addition a proposal to make regulations under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill, whereby a flat rate grant of 50 per cent. will be payable in respect of the full cost of the acquisition and clearing of land during the period when land is being made ready for re-development. I will have another look at these provisions to see whether they are, in fact, adequate. But special provision is made. Though noble Lords may argue that we should depart from the 50 per cent. in favour of the three-to-one ratio here, I think that over the whole field it cannot be said that the Exchequer is ungenerous in grants.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, put one or two questions to me. For instance, he asked for a definition of "good and tenantable repair." It is not thought possible or desirable to define that expression. No Government have thought that it was. This formula is well understood, and has been administered by local authorities for thirty or forty years. I do not think it is capable of definition. It is based on Case Law, and it is understood by the local authorities. Perhaps we may have further conversations on this matter, and then I can explain the real difficulty of defining, the phrase.
LORD MATHERS: Am I wrong in thinking that there is in English legislation a formula defining this?
THE EARL OF HOME: I will examine that point, but every one I have spoken to in Scotland is reluctant to attempt to define the term. I will examine the English parallel if there is one.
LORD SALTOUN: If I may interrupt, I should like to say that I feel sure that anyone who is renting a house would far rather accept the local sanitary inspector's idea than any definition in words.
THE EARL OF HOME: My noble friend Lord Mancroft tells me that, speaking from recollection, he does not believe there is any definition in English law; but I will check up on that. Lord Mathers asked me about the form of declaration which the landlord has to make. The form of it is to the effect that he has spent a certain amount of money in the past year, or it may be in the past three years. That is open to challenge by the tenant. In so far as owner-occupation and building of houses is concerned, our sympathies are all with him. The Scottish rating system has operated against the building of houses for owner-occupiers by private builders. But we are having this inquiry into the rating system, and something may come out of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked about Clause 14, and questioned me as to whether I could withdraw it. This clause seems to me an essential provision. What it does is to say that where there is a trustee or a liquidator of a company he personally shall not be liable for any debts or losses which there may be. I cannot see how you would get a trustee or a liquidator to act if his own personal fortune was to be liable. Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Chartered Accountants would be very reluctant to see any interference with this clause. I think that on further reflection the noble Lord will find that it is impossible to withdraw the clause.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I should like to say that my own copy of the Bill is not the copy which I should have had here. Therefore the Clause 14 in my copy did not coincide with the one to which the noble Earl has, rightly, been referring. Now that he has mentioned the correct Clause 14, I may say that I know a little about it. I also know why the City of Glasgow have asked that that should be withdrawn. As the noble Earl is probably aware, actually it has reference to a power in a Public Health Act—I forget the year of it—and it was felt that Glasgow had suffered from a court case in which there was an appeal. That is why they prefer to have the old powers and not this new power which is included here. However, I will not go further into this matter now.
THE EARL OF HOME: It was not Glasgow that suffered; it was the trustee who suffered. He found that his
1218
personal fortune was put in danger by a ruling of the court. I think that the chief concern in this matter has been that it might be possible to float a bogus company, and that certain undesirable people might do it, and might appoint their own liquidator. I am afraid that I cannot altogether follow the noble Lord's reasoning, but I feel convinced that we should never get a trustee or a liquidator to act in any case if his own personal fortune was at stake. This clause makes it certain that his own fortune will not be at stake. All that will be at stake will be the money in the trust.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, talked about the improvement clauses in this Bill, which deal largely with the improvement of cottages. One of the noble Lords rather thought that the figures I was quoting were figures relating to cases where owners had made application for grant but where no grant had been made. I am glad to say that that is not so. The figures are very encouraging, so far as they go. In the year 1951, the number of houses approved was 681; in 1952, it was 830; in 1953, it was 2,512. In the first quarter of 1954, the number was 788, which will mean, if this rate is maintained, something over 3,000 this year. That shows that landlords in Scotland are taking advantage of the improvement grant, and that is satisfactory. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord when he says that conditions asked of the landlord by the local authorities are sometimes too onerous. Of course these are conditions which are applied by the local authority and not by the central Government. What we have done in the last few months is to send out suggested by-laws to the local authorities which I hope will lead to the adoption of more uniform standards in what they ask of the landlords. The noble Duke asked that we might begin by lowering rent ceilings so that there might be fewer rent-controlled houses. That may come; but we do not think it will come yet. We are not in a position to do that at the present time. But this is a beginning, because no new house which is built to let after this Bill becomes law will be subject to rent control. I will look into Lord Saltoun's points, and particularly the point which he and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, raised about income tax.

1219
I undertake before the Committee stage to look at the point he raised about the possibility that a liquidator might be unfairly victimised.
I think I have covered most of the points raised in the debate. The noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Orr and Lord Greenhill, will realise that no one wants to perpetuate slums. I have every sympathy with the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow. We should like to see all slums abolished, and abolished quickly; but if that cannot be done, we feel that we must make some provision for these persons to have more healthy homes. I hope the Opposition will not be too glum over this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said that I was cheerful. But the Opposition should not be so glum, because they will find in their cupboard, when they open it before the next Election, a singularly uninviting lot of things to put before the voters. This Bill, after all, is a gift to their propaganda machine. Mr. Morgan Phillips can use it to distract eyes from the Party's record by putting up the bogy of higher rents. No doubt he will illustrate it with photographs which have no relevance to the subject at all. The Government are prepared to put up with all that, in the knowledge that we are doing a public duty. Once again, I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. After the heat and bustle of a "non-controversial" Bill on Scottish business, I should be unwise to claim that this Bill was uncontroversial; it is never wise to claim that in this House. This is a small and useful Bill which has been completely agreed between the societies concerned and with the Government Department which is interested in the administration and control of those societies. There are one or two important matters dealt with, but in the main they are minor matters from any
1220
ordinary standard, though they have their importance to the organisations with which we are concerned. In accordance with the custom of the House, I ought to indicate that I have a small interest in a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. Since for the moment I am speaking on a personal matter, I feel I should be ungrateful if I did not express to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, my profound gratitude to him for making a suggestion immediately before the House met that he would undertake to do the work that now I am doing because he knows of my difficulty in reading at the moment. It was a gesture which I appreciate and in accordance with the best traditions of British politics.
I shall endeavour to deal generally with the provisions of the Bill, leaving it to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to look into the details, if he thinks and the House feels that more detail is necessary. Clause 1 deals with a well-known provision of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts and other Acts—that is to say, members of these organisations can, up till now, nominate persons to receive their interest in a society to the extent of £100 in value. That £100 was fixed by the principal Act, which was passed in 1893, sixty years ago, and it is felt that the House would regard £200 as reasonably comparable with £100 of sixty years ago. Therefore, if the House passes the Bill, members of these societies will be able to nominate a person to receive their money in the society to the extent of £200. Clause 2 is a useful provision which enables the Registrar of Friendly Societies to refuse to register the name of a society where he thinks the name would be misleading. There have been quite a few cases in the past where such a provision would have been extremely useful and would have prevented people from being misled about the real purposes of a society. The same consideration applies to a change of name.
Clause 3 (1) gives the Registrar power to allow a society to omit the word "Limited" after its name, and subsection (2) enables him to withdraw that privilege if the society ceases to be qualified for that consideration. I ought to have said that the qualification is that a society must be carried on wholly for charitable and benevolent purposes. Clause 4 deals with annual returns and

1221
audits and brings these into line with those required under the Companies Act. Clause 5 makes for a simpler relationship between the societies and the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Under the principal Act societies are called upon to send to the Registrar every three years a complete list of their members. I understand that the real effect of that has been to create a lot of waste paper; it effected no useful purpose. This provision proposes that a society shall keep a register and that the Registrar shall be given power to inspect whenever he thinks proper.
Clause 6 refers to amalgamations and transfer of engagements. Societies have found some little difficulty in getting the required three-fourths majority in a few cases and they feel that in the circumstances and in accordance with what have been the actual facts of such transfers in the past, a bare majority would probably be all that is necessary. However, there has been a compromise and it is now proposed that, instead of a society having to get a three-fourths majority for the transfer of engagements, a two-thirds majority should suffice. Clause 7 refers merely to the appointing of a receiver or manager and enacts that such an appointment should be notified to the Registrar. Clause 8 is a simplification of the procedure under special resolutions. I do not think I need trouble the House with that, except to say that societies now incorporated under the Companies Act who wish to become registered under this Bill will have to comply with the Companies Act in order to take that step. Having taken it, they will, of course, come under this Bill.
Clause 9 relates to criminal proceedings against persons who may hold the property of, or who have perhaps been unable to account properly for, funds of the society. The clause provides that where the court are satisfied that there was no fraudulent intent, they may order the return of the property or money of the society without recording a conviction. Such proceedings have to be commenced within three years of the committal of the offence. Clause 10, the last clause of the Bill, merely allows societies to charge 2s. for a copy of the rules, as against the present charge of 1s. It is felt that everyone will agree that the cost of printing makes such an increase desirable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Kershaw.)
4.32 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it would probably be convenient for me to intervene now to indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill. I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, on having presented the Bill to the House in so lucid a manner, in spite of the difficulty under which we know he labours at the moment. He has dealt with most of the Bill and has left little for me to say. The Bill affects widespread interests. We are here providing legislation which affects co-operative societies with 11 million members or so, and sales of over £7 million, and also over 3,000 clubs which are registered under these Acts; their sales of refreshments, I may add, are of a value of more than £25 million a year. Therefore a wide section of the population is affected by legislation, dealing with these industrial and provident societies.
This particular Bill is a Private Members' Bill, but it does incorporate a number of provisions which are likely to be most helpful to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and for that reason it has the support of Her Majesty's Government. The Bill received little attention in another place and is practically a virgin ground for debate in your Lordships' House. We should, therefore, be failing in our duty if we did not put on record its virtues, or its vices—though I personally have not managed to find any vices in it. Generally speaking, it brings up to date some of the provisions of the law affecting co-operative societies, and removes several anomalies in the position of the Registrar vis-à-vis the societies.
The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, has dealt with Clauses 1, 2 and 3 in comparative detail, and I will not go over that ground again. However, when we come to Clause 4 there is a little more that can be said. First of all, it allows for a variation in the date of closing the accounts from that specified at present in this set of Acts. That is of particular help to the agricultural societies, who like to close their year some time before the new crops come in. Subsection (2) closes a gap in the existing law, because at present when a society dissolves the, Registrar has no power to insist that accounts be filed

1223
for the period subsequent to the last annual accounts. That is rather an important period in the case of a society that possibly has not been managed to the best advantage. Now he must have accounts right up to the end. At present every society have to send to the Registrar their annual accounts, together with the auditor's report; they also have to hang this up in a conspicuous place in their office; and further, on application, they must supply to every member or interested person a copy of the balance sheet. There is no compulsion at the moment to attach to this latter copy a copy of the auditor's report; nor, if the society choose to issue a balance sheet quarterly or half-yearly, is there any compulsion for that balance sheet to be an audited one. Under this Bill that position is put right. The final subsection of that clause is to make clear that an auditor is not an officer under the Bill. Special liabilities attach to officers, and it is clear that they should not attach to the auditor.
The noble Lord has to some extent dealt with Clause 5. At the moment the societies have to send to the Registrar every three years an annual return of their officers, their members, the addresses and their holdings. This has been found, in practice, to be quite useless, and, therefore, is abolished. Instead, the societies are required to keep a register in their office in such a way that members can inspect the list of other members and the addresses of other members, but not their holdings; and, of course, the Registrar can send a man to inspect everything. We consider this to be a much more practical method of achieving the right purpose than the existing one. The noble Lord has dealt with Clause 6.
With regard to Clause 7, at the moment there is power in the Registrar to call upon a receiver to send interim accounts to himself—that is, the receiver—or to the other members. Under this clause the Registrar gets this power, and, of course, in practice, if he thought that the members should be circulated with interim accounts, he would ask the receiver to do this. The noble Lord has dealt with Clause 8. There is one subsection of Clause 9 with which the noble Lord did not deal—namely, that which gives the Registrar more time to take proceedings against a possibly defaulting officer
1224
of the society. He does not obtain knowledge that anything is wrong until the accounts are with him and he has seen the auditor's report. The existing six months' period during which he has to take action is considered to be too short; in fact, I have heard stories of breathless journeys ending up at nine o'clock at the magistrate's house on the last day of the six months. Under this Bill the Registrar can act with a little more leisure. The rest of the Bill contains minor amendments with which I will not weary your Lordships. On the whole, the Bill helps the friendly societies and at the same time brings up to date the powers of the watchdog exercised by the Registrar, and the Government recommend that your Lordships give it a Second Reading.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is a question that I should like to ask on one point in this interesting Bill. It arises on Clause 5, which alters the duty on the society of sending, in to the Registrar every three years a list of members to that of keeping up to date a proper register of the members. That is probably a good and a wise provision, and it will diminish the paper work in connection with the societies, but there is one point that occurs to me. I would remind your Lordships that we must not assume that everything always goes right and well; we must take into consideration that things may go wrong. It appears to me that it may be possible, in one of these friendly societies, that one of the members may fall foul of the other members. He may quarrel with them, and the question may arise as to his position in the society some years ago. If registers are kept in ordinary bound books, the evidence with regard to that is fairly good; but if loose-leaf books are used for the register, the evidence may not be so good. It appears to me, without having examined the whole matter and gone into the position of these societies (which I used to understand a great deal better than I do now), that there is a loophole which might be considered when we come to the Committee stage. I do not ask for an answer now. I ask only for the point to be considered, and I am quite ready to support the Bill.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord now. If the

1225
noble Lord reads the last sentence of Clause 5 (2) he will see that it says:
"adequate precautions shall be taken for guarding against falsification and facilitating its discovery."
I think that covers the noble Lord's point.
LORD SALTOUN: Thank you very much.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, this is a Consolidation Bill which will be referred in the usual way to the Consolidation Committee. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this, too, is a Consolidation Bill, and, therefore, in the ordinary course I beg to move the Second Reading in a formal way.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the House adjourns, perhaps it will he convenient to your Lordships if I announce that it will be necessary for the House to sit formally at 4.30 tomorrow, to receive a Bill from another place.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before five o'clock.