Sitting of 18 May 1954

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

    Slum Clearance, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
    Mr. Shortasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what specific schemes for slum clearance have been submitted to him by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation; what were the dates on which they were submitted; and what replies he has given.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The council has submitted no new schemes since the war but my right hon. Friend understands that it has the matter under immediate consideration.
    Mr. Short: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in Newcastle-upon-Tyne scores of thousands of people are living in most appalling, decaying slum property? Does not he think that his reply is shocking? Will he use his good offices to see that this local authority does something to clear the slums in Newcastle?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think it is a shocking reply. I think the fact that the Newcastle Health Committee passed a resolution on 10th May declaring a clearance area of 420 houses, with 1,872 occupants, shows that it is approaching my right hon. Friend's proposals in the right spirit.
    Mr. Short: Nine years after the war, scores of thousands in the city are living in slum property and not a single scheme has yet been submitted to the Minister. Is not that shocking?
    Mr. Marples: Not really, because the rate of house building is 60 per cent, above that of the previous Administration. I think that a rate of over 300,000 houses a year is not unsatisfactory.

    Ex-Regular Service Men
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further approach he has made to local authorities to give special consideration to housing applications submitted by Regular soldiers who will be required to vacate Service accommodation at the end of their military service.
    Mr. Marples: The Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee is reviewing among other matters the whole question of residential qualifications required by certain local authorities, including the difficulties of regular Service men.
    Mr. Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many cases in which the applications of Service men are not considered until they have come to the end of their service? As this is a matter of considerable urgency, would my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend at least to make representations to the local authorities on this matter?
    Mr. Marples: The sub-committee is now considering the matter. It reported in 1949, and my right hon. Friend sent round a circular pointing out its recommendations to local authorities, but if any hon. Member has any point of view which he would like me to place before the sub-committee, I should be pleased to do so.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's sympathetic answer, may I ask whether he realises that this is a serious matter, because frequently soldiers, sailors and airmen who come back after 10 or 20 years' service find themselves arriving back in their home land on no authority's housing list and not entitled to accommodation.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend appreciates that it is a serious matter. That is why he amended the terms of reference of the sub-committee so that it could include this matter in its deliberations.

    Improvement Grants, Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many improvement grants have been made in Wales during the last three years, respectively; and how many applications from people in Wales have been refused in each of these years.
    Mr. Marples: One hundred and twenty-four applications were approved in 1951, 141 in 1952, 265 in 1953, and 68 in 1954. My right hon. Friend has no information about the number of applications which local authorities have rejected.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that a substantial number of these applications are being granted? Does he expect that in future local authorities will be more forthcoming?
    Mr. Marples: I think that two things will happen in the future. The first is that we shall get more information from the local authorities because, beginning with the month of June, local authorities will tell us the number of applications for improvement grants which they have received each month as well as the number which they have approved. In addition, we hope that the circular sent out as recently as 20th April will encourage them to carry out improvements and conversions.

    Council Houses (Purchase Offers)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many requests he has received from local authorities to approve the sale of council houses to property-owning companies.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir. The position is still as stated in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member on 16th March last.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not now clear that even the Wanstead and Woodford Borough Council, which was playing with the idea, has come to the conclusion that this is an undesirable proposal to follow, in the public interest? Will not the hon. Gentleman also remind local authorities of a sentence in his own Departmental Circular No. 64 of 1952:
    "There is no question of selling or leasing houses to individuals or organisations for investment or speculation "?
    Mr. Marples: I have just had representations from the Opposition Front Bench to reduce the number of circulars sent to local authorities. In this instance, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish me to send out a special letter reminding them of a circular which they already have on their files.
    Mr. Dalton: Could the hon. Gentleman not send out just one more circular, cancelling this preposterous suggestion about the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Wade: Would the Minister make one point clear? Is it correct that the general policy towards the sale of council houses is to encourage owner-occupation?
    Mr. Marples: Yes. That was my right hon. Friend's general purpose.

    GATWICK AIRPORT INQUIRY (REPORT)
    Sir G. Toucheasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report of the inquiry into the proposed extension of Gatwick Airport will be published.
    Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend cannot yet say when the report will be published. It has not yet been received.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Political Resident, Bahrein (New Compound)
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Works why it is necessary to spend £557,000 on the provision of a new compound for the Political Resident and his staff in Bahrein during the present financial year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): In 1946 the decision was taken to move the headquarters of the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf from the Persian side of the Gulf to Bahrein Island on the Arabian side. This has meant building a compound because no suitable permanent accommodation was available. The total cost is estimated at £557,000, spread over several years.
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that his right hon. Friend,

    1875
    before the Election, promised that a Conservative Government would make a saving of £600 million a year, and, as the present Government are spending £100 million more than the Labour Government were spending at that time, can he not make a modest saving here, if not of £600 million, of at least £600,000?
    Mr. Bevins: I presume that the decision which was taken in 1946 by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin was taken, for good reasons. The scheme approved by the previous Administration under-estimated the cost of building and other difficulties on the site.
    Mr. Jay: The decision to spend this money in the present year was taken by the present Government.
    Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The figure of £557,000 is spread over seven years. The right hon. Gentleman has misread the Estimates.
    Mr. Vane: While not questioning the need for suitable premises for the Political Resident, may I ask my hon. Friend whether a sum of over £500,000 is really necessary?
    Mr. Bevins: That is a matter of opinion. The view of my right hon. Friend and of Her Majesty's Government is that British prestige and parsimony do not go together.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what makes this compound so exceedingly expensive? Its cost is about that of a whole housing estate.
    Mr. Remnant: Can my hon. Friend say whether the increase over the original Estimate is higher than the normal increase in building costs?
    Mr. Bevins: In answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I would point out that we are building on this site a house for the Political Resident himself, four for the senior staff, a block of flats, six bungalows, an office block and servants' quarters. The fact of the matter is that building in that particular area has proved to be much more expensive than was originally anticipated.
    Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman read his own Estimates and note that £129,000 is to be spent in this financial year alone on the scheme?

    High Commissioner, New Delhi (Accommodation)
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Works why it is necessary to spend £1,500,000 on residential and office accommodation for the High Commissioner in New Delhi in the present financial year.
    Mr. Bevins: The figure of £1,500,000 is a provisional total estimate of the cost of building offices and residential accommodation for the High Commissioner and his staff in Delhi. It is not the amount to be spent this year.
    Mr. Jay: Even if that is so, are there no offices and residential accommodation in Delhi already, which have been occupied by British officials in the past, and why is it necessary to have this scheme, in addition?
    Mr. Bevins: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have known that when India became an independent State it was necessary for us to start from scratch.
    Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that there were no officials already in residence and that there was no office accommodation before India became an independent State?
    Mr. Bevins: I did not say anything of the kind. When India became an independent State the accommodation which was occupied by the British authorities was taken over by the India Government.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my hon. Friend represent to his right hon. Friend that his Department should approach the Treasury with a view to putting some of these capital items below the line in the Government's accounts, as there would not be half the fuss about them that there is?
    Mr. Bevins: That is a very interesting suggestion.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the two large expenditures referred to in these Questions are only two of many which are giving serious concern to Members of this House, and that the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government with regard to another matter raised on the Floor of this House this week is making it even more difficult for

    1877
    this House to exercise proper control over the £200 million being spent abroad out of the Vote of Supply?
    Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to emphasise in fairness to Her Majesty's Government that all we are doing is to give effect to decisions which were taken before this Government came into office.
    Mr. Callaghan: Was it not the basis of the present Government's attack on the last Government that they were spending far too much money? Why go on doing it?
    Mr. Bevins: It is a matter of spending money on the right things.

    Lancaster House (Pictures)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works if he will make arrangements for Lancaster House to be used as an additional gallery, at suitable times, for the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend is discussing the possibilities with the Trustees of the National Gallery.
    Mr. Grimond: While I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, may I urge upon him the desirability of finding extra accommodation for some of the pictures of the national collection?
    Mr. Bevins: I will convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend. As a matter of fact, the National Gallery Trustees have already offered to lend suitable pictures to Lancaster House under certain conditions which are under discussion now.

    H.M. Embassies (Expenditure)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works the total sum expended on improvements and additions to Her Majesty's Embassies and their surroundings last year.
    Mr. Bevins: It will take a little time to assemble this information. My right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member when he has it.
    Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the figure involved? The impression given is that while a great deal has been spent on some of the major embassies some of the
    1878
    lesser embassies and consulates have been allowed to fall into comparative disrepair.
    Mr. Bevins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to give the hon. Member all the information he can, as soon as he has it. The difficulty is that there are still many accounts to come in for work done overseas in the last quarter of last year.
    Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend give the figure of at least what was provided in this connection in last year's Estimates, because that has already been published, and might help us?
    Mr. Bevins: That is another Question, but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the answer already.
    Mr. Hoy: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman's Ministry carries out these works to the orders of the Foreign Office and would he remind his right hon. Friend, as I sought to do last week, that the Public Accounts Committee is also disturbed about this enormous expenditure on these embassies overseas, and would he consider having a conference with the Foreign Office on the whole matter?
    Mr. Bevins: What the hon. Member says is very largely true, and my right hon. Friend is critically examining these estimates all the time.

  SCOTLAND

    Public Records (Transfer)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to have brought into Scottish custody in Scotland such Scottish national archives and records as are at present outside Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Under Section 4 of the Public Records (Scotland) Act, 1937, nine major documents relating to Scotland which had been kept in the Public Record Office were in that year transferred to the Scottish Record Office. The transfer of other Scottish records in the Public Record Office was effected under Section 5 (1) of the Act in 1949 and 1950, with the consent of the Master of the Rolls. No further transfer is contemplated at the present time.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the poets, historians, and other literati of Scotland require access to many of these archives, which are not now available, and these should now be made available to them in Scotland? What steps is he taking to that desirable end?
    Mr. Stewart: Those documents which are manifestly English documents are there. All documents are readily available, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.

    West Green Mental Hospital
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the proper complement of doctors at West Green Mental Hospital where there are over 600 patients; and the present number of doctors at the hospital.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): Until recently the establishment of medical staff consisted of a whole-time consultant as medical superintendent, two junior hospital medical officers and three house officers. One of the junior hospital medical officer posts and the three house officer posts are vacant. The very general shortage of house officers has so far prevented the board from filling the three vacant posts in that grade. But it is taking steps to appoint a second consultant as deputy medical superintendent in place of the second junior hospital medical officer.
    Captain Duncan: While I realise that there is a shortage of doctors and especially of consultants, may I ask whether my right hon. and gallant Friend realises that the medical superintendent did not have a clear holiday last year because of the shortage of medical staff? Will he see that arrangements are made for the medical superintendent to have a proper clear holiday this year?
    Commander Galbraith: I am sure that the regional hospital board will pay attention to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the proper complement of nurses for West Green Mental Hospital; and the present number of whole-time and part-time nurses, respectively.
    Commander Galbraith: The female nursing staff of all grades consists of 23 whole-time and 47 part-time, and the male staff of 77, all whole-time. The hospital reports vacancies for some 48 female staff, including 39 qualified nurses, and 17 male staff, including five qualified nurses.
    Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend now announce the decision of the Whitley Council as to whether it accepts the arbiter's award, which once more gives the lead which was abolished by the last Government, and thus encourages student nurses to take up mental nursing?
    Commander Galbraith: Over the three years' period of training, the arbitration award gives the student mental nurses £175 more in pay and allowances than general student nurses. The situation regarding the Whitley Council is that the management side has accepted. The staff side has informally accepted but desires discussion on certain points.
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is no proper admission block at West Green Mental Hospital; and whether he will instruct the Eastern Regional Hospital Board to reorganise the ward so as to make one.
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir. But plans are in preparation for the development and improvement of this hospital. The first stage is the adaptation of existing accommodation to provide one admission ward for each sex, and that work is due to begin this year.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a great deal of activity has been stimulated since my Question was put on the Order Paper? Will he stimulate the Eastern Regional Hospital Board to get on with the job?

    Deer Poaching (Committee)
    Mr. G. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he in tends to proceed with the Deer Poaching (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has not yet received the report of the committee which was set up to inquire into the question of a close season for deer in Scotland.
    Mr. Williams: As the committee was appointed two years ago, in July, 1952, is it not a scandal that nothing has been done in the meantime? Is my hon. Friend aware that hinds that are due to calve in the next week or fortnight are being shot by poachers and the calf is being cut out and thrown away? When will the Government take steps to bring in legislation to stop this sort of thing?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of these distressing circumstances, but my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the committee has now completed its evidence and we expect its report before the end of the Session.
    Mr. Woodburn: Does it deal with deer poaching on the farmer's ground, or with somebody poaching on the deer?
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams) has pointed out, that this annual slaughter of the hinds is becoming a very serious matter? In the view of many of my constituents, the Bill is much overdue, and I urge my hon. Friend to take steps to bring it in.
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend, but, obviously, we cannot proceed until we have the report of the committee, which should be with us now quite soon.
    Mr. Manuel: If there are to be priorities for suggested legislation, what preference is to be given to the Teachers' (Superannuation) Bill and other suggested Measures? Will that Bill have precedence over deer-poaching legislation?

    Old Persons (Mental Hospitals)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far it is the practice, when there is a shortage of beds in general hospitals, for old persons to be given accommodation in mental hospitals; and to what extent they are required to be certified on refusing, in these circumstances, to enter voluntarily.
    Commander Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such practice. Some forms of senile mental illness can be cared for properly only in a mental hospital; and where admission as a voluntary patient is not accepted, certification may be the only way of securing that the patient gets the care and treatment which he needs.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is a widespread belief in and around the industrial areas that old people are being put into mental hospitals are given beds there because there are insufficient beds in general hospitals, and that when old people protest and do not go voluntarily they are certified? Will he look into this matter a little more closely?
    Commander Galbraith: If the hon. Lady will be good enough to give me any particulars. I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Pryde: Would it not be far more economical to utilise hospitals and big old houses that have passed out of use to accommodate the old people?
    Commander Galbraith: I do not think they would be altogether suitable.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is now permissible under his regulations to certify elderly patients entering mental institutions as suffering from mental senility; and how far deviation from the words laid down by statute is permitted.
    Commander Galbraith: The conditions to be met before a person can be certified are laid down by statute, as also are the terms in which the relative certificates must be given. There is no power to permit any deviation, such as that suggested by the hon. Lady, from the terms and conditions laid down by statute.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it will give satisfaction to know that there is no deviation, because many people are being fobbed off with the excuse that a deviation is permitted? Now we have the Joint Under-Secretary's affirmation that that is not so. Is he aware that the statute permits these old people to be certified only either as lunatics or as imbeciles, and as this position is grossly unfair, will he not give attention to amending the Act?
    Commander Galbraith: As my right hon. Friend announced recently, a White Paper dealing with this matter is probably to be expected within a reasonable time.
    Mrs. Mann: I am aware of that, but the terms of reference make no mention whatever to old people who are merely

    1883
    senile being stigmatised by certification as imbeciles. Could the terms of reference be extended to cover them also?
    Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady should await the White Paper, which may deal with that matter.

    House of Lords (Appellate Jurisdiction)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing legislation to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords over cases from Scotland.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, Sir.
    Miss Herbison: Since the answer is an emphatic "No," can the Joint Undersecretary say by what statute the Appellate Court overturned a decision of the Lord President of the Court of Session, who had based his decision on the generally accepted dictum that once a disposition of land has been made it cannot in any way be altered at a later date?
    Mr. Stewart: I could not answer that technical question without notice.
    Miss Herbison: As I have already tried to get this information by other means than a Question in the House, as I usually do, and as I have been told that a decision taken in the House of Lords is almost sacred and that nothing can be done to alter it, I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will give me this information as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the present system involves litigants in delay, uncertainty and expense, which could easily be obviated by making the Scottish Supreme Court supreme in Scotland? Will he consult the Lord Advocate with a view to adopting this course?
    Mr. Stewart: I remind the hon. and learned Member and the hon. Lady that both the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland made it clear in their published evidence to the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs that they were against this proposal.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What legal appeal does not cost a great deal, whether in Scotland or in England?

    Group Medical Practices (Loan Applications)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been received from practitioners for an interest-free loan to establish group practices; and from which districts in Scotland they have originated.
    Commander Galbraith: Applications have been received from 18 groups of doctors in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Ayrshire, Fife, Lanarkshire, the Lothians and Stirlingshire.
    Miss Herbison: How soon does the Joint Under-Secretary of State expect a reply to be given in these cases? As he has had so many applications in such a short time—I am glad that is so—does he think that this miserable £100,000 will be sufficient to meet all the cases?
    Commander Galbraith: These cases will have to be gone into before it can be decided which groups should get the first sums available. It may take some little time before a final decision is made.

    House Purchase (Committee Report)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will circulate to Scottish Members of Parliament the Re port and recommendations of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee which, under the chairmanship of Sir George Laidlaw, was appointed to consider and report on house purchase in Scotland.
    Commander Galbraith: Further copies of this Report, which was published in 1946 as a Command Paper, are now available in the Vote Office.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this Committee sat over a good number of months and that its Report will be very valuable to hon. Members, especially in view of the legislation we are promised in regard to facilitating house purchase?
    Commander Galbraith: Hon. Members will now be able to get the Report in the Vote Office.

    Rabbit-Gassing Machine (Demonstration)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement regarding a large-scale test of rabbit-gassing which officers

    1885
    of his Department attended in the east of Scotland recently; and whether he is in a position to pass on any lessons as the result of this experiment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Officials of my right hon. Friend's Department recently attended a commercially-sponsored demonstration of a power gassing machine. They have reported favourably on the machine. The Department has for some years recommended gassing as a cheap and efficient method of destroying rabbits, and in future it will draw attention to the availability of power machines, which are in some locations more effective than the older techniques.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my hon. Friend give the House any idea of the cost of this gassing experiment? My impression is that it is very expensive. Could he consider making a grant towards the cost, under the Hill Farming Act or in some such way?
    Mr. Snadden: I am afraid I cannot give a figure in regard to the cost of the experiment, but the cost of the actual machine is about £75—which might be considered to be rather high.
    Captain Duncan: How many rabbits are now again in the land which was the subject of the experiment?
    Mr. Manuel: Can the Joint Undersecretary say what is the exact scope of this machine; what area it can cover, and whether its range has extended to the Government Front Bench?

    Orrin Hydro-Electric Project
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated load factor of the hydro-electric works embodied in the Orrin project No. 29 constructional scheme, installed capacity 18 megawatts, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 29) Confirmation Order, 1954; and the anticipated coal economy equivalent based on that load factor and a conversion rate of 1.31 lb. of coal per unit of electricity generated, generally in accord with the average efficiency of British Electricity Authority power stations.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Board that the
    1886
    expected load factor of hydro-electric works embodied in the Orrin project is approximately 48 per cent., and that the expected saving in coal at a conversion figure of 1.31 lb. of coal per unit of electricity generated is about 45.000 tons annually.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost, £/per megawatt installed respectively, including and excluding capital costs in respect of distribution facilities for the 18 mega watts installed capacity of the hydro electric works embodied in the Orrin project No. 29 constructional scheme, referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro- Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 29) Confirmation Order. 1954.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The capital cost per megawatt to be installed in the Orrin project, based on the estimates submitted to Parliament, is about £252,000. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Board that if the cost of transmitting the power to the Board's grid is added this figure will be increased to about £258,000.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated dates of commencement and completion for the hydro-electric works embodied in the Orrin project No. 29 constructional scheme referred to in the North of Scot land Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 29) Confirmation Order, 1954; and what independent advice, as to the soundness of the Orrin project or otherwise, he has taken from bodies and persons other than those employed by, or contracting to, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Board hopes to start preliminary works in connection with the scheme this year and the main works next year, and to produce electricity from it by 1960. The scheme was approved by the British Electricity Authority, which indicated that, on the information submitted by the Board, it appeared to it to be a sound technical scheme.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister tell us if the load carried by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is anything like so heavy as the load carried by the electors of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

    Hospital Pay-Beds
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of Section 5 pay-beds were unoccupied in the hospitals under his direction during each of the last three years.
    Commander Galbraith: Figures are at present available only for the year ended 31st March, 1953, during which, on the average, less than a quarter of the Section 5 pay-beds were unoccupied.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether steps are taken, at regular intervals, to review the proportion of these beds, so that the best use can be made of them for those on the general waiting list?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Section 5 pay-beds there are in all hospitals under his direction; and what percentage they constitute of the total.
    Commander Galbraith: There are 913 such beds in Scottish National Health Service hospitals, or 1½ per cent, of all staffed beds.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that patients on the ordinary list who are awaiting admission to hospital have to wait about six months, but if they are prepared to pay 11s. per day they can be accommodated immediately? If I send the Joint Undersecretary particulars of a case in my constituency will he look into it?
    Commander Galbraith: I can tell the hon. Member that the percentage occupancy of these beds is considered to be very high. It is about 75 per cent., as against 83½ per cent, for all the beds in hospitals. That is considered to be quite a high percentage, in view of the fact that there are so few of these beds, and that they are scattered all over the country.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not it the policy of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department to use these beds for non-paying patients when they are not being occupied by paying patients?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, naturally.

    Crofters Commission Report
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to take the first steps to implement the Crofters Commission Report.
    Mr. Snadden: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any further statement about the Report at present. The Highlands Advisory Panel will be considering it this week, and my right hon. Friend will consider the next steps to be taken when he has its views.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that there are many things in that report which the Highlands Advisory Panel and other bodies concerned in the Highlands have been urging for many years, some of which do not need legislation? Cannot he hold out some hope that some of these matters will be dealt with in the near future?
    Mr. Snadden: In a matter of this importance it is advisable to have the views of the Highlands Advisory Panel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already accepted the main recommendation of the Report and is taking steps to implement this.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In the meantime, will my hon. Friend's Department neglect no opportunity which might arise for land settlement, which was clearly pointed to in the Report?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that this is one of the most difficult problems in agriculture, and will he arrange to take no definite steps until there has been time to discuss the matter, either in the Scottish Grand Committee or in the House?

    Small Lobster Fishermen (Protection)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the decrease of people engaged in lobster creel fishing in recent years, he will take steps to afford protection to the small lobster fishermen.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The decrease in the number of creel fishermen in recent years may be due to a variety of causes, including the availability of other more remunerative employment. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that special measures for the protection of the small lobster fishermen are necessary.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the small lobster fisherman is an integral part of Highland life? Does not he think that proper control is advisable, particularly over the size of the vessel employed?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree that these men form a very important element in Highland life, but it is not very easy to know what protective measures can reasonably be taken.
    Sir H. Williams: Has my hon. Friend gone into the question I raised a few days ago, in connection with the subsidised lobster fishery in that part of the country, which is a great failure?

    Island Agricultural Producers (Financial Aid)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how he proposes to assist the island farmers in the Western Highlands to help them overcome the disadvantages in which they will find themselves in regard to marketing arrangements following decontrol.
    Mr. Snadden: I would draw my noble Friend's attention to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on this subject to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) on Wednesday, 12th May, 1954.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, but is my hon. Friend aware that I want further elaboration of that answer, and will he bear in mind all the time that, while the land is often quite good in the Western Islands, a farmer there is always at a disadvantage because of freight rates?
    Mr. Snadden: It is impossible to define at this stage the precise methods of applying this assistance, because we must have some experience of decontrol in order to find the most satisfactory method.

    SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if an international meeting has yet been held for the purpose of promoting a security organisation in and for Eastern Asia; where, and when, it
    1890
    was held; what nations were represented at it; what was the result; and when the next such meeting will be held.
    The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement I made in the House yesterday, and to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Prime Minister for the statement he made in the House yesterday, but will he bear in mind that if he is assisting or promoting any such Far Eastern conference to deal either with the bringing about of peace or the problems arising as an aftermath of peace, he should see that the democratic Asiatic countries are invited to take part in it?
    The Prime Minister: All these matters and other relevant incidents will be carefully borne in mind.

    ATOMIC ENERGY (U.S.-U.K. AGREEMENT)
    Mr. F. M. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to say what were the considerations for the then Government's surrender, in 1948, of this country's right of veto on the United States of America's unilateral use of the atomic bomb.
    The Prime Minister: As I was not a Member of that Administration I fear I might not be qualified to do full justice to their case.
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is a matter of fact, and if he is not aware, that there was no such surrender, and that the position with regard to the atomic bomb rested first of all on an agreement made by the Prime Minister with President Roosevelt, and an agreement subsequently made by myself with President Truman? May I ask him further whether, in view of what he said the other week about the need for confidential talks between Governments and the inadvisability of discussing them, it would not be well if the Motion on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) was withdrawn?
    [To call attention to certain agreements governing the control of atomic weapons; and to move a Resolution.]
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not control the rights of hon. Members to put Motions on the Paper. So far as I am concerned, I confine myself to defending and vindicating the actions of my own Government, the Government of which I was the head, and actions which I was personally responsible for, and I had not desired myself to embark upon a process of attacking continually other Administrations.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Bennett: Whether the action in question is called a surrender or a loss— and I have no wish to enter into a dispute with the Leader of the Opposition on that —is the Prime Minister not aware that, rightly or wrongly, a widespread impression now exists on both sides of the Atlantic that the inducement for the loss of this right of veto was, in fact, increased financial aid; and if this is so, are we not at least entitled in this House to know the price in dollars of the sell-out?
    Hon. Members: Sell out?
    Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that in the case of any requests for the publication of documents, one would only get a very partial view of the whole of these proceedings? What the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has suggested is entirely untrue. A full discussion of this question would mean that one would have to go into confidential talks over a period and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to defend the actions of my Government and also of the Government of which he and I were both Members.
    The Prime Minister: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am not myself pressing this Motion. Of course, circumstances change: what was valid in a moment of war, and so on, would not necessarily be valid otherwise. But I wish to make it quite clear that I have confined myself to defending what I was responsible for and the position as we left it, and that it was only because we found ourselves reproached with having, so to speak, no power to interfere or intervene in the developments of the new bomb, that, in order to defend oneself from very serious charges which were moving in the country, I referred to this matter at all.
    Mr. T. Williams: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of what he has now said and what he has said previously, it would not be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances if he deprecated the misrepresentation implied by his hon. Friend?
    Mr. Bennett: Both in that last question and the preceding one from the Leader of the Opposition, the suggestion was made that what I had said was untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if that is so—in which case I am quite willing to withdraw—surely the best way is for the Leader of the Opposition to ask for the documents in question to be published, as the Prime Minister recently offered?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is any point of order in that. The word "untrue" does not necessarily mean that what is referred to was untrue by design. It is a word that is often used here, and without offence. I do not think any point of order arises in the matter.

    NATIONAL SERVICE (PERIOD)
    Mr. George Craddockasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if, in view of the relaxation in world tension, he will reduce the period of National Service to 12 months.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): No, Sir.
    Mr. Craddock: I am sorry that the Minister has not given an affirmative answer this time, but is he not aware that European countries, and also the Australian Government, have reduced the period of conscription recently, and surely it is time that this Government gave serious consideration to a considerable cut in the period of National Service?
    Mr. Birch: I have previously assured the hon. Gentleman that if he asked me a question susceptible to an affirmative answer, I should be glad to give it, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this question on 11th May, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to what he said then.
    Mr. Strachey: Whilst appreciating the difficulty of reducing the period of National Service with present commitments, would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that this is an additional reason for re-opening conversations with the Egyptian Government for the settlement in respect of the Canal Zone, which would really open the way to a reduction in the period of National Service?
    Mr. Birch: That is rather a different question.

    BRITISH ARMY

      Boys (Detention)
      Mr. Shurmerasked the Secretary of State for War why 22815879 Boy Hands, Infantry Boys' Battalion, Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, is having to do his detention in Colchester Military Prison; and if he will arrange to have separate detention barracks for boys.
      The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Army boys are not sent to prisons and are only sent exceptionally, after a sentence by court-martial, to a military corrective establishment such as Colchester. Boys at Colchester are segregated and are specially treated.
      Mr. Shurmer: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the "glasshouse" in Colchester is the right place for boys of 16 years of age? Is it not possible to have a separate detention barracks because, whilst I know that some of these boys commit offences, nevertheless they should not be put amongst men, and I should have thought that it would be in the interests of the parents of the boys to know that this is not the case in the "glasshouse" in Colchester or in any other place?
      Mr. Hutchison: Boys under detention at Colchester are segregated, living in a separate room and messing at a separate table in the dining hall. At present there are only four of them at Colchester. Their room is close to the company office and they are specially watched by the company commander by day and by the N.C.O. in charge of the company watch by night. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that too close contact is undesirable, but he will probably agree that these arrangements avoid contact.
      Mr. Shurmer: Are they exercised with the adult prisoners, and do they undergo the same punishment with the adult men prisoners?
      Mr. Hutchison: They do one period of physical training and one period of drill daily, and the remainder of the day is devoted to education. They are separated in these activities.

      Territorial Army (Out-of-camp Training)
      Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for War how many morning ceremonial parades for civic authorities or week-end attendances on firing-ranges would have to be carried out over three years by a National Service soldier in the Territorial Army to fulfil his statutory obligation of 15 days' out-of-camp training.
      Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: A National Service soldier in the Territorial Army carries out his 15 days' out-of-camp training by attending week-end camps or by single days of training or by hourly periods of instruction, four such periods counting as a day's training. Attendances at the rare ceremonial parades or for week-end firing count towards his obligation according to the time involved.
      Mr. Holt: Whilst thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that answer, may I ask if he is aware that in the little leaflet he sent me, entitled "Your Service in the Territorial Army," which is issued to all National Service men on finishing their two years' service and going into the Territorial Army, the information he has given me is not included, and would he consider including it in future?
      Mr. Hutchison: I will look into that. I have not the pamphlet in front of me, but I should expect it to contain what I have said.
      Mr. Ede: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether the ceremonial morning parades are compulsory?
      Mr. Hutchison: I should like to have an example of ceremonial parades because, to my knowledge, they are extremely rare, and I should like to look into any example which the right hon. Gentleman can give me, because I believe they are also not compulsory.

      Hospital Cases (Information to Next of Kin)
      Mr. Shurmerasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the perfunctory way in which, on the admission of a soldier to hospital, the next of kin are informed of the nature of the soldier's illness; and whether he will issue instructions to all those authorised to sign hospital redirection cards, Army Form A.2042A, to ensure that the nature of the soldier's illness or wounds is more clearly defined and the next of kin saved from undue anxiety.
      Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: Whenever a soldier is admitted to hospital as a battle casualty or suffering from a serious illness or injury his next of kin is informed by telegram followed by a letter. Great care is taken in the wording of these communications so as to give full and accurate information. In other cases it is, I think rightly, left to the man himself to decide whether to let his family know of his admission to hospital either by letter or by this special form, which is primarily a notification of his new postal address.
      Mr. Shurmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my possession an Army form A.2042A, which was sent in respect of a lad in the Middle East, which bears the information to the boy's parents that he has been admitted to hospital with multiple injuries? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the anxiety that was caused to those parents when it took four days to receive a reply, by prepaid telegram, from the War Office which stated:
      "When we hear what has happened to the boy we will let you know."
      Surely more details could be supplied to parents when a soldier is injured. Will the Minister see that the form is altered so as to provide the fullest details?
      Mr. Hutchison: I think that it will be generally agreed that it is right to leave to a man, unless he is seriously or dangerously ill, the decision as to what he should tell his parents. He may not want to tell them that he is in hospital, so as to avoid causing them anxiety. I have not seen the form which the hon. Member has quoted. I should like to look into the matter, but I imagine that the soldier himself filled in the form.
      Mr. Shunner: No, it was not in the soldier's handwriting. It was in the sister's handwriting.

      U.S. Manoeuvres (British Army Observers)
      Major Anstmther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for War how many of the seven British Army officers who attended the United States Flash Burn manoeuvres have now returned to Europe in order to give a first-hand eye-witness account to British officers at regimental and battalion level.
      Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: The one Army officer who went from this country has returned and is preparing a report.
      Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my hon. Friend see that this Army officer does not merely prepare a report which may be the foundation of a paper issued several months hence but, on the contrary, that he gives first-hand eye-witness lectures, because that is the best way to teach these things?
      Mr. Hutchison: I should like to think about that, but it would be a little difficult, would it not, to ask one officer to give eye-witness lectures to the whole of the British Army. Somehow or other this information must be put out in writing as well
      Major Anstruther-Gray: Is it not a fact that seven officers from the British Army were invited to attend? Why could not more than one come back to this country?
      Mr. Hutchison: The others are members of the British Army staff in Washington. It is best to wait and see what is contained in the reports provided by this officer and other observers and consider then what more we can do.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE

      Light Industry, Stirling
      Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the intended closing of the British-American Tobacco Company's factory in Stirling; whether he is also aware that this will intensify the already existing need for light industry in the Stirling area; and what steps he intends to take.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Yes, Sir. I am aware that further industrial employment would be welcomed in the area, and the Board of Trade will be prepared to consider the issue of industrial development certificates in appropriate cases.
      Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is another case of a firm with headquarters in England closing down the Scottish end of its production? Will he take that into account in the policies which he and his Department carry out?
      Mr. Strauss: I think that in this case both the union concerned and the Stirling Town Council have accepted the decision as inevitable on economic grounds.

      New Industries, Falkirk
      Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to attract new industries to the Falkirk area, in view of the recession in the ironfounding industry.
      Mr. H. Strauss: The Board of Trade recognise the need of the Falkirk area for new industry and will continue to encourage suitable enterprises to establish themselves there.
      Mr. MacPherson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that a year ago one of his colleagues in the Government put very emphatically the point which he is now putting that the area needs diversification of industry? Will he say what has been done in that respect in the course of that year?
      Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member is aware that Falkirk cannot be considered apart from Grangemouth and Bonny-bridge, and that there have been considerable developments there.
      Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that industry in Falkirk is mainly one of supplying goods for fuel consumption, such as modern grates? Would he not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would not make the introduction of fuel saving appliances free from Purchase Tax so that there might be some encouragement to this industry, and a saving in fuel?
      Mr. Strauss: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a totally different question.
      Mr. Lee: Is it not the case that there is now no restriction on industrial building even in areas where many thousands of vacancies cannot be filled? How can the hon. and learned Gentleman expect a proper redistribution of industry whilst such conditions exist?
      Mr. Strauss: Again, that is a different question.

      China and U.S.S.R. (Export Licences)
      Mr. Bingasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of applications and the total value thereof for licences to export steel and other metals to Bulgaria, Hungary and China, respectively; the number of these applications which he has granted and refused respectively; and the total value thereof for the last six months;
      (2) how many applications for licences, and to what value, have been received by his Department for the export of electrical equipment to China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively, during the last six months; the number and value of those refused; the number and value of those allowed; and the number and value of those still under consideration, respectively;
      (3) the number of applications and the value thereof for licences to export machine tools to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which have been received by his Department in the last six months; the number and value of the applications which have been allowed; the number and value of those which have been refused; and the number and value of those now awaiting decision, respectively.
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The collation of the detailed information requested by the hon. and learned Member is taking a little time, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
      Mr. Bing: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already collected this information in order to put it before whatever is the appropriate committee discussing this matter?
      Mr. Amory: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman under-estimates the amount of work that is involved in providing the detailed information for which

      1899
      he asks. I am anxious that he should have information which is as accurate as possible, and it will be provided as soon as possible. If he is not satisfied, I hope that he will put a further Question on the Order Paper.
      Mr. Bing: Whilst appreciating the accuracy and enthusiasm with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with matters whilst he was at the Ministry of Pensions, may I suggest that surely he could give some general indication of how many applications for licences have been granted and how many have been refused?
      Mr. Amory: That general information would not answer the specific Questions which the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked.

    NATIONAL FINANCE

      Inland Revenue Yield
      Mr. H. A. Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the yield to the Treasury would be during the current financial year from all sources, at the taxation level ruling during the financial year 1950–51.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The yield of Inland Revenue duties in 1954–55 at 1950–51 rates of tax would be about £2,565 million, compared with the Budget estimate of £2,385 million. The corresponding figures for Customs and Excise revenue would be approximately £1,715 million and £1,781.5 million respectively.

      Bank Rate Reduction
      Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for reducing the Bank rate from 3½per cent, to 3 per cent.
      Mr. R. A. Butler: The Bank of England took the view that this change was appropriate in present market conditions. I was, of course, consulted and concurred.
      Mr. Osborne: Was it the inflow of foreign temporary money into this country—the "hot money"—that caused the decision that has been taken? If so, can the Chancellor say to what extent that foreign "hot money" has been coming into the country over the past six months?
      Mr. Butler: I have already answered this question once in debate, when I said that the greater part of the marked improvement in our reserves has been due to normal factors, and due to an increased confidence in sterling, which I think alt sections of the House would welcome at the present time. I said further that there had recently been a speculative element. My hon. Friend asked whether the Bank rate was changed specifically for that reason. The reason why it was changed, among others, was that money rates had eased in various centres since the last reduction in the Bank rate. This was one of the factors that were taken into account.
      Mr. Woodburn: The local authorities are very anxious to know whether this reduction in the Bank rate will be reflected in the Public Works Loan Board's rates. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information about that?
      Mr. Butler: Those rates are not governed by the Bank rate but are based on the general level of Government credit from time to time for loans for comparable periods. Therefore, I shall keep a watch on that matter.
      Mr. Fernybough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he first raised the Bank rate the building societies automatically raised their mortgage interest charges, and that although there have been two reductions in the Bank rate they have not followed the right hon. Gentleman's example? Will he do something about that?
      Mr. Butler: Developments in that direction will depend upon movements in the market and upon decisions taken by the borrowers and lenders concerned. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should under-rate the importance of leaving these matters to the market.

      CONTROLLED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (COST)
      Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the comparative cost, in connection with pedestrian crossings for which local authorities are responsible of police control and press-button light control.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The cost of police control is about £1,200 a year on the basis of a 12-hour day. The cost of installing press-button traffic light signals varies between £850 and £350, depending on whether the lights are provided with vehicle-actuated pads or not. The annual maintenance cost of such signals is £50 to £70.
      Mr, Page: Will my hon. Friend encourage the use of press-button signals rather than police controls?
      Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir It is our policy to do so in all suitable cases in the interests of economy.
      Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary making good progress with the collection of statistics to show whether or not zebra crossings, are, in fact, resulting in a reduction in the number of accidents?
      Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir, we are making good progress in that as in other respects, and there may be an opportunity of discussing that matter later.

TELEVISION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Report [13th May] of the Business Committee to be considered forthwith.— [Mr. Crookshank.]
Considered accordingly.
Mr. Geoffrey Bing: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely this is a debatable Motion?
Mr. Speaker: The settled practice on this Motion is that it has never been
That—

(a) the remaining proceedings in Committee on the Television Bill will be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;

(b) the days which under the Order [11th May] are given to the said proceedings and portions of those days shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and

(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [11th May], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE

Allotted Day

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of Proceedings

First day

Clause 1 and First Schedule

6·30

Clause 2, to end of subsection (1)

7·30

Clause 2, so far as not previously disposed of, to second "the" in line 3 on page 4

9·00

Clause 2, so far as not previously disposed of

—

Second day

Clause 2, so far as not previously disposed of

10·30

Third day

Clause 3 to end of line 21 on page 5

5·00

Clause 3, so far as not previously disposed of, except the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"

8·00

Clause 3, so far as not previously disposed of

9·00

Clause 4

10·30

Fourth day

Second Schedule

9·00

Clause 5 and Third Schedule

—

Fifth day

Clause 5 and Third Schedule, so far as not previously disposed of

6·30

Clauses 6 to 17, new Clauses and new Schedules

10·30

debated and to do so would be contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order, which says that the Question must be put forthwith.
Mr. Bing rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must so rule.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report," put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee), and agreed to.
The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 1.—(REDUCTION OF ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.)
    3.33 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first seven Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), from lines 16 to 20, are out of order.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: As it would be convenient to the Committee, would you be good enough, Sir Charles, to explain why these Amendments are out of order?
    The Chairman: The reason is that the hon. Member should have put down consequential Amendments to preserve the amateur entertainments, which he has not done. For that reason they are out of order.
    Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    (2) Entertainment duty shall not be charged in respect of admission to a cinematograph film exhibition given in premises the seating capacity of which does not exceed! two hundred and fifty persons:
    Provided that such premises are used for the giving of cinematograph film exhibitions for which but for the provisions of this subsection entertainment duty would have been chargeable, not more often than one day in any one week.
    As the Committee knows, there is a comparatively small number of operators known as mobile film exhibitors. These individuals, or sometimes firms, are equipped for the most part with 16 mm. projectors and are willing to give shows in almost any village hall and even in village schools. Thereby they hope to make a living, but in doing so they bring relaxation and entertainment to small communities which for the most part are denied this form of amusement.
    Although this Amendment has been tabled after consultation with the Mobile Cinema Association, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not lose sight of the fact that its acceptance would cost him practically nothing. On the other hand, it would contribute towards counteracting the drift away from
    1906
    rural areas to the large towns—a movement which, we have often been told, is, to a large extent, caused by the lack of entertainment provided in the countryside.
    At the same time, mobile operators have a case on their own account. They are not having an easy time and I rather think that a tax concession on their behalf is overdue. It will be recalled that relief from Entertainments Duty has already been granted in the case of cinemas situated in parishes where the population is fewer than 2,000, or in the case of cinemas in areas where the density of population is fewer than 640 to the square mile. In addition to those two qualifications, exemption from tax is only granted at present in the case of halls with a seating capacity of fewer than 400.
    It may be asked why those concessions do not meet the case of the mobile operators. The answer is that those qualifications for exemption, although of course most acceptable, bring a number of anomalies as, for instance, where a small village is included in the boundaries of a much larger parish or perhaps is in the same parish as a quite sizeable town. In cases of that sort the nearest cinema may be four or five miles or more away.
    It may be suggested that the proper way in which to deal with the problem is to re-define, still on a territorial plus population basis, the qualifications for exemption from Entertainments Duty. In reply to that suggestion, if it is made, all I can say is that the whole ingenuity of the Treasury has been brought to bear on this possibility—and brought to bear, I think, with sympathy—but it has not led to the framing of a formula which would not bring as many anomalies and contradictions as it would eradicate.
    With all these considerations in mind, I have found it easier to propose, and I hope the Chancellor will find it easier to accept, the Amendment which grants exemption for Entertainments Duty to film shows given in halls in which film shows are not given more than once a week. I do not think shows given in halls not more frequently than once a week would seriously compete with the established static 35 mm. cinemas. I think the one day a week qualification is very definite and I do not think the

    1907
    acceptance of the Amendment would bring administrative difficulties. The concession would help a deserving little industry which is fairly hard hit at the moment and would also help to provide amenities in the countryside.
    Viscountess Davidson: I wish to support the Amendment. It is now many years since the late Sir Stafford Cripps, realising the importance of small mobile cinemas to those living in the outlying villages, decided to remove the Entertainments Duty under certain conditions. This decision was received with gratitude and acclamation, until it was discovered that, in spite of what the then Chancellor had done, there were still many villages which, for different reasons, did not benefit, and where the duty still had to be paid.
    Certain alterations were made in the next Finance Act and again, those of us with villages in our constituencies that were affected, hoped that they would benefit. But, to our great disappointment, for administrative reasons they did not. There are still villages where the population is small enough, and where the seating capacity of the hall complies with the regulations, but because they come into certain categories—I do not wish to weary the Committee with the technical reasons—Entertainments Duty has still to be paid.
    I have one village in my constituency which cannot be exempted and unless the Chancellor can do something now to exclude all these cinemas in certain outlying villages the promoters will be unable to continue to face the financial loss confronting them, which is due entirely to the need to pay Entertainments Duty. Many other hon. Members can quote similar cases relating to villages in their constituencies. I have received letters from different parts of the country confirming this.
    I have bombarded the Financial Secretary—I can use no other word— and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, as I have bombarded previous Chancellors and Financial Secretaries. I have always maintained that it should not be beyond the wit of Treasury officials to find some means of helping all these villages. I need not say how thankful I shall be if the Chancellor is
    1908
    able to accept this Amendment, so that it will be unnecessary for me to make any further representations to him or to the Financial Secretary on behalf of some very hardly treated and well deserving people.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I do not think that this Amendment would cost very much. If it did I should not support it, because I do not think that there should be any decrease in taxation unless one brings about a decrease in expenditure. It is rather important that we should establish the fact that there is some connection between taxation and expenditure—something which seems to be ignored both in this Committee and outside.
    There is in my constituency a village— if one may so term it—with 17,000 inhabitants. It lies on the outskirts of my constituency. If two people living there wish to go to visit the cinema, because of the incompetence of the nationalised London Transport, it costs them Is. 6d. each, or a total of 3s. to get to the cinema and home again. I do not know why hon. Members opposite smile at my description of the nationalised London Transport. It is the most incompetent transport body in this country. Fares are raised on successive occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am not out of order. I am talking about the cost of going to a film show if one happens to live in a certain part of my constituency.
    If this concession were granted many more entertainments would take place which do not take place now, and I doubt, therefore, whether the Chancellor would lose much revenue at all. There are small halls and schools with a seating capacity of fewer than 250 and if they were permitted to have one show a week it would be a great comfort to the people living in the area. My constituency is not a good example because theoretically it is an urban area, but there is a mile of agricultural land between the main body of my constituents and the village to which I am referring. I also have one or two farmers in my constituency.
    The people who live on the other side of the agricultural belt in my constituency are hardly treated and, therefore, I hope that the Chancellor will consider making this concession. As I say, it will cost but little, and give great comfort to

    1909
    a number of people in my constituency the majority of whom, I regret to say, do not apparently vote for me as is indicated by the result of the recent municipal elections. They are so disgruntled by the high cost of transport which has resulted from a Socialist transport administration that they vote Labour, not realising where the trouble comes from.
    3.45 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I sympathise with the object of this Amendment. I think the word "bombard" used by the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) is very appropriate to describe that firmness and determination with which she wrote to my right hon. Friend and to myself, and also lo right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office.
    As the hon. Lady knows, to some extent the purposes which this Amendment is designed to cover are already covered by the rural areas exemption which has been referred to both by the noble Lady and by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). It is also the fact that there are certain villages—in particular, one or two in the constituency of the noble Lady whose names are almost written on my heart—where the provisions required to establish exemption under the rural areas exemption are not met. That is where the difficulty arises which it is sought to meet by this Amendment.
    A study of the rural areas exemption indicates the enormous practical difficulties which would face one in making exceptions of this kind. There is always the difficulty that such exceptions tend to create new anomalies. This Amendment in its present terms is, to some extent, an example of the difficulty of trying to provide exceptions in this very complicated sphere. I put it to the hon. and gallant Baronet and to the noble Lady that it could be argued that it would be anomalous to do as this Amendment proposes and to charge nothing by way of Entertainment Duty to a man who runs six shows in six different halls during a week, but to tax in full another man who runs two shows in the course of a week, perhaps in one of those selfsame halls. I cannot help feeling that
    1910
    under those circumstances the man running the two shows would feel that he was being victimised.
    Another complication is that, as the Amendment stands, if two shows are run in the same hall on the same day of the week exemption is secured, but if they are run on two different days it is not. That is an illustration of how, with the best will in the world, difficulties arise. Another difficulty of this kind of arrangement is that while the cinema promoter is benefited it does not necessarily follow in all circumstances that the people who wish to come to these entertainments are also benefited. This proposal would give a strong incentive to a promoter to run one show and not two in a village during a week.
    These difficulties must be faced, but I concede at once—indeed, I have never said otherwise—that there is here a real problem. We have sought in some degree to alleviate it by bearing in mind that these small cinemas are mainly concerned with the rate of duty on the cheaper seats. As hon. Gentlemen will know, in his 1952 Budget my right hon. Friend exempted seats up to 8d. and reduced the duty on the 9d. and 10d. seats by ½d. The Clause-to which this Amendment is put down exempts the 9d. seats, and reduces the Is. seats duty by ½d. to l½d. As a matter of interest, the rate on the Is. seats will actually be lower than it has ever been since the Entertainments Duty was introduced as long ago as 1916.
    We have sought to help with the problem, and I think that in some degree we have succeeded, by the emphasis on the rate of duty on the cheaper seats. That clearly gives a greater proportionate advantage to the small cinema of which the once-a-week, under-250-seats affair is an example, although by no means a complete or comprehensive example. We can certainly watch the matter from this point of view.
    I would not argue to the Committee— I doubt whether any hon. Member who has studied the question would be persuaded by me if I did—that the rural areas exemption in its present form is so perfect that it is impossible to contemplate improvements to it. The difficulty, as I have frankly said to the Committee, is that when one begins to consider alterations to it, one almost always bumps up against the creation of worse anomalies.

    1911
    We are always prepared to consider practical suggestions for the adjustment of the rural areas exemption, provided that, on examination, the alterations do not create worse anomalies than the ones they cure. It seems to me that the right method of tackling the problem is by that means and also by reducing the duty on the cheaper seats, as we have done in two Budgets in three years, and, indeed, by exempting some of those at the bottom of the scale.
    I do not want to argue that there is no problem here—there is a very real one —but I differ from my hon. Friends on the solution which they propose for it. It seems to me that to select arbitrarily the once-a-week and under-250-seat affair would create just the sort of anomalies to which I refer and to which hon. Members could, I have no doubt, add other examples. Although I welcome the intentions of the Amendment, it would not produce a suitable, workmanlike solution to the problem about which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are sincerely concerned.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I found the speech of the Financial Secretary very disappointing after the pleas which we have had from the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) and the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson).
    The Financial Secretary admits that there is a serious anomaly and problem and that mobile cinemas are doing a very valuable job in country districts and some other areas which are normally regarded as urban or semi-urban, but have transport difficulties. He said that he was prepared to look at any scheme which solves the problem provided that it does not create new anomalies.
    That is not good enough. One can hardly expect those who are concerned about the provision of the service—most will foe one-man businesses—or any national federation which exists on their behalf, to be capable of working out a scheme which avoids all the anomalies which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Surely the Department which is the best able to judge the new anomalies which might be created and best able to advise on the matter is the Treasury itself.
    However, the right hon. Gentleman gives us the impression that he is willing
    1912
    to look at any proposals which come along. It is the usual position of the Treasury—waiting for something to turn down. I imagine that he is fairly confident that any proposals which come along are bound to create new anomalies somewhere so that the Treasury will always be able to say, "We cannot possibly accept the proposal." As the noble Lady, said, surely it is not beyond the wit of the experts in the Treasury, who know what the problems are and what anomalies might be created by a proposal, to find some way of getting round the problem.
    I confess that I do not know what the answer is. One solution might be te exempt mobile cinemas generally. I do not know whether that would create any of the anomalies which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I do not think that the Amendment goes far enough, because it deals only with the one-show-a-week man, whereas it is desirable that in many villages there should be two shows a week.
    I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us some idea of what the Amendment would have cost. He ought to tell us what would be the cost of exempting mobile cinema performances altogether. If we had these figures—I feel that they would be extremely small—1 am sure that the Committee would be in a better position to come to a decision on the matter.
    There can be no doubt that the mobile cinemas perform a very valuable local service. The hon. and gallant Baronet, representing as he does a predominantly rural constituency, referred to the value of mobile cinemas in village halls, schools and other buildings in small hamlets whose inhabitants have virtually no opportunity of going to cinemas in towns and cities.
    I know the experience of my own constituency which is normally regarded as a fairly urban division very close to Liverpool. There is a newly created village there built as a temporary housing estate for war-time aircraft workers where it is absolutely essential to provide this sort of facility because the journey to Liverpool is too long and too expensive for the inhabitants. I will not follow the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) into the reasons for the cost of transport, but if he will look at the

    1913
    highly efficient Liverpool Corporation tramways he will find more to get excited about than he will in relation to transport in his division. Whatever the reasons may be, there is in my constituency only a few miles from one of the biggest cities in the country a small newly-created community which depends for its entertainment on mobile cinema facilities.
    The Financial Secretary showed that he was well aware of the problem. He said that the names of some villages in the noble Lady's constituency were written on his heart. This is the first intimation that we have had in the House of Commons that the right hon. Gentleman has a heart. It is a very good start to the proceedings on the Finance Bill that the Financial Secretary should make such an unusual admission.
    The Financial Secretary, having said that, felt that some contribution had been made towards the solution of the problem by the remission of Entertainments Duty on the cinema industry generally in the Budget of 1952 and in the Finance Bill. I hope he will not pursue that argument too far. I should be very much out of order if I were now to go into the general arguments about the proposed changes in Entertainments Duty in respect to cinemas generally, but I would warn the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition will certainly wish to table Amendments to the Schedule relating to cinema taxation in order, particularly to deal with the problem of the lowest priced seats in cinemas.
    The Chancellor has made a concession to the cinema industry generally, and he has spread it widely over all seat prices, but I am sure that he would be the first to admit that the biggest concession is in respect of the higher priced seats, so that the cinemas which will gain most will be the large-circuit cinemas in the big towns and cities, whereas the smaller cinemas with the lower-priced seats will gain less from the concession. That is why we shall want to debate that aspect of the Chancellor's proposals when we come to the Schedule. Certainly, that being the case, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can claim that enough has been done for these mobile cinemas merely by reason of the changes proposed in the Schedule.
    I therefore hope that, having disclosed that he has a heart, he will reconsider
    1914
    this matter and will bear in mind the arguments which have been deployed from his own side, and any more that may be deployed from this side of the Committee, so that, before we part from this Amendment, he will announce either that he will accept it—though it may be, as he said, that this is not the best way of doing it—or will introduce at a later stage an Amendment which will give effect to what the hon. Baronet has in mind and what I am sure the whole Committee want to see done.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Rankin: I do not happen to have in my division any mobile cinemas, but I do have many cinemas in which the seats are very low-priced indeed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has indicated that, perhaps at a later stage, the Chancellor will be hearing more of the argument about these cinemas, but, at the moment, I want to support the plea that we should abolish the duty on the mobile cinemas.
    Like my right hon. Friend, I do not think it is advisable that any limitation should be introduced here, either as to the number of shows per week or the number of people attending them, because I think the situation of the places in which these mobile cinemas are used automatically limits the number of people who attend them.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) complained in a light-hearted fashion about the distance which many people have to travel if they want to go to one of the big cities to see a film, but I want to draw the attention of the supporters of this Amendment and the Chancellor to the fact that in Scotland there are people who are completely dependent on the mobile cinema. They cannot go to any city to see a film, because they are cut off by sea.
    That is the case in part of the division represented in this House by the Chairman of Ways and Means—the Island of Arran—where it is quite impossible for people resident in the villages to go to any cinema on Clydeside. They are completely dependent on the mobile cinema that goes round the villages of Arran, and that is also true of a great many places in Scotland, which are just as completely dependent on the mobile cinema.

    1915
    In view of the fact that depopulation is still a very considerable problem in Scotland, and I am sure—if I can interrupt for a minute the important conversation which is going on on the Front Bench—that the Chancellor himself will be aware of it in other aspects, of this pressing problem in Scotland—because of that fact, and because we want people to stay in those areas, it is essential that we should provide them with as much as is possible of those amenities enjoyed by the towns.
    Commander J. w Maitland: Is it not a fact that, if the community is under 2,000, the travelling cinema would be exempt from taxation in any case?
    Mr. Rankin: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that, in some of the communities of which I am thinking—for instance, in the Island of Arran—the community does not comprise 2,000 people but about 5,000, and that they have all the disabilities without any of the advantages. We have a problem to face here, and one way of bringing to these people more of the advantages of the cities, which attract them away today, is by means of the mobile cinema.
    The Financial Secretary said that there are anomalies. I agree that it is almost impossible to devise a form of words that will not contain some anomaly, and so I would suggest this course to the right hon. Gentleman. He should accept in principle the plea which has been put from both sides of the Committee—I hope that both right hon. Gentlemen are listening to what I am saying—and that they will accept in principle this plea that the mobile cinema should be exempted from duty altogether.
    The number of people involved is small. If he will accept in principle the idea of freeing these mobile cinemas from tax duty altogether, then, with all the competent assistance which they have at their disposal and with their own great personal abilities, they should be able to devise a form of words which will be satisfactory to them and to the Committee.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: If all the mobile cinemas are exempted from duty, then all the little cinemas in
    1916
    the hon. Member's constituency, which are having a hard enough time already, would have a great deal more competition to face from mobile cinemas in the streets.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a mobile cinema would have any place in either the Tradeston or Govan constituencies.
    Mr. Browne: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has seen a certain type of shop in which the apparatus of a mobile cinema has been used; and there are many places which could be used as mobile cinemas.
    Mr. Rankin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I should like to tell him that I have only one hall in Tradeston, though I am trying to get another.
    Mr. Browne: I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck, but the point on which I rose was to support the plea made by my hon. Friends.
    Here we have an Amendment on a question on which an exemption has already been made from Entertainments Duty. I think that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary are probably now feeling very sorry that any exemption was made from Entertainments Duty in the first place. I think the Committee should remember that we have here a taxation system in which we have already granted certain exceptions, and on which we are now entitled to plead for the rural areas that the exemption should be made just a little wider.
    I would also support the plea made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and say that I believe that a form of words should be devised which would give effect to the solution of what I know to be a very urgent problem. I therefore support this proposal.
    Mr. Anthony Crosland: I find it very hard to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that we have had a good start to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. It is true that we have had a revelation that the Financial Secretary has a heart, but apart from that I do not think that the debate has taken a very satisfactory turn. We have had a

    1917
    characteristically ill-mannered and inaccurate speech from the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).
    Sir H. Williams: I do not know where it was ill-mannered and where it was inaccurate.
    Mr. Crosland: That question is very easy to answer. The whole of the speech was ill-mannered and the whole of it was inaccurate.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman quote one inaccurate part of the speech?
    Mr. Crosland: Yes. The entire section about London Passenger Transport was wholly inaccurate and misleading. To that inaccurate speech we had an answer of very arid accuracy from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that the tone of our debates this year will not be set either by that of the hon. Baronet or by the speech of the Financial Secretary. We want something more elevating than the speech of the hon. Baronet and something more simple than that of the Financial Secretary.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that our contributions should be sub-intellectual?
    Mr. Crosland: I am merely concerned with the general moral tone of the debates. The level should come about halfway between those two speeches.
    In my constituency is a town of about 2,000 inhabitants, and it has no permanent cinema owing to the fact that the cinema was bombed during the war. This problem affects a great number of rural areas. I am prepared to believe that the exact form of words of the Amendment might not be right, but I was not entirely satisfied with the major objections which the Financial Secretary put forward. His first objection was that if we gave concessions we should create anomalies. That is frequently true, but we must not be over-scared about that.
    It is inevitable that detailed legislation should be full of minor anomalies, to which the Financial Secretary referred when he said that if the Amendment were accepted a cinema proprietor who gave six separate shows in six separate towns on one night would be exempt, whereas one who gave two shows in the
    1918
    same village on separate nights would not be exempt. He said, reasonably enough, that that would be a tiresome anomaly.
    Life is full of tiresome anomalies. If a man has six separate children from six separate wives he does not get any family allowance, but if he has six separate children from one wife he gets five family allowances. That is an anomaly. I will not say that it causes widespread anxiety, but is a subject of irritation among a certain, harmless section of the community.
    4.15 p.m.
    The only other point which the Financial Secretary made was that if the Amendment were accepted it might not benefit viewers, but would benefit only the proprietors of small cinemas in villages. That cannot be the true effect of the Amendment. Viewers in villages might have cinema performances which they otherwise would not have. The Amendment must benefit viewers as much as it benefits cinema proprietors.
    I should like to take part in a discussion on London Passenger Transport and the relatively small increase in charges which it has secured compared to the increase in the prices of the products of private industry, but even so tolerant a Chairman as yourself, Sir Charles, might rule it out of order. Although we have had one or two exceptionally good contributions to the debate which have been both brief and rather human, I hope that the tone of our debates on this Bill will be at a higher average level.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Amendment was only put down at the last moment. I have had a busy morning with our visitors from the Argentine and I did not see the Amendment until lunch time, when my attention was drawn to it because of the efficiency with which I am served.
    The arguments against it have been put quite clearly by the Financial Secretary, and they are considerable. Representatives of the Mobile Cinema Association were seen by the Customs and Excise Department and we think we have in our possession the majority of their arguments. If the Committee wants this matter looked at, I think the difference between rural and non-rural areas is that

    1919
    which causes anxiety and needs examination, and I am willing to examine it, but in that case we must ask for rather more detail to 'be given us than has been given us by the Mobile Cinema Association.
    I serve a rural area, and I know something about the difficulties. If my noble Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) and her Friends want to submit any further details of how this plan could be worked I should be glad to look into them. It would be a more businesslike way of pursuing this debate this afternoon on what I think was rather inadequate notice— although I do not complain—than by coming to a conclusion on the matter now.
    The Amendment has the weakness that it ignores die nature of the area and concentrates on the size of the hall. I would rather concentrate upon the distinction between rural and non-rural, thus following the policy introduced by my predecessor Sir Stafford Cripps. That would make more sense than following the line of the Amendment, which I do not think would work or, in its present form, would be administratively possible.
    I have not the total sum involved. The real anxiety about the sum is that we think we should have to enlarge the figure mentioned by the Financial Secretary. If I had a little notice I could get out a reliable figure. A new principle is laid down in the Amendment based on the size of the hall and the frequency of the show. We are to have an Amendment of noble grandeur to succeed the one we are now discussing and it is in the name of another predecessor of mine. It would be in the interests of the Committee if we made progress. If my noble Friend would send me detailed proposals about the differentiation between rural and non-rural areas, the matter can be properly looked at.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I thank the Chancellor for his intervention. We all understand that he has had very little time, and not even enough time, to find out the cost of this proposal.
    Mr. Butler: That is not quite right. When I heard of it earlier this morning
    1920
    I asked that we should try to get an assessment. The difficulty is to get an exact assessment as we were not sure how far the Amendment would go. It is difficult to get an accurate figure.
    Mr. Wilson: Some guidance can possibly be obtained from the Mobile Cinema Association.
    There are other points relevant to deciding our attitude to the Amendment. I have no desire to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). I was not implying that the fact that the Financial Secretary had a heart was an encouraging beginning for the Finance Bill. We shall see how valuable is that concession. The real answer to the exchange of views between my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne), apart from the fact that my hon. Friend does not seem to have a hall in his division, is that my hon. Friend is very much concerned about the position of the small cinemas in his division. That is why he will support my hon. Friends and myself in putting down at the appropriate time an Amendment to the Schedule which relates to the taxation of ordinary non-mobile cinemas.
    The Chancellor, having told us of the very short time he has had to consider this Amendment, has offered to look at it again between now and Report. We all welcome that offer, but I hope that he will not look at it in quite the narrow way which he indicated. From this side it has been proposed that he should look at the whole question of exempting mobile cinemas as such. This distinction between the urban and the rural district goes back to Sir Stafford Cripps's proposals some years ago.
    When we are talking about mobile cinemas the distinction between urban and rural districts becomes more and more shadowy almost every month. In my own division, which is rapidly developing in every sense, there are areas which are technically scheduled as rural but which are becoming very urban indeed, and there are urban areas which are highly rural and to which this kind of Amendment would be of great value.
    I therefore hope that the Chancellor will look at this rather more broadly and will consider the question of general

    1921
    exemption from taxation of mobile cinemas. That will get over the whole problem of the one day a week and two day a week cinema and would help to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South.
    This is not just a matter of waiting for the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) or the mobile cinema proprietors to make a proposal which the Chancellor can then very easily turn down. Any proposals are bound to have some anomalies in them. The Chancellor can reassure the Committee by saying that between now and Report he will look at this and that, if he can see any way of getting over the problem—which the Financial Secretary admits exists—without creating anomalies, he will put down something on Report. If the Committee has that assurance I am sure we should be only too pleased to pass to the next Amendment.
    Sir H. Williams: In view of the conciliatory remarks of the Chancellor, I imagine that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) will, in a moment, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think that the Chancellor is entitled to complain that the Amendment appeared only this morning. I discovered that it had gone in and attached my name to it at about 11 o'clock last night. I do not know the reason for the delay.
    There is a problem to be solved, although the Amendment may not contain the best solution. It might not be a bad idea for the Chancellor to say to his advisers, "It may not be easy to find a solution, but if the solution is not available by tomorrow morning—there are a lot of lampposts in Whitehall."
    Finally, though the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) said that I am ill-mannered and inaccurate I do not think that I am superior and conceited.
    Sir L. Ropner: I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his assurance with regard to further examination of the problem. I am a little disappointed that nothing can be done now but, having had that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Chairman: The next Amendment selected is that put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in page 2, line 5. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with that Amendment we take a number of others. I suggest that those should be that in page 2, line 5 which deals with football matches; that in line 5 relating to association football matches; that in line 5 referring to association foot ball, rugby football and boxing; that in line 5 in respect of tennis matches and the one immediately following it relating to boxing matches; that in line 5 stand ing in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) relating to athletic contests and that immediately following it relating to rugby league foot ball matches—
    Mr. David J. Pryde: On a point of order—
    The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to finish. With those can be taken the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), which deals with the Highland Games. I think that all those nine can come under the wing of the right hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Gaitskell) and, in due course, can be divided on, if necessary.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster): On a point of order, Sir Charles. Before we proceed with this debate can you say whether, in due course, you propose to select the Amendment in page 2, line 5, which relates to horticultural shows and which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland)?
    The Chairman: That does not yet arise, but I propose to call it in due course.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Further to that Sir Charles, may I ask your intention with regard to the Amendment in page 2, line 5, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), which relates to Entertainments Duty in respect of an eisteddfod?
    The Chairman: I did not deal with that Amendment as I thought that it could be better discussed on the Amendment in

    1923
    the name of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) which deals with Entertainments Duty on a stage play or ballet. I did not intend to select the Welsh Amendment for a Division—nor the Scots one. I will be very fair about that.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, all entertainment which consists of games or other sports shall be excluded from the entertainments in respect of which entertainments duty is payable.
    We have discussed the principle underlying this Amendment for a number of years now and I hope we shall convince hon. Members of the necessity to accept the Amendment. Last year we produced statistical and financial evidence to prove our case. We thought that the Chancellor was then very sympathetic but when he replied we found that we had misjudged his willingness to take concrete steps to deal with the issues involved.
    Since then the position has become much worse. It is well known that a number of the leading association football and rugby clubs are finding it difficult to manage and that public-spirited people are subsidising them to enable them to keep going. Last Saturday a number of us, including hon. Members, attended Maine Road, Manchester. We there had the pleasure of seeing a game of football played between the English and the Welsh schoolboys which did credit to all concerned. When one hears of the tremendous amount of voluntary work taking place behind the scenes in organising and running events of that kind one is convinced that those concerned deserve very much more encouragement than they have received from the Chancellor since the end of the war.
    If Britain is to hold its own in the new economic situation of the world we have to encourage our people in this way. We have to get our young people fit and to keep them as fit as possible and to encourage the great amount of voluntary work in all sports in this country. One of the ways in which to do that would be to take off the Entertainments Duty completely.
    1924
    4.30 p.m.
    If I remember correctly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted on Second Reading that it would cost approximately £3,500,000 to take off the duty. Of that, about £2 million came from racing. Benefiting from past experience, I shall not try to differentiate between one sport and another. The attitude of the Chancellor on the last occasion was that, for administrative reasons, it would not be possible to differentiate. I take a great interest in certain sports, but I look upon racing, in the main, as a rich man's sport and, naturally, that arouses prejudice in anyone like myself.
    The case for taking off the duty is so overwhelming that it would be inappropriate to differentiate. I say this entirely on my own responsibility, but if I remember rightly, my right hon. Friends have assured us that, so concerned are we, that when we are returned to power the duty will be taken off. It is our desire to encourage the large amount of voluntary work which takes place. We want to encourage the young people in the new situation to which I have referred. It is well known that other countries give encouragement.
    Some of us have tried to get the State to help in certain ways to encourage young people, but it is always said, "No, traditionally in Britain this has been left to voluntary institutions." We accept that but we say that there is an overwhelming case for encouraging sports by taking off the duty. Those are the motives which lie behind the Amendment. I hope the Chancellor will bear in mind that he has almost committed himself to an investigation. During the debate on a previous Finance Bill the Chancellor committed himself to the extent that he agreed that a thorough investigation should be made to consider whether he should take off the duty. Since then the position has much worsened and we say that there is an overwhelming argument for taking off the duty completely.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: In supporting the Amendment I would recall for the benefit of the Chancellor and the Committee the recent changes made in Entertainments Duty. We on this side base our plea for what the Chancellor has already referred to as an Amendment of noble grandeur—an Amendment which I hope

    1925
    will have his sympathy—on the changes that have been made in the scope of Entertainments Duty in recent years.
    It will be remembered that since 1935, until two years ago, there were two scales of duty. There was a higher scale which originally applied to cinemas, racing and sports and a lower scale which applied to theatres and other live entertainment. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who, in 1946, extended the ambit of the lower scale of duty from theatres and entertainments of that kind to all games and sports. Then, about three years ago there was an agitation on the part of the speedway organisations for a reduction in the duty on speedway racing. It was as a result of that that two years ago, in 1952, the Chancellor introduced a third scale of duty, with the result that since 1952 there have been three different scales of duty.
    The highest scale is applicable to cinemas. I do not think that anyone would dispute that it is logical and necessary that the highest scale of duty should apply to cinemas because they are in a special category. Having realised that, and, also, that it is the cinemas which provide the bulk of the duty which is paid, we are left with the curious position that there is an intermediate scale which is paid by games, sports and racing, and there is the lowest scale applicable to theatres, music halls and minor entertainments such as eisteddfods about which some of my hon. Friends will speak later. In order to reduce the duty on racing, the Chancellor, in 1952, actually increased the duty on games and sports.
    In the Amendment we ask that all Entertainments Duty should be taken off all games and sports. In the Budget last year the Chancellor recognised that it was impossible to apply the second rate and even the lowest rate to one sport, namely, cricket. He had to introduce discrimination between one game and another. Part of our contention is that it is wrong in principle to discriminate for purposes of Entertainments Duty between one game and another. The argument was that cricket is a special case and that the amount of duty which is paid at cricket matches is not very much.
    But this is all a matter of degree. The hardship which became acute among
    1926
    cricket clubs two or three years ago is not confined to cricket clubs. Football clubs and other athletic associations, boxing, swimming and tennis clubs—in fact, games throughout the country of one kind or another—have all during the last year or two suffered a loss of revenue through falling gates.
    Therefore, we say that the Chancellor. having conceded that cricket is no longer a fit subject for taxation, should extend the principle, in fairness, to all games and sports. We do not claim that this exemption should extend to horse racing, speedway racing or greyhound racing. Our Amendment does not cover that form of entertainment. What we say, on principle, is that outdoor games should not be subject to this duty.
    I think the Chancellor will admit that the amount of revenue produced by this tax is not very much. It cannot amount to more than £1 million or £2 million. He will, no doubt, be able to tell us the precise figure. He has in this year's Budget made a trifling, an almost niggardly reduction in the applicable rates, but he has applied that not merely to games and sports but to all entertainments. I should have thought the time had come when the Government should consider whether games and sports are a fit subject for Entertainments Duty at all.
    Entertainments Duty was originally introduced, as has already been reminded, in 1916, in wartime, as an emergency measure. In wartime, perhaps, there is something to be said for putting some burden on those who go to entertainments. It may be that in time of national stress, and particularly in war, there is a case for taxing entertainments of this kind, but I doubt very much whether on principle the Chancellor can honestly justify the imposition in peacetime of a tax which does not provide very much revenue, which discriminates between one game and another, and which is regarded as intolerable by the clubs themselves that provide these healthy, outdoor games and activities, and the masses of the population who find soccer matches, Rugby Union and Rugby League matches, and so on, among the most attractive of our national pastimes.
    I hope the Chancellor will regard this Amendment, in his own words, as a noble theme on which to exercise his generosity. The Romans provided games

    1927
    and circuses for their citizens. I am not suggesting that we should do that, but it is difficult to justify going to the other extreme, and imposing burdens of taxation on national games and pastimes. The Government are doing some very extraordinary things. They are subsidising commercial television on the one hand and taxing healthy, outdoor sports and games on the other.
    We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an individual, did his best to prevent the Cabinet from deciding to go ahead with commercial television. We on this side of the Committee would do anything we could to support him. However, the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility being what it is, he must bear part of the responsibility for that decision. Can he, however, in his conscience support the subsidising of commercial television in the interests of the advertising community and at the same time, the maintenance of this burdensome, discriminatory duty on games and sports?
    That is what we ask the Chancellor. There is no great profit to be made by advertising out of football matches, and so forth. If there were I have no doubt there would be greater pressure from the other side of the Committee for the abolition of this duty. We, for our part, ask the Chancellor to approach this question on principle, and to recognise that there are no longer circumstances in which the needs of the revenue can justify this irritating tax. It is time, in the interests of the sport loving people of this country, who enjoy these athletic games of all kinds, that this tax should be removed.
    I have stated the case broadly. A great many of my hon. Friends will stress the particular needs and claims of all the sports and games, Highland games and others, that are covered by this series of Amendments.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I am greatly in sympathy with the social and sporting purposes that underline the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). There has been no mention, though, of how the loss in revenue is to be made good, and my sole reason for this short intervention—and it will be very short—[HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps."] I realise that every one of the
    1928
    hon. Gentlemen opposite has a local football team whose interests he wishes to espouse in this debate, but the reason for my short intervention is simply to voice again a principle I raised last year in Committee on the Finance Bill. The truth of that principle will not in any way be vitiated by voicing it again.
    It is a not a good thing to tax live sport, or the people who go to see it—
    Mr. M. Follick: What is dead sport?
    Mr. Nabarro: Live sport is a colloquialism, similar to the live theatre. There is not a dead theatre, so far as I know.
    Mr. Follick: Is there not?
    Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Oh, yes, there is.
    Mr. Nabarro: The tax is levied on those people who watch games and sports. I am much more interested in taxing, on what would be a more reasonable scale, the vast sums of money collected week by week by the football pools. At the present time the football pools betting duty amounts to 30 per cent, of the £70 million approximately invested in a full year. I calculate that the total yield to the revenue of the Entertainments Duty on sports and games of every description covered by this series of Amendments is about £3½ million.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Chancellor said that.
    Mr. Nabarro: I have put down a number of Questions on this matter, but, unfortunately, I have mistimed them. They are down for Thursday next, because I thought that the first day of the Committee on the Bill would be Thursday. So I have not the exact figures, but my right hon. Friend will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong. The football pools betting duty this year raises approximately £21 million in the full year, representing a 30 per cent, yield on the total annual investment of approximately £70 million in the football pools. By increasing that tax from 30 per cent, to 35 per cent, we should raise for the revenue a sum that would enable us totally to abolish the Entertainments Duty on all the sports and games covered by this series of Amendments.

    1929
    The man who stands to win £25,000 in a football pool does not much mind if it is reduced, on account of the additional duty I propose, to, say, £24,000. He is not very greatly perturbed, but today we have the unhappy situation that literally hundreds of small football clubs and similar sporting enterprises, whether Third Division clubs or not, professional clubs in all parts of the county, find that their finances are gravely undermined by the incidence of the Entertainments Duty.
    Moreover, year by year we spend long hours in this Chamber debating the Entertainments Duty on various types of sports and games. It is a waste of time. The Entertainments Duty, by amendment year by year, has now become unduly complicated and difficult to understand. I consider that the whole of it is a waste of time and a waste of effort, multiplied a thousandfold outside the Chamber. It could be saved simply by raising the betting duty on the football pools from 30 per cent, to 35 per cent, and freeing all sports and games from the Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I should like to confine my remarks to the Amendment standing in my name and that of some of my hon. Friends, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, football matches shall be excluded from the entertainments in respect of which entertainments duty is payable.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said that many hon. Members on this side of the Committee are waiting to speak for their own football team. Owing to the unfortunate circumstances attending political warfare, he is confined to speaking about a town which I think has not got much of a football team. Had he been more fortunate on an earlier occasion, things things might have been different.
    Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Kidderminster Harriers Football Club has the same aspirations in the sporting world as West Bromwich Albion had in the 1880s.
    Mr. Dugdale: I heartily agree and I was going on to say that I did not speak on behalf of one club or a certain number of clubs who happened to be fortunate in their position today. I am speaking on behalf of all football clubs,
    1930
    particularly those lower down the scale who feel this duty more than football clubs like West Bromwich Albion who are a little bit better able to bear it.
    Last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some relief to cricket. I would not complain about that at all. I would say "Good luck" to all cricketers on that relief, but why did he pick out cricket? I want to try to investigate why he did that and did not select football.
    Does the Chancellor like cricket better? Looking at him from the advantage which we on this side of the Committee have, I would say that perhaps he has a cricketing rather than a football face, though I am not sure about that. On the other hand, I would say that his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a football face, though again, I am not sure. At any rate, in either case I do not think that that is the reason why he continues to tax football and exempt cricket. It may be that he likes cricket more than football.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: The Chancellor is president of a football club.
    Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to hear that, and I hope that that means he will have more sympathy with the Amendment to which I am addressing my remarks.
    I was not very good at cricket and I remember that when I played it at school and was at the nets I bowled the ball not into my own net but into another net, so that I was told I need not play in the nets any more. I do not therefore argue that there should be a tax on cricket and no tax on football, and I do not think that this tax is due to the Chancellor's likes or dislikes one way or another.
    Possibly it has something to do with the revenue. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "Whatever the result of any watching may be over the year I must confess that I need the revenue which comes in from the football duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May 1953: Vol. 515, c. 2174.]
    I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman does need the revenue, but let me remind him that he also needs the revenue from Income Tax. Yet not very long ago he reduced Income Tax by an amount not of £1½ million or £2 million, but of £72 million. He did it like a lamb. He knocked it off as though it

    1931
    were nothing at all. Why cannot he adopt the same attitude about the tax on football as he took about Income Tax?
    The other argument the right hon. Gentleman used was that cricket was of international importance. He said that it was very helpful in cementing relationship between the Commonwealth. [Laughter.]My hon. Friends may laugh at that. Possibly there are one or two countries where there are differences of opinion expressed from time to time about cricket matches, but I think the playing of these matches is good for Commonwealth relations.
    The right hon. Gentleman, if I may again quote, said this:
    "In this country cricket occupies a special place among sports, not only as forming part of the English tradition but as a common interest helping to bind together the various countries of the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.]
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) explained in last year's Budget debate that football has a much longer tradition in English history than cricket, but I shall not go into that in any detail. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] My hon. Friend says "No." Let us say that they have both a long tradition in English history.
    I am not asking for better terms for football than for cricket, but, while cricket is of more use to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, I think the Chancellor will discover that the Foreign Secretary finds football more useful to him. Everybody will agree that the match which has just taken place in Belgrade has done a great deal to encourage good relations between England and Yugoslavia, particularly in view of the fact that a goal was scored by Yugoslavia in the last moment which, I am sure, did an infinite amount to cement English and Yugoslav relations.
    It is really quite beside the point, therefore, to say that cricket and cricket alone cements international relations. Football, obviously, does as much as cricket in this direction. We hear that Moscow is inviting the Arsenal to play, and there is a rumour that it has invited West Bromwich Albion and has asked to be invited back to play on the Hawthorns ground. I do not know whether it is true, but in any case it can be said that
    1932
    football does cement international relations as much as cricket.
    The other reason may be that in the right hon. Gentleman's mind cricket is an amateur sport whereas football is not. I think it is time we examined this question a little more closely to see whether we can discover what constitutes amateur sport and what constitutes professional sport, because a great deal of nonsense is talked about this subject nowadays. I think we are all agreed that people in cricket teams, in tennis teams and in any other kind of team who go abroad on behalf of this country to represent it are doing a very fine job. We are pleased that they should go.
    But do not let us think that they go unpaid. Those people who go to Australia receive a sum of money which I think can be fairly stated to be considerably in excess of the sum of money received by hon. Members for a year's work. They receive it by way of expenses, and it is quite proper that they should, but do not let us delude ourselves that they are going out for love of the sport alone. They are getting something and something which is well worth while, although there is no reason why they should not get it.
    There is a great deal of confusion about the whole question of amateur and professional sport, and no one would seem to be more confused, judging by recent events, than the Foreign Office, which seems to have experienced considerable difficulties on this matter. It would be well if the Chancellor cleared that up and told us something more about the position.
    The professional football clubs do one thing that the amateur football clubs do not do. They pay their players; and I do not think it is wrong to pay those who play in their teams. They pay them a certain amount, which is a reasonable living wage but they do not them selves—
    Mr. Foliick: They are paid very poorly.
    Mr. Dugdale: My hon. Friend says they are poorly paid, and, considering their short life as footballers, I agree that they do not get a very high wage.
    Mr. Foliick: I am referring to the "gates" which the clubs get, and I was

    1933
    saying that the footballers get a very poor wage compared with what the "gates" produce.
    Mr. Dugdale: If the "gates" were reduced it would lessen the chances of the players getting a high wage.
    The point I want to emphasise—and this is a point which I must admit I have mentioned before—is that we should get this matter in its true perspective. West Bromwich Albion distribute a total sum of £28 15s. in dividends to shareholders. Yet it is considered to be the top club in the country this year. If that is the distribution that it makes, it cannot be said that football is a very profitable and money-making game which should be heavily taxed.
    5.0 p.m.
    As a result of this duty, many small clubs may have to go out of business altogether, which would be very serious. Think what it means to a small town to lose its football team. It is all very well for us in London. Here we have an infinite variety of amusements. We can go out and watch the pageantry and see all the life of London in its various manifestations, but in small towns there is not nearly as much to do and see. People can even come to this House and see the sort of things which go on here, tax free, and many people do from time to time. In the small towns people cannot do that, and to many of these people football is the highlight of their week throughout the winter.
    I went to my constituency to see the Cup being brought back after it had been won at Wembley. There are about 90,000 people living in the town, but the number present there on that occasion was estimated at anything from 150,000 to 250,000 people, all of whom had come to see it. That sort of event gives tremendous excitement and interest to people, and it can happen to many small towns. It very nearly happened to Port Vale, and we in West Bromwich know how near it was.
    If the right hon. Gentleman persists in imposing this duty, he may well drive out of business these small clubs, and many thousands of people may never get another chance of having that something extra in their lives that has been vouchsafed to the towns which have successful football teams. It is because
    1934
    this may be the fate of these small clubs that I am supporting this Amendment.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I do so because of some remarks made by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend definitely established a case for the re-examination of the position of sports which at present are subject to this duty. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that cricket was exempted from this duty last year while other sports were still subject to the duty. I think the obvious reason for this is that cricket was bringing in a negligible revenue. We all recognised the desperate plight of the county cricket clubs, and those of us who are aware of the financial position of many county cricket clubs at the end of the last cricket season recognise that it would have been impossible for them to continue had this duty been retained on cricket.
    Mr. Dry den Brook: The hon. Gentleman said that the amount of revenue from cricket was negligible. Last year something like £80,000 was obtained from cricket, whereas the amount obtained from Rugby League football was less than £50,000.
    Mr. Gower: I am prepared to concede that point, but I imagine that the amount received from Association football would be much larger. In that connection, I think that the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster deserve serious consideration by the Chancellor. As he rightly pointed out, the basis of this matter is that this is live sport, and the pools and other forms of betting could not continue without these games which are provided by our football clubs. I believe that some of the pool promoters continue the system during the summer based on Australian football matches, but I do not imagine that the results which they achieve from these summer football pools are comparable with the results achieved during the British football season.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is it not a fact that the point to which the hon. Gentleman

    1935
    refers would require legislation? Has it not been dealt with in the House and in Committee upstairs for weeks?
    Mr. Gower: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think I am in disagreement with him, except that I agree with my hon. Friend that in proposing any step which would necessarily involve a substantial reduction in revenue it is incumbent upon us to suggest some alternative means of producing this revenue. My hon. Friend has suggested some such means. I think that the person who wins a prize in a football pool will feel far less inconvenience —and that is about all he will suffer—if his prize is proportionately reduced by some small percentage suggested by my hon. Friend, than do the football clubs who have to bear this considerable burden.
    I think, too, that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich has clearly established another point, and that is that it is difficult indefinitely to sustain this differential approach to different sports. The Chancellor may well say that the benefit given to cricket was due entirely to the revenue position, but I believe that the reasons which prompted him to make that concession to cricket should with justice apply to some of the smaller professional football clubs. But in this case it would be most unfair to distinguish between small and large clubs, because it would mean that there would be no advantage in a small club trying to become a larger club.
    That would have a wholly undesirable effect on the standard of sport in this country. We are not by any means victorious in all our contests with other countries in any of these sports, and such a distinction would depress our standards. Therefore, I hope that in replying to this debate, the Chancellor will deal with the point whether there should be this distinction between different games, and will also state his views on the point raised by my hon. Friend, whether the need for this duty could be removed by the simple expedient of a slight increase in the duty on football pool betting.
    Mr. Pryde: I wish to add my enthusiastic support to this Amendment, and at the same time to express sympathy with Scottish Members opposite who will be unable to go into the Division Lobby in
    1936
    support of the Amendment, which was not called, relating to Highland games. Many hon. Members opposite represent Highland constituencies, and I know where their sympathies lie.
    I should like to try to convince the Chancellor that Scottish games are not receiving the sympathetic treatment which many people feel they merit. Scottish Highland games are a very ancient ceremony. I want the Chancellor to turn his attention from London and the big cities to the wide open spaces, because in the big cities there are plenty of gymnasia available for our young people to train, and so on. But in the wide spaces, where the smell of the heather is in one's nostrils, people seldom meet, and if there is one thing which unites them it is their enthusiasm to make arrangements for the annual events—because the Scottish games is only an annual event. A bad day means a disaster to them. The Scottish games is the only method which we have in Scotland of developing our athletic talents.
    The first-known charter for the Scottish games goes back to 1314, to the celebrations for the victory of Bannock-burn. Hon. Members will see that, just as in golf and football, also in running, we taught the English to sprint at Otter-burn and to do the long-distance work at Bannockburn.
    It has been suggested that there is professionalism in the Scottish games. I want to point out to the Chancellor that the athletes who compete in the Scottish games are not professionals, but at the same time I want to draw his attention to the fact that the finest—and undefeated—tug-o'-war team in the world was the Scottish Amateur Athletic Club, which toured the world, and I put it to him that they did not tour the world on the wages which they drew. One of them, my uncle by marriage, George Kinnard, was a flour miller working in Edinburgh, where he was killed. It was impossible fox such men to tour the world on their wages.
    What about the Gilbert Field Colliery, undefeated champions of the world? Did they do all their touring without any assistance? What about Queen's Park, one of the most famous amateur soccer teams which the game has ever known?

    1937
    Is it not common talk that the players found their expenses in the toes of their boots? It is high time we reviewed our ideas about professionalism.
    Mr. James Carmichael: On a point of order. I think my hon. Friend has made a very serious statement about a famous club in Scotland, Queen's Park. I can say that at no time has any player playing for the Queen's Park Club been paid in cash or in kind. My hon. Friend made the statement that money was placed in the toes of their boots.
    The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): This has nothing to do with order. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) is responsible for what he says.
    Mr. Pryde: The statement which I made, as will be seen from tomorrow's; HANSARD, was, "It is common talk…"
    I want to draw the Chancellor's attention to the fact that our Scottish games are organised in such a fashion that the dates are varied to allow the competitors a choice. By this means we have been able to develop the finest athletic talent in the world. Is it not true to say that in field events we produced Donald Dinnie, who won over 1,100 prizes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was he?"] I do not wonder at English Members knowing nothing about these things. We had to teach them. Is it not perfectly true that we produced Alexander Anthony Cameron, possibly the strongest man in Scotland in his day? There was lion-hearted Alex Munro of Govan, too. Is it not perfectly true that in foot racing we produced such men as Willie McFarlane, Tommy Bailie of Mussel-burgh who did seven marks inside and was beaten by the wonder runner from my own constiuency, Riach of Ratho.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to tell the Committee what happened at Hampden Park when the last international was played?
    Mr. Pryde: If my hon. Friend will give me time to deliver my speech, I will come to that. Let me point out that Tommy Bailie was a world champion, but he was beaten by a wonder runner from my constituency, Riacfh of Radio, who won the Powderhall handicap twice,
    1938
    16 years apart. That will take some beating. These were working men, trained in the games. They also produced such runners as Bill Smith, of Glasgow Rangers, and he did not dally by the wayside when he was running. We had distance runners like Paul of the Shotts and Glen Armadale, and half-milers like Charles Thomas, Lasswade, Doctor White and Maitland of Edinburgh. Our runners were brought up the hard way and until quite recent years our Scottish games were able to wash their face—until the cold, clammy, clutching hand of the Treasury was laid upon them, chilling them to such an extent that many of these Games have now been abandoned.
    I will tell the Committee how many of these games have gone out of action in recent years. It goes from Aberdeen to Annan, from Dunoon to Dunbar. The policy of the Treasury in imposing a tax will drive our Scottish athletics out of business altogether. They have gone out at Errol, Pethshire, at Strathmiglo in Fifeshire, Bowhill, Madderty, Lauder— after two bad years—at Newtongrange, Braemar—which has threatened this year to go out because of financial difficulties —Bridge of Earn, Rosyth, Winchburgh, Haddington, Kinglassie, Middleton, Gartmore of Aberfoyle, Armadale, Tranent, Lumphinans, Melrose, Rosewell, Ruslin, Auchen Dinny.
    In the years before the war each of these places organised this annual event. Admission was free of tax. Then the Treasury came along and imposed the tax. These people did all the work voluntarily. The Secretary of the Scottish Games Association resides in my constituency—he is a lad who works at one of the local collieries and does all the work for these national games voluntarily. We find the work of all these people going for nothing.
    The Secretary of the Scottish Board of Highland Dancing also resides in my constituency, and he informs me that 12 organisations from Commonwealth countries are behind him in forwarding a protest to the House about the Government's policy.
    Mr. Gower: I am following the hon. Member with great interest. He referred once or twice to the Treasury and its "cold, clutching hand."
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Clammy hand.
    Mr. Gower: Will he agree that the cold clammy hand came from Leeds, South?
    Mr. Pryde: I am afraid I did not follow that question. The Amendment which was not called dealt specifically with the Highland games, and I want to point out to the Chancellor that these games are run on the Borders as Border Games.
    In my constituency agricultural shows receive a certificate of tax exemption because of their educational value. Will the Chancellor deny that Highland dancing has a cultural value? Is it fair that one organisation should be given a certificate of exemption while others are not? I want the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to tell me which organisations last year running under the Highland games got an exemption. [An HON. MEMBER: "One did."] What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
    In my constituency there are two great games organisations—one at West Calder which calls itself an amateur organisation, and one at Inner Leithen which, because it gives money prizes, is disqualified from getting freedom. Will the Chancellor explain why there is this differentiation between one organisation and another? There are certainly many differences in regard to the games programmes, but I think that we have demonstrated that there is no such difference between amateurism, so-called, and professionalism.
    In the Scottish set-up there are games associations which are not in the Scottish Games Association. I want to know why they cannot be included in the free certificate.
    Mr. Nabarro: What about cricket?
    Mr. Pryde: The hon. Gentleman says that I did not mention cricket. I hold the card of the county club of Peebles, and let me tell the hon. Member that the men who compose the cricket club of Peebles also run the local Rovers, and the local Rovers are more successful in gathering in the silver than the cricket club.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why it is not possible to embody the cricket club in the Highland games and thereby secure an abatement of Entertainments Duty?
    Mr. Pryde: I will send the hon. Member's question to the secretary of the Scottish Games Association. I think that we have shown the Chancellor that there is ground for re-consideration of the imposition of this tax on Scottish sport, because we cannot possibly go on making our contribution towards the British setup if we are not to get the tools to finish the job.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works told us this afternoon, when reference was made to £1¼ million being spent by the British Treasury in order to build two hot houses in the East, it is a question of "doing the right thing." There is going to be nothing for Scottish sport.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked me a question with regard to the present set-up in football. Scottish football has deteriorated, and it has deteriorated because we are not getting the tools to finish the job. It is perfectly true to say that we send our young fellows at 17 or 18 to England in order that the English people may get the benefit of their skill. I am going to be magnanimous about this. The English have assisted us. They have sent men to our games—Nennor of Wavertree, Robertson of Cleator Moor, Isaacs of Sheffield and many others—and we in return have sent some to Byker and Morpeth. Nevertheless, there has always been a very firm friendship in spirit between the two sides, and I suggest to the Chancellor that if he wants to see Scottish football as I have seen it in the past it will never happen again under the present conditions. There are no more Bobby Walkers.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What about Stanley Matthews?
    Mr. Pryde: He was an outside right, and when our team came down here I was fortunate enough to have a couple of tickets for Wembley. I did not get there because my eldest brother was landing at Southampton and he had been away for 50 years, so I gave them to two men. They said, "It is a terrible price to see a match when your team is going to get beaten." I said, "Why are they going to get beaten?" They said, "There is a half back going to play back." I said, "Sammy Cox." They said, "Yes." I said, "I will tell you one

    1941
    thing, if he does nothing else today he will at least hold Stanley Matthews," and he did. I hope that the Chancellor will give us some little encouragement in the way we have suggested.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: It would be very difficult to follow the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), who spoke as the very heart of Midlothian itself, but I think that all were impressed by his immense knowledge of sport. I do not want to indulge any more in pursuit of the Chancellor in what might be called the spongers' sporting tour, but there are two points with regard to Highland games which I should like to mention.
    Many people say that the trouble with the Highland games today is that what prizes are left are falling to the professionals, or near professionals. I think that the reason that there are so few Scottish Highland games associations today is because of the weight of taxation. I think that if some of the taxation came off there would be more games, more prizes and more local people coming forward to take part in them. I entirely agree with the words of wisdom spoken by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles.
    I should also like to say a few words about the smaller football clubs. In Staffordshire, the Stafford Rangers is a very notable club which we all enjoy watching, but to say that it draws enormous crowds and that the whole of Staffordshire goes to see them instead of to Wolverhampton or to Stoke would be untrue. We believe that it is important that each town should build up its own football club and encourage it. We saw Port Vale this year go right forward and become the champion club in the whole country. I believe that these clubs are not merely money-making institutions. They are not like the cinemas. They are not run by individuals for profit; indeed, many are run at a loss and subsist only on subscriptions given by the wealthier members of the community who support their own local clubs.
    I think that these smaller clubs should be treated more as corporate living entities than as commercial propositions. I believe that the principle by which individuals are free of tax up to a certain level, should also be introduced for football clubs, and that up to a certain
    1942
    point these clubs should be free from paying Entertainments Duty. Some of the bigger clubs which are commercially successful and which can afford to pay vast sums for the transfer of players are perfectly able to meet the weight of taxation which the Chancellor finds it necessary to impose.
    5.30 p.m.
    I make a most sincere plea, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should look at this matter. I am sure that people like Sir Stanley Rous and the experts on the administration and organisation of football clubs could put forward perfectly good schedules to prove that where the takings over a year or the attendances over a period are below a certain figure, a club is bound to run at a near loss.
    The same principle that applies to human beings should apply to football clubs to help them sustain a sufficient economic stature and interest. Charges of admission up to a certain point should be free of tax. In this way a considerable amount could be done to encourage the smaller clubs. It is by drawing on the large number of players who undoubtedly come from those clubs that the standard of British football will be increased, to the general advantage of the country.
    Mr. Carmichael: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) into racing, but I associate myself with him in regard to football. In that respect, I want also to be associated with my colleagues on this side of the Border.
    It has already been said that there should be no discrimination in the taxation of Sport. I do not want to argue today the case against the exemption of cricket or tennis, but I do want to make this point. According to the Press, the Australian cricket team which toured this country last year went back with something like £130,000. I could quote five first-class football clubs in Scotland which did not take that amount of money in total during the entire year, and yet they had to pay heavy taxation running into many thousand pounds. Therefore, I say that football is entitled to have the same consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as cricket, tennis or any other outdoor sport.
    I am not arguing the case of horse racing or dog racing. My own view is

    1943
    that they are not in the same category as these other sports like cricket and football. I have been at race meetings and I am quite satisfied that nobody attends other than to gamble. They are not sport in the ordinary accepted sense which bring out the multitudes.
    The national game of this country is football. Scotland can produce a sound case for the abolition of the tax. We have a population of some 4½ million, and apart from about four towns—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen— most of the clubs in the other towns suffer losses. Their losses may be slightly less one year if they are successful in one of the national competitions, but usually the only clubs which can be sure of getting on the right side, and even then not to any large extent, are those in the four towns I have mentioned.
    The people who run the football clubs in Scotland are not doing so to gain a profit. They are in the game because it is the great national sport and the only sport the people in Scotland can get to during the outdoor season. The amount of money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets from football is insignificant considering the amount he has to raise by various forms of taxation. If he requires to raise this money from football there is an anomaly in the method by which he raises it. People in the ordinary way of business pay their tax mainly on their profits. I want therefore to give one or two illustrations which are necessary to point out some of the anomalies.
    Glasgow is probably the strongest football centre in Scotland, and probably also in Britain. Consider the case of Partick Thistle, a Glasgow club. In 1951–52 its receipts were a little over £33,000 and it paid tax of approximately £2,000. The following year, takings increased by £3,000 but there was an increase in tax of £4,465 over the previous year. In other words, with an increase in revenue of £3,000 the club paid an increase in tax of over £4,000. There is something seriously wrong here.
    St. Johnstone is a Second Division club from the City of Perth. There are never any dividends in a club of this kind. In 1951–52 it had an income of £12,725 and paid tax of £931. In 1952–53 its receipts were £10,690—a loss of £2,000 on income —and it paid tax of £1,726. In other
    1944
    words, there was an increase of £795 in tax on a reduction of over £2,000 in returns. The club's loss during the year was £3,500.
    Greenock is a very important shipbuilding centre, and football is its only outdoor sport. In 1951–52 its football club had an income of over £22,000 and paid tax of £1,627. The following year, because of its misfortune in the competitions, the club drew only a little over £13,000. The serious anomaly is that on the £13,000 it paid tax of £2,666. In other words, it paid £1,000 more in tax and yets its income had been reduced by £9,000. The club had a loss in 1952–53 of £10,500.
    I could continue for a long time quoting the conditions of football clubs all over Scotland. One can examine the figures which have been supplied by the Scottish Football Association—and I have no doubt the English Football Association also supplied the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the figures for England—there are very sound reasons, apart from the figures I have already given, to justify a thorough examination of the situation.
    Television is now a very important factor in relation to outdoor sports. The English Cup Final is televised all over Britain. At the time of the last Cup Final, a very important charity match was played in Glasgow between the two most famous Scottish teams—Celtic and Rangers—and if the Cup Final had not been televised on the same day that match would have had an attendance of anything from 70,000 to 80,000, which would have been a considerable asset to the charities in the Glasgow area. As a result of the televising of the Cup Final at Wembley, however, only 40,000 people attended the match in Glasgow.
    One can well understand the feelings of the smaller Scottish clubs if television is extended. Football is a winter sport, and if the weather is not too good the prospects are that people will stay at home to watch a match on television rather than go to see their local team play. The directors of most football clubs are conscious of the danger of television, and many clubs are trying to build up a fund to erect structures to protect spectators from bad weather. If shelter is not provided for their spectators these clubs will go down.

    1945
    Football is one of the great sports of Britain, especially of Scotland. Scotland will never be a cricket-playing nation. It has not so many aristocrats as England has. It may be surprising to English people, but colliers, shipbuilding workers and such people do not play cricket in Scotland.
    Mr. William Keenan: They do not in England.
    Mr. Carmichael: One of the most important factors is undoubtedly the climate. I do not want to discriminate against cricket or any other sport, but if the Chancellor can put forward an argument for wiping out the tax on cricket, the only argument he can possibly have in favour of taxing football is that it produces a great amount of Revenue. But it has been proved the amount of money derived from football is insignificant in comparison with the total amount he requires.
    I ask him to have another look at the Amendment, and to see if he can accept it. On many occasions I have differed with him and I have never been able to get any real concession from him. If he makes a concession in this case, he will be giving it not to me but to many people in Scotland whose only happiness, apart from their ordinary toil, is watching football matches on Saturday afternoons.
    5.45 p.m.
    Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde)—whom I am sorry to see leaving the Chamber; I hope it is not because I have risen—may be surprised to hear that I propose to walk with him in his argument about the Border games. I support his plea on their behalf. I have had correspondence with the Financial Secretary relating to two or three of the Border burghs, especially Galashiels, Jedburgh and Melrose, but all I have received in the way of an answer is that I should not expect the hon. Gentleman to anticipate his right hon. Friend's Budget. Afterwards, the answer is that the matter has been dealt with in the Budget, and we get absolutely nowhere.
    I do not propose to repeat the argument which was put forward so well by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, but I do emphasise that this is a matter of very serious concern to all the
    1946
    Border folk. I am looking at the question not from a political but from a sporting angle. These Border games are just as traditional and long in institution as the Highland games, and I hope that their case will receive some consideration by the Chancellor. There are traditions in the Border burghs which are found only in that part of Britain, and I do plead with the Chancellor to take this matter seriously into consideration.
    Mr. Ian Mikardo (Reading, South): Of the various Amendments which the Chairman has directed us to take together the one to which I wish to call special attention is that in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, in the case of any entertainment consisting of association football, rugby league football and boxing, the amount of entertainments duty payable in respect of any fixture shall be reduced by one hundred pounds in every case where the total receipts for admission to the fixture do not exceed two thousand pounds.
    This Amendment is entirely different from the others which we are now discussing. All the others seek to relieve altogether from taxation some sport or group of sports, or some game or group of games, sometimes defined widely and sometimes more narrowly. This is the only Amendment which seeks to levy a discriminatory tax within the same sport, varying according to the size and profitability of the undertaking.
    The Amendment is, so to speak, the fourth line of defence. The first line of defence is represented by the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), which seeks to exempt all games and sports from taxation. I support that Amendment, and I profoundly hope that the one to which I am specially drawing attention will not need to be put because the Chancellor will accept the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend. If, for some strange reason, he does not accept that Amendment, the second line of defence is represented by the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), which seeks to exempt all forms of football from taxation.
    Other parallel Amendments seek to exempt athletics, boxing and various other sports. If those Amendments fail we fall back on the third line of defence,

    1947
    which is represented by the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), which seeks to exempt Association football matches, and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and other hon. Members representing Lancashire and Yorkshire constituencies, which seeks to exempt the other non-amateur form of football, namely, Rugby League football. If that Amendment fails, we fall back on mine, which is the fourth line of defence.
    My arguments are therefore designed to win the Chancellor's approval only if he finds he cannot altogether exempt sports, or some sports, from taxation. I put myself in the position of the Chancellor thinking about his Budget and, as he once told us, never lacking advice. The right hon. Gentleman and his advisers sometimes read newspapers and from them may learn that a football team has paid a transfer fee of £30,000 odd for a single player. They may well be tempted by reading this into the belief that this is big business, and that therefore no tax concessions should be made for it because it is a large, wealthy and prosperous institution. Or the right hon. Gentleman may read that a great club like the Arsenal Football Club has managed to repay in a comparatively short time a large loan for improving its premises. Then they may say that clearly these people are not hard up and therefore there is no need to relieve them of taxation.
    That is why I have sought to devise a discriminatory Amendment which, if the right hon. Gentleman is thinking in that way. might tempt him to acceptance, because it is designed only to benefit the smaller clubs and to leave out of benefit those who are doing pretty well financially.
    What this Amendment is about is Stafford Rangers, about whom we have heard already this afternoon from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), every one of whose words was in fact an argument for this Amendment. If by some mischance the Chancellor does not accept our fourth line of defence, and we have to go into the Lobby about it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his arm around my shoulder as we go in together.
    1948
    It may be asked why, in putting forward this discriminatory proposal—discriminatory as between large and small —I choose only the three sports of Association football, Rugby League football and boxing. These were not chosen because I think these sports are any better or worthier than any others. It is a rather sterile and profitless operation to try to draw a difference in moral standards between one sport and another, especially with regard to sports in which there is no element of gambling.
    I chose the three sports on a quite different criterion, namely, that these are the three in which we get an occasional event, or a small number of events, with very large takings indeed. There is a great deal of money flowing into the coffers of the sport but, at the same time, there are a much larger number of events with very small amounts of money contributed on these occasions, and the large number of smaller events are nearly all run by promoters who find it hard to make ends meet and to keep their promotions going.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles, in his beautifully colourful speech which we all enjoyed, said that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That may or may not be true. What I am arguing in respect of these sports is that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gosling, and that we ought to attempt, if we can do it in some way which does not cause a lot of trouble, to discriminate in favour of the smaller clubs. If the Chancellor takes the view, as he well may, that he is prepared to give away a bit of money— most Chancellors, I am told, keep a bit up their sleeve to give away during the Committee stage—but not all the money required by total exemption, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this kind of formula is the way in which he can make a concession and, at the same time, give the greatest real value where it seems required.
    Mr. Nabarro: The Amendment contains the words:
    "for admission to the fixture do not exceed two thousand pounds."
    Can the hon. Member give the Committee any guidance as to the average admittance and whether that £2,000 represents about 30,000 people going into one fixture?
    Mr. Mikardo: I am coming to the point later on and I will say how I chose the figures in this Amendment, but perhaps I can say to the hon. Gentleman in anticipation that I am by no means sure that these are the best figures, and that it may well be that the Chancellor, who has access to the records of many more clubs than I have had, may consider a different figure to be more appropriate, and I would not argue about that.
    The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, although he did not mention this Amendment, drew a parallel between it and the initial allowance given to the Income Tax payer. That parallel is absolutely valid. What my hon. Friends and I are here seeking to do is to get an initial allowance for the Association football club, the Rugby League football club and the boxing promoter. What is the best way to do it?
    When we discussed these matters last year a number of hon. Gentlemen said that they thought the Third Division clubs ought to be relieved of tax. That is too much a bull-at-the-gate way of doing it and would lead unnecessarily to a number of anomalies. In the first place a very small number of Third Division clubs are fairly well off financially because they happen to be in large centres of population. In the second place there are one or two Second Division clubs which are not so well off. The most prosperous Third Division clubs are better off than the least prosperous Second Division clubs. Secondly, if we did it in that way we would leave out of account all the professional non-League clubs, those that play in the Southern League for example, in the Welsh League and in the equivalents of those leagues in the Midlands like Stafford Rangers, and in the North of England.
    So one has to find a more precise and more just formula for the discrimination. It occurred to me and to my hon. Friends that the best formula was to say, "Drop the first £X of tax at any fixture where the takings do not exceed £Y." What X and Y are to be is a fair subject for argument, as I have suggested.
    There are always two difficulties about drawing a line in the way that this Amendment seeks to do. One is the marginal case. By drawing a line one nearly always creates a situation in which the entrepreneur has an incentive to stop
    1950
    just short of the line and not over it, because he will make more money by staying under it than he would by going over it. In this case it does not matter, because at a football match the promoters do not know until pretty well everybody is in how much money has been taken. So there could not be any possibility of their rushing round to the gates, counting up the money as it came in, and shutting the gates just before the total reached £2,000. Therefore that problem does not arise.
    The other problem that arises is that when we seek to discriminate in this way we often get difficulties of administration and collection. In order to see whether this suggestion will do that, I took the trouble to go around to a number of clubs to find out how it would work, beginning with the one in my own constituency. The Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong, but I make bold to say that there would be no difficulty at all in administering the tax in the form set down in this Amendment. In fact, it would need only one extra entry on every form of return. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor will be familiar with the Customs and Excise form E.D. 31 on which a football club makes its return of the numbers of tickets, and numbers of places sold in respect of any match, the rates of duty and so on. Column (h) shows the actual cash takings for admission at each price, and there is a total at the foot of all the cash taken. The next column shows the duty at each price with the total at the bottom, showing the total duty.
    Some clubs use this form and others, by permission of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, use a form of their own, which in fact is nothing more than an enlarged copy of E.D. 31. It follows that if the Amendment were carried all that would result would be that where the total in column (h) of this form exceeded £2,000 the total amount in column (i) would be reduced by £100. Clearly, there is no very great administrative difficulty about that.
    6.0 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier this afternoon that he sits for a rural constituency and is well aware of the problems of the countryside. One of the principal differences between the big and wealthy club and the small and

    1951
    not so wealthy club is that the small club draws a much larger percentage of its following from rural areas. The big clubs are mostly in big towns in the middle of large densely populated areas. One gets a club like the Arsenal in the middle of the enormously populated area of North London, and while it is true that some people come from a substantial distance to see the Arsenal it is pretty obvious when one goes to the ground that the overwhelming proportion of people there are Londoners.
    The small clubs are situated in small towns for the most part and therefore are in places where they do not draw the overwhelming part of their clientele from the town itself. I quote Reading as an example not because it is different from or more worthy than a large number of other clubs in small towns but because I happen to know it. Reading is the only League club for a long way round. To the East there is nothing nearer than London, to the West Swindon, to the South Aldershot and to the North the League clubs in the Midlands.
    The consequence is that people in a very large area of the countryside who want to watch professional football come to watch Reading. That means that their journey to the weekly football match represents a substantial expense on fares as well as the expense of admission to the match. The principal reason why the big clubs in the towns can charge more per place on the average, sometimes several times more, than the small clubs is that if one pays 3s. for admission under the west stand at the Arsenal that is probably only an addition to Is. worth of fare. It means paying 4s. altogether. The man who comes from Newbury, Mortimer or Slough to Reading to see a football match has already paid 2s. 6d. or more for his fare. Therefore, one cannot charge him more than Is. 6d. for admission. That is why the admission charges must be lower for the smaller clubs. The market will not stand more.
    Somebody might ask, "Why not go to see amateur football?" I pay tribute to the fine football played by the amateur clubs and to the great work done by the Amateur Football Association, but to some extent, at any rate, we are here to give people what they want. It is clear that rather more than one million people
    1952
    want to watch professional football, and I do not see why we should deter them.
    I come now to the figure of £100 which it is proposed to remit and to the £2,000 which is the limit below which the remission shall take place. As I said, I took all the steps that are open to a back bench private Member to find out something about the economies of the smaller football teams. I chose these figures believing them to be figures which will secure that the most deserving clubs, the less well-off Third Division clubs, the Stafford Rangers and Guildford Citys and the like, will benefit without the Chancellor losing a great deal of revenue which otherwise he would obtain and would want to obtain from the wealthier clubs.
    If the Chancellor says later on that this is not a bad formula but that the true figures ought to be different, I shall know that he is saying that because he has much more information than I have and I shall not seriously dispute what he says. I hope that if he cannot accept the more general Amendments of my hon. Friends, which of course I shall support, as a last resort he will consider this method of benefiting the poorer and smaller football clubs.
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: This matter came before the House when we discussed the Finance Bill last year. I had a few observations to make on that occasion, and I want to say something on the subject today. I am very pleased that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) proposes the operation of a remission after 31st July, because if the Chancellor accepts the Amendment that date will coincide with the holding of the Morpeth Olympic Games.
    I feel rather strongly about this matter, although I shall not make a comparison between amateurs and professionals. Anything which carries a prize evidently makes a man a professional. We heard something about that the other day when Roger Bannister went to America. High pole jumpers, longdistance runners and the like take part in our sports in Scotland and the north of England, and although these men are termed professionals, they do not make a living by sport. They appear at weekends during the summer at flower shows

    1953
    and events like the Morpeth Olympic Games and compete for prizes, but during the week they work in the shipyards and the pits and on the land. They all follow the ordinary avocations of life, and the competitions are really a form of sport to them.
    If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I shall never be, I should readily make this tax concession. I do not know whether they are to be found in the south of England, but in the north and in Scotland we have hundreds of strong, robust, energetic youths who like to take part in these sports. They are training themselves, putting obligations on themselves and denying themselves so that they can be perfectly fit. That fitness is taken into the mine and reflected in better output. It is reflected in better output of steel and in better production in every way.
    I think it a misnomer to call these men professional when they are not making a living out of sport. These games and sports are carried out in the countryside by a body of men for no profit at all. They give their time and energies to entertain hundreds of people. These men are carrying on a way of life which dates back from the days of the maypole, when we provided our own entertainment in the country, and are making nothing out of it financially. Since the Chancellor has vanished, I should like the Financial Secretary to recognise that these games are conducted in the open air and, with the vagaries of our weather, all that is needed to put these men in a difficult financial dilemma is two successive wet days.
    In 1952 we increased the tax and these men found the position very difficult. There is a considerable number of football clubs in my division, and two of them are well known. These are the training grounds for the professional clubs. The clubs I have in mind are Blyth Spartan and Ashington. Unless they get a transfer or two, they are in a parlous financial plight. I think some consideration should be given to these football clubs which are struggling very strenuously to keep their heads above water, and which ultimately contribute to British prestige in the football world. At the moment we need such prestige, but if we continue as we are at present,
    1954
    we shall dry up the sources from which the young players come.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said that the Romans used to have circuses. They used to throw Christians to the lions. If the Romans had circuses when things were going badly for them, this is a most opportune time for the Government to have a circus in view of the municipal elections last week. The best way to have a circus would be to please the men who are running these sports and to make it possible for these clubs to continue. We have a cast-iron case here as the amount of money which would be needed would be of no great magnitude, but the gesture would meet with general satisfaction throughout the country.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Dryden Brook: The Amendment in which I am particularly interested is that in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), which deals with Rugby League football. I should point out that Rugby League football is confined particularly to Yorkshire and Lancashire and is essentially a working man's game. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) I agree that if the main Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is agreed to my Amendment will go by the board. Therefore, much of what I say will deal with the general problem of sports and why, in my judgment, sports, particularly games in the open air, should not be taxed at all.
    In approaching this problem, I ask what is the purpose of sports in general and, in particular, the kinds of sport we are discussing today? The only answer I can find to that question is that they have to do with the individual and collective aspects of the fitness of human beings. Football, and especially Rugby football, has to do with the collective fitness of individuals. There is no game of which I know—and I played cricket and both forms of football in my youth—which develops the team spirit to the same extent as does Rugby football.
    These are characteristics which are at the basis of any country's greatness—the physical fitness of its people and the capacity of its people to think not only of themselves as individuals but of others and, in particular, of the team as a

    1955
    whole. I suggest to the Chancellor that those are characteristics of the British people which it is worth his while to foster even at the cost of some money.
    Another aspect of sport which seems important is that we should judge a sport and the clubs engaged in it by the intentions and the capacity they have to encourage as wide and active participation in the sport as is possible, especially among the young people of the country who are of the sport loving age. Measured by any of those aspects the sport in which I am keenly interested, Rugby League football, will compare with any other sport.
    Much has been said of the Chancellor's decision to exempt cricket from the tax last year. I have no intention of denying that cricket ought to be exempt, but, in exempting cricket last year, the Chancellor took a very illogical step. There is no reason in logic why he should not extend that exemption to other sports. Why did the Chancellor exempt cricket last year? It seems that he pin-pointed cricket as it occupies a special place among sports in this country. But, measuring it by any standard, I think football has at least as much right as cricket to be looked on as our national sport.
    Measured by the number of people who play the game, or the number of people who watch it, football would compare with cricket very much on the right side. In many parts of the country I agree that Association football is pre-eminent, but in the textile towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire the game of which I speak holds first place.
    Last year the Chancellor spoke of cricket as combining together the various parts of the Commonwealth. He would be a bold man who would say that the touring team which recently returned from the West Indies had proved to be a combining factor. That tour may well have an opposite effect. As one correspondent of a daily newspaper said, it is probably time to abandon the idea that cricket is a factor which combines nations or peoples.
    If the Chancellor accepts the idea that cricket is a game which has the effect of combining together parts of the Commonwealth obviously the Rugby League game has an equal claim. Soon a Rugby
    1956
    League team will be arriving in Australia to play a series of games there and then go on to New Zealand. Not only are there games with other Commonwealth teams, but Rugby League football forms a close link with France. If we consider Association football also in this respect its effects are far greater than those achieved by cricket.
    Another aspect which seemed to enter into the mind of the Chancellor last year is that of professionalism. Is it true that cricket is more a game for amateurs than football? Is it true that professionalism is not so rampant in cricket? County cricket today is essentially a professional game. For some people it is a full-time job and is regarded in the same way as we regard our job. Cricket has the same features as Rugby League football in its organisation.
    County cricket is professional in its foundations. Town clubs in the area I know well consider it unfashionable to have a professional cricketer belonging to our own country. They bring professionals from all parts of the world. Within ten miles of where I live a club has this year brought a man from Australia to act as a professional cricketer. Almost every club in the league has a professional from the far ends of the earth. It cannot, therefore, be correct that there is less professionalism in cricket than in football.
    Rugby league clubs are similar to cricket clubs in their organisation. There is in my town a Rugby League club which is a limited liability company and which, to my knowledge, has never paid any dividends in the ordinary sense. Most Rugby clubs are still organised on the old amateur basis. They are voluntary bodies coming together to further their objects and whatever may be their structure the purpose is the same, to foster the playing of the game of football which exists in that area.
    In Halifax we have one professional club at the top in which there may be 30 or 40 professional players on a part-time basis. I think I should be right to say that every member pursues another occupation in addition to his professional football. But the committee of the club or the board of directors is a voluntary body elected by the members. Beneath that club there is a wider basis of amateur football. In Halifax, almost every school except the grammar school has a Rugby

    1957
    League team. The boys join youth movements which have Rugby League clubs which are run in close contact with the education authorities. That goes on until the youths are about 16. Beyond that age they join other amateur clubs, so there is a complete build-up from the time the boys are at school until they pass the football age.
    The clubs do not distribute whatever profit they may make in the form of dividends. They plough back their profits into the game in the same way as we exhort industrialists to plough back their dividends into industry. Unlike industrial profits the profits ploughed back by these clubs benefit not only a particular club, but football as a whole in the area.
    It is important to remember that the professional club forms the basis on which the whole football in the area depends. Rugby League football clubs occupy the same financial position as cricket clubs. A small number are probably successful, but so are some cricket clubs. I do not think there is any football club which is as well off financially as the Yorkshire County Cricket Club and perhaps the Lancashire Club is in an equally favourable position.
    By taking the step last year of exempting cricket the Chancellor started on a path from which there is no turning back, because, logically, cricket and football are in the same position. Cricket is a good game for developing individual initiative and fitness, and football is equally as good. Football is just as clean a game from the professional point of view as is cricket. For the reasons I have given I feel that the Chancellor would be wise to give sympathetic reconsideration to the whole position of sport in relation to Entertainments Duty and particularly the games of Rugby and Association football, and athletics, which fundamentally benefit the people of this country.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The Amendment to which I want to refer is in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, boxing matches shall be excluded from the entertainments in respect of which entertainments duty is payable.
    I would remind the Committee that in the debate last year I drew attention to
    1958
    the very serious effect which the Entertainments Duty was having upon boxing promotions and said that if the duty were continued it was bound to have an even more serious effect upon them. That has happened.
    There are some people, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), who do not like boxing and, indeed, positively object to it, but there are large sections of the public which like boxing. It is a very old sport and, in view of the many alterations which the British Boxing Board of Control has introduced into promotions and the care of boxers, I think the sport worthy of the support which it receives from the British public, who like it. I like boxing and whenever I have the opportunity, when there is no three-line Whip in the House and there is a boxing promotion in London, I like to see a boxing match very much indeed.
    We all have our points of view and are entitled to them. One of the characteristics of this country is that people who disagree with one another, in politics, sport or entertainment, have an opportunity to follow the line which they like. So far there has been no restriction placed upon sports which might put some of them out of existence altogether.
    Another factor to be taken into account is that in every school in the country where there is a boxing ring and some tuition in boxing, it has always been found that it is the one sport in which more boys wish to take part than can be accommodated. The sports promoters and teachers of boxing in the schools have discovered in some of the schools a lack of a boxing ring and of the trainers in the sport who the boys would like to see.
    The application of this duty is making it almost impossible for the sport to be continued at all. Last year I said that the continuation of the duty would mean that more and more of the promotions would either cease or would turn over to charity, where no duty is payable at all. I was quite correct, because the figures stated officially, at the latest date available, show that in October, 1951, at the old rate of duty, there were 69 promotions, whereas in October, 1952— the first month of the new rate of duty —that dropped to 53, and in October, 1953—the second year of the new rate—

    1959
    it dropped to 38. That is a very serious reduction in the number of promotions in the country.
    I will leave the financial question to some of my colleagues, but I think attention should also be drawn to the very serious decrease in the total number of promotions and to the fact that, if the duty continues, more promoters will be unable to continue their boxing promotions. They have already stated to the British Boxing Board of Control that because of the difficult financial position and the incidence of the duty, many of them will be reluctantly compelled to cease promotions altogether unless something is done to help them in this year's Finance Bill.
    Of course, in other parts of the world, where professional boxers are very prominent, promotions can take place without having to pay duty at all, and we find that some of the best contests and promotions are being taken out of the country altogether, thus depriving those who like boxing and who wish to follow it of the opportunity of seeing the sport.. The best of these contests, even with British professional boxers, are being held in other parts of the world, where the promotions can take place without having to meet taxation. I am told that one prominent promoter has taken two of his big contests out of the country and is looking for a way of taking these promotions out of the country permanently. I think that is very unfortunate.
    Professional boxers take part in the sport not because they have to but because they believe it is a good English sport. They like to take part in it. In these days many of them also do a good job of work in industry. They do not make their living solely by boxing but take part in the normal and general life and production in the country.
    I would draw attention to the very serious decrease in the number of boxing promotions since the duty was introduced. The commercial promotions—those upon which duty is paid—numbered 648 in the year ended September, 1952. In the year ended September, 1953, the number dropped to 360, while, on the other hand, the charitable or duty-free promotions, which in the year ending September, 1951, were 60, had increased, in the year ending September, 1953, to 89. That
    1960
    means that these people are changing to charity promotions. Boxing is going on, but no duty is coming to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    In view of the representations which have been made from both sides of the Committee and from the British Boxing Board of Control, I hope the Chancellor will give very serious consideration to my Amendment and will withdraw the duty from boxing promotions altogether.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: I rise to oppose the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has referred, and which seeks to exclude boxing from the payment of Entertainments Duty.
    You will recall, Mr. Hoy, that last year a similar Amendment was moved, and that I opposed it. It was late at night, and my speech was accompanied by jeers, cheers and interjections of all kinds. I must confess that it is very pleasant this afternoon to rise in this peaceful and, I hope, slightly sympathetic atmosphere.
    I wish to present a rational case. From what my hon. Friend said, I think it is clear that public opinion is changing, and I believe that even since last year, a volume of public opinion has been created in this country of such a degree that there are many people who will read my speech tomorrow with much greater sympathy than that with which they read my speech last year.
    I am asking the Chancellor not to make any concession, for this reason. First, is boxing a sport? I looked up the Oxford Dictionary, where I found sport defined as "a pleasant pastime." In view of the fact that in boxing the principal objective of a boxer is to render his opponent insensible in the shortest possible time, can we say that boxing is a pleasant pastime, at least, for the active participants? I would say that it is an unsavoury pastime.
    When my hon. Friend says that the number of promotions is decreasing, she must recognise that the people of this country, and, indeed, of the world, are evolving and becoming more civilised. After all, what does boxing involve? It involves the exploitation of physically fit but ignorant youths by promoters

    1961
    whose sole interest is the amount of profit they can extort.
    I have no intention of dilating upon the injuries of young boxers or arousing the emotions of hon. Members present, but I should like to draw their attention, if they care to look up certain medical works, to what some people have written on the subject of injuries to the soft tissues of the (brain which have been caused by boxing. Indeed, I had the great honour to take to the Treasury, before the Budget, a very powerful deputation on this subject. One of the most distinguished eye surgeons in this country accompanied me, and I would remind the Chancellor that he left with him a rather important paper entitled "Fisticuffs and the Visual Organs."
    The distinguished man of whom I am speaking is a past-president of the Ophthalmological Society of Great Britain. I can assure the Chancellor that he was no great friend of mine. It simply happened that, being a brilliant surgeon, the poor boxers who had been injured in the ring, needing the best treatment they could get, came to him. This surgeon has been so shocked by the cases on which he has been called upon to operate that he thought it was the right thing to write a paper about it, which he read to the Ophthalmological Society of Great Britain, and it was in consequence of this medical paper that I came in contact with him.
    I asked him whether he could give up his work to come with me in this deputation, and he said that he was sorry that he could not go on a morning when he saw hospital patients, but he was quite prepared to put off his private patients to give up his time to go to the Treasury. He is a very great man.
    Besides this surgeon, I want to quote the former headmaster of a school, a man who is now the regional organiser of physical education in one of our great counties. He was in the R.A.F. during the war, and was so impressed by the fact that men engaged in boxing were injured that, in his county, the local authority has refused to have boxing of any kind taught. This man, who is well-balanced and knowledgeable, told me that many people are now feeling rather strongly about this matter.
    I remember that the last time I spoke on this subject somebody said, in an
    1962
    interjection, that I knew nothing about it, as I did not frequent the ringside. When I have the spare time, I am not impelled, like my hon. Friend, to seek out what is known as a promotion—a delightful euphemism for this curious sport—tout I have read recently a paper in which the matter has been debated.
    The "Daily Herald" of last Thursday contained a sports commentary by a very well-known man in the sporting world named Tom Phillips, who headed his article "What Do The Fans Want?" He said:
    "I get very puzzled at times. Maybe, I am dumb or blind. I saw Dai Dower win a great 10-round fight against the Dutch champion at Empress Hall, and woke up yesterday to a chorus of 'He wasn't so hot, was he?' What do the critics want? Bear-baiting—with men standing-in for animals? Not once during those last four rounds could you tell that Dower's right foot was searing hot with pain. True, he slowed up. Everyone put it down to the fact that he was getting tired because he had never gone 10 rounds before. I like boxing. But when the day comes that most fans want grunt, snort and gore, let them go elsewhere for it And I will stay at home."
    6.45 p.m.
    I will continue the quotation, but I assure the Committee that I would not have introduced personalities unless this had already been printed, and had, indeed, been read by millions of people. Tom Phillips goes on to say this:
    "I'm puzzled, too, about Turpin. He has been but a shadow of himself since he had that terrible battering from Sugar Ray Robinson in New York, in 1951. He had the car accident—and then 15 rounds of agony against Carl Bobo Olson last autumn in New York. He was too bad to be true against Olle Bengtsson in London early this year. And then he went out, like a light, from one punch from Mitri in Rome."
    I do not want to quote the whole article, which goes on to say that a specialist had declared that Turpin is fit. Phillips says that the only test of Turpin's condition is in the ring, and, medically, that is absolutely correct. There is no instrument yet devised which can detect in a boxer any injury to the brain.
    I have quoted from this article, because this man, Tom Phillips, has conveyed in moderate language what I am trying to convey more forcibly from this Box. I say that this man, Tom Phillips, has shown great moral courage, and I must confess that the great quality that I admire in men is moral courage. He shows moral courage because, after all, he derives part of his living from this

    1963
    sporting world. He has to go to these matches, and, although I have no personal knowledge of the promoters, as my hon. Friend has, I gather that they are rather crude creatures who would not spare Tom Phillips for daring to criticise the world of commercial boxing. Yet, he said that the time has come to say, in this newspaper, that all is not well.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What is the name of it?
    Dr. Summerskill: The "Daily Herald."
    The last time I spoke, Turpin was in the headlines. We shall see where he is next year when I speak on this subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "Probably in the breadline."] I want to ask whether, morally, spiritually and ethically, we can afford this brutal and degrading spectacle? Today, our prisons have three in a cell, and our reformatories are overfull. Can we allow these coarse men, whose only interest is making profit for themselves, to organise these displays, which appeal to the very lowest instincts in human beings? This week-end, I was shocked to learn that, in the United States, where there is commercial television—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Hoy): May I remind the right hon. Lady that what we are discussing is whether or not boxing should be exempted from Entertainments Duty. While I do not want to stop her, I hope she will not go too far away from that question.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have nearly finished. The point I am putting is this: if we have a so-called sport which is not only hurtful to the active participants but is morally and spiritually hurtful to the onlookers, is that not a reason for taxing it out of existence?
    Hon. Members: No.
    The Temporary Chairman: What the right hon. Lady said may be so, but all we are considering in the Amendment is exempting boxing from Entertainments Duty.
    Dr. Summerskill: I fully appreciate that, and I am opposing the Amendment.
    It would be a great mistake to exempt this unsavoury pastime from Entertainments Duty. I have read that in the
    1964
    United States of America, where there is commercial television, the people are "fed "—I thought that was a particularly appropriate expression—12 times a week with boxing displays. When we have commercial television I hope that we shall not degenerate in the same way. No doubt commercial boxing and commercial television will find a mutual attraction.
    As we debate this matter there is a very important conference going on at Geneva, where we are striving desperately to establish a world civilisation which will outlaw war as a means of settling disputes The Chancellor has in his family a great tradition of education. Can he for one moment approve of these boxing displays, which debase the minds of our young? Here, again, is an opportunity for him to educate our youth and to make it clear to the country that the right hon. Genteman is opposed personally to this kind of display which debases and degrades our young men.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: If I select this geographical position, a seat on the Front Bench below the Gangway, from which to offer observations on the Amendment I do so because I have no desire to involve the Labour Opposition Front Bench. There is all the more reason for so doing because, so far as I am aware—and I have some knowledge on this matter—no official policy on this subject has yet been declared by the Labour Party. Whatever view I may express will not bring me before the hierarchy and subject me to inquisition. On the other hand, let me correct any possibility of misunderstanding by saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) is speaking entirely for herself on this matter.
    I am amazed at some of her observations. She began by informing hon. Members that she was about to make a rational speech. She spoke of ignorant youths engaged in what was described as a sport, but was no sport at all. She spoke of a "degrading spectacle." If that is what is meant by being rational, my right hon. Friend must be more affected by her prejudices than by reason and intelligence. Boxing—if you like; a pastime; if you care, a sport—is indulged in by youths in every university and college.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That does not make it right.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, of course it does not make it right. I am merely stating the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is not right in everything he does or says, yet we always listen to him with great respect. In expressing my personal view I ask him that I shall be listened to with the same respect that I accord to others. I repeat that this sport is universal in al! universities and colleges.
    Moreover, it is the one sport that is sponsored, and is indeed financed, by the National Coal Board. I have no desire to introduce the subject of mines nationalisation, but in the opinion of the Coal Board and of the miners' unions, boxing is a sport to be encouraged. If the Coal Board and the miners' leaders regarded it as a degrading spectacle, indulged in by ignorant youths, would they encourage it? Of course not. I have had the privilege of watching on television the amateur boxing sponsored by the Coal Board. I have not seen young men battered about. On the other hand, I have seen men engaging in a scientific display and contending with each other. At the end of the bout, despite the blows inflicted here and there, I have seen them embracing each other in a gesture of the utmost friendliness and harmony.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What about professional boxing?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am speaking of amateur boxing. I agree that in many professional boxing bouts, some of which I have attended and enjoyed, no blows or injuries were inflicted upon me as a consequence of my attendance, and I admit that one or other of the contestants suffered injury. I say, and I challenge contradiction, that fewer injuries are inflicted in the boxing ring, certainly injuries with permanent effect, than on the football field, and particularly, on the rugby field. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I know that emotions are aroused when one dares to speak about boxing. I do not know why the pacifist attitude and sentiment of my hon. Friends should be injected into sport. Cannot we content ourselves with trying to promote peace in the international sphere?
    What we can say is that in the boxing ring there are no broken legs, or, at any
    1966
    rate, very seldom. Few men are permanently incapacitated in the boxing ring as compared with the football field. Someone spoke about being punch drunk. I must say that on this subject some of my hon. Friends are punch drunk intellectually.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Temporary Chairman: I was perhaps a little lax in allowing the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) to range so wide. So far, I have allowed the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to range similarly in his reply, but I should be very grateful if hon. Members would now direct their attention to the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. Shinwell: I welcome that intervention, Mr. Hoy. It is similar to the advice given by the referee to contestants that they are not to clinch too often.
    Only recently I was invited to attend a function at which many old-time boxers were present. One of them was over 80 and two were over 70 years of age. I must confess that when I looked at some of them closely they appeared to have cauliflower ears, but those men were healthy and vigorous. I venture to say that many of them could have taken on some hon. Members half their age.
    The right hon. Lady spoke about ignorant youths. At that function I saw some of the best known boxers of the day. They were young men up to 25 years old. I could hardly believe that they were in the boxing fraternity at all. They looked like high-ranking civil servants, and their conversation was indicative of a high intelligence. Why those young men should be described as ignorant youths I do not know.
    I agree that it would be unfair to say that those without experience of a sport should not express opinions about it. In my time I have played football, although my experience was not extensive. I was centre-half for a junior team and they decided, because of my incompetence to make me the trainer of the club. I have occasionally, when younger, engaged in this sport of boxing. I can hardly recall any occasion in which I got the best of it. Nevertheless, it did me no harm and, if I may say so, I am not punch drunk. What I do say is that unless one has had some experience, either by participating

    1967
    in the game as an amateur, or witnessed it in either its professional or amateur form, one is not entitled to express such opinions as those expressed by my right hon. Friend.
    I cannot enter the ring against my right hon. Friend on matters of medicine or of medical jurisprudence. I have no competence to do that. She is probably not aware, however, that the British Boxing Board of Control exercises the greatest possible supervision over contestants and provides a great deal of medical assistance. No boxing contest is held today without the presence of a medical man.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: It is necessary.
    Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend says that it is necessary. If I may say so some people ought to have medical assistance before they come in here. I find it a great advantage not speaking at present from the official Opposition Front Bench. Moreover, before these young men enter the ring they are subject to a rigorous medical examination.
    If I were Chancellor and had my way I would abolish the Entertainments Duty altogether. It is wrong to impose a tax on recreation and entertainment. Both should be universal and there should be no impositions of any kind. Tax other things, but not entertainment. But if one has to tax entertainment why should there be this discrimination in favour of cricket? I do not object to that game being given all the privileges, financial and otherwise than can be afforded, but why deny equal privileges to other sports?
    I can see no reason for discrimination. I suggest that the Chancellor should think again and assist in encouraging the sport of boxing. I agree that there is sometimes a little jiggery pokery in connection with it, but there is jiggery pokery in connection with Rugby League and Association football—and even with cricket. In fact, if we are honest and have no humbug or hypocrisy about it we shall admit that there is jiggery pokery in connection with almost everything, whether sport or anything else.
    Some people do not like boxing, others actively dislike it, but is that any reason why the vast number of people who like
    1968
    it should have to pay higher prices to see their favourite sport? I think not. I hope that the Chancellor will ignore completely the opinions expressed by my right hon. Friend. Let her stay away from boxing—
    Dr. Summerskill: I do.
    Mr. Shinwell: Let her have her tea parties; let her become a habitué of the drawing-room or even of the cocktail party. We do not want her at the ring side. In any case, she already has enough to do. As a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party she has plenty to do to stop—I will not say the fisticuffs but 'the controver sies occurring in that body. I do not want to be—
    Sir Robert Boottaby: Controversial.
    Mr. Shinwell: —nasty. I have a great admiration for the right hon. Lady—I would even go so far as to say affection, but if I have to be in a corner in this arena I prefer to be in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) than in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: After the "non-controversial" manner in which the Amendment has been dealt perhaps we could now resume what you, Mr. Hoy, suggested was the correct approach to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock).
    I suggest that if the Chancellor does not concede the point asked for in this Amendment he is, in fact, stating that the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) was correct and that the sport of boxing should be killed. That, in effect, is the position towards which the matter is proceeding today unless something is done for this sport.
    If a Chancellor thought that a certain sport should no longer be engaged in or that people should not have the opportunity of visiting tournaments or exhibitions of that sport, I could understand him saying, quite logically, "Stop the sport altogether. Impose such a tax as will kill the sport." Indeed, that is what

    1969
    the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor himself said should foe inquired into at the time when applications were being made for a reduction of Entertainments Duty in regard to various sports last year. He said that he was not prepared to do anything unless he was satisfied that by not doing something about reducing the duty the sport itself would be put out of existence.
    I appeal to him to consider that point most carefully in respect of boxing. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange was quite correct when she said that if this taxation is continued in the way in which it is imposed today there can be no doubt that boxing in this country will be wiped out of existence. I appeal to hon. Members to say that they will not permit that to be done. If it is to be argued whether the sport is good or bad I maintain that this is not the occasion for such an argument and that another opportunity ought to be sought. The electorate ought to be asked to express their views about the sport. I submit that if the opinion of the country were taken on whether boxing was good or bad as a sport the vast majority would say that it is a good sport.
    I would point out to the right hon. Lady that the youth club movements of our country, which certainly do not exist for the purpose of doing harm, encourage boxing and regard it as being a healthy form of entertainment and amusement not only for the observers but for the participators. I speak with the knowledge that the British Boxing Board of Control consists of men of considerable standing against whom it could not be said that they have no regard for the moral and physical values of the sport.
    The right hon. Lady is a member of the medical profession. There is at least one eminent member of that profession who is a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control. There are men of very high standing in the community who would not allow their names to be used or themselves to be engaged as stewards or members of the British Board of Boxing Control if they thought that this was a wrong type of sport in which to indulge.
    Rev. Llywelyn Williams: On a point of order. Is it not usual for hon. Members to declare their interest in a subject, if they have any?
    Mr. Janner: My interest is perfectly well known. I have declared it here on a number of occasions. In a professional capacity I act for a number of people in the boxing world. Almost every lawyer acts for some kind of interest or another. If he were to refrain from speaking on any subject in which he had a professional interest he would probably have to refrain from speaking on every subject.
    The Temporary Chairman: It is perfectly clear that if an hon. Member has an interest he should declare it to the Committee, but he has every entitlement to speak.
    Mr. Janner: I have declared my interest so often that I thought that it was not necessary to repeat it. It is rather difficult for the professional man because, on the one hand, he has to say that he acts for people, and, on the other, the profession does not look with very great favour on reference to one's professional activities being made in public. My interest is fairly generally known. I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not aware of it. The Chancellor and other Ministers know of it. On many occasions I have informed them of my interest.
    7.15 p.m.
    This interest gives one an opportunity to know what is happening. One has the great advantage of being able to see the inside of the matter with which one is dealing and being able to give the benefit of that insight to the Committee. I say categorically that the allegations made by the right hon. Lady are entirely unfounded so far as the boxing profession and the boxers are concerned. I say categorically that if she were to see the boxer to whom she referred she would have a very different opinion from the one she expressed about his physical condition.
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was quoting Mr. Tom Phillips. I was not expressing any personal opinion.
    Mr. Janner: In that case I would inform her that perhaps I know more about this boxer than Mr. Tom Phillips does. He is in a good state of health. My right hon. Friend need have no fear or anxiety about his condition.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am very pleased to know it.
    Mr. Janner: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will see him fight some time.
    I was trying to point out that this is the real issue. There are people who would finish with boxing altogether. I understand that point of view, though I do not agree with it. I think that those people are entirely wrong in their outlook but, nevertheless, it is logical for them to oppose the Amendment. If the right hon. Lady occupied the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer I could understand her saying that she has decided to continue the taxation because, ultimately, it would kill the sport.
    Fantastic pictures have been painted about the cruelty of the sport, about the promoters and the rest of it. That sounds very well but it is a highly coloured picture. Moreover, it is entirely wrong. What does the British Boxing Board of Control say about the matter of the tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange gave some figures. I have since ascertained the actual figure up to date. There were 273 tournaments in the six months up to March of this year, compared with 443 from October to March of 1952. That is a reduction by almost half. Figures were given about the amount of tax paid in respect of football matches, and so on. In the case of boxing the total amount of receipts has increased but only by a small amount, although double the amount of tax was being paid compared with 1951. This reduced the net receipts very considerably. That in itself indicates the position as reflected by the attendances at the tournaments. I think these matters should be taken into consideration.
    Let me give an illustration of what happens at an ordinary, small show. There may be about 1,500 persons present. The promoter's gross takings, out of which he has to pay for the hall, for the lighting, for the boxers' fees, and so on, probably amount to £500 gross. He has to pay £160 in Entertainments Duty. Under the new proposal he is relieved of about £3 18s. out of £160. Is it any wonder that 50 per cent, of the promoters, as I think it is correct to say, have already given up promoting altogether?
    If that continues, ultimately there will be no boxers available for the larger tournaments. Indeed, in my constituency,
    1972
    where we have large tournaments, the promoter—with whom I have no connection—has told me that it is just impossible for him to continue. On his last promotion the tax was so high that, even though there was a large number of people attending, he was at a loss on the show, and he said he could not carry on in future if things went on like that.
    I appeal to the Chancellor. We have given him the facts and figures. I beg him to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of people who thoroughly enjoy boxing and seeing boxing. I do not think they are wrong. I enjoy it myself. I am sure many hon. Members enjoy it, too. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to leave the position as it is. If he cannot accept the proposal in the Amendment, I ask him to consider between now and Report making some reduction in the tax, which will enable the sport to continue. It is not fair to ask the sport to go out of existence. I do not think he would want it to.
    I have spoken of this sport in particular, but I believe that the tax should be taken off sport altogether. My constituency has not done badly in this year of grace in football. Leicester City has done very well indeed. I think that that club and other clubs would be very much happier if the Entertainments Duty were removed. As to boxing, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestions I have made.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: We have had three hours of debate on what is the main Amendment proposed to Clause 1. We have yet to consider a good many other Amendments to this Clause, and I think it likely that there will be some reference to the film industry before we leave the Clause. Then we have the rest of a great, long Bill to take in our usual manner. So I think the Committee would be wise if it could bring the debate on this and the associated Amendments to an end as soon as possible, so that we can make progress.
    I would remind the Committee that I did not bring the Schedule concerning the Entertainments Duty up to the front because I wanted to be as orthodox as possible, so there will be a further opportunity for hon. Members who have not spoken yet on the subject to talk on it on that Schedule. If we could bring this debate to an end and pass on to

    1973
    other Amendments, I think that that would be in the general interest.
    The debate has ranged over a very wide area. I have taken notes of every speech to which I have listened. I do not want to join in the controversy between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in a strategic position exactly half way between the right hon. Lady and the hon. Lady, and I would advise him to stay there to keep out of trouble. Some of his remarks made me feel we were attending what it has never been my privilege to attend, an intimate meeting of the Labour Party. He used expressions that seemed to me singularly appropriate. He said, "At some moments I detect a high intelligence." As an opponent, I should like to pay tribute to the party opposite— for that is possible, at some moments.
    There was some talk of the hon. and right hon. Members opposite embracing one another. I understand that that is always done after their quarrels. I do not want to stir up the quarrels in the Opposition, but we can detect them even from the outside. The right hon. Gentleman referred to jiggery-pokery that he detected everywhere. We certainly detect it in the activities of the party opposite. So the right hon. Gentleman gave us a very happy preview of certain other events that are to take place.
    I shall deal with the matter of boxing shortly in answer to the arguments raised from each sector of the front. There was a rather separate scheme of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). Before I deal with the individual points, however, I want to say a general word, and that is that we depend for about £40 million on the revenue from the Entertainments Duty, and I think hon. Members have rather exaggerated the ease with which it would be possible to take it off sport.
    The proposal would in any case make a great difficulty with the living theatre, and I shall be quite unable to accept any Amendment that makes that differentiation. It would make a really very difficult position vis-á-vis the film industry, which brings in the very much greater
    1974
    part of the Entertainments Duty, amounting to £37 million and more, whereas the amount at stake in the Amendment, if we brought racing into the exemption— though that is not clear, and, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will explain that— would be about £3.845 million. Of that sum the amount for football would be £1.64 million, boxing about £11,000—I have made a slip of the tongue. It is £110,000, not £11,000. I read the figure 11 and should have added a nought.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The damned noughts.
    Mr. Butler: The "damned dots," yes. Horse racing is about £1 million, dog racing about £500,000, and speedway racing about £75,000. That shows that the amount involved is not so great. The real difficulty is first to differentiate between those and the theatres. The second difficulty is this, I feel. The relationship between the amount of tax imposed on sport and the amount of tax imposed on films being carefully balanced or compensated, being about 23 per cent, in the case of sport and 36 per cent, in the case of the others, it is extraordinarily difficult to accept an Amendment that would eliminate sport altogether, while leaving the whole burden of the Entertainments Duty to fall upon the film industry.
    The film industry has many difficulties. We have done something quite exceptional in the Budget to try to help overcome them, for national reasons, such as saving unemployment, and other like considerations. It would make the situation, in my view, impossible to hold if we left the sports out altogether. That is the main reason why I am unable to accept the Amendment and the related Amendments.
    I believe the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was himself engaging in an exempted sport this afternoon, but would have liked to have spoken in the debate. This being a free country, perhaps he will be able to, but he is almost the only hon. Member with his name to these Amendments who has not actually made an expression of an opinion. Thus we have had a pretty general picture drawn for us, and I want to deal with some of the aspects that arise. I take boxing first.
    The position of boxing undoubtedly is that the promoters are promoting less,

    1975
    particularly in the case of the small clubs. There is no doubt that small shows are not so prosperous as they were. Reference has been made, for example, to the position in Northern Ireland, and many arguments have been advanced to indicate that this is due to the Entertainments Duty.
    The fact is that though the Entertainments Duty does fall heavily on these sports, I do not myself believe that the present position of boxing and its difficulties are attributable entirely to the tax. It is the case that when anything starts getting into difficulties the promoters turn to the tax in just the same way as we are told that any economic difficulties are due to Purchase Tax. In fact, the tax is not the only difficulty, and usually on investigation it is found that the cause goes to something much deeper.
    7.30 p.m.
    Nevertheless, the position of boxing is extremely anxious for the promoters, but it is clear from the debate in this Committee that there is no unanimity of feeling on the subject, and the views of the right hon. Lady the Member for Ful-ham, West are in direct conflict to the views of the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange. I am not going into the medical aspect of this matter, but I should like to say that the deputation brought by the right hon. Lady was extremely impressive. However, I do not think that a tax question ought to be decided on the basis of medical views.
    Here I know I will be told that one particular sport, namely, cricket, has been exempt and why not start exempting others. In all simplicity, the real answer to that is the experience of exempting one has made me quite certain that 1 cannot go further down the slippery slope. I do not regret the action I took about cricket. The entry into the decision—I use that phrase advisedly—to exempt cricket was by way of the very real difficulty of defining what is an amateur and what is not in the cricket world.
    In the last Budget we exempted all amateur sports and we applied it to cricket, which led to amiable arguments, but the idea was commended universally in the Committee. Now the exemption is used as an argument for making other exemptions, but I must flatly state that
    1976
    I cannot face a gradual erosion of the Entertainments Duty not only in respect of the various sports that have been advocated today, but also as between sport and the film industry.
    I have never refused to listen to arguments, and I have acknowledged already that the position of the smaller boxing promotions is, as revealed to me in many of the papers submitted, one of the least attractive sides of the statistics. There is no doubt about it that there is a decline, but I cannot go further than say that I have noticed it and cannot offer any further concession this evening in the matter.
    There was considerable reference to football, and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) on his advocacy of his own club. I cannot give any answer about Bannister. I have not had time to consult the Foreign Office.
    I feel that the football question has been gone into with very considerable care since I gave the undertaking I did in the last debates that we held. The position in football since I last spoke has been that on the whole the situation has been maintained. Attendances, for example, were shown to be 5 per cent, less in the 1952–53 season than in the 1951–52 season, while in the 1953–54 season up to the end of February the average attendances at league matches had only been 1 per cent, lower over all compared with the corresponding period in the 1952–53 season. There has been a considerable pick-up in attendances. The previous decline was 5 per cent, and the decline last season was 1 per cent. [Interruption] I am trying to give the Committee the facts and the statistics of the money involved.
    Mr. James Johnson: Will the Chancellor tell us what he means by attendances? Is he speaking of the four major leagues and the Scottish League, or is he taking into account minor leagues, like Birmingham, the Southern and others, when talking about a blanket figure for total attendances?
    Mr. Butler: I am told that in the First Division there has been an improvement but in the lower divisions there has been a slight decline, particularly in the Second Division—I was coming to this—

    1977
    and in the Third Division, North and South. That is the information that we get from the football world.
    Mr. William Ross: What about Scotland?
    Mr. J. Johnson: What about the minor leagues like the Birmingham league and the Southern League?
    Mr. Butler: I have not the details here, but there has been a decline in attendance at the smaller clubs, though there has not been from our point of view a great decline in the takings.
    When we came to consider what to do after taking the position of the film industry into account, we decided that, having offered some relief to the film industry for national reasons, we ought to do something to mitigate the position of the football clubs. We have, therefore, introduced this Clause to which I referred in my Budget speech when I said that there would be a reduction of ½d. per entrance. It was thought to be a very small figure, but, in fact, if one looks at the result on an ordinary Association football match with a gate of 10,000 there would be an improvement of £20, and on a Rugby League match with a gate of 6,000 there would be a £10 to £12 improvement on the takings. So there will be a slight improvement through this modest Amendment.
    The interesting thing to note is that when we work this out statistically we find for the English leagues as a whole —I am taking that only as an example, and I do not wish to differentiate between England and Scotland in this matter—that the increase in gate money more than offsets the 2 per cent, decline in takings to which I referred earlier. I do not say it meets the position of the smaller clubs, but at least on the global figures, which are not always right when one comes down to the circumferences, we have found that there is a little amelioration which actually offsets the decline in the English league takings.
    I would not advise the Committee to under-rate this small concession. I must state quite frankly that, of course, it will benefit the dub more than the public. There is no reason why it should not be passed on to the public, but it is much more honest to say that it is for the clubs and, as we all want to see the small
    1978
    clubs—I was referred to during the debate as the president of one of these clubs—in such a condition that they can continue, I think it will be a good thing if their finances are buttressed in the small way we propose in the Finance Bill, balancing in some way the concession to the film industry.
    Mr. Dngdale: Could the right hon. Gentleman split up the figures? Could he tell us whether there have been serious reductions in gate money at the smaller clubs' matches which have been offset by a slight increase among the bigger clubs?
    Mr. Butler: I was not taking only a global figure, but I was saying that there had been a decline in attendances at the smaller club matches. I was not trying to mix that up with the larger clubs, which have remained more or less constant.
    That is the position for football, and I think I can say that I have looked at the position as I promised last year, and I have made a suggestion for a slight modification which has met the rate of decline. I cannot guarantee that it will apply to every club, or that every club will be satisfied. As far as I can see football and Rugby League clubs and other clubs involved in the game are not likely to go into a serious decline, and, indeed, they will maintain their position.
    The hon. Member for Reading, South wanted to vary the scale and emphasised the need for a fourth line of defence. I think he made a perfectly rational speech, unlike the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West. His case is a perfectly easy one to understand. It means a further alteration in the scale, and I readjusted the scale in the last Budget but one following upon the representations about speedway which were made to my predecessor. That was done by the House of Commons, not all by one party. The right hon. Gentleman shifted from his position, and I finally stabilised the Entertainments Duty at the three-tier scale we now have.
    I really do not think that the case for football, as investigated carefully by us, is sufficiently bad on present evidence to justify altering the scales again, but I have every reason to pay tribute to the care with which the hon. Member worked out his scheme, and I will certainly read his speech with great care, as I have only

    1979
    had the opportunity of listening to it and not testing it out on the scales which we apply in these intellectual utterances, including his.
    The other question raised was that of the Highland games by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). The smell of the heather brought refreshment into our debate, and was only brushed away by the cold, clammy hand of the Treasury. I thought at first that it might have been one of my immediate predecessors who imposed the Entertainments Duty, but I have had some rapid researches made and I find that it was Mr. McKenna who put on the Entertainments Duty in 1916, and so the cold, clammy hand which is complained of in the dales and glens of the North, and even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), came from a party which is at present only moderately represented in the House. Therefore, the rest of the Committee can glow with satisfaction that they have not the first responsibility in this matter.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: But will the Chancellor remind the Committee that it was his own cold, clammy hand which raised the duty on all these sports and games in 1952. hence much of the trouble?
    Mr. Butler: There was an adjustment on some and a reduction on others, and they met in the middle. Not all of the hand was cold and clammy. Some of it was warm and human. The mixture was generally regarded as being fair. The hon. Gentleman gave us a complete catalogue of all the athletes that Scotland has produced, and I must say that they make a most impressive collection, though I cannot believe that they were all trained at the Highland games. Nevertheless the position of the Highland games is intensely complicated. There are all sorts of legal definitions of what is and what is not amateur in the Highland games field, but one thing is quite certain, and that is that there is a degree of professionalism which is brought into the games in most cases; and whether it be piping or otherwise, it renders it impossible for the games to claim exemption on the amateur status basis.
    That is precisely the difficulty. That is why there were some misunderstand-
    1980
    ings and mistakes in the interpretation of the Act last year. These have now been brought to the attention of promoters, and this year we shall have to administer the Act as it was intended to be administered; that is, that when an entertainment is not amateur and when there is a degree of professionalism in it, whether it be piping or anything else, we shall have to interpret the Act and charge the duty.
    I am sorry for this and I sympathise with the Highland games, but the Highland games have just as much opportunity of making a profit, and therefore are not bad things to tax, as football and boxing The difficulty arises in the case of small ones. The only possibility is to make sure that the amateur status is, in fact, preserved and defined and understood as between Her Majesty's Collector of Taxes and the organisers. If any hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies have any more details about football which they would like to mention, we shall examine them during the passage of the Finance Bill, but I cannot depart from the differentiation between professional and amateur.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point that Highland games are not necessarily an entertainment? Quite frequently they are regarded as a very solemn ritual. In view of that, would he not consider exempting them from the duty altogether?
    Mr. Butler: I do not want to get into any more difficulties about what is educational, what is ritual and so on. These are difficult matters to define.
    I have attempted to answer some of the many good, sincere and straightforward speeches which have been made in the course of this debate. I remember the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and I have answered him. I cannot take the duty off all the sports. I have done my best to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). My answer to him is this. He asked "Why not in peace-time take off the duty on sport?" The answer is: why did his own Government keep the whole duty on during the six years that they were in power?
    Mr. E. Fletcher: The answer is that we did reduce it, whereas the present Chancellor has increased it.
    Mr. Butler: I have made exemptions and certain adjustments, and I do not think that my record is any worse in this respect than that of hon. Members opposite in maintaining the duty. When hon. Members are in opposition they say that it must be removed, but when in power they kept it on for six years.
    I have tried to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I am sorry that I cannot go as far as he wants me to go and increase the duty on the pools, because if I did I would get into difficulties of maladjustment in the general rates of tax. I have dealt with the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). The Stafford Rangers will survive, whatever attentions the Chancellor may lavish upon them. I have referred to the hon. Member for Reading, South, and I should like to make passing references to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook). Although my speech may not have given the comfort which the Committee desired, I think that we should now come to a decision because I cannot take this matter any further this year.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gaitsfcell: The Chancellor has asked us whether we will come to a decision. Had he offered a gleam of hope to us that he would accept any of these Amendments, or even think about them, I am sure that my hon. Friends would have been more inclined to accept his proposition; but as it is, a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, feel very strongly on this subject, have substantial constituency interests and are concerned with one sport or another, and I am therefore rising not to conclude the debate but merely to comment upon some of the things which the Chancellor has said.
    I agree that we have had a useful and interesting debate. I think that one of the highlights of this debate has been the remarkable display of talent from Scotland. Sir Charles, you have been presiding during a large part of these proceedings; Major Anstruther-Gray has presided during another part and Mr. Hoy during the rest of it. We have had
    1982
    a remarkable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), and there have been speeches from the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) and several other Scottish Members. It is quite evident that there is a danger of a serious Scottish nationalist outbreak on this matter of Entertainments Duty, and I hope that the Chancellor will take that fact into account.
    The second highlight was the exhibition bout, if one might so describe it, between my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) poised not exactly between them but more on one side than the other. Whatever one may feel about their views on this subject, they certainly gave a remarkable display of debating ability. I do not propose to try to intervene between them, even though we may all share some of the responsibility for promoting that particular exhibition bout. I am certainly not going to attempt to act as a referee. I do not think that that would be a very safe occupation.
    The Chancellor will probably realise that his reply has been extremely disappointing to the Committee and that the whole of the Committee is very dissatisfied with certain features of the Entertainments Duty in its present form. The right hon. Gentleman asked me something about our main Amendment, and I would explain that our main Amendment is designed to exempt from the duty all games of sport. It does not touch horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing, but it does apply to the others.
    We have drawn that distinction partly at the invitation of the Chancellor, because I think that when we moved an Amendment two years ago to reduce all sport and racing to the lower level paid by the live theatres he accused us of trying to give far too much to horse racing and dog racing. We are always willing to fall in with any suggestions that he may like to make to us, and, therefore, we decided this year, as indeed last, that we would prefer to leave those forms of racing untouched.

    1983
    That was not our only reason, of course. We believe that there is a much stronger case for exemption in the case of what one may describe as live human sports where, incidentally, no element of gambling in the same sense enters into the picture. These are our preferences and that is why we made this our main Amendment, but there are various other Amendments which we have discussed at the same time on various individual sports, and on them a number of my hon. Friends, in what has been an effective team display, have spoken with great knowledge and authority.
    I want to emphasise a point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mentioned during the Chancellor's speech. The fact is that the Chancellor increased the duty on precisely these sports and games which we seek to exempt. He increased it very substantially in 1952. The total amount of increase in the duty, if I remember correctly, was £700,000. It is true that this year he proposes to reduce the duty by a small amount. He is graciously giving back about £200,000, possibly £250,000—about one-third of the increase which he himself imposed. It will not do for him to try to make out that it is we who have imposed this duty and who have had the cold, clammy hand. All Treasuries no doubt have cold, clammy hands, but the present hands are a great deal colder and clammier than were mine or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who, indeed, reduced the duty on live sport before the present Chancellor put it up again.
    No explanation was ever given as to why the duty was increased two years ago, except that the Chancellor seemed to think it necessary to raise it to the higher level because he had reduced the duty on horse racing and dog racing. Frankly, I was never prepared to accept that argument, nor, I think, was the Committee, and I do not think it is a very convincing argument today.
    Last year two further changes were made which altered the structure of the duty. There was the exemption of amateur sport and the exemption of cricket. I do not want to say much about the exemption of amateur sport. The Chancellor
    1984
    himself admitted the confusion into which the whole situation has drifted. I am far from clear—and I think my hon. Friends are in the same position—about exactly when the duty is levied in the case of Highland Games of different kinds and when it is not, and there are other sports of a similar kind in the North of England where certain prizes are given and which may or may not be taxed.
    This is because the Act of 1953 described the condition which has to be satisfied if the benefit of the amateur concession is to be granted as
    "that no payment is made or reward given for the participation of any person in any game, race, or other sport constituting the entertainment or part of the entertainment, other than prizes of a reasonable number and value competed for and won by individuals taking part therein."
    What is "reasonable" in this case? I think we might have had an explanation from the Chancellor of the instructions which he has given to the Customs authorities in this matter. There was a case, which I think I mentioned last year, where, of all things, a table tennis championship was made subject to duty. I do not know to this day exactly why that was decided. No professional player was involved, but apparently there were some minor prizes or there was some objection which the officials had to the institution in question.
    The situation is profoundly unsatisfactory, and I think it will remain unsatisfactory. I am sure we all appreciate that it was out of consideration of the arguments advanced in the Committee that the Chancellor introduced the exemption for amateur sport, but it has landed us in fairly serious difficulties of demarcation, and the complaints will continue. That, therefore, constitutes one of the arguments—not the only one—for exempting sport altogether.
    Another argument is the discrimination which was introduced when cricket was exempted. I want to make it plain that none of us is for one moment suggesting that that was wrong. We approve of the exemption of cricket, but if we make such an exemption we must have an argument for it and we must foe able to show people that it is reasonable to exempt cricket but no other form of sport. We have never had satisfactory or convincing arguments on that score.

    1985
    Last year, the Chancellor dealt with the subject at great length, but he admitted, first of all, that the argument about cricket being more of an amateur game could not be sustained, and indeed that argument has again been demolished this afternoon by speech after speech from these benches. The Chancellor also admitted that the argument that cricket was good for Commonwealth relations applied equally to football and other sports and that the argument that it was a traditional game could be, and must be, applied equally to other sports. He was driven back, finally, on the only argument which he attempted to sustain—that the conditions of the cricket clubs was serious and there was some danger that they could not carry on.
    It is our view that precisely this argument applies to other forms of sport, and particularly to the smaller clubs, to which special reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). The Chancellor promised in his Budget speech this year that he would consider the matter and he admitted, as he admitted this evening, that there had been a further deterioration in the situation. When he rose just now and told us that, after all, the rate of decline in attendances was not as great as before, I am afraid it made little impression upon us, because the damage to attendances and the net takings of the clubs was done by the increase in duty in the previous year.
    As I understand—and I think the Chancellor will confirm what I am saying —in 1952–53, when the duty was increased, the consequence was to reduce the attendances, because the charges rose substantially, to increase very considerably the amount of duty paid—by £700,000—and, finally, to reduce the net takings available to the clubs—in other words, to put them in a substantially worse financial position than before. That I believe to be true, not of every individual club but certainly of Rugby League, of Association football and of boxing. To say that the decline is now only another 1 per cent, is no comfort at all when the damage has already been done and the clubs are already being driven into the "red." The Chancellor's arguments here seemed to us extremely unconvincing.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The picture would not be complete without this point: I
    1986
    gave statistics to show that the modest concession made this year would in our opinion about balance the decline in takings which we had envisaged as last year's experience. We have thus done something to meet what I promised to meet.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I have already admitted the small reduction, which is only one-third of the increase which the Chancellor imposed. The point is—and nobody has met this argument—that it is undoubtedly the smaller clubs, such as the Third Division clubs, which are seriously affected, and it is extremely unlikely, to put it no more highly, that the tiny concession given this year will be sufficient to rescue them from their extremely difficult situation.
    The only new argument which the Chancellor has advanced today is that if we were to exempt all sport it would put the cinemas in a difficult position. Frankly, I find it hard to take that very seriously. For years we have recognised that the cinema duty was a special one. The vast proportion of the Entertainments Duty is raised from cinemas, and I do not believe that the cinema proprietors, who are very active in pressing their case, would feel inclined to press it more strongly because sport had been exempted altogether. In any case, as I explained at the beginning, we are not proposing to exempt horse racing and greyhound racing, and for the moment, at any rate, we are not discussing the theatre duty.
    In all the circumstances, I personally feel that the case which we have advanced from many different points of view, with such wealth of experience behind it, in favour of the central Amendment and, indeed, in favour of the other Amendments relating to particular sports or the smaller clubs, is an unanswerable case. I urge the Chancellor, before we leave the Bill, to think again about this matter.
    He loses in all, I think, £2 million by this Amendment. That is not a very large sum. He would gain immense popularity by doing this. He would, no doubt, become the hero of the "Daily Mirror" again, or some other paper, possibly, and he could not really seriously say that the effect on the country would be in any way detrimental. I ask him not to turn away entirely but to think further about this, to listen to the speeches which will now be made by my hon. Friends and at

    1987
    later stages in the course of the Bill, and, finally, to do the right thing by the Committee and by the country.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. James Johnson: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I only speak because of the opening invitation to me by the Chancellor and the later comments of the former Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) may be interested to know that the exempted sport I was playing against Westminster School will yield him little entertainment tax and will be sad to hear that the Lords and Commons lost by 9 wickets at Vincent Square. My name is at the head of the Amendment upon athletic sports and while I know that there are now no taxes upon amateur athletic sports, I would once more ask the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to look again at the Powderhall, for example, at Edinburgh and the sports at Morpeth upon which the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) must, I am sure, have spoken earlier. When I was a boy, 30 years ago, the Powderhall meeting and the Olympic Games at Morpeth were known far and wide, but today they have fallen upon sadder days and would welcome some financial help.
    However, I want to say a few words most sincerely about the plight of the smaller football clubs. Last year I invited the Financial Secretary to go to his "local" at Kingston-upon-Thames—and I hope that he has done so within the last 12 months—to listen to the local supporters of the Kingstonian Football Club. They are happy as an amateur club; but the shop stewards and engineers in his constituency who support the professional clubs and the semi-professional clubs in the Southern League like Guildford, are "fed up" about this tax. I really cannot follow this differentiation which the Chancellor has presented between cricket and soccer. It does not make sense to me, that one should be singled out—and I have played both games.
    Neither can I understand this differentiation between the amateur and the professional codes. The Chancellor knows that there are amateurs in all sports and yet he tries to draw a line between the so-called amateur sport and the profess-
    1988
    sional sport. I would call attention to the Worcester county cricket club and some Midland football clubs like Coventry City. If Worcester were so hard up and in need of tax remission, how can they spend £20,000 or £30,000 on improving the amenities of their beautiful ground? If soccer clubs were given some help, they could once more build up some decent accommodation. A few of them would build stands to replace those which were blitzed and which have been such a shambles since the war. It is, however, the minor clubs for which I want to say a word or two, not only Third Division sides like Coventry City and Newport County, but, of course, those in the minor competitions like Birmingham League, Southern League, and the like.
    My club, Rugby Town, have just won the Birmingham Combination and they are having a victory dinner tomorrow night. Unfortunately, I cannot be there because, being a Whip, I am immured like a Trappist monk in this huge palace and I cannot get away. This club are league champions, yet have their financial difficulties. It is a well-known fact that many of these minor clubs which have a wages bill of £50 a week have a job to make ends meet, and to improve spectators' amenities with stands. They only exist week by week and month by month by means of the usual bazaars, sweepstakes, football pools and the like. Their committees are manned by voluntary labour—who, of course, are paid nothing for the work they do.
    It may be that the B.T.H. engineer or a local accountant spends hours of every week working for nothing, and often putting their hands into their pockets for £10 or even £50 to keep their local team going. The Financial Secretary, I know, has often heard about functional democracy, and he must know what a big factor it is in the life of a market town to have a successful football club. It is the desire in a town of 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 population to have a local league side in the Southern League, the Birmingham League, the North-Eastern League, but if that club is in deep water financially they cannot do this and goes out of existence. Men have nowhere to go on Saturday afternoons and the Chancellor knows how important it is to keep a football team going in a market town.

    1989
    The Chancellor has a football face in spite of his cold exterior. He must know as well as I do that a club getting a 2,000 gate, a 3,000 gate or a 4,000 gate, with the overheads which they have to meet has a job to get along these difficult days. Any help which he could give on the ones of exemption of tax as put by the hon. Member for Reading, South, would be of great assistance to them. Why cannot football clubs be given a sort of personal Income Tax allowance, like hon. Members have in this House? I plead with him to think again on this matter. It is not Chelsea or the big clubs that we are talking about; it is the minor clubs which do not pay dividends. I beg the Chancellor to look again at this matter and to be human and realise what a difference it would make in small towns if local clubs could keep their heads above water, and carry on.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I apologise for not having heard the Chancellor's speech because I was engaged in committee downstairs, but I listened to the whole of the debate preceding the Chancellor's speech and I have failed to understand why he cannot on this occasion give way. I hope that when the Financial Secretary comes to intervene he will tell us when we adjourn for the Summer Recess so that we shall know whether we can go to the Morpeth Olympics.
    I disagree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) when he said that the Chancellor has not a football face. I think that he has a football face, especially when portrayed by the cartoonist Vicky. If he were to turn up at Roker Park wearing the appropriate cloth cap, I am sure he could get through the turnstiles at the cheap end and not be noticed.
    The Chancellor will remember that during the last General Election he visited Sunderland and addressed two meetings. One of my constituents who heard the Chancellor told me that he thought the right hon. Gentleman was a sort of Socialist. I told my constituent that I thought he was mistaken, but undoubtedly the Chancellor is a persuasive and effective speaker. If he comes back to Sunderland at the next General Election, he must do something about this matter beforehand.
    1990
    Football is part of the life of Sunderland. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has not attended during our discussion, because football—we are very proud of it—is part of the life of Sunderland. We always claim pride in two things. Sunderland is the biggest shipbuilding town in the world and the best football town in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Sunderland is the only club which has been in the premier division of the English League since its inception, a remarkable record which we held with difficulty last season.
    I am not claiming poverty on behalf of the Sunderland Club. In fact, it is a team of all stars, but the stars shine very intermittently. But we intend to get the Cup next year.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: What was Sunder-land's position in the First Division at the end of the season?
    Mr. Willey: We are going to do better. We are not particularly proud of what we did this year, but we have laid the foundations for a better season next year.
    Our interest is wider than Sunderland alone. Throughout the county of Durham football is part of the pattern of life. When hon. and right hon. Members opposite speak of phrases like "playing the game," of which I do not complain, I remind them that a lot of that kind of spirit is learnt in the game of football. I do not like the distinction which is drawn between professional and amateur football. I have played in both. I know very fine people who have been professional footballers and who have set a good example of gentlemanly conduct, often in difficult circumstances. We are proud in Sunderland of our fine record of being a good football team.
    I disagree with the distinctions which have been sought to be made between professional and amateur football. As far as we are concerned in the county of Durham, there is no distinction. Some people allege—I do not take this view—that some of our bigger amateur teams need more money than some of the lesser professional teams. But we are equally proud of Bishop Auckland, Crook, and the big professional teams in the county. They work together. Of course, we have

    1991
    the teams which are both amateur and professional—the colliery welfare teams, and teams like that.
    It would be foolish to say that one set of players makes a greater contribution to the game than another. It would be quite unreal to say that one set of football clubs was in a more advantageous position than another. If we were to examine which of the clubs were in greater difficulties, we would find that one or two amateur teams in the county have no financial difficulties while scores of small professional clubs constantly face financial anxiety. As far as we are concerned in the north—I am happy to believe Cods is true of Britain as a whole—we recognise the contribution that football makes. It is impaired by the incidence of taxation. The Chancellor ought to be open-handed enough to say that the Government recognise that, and that there is a case for encouraging this sport. It is not encouraged by the present taxation.
    Everything that has been said about cricket can be said about football. An important match is shortly to be played in Hungary. That is a very real breach in the Iron Curtain. When I was in Hungary in 1946, football was one of the major interests of that country. Its people wanted to know how we were getting on and when we would send out another team. The Hungarians are rightly proud of their football prowess. If cricket can contribute to good relations within the Dominions and Commonwealth, so can football contribute to more friendly understanding between peoples all over the world.
    8.15 p.m.
    Football plays an important part in the way of life. I have no apologies for people who are sometimes called professional spectators. It is a good thing that large numbers of people who can no longer play should watch the game and see people playing it and obeying the rules. It would do some Members of Parliament good to go to more football matches. I would not draw the distinction between the spectators and the players. After all, many of the spectators are past playing football, but there is no reason why their interest in the game should not continue. I am glad to see
    1992
    that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has now arrived.
    Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. Member has been talking about the Iron Curtain and football. It might well have been better if the Sunderland team had included an iron curtain in its defence last season.
    Mr. Willey: I am more tactful than to make such remarks about our football team. For the hon. Member's benefit, I repeat my confidence that the Sunderland team will do much better next year. If the hon. Member supports me in the Division Lobby tonight and helps us to remove the tax, it will give a real fillip to Sunderland as far as its football club is concerned—and not only to Roker Park, but to all the people who play football in Sunderland.
    I hope that the Chancellor will not take a chance and ignore our appeal in the hope that there may be another Budget before the next election when he is obliged again to visit Sunderland. Instead of taking a chance, he should remove the tax now. Then, he will be able to come to Sunderland. I do not think he will help his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South to retain his seat, but at any rate he will get the sympathetic response which the people of Sunderland always give to anyone who can speak persuasively, eloquently and thoughtfully.
    If the right hon. Gentleman will not look at this matter again, if he shows that he is too narrow in his approach, I warn him that if he comes to Sunderland at the next General Election this will bear heavily against him. This matter has been discussed in the House repeatedly. Both sides ought to realise that the tax is no longer justified and that, on the contrary, we should do all that we can to encourage football and all sports.
    I have spoken only about football, but what I have said would apply to Rugby football, for which I have a very great respect. I have a great respect also for Rugby League, particularly from the point of view of spectators; it is a fine game and has inspired real, broad sportsmanship amongst the peoples of Lancashire and Yorkshire and, now, Cumberland and Westmorland. And so, without disparaging all the other sports, I say that on this occasion the Chancellor

    1993
    should not be too inflexible or too unbending but should recognise that he did the right thing about cricket and, because he did the right thing about cricket, ought to do the same for all the other sports.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member on this side of the Committee was extremely disappointed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, not only every Member on this side, but quite a number of Members on the Chancellor's own side have already spoken in support of the Amendments.
    I want to address my remarks particularly to the effect of the tax on Highland games. I had some correspondence with the Financial Secretary on this matter last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that one of the reasons why he withdrew the tax on cricket was that it was very difficult to differentiate between amateurs and professionals. His reply today showed very clearly that during the past year he and his officers in the areas concerned have also had difficulty in differentiating between amateurs and professionals in Highland games.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) has shown that many areas that once had Highland games no longer have them. This should be a matter of concern to the Chancellor, and as a Member of Her Majesty's Government he ought to take cognisance of it. Scotland, the North of England and Wales are just as much parts of the United Kingdom as is London. Scottish people feel that Londoners ought not to have all the pageantry and colour of the United Kingdom. I am sure I have the support of all Members who represent constituencies outside London, and I know that there are some inside London who also support that view.
    I know that those who live outside London have certain advantages which are not enjoyed by Londoners, but the Chancellor ought to remember that areas outside London have to make their own entertainment and provide their own colour and pageantry. The Highland games, and similar games in England, Wales and many parts of England outside London, bring colour, pageantry and great excitement to thousands of men, women and children living in villages and remote areas, and it is in just those remote
    1994
    areas that these games have now gone out of existence.
    The Chancellor should also remember that the colour and pageantry that we find in these villages and remote places does not cost the local authorities or the Chancellor one penny. I am proud that our people, by their own efforts, have been able to provide something to brighten the lives of their fellow countrymen, but I seriously object to the Chancellor taxing some of them out of existence, as he has already done.
    I can better illustrate to the Financial Secretary just what these Highland games and other games do for local communities by describing their effect in the very large village called Shotts, in my own constituency, about which I wrote to him at the end of August, last year. These games are organised by public-spirited men and women who give their time, thought and energy to the job, not looking for or getting any financial return. I do not say that they get no reward; they get the very fine reward of the satisfaction of knowing that they have done a good job well and have brought joy and happiness to the people of their villages and the surrounding areas.
    The preparation for and running of these games bring out a real community effort. I have seen such an effort bringing out the very best attributes in our people time and time again. Because I know that that is happening in my own villages I realise the great loss which has been sustained by other villages whose games have had to be abandoned. A wise Government should have as one of its definite aims the fostering of all worth while projects which foster and strengthen community life and effort. I think I have said enough to show that these games have certainly achieved a very worth while object. We all wish our villages to be clean, bright and happy places for our people to live in.
    On the Monday morning after our Highland games were held I was walking near the park where they had taken place. Near the entrance to that park are two semi-detached council houses, occupied by two miners and their families. I was with a friend, who is a right hon. Member of this House, and we stopped to look at the gardens and windows of those houses. One of my constituents came out and spoke to me

    1995
    and I praised him on the very fine appearance of his building and garden. I was delighted with his response. He said, "We feel that we are in a most important position in this village. Thousands of people passed our homes on Saturday, going to the games, and we feel that we have a responsibility not only to ourselves but to our community."
    That was why these two families had put forward an extra effort to make their houses look pleasant. It was an excellent example of community effort. It happened not only to those two families. All round that village the housewives had made a special effort to ensure that their houses, their windows, their gardens would really look well for those coming to our Highland games.
    That is why I say frankly to the Chancellor that he does not realise the importance of these games to the community life of many of our villages. A wise Chancellor would try to encourage, without reservations, any project which did something to safeguard the heritage and culture of any part of this United Kingdom. These games in Scotland, Wales, and parts of England, do something not only to safeguard our heritage, but also to encourage the spread of culture.
    8.30 p.m.
    I have watched dancing, not only in Shotts but in other places in the United Kingdom. In my own place it is Highland dancing. What a delight it is to watch young people, to see what control they have over their fine limbs and lovely bodies. But they do not get that control without a great deal of self-control and self-restraint and by using up much of their leisure time which other people may be using for pursuits which we would not admire so much. Highland dancing is definitely a part of the culture of Scotland, and is fostered to a great extent by Highland games. In all those areas where Highland games have gone out completely, there has been a great loss of our culture.
    The Chancellor spoke about pipe bands and he said that perhaps their inclusion has led to the payment of tax. It may be that Englishmen do not like to hear pipe bands, but I invite the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary either to go to the Cowell Games or to come to Shotts. If
    1996
    the right hon. Gentleman comes he will see perhaps 40 pipe bands and their pageantry as they go through our streets. He will see the wonderful colours of the tartans worn by the bands and the pride of those men, many of them miners, policemen, engineers, ordinary workers in our district, who give up their leisure time to practise so that their bands will become really efficient, and so that they can give pleasure and joy to the men and women in their districts. That is another part of the culture of Scotland.
    The games about which I have been speaking are run under the auspices of the Scottish Amateur Athletic Association rules, so that in no way can they be described as professional games. The only way the Chancellor can deal with this matter, not only for us in Scotland but for anywhere in the United Kingdom, is to withdraw the tax completely, since the right hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that in the last year difficulties have arisen for his officers in differentiating between amateur and professional. If the Financial Secretary replies to the debate I hope he will take into account the points I have made, particularly in respect of what these games do, not only for the spectators, not only for those who participate in them, but for the men, women and children for miles and miles around.
    Major Sir Frank Markham: We have listened to a moving oration, one almost in defence of Highland games. Listening to the hon. Lady, the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I was led to believe that unless the Chancellor did something about the Entertainments Tax on Highland games, they would disappear for ever from the face of Scotland. It just is not true.
    Miss Herbison: I did not say that at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) gave a great list of the places that had had Highland games—villages and small market towns in Scotland which no longer are able to run them. The Chancellor added other names on behalf of his hon. Friends who represent Highland constituencies. That is the only claim that I made.
    Sir F. Markham: The hon. Lady is also fully aware that these places that used to run Highland games and no longer have them lost them before the tax was ever introduced.
    Miss Herbisom: Not at all.
    Sir F. Markham: The decay took place before the First World War, and the renewal of the games has been fostered very much between the wars, and since the last world war, during which time the Entertainments Duty has been in full vogue. I do not believe that the existence of the Entertainments Duty affects attendance at the Highland games by a single person. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but certainly it is not sufficient to affect their continuance or their cessation. That is certainly the case with the items mentioned in the 17 Amendments, which we are taking together, in which the Chancellor is asked to remit Entertainments Duty on almost every kind of professional profit-making sport.
    The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): If I may correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we are not dealing with 17 Amendments but nine.
    Sir F. Markham: I am very glad to be put right on that point, because those nine cover my main argument. I am much more sympathetic with the plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North on behalf of Highland games than I am with many of the other pleas that are being made in the Amendments. The second Amendment refers to all entertainments which consist of games or other sports. The third and fourth Amendments refer to both football codes, the next refers to Association football, Rugby League football and boxing, the next to eisteddfodau and the final one to horticultural shows which include sports, games, displays or any other entertainments as part of their attractions.
    The point that I make is that there is no easier or more agreeable method for the Chancellor to raise money than the taxation of luxuries, and to go to see a professional football match is a luxury. However vital football is to Sunderland according to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), it is not an absolute necessity. That is true of all other forms of professional games and entertainments.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that of cricket?
    Sir F. Markham: I would lay that down in the case of all professional
    1998
    sports. I am very much against professionalism in sport, and I am all in favour of the Chancellor doing everything he can to improve the playing of sport by the people themselves, instead of their watching performers who very often draw excessively high rewards. I am very much opposed to the profit-making motive that is creeping into sport so very much.
    I have not been able to listen to the full debate on these matters in this Chamber because of the pressure of other work, but I have not heard a single hon. Member opposite say categorically that if the Entertainments Duty were remitted on any of the sports that they have mentioned the remission of tax would be passed on to those who patronise the sport. My belief is that it would go to the pockets of the promoters and that more and more funds would be built up, either to pay dividends on sport, which to my mind is not quite the happiest way of conducting affairs in this country, or to spend more money on performers so as to bring more people to watch sport which, under professionalism, is very often not so clean or happy as it is under amateur rules.
    The point was made from the benches opposite that it is a healthy thing to watch sport. Is it? Any one who has the lack of wit and good sense in our kind of climate to stand watching sport in wet clothes and footwear for two hours on a sodden English or Scotch day, getting anything from a cold to catarrh, bronchitis or double-pneumonia possibly, deserves all he gets. What we ought almost to do is to discourage this by Act of Parliament, we ought to protect these people against themselves. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite wanting to encourage people to go and catch cold or rheumatic diseases by standing about when they would be much fitter playing even the gentlest of games themselves, on a purely amateur and untaxed basis, of course.
    No one has suggested where the money is to come from if this tax is abolished, or what other tax should be put in place of this duty. Do they want a tax put on industry or an increase in Income Tax? Someone has to find the money. Hon. Members are making a cheap popular appeal to football fans and posing as the champion of professional sport-loving people. They should be much

    1999
    wiser. Their duty to their constituents is to tell them that it is right to have an Entertainments Duty, and on professionalised sports I hope, a fairly reasonable one. The nation should be educated to play games for the love of games instead of watching other people doing these things for high money reward.
    Mr. Jack Jones: I am sure that hon. Members of the Committee will agree that they are thoroughly disappointed and almost disgusted with what they have just heard. To suggest that every one of the many millions of good, honest British citizens who go to watch football matches ought, in effect, to have their heads seen to is almost sacrilege.
    The argument the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Mark-ham) put forward strengthens our claim. He asked where the money is to come from. It can come only from where all wealth comes, from a contented community, working hard and doing what they can for themselves and their country. I tell the hon. and gallant Member in no uncertain terms that football and the like are helping this country indirectly to do what we all want it to do.
    Before we are through with the Finance Bill the major argument we shall hear from the Government is the need for greater production. The man who can avail himself at the week-end or other times of a fair amount of leisure to see what he likes to see goes to work on Monday morning a happier man than the man who, because of the incidence of this tax, is unable to do so.
    I am all for the cheapest possible form of sport being made available to the largest number of our people. I know that one can argue about "shamateurism," things which go on in the boxing ring and all-in wrestling, and so on, but it is not peculiar and particular incidents such as those that we want to look at. I come from a great industry and only last week I read with tremendous pleasure of the results of the interdepartmental football matches inside my old company. In the cricket season there is the interdepartmental cricket match and there are interdepartmental darts matches and bowling matches.
    These things create contentment among working people. That is something
    2000
    which this Government are seeking not to do by refusing to do away with Entertainments Duty. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) took a similar line in asking where the money is to come from. The money can come from the difference between the disgruntled, unhappy, dissatisfied fellow as against the decent, satisfied, happy worker.
    8.45 p.m.
    Most branch meetings of trade unions take place on a Saturday night. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not believe it but at dozens of branch meetings I have actually seen men come to them direct from football matches or cricket matches or bowling matches, or even from boxing matches. Those men were in a much happier frame of mind than if they had all come from their own homes where they might have been sitting brooding over the fact that they could not attend the form of sport which they wanted. In that case they would have been disgruntled and prepared to support anything which, in their opinion, would get at the "boss." Sport is essential to the welfare of the nation.
    There is a reasonably good football club in my constituency. No one needs to be told that Rotherham United are continuously knocking at the door of the First Division of the Football League. I do not think they particularly want to go through because of the very facts enumerated by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham. Men come from the steel works in their sweat-soaked working shirts and from the coal mines to watch Rotherham United. They stand on wet, sodden ground when they ought to have the benefit of decent, concreted, terraced seating accommodation. Why have they not such accommodation? It is because the wealth is not there to provide it.
    Only last Saturday I was reading my weekly newspaper. It is not a Socialist newspaper. It is reasonably fair to me and I always try to be reasonably fair to it. I read about the annual dinner of the Rotherham United directors and supporters club. The club manager told the supporters some pertinent things. We have in our football team some good boys who work in the local factories. There are two of them for whom the club could obtain £20,000 or £30,000 tomorrow if they were put on the transfer list. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, there are

    2001
    teams in this county who would pay those sums. I do not wish to mention names. We have an outside right for whom we could demand a very high price.
    But what would happen if the club sold him? The supporters would be disgruntled. The point was made at this dinner that they were thinking seriously of having to sell some of the best players—local products and all good chaps—to make ends meet. That sort of thing has a great effect on the mass of the working-class and their attitude towards their employers.
    I say the Government are missing the boat and making a grave mistake by not abolishing the Entertainments Duty on sports. I recall going to the chairman of the board of directors of the firm where I used to work and asking, on behalf of the men, for £6,000. I got the answer, "That is a lot of money. What do you want it for?" I said, "The men want a decent club house, a bowling green, tennis courts, a cricket pitch and a football ground." We got that money and the director will tell anyone that it was the best investment the firm ever made.
    As a result it was possible for the management and the men to get together over a game of cricket or football or on the bowling green and that is the kind of attitude we ought to cultivate in this country. It is better than to have disgruntled people sitting at home because they cannot afford the 3d. or 6d. extra to go to a football match. That kind of thing will not do this Government any good. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham has never had to decide upon the difference between having or not having 3d. or 6d.—
    Sir F. Markham: The superb arrogance of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) in assuming that he is one of the few who has ever known the value of 3d. is absolutely astonishing.
    Mr. Jones: Judging by the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member I can only assume that he has never had to decide whether he should or should not attend a function for the sake of 3d.
    In any case, I wish to say to the Financial Secretary that this has a great bearing on the attitude of mind of the workers. If this Government could say, "There is your sport. Go out and enjoy
    2002
    it at the least possible expense," I should say that there would be a happier and a more contented community. As a result of happy and contended minds, production would be improved. If the extra production was subject to a minimum of profit rather than an extreme amount of profit, the money which the Chancellor would lose would be returned tenfold.
    Mr. Richard Adams: A little earlier the Government Chief Whip was active in drawing all his supporters off the benches opposite back into the dressing room. I would remind the half-dozen or so hon. Members opposite who have entered the Chamber since that they may incur the displeasure of the Patronage Society, and the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) will, no doubt, be carpeted tomorrow for daring to make an intervention.
    Sir F. Markham: What nonsense!
    Mr. Adams: The Chancellor said that he had been glad to learn about some of the more intimate workings of the Labour Party. However, he did not go on to say anything about the workings of the Tory Party. We in the Labour Party conduct our affairs openly and democratically—
    The Temporary Chairman (Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray): Order. I would point out that the Amendment relates to Entertainments Duty on various forms of sport.
    Mr. Adams: I have no intention, Major Anstruther-Gray, of dwelling at any length upon the internal difficulties of the Tory Party. But in view of the Chancellor's opening remarks, I thought I might be permitted to say something from this side of the Committee about what we see on the other side. I leave it there, but hope that the Financial Secretary will transgress a little by telling us something of what goes on behind closed doors at Tory meetings.
    Having opened in a lighter vein, the Chancellor quickly abandoned it and became very despondent and depressing. If his first speech in Committee on the Bill is to be typical of his subsequent speeches, we are in for a dull and dreary time. He gave away nothing at all. I

    2003
    am sure that he realised that his argument was not a good one. He said that he could do nothing to meet the wishes of hon. Members about sports and pastimes because the Entertainments Duty was already very heavily unbalanced against the cinema. He pointed out that, of the total receipts of £43 million, about £37 million was provided by the cinemas, and he said that it would be unfair to them to do anything to help sports and pastimes.
    If it was right for the Chancellor last year to take the duty off cricket matches after he had surveyed the unbalanced position resulting from the fact that almost all the Entertainments Duty was provided by the cinema industry, why should he use this same situation as an argument for doing nothing this year? The Chancellor put his argument rather timidly, and I think he realised that it did not hold water. It is nonsense to use the argument in that way.
    I thought I detected in the Chancellor's argument a hint of anti-professionalism. The time has come when we ought to consider Entertainments Duty from the point of view, not of those who are providing the entertainment but of the man-in-the-street who pays to see the entertainment which is provided. Why should we look at the problem from the point of view of the struggling professional football club or the struggling boxing promoter? Why should we not look at it from the point of view of the man-in-the-street who when he wishes to see a sport or pastime, has to pay duty if he goes to a professional football match but not if he goes to see an amateur game?
    Why should he have drawn this line so that professional boxing has to pay a heavy rate of tax, while a man who goes to see amateur athletics does not have to pay any tax at all? Why should those unfortunate Scottish colleagues of mine who go to see Highland games have to pay Entertainments Duty, while those who go to similar events in the South, such as athletic meetings, are not called upon to pay? If the Chancellor will look at it in that way, instead of from the point of view of the necessity for bolstering up some industry or sport, he will come to the conclusion, which I myself reached long ago, that the real
    2004
    ideal is to abolish the Entertainments Duty altogether.
    If it is said that the cost of doing that is too high, I would say that we ought at least to make a start by abolishing it on all outdoor sports and pastimes. It is quite ridiculous to continue to draw a distinction between amateur association football and professional rugby football, between professional football and tennis or between amateur athletics and some other form of sport.
    The real reason why the Order Paper is cluttered up with 17 Amendments on this subject, nine of which we are discussing together now, and the reason why we have had this kind of argument every year since the war, is because once we start introducing a special selection and favouring one section of the community against another, it is inevitable that everybody will try to get some advantage from it or to avoid some disadvantage. That is the position we have reached today, and the time has long since arrived when we should either sweep the whole of Entertainments Duty away or remove it from a broad band, such as all outdoor sports and pastimes.
    The Chancellor commented unfavourably upon, and threw upon my right hon. Friend responsibility for, the present position in regard to Entertainments Duty, but I would remind him that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who, five years ago, reduced the rate of Entertainments Duty, and that was five years nearer to the end of a catastrophic war. One of the first things which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did on coming into office was to put the tax up. In other words, the price of this so-called "freedom" was an increase in the rate of Entertainments Duty, and since then, there have been further increases in other items, such as fares and petrol, so that, since we have had this wonderful new freedom created by the Tory Party, the whole cost of entertainment, including Entertainments Duty, has gone up and up. If he still entertains any hope of popularity at all, the Chancellor should redeem the present situation by removing the duty from all forms of outdoor sport and pastimes.
    I myself would not differentiate between professional Rugby football, tennis matches, Highland games or what have

    2005
    you. I think that, if we are to hold the position fairly and not draw moral or psychological distinctions about the effect of a boxing match on individuals, we must make a broad sweep and do away with it altogether. The Chancellor made no effort to deal with the matter in that way, nor, indeed, to deal with the suggestion made from his own side of the Committee, which is rather more surprising. I understand that certain hon. Members opposite, who dare not come out in support of these Amendments, because they would get into trouble with the Whips' Office, have suggested that there should be an investigation into the whole question of the Entertainments Duty.
    I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us better arguments than did the Chancellor for adopting this curious attitude of being able, last year, to take the duty off cricket matches and amateur athletics, and, this year, with a financial position almost exactly the same, not daring to do anything for these other pastimes. Secondly, will he tell us whether his Department will inquire, between now and the next year, into the whole question of Entertainments Duty, with a view to sweeping it away altogether?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams) jocularly referred to Scottish nationalism. There is no doubt that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was more likely than anything else to set the fiery crosses alight throughout Scotland.
    Since last year's Budget debate on the subject of football every Scottish Member of Parliament has been deluged from almost every Scottish football club with the full details of its financial position. We have sent the details to the Chancellor, because he promised that he would watch the position and see what happened. He has been given all the data, yet he came here today and, when talking about whether or not to make any change, blithely told us that all the statistics on which he based his reply came from the English League divisions.
    There is all the difference in the world between Scottish football and English football. We hear people talking about the wonderful English football clubs, but most of the clubs have Scottish managers or Scottish centreforwards.
    Mr. Follick: Some of them have a few Yugoslavs in, too.
    Mr. Ross: Attendance at Scottish First Division matches may average 8,000 on Saturdays. As to the Second Division games in Scotland, at the last two games played by Ayr United, attendances were 1,200 and 980, respectively. The Chancellor tells us that the ½d. per person will make all the difference in the world. The difference will be about £2 per week in a case like that. These are not small, unknown clubs, but First and Second Division clubs. Many of these clubs, who have had famous players, will go the way of many others. They will simply disappear. Many clubs which I knew as a boy and used to watch have gone. My hon. Friends who represent Dunbartonshire constituencies could not speak on this subject because of the position in which the local football club has been placed. During the whole of the past year it has been living from week to week, and it is now in a very serious position.
    We are sorry that the Chancellor did not see fit to quote a single Scottish figure to support his argument that he could not do anything more for football. Last year he did something for the great national sport of cricket, and he gloried in it. He now calls the step which he took with regard to cricket a slippery slope.
    Cricket means nothing at all to Scotland, but if he can forget altogether about whether cricket is professional or amateur and take it right out of the range of Entertainments Duty he can surely do the same for Highland games. There is no doubt that these games are unique. They are purely annual community functions. When we talk of the Highland games, I am quite sure that most hon. Members think we refer to those at Braemar. The Braemar Games are much publicised and popular. The amount taken in the car parks alone would probably pay for all the games in Scotland. But just as the Arsenal is not English football, nor the Rangers Scottish football, Braemar is not the Highland games.
    In speaking of the games, it is to the little places that we refer—places such as those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde). There is no doubt that many of these have disappeared. These

    2007
    games are contests between localities, and between local champions vying one with the other. To the areas concerned they matter far more than the entertainment value of cricket. I am quite sure that without very much intellectual or mental exertion the Chancellor could find a means of exempting them from Entertainments Duty.
    All the speeches today have made it perfectly plain that the Chancellor himself has introduced anomalies. In doing so he has introduced quite a lot of ill feeling. People think that the sport in which they are mainly interested has not been treated so well as others. As a matter of justice to all sportsmen and sports lovers, I hope that the Chancellor will think this matter over again.
    Mr. Charles Royle: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) in Ms reference to Rugby League football. The intervention of the Chancellor this evening has blown an icy blast over sportsmen generally, and certainly over hon. Members. I would join with my hon. Friends in expressing a sense of severe disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to do something for sport in general. I hope that as a result of the few speeches which have been delivered from these benches since the Chancellor sat down, his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will say that there have been second thoughts, even if only along the lines of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo.)
    I will be perfectly frank and say that in the case of many of our wealthier sports clubs there is not a very strong case for a reduction in Entertainments Duty. My hon. Friend's Amendment dealt exclusively with the poorer clubs, and in the course of his speech the Chancellor indicated to my hon. Friends that his case had been conclusively proven. Because of that I hope that before we finish with the Bill there may be second thoughts about this matter.
    To return to Rugby League football. This game is not quite exclusive to Lancashire and Yorkshire. It has penetrated into Cumberland and Westmorland as well as South Wales. People from Lancashire and Yorkshire are very concerned
    2008
    about this sport. There is a keen rivalry in many things between Lancashire and Yorkshire. When there is a challenge in any shape or form between these two counties they deeply recent the intervention of anybody else, but I can assure the Chancellor that we would welcome an intervention from Saffron Walden into Rugby League football circles in Lancashire and Yorkshire. We should certainly welcome that intervention if it were for the purpose of helping this sport.
    I want to make one or two brief points about it. This sport is greatly affected in January because of the frosty grounds inevitable after Christmas. Many matches have to be postponed, and that postponement results in mid-week matches and smaller gates. The clubs suffer considerably because of that, and I feel that if the Chancellor were to show that he was prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South it would benefit the Rugby League clubs, who would come within its scope and would afford them relief. I represent a constituency which has no soccer league team. For football entertainment we rely upon the Rugby League, and it needs encouragement and support.
    I would conclude by saying, as so many of my hon. Friends have said, that here is a British way of life deserving of the utmost consideration. Whatever was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) about professional sport and his criticism of people attending professional matches, we have to remember that it is part of our life. I believe it is a healthy part not only in the physical sense, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be doing a great service to a very large section of our population if he changed his mind about this matter.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope the Committee may now be prepared to consider coming to a decision on this matter. We have had a very full and extremely interesting debate during the course of which the claims of every sport have been very fairly and fully put. Indeed, there were times when I wondered whether my right hon. Friend might not be justified in imposing an Entertainments Duty on those who witnessed our proceedings in this Committee, because many speeches have been illumined with wit which has

    2009
    not in any degree diminished the sincerity of the case put by hon. Members but has made the debate infinitely more agreeable to listen to.
    On the other hand, we have been discussing this series of Amendments for many hours. Having sat through practically the whole of the discussion, I think I can say that no issue which could arise in this interesting matter has failed to be put and discussed. The arguments having been fully deployed, I wonder whether we are not reaching the stage at which, if we are unable to convince each other of our errors, we ought not to resort to the traditional methods by which these matters are decided in the Committee. I say that with great respect to the arguments which have been used and bearing in mind, as hon. Members must, that although they will do my right hon. Friend credit of agreeing that he always tries to manage the Finance Bill on the basis of the fullest possible discussion, none the less we are still only on the second Amendment to Clause 1 and the Committee has to deal with a Bill of moderately massive proportions.
    9.15 p.m.
    Perhaps I may seek to reply to one or two of the speeches. Some of them seemed to be more consistent with dealing with a measure in which Entertainments Duty was being imposed on sport for the first time than with the discussion of a duty which, for better or worse and at varying rates, has fallen on those sports since the year of grace, 1916, when, as my right hon. Friend reminded the Committee, a very distinguished Liberal statesman, Mr. Reginald McKenna, decided to impose them.
    When we are discussing a series of Amendments, the first of which—on which our debate hangs—being moved by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)—would abolish Entertainments Duty on sport altogether, it is material for the Committee to recall that what is proposed is the abolition of a system of taxation which has been continued through all the vicissitudes of our recent political life, by Governments of all political colours, since 1916. It is therefore for those who suggest this abolition to discharge the very heavy burden of satisfying us why, suddenly, in 1954, it has become wrong to impose taxation on activities which have been taxed since 1916.
    2010
    Having dealt with that point, we come to the quite different question of the rates of taxation applicable. These are raised by a certain number of Amendments which are being taken with the main Amendment, and here again some speeches seem to be more consistent with discussing a Clause raising the tax than a Clause which has the effect of lowering it. Naturally—and nobody understands it better than my right hon. Friend—the clubs and organisations concerned would like to see a larger reduction, but I know that hon. Members will give due weight to the fact that, in circumstances in which outside this field it has been possible to make only one other remission of taxation over the whole sphere of the Budget, my right hon. Friend has seen fit to recommend reductions of the rates of Entertainments Duty on sport.
    Those who have suggested that my right hon. Friend underrated the importance in our life of these wholesome forms of activity ought to give him credit for the fact that although, for reasons which he has explained more than once to the House and the Committee, it is not possible for him this year to recommend any drastic changes in taxation, he has nevertheless decided this year to give some slight easement of this burden. I think no one will underrate the degree of easement he has given, particularly to football. I hope the Committee will not mind if I address my main argument to football, because the main tenor of the majority of the speeches has related to football in different forms. Let me say, in reply to the hon. Member for Sunder-land, North (Mr. F. Willey), that anyone who has seen me trying to play cricket would not accuse me of any prejudice in favour of that game.
    On football, the proposals contained in the Clause will in fact give a relief of some £140,000 for Association football and a few thousand more for other forms of football. If one weighs the importance of that, I think that it is essential to weigh that amount, not against the gross turnover of the clubs, but against the net amount which remains to them at the end of the day or at the end of the year. All the argument which has been made from benches on both sides of the Committee as to the difficulties with which these clubs are faced are arguments which emphasise proportionately that the sums

    2011
    concerned will give quite helpful assistance to a considerable number of clubs. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members and people outside will appreciate the fact that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to recommend a reduction of this sort, even in the circumstances which I have been describing.
    Sir Richard Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how that £140,000 divides up as between First Division clubs and the rest, or is that too difficult?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that it would be impossible to do that because we should have to divide it among the individual clubs in accordance with the gates they draw, which vary considerably in accordance with their success or lack of success. I would remind the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) of the fact that my right hon. Friend pointed out that in the case of a club with a home gate of 10,000 the gain over the year would be about £500. If the hon. Baronet figures that out in proportion to those with bigger or smaller gates, it will give him some idea of the magnitude of the assistance given.
    With regard to the main Amendment, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) explained that he did not intend the main amendment to deal with racing in its various forms. He did not intend it to cover horses, dogs or speedway racing. I do not know whether on a strict interpretation of its terms the right hon. Gentleman is necessarily right, but we do not want to argue on a question of drafting.
    I do, however, recall that last year the right hon. Gentleman said—and I still believe it is true—
    "… that it was difficult to sustain permanently a distinction between racing—horse and dog racing, and the others—and football, cricket, and so on. I still think it is difficult to do so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 1997.]
    I am inclined to agree with him that it would be difficult to evoke permanently the distinction which he indicated to the Committee it would be desirable to make.
    I do not flatter myself that the considerations which I have endeavoured to put to the Committee will answer hon.
    2012
    Members opposite who have expressed themselves far more eloquently in a contrary sense. I hope that they will appreciate that the decision we came to on this matter was made after the fullest, most conscientious and careful consideration of the facts and figures, and that my right hon. Friend, in the circumstances of this year, has done the most that it is possible to do. In these circumstances, I hope that the Committee will either accept these views or indicate their dissent from them in the traditional manner by which this Committee comes to its decisions.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman verify the figures he has given before we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"? He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the saving to clubs with average gates of 10,000 would be something like £500 a season. We rather query that figure. The figure given to me, taking the average gates, which would be very good gates, of 25,000 for the season, would bring the saving over the country at about £600. I think this is rather an important point. If a Third Division side with, say, a 10,000 gate thinks it will save £500, and I said that it would need a 25,000 gate to save £600, there is need to get the figures accurate. I do not say I am right, but the figures have been given to me by the manager of a football club, and I am inclined to think that he has gone into them thoroughly and may be right.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: These figures are given after careful thought, and there are sources of information available to us which enable these things to be carefully calculated. There could be a difference between the hon. Member's figures and mine based upon the differences in admission charges. The Entertainments Duty and the degree of concession relate to the amount charged. The figure I gave was based upon the ordinary average of charges, and I gave it to the Committee as the best calculation that could be made. Clearly, with an average figure, some clubs will be above it and some below, but it is the best we can give and is based on careful inquiry by those qualified to make the inquiries and who have the statistics.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 250.

    Division No. 101.]

    AYES

    [9.27 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Hargreaves, A.

    Pannell, Charles

    Adams, Richard

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Albu, A. H.

    Hastings, S.

    Parker, J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

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

    Popplewell, E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Porter. G.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Baird, J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Holman, P.

    Prootor, W. T.

    Bence, C. R.

    Holmes, Horace

    Pryde, D. J.

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Benson, G,

    Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

    Rankin, John

    Bing, G H. C.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rhodes, H.

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Riohards, R.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Isaaos, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pantras, N.)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Janner, B.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Ross, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Royle, C.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jeger, Mrs Lena

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Short, E. W.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Champion, A. J.

    Keenan, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Chapman, W D

    Kenyon, C.

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

    Clunie. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Coldrick, W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Collick, P. H.

    Kinley, J

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lawson, G. M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Steele, T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Daines, P.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McGovrn, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Deer, G.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Dodds, N. N.

    MeLeavy, F.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

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

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thorton, E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Timmons, J.

    Edelman, M.

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

    Tomney, F.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Usborne, H. C.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mason, Roy

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Weitzman, D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Finch, H. J.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    West, D. G.

    Folliok, M.

    Monslow, W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Foot, M. M.

    Moody, A. S.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Forman, J. C.

    Morley, R.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

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

    Willey, F. T.

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Glanville, James

    Mulley, F. W.

    Willams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Gooch, E. G

    Murray, J. D.

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

    Grey, C. F.

    Nally, W.

    Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith S.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willis, E. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Grimond, J.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Oswald, T.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Hamilton, W. W.

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

    Yates, V. F.

    Hannan, W.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    NOES

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Odey, G. W.

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

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

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hay, John

    Osborne, C.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, R. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Heath, Edward

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bevins, P. R. (Toxteth)

    Holt, A. F.

    Powell, J. (Enoch)

    Birch, Nigel

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

    Black, C. W.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Bowen, E. R.

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

    Ramsden, J. E.

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

    Huloert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Kurd, A. R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hutchison, James (Scotttoun)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Ranton, D. L. M.

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

    Hylton-Fosttr, H. B. H.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robson-Brown, W.

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

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Redgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Carr, Robert

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Channon, H.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Russell, R. S.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W

    Cole, Norman

    Legge-Bourk", Maj. E. A. H.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Colegate, W. A.

    Legit, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Shepherd, William

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Lindsay, Martin

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Linstead, Sir H. N

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Snadden, W. McN.

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

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

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Speir, R. M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Low, A. R. W.

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Digby, s. Wingfield

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    McCorquodah, Rt. Hon. M. S

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Storey, S.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Doulas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Summers, G. S.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

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

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Macmrllan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bronrtoy)

    Teeling, W.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Fort, R.

    Marples, A. E.

    Tilney, John

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maude, Angus

    Turton, R. H.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Maudling, R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (HiHhead)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mollor, Sir John

    Wade, D. W.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Glover, D.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Godber, J. B.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Neave, Airey

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Gower, H. R.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnfam)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Wellwood, W.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Wills, G.

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Wilson. Geoffrey (Truro)

    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 5, at end, add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, football matches shall be excluded from the entertainments in respect of which entertainments duty is payable.—[Mr Dugdale.]
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes. 232; Noes, 250.

    Division No. 102.]

    AYES

    [9.37 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Adams, Richard

    Grey, C. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Albu, A. H.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Morley, R.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Hale, Leslie

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hamilton, W. W-

    Moyle, A.

    Baird, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Mulley, F. W

    Bartley, P.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Murray, J. D.

    Bellenger, Ri. Hon. F. J

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Nally, W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Hastings, S.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Benn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Benson, G.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Bing, G. H. C.

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

    Oswald, T.

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Padley, W. E.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Paget, R. T.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hobson, C. R.

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

    Boardman, H.

    Holman, P.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Holmes, Horace

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pannell, Charles

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hughes, Clerdwyn (Anglesey)

    Parker, J.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hynd, H. (Acorington)

    Popptewell, E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Porter, G.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, J. T (Westhoughton)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Janner, B.

    Pryda, D. J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. O. P. T.

    Pursey, Cmdr H

    Chapman, W. D

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rankin, John

    Clunie, J.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Reeves, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Collick, P. H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Rhodes, H.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Richards, R.

    Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Keenan, W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Kenyon, C.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    King, Dr. H. M

    Ross, William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Kinley, J.

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Delargy, H. J

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwisk)

    Short, E. W.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

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

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Logan D. G.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Edelman, M.

    MacColl, J. E.

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    McGhee, H. G

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGovern, J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Evans, stanley (Wednesbury)

    McLeavy, F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Ferny hough, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mainwarhig, W. H.

    Steele, T.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Follick, M.

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

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Stross, Dr. Barrett

    Forman, J. C.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N

    Mayhew, C. P

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Messer, Sir F

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Glanville, James

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    West, D. G.

    Willis, E. G.

    Thornton, E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Hoyton)

    Timmons, J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Tomney, F.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Willey, F. T.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Yates, V. F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Rev. Lrywelyn (Abertillery)

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

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

    NOES

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Glover, D.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

    Godber, J. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Astor, Han. J. J.

    Gomme-Dunean, Col A

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Maude, Angus

    Banks, Col. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maudling, R.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimond, J.

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

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Medlicott, Brig F.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hall, John (Wyoombe)

    Meller, Sir John

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

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

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Morrison, John (Sallsbury)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Neave, Airey

    Birch, Nigel

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nicholll, Harmar

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hay, John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Black, C. W.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Heath, Edward

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Bowen, E. R.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Odey, G W.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

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

    Holt, A. F.

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

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Osborne, C.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Page, R. G.

    Burden, F. F. A,

    Horobin, I. M.

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

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

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Carr, Robert

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A:

    Channon, H.

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Pitt, Miss E M.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (Earl Grinstead)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Clarke, Brig. Terenoe (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Cole, Norman

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

    Colegate, W. A

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Conant, Mai. R. J. E.

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Rayner, Brig. R

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Redmayne, M.

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

    Kaberry, D.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Crowder, Sir John Finchley)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruialip—Northwood)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

    Lindsay, Martin

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Linsead, Sir H. N.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Liewettyn, D. T.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

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

    Russell, R. S.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Schofield, Lt.-Co|. W.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Eden, J B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Scon-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Shepherd, William

    Finlay, Graeme

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Fort, R.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Speir, R. M.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

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

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    2020

    2021

    Stevans, G. P.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wall, P. H. B.

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

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Storey, S.

    Tilney, John

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Wellwood, W.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Turton, R. H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Summers, G. S.

    Vane, W. M, F.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Williams. Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Wills, Gerald

    Teeling, W.

    Wade, D. W.

    Wilson, Geoffray (Truro)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Mr. Robert Allan and Mr. Legh

    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 5, at end, add:
    (3) As from the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, in the case of any entertainment consisting of association football, rugby league football and boxing, the amount of entertainments duty payable in respect of any fixture shall be reduced by one hundred pounds
    in every case where the total receipts for admission to the fixture do not exceed two thousand pounds.—[Mr. Mikardo.]
    Question put, "That these words be there added."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 247.

    Division No. 103.]

    AYES

    [9.48 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Kinley, j.

    Adams, Richard

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Albu, A. H.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Follick, M.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Foot, M. M.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Baoon, Miss Alice

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Logan, D. G.

    Baird, J.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N.

    McGhee, H, G.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McGovern, J.

    Bence, C. R.

    Glanville, James

    McInnes, J.

    Bernn, Hon. Wedgwood

    Gooch, E. G.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Benson, G.

    Grey, C. F.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grimcnd, J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Boardman, H.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Ghenvil (Colee Valley)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Bewen, E. R.

    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hannan, W.

    Mason, Roy

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hastings, S.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mitohison, G. R.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Monslow, W.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Moody, A. S.

    Butlet, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Morley, R.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Hobson, C. R

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Holman, P.

    Mort, D. L.

    Champion, A. J.

    Holmes, Horaoe

    Moyle, A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Holt, A. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Clunie. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Murray, J. D.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hudson, James (Eating, N.)

    Nally, W.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, H. (Acerington)

    Oswald, T.

    Crostand, C. A. R.

    Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

    Padley, W. E.

    CuMen, Mrs. A.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paget, R. T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

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

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Janner, B.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

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

    Pannell, Charles

    Deer, G.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena

    Parker, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Steehford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Popplewell, E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Porter, G.

    Edelman, M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brifhouse)

    Keenan, W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Kenyon, C.

    Prootor, W. T.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

    Pryde, D. J.

    Evans, Edward (Lowesloft)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Rankin, John

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Reeves, J.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Raid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Sparks, J. A.

    West, D. G.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Steele, T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Rhodes, H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Richards, R.

    Stauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Wigg, George

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    Willey, F. T.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Ross, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertiller)

    Royle, C.

    Taylor Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

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

    Short, E. W.

    Thornton, E.

    Willis, E. G.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Timmons, J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Sirverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Tonney, F.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Usborne, H. C.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)

    Viant, S. P.

    Yates, V. F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Weitzman, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    NOES

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

    Duthie, W S.

    Langford-Hott, J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathooat (Tiverton)

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lindsay, Martin

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

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Fort, R.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambo & Lonsdale)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Longden, Gilbert

    Barlow, Sir John

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

    Low, A. R. W.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Galhraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bell, Philip (Boltcn, E.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Glover, D.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Godber, J. B.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Birch, Nigel

    Gower, H. R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Black, C. W.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Harden, J. R. E.

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

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Harris, Frederio (Croydtm, N.)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Harvie-Wall, Sir George

    Marples, A. E.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Hay, John

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maude, Angus

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Heath, Edward

    Maudling, R.

    Bulcher, Sir Herbert

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maydon, Lt -Comdr. S. L. C

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

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Medlicolt, Brig. F.

    Carr, Robert

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Channon, H.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Churohill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Mott-Radciyffe, C. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Clarke. Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hornsby-Smilh, Miss M. P.

    Neave, Airey

    Cole, Norman

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Colegate, W. A.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

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

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

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

    Odey, G. W.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hutchison, James (Scolstoun)

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

    Crowder, Sr John (Finchley)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Jennings, Sir Roland

    Osborne, C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Johnson, Erio (Biackley)

    Page, R. G.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Johnson, Howard (Kunptown)

    Perkins, Sir Robert

    Donner, Sir P. W.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcoim

    Kerby, Capl. H. B.

    Piekthorn, K. W. M

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    2024

    2025

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Shepherd, William

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hm. Peter (Monmouth)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N-

    Profumo, J. D.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Tilney, John

    Raifces, Sir Victor

    Snadden, M. McN.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Turton, R. H.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Redmayne, M.

    Spier, R. M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Remnant, Hon. p.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wakefielt, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

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

    Wall, P. H. B.

    Roberts, Peter (Heetay)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Storey, S.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Warkinson, H. A.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Wellwood, W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Summers, G. S.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Sutcliffe, Sir Harold

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)

    Russeli, R. S.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Teeling, W.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Scott, R. Donald

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Major Conant and Mr. Wills

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. Crosland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to add:
    (3) As from the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, no entertainments duty shall be payable in respect of admissions to a horticultural show merely by reason of the fact that it includes sports, games, displays or any other entertainments.
    We now enter a very much more limited sphere than we have been discussing so far. The Chancellor has declined to make any of the major concessions sought in the earlier debate, and the Amendment which I now move is designed to extract from him a concession of a more minor character.
    The matter of horticultural shows is of importance and interest to hon. Members partly because it concerns all hon. Members who sit for rural constituencies and partly because it has always been recognised as a very difficult borderline case.
    I wonder whether it was in the minds of those who conceived the duty and the minds of those who have since carried it on that it should be imposed not merely on amusements, but also on such things as horticultural shows. The duty was first introduced in 1916 as a war-time measure, then being called a tax on amusements. It was then conceived that it would apply virtually only to theatres, cinemas and sports.
    Neither the Chancellor nor the Financial Secretary of that time gave any hint that it would ever apply to horticultural and agricultural shows, which, after all, cannot be put in the same category of amusements as a sport or the cinema. Most hon. Members representing agri-
    2026
    cultural areas would agree that the horticultural show is partly an educational occasion, partly a social occasion and partly an occasion for encouraging higher production. I do not think that these three elements taken together can possibly amount to what any ordinary person would describe as an amusement.
    It has always been recognised that something which is not 100 per cent, amusement or entertainment but is a mixture of entertainment plus something else is a borderline case. It certainly has not been the main object that Entertainments Duty should fall upon mixed cases of this character. Even in the first year in which the Entertainments Duty was introduced, this sort of thing was raised with the Chancellor of the day, and one hon. Member raised the question whether tea gardens would have to pay the duty, and he instanced that as a good example. The Fiancial Secretary at that time gave an assurance that tea gardens would not attract the tax.
    10.0 p.m.
    The first thing I should like to ask the Financial Secretary is whether this assurance given when the tax was first introduced still holds good. If it is the case that Entertainments Duty is not paid by tea gardens or public parks, what possible ground is there for exempting this kind of occasion from the duty and yet taxing horticultural shows?
    This question of horticultural shows was raised in 1935, when the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain amended the Entertainments Duty in a radical manner. An hon. Member raised the question of floral fetes, and the Financial Secretary of that

    2027
    time, Mr. Duff Cooper, replied that the majority of these fetes would be outside the tax. He said that 4,000 horticultural fetes were outside the tax and that only a very small minority paid it. The next question is whether it is still the case today that the great majority of these shows do not pay the tax, or whether the position which obtained in 1935 has been changed and that almost all of them do attract tax.
    The matter was raised again by hon. Members opposite when they were in Opposition in 1946, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) introduced another tax, and when an Amendment similar to this one was moved. The right hon. Gentleman who was then Solicitor-General replied that, although horticultural shows attracted tax under the Finance Act, nevertheless, they were exempt under the Income Tax Act, 1924. The right hon. Gentleman was pressed on this point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland promised to give a further reply on Report, which I regret he did not do, because I can find no report of it.
    In 1952, the tax on horticultural shows was actually raised through the Budget changes of that year. As an incidental effect of those changes, the tax on horticultural shows went up, and a lot of hon. Members must have found that this had come as a shock in their constituencies, and that these events had to pay more in 1952 than they had done in 1951. Certainly, in my own constituency, it was a very disagreeable shock to the organisers of a number of these shows.
    Perhaps the Financial Secretary can say, first of all, what is the exact legal position today. Is it quite clear that these shows all attract tax if they have any kind of entertainment or amusement in addition to the actual show? If they do attract tax, will he also tell us whether the great majority of them have received exemption as in 1936, or whether they must pay the tax? Will he tell the Committee, further, what would be the cost of exempting them altogether from Entertainments Duty?
    I would urge upon the Government that, although this may sound a minor matter, it is of some importance in rural areas, and certainly in my own constitu-
    2028
    ency, where, at Kingswood, we have a horticultural show which is one of the most famous in the West of England. Almost every village runs a show of this kind, which is the ideal opportunity for people to come together. It is an excellent and entirely innocuous social occasion, which could not be described as amusement in the same sense in which football or cricket can be. It has an excellent effect on food production, and has a perfectly obvious social value. I do not think that hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee would disagree with that.
    In view of the very small amount of money which I imagine to be involved in this proposal I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, after resisting our main Amendment on this Clause, will be more sympathetic towards this very minor reform.
    Mr. Nabarro: I sit for a constituency which, although its name is generally associated with the carpet industry, embraces within its bounds one of the richest horticultural areas of England, namely, the Teme Valley of Worcestershire and the northern end of the Vale of Evesham. Every year, we have a large number of horticultural shows, and here the difficulties which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) referred to occur every year with monotonous regularity. Prosecutions are threatened by the Customs and Excise regularly because of the uncertainty there is about the present state of the law.
    Most horticultural shows have, also, a pony show, sheepdog trial, dog show or livestock show contributory to the main theme of fruit and flowers. Evidently, the Customs and Excise take the view that immediately a sideshow of that description is introduced into an enterprise that has been publicised as a horticultural show, the whole of the display and all the money taken at the gate become liable for the payment of Entertainments Duty.
    I want to tell the Committee, very shortly, about an incident which occurred in my constituency a couple of years ago, and which exemplifies the uncertainty of the present state of the law. A flower show was organised at a well-known village in West Worcestershire three years ago. It included a children's pony display. It was assumed that Entertainments Duty would not be payable on the sums

    2029
    collected at the gate, which, incidentally, were in support of a well-known local charity.
    An inspector from Worcester arrived, a gentleman from the Customs and Excise, who stated that because 30 or 40 motor cars had been grouped around the ropes of the enclosure of the children's pony show that became a display and that, under the appropriate Finance Act, the whole of the gate money taken at this advertised horticultural or flower show became liable to Entertainments Duty. The local people were so incensed that they threatened to put the inspector into the pond which adjoined the field. Whether that displayed the proper spirit I am not privileged to say. I was present at the show, but I was in no way related to its organisation. It showed that there is considerable uncertainty as to the state of the law in this regard.
    In defence of the Chancellor and his predecessors, I confess that I know of no means whatever of defining within the statute what a horticultural show is. If one attempted to say that, because the bulk of the exhibits comprise flowers, fruit, hops, and so on, a horticultural show should be exempted from Entertainments Duty and yet should be allowed to have a pony competition, a sheep dog trial or something of that kind, it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for organisers of such shows to disguise what was really a pony show as a horticultural show merely by adding a fruit, flower and hops display tent to the pony show. The two are so closely associated in the countryside that it is extraordinarily difficult to define the difference between them.
    This all adds up to the plea which I made earlier this afternoon. The whole structure of Entertainments Duty has today reached a crazy condition. We should scrap the whole lot and reimburse the Revenue by a suitable and commensurate increase in the football pools betting duty.
    Mr. Tom Brown: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has amused us by relating an incident at a horticultural show. It was not very nice to threaten a Customs officer who was trying to do his duty. If the hon. Member is desirous of preventing a similar occurrence all he and his hon. Friends need do is to vote with us
    2030
    for the Amendment. That would be the better way.
    The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) is quite right in saying that horticultural shows have become part of our national and communal life. That remark applies not only to the countryside, but to many of our mining villages. Many miners cannot understand why Entertainments Duty should be levied on the money paid by the public who wish to see exhibits grown by miner horticulturists. This duty has grown. I do not blame the Financial Secretary, but the Treasury has gone blundering along trying to get a few coppers from sources from which they are not entitled to receive them.
    As one who is interested in horticulture and who tries to stimulate and inspire it I want to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South. I shall not go over the history which he briefly recorded, but even learned legal luminaries find it extremely difficult to define whether or not a horticultural show should be charged Entertainments Duty. I beg the Financial Secretary to examine the position very carefully. Speaking as a president of one or two horticultural societies, I think that acceptance of the Amendment would give the organisers and promoters of these shows a feeling that they are not forgotten by the Government. Though I have tried to analyse it in every conceivable way I still cannot understand why Entertainments Duty should be paid by people who go to see horticultural exhibits.
    10.15 p.m.
    Nobody can deny the fact that many of these horticultural shows attract a large number of people because they are anxious to see what can be done and many of the popular shows now in existence have developed from small beginnings. They have not developed because they have made a profit every year; they have not made profits, but there are to be found in this country men and women prepared to made a sacrifice so that they may reveal to the public what can be done in the way of growing flowers and vegetables.
    I have always believe that the growing of flowers and vegetables has an educational value, and it is because of that educational value that we are asking the

    2031
    Chancellor to give consideration to this modest Amendment. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South said that the amount involved is infinitesimal. I know that the argument will 'be advanced from the other side that if we keep making concessions here and there we shall have to turn our attention to new taxation. I assure the Financial Secretary that the amount he will lose here is small in comparison with the amount of good he will do in horticultural circles.
    Who can deny the great joy and happiness that is created by the Shrewsbury Floral Fete, and the Chelsea, South-port, Altrincham and Worcester flower shows? All these have grown up in years gone by despite the fact that this duty has been levied upon them. While it has created a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction people still go on, and go on they will if the Financial Secretary and the Treasury do not agree to this Amendment. A love for horticulture is deeply rooted in their hearts and souls.
    At the same time, I firmly believe that if the Treasury will agree to this modest request it will give inspiration and encouragement and will be an incentive for people to continue growing beautiful flowers and vegetables so that this country can see what can be accomplished in both of those directions and what can be produced by the land.
    These people make sacrifices. It is not a money-making undertaking with them. It is quite true that there are some commercial enterprises connected with horticulture, but in the main the ordinary miner, steel worker and the workers in the industrial areas generally are as keen on horticulture just for the pleasure it gives as are any of the experts who are found in Kew Gardens or in the Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh. It is for such people that I am supporting this Amendment so that the growing of flowers and vegetables will continue to flourish.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) and to express the hope that the Chancellor will seriously consider this matter. The whole thing requires clarification. There are a number of enterprises of this type which exist mainly for amusement. I am thinking
    2032
    of the carnivals which are organised from time to time in the mining towns and villages or in the agricultural areas. Here one could hardly object to the tax collector taking a portion of the proceeds.
    On the other hand, there is the kind of case to which my hon. Friend referred, as did the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), where amusement is by no means the main purpose and is, in fact, incidental. The main purpose is horticultural and, of course, agricultural. I am sorry that the word "agricultural" has not been introduced here, for that is an important aspect, perhaps more important than any other; but I do not want to cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who is an expert on horticulture.
    Mr. T. Brown: A novice.
    Mr. Price: Well, my hon. Friend speaks as an expert. I know more of the agricultural side of the problem. There are many shows, both horticultural and agricultural, the object of which is mainly educational. Farmers and smallholders attend the shows to see the latest machinery being exhibited there in order that they may increase their output and improve their methods of cultivation. They go to see the magnificent exhibits of the Minister of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission or some such body as I.C.I., which is concerned with the improvement of agriculture. No doubt there is a profit motive attached, but nevertheless these exhibitions are also educational.
    There are side shows which have an amusement aspect and, for instance, a polo match or horse jumping. I do not think the latter are entirely for amusement. The horse jumping shows, like flat racing and steeplechasing, do a great deal to improve the type of our thoroughbreds and hunters, which is something which I, at least, think ought to be encouraged. Our horses are the finest in the world and are exported. One sees institutions and enterprises, some mainly amusement and others mainly educational, with all grades in between the two.
    The Treasury ought not to put everybody on a Procrustean bed and take so much from all of them. They should see whether they cannot impose taxes a little more scientifically, taxing where it is a

    2033
    question of amusement and not taxing those shows where amusement plays either no part or very little part. In mining and agricultural villages—I have both in my constituency—these shows play a very big part, and I hope the Chancellor will look into this problem again most carefully to see whether he cannot do something to meet this request.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Judging from one or two speeches, there is some misunderstanding in the Committee about the present position, and it might be of help if I endeavoured to reply to one or two of the specific questions put by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland).
    With your permission, Mr. Hoy, I will first seek to answer a question which, I am bound to say, seemed to have nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member was permitted to ask it and perhaps you would permit me, in courtesy, to reply. He asked what was the position with respect to tea gardens with a croquet lawn attached, and he wanted to know whether that agreeable mixture was subjected to the rigours of Entertainments Duty. I am advised that it is not, because I understand that in these cases the persons concerned play croquet themselves and the amusement, if any, is therefore given by themselves. The question of Entertainments Duty does not arise nor, I understand, has it ever arisen. I am grateful to you, Mr. Hoy, for turning a blind eye to a point which I think is not strictly relevant to this Amendment.
    May I seek to deal with the present position upon which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked me specific questions, which I will endeavour to answer. The present position in respect of horticultural shows and—in reply to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price)—agricultural shows is largely governed by Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1923, under which exemption from Entertainments Duty is given in the case of those exhibitions which are provided by a society not conducted or established for profit.
    I understand that provision covers the greater part of the flower shows, if I may use the less technical term, with which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South was concerned, and also the pure agricultural shows in which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West was interested. This provision for exemption
    2034
    is fairly broad, and the exemption given under the Act of 1923 is not forfeited even if there is a band providing music or an exhibition of work or displays of skill by children.
    As I understand it, the existing position is that the great bulk of these shows are covered. Where they do not get exemption in that way, some others will get exemption by the proposals, with which the Committee will be familiar, which govern entertainments given for charitable or philanthropic purposes. As a result, the great majority of these shows are exempt.
    The difficulty arises in quite a few cases of the type which appears to have given so much amusement and pleasure to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). That is the type of case where there is a flower show which has attached to it every kind of entertainment—musical displays, horse jumping, riding and the like. In that case, where there is a flower show and there is also another substantial element, the Act of 1923 does not operate to give exemption. I have no doubt that that is the type of case which my hon. Friend had in mind. These types of cases are not the type of show which I think particularly concerned the mover of the Amendment. Although they are limited in number, they seem to be very different from the flower shows to which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) referred. I was very glad that he took part in this debate, and I certainly hope that he shows his orchids with great success this year.
    The suggestion in this Amendment would, of course, go very far, as hon. Members will see if they look at its terms. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South asked what would be the cost. Its direct cost, with things standing as they are, would be only a matter of a few thousand pounds, but the trouble would undoubtedly be that it would open the door very easily to a means of avoiding duty for a whole variety of functions. If, for example, there was a race meeting with a flower show attached to it, the hon. Member's Amendment would confer exemption upon the race meeting.
    I hesitate to suggest that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South would install a little flower show on Epsom Downs on Derby day, but I am not at all sure under his Amend-

    2035
    ment what the legal position of the Derby itself would be. Although I know that the hon. Member is trying to tackle seriously the case where there is a flower show and some entertainment, the difficulty arises when he tries to propose a remedy of this sort.
    10.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster pointed out that difficulties of interpretation can arise under the existing law in marginal cases. Of course they can, but I suggest that those difficulties would be multiplied if we adopted a provision such as this where a flower show which included sports, games, displays or any other entertainments was entitled to exemption from duty. I think that that really would multiply the difficulties with which we are concerned. We are concerned actually with very few. The ordinary proper flower show does get exemption. The hon. Member for Ince referred to the Chelsea Flower Show and rather suggested that that was subjected to duty. I understand that it is not being a complete flower show without extraneous additions, and that is the sort of case in which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is interested.
    Mr. T. Brown: I only mentioned the Chelsea Flower Show as an event which had grown up from a very small beginning to its present size. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they can get exemptions, but why should they be troubled with making application for exemptions when the tax ought to be swept away?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The difficulty, as I was trying to explain, is that if we sweep away the tax in this way by allowing exemption where there is not merely a flower show to which exemption has very largely been given by the Act of 1923, but a flower show plus these various other things, we allow all sorts of things which have nothing to do with flower shows to secure exemption by the back door, or else we open the door to far more marginal and difficult cases than could possibly exist under the present law. I do not say that no difficulties exist. There are marginal cases in this as in all other provisions, but I do not think those marginal cases are best resolved by attempting to throw Customs officers into the pond, and I am bound to say that the
    2036
    physique of Customs officers is such that the hon. Member might find it a little risky if he attempted it.
    Of course, if any real difficulty has arisen in a particular case which my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member cares to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend or myself, we should be happy to look at it. I am not saying that there may not be individual cases of difficulty, but I must advise the Committee that this proposal, whose intentions I hope the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South will allow me to say I recognise as fully admirable, would cause great confusion, would do little good to flower shows and would give extraneous aid to all sorts of performances which the hon. Member has no desire to benefit.
    Mr. Crosland: It seems to me that we are all agreed that this is an important matter. It is quite true that this Amendment was loosely worded, but we are all clear on what we have in mind. Since the cost is only a few thousand pounds, I am wondering if there is any possibility between now and the Report stage of the Financial Secretary being able to find a form of words which would cover what we have in mind, and thus accomplish at negligible cost a considerable social purpose.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like to respond to that appeal so agreeably put by the hon. Gentleman, but I should be misleading the Committee if I indicated that I thought such a thing were possible. We are dealing with a well tried statutory provision—Section 11 of the Act of 1923—and although it has not always worked perfectly, and although I should like to look at any case where difficulty has arisen, I should be misleading the Committee if I suggested that anything on those lines could be found. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when he put this Amendment down we gave it the careful attention which we give to all Amendments, and we came to the conclusion that there was nothing to be done in this direction. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me ungracious if I say that I see some difficulty in responding to his request.
    Amendment negatived.
    To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Studholme.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 12 th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1303–1305.]

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING REGULATIONS
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Henry Brooke: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations, 1954 (S.I., 1954, No. 370), dated 22nd March, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th March, be annulled.
I have been waiting for some time like an anxious pedestrian to see whether the heavy traffic of Government business would pause, and I want to start my remarks by expressing my gratitude to the Government for having so courteously pulled up to enable me to step off on to the zebra crossing. My first reason for initiating this debate is because it seems to me of vital importance that these Regulations should not come into force without one word about them, either by way of discussion, explanation or justification being said in this House.
The House will recognise that I use the word "vital" intentionally, because it will be of vital importance to old Mrs. Jones if she is out on a zebra crossing on 1st July and fails to realise that because of some paragraph in these Regulations the crossing has lost its legal status and the protection she has been enjoying for the past three years does not remain unchanged.
I am not at all sure that everything in the Regulations will commend itself to public opinion. I am quite sure that much that is contained in them is not yet understood by the public, and for this reason I want to impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a considerable task ahead of them to justify what the Regulations contain, and, having justified them to public opinion if they can, to explain and publicise them sufficiently so that in the few weeks before 1st July all the millions
2038
of people in our cities and towns who use the crossings will understand precisely what their rights are under the new Regulations.
Time is short this evening. This Prayer is governed by the new Sessional Order, and the debate must end by 11.30, so I feel sure that the House will forgive me if I compress my remarks. I will select one illustration to explain what I have been saying, but I know my hon. Friends will be ready to cite others from different parts of the Regulations, which, for reasons of time, I will not attempt to summarise in full to the House.
If the Regulations come into force on 1st July, from that date onwards a zebra crossing will lose its legal status if two beacons are not lit and flashing, by day as well as by night. I am perfectly certain that the vast majority of people do not realise that. To judge by my conversations with Members of the House, few of them are yet seized of it, although this is the last of the 40 days on which the Regulations lie upon the Table.
Old Mrs. Jones, to whom I referred, always uses that zebra crossing to get over to the shops every day. She is well accustomed to the idea that, provided she is on the stripes, the traffic will have to pull up for her. When the new Regulations come into force, her position will be that, standing on the crossing, she has no protection whatever unless she has made quite sure that the two beacons are lit and flashing. However bright the day, however glaring the sunlight, she will have to be careful to make certain of that. Otherwise, it will be a good defence on the part of any motorist that one of the beacons was out and so, under the Regulations, he was under no obligation to observe the crossing.
Mr. F. Blackburn: Is it not the fact that the beacons must merely be illuminated, and not necessarily flashing?
Mr. Brooke: I was abbreviating my remarks. It is possible for the Minister to authorise continuous illumination, although flashing is to be the normal practice.
The Ministry has issued Circular 701, in which the Minister's reasons for the

2039
Regulations are given. The circular says:
"The Minister is now satisfied that the flashing beacons have proved an effective means of indicating to drivers the presence of a crossing, both by night and often by daylight as well … He thinks that it would be unfair to drivers and dangerous to pedestrians to allow crossings to keep their legal status if for any reason the beacons were not lit."
Those are the Minister's reasons, and we should pause for a moment to examine them.
Common sense might well say that the effect of the Regulations would be dangerous to pedestrians—more dangerous than the alternative which my right hon. Friend deprecates, that a crossing should retain its legal status even though one of the beacons may be out. After all, this means that from 1st July onwards, if something has run into one of the beacons and it is not functioning, if for any reason of electrical failure the lamp is not lighting, if there should be an interruption in the power supply over the area, the zebra crossings will lose their function. This is a considerable change from the arrangements to which the whole country has become accustomed in the last three years.
In October, 1952, the Minister issued a circular foreshadowing his intentions about the necessity for the beacons to be illuminated and for the crossings to lose their legal status after a certain date if two beacons were not lit. The local authority of the borough which I represent in Parliament protested at once against the implications of that circular. It was a protest on behalf of ordinary pedestrians. The council was not convinced that this was the right solution, nor that it would be conducive to road safety if the zebra crossing was not to be a zebra crossing whenever one light was out.
The Ministry wrote in reply on 25th November, 1952, that the point raised by the council would be given careful consideration before the Regulations were made, and that the Ministry would consult the associations of local authorities before making the new Regulations. But, whoever the Minister may have consulted, I cannot find any trace of his having consulted since that date the Standing Joint Committee of Metropolitan Borough Councils, which, in the case of London,
2040
are the authorities responsible for the maintenance of zebra crossings and, therefore, most interested in the contribution that can be made by the crossings to: road safety.
Many of us in the London area took it for granted that there would be further consultation before these Regulations were issued. It seems most desirable that if the Minister can prove to the House that the solutions put forward in these Regulations are the best ones, then he should carry with him, not only this House, but also local authorities all over the country; it is they who have an exceedingly important part to play in road safety, and it will depend very largely on their good will, helpfulness, and cooperation if zebra crossings under the new system are to make the contribution to road safety which we all so very much desire.
I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend and, through him, to his right hon. Friend the Minister, that I am raising the subject tonight in no hostile nor militant spirit. I want to co-operate with his Department in every way possible to help to improve road safety, and, therefore, I do not take it as a waste of time for us to spend this hour in trying to decide if these Regulations are the correct ones, or in pleading with him not to bring them into force unless he has made quite sure between now and 1st July that they commend themselves to public opinion and, what is equally important, that they are understood by the public.
10.48 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), I support this Prayer in no hostile spirit. I do so because I am convinced that zebra crossings, and the Regulations governing them, are, and will continue to be, of benefit to road safety. It is my one anxiety that the rules of conduct to be laid down for the use of pedestrian crossings shall result in the considered and proper use of them by both pedestrians and motorists. As our experience of the use of these crossings increases, so they can be made safer still; so they can become of even greater value in their contribution to road safety.

2041
My primary motive in supporting the Prayer is to urge upon the Minister the need to evolve from these Regulations some simple rules of conduct for pedestrians and motorists, and further to urge him to introduce these Regulations, not merely by surreptitiously slipping them on the Table of this House, but in all the glare of publicity so that the public will be well educated in the knowledge of them. Personal explanation and appeal by the Minister on the radio and television would do immense good.
I turn to the Regulations themselves. After 3rd July, when they are to come into force, we shall have at least two, probably three and, possibly, four different types of crossing. First, there will be those indicated by two lines of studs and with no stripes and no beacons. Those, I understand, are to be found where there are traffic lights or where a policeman is normally on duty for 20 hours or more a week. On those crossings the pedestrian is to have no precedence under these Regulations, and the only obligations I can find for the pedestrian or motorist is Regulation 5, under which the motorist must not stop on the crossing, and Regulation 8, under which the pedestrian must not remain there for a longer period than is necessary for him to cross.
Apparently, the intention is to demote the present occasional police-controlled crossings to the minor category of the two lines of studs. That is all right when the police are on duty there, but the pedestrian protection has gone for the remainder of the day. I urge the Minister not to remove the stripes. He will still be left with the expense of the policeman for part of the day, but the pedestrian will be deprived of the protection on the crossing for the rest of the day. In general, the installation of press button signals is perhaps even more preferable, saving the cost of a policeman and still giving the pedestrian protection when the policeman is not there and also not causing inconvenience to the motorist during slack periods.
That is the first class of crossing under these Regulations. The second is those which are fully marked with two lines of studs, stripes and beacons and for the time being controlled by a policeman. As I read the Regulations, if they are for the time being controlled by a police-
2042
man, whether normally controlled or not, it is as if the stripes and beacons were not there, and it is a crossing theoretically with only two lines of studs.
I quite appreciate the reason for these Regulations. If the Minister did not have to put them into formal language, he could say, "You must not rely on the stripes if there is a policeman or traffic lights." But I think he has gone a little further in these Regulations. It is said here in effect, "So that you shall not rely on the zebras, in such circumstances I shall remove the stripes." But I am not quite clear in what cases the stripes are to be physically removed and in what cases they are to be imaginatively removed.
Then we come to the third class of crossing, the crossings which are fully marked with two lines of studs, stripes and beacons, but which are not for the time being controlled by a policeman. That is the zebra crossing as we know it at present. It is as we know it now, but in future under these Regulations it will be with the proviso that it must not normally be controlled by a policeman for 20 hours or more a week. Otherwise, it ceases to have the legal characteristics of a zebra crossing, although it still has those physical characteristics.
I interpose a question to the Minister. Is it intended that at midnight on 30th June all zebra crossings normally controlled by a policeman for 20 hours or more a week will be rather like Cinderella at the ball and immediately lose their finery of stripes and beacons? We shall, at least for some time, have another category of crossing, namely, the fully marked zebra crossing which is normally controlled by a policeman for 20 hours or more weekly, but is not so controlled at the time the pedestrian wants to cross. Under these Regulations, although it will be marked as a zebra crossing it will not be one from the point of view of protection of pedestrians. The Regulations then will, I think, defeat their object, because that type of crossing will be a snare and delusion to the pedestrian.
If any crossing which is controlled for 20 hours a week is left marked by the stripes and the beacons, the pedestrian will be in a dilemma. Before crossing the road, I presume that the pedestrian, perhaps the Mrs. Jones of whom my hon.

2043
Friend the Member for Hampstead spoke, will have to inquire whether the crossing is normally controlled for 2 hours, 21 minutes, 215/7 seconds daily. If the answer is "yes," Mrs. Jones will have no protection on that crossing.
This is making things rather difficult for the pedestrian. On this fourth type of crossing, if a policeman does normally control the traffic for just less than 3 hours daily, the pedestrian will have no protection, although there may be the stripes and the beacons. Those stripes and beacons will mean nothing. They are expunged in legal theory. We ought not to be providing only for those who have legal minds like Lord Chancellors or mathematical minds like Einstein. These Regulations will be providing for the safety of road users ranging from the toddling to the tottering. We must make them as comprehensible as possible.
I would ask the Minister whether there is evidence to show that accidents have resulted from pedestrians using zebra crossings when a policeman has signalled to the traffic to proceed. We ought to be told whether pedestrians ignoring signals have become such a danger that some action has to be taken. If there is evidence that it has become such a dangerous practice, does the Minister think the right solution is to deprive pedestrians of the protection of all crossings at which a policeman is occasionally on duty, whether he is on duty at the time the pedestrian wishes to cross, or is not on duty? If a policeman has to be on duty at certain times, surely that implies that the crossing is used fairly frequently at other times of the day. Simply because it is controlled at the rush hour, it ought not to be deprived of its status for the rest of the day. If the flaunting of policemen's signals has become such a danger, and if removal of the crossing as a pedestrian crossing is to be the solution of the problem, will the Minister say how many crossings will become unprotected by virtue of these Regulations, and what proportion the number bears to the total of crossings in the country?
When zebra crossings were introduced two-thirds of all crossings were removed, and these Regulations seem likely to lead to a further whittling down. Is not the press button the better solution? It saves the time and expense of policemen, it
2044
relieves motorists of inconvenience when there are not many pedestrians about, and it gives the pedestrian protection when it is needed.
I have every sympathy with the Minister's intention here. It is very wrong that, regardless of the policeman's signals, the motorist should be confronted by pedestrians. It is also wrong that the pedestrians should be induced by the stripes on the crossing when they should have regard to the signals. Nevertheless, the Minister's solution will not work unless it is simple and is fully explained in the Press, and on the radio and television to the schools, the old people's clubs and to everyone. What plans has the Minister for publicising these Regulations so as to make sure that they wit work and bring the hoped-for benefits?
11.1 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I take a much more militant, if not more hostile, attitude to these Regulations than either the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) or the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Were any argument needed to show the difficulties of this subject, the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby provided it. How on earth will it be possible for the Minister of Transport, or his Parliamentary Secretary, to explain in simple language the incredible complexities caused by having to add one Regulation to another and indulge in a series of distinctions, additions and subtractions, in relation to a safety system which people have been led to believe has been operating successfully for three years or more?
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the accident statistics for 1953 show that of all accidents involving pedestrians 5.3 per cent, occurred at zebra crossings. He is now engaged, as a result of Press criticisms and Parliamentary Questions, in investigations to discover whether these crossings are serving any useful purpose at all. At the moment there are some 300 urban authorities which have not yet introduced these crossings. They will heave a sigh of relief when they read of the difficulties facing those authorities which have.
The hon. Member for Crosby envisaged the grim possibility of three or

2045
four different types of crossings, their nature altering according to the time of day, whether or not a policeman was there, and whether or not the beacon was flashing. The fond hope of the Minister of Transport that pedestrians would be given a feeling of security on seeing the crossings is not likely to be realised when these new Regulations are put into effect.
It has been found hitherto that zebra crossings are not working satisfactorily. Now we have to have studs on both sides of the road surfaces to guarantee a greater degree of immunity. In some cases the Minister is going to indicate that black and white strips are not required at all, in other cases they are to be altered in size, some larger or wider, some smaller or narrower, and now we are to consider the possibility of zebra crossings ceasing to exist at all merely because of a breakdown in the lights. Vast sums have already been expended on existing installations and, if these further suggestions are to be adopted, then more substantial sums will be required.
Time does not permit me to develop the argument as much as I should like, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows that in Dundee, where they have no zebra crossings at all, the accident rate is lower than that which prevails in towns of comparable size. It seems to me that the case for zebra crossings has not been made out.
Is the Minister able to provide figures to show that in the 300 urban areas where zebra crossings have not been installed the accident rate to pedestrians is larger than in other parts where they are, If not, then the case for these Regulations has not been made out.
I want to acknowledge the efforts made by the hon. Member for Hampstead in providing an opportunity for this very serious and important matter to be ventilated, and to thank him for this further opportunity of expressing my grave doubts as to the value of zebra crossings.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I support the Prayer against this Statutory Instrument mainly because I object—and I am voicing the objections of the local authority in my constituency and
2046
also many local authorities throughout the country—to the proviso to Clause 7 (c) of Part II of the First Schedule, which means that zebra crossings must be lit and that if the light goes out the pedestrian loses his immunity.
Incidentally, I would say to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who raised the point, that it makes no difference whether they are lit by flashing or fixed lights, because lights will go out whether they are flashing or not. If they go out they will remain out for some time before the borough engineer can be informed and put them right, and a dangerous situation will arise.
Of course the alert and astute pedestrian will be perfectly safe under these Regulations—he would be perfectly safe if he simply took his chance and crossed the road in any circumstances. But the object of road safety is not to protect the astute and the alert pedestrian. It is to protect the aged, the old, the infirm and the muddled. These Regulations will defeat that object.
If we are to provide safe crossings for people who especially need protection, these crossings must be certain and unmistakable. People are accustomed to zebra crossings in their present unlit form and, however much my hon. Friend and the Minister may publicise these Regulations, the thought is going to remain in the public mind that zebra crossings are safe. Suddendly to declare, in the form of obscure Regulations, that they are only safe if they are lit in some specific way, is like putting arsenic into a baby's bottle.
I believe that the Minister is mistaken in the underlying conception of this part of the Statutory Instrument. His idea in making the proviso which I am complaining about is to avoid a little possible unfairness to the motorist. Surely, it is much more important to avoid the certain death of a number of old and young people.
11.11 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: We have heard enough, I think, for the House to have sympathy with me when I say that I find the greatest difficulty in understanding these Regulations at all. If I have not understood the point correctly, the Minister will realise that the drafting is difficult to follow.

2047
The question which I want to raise concerns the extent of the area of approach to the crossings which is laid down in the Regulations without any regard to what is felt locally to be the need in any specific instance. It is laid down as about 45 ft., or three car lengths, on the approach side to a zebra crossing. I have in mind the City Square, Leeds, where the Post Office have a lay-in where people park their cars. That will be cut down very much by this sort of regulation.
My purpose in adding my name to the Prayer is to ask the Minister seriously to consider whether, within reasonable limits, this is not the kind of decision which could be left to the local authority. I do not think this sort of thing can be laid down in regulations. The parking situation is extremely difficult. Vehicles have to deliver goods in one way or another. We want to secure safety but, on the other hand, it is quite unnecessary to lay these things down in regulations. Far too much of that is going on, leaving local authorities to carry out regulations when they are quite competent to decide the matter for themselves.
11.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) and Crosby (Mr. Page) have moved and seconded the Motion in a friendly spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead indicated that he thought that when Regulations of this kind were being introduced it was desirable that the Government should have an opportunity of justifying, explaining and publicising them. Indeed, the discussion which we have had indicates that these Regulations are not as easily understood as I had hoped would be the case.
The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was wrong when he spoke about there being one Regulation added to another. These Regulations repeal four existing sets of Regulations, codify them and, I thought, simplify the law.
Let me begin by dealing with the two —the only two—kinds of crossing which are legally recognised. There are the controlled and the uncontrolled crossings.
2048
A controlled crossing is one which is controlled either by a policeman in uniform or by lights. An uncontrolled crossing, which is now generally known as a zebra crossing, is one where there are neither lights nor a policeman.
Mr. F. P. Crowder rose—
Mr. Molson: I cannot give way. I intend to finish the explanation.
Mr. Crowder: My hon. Friend is wrong.
Mr. Molson: The zebra crossing is uncontrolled, and it is there that the pedestrian enjoys precedence over traffic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby suggested that there were two other kinds of crossings. That, of course, is not so, but there is this provision that where there is a zebra crossing and a policeman in uniform is controlling the traffic, during the time he is controlling the traffic the zebra loses its uncontrolled nature and becomes a controlled crossing. There is no difficulty about this at all.
Mr. Page: Does it not also lose its uncontrolled status if, in accordance with Regulation 2, it does not come within Part II of the First Schedule, if it is normally controlled for more than 20 hours a week. If it is normally controlled for more than 20 hours a week, is it an uncontrolled crossing?
Mr. Molson: That only applies for the time it is controlled by a policeman in uniform. There are only two kinds of crossings—controlled and uncontrolled.
Mr. Crowder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Molson: No, I will not. In the case of the zebra crossings where there is a policeman exercising control, it becomes a controlled crossing during the time he exercises control and no longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead complained that when these new Regulations were introduced the Ministry had not consulted the local authorities. What was actually promised was: that the Minister will consult the interested associations and organisations, including the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, before he

2049
makes these Regulations. They were consulted, and I have the views which they expressed on the various Regulations.
It has been suggested that it is unwise that the zebra crossing should lose its legal status if the lights go out. It is not the case that that provision has been introduced merely in the interests of the motorist. That provision has also been introduced in the interests of the safety of the pedestrians seeking to use the crossings. In all cases where something is provided for and an accident happens, such as when the lights go out, it is difficult to know exactly where to draw the line. It is manifest where there are lights which indicate a crossing that many things might happen which will result in the lights going out. We have had a number of cases mentioned tonight, the most likely of which is where the local electricity supply fails. The question arises as to whether in those circumstances the zebra crossing should continue to retain its legal status.
What appears to me to have been underlying the speeches made tonight is the supposition that the zebra is solely for the benefit of those familiar with that particular district. That is not the case at all. We have to consider the case of motorists coming from remote parts of the country who have no knowledge of that road at all, and certainly in the case of driving by night or driving in a fog, it would be quite impossible for a completely strange driver to know whether there was a zebra crossing or not. If it were supposed that the pedestrian enjoyed some particular protection, when in fact the motorist had no knowledge that there was a zebra crossing in that place, it is obvious that the pedestrian would be given an entirely false sense of security, and that is the most likely way in which an accident could arise.
In all these cases it is necessary to draw the line somewhere, but of course it would be possible to attempt to draft regulations providing that on a summer's day, when there was plenty of light and where it was possible to see the zebra stripes, the zebra crossing should retain its legal status. But in fact, that would be extraordinarily difficult to do. In these cases it is generally wiser to lay down some perfectly simple and general
2050
rule of universal application, and since the purpose of the lights is to indicate to approaching motorists that there is a pedestrian crossing there, if the lights in fact are not alight it is better to provide that there is no pedestrian crossing carrying with it particular rights. From a practical point of view, this makes very little difference.
Sir Herbert Williams: Or sense.
Mr. Molson: It was suggested by one of my hon. Friends that if a pedestrian were crossing the road on a striped piece of road where, owing to the lights being out, there was not the legal status of a zebra crossing, then in fact that would be dangerous to the pedestrian. Of course, in fact any driver who sees a pedestrian crossing the road anywhere is under a legal obligation to drive with reasonable care, and naturally the suggestion that simply because the lights were out the driver would be entitled to drive on and maliciously, recklessly and deliberately mow down the pedestrians who were seeking to cross at that time is quite absurd. Anyone doing so would be guilty of manslaughter in the case of death, and in any case of dangerous driving.
Therefore, it has appeared to us that it is far better to provide that in the case of a zebra crossing the particular legal protection which is enjoyed shall only apply as long as the lights are alight in accordance with the regulations. We have consulted all those who are likely to be able to give us useful guidance as to whether it was desirable to introduce regulations on these lines. The first question was whether it was desirable to introduce a universal rule prohibiting the waiting and parking of cars within 45 feet of a zebra crossing.
I do not intend tonight to discuss the matter which the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton has raised, whether zebra crossings have, on the whole, been a contribution to road safety. He has a Question down next week, and I shall hope to give him some information upon the subject then. The chief reason why the reduction in accidents as a result of the introduction of zebra crossings has not been as great as we might have hoped it would have been, has been the number of cases where vehicles have

2051
been parked close to a pedestrian crossing.
We therefore consulted all those likely to be able to advise us whether it would be desirable to make the prohibition of parking cars within 45 feet illegal throughout the country. We consulted the Road Safety Committee, the Police, the Road Research Laboratory, the Pedestrians Association, the motoring associations, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Metropolitan Boroughs, the Urban District Councils and the Scottish local authority associations. There was complete unanimity from all of them in favour of prohibition. We have also consulted them on whether the marking should be improved, and all those who were consulted agreed that improvement was desirable. As for the distance within which waiting and parking should be prohibited, the great majority were in favour of leaving the law as it was in the earlier Regulations, under which it was open to any local authority, which desired to do so, to make it illegal. Therefore, we have retained the same distance.
Those organisations were also consulted about the abolition of existing exemptions against the rules which were previously in force. We have followed the views of the Pedestrians' Association and the Road Research Laboratory in doing away with the existing exemptions. When my right hon. Friend decided to take the further step to try to increase safety on the roads he consulted all those organisations which had the greatest experience and knowledge in the matter, and these Regulations have been based on the advice they gave to us.
I am not at all surprised that there should be criticism, and we welcome
2052
criticism if it is of a constructive nature. I gladly recognise that the proposer and seconder of the Prayer have only moved it so that the Government should have the opportunity of explaining, publishing and justifying these Regulations. We believe that, supported as they are by the vast majority of the organisations mostly concerned with road safety, they will commend themselves to the House and the country.
Mr. Crowder: My hon. Friend has said that the Government have explained the meaning of the Regulations. One has only to look at the Explanatory Memorandum to note that they have not been explained. One of the difficulties we find in the courts with legislation of this kind is that people come before the magistrates saying that they are sorry but they were not aware that they were doing wrong until they had it explained by their solicitors or counsel that not to know in law is no defence but only a means of mitigation. These Regulations are the finest means of mitigation for anybody coming before the courts.
My hon. Friend appeared to lay down that a controlled crossing was a crossing controlled by lights or by a police constable, but he did not say anything about the situation created by the odd people wandering about in white coats, who so kindly look after schoolchildren, when they are standing on a crossing waving one of their signs. Is that a controlled crossing? Do they take the place of the police constable under the Regulations? Will my hon. Friend answer that question? The simple motorist does not know, nor does the pedestrian.
It being Half-past Eleven o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [31st March].
Question negatived.

WARBLE FLY
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]
11.33 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Williams: I want to switch the House from the zebra to the warble fly. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the Warble Fly Order, 1948, is not being properly carried out.
In case some of my hon. Friends are not familiar with the habits of the warble fly, I would briefly mention that the adult warble fly lays her eggs, during the period from May to August, on the legs of cattle. From that stage they hatch into maggots, and the maggots bore through the skin of the cattle. In a very mysterious fashion they make their way right through the body of the animal and appear in January and February on the back, causing lumps. At that stage they want more air and they bore a hole through the bide of the cattle. They eventually emerge, fall to the ground, pupate, and in about six weeks' time reach adult stage.
In the process of boring the hole through the back of the cow, the warble fly spoils a considerable amount of leather. The damage thus caused to leather, which cannot be used for upholstery or any other purpose for which the leather is required, is estimated by the leather trade and others to be about £200,000 a year. But, besides this damage to the leather, there is much damage done by what is called "gadding," which is done by the fly, causing the cattle to become scared and to run about with their tails in the air, with a subsequent drop in milk production, and, with the irritation of these maggots in their bodies during the winter months, there is a tendency not only for milk production to be reduced, but for there to be an adverse effect on the meat which they produce.
Nobody is able to assess the damage which is done to milk production, or to meat, but it must be a considerable amount every year. In order to get over this trouble of the loss of milk and meat and leather, the then Government very wisely introduced in 1948 the Warble Fly (Dressing of Cattle) Order. This laid
2054
down that if any cattle were known to be visibly affected with the fly, the farmer or owner of the cattle, had to dress them with powdered derris root mixed with soap. This mixture has to be thoroughly scrubbed into the back of the cattle in order to have the desired effect and, according to the Order, has to be done between 15th March and the end of June, and, if necessary, in between at intervals of not more than 32 days. There is no doubt that, if this is done, it is very effective. It does not preserve the leather for the year in which the holes have been made, but it does kill the fly for the subsequent year, and may save meat and milk production for the ensuing months.
There is no doubt that it is an effective plan, but the Order is not being carried out, at least, not by all farmers who have cattle. Some do it, but it is very heartbreaking to find, after one has dressed one's own cattle, that neighbours have not done theirs. Infection comes in over the boundaries as soon as one has got rid of the trouble. Some farmers dress the cattle in their sheds, and leave it at that. They cannot be bothered to go into the fields and dress the cattle running about away from the homestead.
So, I appeal to farmers to remember that if they would only use this powdered derris root they would be helping themselves. They should also think of the obligations as between one farmer and another, and also their responsibility towards the community at large. Having made that exhortation to the farmers themselves, I now want to tackle the Parliamentary Secretary himself, but before doing it, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the publicity which he has given in the notices he has sent out recently and on the general way in which he has dealt with this matter. It is an asset for us to have a Minister who is doing so much about this problem.
The fact remains that I am not satisfied, and I think there are others who feel as I do. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he cannot do something to see that this Order is enforced. First of all, he might insist on a declaration being made by farmers that they have carried out the instructions contained in this Order, in the same way that they have to certify under the sheep dipping

2055
arrangements. If my hon. Friend says that that is impossible, then let us enforce the Order as it stands at the moment.
Of course, I know there may be some difficulties. Local authorities may say that (heir police are extremely busy and cannot do the work. But cannot the Minister arrange for spot checks to be made? He cannot have every farm inspected as there are not enough police to do that, but he could send them to a few. If there was any doubt about the Order being carried out the policeman could ask the farmer to prove that he had dressed the cattle by demanding the receipt for the derris powder bought to dress them. I think that no farmer would buy derris powder and not put it on his cattle. If the receipt system could be adopted, we should be three quarters of the way towards enforcing the Order.
Another suggestion which has been made is that a dye should be used so that it would be easy for two or three weeks afterwards to recognise cattle which had been dressed. There are other suggestions but it is difficult for the Minister to send his own officials round all the farms. That would cost too much money. It would be difficult to have a dressing service established at the markets. 1 think that the Minister must rely on snap checks of, say, very hundredth farm and a system of receipts for powder used.
Another suggestion I put to the Minister is that he should start to enforce the Order in special areas by means of his officials, say in the Isle of Wight, or Cornwall, to find out the expense and, if it is found exorbitant, it would be proved a failure, but, if it succeeded, and he thought he could save a great deal of money by following that course, it could be continued in other parts of the country.
A great many farmers think that much of the trouble is caused by cattle coming from Ireland. There is no compulsory order in Ireland and about 530,000 cattle are imported to this country each year. It is a great annoyance to people who think they have cured their own cattle to see cattle coming into the country untreated. If the Minister is not satisfied that cattle are not properly treated in Ireland he could have them treated here. If he thinks the Irish should do it, but
2056
says that he cannot interfere with other countries, he could send someone there to ask them to do the dressing and see that it is properly done. If he was still not satisfied he has only to threaten to refuse to take the cattle and I think he would get his way.
There are experiments going on in immunisation, and I ask the Minister if he is backing them with all his force. Is money being spent on them, and what are the results? Does he think that he should spend more money to wipe out the pest altogether?
If in the few words I have said tonight I have stirred farmers to realise their obligations, and if I have stirred the Minister by suggesting to him that he should either make it compulsory to declare that cattle have been dressed or that he should enforce the Order by a system of receipts, or to start in special areas, I shall be satisfied. I shall be satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary tells me that he is doing one or other of those things. If he does so, I am certain that the result will be a saving of large sums of money, not only to the farming community, but to the rest of the people of the country.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. M. Philips Price: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams). It is extremely important that this matter should be dealt with. I am satisfied that only a certain number of farmers do this treatment systematically. It is easy to forget the matter, to do it late, or to finish too soon. I hope the Minister will see if anything can be done to tighten up the precautions.
I have heard that scientists are working on new methods which will use injection. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how far they have progressed. It would surely be easier to deal with the trouble in that way than by the systematic smearing of the backs of the cattle with derris powder and soft soap at intervals from March until the end of June. This latter treatment is one which can easily be forgotten in the hurly-burly of spring, the coming of the silage, and so on. If one, or even two, injections could deal with the matter it would be a great improvement, and there would be less excuse for overlooking the treatment.

2057
Really, there is no excuse for doing so now, but it is understandable that the treatment can be overlooked in the rush of work.
11.47 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Hurd: I hope the Minister will recognise warble infestation as a disease and set about clearing up that disease in a way similar to the manner in which we are successfully clearing up bovine tuberculosis, by adopting the idea which the hon. Member for Ton bridge (Mr. G. Williams) put forward, namely, clearing up one area after another until we can say that the country is clear of the warble disease. I have had rather a bitter experience through bringing Irish cattle on to my farm during the last fortnight. They were horribly infested, or diseased, with warble fly. They ought to have been dressed in Ireland before being embarked, but it was obvious that they had not been. They were full of live warbles. I am afraid that some of the warbles have fallen on to my ground and that my cattle will again be infested.
This trouble is a serious matter, and we have to get it into the minds of farmers that they are dealing with a disease, and into the mind of the Irish Department of Agriculture that our farmers will not accept badly diseased cattle from Ireland. The Department must be made to realise that if it persists in sending such cattle they will be refused at the ports. I hope the Minister will follow up his campaign of pamphlets and posters with direct action of that kind.
11.49 p.m.
Mr. Archer Baldwin: I would call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that Australia will not accept cattle from this country during certain months. If we adopted the same measure with Ireland, she would see that her cattle were properly treated before they were sent here. We farmers objected when sheep-dipping was made compulsory. Now we accept that as routine, realising its value. The suggestion that there should be a certain amount of inspection to see whether farmers have complied with the Regulations is a good one. We ought to be compelled to send in a certificate to the effect that cattle have been dressed against warble fly, and the certificate
2058
ought to be signed by one of the men who assisted in doing it. The farmers would be more likely to do the job if a witness were available.
11.50 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams) both on his good fortune in the Ballot and on his choice of subject this evening. I agree immediately that the enforcement of the 1948 Order is far from what we would like.
I will deal first with Irish imports. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) will give details to identify the batch of cattle which he recently imported, and the name of the port from which they were shipped, I will gladly take it up with the Irish Ministry of Agriculture to see if the cattle were treated before export. Recently we sent our superintending veterinary officer to Eire. He made surprise inspections at some, though not all, the ports and found that the treatment was being properly carried out.
We must recognise, however, that even if such treatment carried out at the Irish port is effective further warbles which were dormant under the skin on first dressing will appear a few weeks later. However, we shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's case if he gives us the details and shall also investigate any further instances which appear to show that the cattle are not being dressed before leaving Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge correctly described the life cycle of the warble fly, its progress through the carcase of the animal, the annual cost of the damage to the hides and the further unassessable damage done to the animal in addition to that done to the hide. Treatments are being considered. Spraying the fly has been found to be perfectly useless. An alternative method is that of feeding to the animal during the winter months when the maggot is migrating through the body something which is toxic to the maggot but not injurious to the animal. Our veterinary officers at Weybridge have tried phenothiazine, but so far the experimental work has proved very discouraging. We are continuing in the hope of finding something which can

2059
be fed to the animal which is toxic to the maggot only. Such a method has the attraction that most of these animals are inside, or in the yard, in the winter, which would make such feeding relatively easy.
In this country there are about 9 million cattle and calves. Of those, about 3 million are dairy cattle and 3 million are calves. Dairy cows, being inside, can normally be dressed regularly, while the calves would not be affected until the end of their first year. The 3 million stores are the ones mainly affected, and we reckon that at least two-thirds of them—about 2 million of our store cattle—are probably infested with warble fly at any time. This is a very serious number indeed, and something which we must bear in mind in considering Irish imports. The actual number imported when the warble fly is prominent is only about 50,000. Of these about 30,000 are infested, so that if we are to make any progress in this matter we have not only to deal with the Irish importations but also our own troubles here.
The local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Order, and normally it is done through the county police. The difficulty is that it is physically impossible for them to maintain anything like comprehensive supervision of all animals in the country. The police simply cannot get round to deal with the enforcement of this Order as it now stands.
The outline of the problem is that we have a perfectly effective treatment. So long as it is done it is perfectly effective, and if it could be done for the 3 to 4 million cattle over a period of three or four years there would be no warble fly in this country. We have been carrying out a limited experiment on the Isle of Wight to see if we could exterminate or eradicate the warble fly from that part. Started rather late last year, it was showing promising results and, by the end of next year, we shall be in a position to realise the effectiveness of this treatment. With three or four years of universal treatment our troubles would be over. Our basic trouble is that from March to June most of these cattle are out in the fields and are left out.
2060
Another of our basic problems is that the average farmer has just not appreciated the urgency of dealing with this infection, and it really is a disease, as the hon. Member for Newbury said. One of the proposals which was most carefully considered was one of voluntary notification of dressing by individual farmers to the local authorities. We have thought very carefully about this one, but it would involve a million notifications during the warble fly period and the County Councils Associations said quite definitely that they were unable to deal with such a volume of notifications. I am afraid that we must rule that out, at any rate for the present. I must also say that the National Farmers' Union is not in favour of compulsory notification. They are still of the opinion, optimistically to my mind—and they have based their hopes on it—that something can be found to feed to the cattle that will deal with the disease.
If any progress can be made, it will have to be piecemeal. It seems to me a possibility, and I am thinking rather on this line for the moment that it might be possible to run warble fly campaigns in areas where TB eradication is under way. When an area is declared free in that way, all the animals must be caught up in order to test them.
Even if the time of testing does not coincide with the warble fly month, farmers who keep their cattle on the hills have to make some arrangements for catching them up, and once they have made those arrangements, it is a much shorter step to get them to drive them through again in order to do the warble fly dressing. It is significant that the few prosecutions which have taken place have been mostly from attestation areas in Wales. It brings the veterinary officers in direct contact with the farmers and gives them a chance to point out to the farmers what big losses the farmers themselves are suffering through allowing the warble fly disease to exist.
I will undertake that we will pursue this thought to see whether it would be possible to run warble fly campaigns in areas which are moving up towards being attestation areas, and possibly to introduce compulsory notification in those areas in order to facilitate the exercise. We could start with one area at a time and see how we got on. That seems to me

2061
the only possible approach which has any promise at all. We certainly must do all we can to try to make progress with the problem.
In the meantime, we have intensified the propaganda and educational drive, and I was glad that my hon. Friend gave my right hon. Friend credit for that and for getting out to every farmer a leaflet describing the disease, the infestation and the measures to take. We have been greatly helped by the Milk Marketing Board in sending out the majority of these leaflets. We have also used widely a film which was published by the Hides and Allied Trades Improvement Society, and I think we have made some impression on farmers' minds, but we have a long way to go before we have convinced the average farmer that this
2062
disease is important enough to justify him in going to the considerable labour which would be involved if he were to do the dressing regularly for three or four years.
I think our best hope would be to try to proceed with a campaign synchronised with our attestation campaign, to see whether in that way we could make some progress. We will certainly examine that and see whether we can put it into action, and I will keep my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge informed on how the campaign proceeds.
Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m.

HOUSING
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Differential Rents
  Differential Rents
  Housing Lists (Co-ordination)
  Housing Lists (Co-ordination)
  New Town Tenants (Sub-letting)
  New Town Tenants (Sub-letting)
  War-Damaged Sites (Use)
  War-Damaged Sites (Use)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  St. James's and Green Parks (Revised Regulations)
  St. James's and Green Parks (Revised Regulations)
  Trafalgar Square (Photographers)
  Trafalgar Square (Photographers)
  Atomic Energy Estimates (Appropriations-in-Aid)
  Atomic Energy Estimates (Appropriations-in-Aid)
  Royal Parks (Litter)
  Royal Parks (Litter)
EMPLOYMENT
  Falkirk
  Falkirk
  Food Offices (Redundant Staff)
  Food Offices (Redundant Staff)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  R.A.F. and Royal Navy (Welsh Entrants)
  R.A.F. and Royal Navy (Welsh Entrants)
  Early Call-up
  Early Call-up
SCOTLAND
  Teachers' Salaries (Working Party)
  Teachers' Salaries (Working Party)
  New Town Corporations (Future)
  New Town Corporations (Future)
  East Fife Hospitals Board (Appointments)
  East Fife Hospitals Board (Appointments)
  MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS
  MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Visiting Forces (Claims)
  Visiting Forces (Claims)
  N.A.T.O. Countries (Defence Contributions)
  N.A.T.O. Countries (Defence Contributions)
BRITISH ARMY
  Church Parades
  Church Parades
  W.D. Property, Singapore (Thefts)
  W.D. Property, Singapore (Thefts)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Sick Leave
  Sick Leave
  Temporary Staff (Disabled Persons)
  Temporary Staff (Disabled Persons)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Peruvian and Ecuadorian Bonds (Debt Agreement)
  Peruvian and Ecuadorian Bonds (Debt Agreement)
  Bank Rate Reduction
  Bank Rate Reduction
  PORNOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS (IMPORTATION)
  PORNOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS (IMPORTATION)
  IRONFOUNDRY INDUSTRY, FALKIRK-BONNYBRIDGE AREA
  IRONFOUNDRY INDUSTRY, FALKIRK-BONNYBRIDGE AREA
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (HONORARY P.R.O.s)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (HONORARY P.R.O.s)
  FAT CATTLE AND SHEEP (PRICE GUARANTEES)
  FAT CATTLE AND SHEEP (PRICE GUARANTEES)
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS)
  MINISTRY OF FOOD (ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS)
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE)
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (CAPITAL EXPENDITURE)
  SCILLY ISLES (POPULATION)
  SCILLY ISLES (POPULATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Savoy and Berkeley Hotels (Inquiry)
  Savoy and Berkeley Hotels (Inquiry)
  Weights and Measures (Cattle Cake)
  Weights and Measures (Cattle Cake)
ROADS
  Great West Road
  Great West Road
  London Development Plan
  London Development Plan
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  CREWE CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, and passed.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
2.35 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships to make an Amendment to Standing Order 154 in the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills. This is in order to enable two noble Lords to be added to the Personal Bills Committee, in order to enable us to have the advice of noble Lords who are conversant with the Law of Scotland. There are two Bills relating to Scotland upon which we want their help. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the following Amendment be made in the Standing Orders relative to Private and Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills, etc., vizt.:—
Standing Order 154, line 2, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE GRAND NATIONAL
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any statement will be issued as to the result of the interview of the Royal Hunt Committee with the Home Secretary concerning cruelty to horses running in the Grand National, as announced in the House on the 6th April.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the noble Lord will no doubt have seen reports of the state-
642
ment issued by the National Hunt Committee.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reference. Evidently this is a case either of intelligent anticipation or of a desire that there should not be any further discussion. Nevertheless, it would be somewhat ungracious if I did not acknowledge that our complaint has not been without some measure of success, which in itself is worth noting. The National Hunt Committee were judges in their own cause, and if they have seen fit to make some recommendation then something has indeed been gained. Therefore I want to express my thanks for that and to promise that we shall press forward.

HER MAJESTY'S RETURN
2.39 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise to move to resolve, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty on the occasion of her return from her historic Commonwealth Tour, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh. My Lords, I do not pretend that I have not found it extremely difficult to find words in any way worthy of this occasion. I am very conscious that anything one can say at such a time must be far below the level of what the occasion requires. How can we tell Her Majesty, in any words that we can devise, all that she means to us and to the whole Commonwealth and Empire? How can we thank her adequately for all that she and the Duke of Edinburgh have done to cement and strengthen that great institution by those five months of arduous and often perilous travel?
My mind goes back to that cold evening of an English November, when she started on this great adventure, and of the last view that we had of her, framed in the doorway of the aeroplane, before she set off across the stormy wastes of the winter Atlantic. That flight set the keynote for the whole Empire tour. There was no endeavour that Her Majesty would not make, no risk she would not run, to make herself known to her peoples—and the results are already to be seen.

643
By millions of people, of almost every race and religion under Heaven, she, who till then had been merely a name, has become revered, has become loved, has become part of the fabric of their being. The Crown has been merged in the Queen, and the Queen has been merged in the radiant personality they know. That, surely, is the very essence of kingship—that human personal relationship which, though so imponderable, is so strong that it will stand up against any strain that may be put upon it; no mere constitutional symbol, but something living and pulsating.
My Lords, the immense service which Her Majesty has done at the present critical juncture of our history by this historic journey through the Commonwealth and Empire is impossible to value. It is, I believe, beyond all value. For we live in times of storm and stress such as have been unknown for centuries, and perhaps in the whole of history. All those foundations on which our civilisation rests are being threatened: in some places they have crumbled and gone down in ruin. There never was a time when it was so vital that in our family of nations, at any rate, those spiritual ties, so impalpable yet so enduring, which above all hold us together, should be renewed and fortified. My Lords, the British Crown is known to-day throughout a distracted world, as the symbol of all that is sane and all that is good. There are many, far outside the boundaries of the Commonwealth itself, to whom it shines out—as we came to know at the time of the Coronation—like a beacon on a dark night. By this new testimony that she has given of her devotion to the cause to which she has dedicated her life, Her Majesty has brought new courage and new hope to her peoples within the Commonwealth, and, to countless millions in countries outside it, a further example of those enduring qualities for which our country and the British Commonwealth stands. My Lords, on this historic occasion, we in this House tender to Her Majesty our loyal, devoted and most heartfelt thanks. May God bless her and keep her! I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty, on the occasion of
644
her return from her historic Commonwealth Tour, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
2.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House desire to be completely identified with the Motion which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has just moved. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to make any worth-while addition, either to what has been so finely said to-day by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House or to the eloquent tributes which were paid yesterday in another place. It is plain to everyone that the Royal Tour has been an outstanding success, surpassing even our highest hopes. Her Majesty has proved once more that sense of dedication to her great position of which we have already had so many proofs. By her charm, her grace, her dignity, and by her thoughtfulness for others, she has endeared herself still further to her peoples. It is fitting, too, that we should recognise the unfailing skill, wisdom and tact with which His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has played his difficult part. To him indeed this country owes much.
By this tour I believe that Her Majesty has demonstrated that this country and this Commonwealth, and the traditions for which we and they stand, have a contribution to make to this distracted world as great as any they could make in the days when our military strength and prowess were pre-eminent. But does not the welcome she has received, alike in old countries and in new countries, reveal the fact that the Throne is broad-based upon the people's will; that in constitutional Monarchy we have an instrument which enables us to meet present difficulties in a way which accords with ancient traditions; that we uphold the ideal of an ever-expanding liberty, guarded and conditioned by order, without which liberty cannot long survive; and that we wish all people, secure in their own freedom, to be allowed the opportunity to work out their destiny, without external interference, and that for this purpose we shall strive to establish the rule of law alike in domestic and international affairs—the noblest contribution that any country can make towards the solution of world problems?

645
All these things seem to me to be the real significance of the visit to which Her Most Gracious Majesty has so splendidly and so ungrudgingly given everything she possesses.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the Motion now before the House. It has been a long journey, nearly half a year; over great distances, equal to twice round the Equator; not only over sea and land but through the air, and liable to many possible mishaps—accident, fatigue, illness. It is a great relief to everyone that no misadventure has befallen Her Majesty the Queen, or His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, and that the bells were able to ring out and the peoples to rejoice at their safe return. It has been a mission of friendship—friendship for persons, friendship for peoples. One of our great novelists, in one of his novels, has one of his characters say to another, "You make friends wherever you go"; and the answer comes, "It's because I show people I mean well… And besides, they see I look forward. I do hope for the good of the world." The Queen and the Duke might say just that, and that is why they make friends wherever they go.
This great journey has been not only a matter of personal contacts and social gatherings, important as those are, of tribal ceremonies going back beyond history, of triumphal arches, illuminations, cheering peoples. Besides all that, there has been constitutional work done, there have been acts of State: the opening of Sessions of Parliament; Speeches from the Throne, spoken, as here, by the Sovereign in person; meetings of the Privy Council, an organ of the Constitution older than Parliament itself, for wherever the Sovereign is, and three Privy Counsellors are present, there may be meetings of the Council and Orders passed. So, during this tour there have been sessions of the Privy Council in Australia, in New Zealand and in Ceylon, with their own local Privy Council members—members of the one single Imperial Privy Council, but their own local members. The Throne, ever present in your Lordships' House, is a constant reminder that our Parliament consists not only of the Members of the two Houses but of.
646
the Sovereign as well, who is not separate and, possibly, at variance, but an essential element in the Parliament, in our democratic Constitution itself. The Statute of Westminster established the equality of all self-governing Dominions, including this land. It was enacted here, and re-enacted and echoed back from the Parliaments of the other members of the Commonwealth. By these Acts of State by the Sovereign, the Statute of Westminster has been shown to their peoples as a living reality. All their citizens feel themselves part of something greater than themselves, something august, historic and world-wide: it heightens their sense of their own dignity; it gives them a fuller understanding of the meaning and the reality of their own liberties.
My Lords, there is one thing more that I would wish to say. We in this century have had enough, and more than enough, of war and enmity and hatred and cruelty and crime and horror and fear. It is time for a corrective. These are not all that there is in our modern civilisation. We can show that there may be, and that over vast areas of the globe there is, internal peace, order, freedom, friendship, prosperity. And we know, indeed, that all this rests on unseen moral and spiritual foundations, and without them the whole structure will prove fragile and transitory. Bearing that in mind, after so many tribulations, we would wish, I think, in this country and in the Commonwealth, to strike now a note of happiness and cheerfulness. It began two years ago, with the Festival of Britain. Then came the great popular demonstrations at the Coronation. Now, there has been this epic progress through the Commonwealth, and, at the centre and the symbol of it all, our radiant Queen.
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the Queen's return from a task so triumphantly fulfilled and a service so generously rendered to all her peoples moves us, as the Leader of the House said just now, to those profound emotions which most defy adequate expression. The journey from Westminster Pier has taken Her Majesty all but twelve months, and has taken her right round the world. And in that journey we, as Christian folk and as members of the Commonwealth, have

647
seen fulfilled all that was prayed for, promised and performed in her Consecration and her Crowning.
In our human associations and in our national loyalties, integrity and integration of life are fully found and enjoyed only when what we sometimes distinguish as our religious and our secular emotions are in complete concord and harmony. It is both a religious and a secular truth that men in their civic and their national societies need a focus of their unity and purpose. And if that focus is fully to satisfy their deepest needs it must be in a person who can engage their loyalty and affection; and that person who thus unites and holds them must be so near to them in sympathy as to be accepted as one of them and so above them in position and personal authority as to lift them out of themselves, enlarge their loyalties and increase their understanding of their common purposes. This human need meets its full and final satisfaction beyond the reach of what man can do or be. There is a glory which is celestial; but there is also a glory which is terrestrial, and which has its glory by reflecting the celestial. We properly thank God that He has so provided, preserved and fashioned the Crown in the heritage of this country that it can be the focus of our national unity and purpose, embodied in the person of the Sovereign, placed to be the expression of our common life and the exemplar of our highest purposes. And it is surely one of the marvels of history and of God's good will that, as from this country has grown a Commonwealth of nations and races, like-minded in the laws of government and in the liberties of human life, so, step by step, the conception of the Crown has grown and expanded too. So that, far surpassing its original limits, it can be—and wonderfully is—the focus of unity and purpose, no longer for one country, no longer for an Empire, in the sense in which the word "Empire" was once used, but for a great company of diverse nations and races pledged in fellowship to preserve freedom, to propagate its peaceful laws and to increase and grow in obedience to its exacting demands.
My Lords, these simple and familiar realities lay behind the emotions and prayers that attended Her Majesty at her
648
Coronation. They lie behind the emotions that greet her return from this great tour. The Crown imposes now ever-increasing and more exacting obligations which can be performed only by a rare combination of devotion to duty, personal gifts and spiritual dedication. The Queen has stood up to every obligation and every strain imposed upon her with the power of selfless dignity, of sincere happiness and of inward peace. So she has grown into her office during this year, and into the hearts of all her peoples. And the Commonwealth has grown with her in old loyalties renewed and in new confidence gained. And so it is with gratitude, admiration and affection that we welcome her back once more to this country.
3.0 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I rise to express, on behalf of the National Liberal Party, wholehearted support for the Motion so eloquently moved by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. This unique and unprecedented demonstration, not only of devotion to the Crown but in tribute to the great personal qualities of Her Majesty, has shown the unity and friendship between self-governing nations, democratically ruled, in manifesting their common purpose, through their loyalty and affection so spontaneously shown to the gracious Queen whose destiny it is to wear the Crown. It is often assumed that our greatness is on the wane. This has been shown to be an illusion by the glorious welcome given to Her Majesty by the young nations of the Commonwealth. This could have been inspired only by one who has shown wholehearted devotion to the practical fulfilment of her sense of public duty. Her Majesty has set an example not only to her own peoples but to all the nations who desire to further the cause of human progress in conditions of liberty and peace. It is difficult, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, to set out in words the great service which Her Majesty has rendered to us all, and to express in any full sense our indebtedness to her. God bless the Queen!
On Question, Motion agreed to,nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Privy Counsellors.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.1 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the House of the arrangements which have been made, through the usual channels, for the Committee stage of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill which begins this afternoon. There are some fifty Amendments and it is not expected that we shall get through all of them this evening. We therefore propose that we should sit this evening until between 7 and 7.30 o'clock and then adjourn the Committee stage until Tuesday next, May 25, when, if necessary, the House will sit after dinner in order to complete the Committee stage.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his statement which, generally speaking, is acceptable to us. I should just like to mention that we have only twenty-one of the fifty Amendments which he mentioned—the other twenty-nine are beyond our control. I hope very much that we shall be able to finish this Committee stage next Tuesday, but I should not like to give a guarantee. We shall certainly not be obstructive, but if there is anything to discuss I hope that we shall he able to discuss it. I mention this because the noble Earl said that next Tuesday we shall sit after dinner, if necessary, in order to complete the Committee stage. I hope that we shall complete it, but if we find that it is difficult to do so, although we are making good progress, I hope that it may be possible to have even another Sitting to finish the Committee stage.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, the only answer I can give is that we must hope for the best.

DUNDEE CORPORATION (WATER TRANSPORT FINANCE &c.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read and 1a, (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act. 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Proposals for exercise of functions of local authorities as to clearance areas, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILKIN: As this is the only clause which deals with actual slum clearance, I think it may be as well if we had a word or two on this provision. On the Second Reading I submitted that this clause was unnecessary, because everything that was sought to be done under this clause is already contained in Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1936. This

651
clause gives the Minister the power to require local authorities to make a survey and to submit to him proposals for dealing with slums. My point is that he could do that equally well under Section 5 of the 1936 Act. I do not want to make a big point of this, because there are occasions when, for psychological or other reasons, it is desirable to repeat in a new Statute something which is already contained in another. If we were really beginning a big slum clearance campaign, I should not object in the least to the Minister of Housing and Local Government getting a little glory by initiating it by means of Clause 1 of this Bill. It is because I fear that this Bill is not devoted primarily to slum clearance that I feel this clause should not appear in the Bill at all. We are not going to oppose it; we shall let it go. We do not particularly mind one way or the other. But we want to place on record that in our view it is not really necessary.
Having said that, I should like to ask the Government what are their intentions with regard to slum clearance. We have accepted the principle of patching up, and I am not going to contest it. My own view I expressed on Second Reading; I think it is a mistake. But by passing the Second Reading of this Bill we have accepted the principle and we do not desire to go back on that. So it will be the policy of the Government to do a certain amount of patching up. I do not think they can do very much, because of the dilemma which I expressed on Second Reading, but I should be glad at this stage to be told whether it is their policy to go out on a big slum clearance campaign. Are they really going to try within the next five years to get rid of our slums? Is the patching up to be merely in respect of those dwellings which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with in, say, the next five years? If that were so, I think there would not be a very great difference of opinion between us. If the powers of patching up contained in this Bill are residual powers, and if there is really going to be a serious campaign for the next five years to get rid of the slums, then we shall all be behind the Government in their policy in this matter.
I have read the White Paper, I have read the noble and learned Lord's speech
652
and I have read the speeches in another place. It is difficult to make up one's mind as to what really is the policy of the Government in this matter. Judging from the White Paper, it seems that they feel they must go on building houses, and encouraging private enterprise to build houses for sale, but that slum clearance will be carried out pari passu with the provision of more houses. I believe that that is a mistake. I feel that the time has now come, having regard to the number of houses that are being built, and to the large pool of local authority housing which we possess, and which is increasing, to make a determined effort to get rid of our slums, and to give that problem the highest priority. If we are prepared to do that, and we are merely going to patch up these dwellings that cannot be dealt with in the next five years, having regard to this intensive campaign, then certainly a great many of my fears and objections will be dispelled. It is because I should be grateful if we could have a statement of policy on the question of slum clearance that I have raised the matter on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Silkin. No one, I think, should minimise what is involved in this clause, the complexities and difficulties of the housing problems to which it refers and the many heavy responsibilities that it places on local authorities. First, as to the number of houses which may be affected, as long ago as 1944 Mr. Willink, the then Minister of Health, in answering a question in another place, said that between 3 million and 4 million houses would be required in the post-war years, and that of these 1½ million to 2 million would be required to replace slum dwellings and dwellings grossly deficient in modern amenities. Undoubtedly, in the past ten years the numbers have increased considerably. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill whether he will see to it that, if schemes are submitted by local authorities, those schemes include proposals for the rehousing of persons who may be displaced. I know that this is provided for in Section 25 (1) of the 1936 Act, but I suggest that we should be quite clear on the point. Further, I suggest that there is a great

653
possibility of slum clearance breaking down if there is no fresh accommodation available at rents which tenants can afford to pay. It is likely that the lower income groups will not be able to afford the high rents now charged for new houses. Perhaps I may add that subsection (2) of the section that I have already mentioned seeks to ensure that the resources of a local authority are sufficient to carry out clearance and development schemes. It is a truism to-day that the financial resources of many local authorities, and particularly those where slum clearance is necessary, are strained to the utmost limit.
I should now like to raise one or two technical points which may be of some importance. I have no doubt that the Minister will request local authorities to estimate the rate at which houses will be required for deferred demolition, and also what work must be done at once. I suggest it is important that local authorities, when they submit their proposals under Parts II and III of the principal Act, should do so in such a form as not to identify particular houses that will be ultimately demolished. I say that for this reason. It will be noticed that Clause 1 (5) states that members of the public will be able to inspect any proposals under Clause 1 approved by the Minister. The classification of all houses suitable for demolition at some future date has been found by experience to lead to neglect by owners, and therefore to even more rapid and progressive deterioration. While I am on this point, I might say that I am advised that difficulties would also arise if local authorities were required to list houses in respect of which action is proposed under Section 9 of the principal Act—that is, where repairs are necessary. Clearly, it is the condition of the houses when action has to be taken that will determine the cost of these repairs.
It is no use doing the job twice; that is to say, undertaking a detailed inspection when a scheme is submitted, and a second time when action is taken. Local authorities are, of course, well aware of the black spots, and will be able to indicate the number of houses in the different wards that will at one time or another require action to bring them into a fit state of repair, or, on the other hand, which require demolition. These may be
654
regarded as mere technical points, but I am assured that there is importance in them, so far as those who will be called upon to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act are concerned, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be able to help, either now or at some future date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving me the opportunity of saying what I should desire to say, in any case, and which perhaps I should not have found it easy to say on any particular Amendment that is to be moved. It is this. The purpose of Her Majesty's Government is to make a determined assault on the problem of slums, and by every means in our power to effect clearance of those slums wherever they exist and the provision of decent housing for the population of this country. I am not going to be controversial with the noble Lord as to whether or not it was necessary to put Clause 1 into this Bill. It is perhaps sufficient answer to him to say that it is just because we are determined to make that assault that we give emphasis to it by the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, and remind local authorities of what they may have forgotten. I am not being provocative or suggesting any lapse on the part of the Government which preceded us, but for fifteen years almost nothing has been done. Accordingly, it is necessary and desirable now that we should assert, by the emphatic provisions of this Bill, that we dc mean to make an assault upon the slums, so far as possible—though, of course, local conditions will vary—and to give that scheme priority.
I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this: that we do not desire to patch in order to defer demolition, but merely to patch so long as demolition is not a realistic possibility. Demolition of slums comes first. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, may I say that I am grateful to him for his suggestion, which I think—and I speak without having considered the matter or looked into the papers—is the present intention of the Minister: that the proposals which are to be made shall, not identify particular houses. I think there is value in the suggestion which the noble Lord has made, and if it is not already in the mind of the Minister, as I

655
think it is, it no doubt will be now. The proposals will, of course, be proposals which bring into view the whole problem in a particular area, so that they will provide not only for demolition and rebuilding but give in a general way an indication of what patching will be contemplated, though not in regard to particular houses.
I do not think your Lordships would wish me to speak at length on this part of the debate. Let me say this, in particular, with regard to something the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. It is not contemplated that local authorities shall do patching work only—we are looking at the matter realistically—if they do not think it possible to clear the slums and provide houses for the displaced population in a reasonable time. I use the words "reasonable time" in order not to prejudice an Amendment which is almost immediately to be moved. I have endeavoured to answer in a general way the points which have been made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Power of local authorities to retain for temporary accommodation certain houses in clearance areas
2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section twenty-five of the principal Act or in section thirty of that Act, a local authority by whom an area has been declared (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) to be a clearance area under the said section twenty-five may postpone, for such period as may be determined by the authority, the demolition of any houses on land purchased by or belonging to the authority within that area, being houses which in the opinion of the authority are or can be rendered capable of providing accommodation of a standard which is adequate for the time being, and may carry out such works as may from time to time be required for rendering or keeping such houses capable of providing such accommodation as aforesaid pending their demolition.
(4) The power of a local authority under Part III of the principal Act to purchase land within a clearance area may be exercised, for the purpose of acquiring any house within that area which in the opinion of the authority is or can be rendered capable as aforesaid, notwithstanding that a clearance order has been made in respect of the house before the commencement of this Act or that any proceedings have been taken in pursuance of such an order; and on the completion of the purchase of any such house, the clearance order shall cease to have effect so far as it relates thereto.
3.22 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON moved, in subsection (1), after "period" to insert: "not exceeding ten years." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships, is to set a term to the period under which these slums can still remain standing, the normal operation of the demolition procedure having been arrested by the operation of this clause. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, put it on record that it is intended that this standstill arrangement, as it were, in a clearance area, should operate for only a limited period. I suggest that it would be reasonable, therefore, to give effect to that assurance by putting a term to the period, and the term I have suggested is ten years. That, surely, is long enough to enable the authority to catch up with the arrears and get on with what is their most urgent task—the replacement of the slums by new and habitable dwellings.
There is one question I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, and it is this. Is not this clause, as it stands, capable of having a rather undesirable effect? I am by no means an expert in this matter, but it seems to me that by Clause 2 the normal procedure of declaration and subsequent demolition is arrested. By the clause it is arrested in definitely. By my Amendment it is arrested for at any rate no longer than ten years. There seems to be no obligation on anybody to do anything in a hurry or at any particular time. The process of demolition is arrested because it seems to the authority that the houses are capable of being patched up. But there is no obligation upon anybody immediately to do the patching, and these slum areas, which ought to have been demolished long ago—many of the houses have been declared unfit for a long time—may be left standing occupied, doing their bad work in the community, and with nobody doing anything about it. If we could have an assurance on the latter point from the Government, and if the Government would be willing to accept this Amendment, which I suggest is reasonable—ten years is long enough for these slum properties in their patched-up state to remain—then we should have gone a long way to removing one of what we feel to be the worst defects in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding ten years").—(Lord Wilmot of Selmeston)
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to say a word or two on this Amendment, because I spoke on the matter on Second Reading. What perturbed me, like the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, was that there was no time limit, although, of course, there is a limit to the time to which you can get a grant under Clause 7 of the Bill, where it says that the local authority and the State shall pay an equal amount of £3 a year for fifteen years. I suggested that there should be a limit on that point. I understand that one of the difficulties is that if we insert a maximum period, it may become a minimum. Nevertheless, I should like to see a maximum term put in, even if the maximum does become a minimum. I felt rather keenly about this matter on Second Reading. I do not think it is possible to have a period of less than ten to fifteen years, because, as I said on Second Reading, there is in the big cities such an enormous waiting list for housing accommodation; therefore, we must have some deferred demolition in those areas. That is regrettable, but it must be done. Therefore, I agree with the principle in this Bill of deferred demolition, which is a new part of the law. If people have to remain in these houses for a long time it is only reasonable that a certain amount of patching up should be done.
LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of what has been said, in the hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. In particular, I should like to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Silkin with regard to the maintenance by local authorities of some standard for houses which are in their possession, even for this, I hope, limited period of ten years. Would the Minister also give some guidance as to what is meant by the phrase, "a standard which is adequate for the time being." One does not want the position to arise under which houses taken over by a local authority with tenants in them are allowed to deteriorate, while local authorities are given no guidance at all. That is an extremely vague phrase, and the local authorities ought to have some guidance.
658
As far back as 1919 the Ministry of Health issued a Manual of Unfit Houses, in which they said in the opening paragraphs:
"It is necessary to distinguish between two different standards in regard to housing accommodation. There is what may be termed the standard of mere fitness, which implies only that a house is free from any defects such as can be regarded as rendering it unfit for habitation. There is also a higher standard which may be termed the standard of amenity, which implies that the house is not only free from defects such as those mentioned, but has advantages and amenities which tend to promote to the full a healthy and contented home life. The distinction may be regarded as being between what is essential and what is desirable."
In any case, I suggest that even if we cannot get the desirable, local authorities should be advised that, even during those ten years, during which, we hope, if this Amendment is accepted, the houses are kept in possession, the houses should be kept at least in a fit, habitable condition.
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is so little between the objectives at which we aim that it is a pity that we should disagree about the methods by which we attain our goal. This matter was carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Minister and he decided against an Amendment in these terms, which was very much discussed in another place. My right honourable friend made it plain that patching is to be the exception, not the rule, and is justifiable only where the slum problem cannot otherwise be tackled. When he considers the proposals which will be put forward by the local authorities, that is the principle upon which he will act. I hope your Lordships will be very sure of that.
Of course, my right honourable friend cannot speak for those who follow him, whether they are of the same Party or of a different one, but I do not think there will be any difference between us that the clearance of slums will be the main objective of either Party. Do let us be realistic about this matter. What is the use of setting a time limit, whether it be five years or ten years, when we know, and must know, that there are great cities which, according to the best information and advice we can get, will not within a period of ten years be able to solve their problem? If they can, well and good; but if they cannot—and, believe me, they say they cannot—that

659
will be examined when they put forward their proposals. What is the purpose of putting a period of ten years into the Bill? My right honourable friend was moved by this consideration to say that there should be no time limit in the Bill. It is by the co-operation of the Minister and the local authorities that this problem will be solved. It appears to him, as it appears to me, that it is no use saying to the local authority, "Frame your proposal, but frame it upon the footing that there is going to be only a limited period within which you may patch." He will examine the proposals, and if he thinks that the local authority are taking too long he will, as the Act provides, admonish or encourage them and require an alteration in their proposals. But, to say to him, "There shall be a ten-year limit," or to say to the local authorities, "There shall be a ten-year limit" seems to be unrealistic.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has not spoken to this Amendment, upon Second Reading thought—and he had probably information upon which he relied—that the problem could be solved in all great cities, I think he said within five years. I do not know how far he has consulted some of the great cities in this country. Our information is that this is not possible and, accordingly, it is upon that footing that we think it better not to set a time limit. Since our objective is just the same although our methods are different, I hope that that Amendment will not be pressed. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, may I assure him that it shall certainly be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend that guidance should be given to the local authorities, for obviously the words "standard which is adequate" are vague. But language has its difficulties. How one is to be precise and use language to cover circumstances infinitely varying in different localities it is very hard to see. I will certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend that guidance might be given to the local authorities. Knowing my right honourable friend, I do not think he will require to be told that. I am sorry that I must decline to accept this Amendment, but I do not think it would be reasonable or practicable to do so.
3.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry th I cannot regard the reply of the noble and learned Lord as satisfactory. I think that the reply really arises through a misconception of what we have to deal with and what this clause purports to do. We are dealing with slums that have already been declared and which are ready for demolition, and with others which may hereafter be declared. Those which are hereafter to be declared are entirely within the control of the local authority. If they feel that the problem is so great, neither the noble and learned Lord nor I can settle the magnitude of the problem across this table. I take my figure of the numbers that have been declared as slums from the White Paper. The figure is 140,000 throughout the country. Certainly, that number can easily be dealt with in five years. But, of course, there are hundreds of thousands more that are ready for declaration but which have not yet been declared.
Let us deal first with those that have been declared. As regards those, is there any reason whatever why we should not impose a time limit for dealing with them? There is none at all. One hundred and forty thousand can be dealt with quite easily. As to the others, is that not entirely within the control of the local authorities? A local authority which declares an area or a house to be a slum and then says: "We are very sorry but we cannot deal with it for an indefinite period" is just acting irresponsibly. From now on, I imagine that local authorities will deal with slums as they find that they are capable of dealing with them. If they declare, then I do not imagine for a moment that they are going to declare the whole of their area within a matter of two or three months and then defer it indefinitely. I imagine that they will proceed at the pace at which they think they can go. Then, in some cases, they may have to defer and patch. It does not seem to me at all unreasonable and I suggest that in those cases they should be subject to a time limit of ten years.
As the noble and learned Lord must know, the alternative is that these houses will remain indefinitely. We see what is happening in another provision where we allowed houses to be built on public open spaces. Everybody was horrified but we agreed to it because it was

661
essential. But it was to be for ten years only. Then along came this very Bill to say: "We will extend it." At least, I know that the argument can be turned against it: "What is the good of putting in a limit of ten years if some later Government may come along and extend the period?" The answer is that if we do extend it—and we shall have something to say about that—we shall at least extend it with our eyes open and shall know what we are doing; we shall extend it in the light of the then existing circumstances. But we should not give—we did not in that case and I submit we ought not to give in this—local authorities or the Government carte blanche to patch up these houses and then let them remain indefinitely, without any demolition at all.
We recognise the noble and learned Lord's point that some slums will have to stand for longer than ten years. That is a problem that we have to face up to perhaps, although I think I have met that by saying that there is no need to declare them. But suppose it is so. I say it is a much greater evil to allow this clause to go as it stands, without any provision about demolition, and to create the impression that, once one has patched up, the houses can remain in their present condition indefinitely. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord overlooked the point that my noble friend Lord Wilmot of Selmeston made about the fact that in this clause there is no obligation upon the local authority to do anything about it at all. All they need do is to put the thing off indefinitely.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I did not mention it, but of course everything depends upon the co-operation of local authorities and the supervision of the Ministry. If the local authorities are not prepared to do their job, and if the Minister is not prepared to supervise adequately, the slums will not be cleared. With the permission of the Committee, may I say, in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—because our objective is the same—that I apprehend there may be a grave danger if his advice is followed by a local authority deferring the declaration of a clearance area. What is the harm in having a clearance area declared as soon as possible, and then, if it is not possible
662
to demolish within the time, doing what is necessary to make the standard at least adequate? Do not condemn these people within the clearance area to a greater state of misery than they need suffer. That is the point which I venture to think has been entirely overlooked by those who would attempt to put a time limit upon us. As I say, this point has been very carefully considered, and I am afraid that I cannot give way upon it.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: If I may add some observations, in spite of the powerful arguments of the noble and learned Lord, I find myself in considerable sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. As I said in my remarks on the first Part of this Bill, whilst I have no personal knowledge of local authority government, I have been, and am, apprehensive that, unless some measure of compulsion (which may not be a happy term to use) is applied, in fact too little will happen. The period proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, is ten years; as the noble and learned Lord has said, that might deter local authorities from action On the other hand, one, cannot escape from the fact that the clause refers to
"such period as may be determined by the authority."
It is the authority itself which determines what it is to do. It might not be so bad if it were the Minister who is to fix a period, but it is the local authority who is its own arbiter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That will be subject to confirmation.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: Perhaps unwisely, I have embarked upon reference to this clause, but my hope was that a solution might be achieved by a compromise—whether the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, would accept the term of fifteen years, referred to by my noble friend Lord Wolverton in regard to Clause 7, and whether, if the noble Lord were prepared to accept it, such a term would also be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. I do not know the answer to that question—I put, it forward merely as a suggestion, in the hope that it might prove instrumental in bridging the gap.
EARL JOWITT: May I make another appeal to the noble and learned Lord? I believe that our objective is the same. He has said (and I am quite willing to accept it) that he is most anxious to deal with the slums by clearance and not by patching; that patching is to be the exception and clearance the rule; that it will depend upon the activities and the determination of the local authorities; and that the Minister will admonish them and encourage them and try to induce them to do the best they can. It is from that point of view that I look at this clause. If we say in this Bill merely that this action can be postponed, with no time limit at all, is that likely to encourage the authorities to regard this as a matter of great urgency? If I may use a vulgarism, surely what you want to do is to "rub their noses in" this problem, and to make them realise that they must apply themselves to it with the energy and enthusiasm which the noble and learned Lord would desire. No doubt most of them will, with some encouragement; but there may be some rather lazy, and some even recalcitrant, who are not impressed with the need for prompt action. Would it not be wise, for that reason, to have a time limit? The history of all these housing measures which contain a time limit of ten years indicates that in nine years' time the Government in power, whether made up of members of the Party opposite or of those on this side of the House, may come to the House again and say, "We have been looking at this matter and have come to the conclusion that the ideas of our predecessors nine years ago were not right, and therefore we feel we have got to give a further extension." Be it so. But by having a time limit in this Bill it creates that sense of urgency and clamancy in dealing with the problem, and does not allow these people to lie back on their oars and do nothing about it.
I am impressed with the fact that the two speeches we have heard from private Members on that side of the House, both noble Lords having great knowledge on this subject, have pressed the Government to give way. I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord to look at the matter again. I really do not think the Government have anything to lose. Above all, they have a time limit which may make these people more intent on
664
being busy about the work, and it may possibly help them to get their ideals carried out. If the worst happens, and the ten years' period proves to be impossible, then they will have to bring in another Bill to extend the time. But that fact alone, I suggest, impresses upon local authorities the sense of urgency in dealing with the slum problem, which is exactly what the noble and learned Lord himself wants and what the Minister wants. I ask the Committee to say that by putting a time limit in this Bill we prevent anybody from saying that the Government are prepared to allow a slack local authority, if there be such a thing, to go on dealing with the problem for ever. It is far better to say that they must deal with it within ten years. That will bring them up to scratch in dealing with the problem. If Within the ten years, they find the situation impossible, then by all means let us consider again whether we should give a further extension of time. I beg the Government to take action on this matter, on which I believe noble Lords in all parts of the House are most anxious to do everything that can be done to get these slums removed from our midst.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I intervene for a moment, because I have some special experience of housing matters in relation to London. Of course, I realise that London is different from other parts of the country, and I am not putting forward the point of view of London on this Amendment. However, I feel that perhaps London's experience is of some value in dealing with this problem, as it has to be dealt with by local authorities in other parts of the country. As to the aim of this Amendment, there is no difference between the Government and the noble Lords who have expressed criticism of the Government for not accepting it. I think everyone agrees with the purpose that underlies the Amendment. None of us regards this patching up of condemned homes as an alternative to demolition, but we all, I think, take the view that a patched-up house should be demolished and removed as soon as local authorities can provide a new home for its occupants. I have no doubt that most local authorities will carry out what is the clear intention of the Government—namely, that these patched-up houses

665
should be pulled down and replaced at the earliest possible moment. But some local authorities may not wish, or may not be able, to give up the financial advantage of postponing demolition until the last possible moment. That is what we are afraid of. Having spent money on patching up, they may be in a difficult financial position which will oblige them to try to save the cost of demolition and replacement by spinning out as long as possible the life of these patched-up dwellings. This is a very real danger, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, if the Committee defeat this Amendment, can suggest some other way of meeting that danger.
It may be said that the ten year period of time suggested in the Amendment is a period that is not long enough for some authorities. I only know the situation in London, and I can tell your Lordships that, as far as London is concerned, tie London County Council and metropolitan boroughs expect, other things being equal, to clear all slum dwellings within the next ten years. We are now starting—this of course applies equally; it is a joint affair of the metropolitan borough councils and the London County Council—on our second post-war five-year slum clearance programme, and under this programme we hope to pull down about 10,000 unfit dwellings in the years that lie ahead, within ten years, we hope, from now. When these have been demolished we shall have wiped out all the arrears of slum clearance accumulated during the war and during the period of neglect before it, and by 1960 we hope that the only slum dwellings not covered by our programme will be a few hundred which every year become unfit owing to the ordinary course of wear and tear; and these can easily be dealt with by our normal rehousing programme.
Therefore I think that so far as London is concerned it is safe to say that a maximum period of ten years would not be unworkable, from the point of view of patched-up houses. I am not saying that London would wish to take advantage of this facility at all; I am saying merely that the objection to a ten-year period cannot be used from a London point of view.
I have heard it said, and it may well he the case—I have not had experience in other parts of the country—that there
666
are large towns in the Midlands and the North which are in quite a different position and there might be real difficulty there in rehousing slum dwellers in ten years. If that is so, may I suggest an Amendment to the Amendment? I do not see why some compromise should not be possible. Why should not the Amendment be qualified so as to allow exceptional treatment in genuine hard cases? The Minister might be authorised to extend the ten-year period on application by a local authority if he were completely satisfied that a particular authority was absolutely unable to clear its slums within the time. I put that forward only as a possible compromise suggestion but I very much hope the noble and learned Lord will be willing to consider it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I still think that exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, foresees is provided for by Clause 1 of the Bill, because the Minister will have regard to the proposals that are made, and if he finds that they involve the deferment of demolition for, more than a certain time, whether ten years or any other time, if he thinks appropriate he will say, "These proposals are not adequate." I believe the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and perhaps other of your Lordships were under some misapprehension and did not appreciate what is the power of the Minister here to require proposals and to demand that proposals shall, if necessary, be altered. He has the power already to say just that which Lord Listowel was postulating. He can require what shall be done; he can require proposals to be made or proposals to be altered; and if he thinks—and he will only think so in an exceptional case—that a longer period than whatever you like to take is required, only then will he sanction the proposals.
I want to be quite candid with your Lordships. This matter has been so carefully considered by my right honourable friend that I do not think he will be willing to give way. He must, of course, give way if this House is against him, unless a different view is taken in another place. But I think it is right that I should say that I will bring to his notice what has been said on both sides of the Committee, and in particular the

667
valuable suggestion which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. If your Lordships think fit to press the matter to a Division we will, of course, meet you accordingly. On the other hand, I will (but, frankly, without any promise that it will result in a concession) bring the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend, and we can discuss the matter again on Report if we are still at issue—and I should not like to say we shall not be. I hope, however, that your Lordships, on considering what I have said, will see that, having the same objective, we may reach that objective better by the means which the right honourable gentleman suggests than by those which your Lordships suggest.
3.56 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: We are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord for his promise to convey to his right honourable friend the views which have been expressed, but I am still rather puzzled about some of the things he said. Let us take the case we fear: the backward or lethargic local authority that does not get on with the job. As I understand it—I shall be glad to know if I am wrong—they can invoke the deferment provided under Clause 2 without having to get the prior permission of the Minister. They have only to say that they want to carry out works on a demolition area to be able to postpone the demolition. There is nothing in the Bill which requires them to bring forward an approved proposal. If it were contingent upon getting a plan approved by the Minister, and the Minister had powers of compulsion and sanctions to enforce those proposals to be carried out within a reasonable time, that would make a great difference. But the Minister, as I see it, has no such powers. This Bill merely hands a blank order of delay over to an authority which may be an authority which will be only too glad to avail itself of these delays and which will not then carry out the excellent intentions which the noble and learned Lord put forward as the Government's intentions, with which we certainly all agree. Therefore, in default of some concrete and complete assurances that these
668
powers of delay will not be available unless there is a plan which can be enforced by the Minister, I think my friends and other noble Lords who feel that this is a dangerous thing had better take this Amendment to a Division. But I hope the Government will feel that they can go a little further than they have.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly consider that the Minister contemplates that the powers conferred in Clause 1 provide sufficient safeguards against the indefinite retention of patched slum houses. He is authorised to modify the proposals submitted under subsection (1) and is entitled at any time to ask for new or modified proposals. It is certainly contemplated that the modification of proposals submitted under subsection (1) will include patching proposals—that is the intention. If it is not so, I will certainly have it looked into to make it abundantly clear.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: May I ask another question? If the proposals are not satisfactory, can the powers of delay provided under Clause 2 be withheld? And secondly, if the powers of delay are exercised, can the works be insisted upon within a reasonable time? We are anxious to avoid any chance of matters getting stuck. It seems to me that it might happen that these powers of delay would be invoked, so that a demolition which was about to take place would be stopped and nothing would happen. In my view, the Minister is not armed with the necessary powers to compel a recalcitrant authority to carry out its duties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly look into that matter. There is always the problem, is there not, of how to enforce upon a local authority the performance of its duty. That is so whether we impose a time limit or whether we do not. That is why I said at the outset that everything depends on the co-operation of the local authorities with the Minister. I will bear specially in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has said.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Kenswood, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lawson, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Ogmore, L.

Allenby, V.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Amwell, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Silkin, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Hungarton, L.

Winster, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Inman, L.

NOT-CONTEINTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Furness, V.

Glyn, L.

Goschen, V

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Sutherland, D.

Leathers, V.

Hampton, L.

Swinton, V.

Hindlip, L,

Cholmondeley, M.

Trenchard, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Willingdon, M.

Jeffreys, L.

Amulree, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Baillieu, L.

Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Meston, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Broughshane, L.

Monson, L.

Dundonald, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rochdale, L.

Rothes, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selborne, E.

Dormer, L.

Sinha, L.

Dovercourt, L.

Strang, L.

Bearsted, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Teynham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Waleran, L.

Devonport, V.

Gifford, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that this Amendment can be in any sense controversial. Your Lordships will see that paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) deal with houses which it is desired to retain as being required for supporting houses which are being patched up or where there is some other special reason why they should not be demolished. However subsection (4) does not extend to houses not intended to be patched but which are required for the support of patched houses or for other purposes—for instance, as a store. The Amendment brings these houses into line. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("as aforesaid") and insert ("of providing such accommodation as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, or in the case of which it appears to them desirable that it should be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last foregoing subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Licences for temporary occupation of houses subject to existing demolition or clearance orders
6.—(1) If it appears to a local authority that any house in respect of which a demolition order or clearance order had been made by that authority under Part II or Part III of the principal Act before the commencement of this Act is capable of providing accommodation of a standard which is adequate for the time being, they may grant to the person who, but for the said order, would be entitled to authorise the occupation of the house a licence permitting the occupation of the house during such period as may specified in the licence by such number of persons and on such terms as to the rent and other conditions on which the house may be occupied as may be so specified.
4.11 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after "period" to insert: "not exceeding five years." The noble Lord said: The clause on which we have just divided, and on which we had a moral victory, dealt with houses which the local authority were going to patch and which had been scheduled for demolition. An alternative method of dealing with these houses is provided in Cause 6. Under this clause, instead of patching up a house a local authority may authorise

671
the owner to do the work under licence. Whatever may have been the case for not imposing a time limit upon local authorities, I find it difficult to understand why, where a local authority grant a licence to an individual to continue to permit a house to be inhabited, the local authority should not be required to include in the licence a time limit stating how long the house may be occupied. Surely that is in the interest of even the owner himself.
Although the clause does not say so in terms, I presume that the owner will spend some money in patching up. Will he not want to know for how long occupation of the house will be permitted? Would it not be to his advantage in determining how much money he could spend? I agree that the Amendment provides for a maximum period, but if it should be thought more appropriate to put in a definite period, we should not greatly object. In my Amendment I have said five years. I think that, in the case of a house which is to be retained by the landlord, five years is not an unreasonable period, but if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going to charge us with inconsistency for saying ten years in the case of a local authority house and only five in the case of a privately owned house, we should not mind even ten years, if that would be acceptable, although we think that five years is right.
I need not repeat all the arguments put forward on the previous Amendment. The case is much stronger here, in view of the fact that these houses are to be retained not by local authorities but by private individuals. There is nothing here which requires a house to be put into good repair, but that point is dealt with on the next Amendment and I shall be able to argue it on that. I presume that it is not the intention of the Government that a slum house which ought to be demolished should continue to be occupied under licence indefinitely, without repairs being carried out. If there is a licence, I think a term ought to be inserted in it, so that the owner himself will know how long he will be allowed to occupy the house and may fix the amount of money he thinks it worth while to spend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding five years").—(Lord Silkin)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can hardly believe it, but I believe that the noble Lord has overlooked something, which would be extraordinary in a Housing Bill. The noble Lord wants to insert after "period" the words "not exceeding five years," but he is prepared to say that it might be some other period. But in subsection (4), the Bill itself provides that a licence shall cease to have effect at the expiry of three years. I thought the noble Lord was quite unwittingly offering a longer extension than the Bill itself provides. I do not know whether I dare ask him if he has overlooked that provision and, having overlooked it, will now perhaps withdraw his Amendment. Perhaps it may be something we have overlooked in this complex matter, but our intention is precisely the same as his: that where there has been a licence, it shall cease to have effect after a certain time. We have provided for a period of three years beginning with the commencement of the Act. True, subsection (4) provides for
" such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow in pursuance of an application made by the local authority within the said period of three years."
I think that really meets the noble Lord's point, but if there is anything in it which I have failed to understand, of course I will give the matter further consideration.
LORD SILKIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. The point in subsection (4) is that this period may be extended. The difference between us—and I agree that it is not a big difference—is that, whereas the period in subsection (4) is indefinite, in the sense that it may be periodically extended by the Minister, I seek to put in a definite period. Incidentally, it makes me rather wonder about my next Amendment, because I cannot conceive that it would be worth anybody's while to spend much money on a slum house merely to have it occupied for three years. We have to be realistic about these things, and in suggesting five years, I had in mind that that was the minimum period which would enable any landlord to recover his expenditure. What I fear is that in almost every case, the landlord will be

673
able to make out a good case for extending the period beyond the three years. In other words, I would rather put in a realistic period straight away than have an unrealistic period which is capable of indefinite extension, such as is given by subsection (4) However, I admit that the point is small, and I do not want to take up time on it. I have put my case. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to see that the point is looked at to ascertain whether it is not possible to have a realistic period which is definite and final, rather than a short period which is capable of indefinite extension.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This particular provision illustrates the determination of the Minister that the patching up of these houses shall be on the smallest scale possible—that is all it means.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble and learned Lord will look at this point again—there is no strong feeling about it, but I think it is worth looking at to see whether it is better to give a realistic period straight away, than to give short periods which are capable of extension—I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after "rent" to insert "repairs." The noble Lord said: As I hinted earlier, there is no provision in subsection (1) of Clause 6 requiring the landlord, among the other conditions which he has to fulfil, to put the house into some kind of repair. The subsection says that a licence may be granted so that the house may be occupied
"by such number of persons and on such terms as to the rent and other conditions … as may be so specified."
The words "other conditions" could be construed as meaning conditions as to repair. It is an odd way of doing it, because the whole purpose of this provision is to see that repairs are done. It is rather odd to omit the one essential thing among the conditions, and to leave it to be inferred. Therefore I suggest that we should put in the word "repairs," which will make it clear that that is a condition which has to be fulfilled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, after ("rent") insert ("repairs").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the noble Lord has said carries conviction. We do not think it is necessary, because it is quite clear that in licensing a house under these conditions the authority would undoubtedly impose the necessary conditions to ensure its maintenance up to the adequate standard during the term of the licence. Therefore, although, perhaps, strictly it is unnecessary to put in the word "repairs," if the noble Lord feels that it would be clearer if that word were inserted, we will certainly accept the Amendment.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Standard of fitness for human habitation
9.—(1) In determining for any of the purposes of the principal Act whether a house is unfit for human habitation, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the following matters, that is to say—

(a) repair;

(b) stability;

(c) freedom from damp;

(d) natural lighting;

(e) ventilation;

(f) water supply;

(g) drainage and sanitary conveniences; and

(h) facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food and for the disposal of waste water;

and the house shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid if and only if it is so far defective in one or more of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
(2) The provisions of the foregoing subsection shall be without prejudice to section twenty-two of the principal Act (which provides that certain back-to-back houses are to be deemed for The purpose of that Act to be unfit for human habitation).
4.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
"(1) For any of the purposes of the principal Act, a house shall be regarded as unfit for human habitation if it is not—

(a) free from serious dampness;

(b) satisfactorily lighted and ventilated;

675

(c) properly drained and provided with adequate sanitary conveniences and with a sink and suitable arrangements for the disposal of waste water;

(d) in good general repair; and has not

(e) a satisfactory water supply;

(f) adequate washing accommodation;

(g) adequate facilities for preparing and cooking food;

(h) a well ventilated food store."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Burden. The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute what we think is a more satisfactory definition of "fitness" or "unfitness" for the one that is included in Clause 9 (1) of the Bill. Let me say at once that I regard Clause 9 (1) as a considerable improvement on the existing law. Section 188 of the Housing Act, 1936, is unsatisfactory, and I think the Government have gone some way towards including a more satisfactory definition of "fitness" or "unfitness" than we have under the existing law. However, we feel it is a pity that, when they have done this, they should not have gone the whole way and included a definition which is wholly satisfactory. In the first place, the language is not really apt, because it provides, not that paragraphs (a) to (h) are essential but merely that
"In determining … whether a house is unfit for human habitation … regard shall be had to its condition in respect of"
repair, stability and so on. Exactly what that means, and what an unfortunate county court judge who may have to decide whether or not a house is fit has got to do, "having regard to" these things, it is extremely difficult to know.
Mr. Willink, when he was Minister of Health, set up a Committee, known as the Mitchell Committee, to investigate standards of fitness for habitation. I have to confess that I looked at the Committee's Report last night, and I found, to my complete surprise, that I was a member of that Committee. It sat a long time ago, and until I saw my name I had completely forgotten that I was a member. I was a member for only a short period, until the last Government was formed. However, in spite of my leaving the Committee it was still a good Committee, and it had on it representatives of a number of eminent housing
676
authorities, including representatives of building societies, a medical officer of health, one or two present Ministers and so on. It was an eminent Committee, and its members arrived at a unanimous conclusion. They laid down a definition of what they regarded as fitness. It so happens that this definition was one which had been laid down in 1919. In 1919, in a Manual of Unfit Houses, issued by the Ministry, a standard for a fit house was set out. They felt that they could not improve on that definition which was laid down in 1919. Much this same definition was confirmed in the Rural Housing Manual, issued in 1938 by the then Minister of Health. Therefore, we have a definition which has been approved by two separate Governments, one in 1919 and one in 1938, and also unanimously recommended by the Mitchell Committee. My Amendment simply takes that standard and seeks to incorporate it in the Bill. In my judgment, it is much more satisfactory than the definition which is included in the Bill at present. It is more satisfactory, first of all, for the reason I have already given: that it is positive and lays down what is required, rather than what should be had regard to. Apart from that, there is no serious difference between the two. In fact, it was argued in another place that they were much the same.
I admit that, in certain respects, the definition laid down in my Amendment is, if anything, of a somewhat higher standard than the definition in the Bill. For instance, in the Amendment we provide for "a well ventilated food store," whereas in the Bill the language is, "facilities for storage of food." Well, "facilities for storage" may be of any character at all—they may be an unventilated cupboard, or a cellar. If an owner claimed that his facilities for storage of food were in the cellar, so far as I can see from the definition in the Bill, no objection could be taken to it. We provide for "a well ventilated food store." The Bill provides for
"facilities for storage, preparation and cooking of food,"
Whereas we provide for
"adequate facilities for preparing and cooking food."
I have seen facilities provided on a landing of a house, not in a kitchen at all,

677
and with no ventilation. That would comply with the definition in the Bill as it stands. Such a house would be regarded as a fit house, even though sit had that kind of facility. As long as there was a gas cooker on a landing, it would be covered by this definition.
I do not want to run through the whole of them, but I think I can claim that, generally speaking, the standards laid down by this Amendment are somewhat higher than those laid down in the Bill. I confess that I find it extremely difficult to understand why a definition which was regarded as satisfactory in 1919, again in 1938, and again in 1945 by the Mitchell Committee, should not be regarded as a reasonable definition to incorporate in this Bill. We are told (I think the Minister said this in another place) that the standard was an unrealistic one. I cannot agree. I do not think the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (h) of the Amendment are unrealistic. There was, in fact, in the Report of the Mitchell Committee, another definition of fitness, which is much more rigorous and of a higher standard. The definition that we propose to put in the Bill is of a lower standard. We think that the least the Government can do is to accept the recommendation of its own Committee, which was composed of people who have a practical understanding of these things. The Chairman, Sir Miles Mitchell, is a man of many years standing in local government affairs and a former Chairman of the Housing Committee in Manchester, and most of the other member of the Committee were fully alive to what was practicable in laying down this definition. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will see their way to substituting the definition in the Amendment for the one which is at present in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD BURDEN: I wish to support what has been so well said by my noble friend Lord Silkin. There are just one or two points I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord. May I ask whether the definition of "sanitary defects" contained in Section 188 of the Housing Act, 1936, includes:
678
"Lack of air space or of ventilation, darkness, dampness, absence of adequate and readily accessible water supply or sanitary accommodation or of other conveniences, and adequate paving or drainage of courts, yards or passages."
Will that still stand as a definition of "sanitary defects," or will that be superseded by the clauses in the present Bill? May I suggest, too, that when the qualification in Clause 9 (1) that:
"the house shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid if and only if it is so far defective in one or more of the said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition"
comes to be construed in a court on any application by a local authority, it may give rise to endless interpretations, litigation and judgments. It is a clause which is difficult to construe and, therefore, I think that the points urged by my noble friend to make the definitions as wide as possible are important. I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether, between now and the Report stage, he could consider some Amendment of the qualifications I have read out, in order to be helpful to the local authorities.
May I also suggest that it would be a mistake to look at the problem of slum clearance purely from an urban point of view. There are as many slums behind the rose-covered frontages of cottages as in many urban areas. I should like to put in evidence, in addition to what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, the standard of fitness recommended in 1947 by the Hobhouse Committee on the reconditioning of rural houses. It was as follows:
"…be in all respects dry; be in a good state of repair; have each room properly lighted and ventilated; have an adequate supply of wholesome water laid on for all purposes inside the dwelling; be provided with efficient and adequate means of supplying hot water for domestic purposes; have an internal or otherwise readily accessible water closet; have a fixed bath,"
and so on. That may be a counsel of perfection. In any case, I submit to the noble and learned Lord that the definition included in this Bill would be far more satisfactory if widened as we suggest. In setting out on this campaign, as the noble and learned Lord has said, do not let us lower the flag. Let us make a determined effort on the slums, but not lower the definition as to what is considered to be slum property deserving of clearance.
4.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think we all have the greatest sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. It is true the Amendment reproduces substantially the recommendation of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, of which Sir Miles Mitchell was Chairman and the noble Lord a transitory member. But the noble Lord has not told your Lordships of what I think was a vital paragraph of the Report. After paragraph 23, recommending this standard of fitness, the Committee went on in paragraph 24 to recognise the impossibility of applying that standard wholesale, except at some time in the future when the housing condition of the country permitted. That is the vital part of the Report which your Lordships have to consider. We are not laying down here a standard of what is unfit for human habitation; we are laying down a standard for the purposes of the principal Act; and the result of declaring a house unfit for human habitation is at once to impose certain duties upon the local authority. It is quite clear that it would be absolutely—we have used the word so often—unrealistic to impose upon a local authority, here and now, the duty of proceeding on their necessary acts under the Act of 1936 in the case of every house which does not now conform to the standard laid down in this Amendment. That is not to deal realistically with the situation. The application of this definition to-day is quite out of the question and would impose a wholly impossible burden upon local authorities.
The Amendment lists the eight conditions which were envisaged by the Sub-Committee's standard. Subsection (1) of this clause does not make the house unfit if it does not satisfy every item in the list, but makes it unfit only if the defects in respect of any one or more of the items are so far-reaching as to render the house not reasonably suitable for occupation. Your Lordships will see the difference. The Amendment would require a local authority to go through this list of conditions one by one and condemn a house which failed to satisfy one of them, in however unessential a degree. That is surely a quite impracticable way of looking at the problem, and one unrelated to the immense diversity of houses with which we have to deal. There are years of arrears of work
680
to be done in the remedying of the defects in houses. If this Amendment were accepted, it is calculated that there would be tens of thousands of houses which would have to be dealt with by the local authorities because of the enforcement of the higher standard to be established by the Amendment. That situation just cannot be faced. I do not dissent in the least from the proposition as a theory, that a house is unfit for habitation if it does not comply with these several conditions; but to say that it is unfit for habitation for the purposes of the principal Act, with all that that involves, is utterly unrealistic. That was recognised by the Committee of which the noble Lord was a member, because they said that the standard could be introduced only at a time when the housing condition of the country permitted.
Now, as the clause stands, the local authority, while taking account of all relevant conditions, will assess the degree of each deficiency in a house. I can see that it may be totally deficient in one item and yet it may not be unfit for human habitation, according to the standard which we must lay down and follow to-day until the housing condition of the country is better. The cumulative effect of all the deficiencies will have to be considered and then the local authority will have to make up its mind whether the individual house is reasonably suitable for occupation. Taking into consideration all the circumstances, that is just as far as it is possible to go at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, made some observations upon this question. Again, I am entirely in sympathy with what he has said, but it is impossible to-day to say that a house which does not satisfy any one of the eight respects prescribed is unfit for human habitation and accordingly must be demolished. That is an impossible proposition. So, unwillingly, I say it is impossible to accept this Amendment and to lay down, here and now, that every house is unfit for human habitation which does not satisfy those conditions. It cannot be done.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry for what the noble and learned Lord has just said, because I was hoping that he was going to—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, but I did not answer a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burden.

681
The definition of sanitary defects in Section 188 is repealed by Clause 52 and the Fifth Schedule to the Bill.
LORD BURDEN: I thought it was. May I ask whether the noble and learned Lord will look at the other point I raised—the clarification of the sentence: "…the house shall be deemed to be unfit," and so on? It is a little difficult.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is impossible to get better words. I will look at it, of course, but it is a matter which has been much considered. It is one of those problems which a county court judge has to solve. It is a difficult one.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: May I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to encourage us to believe that at the next stage something will be done to meet the point which my noble friend has just put? May I say why I think there is some reason for asking that. This Bill will provide for a halt in the process of demolition and require, in lieu, improvements to be made. If we are going to take that course, surely it would not be too much to ask that the sights should be raised a little and that, instead of the bare list which appears in the Bill as drafted in Clause 9, we should include something to indicate the sort of standard we have in mind. There is nothing in the Bill which really gives it. What is given is just a list of parts, whereas my noble friend Lord Silkin, has at any rate mentioned some minimum standards. Maybe those standards go a little far, but, at any rate, I think we ought to put more in the Bill itself, in view of the fact that we are going to allow those houses to remain. Even if there is only one serious defect—suppose, for instance, there is no water supply or the water supply is, as is still the case in some parts of London, just a tap at the end of the yard—surely we ought to require the local authority, if they are going to be excused from the duty of demolishing that building, at least to put right that defect according to a standard set down in the Bill. Perhaps I may appeal to the noble and learned Lord once again to look at this Amendment, to see whether something cannot be done to meet the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can never resist an appeal of that kind, and of course I will look at it again. But the
682
noble Lord realises the hours that have been spent in trying to obtain a satisfactory definition. There are some things which are incapable of precise definition. Even in the Amendment proposed there are such words as "satisfactory water supply." What do you mean by that? I suppose that in regard to a flat in London you mean quite a different thing from what you mean in regard to a cottage in the country, where a well may be required. Things differ infinitely according to circumstances. I will, of course, look at the matter again, but I cannot promise that much good will come of it.
LORD SILKIN: Of course there is some validity in what the noble and learned Lord has said. On the other hand, in my view the definition in the Bill, which one must assume is a definition which is going to stand for some time, is unsatisfactory. The noble and learned Lord has referred me to paragraph 24 of the Report of the Mitchell Committee of which I was aware. In that paragraph the Committee recommend that any legislation which may be introduced pursuant to the preceding recommendation—therefore they contemplate that their recommendation will be incorporated in legislation—should provide for the revised minimum period to take effect as from an appointed day to be fixed by the Minister. Of course it is nine years since the Committee made their recommendations, and conditions have undoubtedly improved since then. There are many more houses, and it is much easier to deal with slum clearance. If the noble Lord opposite wishes to pat himself on the back, I would remind him that we provided many more houses than he did; but we will not go into that now.
The fact is that there are now many more houses than there were in 1945, and, as we all recognise, it is much easier to-day to deal with the problem of slum clearance than it was in 1945, when of course it was quite impossible. We are considerably nearer to the time when this definition can be implemented, even if we accept that it cannot be done at this moment. But if that is the case, what is the justification for putting into a permanent housing measure a definition which is not satisfactory? If we retain the present definition, could we not at any rate have the additional one, which is something the Minister can bring into

683
operation on an appointed day, in accordance with the recommendation of the Mitchell Committee? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give that suggestion sympathetic consideration. If he will, I should be quite prepared to facilitate matters in the usual way. But I think it is quite wrong to reconcile oneself, apparently for a long time, to an unsatisfactory definition of "unfitness," and to make no provision at all for the time which the noble and learned Lord is arguing is going to be very soon, when it might be possible to improve our standards.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Once again the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, makes an appeal. I do not want to be put in the position of appearing to suggest that
5.3 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "repair" to insert "(other than internal decorative repair)." The noble Lord said: The object of this
684
consideration will result in anything which will be favourable to the Amendment which is proposed, or even to a sort of compromise Amendment which would give effect to this Amendment on an appointed day in the future. Therefore, if the noble Lord will accept it upon that footing, that I really make no promise—he has not persuaded me, and I do not think he will persuade the Minister—I will of course look at it. But it would not be right for me to say more than that. Frankly, I hold out no hope at all, because, with great respect, I do not think the Amendment is a sound one.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Stansgate, V.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Silkin, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Hungarton, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Inman, L.

Winster, L.

Boyle, L. (E.Cork and Orrery.)

Kenswood, L.

Wise, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Falmouth, V.

Gifford, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hacking, L.

Furness, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Goschen, V.

Hampton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Hudson, V.

Hindlip, L.

Leathers, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Swinton, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Bathurst, E.

Killearn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Aldenham, L.

Lloyd, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Amulree, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dundonald, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Meston, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Grey, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Monson, L.

Mansfield, E.

Broughshane, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Munster, E.

Carrington, L.

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Rochdale, L.

Rothes, E.

Cranworth, L.

Rockley, L.

Selborne, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Saltoun, L.

Dormer, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Allenby, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Strang, L.

Bearsted, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Teynham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Buckmaster, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Waleran, L.

Devonport, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Amendment is to make it clear that in considering the word "repair" there shall always be excluded internal decorative repair. In a recent case in the Queen's Bench Division it was decided that, under existing law, internal decoration which causes discomfort and inconvenience to the tenant does not constitute

685
a nuisance within the meaning of Section 82 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936. If lack of internal decoration is not a nuisance, it is still less a ground for holding that the premises are unfit for human habitation. I have moved the Amendment very shortly. I hope that, none the less, it is worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("repair") insert ("other than internal decorative repair").—(Lord Meston.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I regret that I cannot, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, accept the Amendment, which would in fact reduce the standard of fitness for human habitation which it is the purpose of Clause 9 to apply to all houses. It would relieve a landlord from the responsibility of making good defects in internal decorations so bad as to make the house unfit for human habitation. All the wallpaper might be falling off in strips; the paint and distemper might have disappeared, and the house might be liable to further deterioration. There fore it is essential that a local authority should have power to require a landlord to do the work necessary to remedy that state of affairs. It is not only a matter of the comfort of a tenant, but concerns also the preservation of part of our national assets. The Amendment would lower the standard which my right honourable friend has decided to maintain, and therefore I must resist it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: With your Lordships' permission I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the last Division. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, but I am most anxious that, in a debate of this kind, there should be no possibility that noble Lords may be unable to get into the Division Lobby in time. I came straight away from the tea-room as soon as the bell was ringing. It had just finished ringing, and I got into the Prince's Chamber just in time to hear the click of the lock and was refused admission to the Lobby. It may be a matter that we can deal with later, but it is obvious that, if time is to be limited to less than three minutes between the time the Question is first called until the door is locked, then in future Divisions we must have adequate time before the order
686
is given for the doors to be locked, unless noble Lords are to be prevented, if they are in another part of the House, from being able to record their sincere vote.
EARL FORTESCUE: I understand that it has always been the practice for the Clerk to turn up the sandglass and when it has run out he informs the doorkeeper and the door is locked. So far as I know, that is what happened this time.
EARL BATHURST: I think I was the last one out of your Lordships' tea-room; and I paid my bill and had time to finish my cigarette and still be in time for the Division.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I paid my bill immediately after the noble Lord, so there could not have been very much in it.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: I have no personal interest in these houses, but I understand that some of the worst slums in the North of England are composed of back-to-back houses, and those will, no doubt, be dealt with under the slum clearance schemes which we have been discussing. I understand, however, that there are other houses of this particular type of construction which are in a reasonably good state and unlikely to be dealt with under slum clearance schemes. They house a large number of people. The point is perhaps a technical one, but I understand that a provision in the Housing Act, 1936, made it clear that any house of that type of construction built after that date would be deemed unfit for human habitation. Apparently nothing was said about houses in a reasonable state of repair that had been built before 1936, and the question is: if there is that doubt, what is their position under this Bill? Do they come within the ambit of this Bill or not? As they house a number of people and are not likely to be covered in slum clearance schemes, it would seem a little unfortunate if they could not enjoy the provision made in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 42, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MESTON: May I say a few words in support of the Amendment.

687
From the practical point of view, the position is extraordinarily difficult. I have been informed that in the city of Bradford there are 92,831 dwellings, of which approximately 30,000 are back-to-back houses. Many of them are houses which provide reasonable accommodation and are structurally sound, although it must be admitted that in many other respects they are not by any means satisfactory. I submit that to condemn a house merely because it is a back-to-back house is going too far in present conditions, and that therefore it might be better if each back-to-hack house were to be considered entirely on its own merits.
LORD MANCROFT: This is rather a technical point. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, may not be quite clear as to the interpretation of this particular subsection. I see what he is trying to get at, and I equally understand the point which Lord Meston has raised. What they are concerned with is to secure that back-to-back houses should not automatically be deemed to be unfit, but should be judged by the standard of fitness laid down by the clause. So far as I know, there are no back-to-back houses which are deemed to be unfit under Section 22 of the Housing Act, 1936. That section, which reproduced Section 43 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, prohibited the erection of back-to-back houses, unless they were erected on streets of which the plans were approved by the local authority before 1909. The only back-to-back houses which could automatically be deemed unfit are, therefore, those back-to-back houses which were built unlawfully after 1909. In these circumstances, your Lordships may ask why the provision contained in this subsection is necessary at all. The answer is that, without it, a back-to-back house which was built unlawfully would not be deemed to be unfit, and a simple means of securing its demolition would therefore be taken away. Unfortunately, there are a great many back-to-back houses, as noble Lords have mentioned. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, would, probably, be prepared to bear me out that in his city of Leeds alone there are some 30,000 such houses. But these are either houses built before 1909 or houses built on streets of which the plans were approved by the local authority
688
before 1909; and they are therefore not automatically deemed to be unfit for human habitation. The clause will apply to them as it applies to any other house. I hope that that explanation has removed any doubts in the minds of the two noble Lords who have supported this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: So far as I am concerned it has, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Houses let in lodgings, &c.
(2) Nothing in the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, shall prevent possession being obtained of any house or part of a house possession of which is required for the purpose of complying with a requirement under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection.
5.17 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. This clause deals with houses which are let to more than one family, and it enables the local authority to require that certain steps should be taken, among other things, to thin out a house which otherwise would be unfit for occupation. Further, it provides, by subsection (1) (b), that certain people may be dispossessed in order to make the house suitable for occupation by those that remain. I think that the new clause which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack is to move later has the same object, but this Amendment is specifically for dealing with overcrowding. My concern, both in this and in the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord is to move later, is to ensure that people thus dispossessed are not thrown out into the streets but are provided with other accommodation.
I am moving to delete subsection (2) because that provides that the Rent Restrictions Acts shall not operate in order to prevent a person from being dispossessed. It may be that that is not the most elegant way of achieving what I want to achieve. But it is clear that what

689
I want is that the Rent Restrictions Acts should apply to such persons, so that if they are turned out they will be provided with alternative accommodation. The most satisfactory rule would be that the local authority should not make an order at all unless they can provide such persons with other accommodation. If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to give me some encouragement on that, and to say that, at a later stage, he will have something inserted in the Bill to ensure that anyone who is turned out of an unfit house in order to enable the house to be made fit will be provided with alternative accommodation, then I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw my Amendment.
I think it is an extraordinary way of going about matters, to turn people out in order to make places fit, yet not to provide them with any other accommodation. A house with three families may, for instance, be regarded as being fit for two families only, not necessarily because it is overcrowded but because it has not the facilities which are required for three families. But reduction of the occupancy to two families would mean turning one family into the street, and it seems to me that the clause would enable a landlord to do that—in fact it encourages a landlord to take proceedings. He may be fined for not taking proceedings to get possession where ordered to by the local authority, but no provision is made for the poor tenant who may be dispossessed. I am sure that, with his kind heart, the noble and learned Lord does not wish that to be the effect of anything done under Clause 11, so I hope the Government will be able to suggest some method of dealing with this difficult problem. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt this is a somewhat difficult dilemma. It is clear that the provisions of Clause 11 must be retained—that is to say, there must be this power to prevent overcrowding. I think that is beyond all question. If there is that provision in the Act, equally it must not be the case that the landlord is prevented by any other Act, such as the Rent Restrictions Act, from doing that which he is told to do to mitigate overcrowding. Accordingly, subsection (1) being in the Bill,
690
subsection (2) should be there also. I think the noble Lord will recollect that exactly this problem arose long ago. Section 65 (1) of the Housing Act, 1936, provides as follows:
"Where a dwelling-house is overcrowded in such circumstances as to render the occupier thereof guilty of an offence, nothing in the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1933, shall prevent the landlord from obtaining possession of the house."
There is exactly the same provision and exactly the same problem. Speaking from recollection, I believe that no special provision was made in the 1936 Act in regard to the local authority's finding alternative accommodation. I venture to think that it was left to the intelligence and good will of the local authority to see that at any rate temporary accommodation was provided where they had to serve notice in order to prevent overcrowding, and where, in consequence, those who were overcrowded had to be ordered out. I imagine that the local authorities will act now as they have done in the past when enforcing the provisions of the Housing Act, 1936, including Section 65. Therefore, I must resist the Amendment. Whether anything further can be done is another matter. I should not have thought it was necessary.
LORD BURDEN: While I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said, may I suggest, out of some experience of local government, that local authorities who are housing authorities will be reluctant to put people on the streets if there is no alternative accommodation. That will make this clause difficult to operate. May I point out what seems to me to be a difficulty? In a further Amendment which the noble and learned Lord is to move, a landlord will be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction may be fined for non-compliance, but the clause does not give the landlord authority to put a tenant's goods and chattels on the street. I assume that if a notice is served on him by the local authority, he will have to take action for possession in the county court. Suppose the county court refuses to give the landlord possession, would the landlord then be guilty of the offence provided for in the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, if another department of the local authority take action against him for overcrowding? I am not raising this in a debating way, but simply for information.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose exactly the same thing might arise under the Act of 1936. Whether it did and what the consequence was, I am afraid I have not in mind to tell the noble Lord, but I should imagine that, if it was impossible by reason of a court order for a landlord to give effect to the direction given by the local authority, although he may be technically guilty of an offence, I cannot conceive that any magistrate would deal hardly with him.
LORD SILKIN: I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division because, among other things, I never thought it was a good Amendment. It was merely a means of raising a point that I wanted to raise. I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is an important point. The fact that under the provisions of the 1936 Act, in the interests of relieving overcrowding it is possible to turn people out without providing them with alternative accommodation does not justify extending the practice. Local authorities are in a real dilemma here. I hope that something can be done to ensure that nobody is turned out into the streets merely because he has the misfortune of living in a house which is overcrowded. It is penalising the already unfortunate person who has had to live in these conditions, to say to him. "We shall not even let you live in these conditions. You must get out, and we are not interested in where you go." Since we are giving additional powers to local authorities to deal with these houses, I should have thought it possible to say to them in these cases that they must give other accommodation to the persons displaced. But I am content to leave it at that. I do not ask for any undertakings, but I hope that between now and Report stage it may be possible to find some way of ensuring that people are not just turned out into the streets.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I think this is one of the many cases where we have to decide between legislation which may be very complicated and relying upon wise and prudent administration. The latter was the policy followed under the 1936 Act, and I think it has been successful.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Without prejudice to any other powers exercisable under the principal Act or this part of this Act, a local authority may, as respects any house or part of a house which is let in lodgings, serve on the person having control of the house (as defined for the purposes of Part II of the principal Act) a notice—

(a) specifying works of interior decoration which in the opinion of the authority are required for rendering the premises suitable for letting in lodgings; and

(b) requiring the provision of handrails to staircases and on landings, means of lighting corridors, staircases and other parts of the house used in common by occupiers of the house and any other works which in the opinion of the local authority are necessary for the safety of persons using the premises."

The noble Lord said: Before coming to the Amendment, may I say that I regard this clause as somewhat unfortunate. I discussed the clause at great length with officers and members of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, who will be responsible for working the clause in the field as officers of local authorities. Their opinion is that the powers which local authorities have under the 1936 Act to make by-laws controlling the letting of houses and lodgings which are occupied by more than one family are reasonably efficient and have worked fairly well. I am aware that the Committee which is referred to as the Silkin Committee made recommendations that the power of making by-laws should be repealed. As I understand it, however, that recommendation was made because it was suggested that model by-laws, so to speak, should be written into new legislation. It is because the Bill does not do that that I am venturing to move this Amendment. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Amendment covers all the points which would be covered by model by-laws. I say in regard to by-laws only that their effectiveness or ineffectiveness would not rest only with the local authority but would rest also with the Minister, who would have to give his approval to the by-laws. However, that is a subsidiary matter.
I come now to the Amendment standing in my name. Where a house is used as a lodging house it will normally be occupied by a larger number of persons than it would be if it were used only for family accommodation, and often there

693
will be more frequent changes of occupier than in the case of an ordinary house. Therefore I submit to your Lordships that, in any circumstances of that kind, more stringent provisions are required for reasons of health and safety. Clause 9 (1) provides for the essential maintenance of such things as ventilation, natural lighting, water supply, sanitation, cooking facilities and so on; but neither that subsection nor Section 9 of the Housing Act, 1936, which deals with repairs to houses required to render them fit for human habitation, covers the matters referred to in this new subsection. Looked at as a house and without regard to The number of people occupying it, it may be quite possible to say that a particular lodging house is, under Section 9 of the Housing Act, 1936, fit for human habitation, In any event, it is questionable whether the provisions of Section 9 of the 1936 Act are sufficiently wide to enable a local authority to require the person taking control of a house to provide, for example, handrails to a staircase or means of lighting for staircases and corridors. In a lodging house, however, with its large number of occupants and its comparatively frequent change of persons using it, it is necessary to make provision for satisfactory conditions as respects decoration and for adequate safety precautions, such as handrails to stairs and proper lighting of stairs and corridors.
If the clause passes into law in its present form, it will take away from local authorities powers which many of them already possess and which all can obtain, and substitute nothing in their place. These powers are still needed. The problem of lodging houses in London, Birmingham, Manchester and other large centres, particularly those where overseas workers come to obtain employment, is serious. I believe that in some quarters of our large towns the growing coloured population is living in houses which are turned practically into lodging houses, three, four and five people sleeping on the floor in one room. These problems still require the urgent attention of our local authorities, and this Amendment seeks to make good the omission which would arise from the acceptance of the clause in its present form. As this Amendment has been put on the Order Paper only recently, the noble and
694
learned Lord may not have had an opportunity to consider it fully, and if he cannot accept it at present I hope he will give me an assurance that he will look at it between now and the Report stage and endeavour to remedy the omissions to which I have ventured to refer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that this Amendment was put forward at a late hour. However, I have had some opportunity of looking into it and I would make these observations upon it. The Amendment reproduces, in effect, certain of the by-law-making powers of Section 6 (1) of the Housing Act, 1936, which are being repealed, and Celiberately repealed. I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to determine together whether the repeal of the by-law-making power Which Lord Silkin's Committee recommended was, as the lawyers say, sub modo or absolute—I think it was the latter. However that may be, in this Bill we do repeal those by-law-making powers. As to the provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, suggests by this Amendment, paragraph (a) is, I venture to think, quite unnecessary. Decorative repair which is considered to be so far defective as to make the house unsuitable for occupation can be required to be remedied by a works notice under Section 9 of the 1936 Act. Noble Lords will remember that I dealt with this matter on an Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I pointed out that repair of that kind, of interior decoration, did fall within the scope of the Act. Therefore I feel that paragraph (a) is quite unnecessary.
As to paragraph (b) of the Amendment, as I am at present advised, it is true that the provision of handrails cannot be required by a notice under. Clause 9; but the view has consistently been taken and is maintained by the Department that the need for a power of this kind no longer exists. There is power to require repair or replacement by a notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1936 or by Clause 9 of the Bill. Therefore, it is not thought necessary to have any provision as to handrails. The noble Lord then deals

695
with the means of lighting corridors, and so on. I am not sure how far he is thinking there of the natural means of lighting, or of artificial means. In so far as the Amendment refers to natural means, that is something that can be provided for under Clause 9, as it stands. That power would not extend to artificial means, but it is not considered necessary to confer power in regard to a matter of this kind, for that, by and large, is provided for by landlords. Moreover, to retain in another form the by-law-making power which has hitherto existed in this connection would entail an army of inspectors, and that is one of the reasons which I believe actuated the Silkin Committee in advocating the abolition of the by-law-making power. I do not quite know what the noble Lord means by the words
"other works … necessary for the safety of persons using the premises."
I do not know whether he means the stability of the premises, or fire precautions. If it is the stability of the premises, that is covered by Clause 9; and, if he refers to fire precautions, that is adequately covered by the Public Health Acts. For those reasons, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord cannot accept this Amendment. He is not going to involve my noble friend Lord Silkin and me in a dispute as to the exact intention of my noble friend's Committee. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord should say that the Department thinks the powers are unnecessary. This Amendment is moved because the local authorities are of the opinion that these things should be carried out. The noble and learned Lord is subscribing to the dictum which has been derided so often from the other side of the House, that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best." I am asking only that a local authority, responsible to its own people for the public health in its own area, should have power to deal with what I suggest is an increasing social problem in many of the industrial areas of our large towns—places like Sheffield, Cardiff and others. You are taking away from the local authority powers to deal with a grave question. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to go into this question with the Department, when I believe he will see that there is some substance in what
696
I have ventured to submit to him. I will not press my Amendment at the moment, and, unless my noble friend Lord Silkin wishes to say anything, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:
Further provisions about overcrowding
".—(1) If it appears to a local authority, in the case of a house within their district, or of part of such a house, which is let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family, that excessive numbers of persons are being accommodated on the premises having regard to the rooms available, the authority may serve on the occupier of the premises or on any person having the control and management thereof, or on both, a notice—

(a) stating, in relation to any room on the premises, what is in the authority's opinion the maximum number of persons by whom it is suitable to be occupied as sleeping accommodation at any one time, or, as the case may be, that it is in their opinion unsuitable to be occupied as aforesaid; and

(b) informing him of the effect of subsection (3) of this section.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection a notice may, in relation to any room, prescribe special maxima applicable in any case where some or all of the persons occupying the room are under such age as may be specified in the notice.
(3) Any person who has been served with a notice under this section shall be guilty of an offence if, after the notice has become operative,—

(a) he causes or knowingly permits any room to which the notice relates to be occupied as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with the notice; or

(b) he causes or knowingly permits to be accommodated on the premises such a number of persons that it is not possible, without contravention of the foregoing paragraph or the occupation as sleeping accommodation of some part of the premises for which a maximum is not specified under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to avoid persons of opposite sexes and over the age of twelve years (other than persons living together as husband and wife) occupying sleeping accommodation in the same room.

(4) Any person committing an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and, where the offence of which he was convicted continues after conviction, to a further fine not exceeding two pounds for every day for which the offence so continues.
(5) Section fifteen of the principal Act (which provides for an appeal against certain notices and orders under Part II of that Act

697
and determines the date on which a notice or order is to become operative) shall apply in relation to a notice under this section as it applies in relation to a notice under the said Part II requiring the execution of works; and in section one hundred and fifty-seven of that Act (which confers powers of entry for purposes connected with housing) the reference in paragraph (d) to Part IV of the Act stall include a reference to this section.
(6) Where a local authority has served a notice under this section in respect of any premises, they may at any time withdraw the notice, without prejudice to anything done in pursuance thereof or to the service of another notice, or, if there is any material change of circumstances, they may substitute for the notice a further notice under this section; and, where a notice is withdrawn, subsection (3) of this section shall cease to apply in relation to the premises, without prejudice to its further application if a subsequent notice is served in respect of the same premises.
(7) The powers exercisable by a local authority under this section shall be without prejudice to those conferred by the last foregoing section, and nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act (which relates to overcrowding in separate dwelling houses).'
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a somewhat lone clause which I seek to incorporate by Amendment. It is a clause which is designed to fill a gap in the powers of local authorities in dealing with overcrowding which will result from the repeal by Clause 11 of the by-law-making power. That power, as your Lordships know, was given by Section 6 (1) (a) of the Housing Act, 1936, enabling the fixing of the number of persons who may occupy sleeping accommodation in a lodging house or a house occupied by members of more than one family, and for securing the segregation of the sexes. Of course, the by-laws under Section 6 (1) covered much more than that single point, but this is the point with which we wish specifically to deal. It was in fact represented in another place, and very forcibly represented, that there ought to be a specific provision as the by-law-making power had been repealed.
I will state briefly the purpose of this new clause. Subsection (1) empowers a local authority to serve a notice on the occupier or person having control of a lodging house, stating in relation to any room on the premises what, in their opinion, is the maximum number of persons by whom the room is suitable to be occupied as sleeping accommodation, and informing him of the effect of subsection (3). Subsection (2) enables
698
the local authority to vary the numbers where some or all of the persons occupying the room are children. Subsection (3) makes it an offence if the occupier or person having control causes or knowingly permits any room to which the notice relates to be occupied as sleeping accommodation otherwise than in accordance with the notice, or if he causes or knowingly permits to be accommodated on the premises such a number of persons that the sexes cannot be separated without overcrowding.
Subsection (4) provides for the same penalty as is provided for by Clause 11 (3) in relation to overcrowding in that clause, which relates to overcrowding of a house as a whole, as opposed to this clause, which deals with overcrowding in relation to rooms. Subsection (5) applies the appeal previsions of Section 15 of the Housing Act, 1936. This will enable a person served with a notice to challenge its reasonableness in the county court, and the notice will not become operative until the time for appealing has expired or any appeal brought has been dismissed. Subsection (6) enables the local authority to vary or withdraw the notices, and subsection (7) is probably unnecessary, but it is added out of abundant caution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I think this new clause is an improvement, and we welcome it. I wish to raise briefly the same point as I raised before. Under this clause it is possible to cause persons to be dispossessed simply because they are living in overcrowded conditions, and no provision is made for rehousng them. In an earlier statement, the noble and learned Lord referred to Section 65 of the Housing Act, 1936, and he made the point that there was no provision in that Act for providing people with alternative accommodation in this or similar in stances. I think he is right. I have not been able to find anything, in the short time since he drew my attention to it.
I was Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council at the time when the 1936 Act came into operation. I am not able to charge my memory with accuracy, but I have an impression, which I shall be able to check in the next few days, that there was

699
some order by the Ministry of Health which prevented us from dealing with overcrowding unless we had alternative accommodation available for people who would be dispossessed. That is, it was done administratively by some regulation, order or direction of the Ministry of Health. I am quite sure that it was not left entirely to the discretion of the local authority. I think it worked well and, in fact, having regard to such a regulation or order, no local authority attempted to enforce the overcrowding provisions and turn people out into the streets. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, among his many other preoccupations, would look into this matter and see what is the position, and ascertain whether similar provision could not be made either under this Bill or administratively. That would ensure that, if any of the provisions under either Clause 11 or the clause following are brought into operation, the result would not be that people would be turned out without other accommodation being made available.
5.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am not very happy about this new clause. That may be, and no doubt is, due to my lack of legal education. I am wondering whether the right person will bear the brunt of the criminal charge which is provided for in this new clause. Is any person "having the control and management of "a house always the person who is guilty of causing the overcrowding? Do not cases occur where the statutory tenant takes in lodgers? Are there not cases where an owner has put a restrictive covenant on a sub-tenant, and finds that that sub-tenant has broken that restrictive covenant? If I could be assured that people who have done their best to prevent overcrowding are not going to be summoned, then I should be easier in my mind.
There is one further point, which I think has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. In this clause there does not seem to be any exact method by which the person who is responsible for the control of the house can secure eviction of the tenants overcrowding his house. I can only presume that the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 11—that is to say, the removal of the rent restrictions protection—will apply also to this clause.
LORD MESTON: May I make two short comments upon this otherwise excellent new clause—they have both been covered by observations made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. So far as criminal responsibility is concerned, it may be, of course, that subsection (3) protects the owner or occupier, or person having the control and management of the premises, from liability in a case where he has done nothing he should not have done or omitted nothing which he should have done. On the other hand, if it does not so protect such a person in those circumstances, it might be desirable at the end of subsection (4) to add these well-known lines:
"It shall be a good defence to proceedings that the offence did not take place through any act or default of the person whom it is sought to be made liable."
The other comment which I wish to make has also been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. In this connection, I would point out that in subsection (2) of Clause 11, there are, by implication at all events, specific provisions whereby the person who is charged with overcrowding can take proceedings to evict those people who are causing the premises to be overcrowded. It might be desirable to import something of the nature of subsection (2) of Clause 11 into this new clause. I hope that I have said nothing derogatory to the Lord Chancellor's new clause. If I did, I should be rather like the man who spoke disrespectfully about the Equator, and I never did know what happened to the man who spoke disrespectfully about the Equator. Those are harmless comments that I wish to make.
EARL BATHURST: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, when he sums up on his Amendment, to make it quite clear who will have the duty of securing alternative accommodation for the persons being evicted? It may be difficult for a private landlord, or for a local authority for that matter, to find alternative accommodation, although they would very much like to evict the people who are causing the overcrowding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about his experience—indeed, I feel myself a child in experience in these matters, compared with the noble Lord. I should have thought that, if the

701
local authority did not act with reasonable prudence and good sense—that is to say, if they did not make sure, before they served a notice which would have the effect of evicting some of the tenants of overcrowded premises, that there was alternative accommodation—it would clearly be a case for administrative direction by the Minister. That is what I understood from him took place before. I cannot give an assurance, but I feel sure that precisely the same result can and will be obtained under this Act as was obtained under the Act of 1936. It is a matter for the local authority, but if they require direction to act sensibly, they will surely receive that direction from the Minister.
In regard to what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, have said, the notice which is to be given under Clause 11 is a notice served on the occupier of the premises or on any person having the control and management thereof. It is quite clear, I suggest, that either the occupier (who may well be the statutory tenant) does what I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, suggested—that is, allows an undue number of people to occupy the premises of which he is the statutory tenant—or the person having the control and management of the premises does. One or other of those must be the guilty party in allowing too many persons to be crowded into the premises and a notice would be served upon one or the other or both of them in due course. I see no real difficulty about that. I do not quite follow what is supposed to be the difficulty. Of course, any one of them might have some defence. He might say, "I did not cause it. I did not knowingly permit it." If he did not, he is not guilty of an offence, because the clause says:
… if, after the notice has become operative, he causes or knowingly permits any room to which the notice relates to be occupied"
and so on, then he is guilty. But it has to be the man who "causes or knowingly permits" it, and he has got to be either the occupier or the "person having the control and management of "the premises. It seems straightforward to me. There may be difficult and complicated cases for which the clause does not make provision. If so, there is a loophole, and the loophole may have to be filled up at some future time. But it is as clear and
702
comprehensive as the circumstances of the case permit.
LORD MESTON: We should thank the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I stand to be corrected, but I am surprised to hear that a statutory tenant who causes all the trouble comes within the definition of either an occupier or a person having the control and management of the premises. If he does so come within that definition, of course there is no trouble; but, with the greatest possible respect to the Lord Chancellor, who has forgotten more about these things than I ever knew, I should be very surprised if that was the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought that, if a statutory tenant was in occupation, he was an occupier within the meaning of the section. I may be wrong, but it is upon that footing that I answered the noble Lord. As at present advised, I adhere to that opinion.
LORD MESTON: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Amendments of Housing Act, 1949
15—Notwithstanding anything in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section fifteen of the Housing Act, 1949, or in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section twenty of that Act (which preclude the approval by the Minister of improvement proposals, or the approval by a local authority of an application for an improvement. grant, unless the period for which the dwellings concerned are likely to provide satisfactory housing accommodation is not less than thirty years) the Minister or a local authority, as the case may be, may approve any such proposals or application if satisfied that the said period is likely to be more than ten years and that it is expedient in all the circumstances that the proposals on application should be approved
(8) Sub-paragraph (ii) Oh of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the said Act (under which the maximum rent payable for a dwelling in respect of which an improvement grant has been made under that Act is in certain cases determined by reference to a percentage of so much of the cost of improvement as is not set off by the grant) shall have effect, in relation to improvement works completed after the eleventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-three, as if for the words "six per cent." there were substituted the words "eight per cent."
5.59 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. The purpose of the clause is to amend Section 15 of the Housing Act, 1949, so as to permit the local authority to approve improvement schemes in respect of dwellings where the expected life of the house after the improvement scheme has been carried out is not less than ten years, instead of thirty years as provided under the 1949 Act. By leaving out subsection (1) the position would be that the 1949 Act would remain as it is unamended and, therefore, the thirty-year period would remain. This Bill provides that the local authority may contribute automatically up to £400 towards the cost of improving an unsatisfactory dwelling, and that there may be spent on that dwelling £800— or even more. It seems to me that if anything like the sum of £800 is to be spent on improving a dwelling, that dwelling ought to have a life of at least thirty years. What the private person does with his own money is not a matter for this House, but what is done with public money is, of course, a most serious matter.
I ask the Committee to consider the case of a house which has no more than ten years of life in it, and upon which it is proposed to spend £800, of which £400 is public money. It seems to me an extraordinary waste of public money to contemplate such a thing. It could be argued that no sane person would want to spend £800 on a house which has a life of only ten years. But if that is so, why do the Government deliberately amend the law so as to permit of it? Why do they go out of their way under Clause 15 of the Bill to reduce the period in the life of a house from thirty to ten years? Surely it is contemplated that, in certain circumstances, people who have a house which has a life of only ten years, or thereabouts, may want to spend this sum of money and involve the local authority in half of it. The purpose of my Amendment is to secure that the existing law should remain; that a house should have before it a life of at least thirty years before these substantial sums of public money are spent on it. If it has not, then, generally speaking, it is not worth the expenditure. The public money could be much better used towards providing
704
housing accommodation than in patching up houses which have a life of only ten years. In those circumstances, I hope that this matter will be reconsidered. I know that it has been discussed in another place. I have read the discussion, but I confess that I could not follow the logic of reducing this period and thereby, as I think, increasing the likelihood of public money being wasted. But here we have an opportunity of looking at the matter again, and I hope that it will receive more favourable consideration than it did in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 32, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I hope that the Government will not give way on this Amendment, because I think this matter is important. As was stated on Second Reading, under the 1949 Act, unfortunately, only about 3,000 grants were made. One of the reasons for that was that it was thought (in my view rightly) that the terms were much too onerous; and, as Lord Silkin rightly said, before improvements qualified for the grant, the house had to stand for another thirty years. The Minister has now met that point and has come down as low as ten years. I did not think that he would come down lower than twenty, but he has come down to ten years. On that point, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made an important pronouncement on Second Reading. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 187, col. 286):
"The discretion is still vested in the local authority. It is extremely unlikely that they will make any substantial grant if the house is to last for only ten years."
I do not think they would; but as was stated on Second Reading, because it is entirely permissive, they can make a grant of up to 50 per cent. Anyway, I think that thirty years was too long a period, and if we desire to get increased modernisation, which we all want to see working well, I think the period should be brought down. As it is entirely permissive, I think the local authority would not give a grant of as much as 50 per cent. for a house which was to last for ten years only. With those few words I offer my objection to the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is another of those rather difficult problems

705
that arise. On the one hand, I think it is quite clear that greater flexibility is required than is provided by the Act of 1949. On the other hand, it is quite clear that we want to avoid, so far as possible the waste of public money. We have to find a happy medium between those two extremes. The experience of the law in force in Scotland since 1950, which is substantially in the terms of the Bill now before the Committee, has shown that there is no danger of grants being made or money being wasted where a grant ought not to have been made. It may be that the Scots are more careful of their revenues than we are—I say that in the presence of some noble Lords who may be disposed to agree with me. But there is undoubtedly a case for considering the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put forward, and though I could not for a moment agree that the thirty years should be retained, it may be possible to agree on a somewhat shorter period.
The Committee will appreciate—I am sorry if I have to repeat myself—that in all these things we must rely upon sensible administration by local authorities. While it is conceivable that in the case of a house with an eleven-year life they might be prepared to make some small grant, I cannot conceive that, unless the circumstances were wholly exceptional, they would make any substantial grant. After all, setting a limit of that kind does not mean that the local authority are always going to act upon it. If I might put the converse case, which may appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I dare say that both he and I have a weighing machine which weighs up to twenty stone, but we do not seriously apprehend that we shall reach that weight—at least I hope not. So setting a ten-year limit does not mean that it is seriously expected that there will be a grant made to houses that have only that term of life. But I see the real apprehension which is in people's minds, that there is a possible waste of money. My right honourable friend will reconsider this matter, and it may be that upon Report we shall be able to agree to some compromise. But I do not for a moment hold out the hope that the old thirty years' period will be retained, because all experience has shown that greater flexibility is required. On that footing,
706
I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN:I certainly will do that if the matter is to be reconsidered. I would only ask that the noble and learned Lord should let me know beforehand, so that if the result of the reconsideration is not satisfactory we can look at the matter again. With regard to the weighing machine, I agree with the noble and learned Lord: I hope for his sake, as well as for mine, that we never reach the peak figure. But what the Government are doing here is deliberately taking a weighing machine weighing up to fifteen stone and altering it to weigh up to twenty stone, which would make one rather apprehensive. If, originally, the period had been ten years, we should perhaps not have said anything about it; but for the Government to go out of their way to alter the period from thirty years to ten years, seems to be encouraging local authorities to do the thing that the noble and learned Lord says they never will do. They will say, "Why did you alter the period from thirty years to ten years if you did not intend us to act on it?" However, as the noble and learned Lord says the matter is to be reconsidered, I will withdraw my Amendment to-day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "a period equal to the period," and to insert:
"whichever is the shorter of the following two periods, that is to say—

(a) thirty years; or

(b) a period equal to that."

The noble and lea rued Lord said: think this is little more than a drafting Amendment and I need not elaborate it. Noble Lords will remember that subsection (1) permits an Improvement grant to be made in respect of a house which, when improved, will provide satisfactory accommodation for more than ten years. Under the Act of 1949 no grant can be made unless an improved house is likely to have a life of at least thirty years, and therefore an applicant for a grant must have a freehold interest in the land affected or a leasehold interest for not less than thirty years. The purpose of the subsection is to ensure that the leasehold interest is held for at least a period in

707
which the improved house will provide satisfactory housing accommodation. As drafted, however, it would deny a grant to an applicant who held a leasehold interest for thirty years or less if, by chance, the house would provide satisfactory accommodation for a longer period; and this Amendment remedies that defect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("a period equal to the period") and insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON moved, in subsection (8), to leave out "eight" and insert "nine" [per cent.]. The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which stands in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Broughshane, was discussed by your Lordships at some length on Second Reading, and in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has just said that there may be a compromise between thirty and ten years, we may then be able to rule out the ten years. The point I tried to make and my noble friend made on Second Reading is that, while we welcome very much the modest increase from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. in the amount that a landlord will be able to charge in respect of an improvement which he makes, we do not think it is quite enough. The 6 per cent. allowed under the 1949 Act was really quite inadequate. By the time a landlord borrowed money and made a cumulative sinking fund for repayment over twenty-five years, and was responsible for maintenance, 6 per cent. was inadequate; and that is one of the reasons why the 1949 Act did not work better than it did. The Minister has seen its faults and has raised the amount to 8 per cent., but we do not think 8 per cent. is quite enough and should like to see it made 9 per cent.
My reasons are that on long-term borrowing I think it would be right to say a landlord would not be able to borrow over twenty years on mortgage at less than 5 per cent., and would have to provide a cumulative sinking fund of at least 2½ per cent. (making a total of 7½ per cent.), to be paid back over the twenty years. Then a landlord is obliged to maintain improvements. Therefore I think he should have at least 1 per cent.
708
or 1½ per cent., as I suggested in the Second Reading debate, increasing the figure to 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. With my noble friend Lord Broughshane, I put down this Amendment to say that an amount of at least 9 per cent. should be allowed. I think one could justify a larger figure, because if we do not get the economics of the problem right I am afraid we shall not get these improvements made which we all so badly want. I am fully aware that for every 1 per cent. by which the figure is increased an increased rent must be asked of the tenant. The Stockton test film, which many of us had the privilege of seeing, showed, however, that the tenants willingly paid and said they would have paid a little more. That test was on 6 per cent., which was, of course, not adequate. That improvement resulted in an increase in the rent of a rent-controlled house of about 4s. a week. This is a small Amendment but I think it is important. I hope Her Majesty's Government will see fit to accept this Amendment, increasing the percentage which a landlord can charge on an improvement from 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 30, leave out ("eight") and insert ("nine").—(Lord Wolverton.)
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I beg to support this Amendment. If it is agreed that the landlord will be dealing here with equipment, with a life of no more than twenty years, the question becomes, if not a matter of simple arithmetic, a simple matter relating to arithmetic. My calculations, made on slightly different lines from those of my noble friend Lord Wolverton, are I think accurate. Eight per cent., with amortisation over a twenty-year period at 2 per cent. net, and taking income tax at 9s. in the pound, gives an annual income to the owner of the property of 10s. 6d. per cent. A figure of 9 per cent. calculated on the same basis would, I think, give a yield or income to the owner of £1 10s. 5d.. or, shall we say, 1½ per cent. Even at 9 per cent., the return to the landlord is not a very generous one, and I express grave doubts whether it is one which any ordinary prudent investor would be willing to accept, bearing in mind—and I think the comparison is a fair one—that the yield obtainable on Government securities of twenty years maturity is

709
something in the neighbourhood of 3½ per cent. So that even at 9 per cent. the owner placed in this position is receiving an income of something considerably less than half what he could obtain by investing money in Government securities.
LORD MANCROFT: I think the noble Lords, Lord Wolverton and Lord Broughshane, are labouring under a slight misapprehension as to what the actual effect of their Amendment will be. The Housing Act, 1949, limits the rent increases for a house improved with the aid of a grant, in cases where local authorities are not required to fix a rent, to 6 per cent. of the cost borne by the owner. Under the Rent Acts he will be entitled to 8 per cent. of his cost. Now subsection (8) of the Bill that we are discussing raises this limit from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. so far as rent-controlled houses are concerned; therefore the limit has ceased to have any effect and the section of the Housing Act, 1949, which I have just referred to, is accordingly repealed in relation to these houses by Clause 36, subsection (5) of the Bill. I think my noble friends Lord Wolverton and Lord Broughshane perhaps do not realise that the subsection we are referring to has effect only in non-rent-controlled dwelling houses. So far as these houses are concerned, the answer to the argument they put forward is that since the owner of a rent-controlled house improved with the aid of a grant can obtain only 8 per cent. of the cost borne by him, there is no reason why the owner of non-rent-controlled houses improved with the aid of public money should be allowed to charge more. That, of course, was not the point to which the noble Lords were in fact directing their argument, but it is the effect of their Amendment, and I would ask them to consider it in that light.
When they raise the question of 8 per cent. as opposed to 9 per cent. from the point of view of an overall increase, I am afraid I must tell them that my right honourable friend the Minister has gone into these figures very carefully indeed and has come to the conclusion that it would not be justifiable to put the figure over and above the figure of 8 per cent. I will, of course, look carefully again at the remarks and calculations which Lord Broughshane fired at me a little
710
too quickly for my non-mathematical brain to absorb. But I will do that merely to satisfy myself that I understand them, and the noble Lord must not be encouraged to think that my right honourable friend is likely to agree with him. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for pointing out that I think they have misconstrued this clause, I believe that the effect of their Amendment would be something which would be likely to surprise them. I hope that now that I have given that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: If I understand the new provision rightly (the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft will correct me if I am wrong, but it is difficult for a layman to understand these matters), there are here three categories. If a landlord himself does the whole of the improvements to a rent-restricted house, then, under the 1949 Act, he is allowed to charge 6 per cent. Under this Bill he is to be allowed to charge 8 per cent. If, on the other hand, he asks for a grant, and gets a 50 per cent. grant in respect of a rent-restricted house, then the local authority, when they make that grant, have the right to fix the new rent. In doing so, they have to take into consideration the age and character of the house and the amount of money spent on it. Of course they must have some yardstick. The amount of money spent on the house gives them a basis to go on when they fix the extra rent to be charged. If I understand Lord Mancroft correctly that is what is in this Bill.
LORD MANICROFT: That is so.
LORD WOLVERTON: Then one thing has a reflection on the other. I am certain of that. The local authority would take as their yardstick the amount spent by a man who tries to do all the repairs he can without asking for State aid. We are riot concerned with the third category, in which come the tied cottages, the rents of which cannot be increased. The landlord can only hope for the 50 per cent. grant. As I say, these cottages come in a different category, and the amount the landlord can deduct from a man's wages, under the Agricultural Wages Board arrangement, is something with which we are not concerned here. I am considering the other two cases—that of the man who tries to do all the Improvements himself and that of the man who applies

711
for a 50 per cent. grant. I hope that the Minister will look into this again. I think we have made a case that 8 per cent. is not sufficient, and we should like to have it raised to 9 per cent.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Lord Man-croft said that he found my mathematics incomprehensible. May I say that I find it a little difficult to follow some of his explanations, not because they were not clear but because I am a little unfamiliar with some of the matters with which he dealt. May I just refer to a section of the White Paper and read from it one short passage bearing on this point. It says:
"There must be also an adequate return on the money invested. Experience has proved that 6 per cent. is not enough to enable owners to undertake this sort of work. The Government intend to raise the 6 per cent. to 8 per cent."
My only point is that, in my view, 8 per cent. will still provide an insufficient incentive for this work to be undertaken.
LORD MANCROFT: We seem to be carrying on this debate in a haze of mutual incomprehensibility. The point I make is that the arguments which the two noble Lords have been adducing, quite irrespective of their merits, are not effective on the Amendment which has been put down—they relate to quite a different point. Perhaps the noble Lords will be kind enough to look at what I have been trying to say. If, in fact, I have been talking nonsense, then I must try to talk more clearly in the future. With regard to what Lord Wolverton said about 9 per cent., I can only repeat what I have already said, to the effect that I cannot hold out any hope that my right honourable friend, having regard to the arguments which I have so far heard this afternoon, will reconsider the point. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, looks again at the Amendment he will see that he has not really been addressing himself to the actual effect of his Amendment.
LORD WOLVERTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to look at the matter again and also to study what Lord Mancroft has said. Then, if I am not satisfied. I may return to this topic again at the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Extension of period of use of open spaces for temporary housing accommodation
18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an authorisation in force at the commencement of this Act under section one of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1945 (which enables the Minister to authorise the use of open spaces during a limited period for temporary housing accommodation) may, notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of that section, be extended by order of the Minister so as to determine (unless previously revoked) on any date not later than the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-five.
6.27 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "sixty-five" and insert "sixty." The noble Lord said: Some of those who are present this evening may remember, as I do, the occasion when we inspected prototypes of prefabricated bungalows in the precincts of the Tate Gallery. I do not think, despite the neighbourhood in which they were shown, that any of us regarded those box-like structures as being works of art; they would not be acceptable, I should have thought, even to those who are devotees of cubism. But the exhibit, of course, was very skilfully arranged, and the maximum use was made of the space. Therefore, I thought then, and I think now, that it was a useful contribution to the housing effort at a time when traditional building could not get under way. It was said at that time that these prefabricated bungalows were to have a life of only ten years. The ten years have now gone by, and it is proposed in this clause to extend for another ten years the life of those bungalows which have been built upon public open spaces. I am not surprised that these bungalows are still in use. I never believed for a moment that they would all be taken down at the expiration of ten years; and I should not advocate it. But the case of those which have been erected upon public open spaces—and they can be seen in quite a number of London parks, for example—is a very different story.
Parliament has for a great many years been extremely jealous of any encroachment whatsoever upon commons and open spaces. It has been public policy to try to preserve all those that are left, and, if possible, to extend them. It is very unfortunate that it should be proposed that these unsightly, even if useful,

713
structures should have their life extended for another ten years, occupying parks and pleasure grounds which ought to be available to the public generally. The purpose of my Amendment therefore, is to reduce the period for which their life may be prolonged from the ten years which is proposed by the Government to five years. In the present state of affairs, when houses are being provided, when the pressure upon housing accommodation has become distinctly less than it was at the close of the war, I think it not unreasonable to suggest that the temporary dwellings, the prefabricated bungalows, which have been erected upon public open spaces should not be allowed to remain later than the year 1960. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("sixty-five") and insert ("sixty").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Lord that this is an unfortunate clause. It is an unfortunate necessity. Under the Act which we ate considering here, the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1945, authorisations granted by the Minister will expire at various dates from July, 1955, to June, 1957,—that is to say, ten years from the date of each authorisation. We propose by subsections (1) and (2) to empower the Minister to grant one extension of each authorisation to the end of 1965, provided (and I think that to some extent this will assist the noble Lord) that a public local inquiry has been held in any case in which the extension exceeds five years. The Government share the anxiety of the sponsors of this Amendment to see that land used for the purpose of temporary accommodation should be restored to its proper use. I know that my right honourable friend, and I am sure any Minister who succeeds him, will consider very jealously any application for the extension of an authorisation.
It is clear—and again we have to be realistic and face it—that in some cases it will be impracticable for the local authority to rehouse the families from these temporary houses in time for their removal by the end of 1960. It may be unfortunate, but these houses have to be used until we are in a position to rehouse these families. In one case we know of, it would mean devoting nearly
714
a quarter of the local authority's house-building programme to this purpose, in an area where there are a number of requisitioned families to be rehoused and where other housing needs—for example, rehousing from slums—are also pressing. I think it is significant that at the present moment a large local authority—Manchester County Borough—have a local Bill before your Lordships' House to enable them to continue to use their open spaces for temporary housing purposes for such period as they think fit. That great local authority is not satisfied with the extension provided by this Bill. What happens to the local Bill is not for me to say, but at any rate it shows that this authority—and it is also the case with other authorities—know that they will need longer time. It is for that reason that the Bill enables a longer time to be given, subject to the conditions which appear in the clause. I end as I began, by saying that it is an unfortunate necessity which imposes this clause upon us. I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I think I understand the reasons. There is a dilemma here. There is always a dilemma between doing the right thing and doing the expedient thing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not always.
LORD SILKIN: There is frequently such a dilemma. The noble and learned Lord will remember the precedent of 1914, although I am not suggesting that this is as bad as that situation. I was a Member of another place when the original Bill went through, and I ventured to express doubts whether these houses would, in fact, be removed at the end of ten years. I even used some of the arguments which the noble and learned Lord has now put forward, and said that that was exactly what would be said in ten years' time. I was then assured most solemnly—I suggest that the noble and learned Lord should look at the Report of that debate—that these open spaces would be returned to the public at the end of ten years, whatever happened. Here we are, under the plea of urgent

715
necessity, continuing their use. I appreciate the difficulty. Let me concede that the Amendment says merely that this situation should go on for another few years and does not ask for it to be stopped at once. It is a matter of degree. I would plead that we put an end to housing on public open spaces at the earliest possible moment. The noble and learned Lord has pointed to exceptional and outstanding cases, which I concede there may be; but there are a large number of other cases which are not special, with which we could deal immediately or in a few years' time, and I would plead that, wherever it is at all possible, we should restore public open spaces to the uses for which they were intended.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nobody is more anxious for that than my right honourable friend, I can assure the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I would not accept that he is more anxious than I am.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, equally anxious.
LORD SILKIN: So long as we can have that assurance, I suggest to my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch that, having raised the matter, this is not a case where we can carry it any further.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I accept without hesitation the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, that there are cases in which there may be exceptional difficulties and hardships involved in terminating the use of open spaces for temporary accommodation as early as 1960. From what he has said I gather that this clause has been drafted with the intention of being able to meet these exceptional cases, and not in the spirit of authorising any prolonged use of public open spaces for this purpose. If that is indeed the intention of the Government and the Minister, that it is only in exceptional cases that such large extensions are going to be granted, then I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Interpretation and construction of Part I.
(2) Any reference in this Part of this Act (except in section five) to a demolition order under Part II of the principal Act shall be construed as including a reference to a closing order made in lieu of or in substitution for a demolition order by virtue of section ten or section eleven of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953.
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) to omit ("except in section five"). The noble Viscount said: This is a small technical Amendment which I move for the purpose of getting some information. Under Clause 5 a local authority can suspend a demolition order if the owner satisfies them that he can put a house under such an order into a satisfactory state of repair. One feels that in a repairs Bill of this sort that is a useful provision, but apparently, under this clause, if the local authority make a closing order, instead of a demolition order, that facility is withdrawn. I have no doubt that there is a good explanation, but it would appear prima facie that the more stringent order can be withdrawn and the less stringent order cannot be. It is still more mystifying to a layman when a local authority have power to substitute a demolition order for a closing order. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why there is this differentiation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 24, leave out from ("Act") to ("to") in line 25.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MANCROFT: I confess that this particular subsection is not one the clarity of which leaps instantaneously to the eye, but I think I can explain it to the satisfaction of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The point is this. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which passed through your Lordships' House last year, enables a local authority, instead of making a demolition order on an unfit house, to make a closing order, under which the house is not demolished but closed—or at least closed for human habitation. The purpose of that is to retain unfit houses needed for the support of adjoining property. Having myself lived for the last thirteen years in a house which

717
has been deprived of the support of an adjoining property by a bomb, I can heartily endorse the necessity of having an adjoining house, if it is possible to get one. But because these houses are really in the same class as houses dealt with by demolition order—and escape that fate only by accident—subsection (2) provides that the relevant clauses in the Bill should apply to them also. This means, for example, that the local authority may purchase them for use as temporary accommodation under Clause 3.
Clause 5, however, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has just referred, has no relevance to these houses. Clause 5 makes possible the saving from demolition of a house subject to an operative demolition order where at the last moment new proposals are submitted for making it fit. As the law stands, there is no power to quash the order: the house must come down. A house subject to a closing order is in an entirely different position. It is simply closed indefinitely. If the owner decides to make it fit, he can get the order removed at any time under the existing law. If the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will be good enough to look at Clause 5 again, in the light of what I have said, I hope he will agree with me that the application of Clause 5 to closing orders is quite unnecessary. In the light of that explanation, I hope he will be able to see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: If an owner can submit plans for restoration of a house under a closing order, and thereby get a closing order removed, well and good. Otherwise, it would seem that the only course open to him would be the somewhat elaborate one of getting the local authority to turn the closing order into a demolition order and to have that demolition order suspended. If the whole of that is unnecessary, and the owner of a house under a particular closure can submit plans and get the restriction removed, then I am quite satisfied.
LORD SILKIN: The explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was completely clear, but he might have been explaining anything else. It did not seem to me to have any clear relationship to the particular subsection about which we are talking. I am not blaming the noble
718
Lord; he gave a perfectly clear explanation. But the fact is that, unless one had a clear explanation, one could never imagine that that is what this subsection means. Since the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will not always be available when this clause is being interpreted by other people, I wonder whether it would not be possible to look at the clause again, purely from the point of view of drafting. I am satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord, and I have no desire to alter the sense of the clause; but it is like one of those Observer crossword puzzles which I have never been able to solve. If this clause could be looked at again, and made a little clearer, it would be of advantage.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has been in Parliament long enough to know that the Interpretation clause of a Bill is often by far the most difficult to understand. However. I will certainly look at the clause again, in the light of what he has said. But I must warn him that, when I first came to deal with the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I looked at it carefully, and took advice; and I had the same query in my mind as that which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just laid before the Committee. It is a difficult matter, and I would defy the noble Lord to put it more clearly.
LORD SILKIN: I am not a draftsman.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord says, "I am not a draftsman." Nor am I. I can assure the noble Lord that the draftsman has done best. However, I will see that the point is put before the draftsman. He can try his hand at it again, but I do not think he will make much improvement.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg leave to with draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Repairs increase for dwelling-house in good repair
22.—(1) Where a dwelling-house is let under a controlled tenancy or occupied by a statutory tenant, and the landlord is responsible, wholly or in part, for the repair of the dwelling house, then, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act,—

(a) if and so long as the following conditions (hereinafter referred to as "the condi

719
tions justifying an increase of rent") are fulfilled, that is to say—

(i) that the dwelling-house is in good repair; and

(ii) that it is reasonably suitable for occupation having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (h) of subsection (1) of section nine of this Act; and

(b) if in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act the landlord has produced satisfactory evidence that work of repair to the value specified in that Schedule has been carried out on the dwelling-house during the period so specified,

the rent recoverable from the tenant shall be increased by virtue of this subsection so as to exceed by the amount hereinafter mentioned the rent which apart from this subsection would be recoverable from the tenant under the terms of the tenancy or statutory tenancy and having regard to the provisions of any enactment.
6.48 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the word "and" in paragraph (a) and the whole of paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think that Daniel in the lion's den had a better chance of making an after-dinner speech than I have of getting the Government to accept this Amendment. However, in my submission it is sufficient, in order to enable a landlord to qualify for a repairs increase, that the house should be in good repair and reasonably suitable for occupation. To go further, and make the landlord prove that he has spent so much on the house by way of repair in a specified period or periods of time, is quite irrelevant; and, moreover, it will, in practice, be the means of disqualifying thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of good landlords from obtaining a repairs increase. That is serious enough from the point of view of the landlord; but it is much more serious from the point of view of conserving and maintaining these houses which are required to make some substantial contribution to the housing needs of the country for the next fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years.
There is no doubt that it is the intention of the Government to link the permitted increase of rent with the amount of money that the landlord actually spends upon repairs. If this Amendment is accepted, that link will still be effective—for this reason. If the house at any time falls into disrepair, the tenant can obtain a certificate of disrepair from the
720
local authority. The landlord will, in practice, have to spend the increased rent in keeping the house in repair. Many of your Lordships are landlords of controlled properties, controlled by the Rent Acts. If you vote against it—because I intend to put this matter to the opinion of the Committee—I hope that you will spend the remaining years of your lives in looking up the bills of all the money you have spent upon your controlled properties. In my submission, subsection (1) (b) ought to be eradicated from the Bill altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, leave out lines 16 to 21.—(Lord Meston.)
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment. I have taken some part for a great number of years in this question of rent restriction, and I have never thought it right to propose on any occasion that the landlord should receive something unless he has actually spent money on the property. It is obvious that, if any increase is to be granted, not only must he have spent money, as I suggest, but it must be capable of proof that he has spent the money, otherwise he would be getting an increase without any corresponding return, not only to the tenant but to the community in the preservation of property. I do not dispute that on the value of money you could argue a case by which the landlord is entitled, as he was under the 1920 Act, to an increase to cover the fall in his own money. But I have never suggested that. The principle of this Bill, although difficult to operate and always capable of imposing hardship in certain cases, is sound.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, from his picturesque simile did not expect an entirely favourable answer. He is justified in his expectation. The fact is that it is a condition of an increase in rent that the house should be in good repair, and it is essential at the same time that the expenditure by the landlord should be linked with the demand for increased rents. Indeed, it is an absolutely essential safeguard for the tenant. I will take a single example—one of many. The property might be put in good repair by the tenant himself, and if that were so, all that would be necessary would be for the

721
landlord to come along and say that the house was in good repair; and nobody could deny it. Of course, it might well be that a landlord who might risk claiming that the house was in good repair if he had not got to prove expenditure, would hesitate to do so if he had to give that proof.
As my noble friend Lord Buckmaster has said, running through the Bill is the idea that the increase of rent must be linked up in the mind of the tenant with the fact that the property is in good repair, and that the landlord has paid for that repair. Accordingly, the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I do not answer at greater length, for what he has said conflicts with the whole principle of the Bill.
LORD MESTON: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I may be one against a thousand, but I must take the chance. I do not withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MESTON: In order to save trouble and time on the next occasion, may I say now that I shall not move my Amendment No. 29, which is consequential, and the Amendment to the Second Schedule, No. 50, which would have been a lovely Amendment. They both fall as a result of the Lord Chancellor's onslaught.
6.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) to add to paragraph (a):
"(iii) that the landlord has obtained from the local authority and served upon the tenant a certificate that the conditions (i) and above mentioned are fulfilled; and".
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to which we attach considerable importance, because it raises, I think your Lordships will agree, an issue of equity as between the landlord and his tenant. This is a matter which has already occupied a good deal of attention, and rightly so, in another place, but there is still, I fear, a lack of agreement between the Bill and its critics. Clause 22 lays down the conditions which the landlord must fulfil before he can claim an increase in rent. The first condition is that the house must be in a good state of repair. The second is that it must be fit for human habitation, and the definition of fitness for human habitation is laid down in Clause 9. We hold
722
the view—and this is where the difference in principle appears—that it should be the responsibility of the landlord to prove that he has fulfilled these conditions before he receives his increase in rent. We think it thoroughly unfair and inequitable that the onus of proof should be placed, as the Bill places it, on the tenant. The view we put forward is shared by the T.U.C. which, of course, understands the problems of these wage-earning families and the real difficulty that they will be in if they have to set in motion the complicated procedure under the Bill against a landlord who has neglected his property.
What we maintain is that the landlord should show, by himself going to a local authority and getting a certificate of repair, that he has kept his property in good order. If that is accepted, then, of course, the tenant would not be under the obligation to go to a local authority for a certificate of disrepair or to take legal proceedings—a costly matter—against a landlord, which is the procedure laid down in the Bill. I should have thought that most unbiased people would agree that the procedure of placing the responsibility of proof on the landlord is right and equitable in principle. Indeed, I studied the proceedings in another place, and I do not think that the Minister or any of his supporters took the view that this was wrong in principle.
The objection expressed by the Minister—and I hope the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I do not follow the argument used by his noble friend as accurately as I should wish to do—and an objection which was also made by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on Second Reading, was essentially an administrative objection. What has been said is that the duty of inspecting these rent-restricted houses would place what the noble and learned Lord describes in his Second Reading speech as an intolerable burden on local authorities. I am sure that due consideration will be given to administrative difficulties in any legislation which may come before your Lordships' House, but it is, after all, not at all desirable that something which is right in principle should be sacrificed to administrative convenience. I should have thought that everything possible should be done to avoid a situation of this kind. At least

723
the Government might have ascertained from local authorities what the extra cost of inspection should be, and whether it would mean an increase in their staff.
If the Government are really convinced, as they appear to be—because this Amendment has already been resisted in another place—that the administrative difficulty is insuperable, then there is, I think, a middle course which I would beg the noble and learned Lord to consider. This is a suggestion which I make without having consulted my colleagues or, indeed, anyone who has put forward this view before, but it seems to me to be a suggestion that is worth consideration. In many cases, tenants will agree that an increase in rent is reasonable. I myself live in a rent-restricted flat in London, and some time ago my landlord pointed out to me that the rent I was paying him was not covering his cost of maintenance. I readily agreed to pay a voluntary increase in the end because it seemed the reasonable thing to do. Most of the other tenants in the block of flats did the same thing. I have no doubt that there will be people all over the country who will take the view that their landlord has kept his property in a good state of repair, and that in asking for a rent increase he is doing something which is perfectly reasonable.
In cases of that kind there is no need for a certificate of repair to be sought. If the cases in which such a certificate were sought were limited to those where there was disagreement between a landlord and his tenant, then surely the whole administrative task would be lightened. There would not be the number of houses to be inspected which otherwise would fall as a task to the local housing authorities. I do not think it is at all an ideal solution because, obviously, tenants do not like to get on the wrong side of their landlords. This is not the solution which I myself should wish to see, but it is a second best which I hope the noble and learned Lord will be willing to consider and, perhaps, ask his colleague the Minister of Health to give his attention to. I very much hope that this Amendment, which places on the landlord the onus of proving that he has kept his property in good repair, will be acceptable, because it seems to me to be right as a matter of fairness and equity in the relationship between a landlord and his tenant. If it
724
cannot be accepted, then I hope the noble and learned Lord will hold out some hope that there may be a via media, and it may be possible for him to give some concession at the next stage in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
7.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I hope that noble Lords on the Government Bench will be a little chary about accepting those suggestions. I have this afternoon listened to a number of suggestions from the Benches opposite, all of which seem to me to desire to place further obligations on the local authorities. It is quite easy to pass Bills and Amendments in this House but, of course, they do not always become effective. It struck me that most noble Lords opposite come from the larger towns and have had experience in London, Manchester and so forth: but when one thinks of the small boroughs and urban districts, in which, perhaps, if they engage another sanitary inspector it will probably cost them a 4d. rate, I do not think that that kind of thing will be popular. I think the same idea must have crossed the mind of the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, because although he said he preferred it, he talked as if he realised that it might be burdensome, as I think it would be. The other suggestion he made, which is quite different from the one on the Paper, seemed to me to be worthy of consideration, because I would agree that the idea of the county court procedure would fill the minds of some tenants with apprehension. Nevertheless, I profoundly hope that the Government will resist the original Amendment put down, which would impose a great burden on the local authorities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite true that on the Second Reading of this Bill I referred specifically to this provision and said it was one which caused us a great deal of anxiety and one to which we had given much consideration. The result of having given it much consideration is that the more we consider it, the more it appears to us to be right to adhere to the provisions of the Bill in their present form. On the one hand, one must weigh the factor upon which noble Lords opposite have relied: an apprehension, which may or may not

725
be legitimate, that landlords will seek to abuse their powers if the burden is not put upon them of obtaining a certificate. On the other hand, one must put into the scale these considerations: first of all, that there are multitudes of Lord Listowel's fellow citizens who will take just the same view as he has taken and realise that, if an increase of rent is demanded and is accompanied by proof of the increased cost of repair, and repair done, it is fair and decent that an increased rent should be paid. I am sure that that applies to multitudes of people, because the noble Earl would not arrogate to himself a higher standard than the majority of his fellow citizens enjoy. If that is so, what a work of superfluity this Amendment would entail! It puts upon the landlord and the local authority the duty of obtaining and granting a certificate of good repair. That is a factor which has weighed with us.
Combined with that, there is this consideration: that the tenant is adequately safeguarded. Your Lordships remember what are the safeguards in the Bill as it stands. The tenant has to see that the house is in good repair; he has the proof of expenditure made; he has six weeks' notice; he will—I think I have told your Lordships this already; indeed, it appears from the provisions of the clause—receive a notice from the Minister of just what his rights are. In the circumstances, it seems to us to put an unwarrantable and, I say, intolerable burden upon local authorities that in every case—and there are hundreds of thousands of them; millions, I suppose—in which an increase of rent is validly demanded, there is a duty upon the local authorities to give a certificate of fitness. How many sanitary inspectors will be required for that purpose? Sanitary inspectors are already overburdened with other duties which are imposed upon them to-day.
Those are the factors which have weighed with us, and we have come to the conclusion that it is right that the burden should not be put upon the landlord of producing a certificate of fitness from the local authority; but, on the other hand, if the tenant disputes that the property is in repair or that the money has been spent, then he should have the remedies which are available to him under the Bill. In these days, although one hears a lot about the "grasping landlord," and so on, with all the provisions
726
there are—tenants' leagues and I know not what—I think there will be little difficulty for the tenant who thinks his landlord has abused his rights saying so and getting the matter remedied. Finally, may I remind your Lordships that Clause 25 (1) of the Bill provides that if a certificate of disrepair is granted it has retrospective effect from the date the tenant applied for it. Therefore he has ample time, and I would venture to ask your Lordships, upon consideration of all those factors, which we indeed have weighed anxiously and seriously, not to press this Amendment.
With regard to the suggestion that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made, I can only say that it has come upon me as something which is quite new. Of course, any suggestion that comes from the noble Earl will be fully considered. I can say that and no more.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Lord has, as I expected, dealt with this matter entirely on the question of administrative convenience; otherwise there is no answer to this Amendment—all equity, all justice, and everything else, are in favour of it. I recognise that one has to consider the question of administration, but may I say to Lord Gage, when he talks of a local authority as being something watch is quite separate and distinct from the general public, that we have not thought of the effect on the local authority. The local authority are the servants of the public; their duty is to do what the public want. If the public want certificates, and if they want the local authority to issue certificates to landlords, well, if it does cost a fourpenny rate (I would challenge the noble Viscount's calculation) it is for the public to judge.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Perhaps I might interrupt the noble Lord to say that it may be that I am suffering from having recently been subjected to public opinion, which strongly objected to the amount of money that my particular council has been spending. We have had a considerable economy crusade in my area. I may be suffering from that.
LORD SILKEN: I do not want to be drawn into a controversial retort; I will merely suggest that it does not surprise me, knowing where the noble Viscount

727
comes from, that that should be the view. But if the noble Viscount happened to come from one of many other parts of the country there would of course be a different view about expenditure on behalf of the tenants. Naturally, if the bulk of the people resident in a certain area are landlords, they would not be likely to be concerned with this.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): That is mathematically impossible.
LORD SILKIN: However, I think the administrative difficulties have been much exaggerated. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has had any advice as to the number of cases that will be affected at first. I take it that the purpose of this Bill is to encourage landlords to carry out repairs. Whether or not it will in fact do so is an open question. My own view (and I imagine that here I shall have a good deal of support from noble Lords opposite) is that it will not—certainly not in its present form, because some of the Amendments can be justified only on the basis that, as the Bill stands, it does not provide a sufficient inducement or incentive. Has the noble and learned Lord any information as to the number of landlords who will qualify at the present time for the increase? My view is that the number will not be great, and that those that will come along in the future will come along in such numbers as will make it possible for the local authority to handle the thing without any administrative difficulties. If I am right—and I do not think anyone is in a position to say that I am wrong until they have investigated the matter—then the only argument against this goes by the board. My view is that the local authorities can handle this situation.
Let us look at the situation. If, in fact, the noble and learned Lord is right—of course I absolutely agree with him that most citizen are decent people, like my noble friend Lord Listowel—when he says that, if a case is made to them which is reasonable, most people will respond, then there will be no need for the landlord to go to the local authority for a certificate. If people pay a voluntary increase and if the tenants are satisfied, there is no need to do that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: One could not accept that for a moment. If it is made a statutory condition of a lawful demand for an increase of rent that the landlord should get a certificate of fitness, no landlord in his senses would abstain from getting that certificate.
LORD SILKIN: Well, is it not the same thing now? Various tenants are being asked to make a voluntary contribution towards increased costs which is not enforceable. All that the noble and learned Lord is saying is that this increase would not be enforceable by law. The landlord is not committing any breach of the law if he does not get a certificate. The only penalty for not getting it is that if the tenant refuses to pay the increase the landlord could not demand it. But the noble and learned Lord himself is saying that most tenants will pay. Therefore, if they do pay, and if they are satisfied that the repairs are being done, that will reduce the number of cases where a certificate is applied for. And encouraged by the noble and learned Lord to respond, as they will do in many cases, where they are satisfied that the repairs are being done, and that the house is in good condition, even though the increase is not legally enforceable. I imagine that many tenants will be prepared to pay; and if the landlord is willing to rest at that, that will reduce the demand for certificates. But the case for placing the onus on the landlord still remains. The landlord is asking for an increase in rent, and he is asked to produce proof.
In many cases tenants are helpless against a landlord. The landlord is always in a very strong position. Many tenants are ignorant, and in spite of everything that has been said, unfortunately they do not know their rights. Let me give an example—the Town and Country Planning Act, under which people were invited to put in claims for loss of development value on their land. Every possible step was taken to ensure that landowners were made acquainted with their rights—by speech, by wireless, almost by circular. They were told that they had to put in their claims by June 30. In spite of that, it is now alleged that many people did not put in claims because they did not know. To me it sounds inconceivable, but the fact is that that is now being alleged; and I imagine that, when the Town and Country

729
Planning Bill comes before this House, noble Lords will make the plea that a good many people did not know of their right to put in a claim for loss of development value. So it happens that even people who are not necessarily ignorant are not aware of their rights; and it is much more likely that tenants, rather than landlords, will be unaware of their rights. Therefore, prima facie, I think it is clear that, but for the administrative point, the onus should be on the landlord to get the certificate. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not turn a completely deaf ear to this proposal, but will give us some encouragement that the matter will be looked at again, if only from the point of view of the compromise put forward by my noble friend Lord Listowel.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I fully appreciate the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I think there are two points which have escaped the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In this matter of a voluntary agreement, if it is to be accepted as dispensing with the necessity for a certificate it would seem to me that a prior condition would be the legalisation of such an agreement. It is not now a breach of law but it is something not permitted by the Rent Restrictions Act, and to make it a condition that such an agreement dispensed with the need for a certificate of disrepair would, to my mind, involve one in a major revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The other point made by the noble Lord is that a landlord is in a very strong position. There are noble Lords opposite who are landlords of rent-restricted properties, and they must ask themselves frankly whether they have ever found themselves in a very strong position. I am bound to say that the person in the strongest position must always be the tenant of a rent-restricted house. I consider myself unwise in not having put myself in that situation, and I have suggested to noble Lords on this side that they might offer me a rent-restricted property at a suitable rent in which I would undertake to behave myself. I cannot accept that the landlord of a rent-restricted property is at any time in a very strong position, unless he is an extremely bad type of man who tries to intimidate the tenant.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I cannot help feeling that some protection for the tenant ought to be devised here. It appears to me, unless I have read the Bill wrongly, that the landlord has only to ask for the rent when he claims that he has done the repairs, but he does not have to make a statutory declaration. Nor are there any penalties attached to improperly demanding rent.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: There are penalties for inaccurate statements, and the noble and learned Lord has I think put down an Amendment making it a summary offence.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I naturally accept what the noble and learned Lord says, but these tenants are likely to be poor people unused to this sort of procedure, and you put upon them the onus of going to a county court and bringing a case. I think everyone would feel that something better than that is required, because it would lead inevitably, in same cases, to improper demands. I beg the noble and learned Lord between now and the next stage to try and think of some way whereby the landlord will have to do something to give proof that he has done what he is required to do in order to justify the increased rent.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, is under a misapprehension. The tenant does not have to go to the county court unless there is a misstatement of figures, and that is a very grave thing. No one disputes that there are some bad landlords and it is a matter for regret that there should be. But the tenant does not have to go to the county court on a question of repairs but merely on a question of the factual statement of money spent on the property, and I cannot believe that many landlords will falsify figures, particularly in view of the Amendment which I believe the noble and learned Lord has put down.
Tint EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thank the noble Lord opposite for his willingness to examine the compromise suggestion which I put forward towards the end of my remarks. I should like to say now that if we are so unfortunate as to, lose this Amendment, I propose to submit another Amendment at the next stage

731
of the Bill which will incorporate the suggestion I have made. By that time I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will have had an opportunity of consulting with his right honourable friend and will be able to give the reply of the Government to our point. As to the Amendment itself it is clearly a question of striking a balance of advantage. The disadvantage has been very clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord—the administrative inconvenience to local authorities. Everyone admits it would be an administrative inconvenience and that it might mean an increase in staff and an increase in costs to certain local authorities. On the other side of the balance is the injustice to certain tenants. Let us
House resumed.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
assume that there are only a few bad landlords and only a few tenants who will suffer because they are ignorant of their rights or afraid to take a landlord before a county court. An injustice is no less of an injustice because it is confined to a few people. If there is danger of that kind—and we sincerely apprehend that such a danger exists—if some small people will or may well suffer as a result of the manner in which the Bill is now drafted, placing the onus of proof on them, then we ought to press this Amendment which I would now ask your Lordships to accept.
On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 18; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Stansgate, V.

Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Wise, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Devonport, V.

Hindlip, L.

Falmouth, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lloyd, L.

Goschen, V.

Mancroft, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hailsham, V.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hudson, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rochdale, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Rockley, L.

Grey, E.

Broughshane, L.

Saltoun, L.

Mansfield, E.

Coleraine, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Munster, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Strang, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Freyberg, L.

Tumour, L. (E. Winterton.)

Gage, L.

Waleran, L.

Allenby, V.

Gifford. L.

Wolverton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND HOUSE) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Committed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before eight o'clock.