Sitting of 1 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Addresses, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the various Defence Regulations and enactments which you specify be continued in force respectively for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-six.
  I will give directions accordingly.

PATENTS AND REGISTERED DESIGNS
THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Addresses, as follows:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1955, and the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1954, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.
I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIRWOOD COMMON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Remploy
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of any increase or decrease of disabled workers and of non-disabled persons, respectively, employed by Remploy Limited, at the latest convenient date, compared with 30th June, 1955.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): Between 21st June and 11th October, 1955, the number of severely disabled persons fell by 168 and other workers by 24.
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed by Remploy Limited, at 1st January, 30th June, and 31st October, 1955, respectively.
    Sir W. Monckton: The numbers of persons employed by Remploy Limited on 4th January, 21st June and 11th October, the nearest dates for which information is available, were 8,705, 8,134 and 7,942 respectively.
    Mr. Collins: Does the Minister appreciate that his reply is as disappointing to us as it must be to him? Will he use his utmost efforts to increase the numbers, and, in particular, have regard to the fact that of the new trainees, many are transferred to open industry, and there is, unfortunately, a wastage for other reasons? Will he therefore give an assurance that the arrangements will be on a scale which will ensure that the minimum number of trainees at Remploy will approximate to the figure which he has previously assured the House would be reached?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think the assurance that I gave to the House was that I would prevent, if I could, the number of employees going below 6,000. As for the future, I have to answer a Question by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) a little later.
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour the total number of Remploy factories in October, 1951, and the present number; the total of disabled people employed on both dates; what figure of disabled persons he has in mind as the

    2481
    maximum to be employed by Remploy; and by what date he estimates that the necessary expansion will be accomplished.
    Sir W. Monckton: In October, 1951, there were 89 Remploy factories, and on 11th October, 1955, 90. The total of severely disabled persons employed by the company in October, 1951, was 5,956 and on 11th October, 1955, 6,026. I am at present in discussion with the Board of Remploy Limited, on its plans for next year. I have no maximum figure to be employed by the company in mind; it would, in fact, be difficult to decide such a figure owing to the continuing rapid fall in the number of unemployed severely disabled—a fall of 44 per cent. since October, 1951. I hope, however, that the company may be able to make some increase in the number of severely disabled employees next year.
    Mr. Lee: Whilst we understand that the development of Remploy went at rather too fast a pace at one time, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is now an impression that not a great effort is being made to develop Remploy from its existing level? What sort of plans has the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and what sort of development speed are we to expect from Remploy to ensure that people who need the assistance which Remploy can give will not have to wait for admission to Remploy?
    Sir W. Monckton: As to waiting, I would emphasise the fact that we are placing severely disabled persons, the Section II people, in ordinary employment at the rate of about 2,000 a year. The drop in the unemployed in Section II has gone down by 3,000 from—I think it was —6,900 in October, 1951, to 3,900 in October, 1955, so that the problem is diminishing. That does not mean that I do not want to do what I can for those who are properly placed for it, but it would be premature for me to say anything now. I have been talking during this month to the Board of Remploy and to the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Labour what plans he has to extend the training facilities offered by Remploy in the London area.
    Sir W. Monckton: As I told the House in reply to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), I hope that it will be possible
    2482
    to expand the numbers to be employed in Remploy factories. This will include those in the London area.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister bear in mind the very real danger, in a thickly-populated area, of partially-disabled people drifting from one kind of unskilled occupation to another? In a small town, the case of a disabled person impresses itself upon the officials as one needing special training. Will he provide some kind of statistical check to see that the London area, in particular, gets its fair share of vacancies in Remploy?
    Sir W. Monckton: We do try to administer this service as fairly as we can, and I should like to pay this tribute to the disabled resettlement officers, who do their work with great sympathy for the individual case.
    Mr. Isaacs: Would I be correct in suggesting that one advantage of Remploy which is not always appreciated is that it demonstrates that disabled men can be made into useful workers, which has made it easier for the disabled resettlement officers to get employers to take such men into their employment? That is shown by the recent success in getting men into ordinary employment who would otherwise have gone into Remploy.
    Sir W. Monckton: I think that emphasises what I was saying, and points the value of this service.

    Factories (Inspections)
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour the number of inspections, per factory inspector, in 1938 and in 1954.
    Sir W. Monckton: Very rough average figures of inspection visits per inspector are—for 1938, 1,040 and for 1954, 730.
    Mr. Lee: Does the Minister agree that these figures are somewhat disturbing? Can he tell the House what steps are now being taken to step up the numbers in the inspectorate, and can he explain the fall in the number of visits which he indicated between 1938 and last year?
    Sir W. Monckton: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I may say that the figure of inspectors has gone up between these dates from 269 in 1938 to a figure varying between 355 and 364 in 1954. The reason there are fewer inspections per inspector

    2483
    is largely because of changes in the nature of the work. In 1938, the Factories Act, 1937, was only just coming into force, and it has been necessary to make more elaborate inspections as the work has developed. Secondly, there have been new, additional and complex technical Regulations under the Act which did not exist in 1938.

    Aliens (Permits)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Minister of Labour on what grounds officials of his Department grant or refuse to aliens permission to work in the United Kingdom.
    Sir W. Monckton: Permits for the engagement of foreigners coming to this country from abroad are issued by me as required by Article 4 (1) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1953. The general conditions for issue are that the proposed employment is reasonable and necessary and that adequate efforts have been made by the employer to find suitable workers among British subjects or long-resident foreigners. The wages and other conditions proposed must be not less favourable than those commonly accorded to British workers. Subject to these, consideration is given to individual cases according to their particular circumstances.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether, in these days of full employment, he will instruct his officials to treat really sympathetically the cases of foreigners who want to come to work in this country, not taking anybody else's job but doing work that is useful to the community as a whole?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir.

    Cinema Industry (Wages)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the trade-union rate for male attendants in the cinema industry is from £5 12s. 3d. to £5 15s. 6d. for a 48-hour week in most areas of the country, and from £2 15s. 6d. to £3 16s. 3d. for usherettes for a 44-hour week; and if he will agree to set up a commission on this industry under the Wages Councils Acts to inquire into the desirability of establishing a wages council.
    Sir W. Monckton: I understand that these figures are broadly correct for areas outside London and the Home Counties. Rates in this industry are negotiated between the trade union and employers' association concerned, and I am informed that a claim for revised wages and conditions is now being discussed. I have received no request for the appointment of a commission of inquiry under the Wages Councils Acts.
    Mr. Allaun: Can the Minister stand aside when such disgraceful wages are being paid by highly profitable concerns, when three groups made £14 million in profit last year and when the exhibitors have made no response to the union's proposals, made eight months ago?
    Sir W. Monckton: The matter, as I have said in my first Answer, is now under negotiation, as I understand, between the appropriate organisations. All I can say is that I have no power to act as the hon. Member suggests in the original Question. I cannot appoint a commission of inquiry unless I am satisfied that there is no organised machinery available.
    Mr. Baldwin: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real answer to this problem is that these attendants, who are doing unproductive work, should transfer to productive industry, in which the wages are more than double?
    Hon. Members: Oh.

    Wales
    Mr. Gowerasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement upon the prospects of maintaining full employment during the next 12 months, with particular reference to prospects in Wales.
    Sir W. Monckton: There are at present no indications that employment generally in Great Britain or in Wales is likely to fall below a satisfactory level in the coming year.
    Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that in Wales, in particular, opinion on employment is very sensitive, and that even the closing of a single factory causes a disproportionate amount of discussion?
    Mr. D. Jones: Will the Minister take into account the fact that, in the next few months, the locomotive engine shops

    2485
    at Barry and Caerphilly are likely to be deprived of work as a result of the decision of the Transport Commission to put out to tender to private firms the building of 141 new diesel units for use experimentally on the railways? That will probably lead in the next year to a degree of unemployment in the Caerphilly and Barry shops?
    Sir W. Monckton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my notice. I will look into it.

    Older Persons (Report)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Labour when he expects to publish the second Report of the Advisory Committee on the employment of older men and women.
    Sir W. Monckton: The Report is being laid before Parliament today, and will be published on Tuesday, 6th December. Copies will be available in the Vote Office to hon. Members at 3.30 p.m. on that day.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the appearance of the second Report of this very valuable Committee will be most welcome, the more so as it points the way to using the skill and experience of older workers at a time when there are so many unfilled vacancies?

    Dispute, Keighley
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike at Messrs. Bedford, Keighley, Yorkshire, which has been in progress for six weeks.
    Sir W. Monckton: Four men employed by this firm were dismissed on 6th October, and on the following day the remaining 36 employees withdrew their labour in protest. I understand that the dispute arises from the question of trade union recognition, and the conciliation officer at Leeds has endeavoured repeatedly to arrange a joint meeting between the employer and the officials of the trade union concerned. The employer is, however, unwilling to attend such a meeting.
    As the hon. Member is aware, the position was discussed with national officers of the union at the Ministry's headquarters last Tuesday.
    Mr. Hobson: Is any further pressure being put on this reactionary firm which refuses to recognise trade unions? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the firm paying lower wages than are paid in Leicester, there is danger of this dispute spreading?
    Sir W. Monckton: As to the dispute generally and as to what has been happening, I should point out that I have no power to insist upon the employment of trade union workers only. Such influence as we have to bring about a meeting we shall continue to use.

    New Industrial Building
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that during 1954 and the first six months of 1955, 3,276 new industrial building schemes were started in Great Britain, of which only 446 were in Development Areas; that the majority of these schemes are in those regions in which there are the largest number of vacancies on the books of the employment exchanges; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a serious unbalance of industry to working population in a given area.
    Sir W. Monckton: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I co-operate closely in seeking to secure the proper distribution of industry throughout the country, and fully appreciate the needs of the Development Areas for new industry. New industrial building in the London and South-Eastern Region and other regions with many outstanding vacancies is largely the result of the expansion of existing industry which, for economic reasons, could not move elsewhere.
    It is, moreover, misleading to have regard merely to numbers of projects. The Development Areas had one-seventh of the new factory buildings but they should, on the estimates of the firms concerned, provide about two-sevenths of the total additional employment. Unemployment in the Development Areas during the period in question has been falling steadily, and is now under 2 per cent.
    Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in those very regions where there are most unfilled vacancies—I refer to the London and South-Eastern Region, the Midland

    2487
    Region and so on—there are the most schemes for new industrial development; while in regions such as the Northern Region, Scotland, Wales, and part of Lancashire, which are the old Development Areas, there is not only the smallest number of unfilled vacancies but also the smallest amount of industrial building taking place? If that continues all the work of the Distribution of Industry Act will be vitiated.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the difficulties, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, from his experience, is aware of them also. There are places where industry is expanding and where it can economically expand but they are not the same places as the Development Areas. The trouble is that the President of the Board of Trade cannot make industries develop in a particular place. He does his best to persuade them.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the Minister say that getting rid of industrial building control has caused those industries which were previously in the Development Areas to close down their factories there and attempt to expand the parent factory? Our experience in our period of office was that many firms would have liked to do that. Since control has gone, there is this desire to expand in Birmingham, Coventry and so on, and to close down the former factories.

  COST OF LIVING
  Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware at the concern at the recent increase of two points in the cost-of-living index; and what caused this increase.
  Sir W. Monckton: The rise in the Index of Retail Prices between September and October was due mainly to increases in the prices of various items of food including tomatoes, butter, cheese, eggs, pork and bacon. There were also some increases in the prices of furniture and newspapers, and in some areas there were increases in rents and rates and in the charges for gas.
  Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it is regrettable that the cost-of-living index should rise faster than ever it did when solemn promises were made in 1951?
  Sir W. Monckton: I certainly regret the rise in the cost of living but I am not guilty of any promises, and I will not answer for anyone else.
  Mr. Ede: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw it to the attention of his right hon. colleagues in the Government who are responsible for this?
  Mr. Strachey: The Minister of Labour has just said that he regrets this rise in the cost of living. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that to increase the cost of living is the best way to combat inflation. How are we to reconcile those two answers?
  Sir W. Monckton: If the right hon. Gentleman has so understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must have misunderstood him. I certainly answer for myself.
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Labour why, when an increase in the cost of living is attributed mainly to a seasonal rise in certain foodstuffs, when there is a seasonal fall there is not a corresponding reduction in the cost of living; and to what extent he estimates that the index will in the future reflect this trend.
  Sir W. Monckton: During each of the last four years the Interim Index of Retail Prices declined by one point between July and August, owing mainly to seasonal reductions in certain food prices. I have no reason to suppose that the index will not continue to reflect accurately movements in these and other prices.
  Dame Irene Ward: When my right hon. and learned Friend read the last report on the cost-of-living index was his attention riveted by the fact that this rise was due to a rise in seasonal foods? Is he aware—perhaps I did not hear him quite correctly, because he does not seem to have replied to all the points I made in my Question? Are we to have a drop in the cost of living when seasonal foods decline?
  Sir W. Monckton: I pointed out to my hon. Friend that four times in the last four years, where there has been a seasonal change, there has been a drop of a point in the cost of living. From time to time the reductions in particular items are outweighed by increases in other

  2489
  items. My task is to see that the cost of living is accurately recorded here, and I try to do it.
  Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the phenomenon that the seasons in which the cost of living advances so far exceed the ones in which it is reduced, and that from October, 1951, the cost of living has advanced from 129 points to 152?
  Sir W. Monckton: I am entitled to say that the same phenomenon seems to have taken place during the time of the Labour Government.
  Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour which six items, taken proportionately, in the cost-of-living index have increased most during the past twelve months.
  Sir W. Monckton: The six items included in the Retail Prices Index which showed the largest percentage increase in price between mid-October, 1954, and mid-October, 1955, were potatoes brussels sprouts, cauliflower, pork dried currants and canned salmon.
  Miss Burton: Is the Minister aware that, for a great many people, the cost of living has increased because the prices received by the producers and those paid by the consumers in the shops bear no relation to each other? Is he further aware that this wide gap results from the profits of the middleman, and will he use his influence with the Government to cause an inquiry to be made?
  Sir W. Monckton: I am not sure that that is a matter for my Department.
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Labour whether the promised revision of the cost-of-living index will now be completed by the end of the year.
  Sir W. Monckton: The Cost of Living Advisory Committee is at present preparing proposals for a further revision of the Retail Prices Index. The Committee has not yet reported, but I hope that it will be possible to carry out this further revision very shortly.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Having admitted the need to revise the index, which for many people—especially pensioners—deceptively underestimates the effect of recent price increases, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to keep to the
  2490
  assurance given to me by his Parliamentary Secretary last July by getting out an accurate, up-to-date, and truthful index at the earliest possible moment?
  Sir W. Monckton: I understand that the Committee is making good progress on what is a complicated task, and hopes to make recommendations to me in the next month or two.
  Mr. Lee: Will the basis of the new index make possible a continuance of a correlation with the present index, so that we can see general trends of prices, and so on?
  Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. That is an important feature.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Personal Case
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Labour what decision has been reached in respect of the medical fitness of Mr. Alan F. Kilfoyle.
    Sir W. Monckton: Following his appeal against his original grading, Mr. Kilfoyle has, on a consultant's report, been placed in medical grade IV. He will accordingly not be called up for service.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that but for my intervention this young man would have been in the forces, graded as grade I? In view of the many blunders that I have uncovered, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me how many more cases I must reveal in the House before the matter is taken seriously?
    Sic W. Monckton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that this is a very good example of the working of the machinery of appeals which I introduced some years ago. What has happened is that this young man himself appealed. His original grade of I was largely on the report of his own doctor. When he appealed, a different view was taken by those who looked at him again, again having the advantage of more reports from the same partnership of doctors. The man was eventually sent to a consultant, and my chief medical officer had a look at the case in the end and thought that the second grading was right. It is a good thing that we introduced the appeals machinery.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which says that it was due to the Ministry of Labour, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, and give more details.

    British Subjects (Commonwealth Forces)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour whether, under his regulations, a British subject who has recently completed four years' service in a Commonwealth force is exempt from call-up in Britain.
    Sir W. Monckton: Full-time approved service in the Armed Forces of a Commonwealth country is taken into account by the Service Department concerned when determining the period of full-time service that a man may be required to perform under the Acts. I have no power to exempt a man from liability under the National Service Acts.
    Mr. Jeger: Does that reply mean that the period for which a National Service man may be called up may be reduced from two years to a few months, or to nothing? Is that the position under the agreement with the Commonwealth forces?
    Sir W. Monckton: That is the position which is dealt with, as the hon. Member will see, by the Service Department concerned, but I can tell him that the amount of service a man does in this country, after service in an approved Commonwealth force is, in general, reduced correspondingly.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Capital Punishment
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet decided to make any alteration in the law relating to capital punishment; and if he will now state Government policy on this subject.
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Her Majesty's Government is unable to accept any of the major recommendations of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): The Government have found no reason to depart from the provisional views which I expressed when the Royal Commission's Report was debated on 10th February last. I cannot detail the grounds for the Government's decision within the scope of the Answer to a Question, but the hon. Members will find them in the speech that I made on that occasion.
    Mr. Hughes: Have the Government therefore definitely made the decision that some human creatures are so much beyond redemption that nothing will do but to take their lives; and, secondly, that our prison system is so defective that imprisonment will not protect the community?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think the best thing which the hon. and learned Gentleman can do is to await the discussion which the Prime Minister promised that we should have on this whole question.
    Mr. Yates: Does not the Home Secretary consider that, after a Commission has gone to such trouble to prepare a Report, it is remarkable that the Government cannot accept a single recommendation? In view of the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gave a Written Answer to the Question, is not that treating the Commission and the House with contempt?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that the hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault. We had a debate on this whole matter last February, when I referred in very great detail to the three main recommendations of the Commission. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that I treated each one in very great detail in my speech.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that even among that dwindling number of persons who desire in some cases to retain the death penalty there is an almost universal feeling that the law in its present form, at any rate, cannot be defended? In those circumstances, would he not reconsider the matter?
    Major Lloyd-George: As I think the hon. Gentleman appreciated when he referred to my right hon. Friend's answer on the last occasion, it is important that the state of public opinion should be ascertained in this matter. I do not altogether accept his figures, but in any event I think it is essential—and I am sure we all agree—that the present state of public opinion should be ascertained. Surely there is no better place for that than this House.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce legislation to implement the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment that the law should be amended so that where on a charge of murder a jury consider that the accused killed the deceased upon provocation, that he was deprived of self-control as a result of that provocation, and that a reasonable man might have been so deprived, the nature, as distinct from the degree, of the provocation should be immaterial.
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot hold out any prospect of legislation on this subject in the near future.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does the Home Secretary realise the very great care with which the Royal Commission considered this unanimous recommendation? If he is not prepared to have a debate on the whole range of the Report, could we not have a discussion on this unanimous recommendation for the reform of our law?
    Major Lloyd-George: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave last week to a Question by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—that the Government are prepared to have a discussion on the whole question, which would include this recommendation.

    Firearms (Illegal Possession)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms he estimates are in private possession and unlicensed; and whether he has considered the possibility of legislation to tighten up the present control.
    Major Lloyd-George: I can give no estimate of the number of firearms illegally held. As regards the second
    2494
    part of the Question, it is already an offence, punishable by severe penalties, to be in possession of a firearm except in accordance with a firearm certificate issued by the appropriate chief officer of police.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not clear that there still exist in the hands of private individuals a considerable number of weapons from the last war? Would it not be a good idea to suggest, for a limited period, their return without penalty?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that my hon. Friend has in mind a kind of general amnesty. I am not expressing an opinion against that, but I do not think that for some things it should be done too frequently.

    Broadmoor Institution
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of inmates of Broadmoor, and give the annual average of discharges.
    Major Lloyd-George: The number of patients in Broadmoor Institution at 31st December, 1954, was 917. The average number of discharges over the five years 1950–54 was 32.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in considering suitability for discharge, he invites opinion from outside sources or whether he relies entirely upon the Home Office medical services?
    Major Lloyd-George: In most cases we rely on the medical opinion of the staff.

    Auctions (Bidding Agreements)
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with existing legislation rendering illegal certain agreements and transactions affecting bidding at auctions; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: I have noted, with approval, the publicity which has been given in the Press to certain practices which are alleged to take place at auctions. I am advised that the practices which have been described are already unlawful under the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, and that there is consequently no need for further legislation on the subject.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that under the 1927 Act there has been only one prosecution? Admittedly it involved three people, but for all that it was only one prosecution.
    Major Lloyd-George: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not always easy to enforce an Act of this sort owing to the obvious difficulty of getting evidence. We are all very grateful indeed to a gentleman in Oxford who is drawing up a list of antiquarian booksellers who are pledged to take no part in a ring.

    Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 (Payments to Charity)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the amount of money paid under Statute by cinemas opening on Sundays to charity; and what steps he is taking to repeal this legislation.
    Major Lloyd-George: The annual amount paid to charity under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, is estimated to be about £400,000. Her Majesty's Government have no present intention of introducing legislation on this subject.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend think that the whole principle behind this is disagreeable? In view of the fact that the need for charity has diminished considerably since the 1930s and that the position of the exhibitors has materially deteriorated, does he not think that some change is needed?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it would be a little awkward if we had to introduce legislation on every occasion in which circumstances changed. It would be extremely difficult. I am sure my hon. Friend also appreciates that any legislation of this kind would be extremely controversial.

    "Alcoholics Anonymous" (Prison Visits)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approach has been made to him by the "Alcoholics Anonymous" organisation to allow members to visit inmates of our prisons who have turned to crime through drink; and what decision he has reached in the matter.
    Major Lloyd-George: The movement known as "Alcoholics Anonymous" has been allowed to send literature to prison medical officers and has been supplied with a list of names and addresses for this purpose. Members of the movement have been permitted to visit suitable prisoners.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he is hopeful of success from this, and whether his decision was influenced by the activities of this organisation in Australia and America?
    Major Lloyd-George: I cannot answer the latter part of the question. Whilst it is too soon to come to a final conclusion about this matter, I can say that the influence of this society has had a beneficial effect on some prisoners.
    Mr. Daines: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange for my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) to undertake this work, provided he remains as anonymous as the alcoholics?

    Royal Commission on Betting (Report)
    Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government will introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Betting.
    Major Lloyd-George: I can hold out no hope of the introduction of legislation on this matter at an early date.
    Sir R. Boothby: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that this Report has never even been discussed by the House? Does he not think it rather insulting for the House and Her Majesty's Government to ask a number of distinguished men to give a great deal of their time as members of a Royal Commission on a particular subject and then not to pay the faintest attention to their recommendations?
    Major Lloyd-George: My hon. Friend's Question was whether there was any hope of legislation. I can only repeat that I can see no hope of legislation at any early date.
    Sir R. Boothby: Then why was the Commission set up?
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister now subscribing to the doctrine of Ramsay MacDonald, "A Commission a day keeps a crisis away"?

    Horror Comics
    Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints of the sale of horror comics he has received since the coming into force of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1955.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received that certain publications are contravening the Young Persons and Children (Harmful Publications) Act; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 21st November to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot).

    Minor Offences (Summary Trial)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now announce what action will be taken to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Summary Trial of Minor Offences.
    Major Lloyd-George: I am broadly in agreement with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and I am considering the amendments of the law which would be necessary to give effect to them. I cannot at present say when it will be possible for legislation to be introduced.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the colossal number of man-hours represented by the attendance of forty or fifty police officers for the better part of a morning at most magistrates' courts, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do his utmost to hasten this new legislation?
    Major Lloyd-George: I certainly will, but I am sure the hon. Member appreciates that it is a very complicated and difficult matter, and that it will take some little time to get the legislation ready.
    Mr. Younger: Is it correct that at least one of these recommendations was stated by the Committee to be extremely urgent?
    2498
    Does the Home Secretary not realise that by the Answers which he has given, not only to this Question but even more to the Question of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) about one Royal Commission and to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) about the Royal Commission on Capital punishment, he is giving the impression that the Home Office has been completely squeezed out of the legislative programme and is becoming a totally inert Department under his leadership?
    Major Lloyd-George: Twelve suggestions for legislation are contained in the Questions which I have had today, let alone anything else.
    Mr. Hamilton: is that a reason for doing nothing?

    Short-Term Prison Sentences
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders has now completed its survey of the problem presented by those cases now dealt with by short-term prison sentences; and if he will make a statement.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. This is a complicated problem which necessitates a great deal of study and consultation. The Advisory Council has started work upon it, but I do not expect that it will be in a position to report to me for some time.
    Mr. Hall: In view of the need to relieve the tremendous pressure on prison accommodation, will my right hon. and gallant Friend do his best to ensure that this matter is dealt with as speedily as possible?
    Major Lloyd-George: I received the report of the more detailed proposals from the Howard League on 15th November, and on 21st November the Advisory Council appointed a sub-committee which will let me know about this matter as soon as it possibly can.

    Approved Schools
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many approved schools have been closed this year; and how many he expects will be closed next year.
    Major Lloyd-George: Action has been taken this year to close eight approved schools which are surplus to requirements; five will close in December, and the rest early in 1956. While the future demand for places in approved schools cannot be foreseen, no further closing of schools is in prospect at present.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Home Secretary in close touch with the Ministers of Education and of Health to see that any suitable schools are taken over as going concerns for the education of handicapped children, etc.? That would not involve legislation.
    Major Lloyd-George: No. The Ministers of Education and of Health are kept constantly informed of the position and every one of these schools has been looked at by those two Departments.
    Mr. Alport: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether the reduction in demand for places in approved schools is due to a decrease in juvenile delinquency or to a change in the policy of juvenile court magistrates towards commitment to approved schools?
    Major Lloyd-George: I am glad to say it is due largely to the decrease in juvenile delinquency.
    Mr. Ede: Could the Home Secretary say how many of these eight schools are to be taken over by the Ministers of Health or of Education or by local authorities acting on their behalf?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think I am right in saying that, of the eight, six are being investigated, and I think that a local education authority is negotiating for the seventh.

    Visa (Personal Case)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has refused a visa to John Addison Wolfard, thereby preventing him from accompanying his British wife to the United Kingdom.
    Major Lloyd-George: I did not consider that it would be in the public interest to authorise a visa in this case.
    Mr. Swingler: Surely the policy of the Home Secretary about granting visas to aliens is based on the recognition of certain human rights as well as on the right of political asylum? While the question
    2500
    of political asylum does not arise in this case, is it not most undesirable that husbands or wives of British citizens should be excluded from visiting this country unless some very powerful political reason can be produced?
    Major Lloyd-George: The policy of the Home Office towards foreign husbands of British wives is certainly liberal, and has nothing to do with this case.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Does not the answer that this would not be in the public interest ignore other considerations and is that not precisely the attitude to which we objected so strongly in the case of Russian wives who were refused permission to travel with their husbands?
    Major Lloyd-George: That is a quite different case; there is no analogy at all.

    Motor Cars (Illegal Sales)
    Mr. Tileyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases reported to the police to the last convenient date, of motor vehicles still under hire-purchase agreements having been illegally sold by the hirers.
    Major Lloyd-George: In the Metropolitan Police district, 34 cases were reported to the police in 1954, and 66 in the first ten months of 1955. I regret that information from other areas is not available.
    Mr. Tiley: Whilst thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, may I ask, in view of the serious consequences of this type of larceny—not to the hire-purchase companies, but to the car purchasers—whether he will consider, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an alteration of the registration book—the "log book," as it is called —to stop this type of trickery?
    Major Lloyd-George: In view of the very large numbers of hire-purchase vehicles, I think the figures I have quoted —34 cases in 1954 and 66 in 1955—are small. I am informed by the police that they do not regard this as a serious problem.

    Tourists (Immigration Control)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, whilst preserving necessary security safeguards, he will modify Home Office regulations and the administration of these

    2501
    regulations governing the entry of tourists into this country so as to prevent needless waiting at points of arrival.
    Major Lloyd-George: Every effort is made at the ports to pass passengers through the immigration control without unnecessary delay, and I have recently impressed on my officers the importance of reducing the examination of bona fide foreign visitors to the minimum, consistent with the purposes of the control.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Would it not help Customs officials if they could make an inspection on cross-Channel ships? Would it not be possible to simplify the car travel documents?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that my hon. Friend referred to cars. An experiment has been conducted this summer on the boat, and the results of that experiment are being examined at present. One of the troubles with this immigration services and others is that there are sometimes physical difficulties which are out of my control.

    Detention Centres
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given to courts on the type of youth who may appropriately be sent to detention centres under Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
    Major Lloyd-George: When the detention centres at Kidlington and Goudhurst were opened circulars were sent to the courts to which the centres were made available explaining briefly the nature of the proposed regime at the centre, the primary purpose of which was to provide short, sharp punishment designed to bring home to the offender the gravity of his situation, and setting out some general considerations, such as the physical fitness of the offender and the question whether he had had previous institutional training, which the courts might wish to bear in mind in considering whether committal to the centre would be appropriate in a particular case.
    Mr. Younger: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that, on the whole, the type of cases coming to these centres are cases which are quite suitable to be dealt with? As he knows, the case of conscientious objectors has been mentioned, and apparently unsuitable people are being sent
    2502
    to these centres. Would he consider sending out further guidance, or at any rate information, to the courts of this subject?
    Major Lloyd-George: Whilst I am prepared to consider anything of that kind, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be proper to me to advise courts how to deal with a convicted person. The right hon. Gentleman referred to conscientious objectors, for example. I can only point out that the purpose of this particular kind of detention centre was to provide an alternative to imprisonment. That is all magistrates have to consider, whether it is better to send a man to a detention centre or to prison.
    Mr. Snow: Bearing in mind the severe physical training and treatment regimes to which detained persons are subjected at these centres, is the Home Secretary satisfied that before they are so committed their physical state is properly considered?
    Major Lloyd-George: Yes, I am certain of that, because as soon as they are received they get their medical examination and, if they are found to be unfitted for the ordinary physical routine, they are put on to something else.

    Fluorescent Lighting Tubes
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will draw the attention of the public to the danger of phosphorus poisoning from broken discarded fluorescent lighting tubes; and in particular whether he will draw the attention of persons transporting these tubes to the unwisdom of leaving vehicles containing them unattended.
    Major Lloyd-George: I understand that these tubes do not contain elemental phosphorus, and there is no reason to suggest any special precautions when transporting them.

    Indian Hemp (Convictions)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of successful prosecutions in England and Wales for the illegal possession of Indian hemp during 1953 and 1954; and what proportion of these were

    2503
    in the Metropolitan Police area, and what proportion in the remainder of the country.
    Major Lloyd-George: Eighty-three convictions for the possession of Indian hemp were recorded in 1953, of which 51 were in the Metropolitan Police district. In 1954, the figures were 144 and 84 respectively.
    Dr. Johnson: In view of the increase in these convictions, is the Home Secretary fully satisfied that provincial police authorities in all parts of the country are aware of the dangers of this drug?
    Major Lloyd-George: I have no reason to doubt that they are aware of it. While there was an increase in 1954, the figures up to date this year indicate that a slight decrease will be shown.

    Prisoners' Mail (Censorship)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been given to prison officers to restrict or censor prisoners' mail.
    Major Lloyd-George: As the Answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Whilst appreciating the difficulties of the Home Secretary in this matter, may I ask if he is aware that some of us are really concerned at the way in which this censoring is being done and the fact that admittedly prisoners' mail to Members of Parliament is being interfered with?
    Major Lloyd-George: It is not so much a question of my difficulties as one of courtesy to the House. If I read the whole Answer it would take a long time, as it deals in full detail with the circumstances in which prisoners may communicate by letter. They were laid down in Prison Rules in 1949. If, having perused the Answer, the hon. Member wishes to raise any point on the Prison Rules, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman read the report in HANSARD of last night's Adjournment debate, which concerned the exercise of discretion in Prison Rules, because the Joint Under-Secretary gave a reply which the whole House found totally unsatisfactory?
    Major Lloyd-George: I find that extremely difficult to believe.
    Following is the Answer:
    By Rule 75 (1) of the Prison Rules, 1949, the Commissioners may impose such restrictions on and supervision over letters as they consider necessary for securing discipline and good order, for the prevention of crime and criminal associations, and for the welfare of individuals. By Rule 75 (3) every letter to or from a prisoner shall (except in the case of certain communications to a legal adviser) be read by the governor or by a responsible officer deputed by him for the purpose, and it shall be within the discretion of the governor to stop any letter on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length.
    The following matters in letters are regarded as objectionable:

    (i) Discussion of methods of committing crime, instigation of criminal offences, attempts to defeat the ends of justice, by suborning witnesses or tampering with evidence, or attempts to facilitate escapes.

    (ii) Complaints about the courts and the police which are deliberately calculated to hold the authorities up to contempt.

    (iii) Threats of violence.

    (iv) Matter intended for insertion in the Press.

    (v) Grossly improper language.

    (vi) Attempts to stimulate public agitation about matters other than the prisoner's own conviction and sentence.

    The rules governing the writing of letters by prisoners to Members of Parliament are as follows:
    Any prisoner may communicate with a Member of Parliament by using an ordinary letter. In addition at any time after completing his first two months in custody he may be allowed one special letter to a Member of Parliament. A prisoner who receives a letter from a Member of Parliament which calls for a reply may at any time be allowed a special letter for the purpose. The conditions governing the content of letters to Members of Parliament are as below:

    (a) The following matters may not be included

    (i) Anything objectionable as above defined.

    (ii) Enclosures sent to Members of Parliament for onward transmission to the Home Office.

    (iii) Requests to Members of Parliament to approach persons whom, under Standing Order 376 (1)*, the prisoner would not be allowed to approach direct.

    (b) Complaints about prison treatment in letters to Members of Parliament will not be allowed unless the prisoner has already exercised his right of making his complaint through the appointed channels, i.e., by seeing

    * e.g. Judges, public Departments.

    2505
    a visiting magistrate (or Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner) and/or petitioning the Secretary of State. So long as a petition about prison treatment is outstanding he will not be allowed to write about the same matter in a letter to a Member of Parliament.
    (c) Allegations against prison officers, whether or not they also constitute complaints about prison treatment, will not he allowed unless the allegations have already been investigated. A letter containing an allegation which has not been investigated will be stopped and the prisoner will be told to submit a written statement if he wishes to pursue the allegations. He will be warned that if he submits a statement, his allegations will be investigated and he will render himself liable to be put on report if they are shown to be unfounded.

    Employment Agencies
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce the necessary legislation for the purpose of abolishing private fee-paying employment agencies.
    Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Home Secretary aware that the unions concerned, and the T.U.C., have expressed a desire for this to take place? Will he consult the trade unions concerned to see what is their view in connection with it?
    Major Lloyd-George: I think that the hon. Member ought to realise that the basis of this matter is the view of the International Labour Organisation, which suggested that supervision is necessary. I should have thought that supervision, not abolition, was the proper thing in this case.

    Aliens (Residence)
    Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds his officials grant or refuse residence permits to aliens wishing to reside in the United Kingdom.
    Major Lloyd-George: Aliens are not normally admitted to this country to reside but some who have been admitted temporarily in the first instance are subsequently allowed to remain. Such cases are dealt with on their individual merits.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does the Home Secretary not think that in modern conditions he is taking an unnecessarily old-fashioned view of this problem?
    Major Lloyd-George: I remind the hon. Member that this is not a country
    2506
    of immigration and settlement. I think we can say that we have certainly done our share in the question of refugees from Europe.
    Mr. M. Lindsay: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of us who have had constituency cases of this nature have found the Home Office extremely reasonable?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920
  Mr. Allaunasked the Prime Minister whether he will repeal the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): No, Sir.
  Mr. Allaun: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Trades Disputes Act, 1927, with all its restrictions on the trade unions, is still unrepealed, and that the Irish T.U.C. and the British unions affiliated are concerned—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is, I think, now asking about a subject within the purview of the Northern Ireland Parliament. That is out of order in this House.
  Mr. Allaun: I was going to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the benefits that Northern Ireland receives from English social and labour legislation, he would make representations.
  The Prime Minister: I have no power whatever to do that. This is a question, as Mr. Speaker has said, within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member referred, and I am aware also of the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
  Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us think that the sooner partition is done away with, the better?
  The Prime Minister: We may also have memories that Ulster saved us in the war.
  Mr. Stokes—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Question No. 46.
  Mr. Stokes: On a point of order. After that most insulting remark by the Prime Minister, am I not entitled to ask another supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear any insult.
  Mr. Stokes: Is it not within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that more Southern Ireland people than Northern Ireland people fought for this country?
  Mr. Speaker: That may well be, but that is getting a little far from the original Question.

  MARSHAL BULGANIN'S VISIT (INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE)
  Mr. G. Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement concerning the arrangements made for the official visit to this country of Marshal Bulganin next year.
  The Prime Minister: I have appointed an Inter-Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to assist me to prepare and co-ordinate the arrangements for this visit, which is expected to take place during the month of April.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister, therefore, saying that recent events have in no way altered the intentions of the Government with regard to the visit of the Russian leaders? Is he still hopeful of good results from the visit?
  The Prime Minister: Hope springs eternal.
  Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the two gentlemen concerned, through the British Embassy in Moscow, the feeling in this country that if they are to visit us they should restrain their language about this country when they are visiting other countries?
  The Prime Minister: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I extended an invitation to these visitors. I think that this country, with its broad democratic intelligence, would be able to handle any situation that might be created by any visitor of any country.
  Mr. McGovern: In the event of this visit taking place, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee to the House that all the refugees from Eastern Europe and the Baltic States who are in this country will be given adequate opportunity to pay their proper respects and give a proper welcome to these two gentlemen?
  Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend at any rate try to ensure that during the visit of these two men to this country, India is not accused of having organised the invasion of Poland?

  NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. A. HENDERSON: To ask, the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Eisenhower and Marshal Bulganin a cessation of all nuclear explosions pending the Report of the United Nations Commission established to study the effects of radiation.
  Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. On Monday, I tabled a Question to the Prime Minister identical in purport with the Question now being asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson). The Prime Minister transferred the Question to the Foreign Secretary, and it now appears on the Order Paper as Question No. 122.
  Mr. Stokes: Bad luck.
  Mr. Warbey: Could you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what form of protection there is for hon. Members against this rather arbitrary kind of transfer?
  Mr. Speaker: I have already informed the House that I have nothing to do with transfers. It is entirely outside my responsibility. Mr. Arthur Henderson.
  Mr. A. Henderson: Question No. 47, to the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister not aware that my Question does not relate to the Question that was raised yesterday? The Question that was put to the

  2509
  Prime Minister related to a statement made over the Moscow Radio. What I am, in this Question, asking the Prime Minister to do is not to make a statement of policy but whether he will take the lead to secure an international meeting, in which he said yesterday he was prepared to participate, at an early date to discuss the temporary suspension of hydrogen tests pending the outcome of this conference?
  The Prime Minister: That is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked. His Question asks for a ban on all nuclear explosions. As I explained yesterday, a ban on all nuclear explosions, which includes atomic explosions, raises the most intricate problems of supervision and control. So far, they have not been agreed upon internationally. I wish very much that they could be agreed upon, but until they can be it does not seem to me that there is any individual action that can be taken.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not asking the Prime Minister to declare that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to ban nuclear tests. I am asking him to take the lead in proposing such a conference for the purpose of discussing this very serious problem.
  The Prime Minister: These things have been—and in fact are now—before the Assembly of the United Nations. During the very last meeting at Geneva, a number of questions were put by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Soviet Government on this very suggestion, to which we have not yet had a reply. It is a question of whether it is possible to control the explosion both of hydrogen and of atomic weapons, and it is not by any means an easy one, as everybody—including the Russians themselves—admits. If we can make further progress in some other way, I am perfectly ready to consider it.
  Mr. Younger: Yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated that he had proposals and would be willing to table them—that, I think, was his expression—if the House so desired. Is he aware that there is a very strong desire that there should be some British Government initiative in this matter; and that if the proposals require to be tabled in order to be fully discussed, I think it would be the wish of the House that that should be done?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: these have been discussed several times in various forms in the Disarmament Sub-Committee. They were also discussed at Geneva, when certain proposals were made, as I have said. I am quite ready to consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, whether any further initiative is possible, but I want the House to understand that this is not a matter of emotion but a technical problem of the very greatest difficulty with which, so far, we have been unable to make any headway.
  Mr. Pargiter: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of this country are very much alarmed at this attitude, "I have a bigger and better bomb than you," on the part of both the U.S.S.R. and America? I wonder whether he would arrange to give time to debate this matter, so that the views of the House may be thoroughly known? I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a Motion on the Notice Paper on the subject in my name and the names of other hon. Members:
  [That this House deeply regrets the continued testing of atomic and hydrogen bombs by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America; believes that the deterrent effect of these weapons is disproportionate to the risks involved and further that the tests may be in themselves a danger to the human race; and requests Her Majesty's Government, therefore, to undertake not to proceed with these tests and to ask the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to act in a like manner.]
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I think that we have no more time available before Christmas to debate that Motion.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Sir R. Boothby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, in view of the very great public interest in and anxiety about the subject, you will give permission to the Home Secretary to answer the series of Questions down today about the proposed prohibition of the manufacture of the drug heroin?
  Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Debate on Cyprus, which will take place on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages of the Leeward Islands Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 7TH DECEMBER—Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme, the Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, and the International Finance Corporation Order.
THURSDAY, 8TH DECEMBER—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 9TH DECEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks he will be able to find time for a debate on agriculture, with special reference to pigs, before the Christmas Recess? Perhaps he would be able to tell us what the date of the rising of the House will be.
Mr. Crookshank: I do not think that there is much likelihood of finding time for pigs this side of Christmas—at least, not for debating them. As regards the time when the House may rise for Christmas. I cannot yet give a firm date, but I should hope that, if we all apply ourselves to our work with assiduity and zeal, it may be possible to rise on the Wednesday before Christmas.
Mr. Nabarro: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question about the nationalised industries? Is he aware that the Select
2512
Committee has now virtually thrown in its hand? As hon. Members on this side of the House are largely in the hands of the Opposition as to debating those industries, and, in any event, the debates on their reports and accounts are now months in arrear, can my right hon. Friend say what is being done to restore a modicum of Parliamentary accountability?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not know that I can accept all those statements, but I would remind the House that a Question was put to my right hon. Friend about the Report of the Select Committee and that the Prime Minister then said that it was receiving consideration. If a debate is what is meant by "a modicum," may I say that it is the practice that there should be three days for debate on the nationalised industries during the course of the year, and that I hope it may be possible to arrange the third one, which is due, before we rise for Christmas.
Mr. Rankin: Can the Leader of the House say that he hopes that a debate on civil aviation will take place before the House rises for Christmas?
Mr. Crookshank: That is exactly what I have just been saying—that there is to be a third day on the nationalised industries and that I hope we may be able to fit it in before the Christmas Recess. I understand that the Opposition have chosen civil aviation as the subject for that day.
Mr. Nabarro: Yes, we on this side are in the hands of the Opposition in this matter. That is the point.
Dr. Broughton: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to one of the Motions on the Order Paper dealing with the vexed question of the proposed ban on heroin, and the clinical use of heroin in the United Kingdom, which stands in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends? In view of the concern felt in the House and the country about the ban on the manufacture of heroin and its being prohibited in that way from use, will the Leader of the House give an opportunity for a debate on that Motion before the Christmas Recess?
[That this House, having taken into consideration the opinion of many

2513
eminent members of the medical profession who hold the view that there is no adequate and equally effective substitute for heroin, and having regard to the feelings of concern among many practising doctors who are alarmed at the prospect of being denied the use of heroin for the relief of patients in need of the drug, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the proposed ban on the manufacture of the drug, and, whilst prepared to support Her Majesty's Government in all reasonable measures to suppress traffic in drugs, is of the opinion that the manufacture of heroin under licence should be continued in order to provide the medical profession with that quantity of the drug that is required for clinical use within the United Kingdom where hereoin addiction is little known.]
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I do not see any possibility of debating that, but I would remind the House that a Question is being answered today by the Home Secretary on that subject.
Dame Irene Ward: I have a Motion on the Order Paper. If my right hon. Friend cannot give a day for a debate on that Motion, can he take action without a debate? May I have an answer?
[That, in the opinion of this House, for the purpose of a correct historical record, the statement of Lord Hardinge of Pensharst giving the part he, the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, and Mr. Geoffrey Dawson played at the time of the abdication as it appeared in The Times of 29th November, 1955, should be embodied in a White Paper and placed in the Library.]
Mr. Crookshank: I was trying to see to which of the many Motions to which my hon. Friend has put her name she was referring.
Dame Irene Ward: I have only one Motion standing in my name at the moment.
Mr. Daines: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall come back after Christmas? May I inform him that many of us on this side take a very dim view of a long Christmas Recess?
Mr. Crookshank: I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can have any feelings on that matter, because he does not know how long it is going to be. Neither do I.
Mr. M. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that many of us think it is very important that we should have a debate on the nationalised industries before the House rises, in view of the increasing anxiety felt by Members in all parts of the House about the unfair retail trading practices of the National Coal Board?
Dr. King: Since the Leader of the House owes a debt to the teaching profession, but for whose ministrations neither he nor any other Member of the House would be here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—does he not think he could find a more profitable use for next Tuesday than bringing in a Measure which will create a sense of very bitter injustice among the whole of the teaching profession?
Mr. Crookshank: I think that, as the Bill was presented several days ago, it would be very desirable if the Minister of Education explained its details to the House as soon as possible. I am not the son of a teacher, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by all that.
Mr. Baldwin: Will my right hon. Friend find time before the Christmas Recess for a debate upon the Report of the Royal Commission on East Africa which was published six months or so ago?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir, I do not see any possibility of giving time at present.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Motion on the Order Paper relating to an extradition treaty with the Republic of Ireland, signed by eight hon. Members who are supporters of the Government? Why is he not finding time to discuss Northern Ireland, in view of the great tension there and the loyal support hon. Members opposite give it?
[That, in view of the repeated attacks on military and police establishments in Northern Ireland by members of illegal organisations originating in the Irish Republic, and in view also of the wholehearted condemnation of these attacks which has been expressed by Mr. De Valera and other responsible leaders of public opinion in the Irish Republic, this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to request the Government of the Irish Republic without delay to negotiate an extradition treaty to include offences committed in Northern Ireland.]
Mr. Hyde: May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that Motion, which stands in my name, and the names of almost all other Members from Northern Ireland? In view of recent events, could my right hon. Friend not find time for a discussion of the desirability of negotiating an extradition treaty with the Republic of Ireland?
Mr. Crookshank: A great number of most interesting proposals are put down as Motions on the Order Paper. I must remind the House that this is the period of the year in which the Ballot is taken for Private Members' Motions, and that some of those proposals could well be chosen as the subjects for debate on those Private Members' days.
Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when we may expect to have the promised Bill on monopolies and restrictive practices? Will it be before Christmas?
Mr. Crookshank: I could not say.
Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the interest of many people in Tuesday's business, will it be possible to extend that day's deliberations by one hour? There are bound to be many hon. Members who will wish to speak.
Mr. Crookshank: I could not make any statement now about that, but if it is the desire of the Opposition it could be discussed through the usual channels.

HON. MEMBER FOR MID-ULSTER (SELECT COMMITTEE)
Mr. Crookshank: I have to inform the House that yesterday it came to notice that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. C. Beattie) was at the time of the by-election in Mid-Ulster a member of appeal tribunals constituted under the following Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament—the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the National Assistance Act, 1948. I am advised that these appointments may be offices of profit under the Crown and, consequently, that the hon. Member may have been disqualified from being elected.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is, in accordance with the precedents, reporting the matter to
2516
the Select Committee which has been appointed to consider such matters.
The hon. Member is not, of course, taking any part in the proceedings of the House. Beyond that I do not think there is anything I can usefully or properly add at this stage.
Mr. Mitchison: Has this extraordinary occurrence been discovered since the review of the lists which, we were told yesterday, showed that there were no such cases? When do the Government propose to proceed with the general Bill dealing with this sort of question, the need for which becomes increasingly obvious?
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Before the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is answered, may I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? I understand that the gentleman whose membership of the House is now in some doubt is the gentleman who was declared elected by a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland.
According to what we are now told, it would look as if the applicant in that case, who was urging and moving the Court to declare that his opponent who had a majority of the votes was not qualified to be elected, and who succeeded in that plea and was declared elected although he had a minority of the votes, now turns out not to have been qualified himself. My point of order is this: in view of the fact that this gentleman has only been admitted to the House as a Member on that judgment of the Divisional Court, and not by an Election, is not the proper procedure now to refer the whole matter back to the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland to consider who has really been elected?
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. When this matter arose as to the previously, apparently, elected Member for this Division, it was said that the Government could not take any action until time had elapsed for the Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland to take action. Can we be told now why the Government can take action and why the Queen's Bench Division Court in Northern Ireland cannot be applied to again to change its mind and declare the other candidate elected?
Mr. Speaker: It is a feature of what is proposed that the matter is to go before the Select Committee. For that feature I am profoundly grateful. I shall await the Committee's Report in the hope of being able to answer these points after the Committee has been deliberating upon them.
Mr. Bevan: Will the Select Committee also consider the status of the Resolution which the House itself carried automatically on the decision of the High Court, because, obviously, that Resolution itself must now be in doubt, since we have declared a person to be a Member who is disqualified?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it will be within the purview of the Select Committee to reflect upon a Resolution passed by the whole House. The Committee might report on all the circumstances, but the House itself is quite at liberty to consider all these matters when the Report of the Committee is before it.
Mr. Bevan: Are you in a position, Mr. Speaker, to guide the House as to whether its decision on that occasion was irregular or not, because we decided to admit to our membership a person who ought not to be so admitted?
Mr. Speaker: I am satisfied that the proceedings in this matter hitherto, on the facts as they were known to the House, have been perfectly regular.
Mr. Shinwell: Can the Leader of the House tell the House on what date the Government discovered this alleged disqualification of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. C. Beattie)? If the date was before the High Court heard the application, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the learned judges were not informed?
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Before we proceed further into these very interesting facts which my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wants elucidated, may I pursue my original point of order for one moment longer, Sir? You will remember that this gentleman was admitted a Member of the House on a Motion from the Government Front Bench and that I asked you at that time whether the Motion was debatable. You ruled that, although it was technically debatable, you could think of no ground on which the House might reject the Motion which was before it. May I submit that the Government
2518
have discovered a ground and that before the House now permits itself to refer this matter to a Select Committee the House itself might well consider its own procedure in the matter?
Mr. Speaker: I am quite satisfied that what was done on the occasion when the matter was before us was perfectly regular and in order. As to the hon. Member's last point, truth sometimes turns out to be stranger than fiction.
Mr. Crookshank: May I answer a question which has been twice put to me and interrupted on points of order? The first sentence of the statement which I read started, "I have to inform the House that yesterday it came to notice…"
Mr. Shinwell: Who informed the right hon. Gentleman about this matter? Will he make inquiries to ascertain whether the information was in the possession before yesterday of those who informed him only yesterday and, if so, why he was not previously informed?
Mr. Crookshank: This was brought to the attention of the Minister who has normally to deal with these matters—my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I cannot go further than that.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely all these matters will be discussed by the Select Committee. The House has set up a Select Committee for the very purpose of examining these things and I suggest that it might be left to do its work.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Sir. I think you will agree that this is a most unusual incident and in the circumstances, and in view of the fact that on a previous occasion you ruled that a debate was impossible in the circumstances because the matter was to be referred to a Select Committee, is it not desirable that hon. Members should be enlightened on some of the facts in order to be able to come to a conclusion? After all, the proposal to refer this matter to a Select Committee is, I understand, debatable. If so, are we entitled to debate it now?
Mr. Crookshank: May I explain the position as I understand it to be? When a matter of this kind comes to the notice of the Attorney-General, and there is a Select Committee in being which is competent to deal with these matters, the precedents are that the Attorney-General should communicate direct with the

2519
Chairman of that Select Committee and not bring the matter before the House. On this occasion, however, owing to the rather unusual circumstances, I thought that as a matter of courtesy to the House I would today inform hon. Members of it. According to the precedents, there was no necessity to do anything of the kind.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to my point of order. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said—and we are grateful to him for the information with which he has furnished us—and as he regards it as a most unusual incident, surely we are entitled to press him on the point I have raised. Who provided the information, when was it provided, and why was it not made available sooner? Can that be explained?
Mr. Speaker: The practice of the House is that, when a matter is referred to a Select Committee, these are things for the Select Committee to deal with. I do not think we can prejudge the examination of the Select Committee by asking questions now. The whole purpose of a Select Committee is to conduct these inquiries.
Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now moving that this matter be referred to a Select Committee?
Mr. Crookshank Mr. Crookshank indicated dissent.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman dissents. Then why did he make the statement at all if he is not presenting a Motion to the House?
Mr. Crookshank: It is sometimes possible to try to be courteous and that is what I have tried to do in informing the House. The matter stands automatically referred to the Select Committee under the previous ruling of the House and in accordance with the precedents. I thought, however, that rather than hear possibly through a leakage or through misinformation from other sources—because while it is being considered Members who are on the Select Committee cannot refer to the matter in the House —the House should be seized of the fact that there was this problem before its own Select Committee. After all, this is not a party matter, because the last case was that of an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir. Could we have your Ruling on
2520
this point? The Committee of Privileges, is, as I understand, a Select Committee of this House, which is appointed every Session. When a question arises such as this, as to whether a Member who has duly taken his seat was disqualified, and has by his vote since incurred certain penalties in the law, is not that a question which must be referred to the Committee by a Motion, both as to the penalties and as to the eligibility?
Mr. Speaker: On that, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must be confusing two matters. I do not think that this is anything to do with the Committee of Privileges. As I have followed the debate, the Select Committee, which has so far been referred to, is a Select Committee which was set up under an Order of this House of 27th October, as follows:
"A Select Committee appointed to consider whether the Election of Mr. Charles Alfred Howell as a Member of this House for the Birmingham, Perry Bar Division is invalid on the ground that …he was a member of panels …and to examine any other cases which may be brought to their notice of Members of this House who may have been incapable of election to this House by reason of the fact that at the time of their election they held offices or places of profit under the Crown within the meaning of Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707…"
So the position is that the House, by this Order, set up a Select Committee to deal not only with the case that was then referred to it, but the case of any other Member which subsequently came to light; and that is the procedure which has been followed here.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said only this week that there were no further cases—
The Prime Minister: I was careful in my supplementary answer. I was asked whether I was quite sure that there would be no further cases. My reply was, "I hope so." It proves to have been wise.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is there a Motion before the House that this may be referred to a Select Committee? If so, can it be opposed?
Mr. Speaker: There can be no such Motion. The House has already decided the matter. I think the House should proceed with its business. We have given a great deal of consideration to this matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to contributions in connection with housing accommodation, it is expedient—

  A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to a local authority or to a development corporation in respect of each new dwelling, and in certain cases in respect of the site of a building consisting of or comprising one or more new dwellings, being in either case a dwelling or dwellings approved for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session by the Minister of Housing and Local Government (in this Resolution referred to as "the Minister") and provided by, or provided in pursuance of arrangements under section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, with, the authority, or, as the case may be, provided by the corporation otherwise than in pursuance of such arrangements, of an annual subsidy for a period not exceeding sixty years of the appropriate amount hereinafter specified, that is to say—

  (a) in respect of a dwelling provided for the purpose of re-housing persons displaced by slum clearance or re-development in accordance with a re-development plan within the meaning of the said Act of 1936 or coming from camps or other unsatisfactory temporary housing accommodation designated by the Minister, or for the purpose of accommodating persons from outside the local authority's area in which the dwelling is situated an annual subsidy not exceeding—

  (i) in the case of a dwelling other than a flat in a block of flats of four or more storeys, twenty-two pounds one shilling or, where that dwelling is provided for the purpose of accommodating persons as aforesaid, twenty-four pounds;

  (ii) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of four storeys, thirty-two pounds;

  (iii) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of five storeys, thirty-eight pounds;

  (iv) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of six or more storeys, fifty pounds, increased by one pound fifteen shillings for each storey by which the block exceeds six storeys;

  (b) in respect of any other dwelling, an annual subsidy not exceeding—

  (i) in the case of a dwelling other than a flat in a block of flats of four or more storeys, ten pounds or, where the Minister thinks fit so to determine in the case of a dwelling provided for the agricultural
  2522
  population of a county district, nineteen pounds;

  (ii) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of four storeys, twenty pounds;

  (iii) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of five storeys, twenty-six pounds;

  (iv) in the case of a flat in a block of flats of six or more storeys, thirty-eight pounds, increased by one pound fifteen shillings for each storey by which the block exceeds six storeys;

  (c) in respect of the site of a building consisting of or comprising one or more dwellings, being a site as determined in accordance with the said Act of the present Session the cost of which as developed, expressed as a cost per acre, exceeds four thousand pounds, an annual subsidy at the rate of sixty pounds per acre, increased at the rate of thirty-four pounds per acre for every thousand pounds or part of a thousand pounds by which the said cost exceeds five thousand pounds.

  B. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums necessary to increase any annual subsidy aforesaid in respect of a dwelling provided by a local authority, if in the opinion of the Minister the provision of that dwelling is urgently needed but would impose an unreasonably heavy rate burden or necessitate the charging of unreasonably high rents, to any amount not exceeding, in the case of a dwelling other than a flat in a block of flats of four or more storeys, thirty pounds or, in the case of such a flat, forty pounds.

  C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys so provided.

  D. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all sums received by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the said Act of the present Session.

  In this Resolution, the expression "new dwelling" means a dwelling—

  (a) the tender or estimate for the erection of which was accepted by a formal resolution of a local authority or development corporation passed on or after the third day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, not being a tender or estimate which was submitted to the Minister for approval before that day; or

  (b) provided in pursuance of arrangements under section ninety-four of the Housing Act, 1936, made on or after the said third day of November.

  Resolution agreed to.

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

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

    Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)
    3.47 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), is really a paving Amendment to the first of his Amendments in page 2, line 20. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss the two Amendments together.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section)."
    This is one of a series of paving Amendments, with other Amendments attached to them. No doubt the Committee will have noticed that there is a number in each case serving to link the two together.
    This Amendment serves what I think the Committee will agree is an important purpose, to continue the existing subsidies in two cases. Those are, first, houses, the tenders or estimates for which have been approved or submitted before 4th November, 1956; secondly, houses or perhaps I should more accurately say dwellings, the sites for which have been acquired before 3rd November, 1955.
    I propose to suggest to the Committee that this Amendment is highly desirable, both in the interests of the local authorities and in the interests of those persons who have applied for council houses and might have got them within one or other of these groups. To establish that, I want to begin by pointing out that the local authorities have had extraordinarily short notice of what is now proposed by this Bill.
    I will not go back into the history of this matter, but the Committee will remember that in October, 1954, a Review of Contributions Order came up for affirmation, that it proceeded at that time on a basis of 10 per cent. of the average weekly earnings, that it was argued and confirmed, and that nothing whatever
    2524
    happened as regards contributions, though much happened as regards the rates of interest payable by local authorities on loans between that date in October, 1954. and 22nd June, 1955.
    On that latter date the right hon. Gentleman appeared—like a bolt from the blue, shall I say, in order not to attribute to him either diabolical or angelical characteristics—before a meeting of the Association of Muncipal Corporations at Harrogate, and told it, to begin with, that he could not make a statement about the housing policy of the Government there because the House was the right place to make it. One appreciates the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty. He went on to say remarkably little. He stated that:
    "The present unreal basis of housing finance has, over the years, been sustained and encouraged by the high level of the subsidy."
    He went on:
    "This nettle has got to be grasped."
    I am not sure what that nettle was stinging, but I am sure that the Bill will be a nettle to local authorities and many other people.
    4.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman continued:
    "The Government do not intend to shirk the issue."
    They have, of course, been shirking it, if that was the matter, for many years past, The right hon. Gentleman proceeded:
    "While we are convinced that the housing subsidy as a whole must be reduced, we are determined to do nothing which might impair the impetus of the all-important drive on slum clearance…"
    I suppose that is why he kept the subsidies the same in that respect.
    "…and on housing the overspill population from the congested cities."
    Thus, all that the local authorities were told at that stage was that the housing subsidy as a whole must be reduced. It should be noticed that there was no question of abolishing it completely, as we are now told is to be the case. The Minister went on to say that he would be discussing the matter with the local authorities on 3rd October.
    On 27th October the Minister made a statement, and on 1st November the Bill was introduced. On 3rd November the Bill was, presumably, printed, and for the first time we had full knowledge of what

    2525
    was proposed. The net result of all this is that the local authorities had no more than a very general statement made in the summer, and it was not until the meeting on 3rd October that they could have been told anything about the real substance of what is now proposed. The date proposed to be taken in the Bill as the date before which estimates must be submitted to the Minister if they are to rank for the old and higher subsidy is only one month after that meeting—3rd November.
    The long and the short of the matter is that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has given local authorities one month's notice of a change which I feel certain he himself would be the first to agree is bound to cause most sweeping changes in their housing programmes and generally in their finances.
    I will not play what is becoming an increasingly, and, I think, unfortunate, popular game in the House, "1946 and all that," when members of the Government, proposing a somewhat doubtful Measure, say, "You did much the same when you were in office," and right hon. and hon. Friends of mine rise to defend themselves, and we are taken back what is by now a long way in Parliamentary history. However, I want to point to one fact.
    I referred just now to a debate in October, 1954. That arose out of a statutory review which the right hon. Gentleman made of the contributions payable to local authorities under the 1946 Act. The review appeared in June, 1954. Paragraph 5 said:
    "Taking all these factors into account, the Minister concludes that the present rates of subsidy can no longer be justified."
    That was the beginning of the first move to reduce the subsidies since the 1946 Act. I call the attention of the Committee to the following sentence in the review:
    "He has, however, decided that in order to ease the transition, it would be proper to pay the present rates for all houses and flats completed before 1st April, 1955."
    Therefore, the position was that in June, 1954, the right hon. Gentleman, recognising the need to ease the transition so far as concerned local authorities, and making a far smaller and less sweeping reduction than is now proposed, gave them about ten months' notice. Yet on this occasion, with a far more sweeping
    2526
    change, they are being given one month's notice.
    Let us see what the effect of this is. The Ministry used to produce in its housing returns some figures which showed the position before houses were actually started. I need hardly remind the Committee that the council house as it finally emerges is the result of a whole series of administrative and practical steps. The first of those steps is to get approval of the area as a housing area, and I am not concerned with that. The next is to get right of entry to the area, and then there follow other stages connected with the layout and the development of the site, matters such as putting in sewers, roads, and so on, steps in connection with any new housing estate which are so familiar to us. Then begin the stages connected with the house itself.
    Particulars about the earlier stages for the whole country were last given in the Minister's housing returns at the end of last year. They disclose figures which I do not believe will surprise anybody, but they are perhaps slightly larger than most of us would have expected. The returns showed that sites for no fewer than 280,000 dwellings had passed the stage where the local authorities had right of entry, having, in fact, passed the stage which for the purposes of the Amendment we call "acquisition."
    I will not argue legal subleties as to any difference that there may be between "acquisition" and "right of entry," for that is not the substantial point. The substantial point is that on the last occasion when we had figures, 280,000 houses were in that early stage of the pipeline. If we can assume that the position on 3rd November last was somewhat similar, the Committee will have some idea of the problem with which the Amendment seeks to deal and which faces local authorities. It should be remembered, for the sake of comparison, that the 280,000 dwelling sites having to be related to an annual output of permanent local authority houses running at that time at about 200,000. The result is that for every house that was completed during that year, nearly one and a half sites for dwellings were in the pipeline at the last available date for which we have figures.
    Let me say at once that I have long been convinced that in his Ministry the right hon. Gentleman keeps a Chinese

    2527
    mathematician whose first duty is to deal with the Exchequer equalisation grant. The influence of this gentleman has been seen in other respects from time to time. I am sure that it was he who provided the Minister's curious calculations about 2d. and 5d. the other day. No one is so brave nor so foolish as to pretend that he really understands any housing statistics. They are the hardest things in the world to follow, but I believe what I have now given to be a roughly correct summary.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us know how many sites had been acquired before 3rd November, 1955, as regards which no tender or estimate had been submitted for approval by that date. I am certain from ordinary experience of what goes on with municipal housing that the results will show a figure not very different from what I have just given for the end of 1954.
    I ask the Committee to consider that position from the point of view of local authorities. Of course, without necessarily any formal approach to the Ministry, the local authorities make out their building programmes and their own building plans. Like any other large-scale undertaking, the housing activities of a local authority go on continuously. They are not a series of smart, short steps, but a continuous business of housing people in the local authority area who need houses.
    Into this continuous business of a series of programmes has come this Bill to interrupt all that the local authority had in mind and all by which it proposed to regulate its finances. It has left local authorities saddled with the expensive commitments of sites acquired and sites where they were laying roads, sewers, and so on, sites under development before the actual house building had begun.
    I ask the Committee, whatever the questions of high policy that may lie behind the Bill, whether it is remotely fair to those thousands of people who undertake the unpaid work of local councils and who do a job of primary importance to the proper continuance of democracy and to the effective meeting of housing need and to proper representation in their own local affairs to do this to them, because for some reason or other the
    2528
    Chancellor of the Exchequer is in such a sudden and tumultuous hurry. Has he not saved the country by taxing pots and pans and pedal-operated hygienic bins—all the matters which we have lately been discussing?
    4.15 p.m.
    Is this further step with this abruptness —and it is the abruptness to which I specially object—really necessary now? If time could be allowed, as it was allowed to local authorities for a very much smaller change last year, surely there is no compelling reason to harry them in this way, to break up the work which they have been doing and to involve them in additional financial troubles. Local authorities already have many financial troubles. There is a statutory requirement that they should produce their financial statistics to the Minister from year to year. Those statistics show that the rateable value of the country as a whole is now considerably less than the rates and that for the first time the average rate has risen to much more than 20s. in the £. From time to time I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite complaining about the burden of rates and the troubles of the ratepayer. Local authorities are now faced with a revaluation which will certainly give another considerable shake-up to all their financial arrangements.
    Yet this moment is chosen for this abrupt and revolutionary change. We seek to give the local authorities time and the two alternatives which we propose—for it is intended that either of them should be sufficient—are not so very different, as I have shown. Most houses for which sites had been acquired by 3rd November, 1954, will not be completed for, let us say, a year or eighteen months. Most of them are unlikely to be completed by next November, but I am not insisting on a month here or there. If the Minister, with greater knowledge of his office, chooses to say that a year is too long and that the time should be ten months, I should regret it, but I should not quarrel with him on that. Where I do quarrel with him—and what this Amendment is intended to cover—is on those cases where local authorities have already embarked on financial commitments.
    There is one other point. Let us see the scale upon which we are proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have

    2529
    given one slightly erroneous figure when he was addressing the House on Thursday. It is not a difference in arithmetic, and indeed would eliminate his arithmetical difficulty of finding two figures of 80,000. Local authority housing is at present progressing at the rate of rather less than 140,000 houses a year. Of course, the figure has declined very heavily in recent years as a result of the Government's policy of encouraging private housing and doing everything they can to have private houses for those who can afford them, instead of local authority houses for those who need them most. But I should not be in order in dealing with that matter.
    If one takes the figure of 140,000 houses—and it is a falling proportion—and deducts the slum clearance and overspill houses which account for 80,000, one reaches a figure of about 60,000, instead of 80,000. The substantial point is that the rate of building of local authority houses is declining and. the result is that the proportion of sites in the pipeline to the houses for which tenders and estimates have been submitted is likely to be rather larger, instead of rather smaller than the figure I gave just now.
    There is the position. I have said what I wanted to say about local authorities. But what I have in mind, and what every other Member of this Committee, I am sure, has, or ought to have, in mind is this. Housing subsidies sound a dreary subject. Housing statistics are terrible. Housing Bills are rather dull. But behind all this and behind the work of the local authorities in housing lie the people whom we in this Committee represent, and who, particularly for this purpose, are most in need of council houses, for they are the people—assuming the councils to work well as I believe they do—who will be deprived of the help which the continuance of the subsidy would have given to houses which were in the site stage, if I may use a rather Irish phrase, before the 3rd November, 1955.
    It is the next batch coming along that we are discussing. They are, at the moment, the people who need houses most. Many of them have been on these lists for many years. I am not talking about slum clearance. I am talking about housing needs. Sometimes these people have been on a list for years because they had not a particularly strong
    2530
    claim in the light of other hardships. I have known young people come to me in my constituency—which is not nearly as bad from this point of view as are many parts of the big towns—who have been married a short time, and who are getting tired of living with the older generation. They tell me that they have been 12, 13 or 14 years on a housing list. They are one category; and we have not much in the way of slums in Kettering.
    Then there are the others, the people who have ordinary urgent needs—the people who come to see or write to Members of this House, although we go on telling them that it is not our business but that of their local council—the people who are so driven by need, by their wish for a home of their own, that they come to us, all of us, in this House as a last resort.
    I am sure that every Member of this Committee has, at one time or another, had to deal with these cases, and feels that they have got right under his skin. I have. I have told people that I have not had these housing troubles in the way that they have. I have seen the lives of individuals and the lives of families at stake, and this, not on slum clearance, but on questions of ordinary need. I cannot deal with that kind of thing—so far as I can deal with it at all—without feeling more deeply than perhaps any of us would care or feel able to say in this Committee. It is those human figures behind the statistics, behind this bit of legislation, behind the work of the local authorities, who stand clamorously demanding a home and a decent home at long last.
    I beg of the Committee not to allow questions of the Chancellor's needs at the moment—even the economic state of the country—to be met in this particular way. I object to the Bill as a whole. I object particularly to that part of it which will hit these immediate applicants, the first people in the queue, the most needy, the ones to whom we owe the greatest duty. I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept it, because, after all, this is a human question, and the right thing to do is not to stop a thing like that, not to wreck a great social duty in the course of its performance, not to make miserable the life and the work of those who are

    2531
    rendering invaluable service to the country which people on local councils do render unpaid and without hope of reward.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: I wish to support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). My hon. and learned Friend has covered the ground very widely, but I should like to add two points for the further consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee.
    It seems clear to us that the main purpose of the right hon. Gentleman in coming to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is to undermine and run down the target of housing achieved by his predecessor. There is already a very rapid run-down, and the passing of this Bill will accelerate the speed of that rundown.
    We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to eliminate the reference to tenders or estimates approved for the erection of dwellings. That is the basis on which he is to decide whether to continue the existing subsidies, whether to reduce the rate of subsidies, or whether, in other cases, there shall be no subsidy whatever at the end of 12 months or so.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be fair about this, because his responsibility for local authority housing schemes rests, not at the point where tenders and estimates for the erection are submitted to him, but at a far earlier stage than that, because a local authority can do nothing whatever until it has secured the Minister's approval of the acquisition of the site or of the land for housing purposes. It is the Minister who says, "Yes" or "No." At that point the Minister's obligation arises, and we are saying that he should insert into Clause 1, in the place of the submission of tenders and estimates for the erection of dwellings, the approval by him of the aquisition of land by local authorities for housing purposes.
    There is also another stage which is excluded by the present wording of the Clause. The first stage is the approval by the Minister of the acquisition of the land. Then there is a second stage before we reach tenders and estimates for the erection of dwellings. Not in all but in the great majority of cases where large schemes are developing and where the
    2532
    site is virgin land which has to be provided with roads, sewers and services, and the foundations prepared, the work is undertaken by a contractor other than the contractor who actually erects the buildings on the sites.
    4.30 p.m.
    Although in some cases tenders for the erection of dwellings may include the preparation of the site and foundations, in many cases they do not. Before we arrive at the stage of tenders and estimates for the erection of houses, there are previous stages where it is the responsibility of the Minister to approve the acquisition of land and tenders submitted for the preparation of the site. Then follow the tenders and estimates for erection. The responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman lies at a much earlier stage in the development than he has included in this Clause. In fairness to local authorities, I think he should start at the point where his responsibility begins, namely, at the point of approval of the acquisition of the land.
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, but adheres rigidly to the formula in the Clause, what will then be the effect? The right hon. Gentleman advances the argument that if the land is acquired for slum clearance it will not make much difference. Well, it will and it will not. It depends what the local authority proposes to do with the site. If it is proposed to erect flats on it, that will affect the position, because the subsidies for flats will be on a lower scale than at present. If dwellings are erected for other purposes than technically for the clearance of slums, it will mean that a reduced rate of subsidy will apply for the first twelve months or so. At the end of twelve months or so—and we do not know how long "or so" may be—the right hon. Gentleman is committed to abolishing the subsidies for general housing.
    There may be instances where approval has been given to a local authority to acquire land which could not be developed, due to technical reasons, before the subsidies were extinguished. It would follow, therefore, that a local authority might acquire land on the assumption that it would receive the benefit of a subsidy, but by the time it was ready to proceed with the erection of houses it would discover that the subsidies had disappeared. Such an authority would

    2533
    be faced with the task of completing an uneconomic housing scheme, and thereby impose considerable hardship on the tenants who would occupy the houses after they were built.
    I feel that the Minister should pay attention to the principle which we have established. If he desires to be fair to the local authorities, I do not see how he can continue with this; but if his purpose is to destroy the housing schemes of local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman will insist on this formula remaining. If he is interested in developing and stimulating local authority housing schemes, as he states that he is, he must be prepared to vary the formula. I trust that, as a result of the case we have made out, the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible to reconsider this matter and accept responsibility from the date when he authorises the acquisition of the land.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We must be conscious that a purely arbitrary date has been selected in this Bill which inevitably will give rise to the most fantastic anomalies between one local authority and another, quite apart from the broader issues which have been referred to by my hon. Friends. A local authority may have been considering the development of a particular site, but, because of some reasonable difficulty in the area, has not been able to approve tenders and submit them to the Minister within the prescribed time. On the other hand, another authority may have been able to anticipate the Minister's action and press forward with its procedure and gets its proposals sanctioned in time to benefit from the higher rate of subsidy.
    It is fantastic that because of a matter of a few days and the timing of a resolution the whole subsidy position should be altered. It is as well in these cases to quote examples from areas with which one is familiar. I understand that in my local authority area a number of schemes have been put up for consideration. One or two have been approved and tenders accepted at a date before the prescribed date of 2nd November, and they will rate for the higher or present subsidy.
    But there are other schemes which had to be postponed, for the kind of reasons with which all who have had experience of these matters will be familiar. Sometimes it is because of representations made by the right hon. Gentleman's own Minis-
    2534
    try, because of the desirability of reexamining some proposal. It may be perfectly proper that there should be this re-examination, but the effects may be that a proposal to develop a housing estate may not have the advantage of the higher rate of subsidy. There may well be cases where, because of the action of the Minister or of his servants, for which he is responsible, local authorities are denied the higher rate of subsidy which they ought to have.
    It must be accepted that a local authority may have acquired a site and gone to considerable expense to prepare plans under the impression that a certain rate of subsidy is available. If suddenly that subsidy is taken away, the authority is left to make a difficult decision. It must decide whether to cancel the operation altogether, having spent a considerable amount of money—and quite apart from the suffering which will be caused to prospective tenants—or go forward on the new basis which is being forced upon it by the Minister. It is an intolerable situation for local authorities to face. There have been many changes in housing subsidies, but up to the present they have been linked with the interest rates. Now we have a decision where that has been abandoned.
    At this moment it is not our right to challenge that decision, but if that decision has to be taken, and a whole new basis for housing subsidies is erected, local authorities should at least be given the opportunity of preparing their future plans in a proper way. It seems to be the most obvious thing that local authorities who have gone so far as to acquire sites upon which they are going to do work, and have carried out certain actions upon those sites, should be assured that they can go forward upon the same basis as existed for the acquisition of the site, with the underwritten undertaking they had from the Government.
    In the north-east—as has often been emphasised; indeed, it is shown by the 1951 Census—there exist very great problems of overcrowding. For that reason the great bulk of the work of local authorities in that area—Tyneside, Tees-side and elsewhere—has had to be concentrated not so much upon slum clearance as upon the overwhelming problem of overcrowding. The sites which have been acquired and are under consideration for

    2535
    development have been reserved almost exclusively to deal with overcrowding and for general housing needs rather than for slum clearance work.
    In such areas, where large estates are about to be developed on a clear understanding that a subsidy is to be available, it would be a very serious breach of faith if the Government said, "In spite of what you have done and the proposals you have put forward with regard to the acquisition of land, we are scrapping all those arrangements and throwing them overboard. We are cutting the ground from under your feet and presenting you with entirely different circumstances." I hope that the Minister will see fit to review this proposal, at least to the extent that every local authority is given some chance of reconsidering its position in an interim period, and the work upon sites which have already been taken over can go forward instead of being crippled. I hope that my hon. Friends who speak later will be able to convince the Minister of the necessity to withdraw this proposal and bring forward a new one which, if not identical with that contained in the Amendment, will at least broadly meet its point, so that some satisfaction may be given upon a matter which has undoubtedly aroused the most bitter criticism from all local authorities.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: It was only the very last sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) which forced me to rise. He said that this proposal has aroused the most bitter antagonism from all local authorities. All I can say is that I have considerable proof here, from the Ilford Borough Council—which is a not inconsiderable authority, responsible for about 180,000 people—that its criticism of the Bill is not directed to this proposal. It makes no complaint about the date upon which the Bill is to be brought into effect. However strong may be the hon. Member's case, he weakens it a great deal by exaggeration and overstatement. I do not believe that the difficulties which he envisages will be apparent in most local authorities.
    I regard the argument that subsidies should be related to the date of the acquisition of the site as a quite fallacious
    2536
    one, which would be open to very considerable abuse. I believe that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has been a member of a local authority for some time. He knows very well that a local authority just does not acquire a certain piece of land at a given time with the idea of building houses upon it in the immediate future. I have been a member of a local authority for a long time, and I know what I am speaking about. It very often happens that a local authority acquires or earmarks land for certain development purposes very many years ahead. It may have bought the land, or acquired it for housing purposes as long ago as 10, 15 or 20 years. In the face of such circumstances, is the argument to be adduced that such an acquisition should still count for subsidy under the terms of the Bill?
    Mr. Sparks: A local authority cannot acquire land without stipulating the purpose for which it wants it. If it went to the Minister and said, "We want this piece of land, but we do not know what we are going to do with it," the Minister would not give his consent. In areas which are growing rapidly it is often necessary to earmark land as long as ten years in advance of its being used.
    4.45 p.m.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member is quite correct, but that does not invalidate my argument. I am concerned solely with the time that elapses between the acquisition of land and its ultimate use. In moving the Amendment, I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had in mind the acquisition of land for immediate development. I do not think he implied that land acquired by a local authority very many years before should qualify. Now that I have pointed out that that would be the effect of the Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself very seriously to that point.
    Mr. Mitchison: I had in mind those sites which were acquired for building houses. A local authority cannot acquire sites at large. If it acquires sites for building houses it has to pay for them.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, but under

    2537
    various Town Planning Acts local authorities earmark land which they wish to acquire—
    Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison indicated dissent.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not shake his head. What I am saying can be proved in the case of many local authorities. In the past, under the Town Planning Acts, areas were scheduled for certain purposes, such as housing, playing fields, and industry. All that a local authority had to do was to obtain planning approval and, if necessary, it could then acquire land with a view to development in the future.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his experience, would admit that it is not usual for a local authority to spend large sums of money acquiring land too far ahead of being able to develop it. Before the war a large amount of land was acquired which remained in the possession of local authorities throughout the war, simply because they could not develop it, but it is unusual for local authorities to keep paying out money year after year for expensive sites which they do not proceed to develop.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Many local authorities have, in the past, acquired land with an eye to the future; indeed, if he made some investigations I should not be at all surprised if he found that to be the case in regard to his own local authority.
    Mr. Bevan: Of course.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: It is a very prudent authority which does that sort of thing. All I am trying to develop is this very simple case. If local authorities are to acquire land now with the idea of developing that land now, then there may be some force in the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, but where the authority acquired that land many years before, it means that we shall be continuing to pay subsidies ad infinitum.
    It seems to me that the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member put forward gives to local authorities what is, in effect, a year's notice and destroys the
    2538
    basis of the Government's plan, as set out in this Bill, which is to place considerable emphasis on slum clearance. If the whole, or virtually the whole, of the resources of the building industry were to be concentrated on building the normal council houses which we are building today with the full rate of subsidy, it is highly improbable that there would be an adequate supply of labour for the slum clearance which we all agree is the essential thing for us to do. It really is a question now of deciding housing according to priority.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? As his objection appears to be purely on the question of the period of time, would he consider that it should be 10 or 15 years? Secondly, on the question of the amount of labour and materials available, would he agree that some limitation of private building would enable more labour to be available for council house building?
    My own position is perfectly clear. I have stated the view, to which most hon. Members on this side of the Committee subscribe, that there must be a proper balance in our building development. People who wish to buy their own homes should be placed in a position to be able to buy them, and there is nothing wrong in that. If a person wants to rent a council house, he should be in a position to rent one. On the other hand, there are people who are living in appalling slum conditions, and it is the duty of the Government to get them out of those slums as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: It has been the Government's duty for some time.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Member says it has been our duty for some time. That is quite right, but the party or the Government of which he was a Member for six years did precious little about it.
    Mr. Silverman: First, the hon. and gallant Gentleman pays me an undeserved compliment in saying that I was a member of any Government. I never have been. His second point was that the slums have existed for a very long time. That is why they are slums. There were quite a lot in 1939, long before there was a Labour Government.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: It is perfectly true that there were a lot in 1939, but a very great deal was done between the wars to get rid of them. [Interruption.] Well, 365,000 houses have been built. [Interruption.] I am sure we would be out of order if we started to discuss the unemployment figures between the wars.
    The point I wish to make is that there must be a proper balance in our building activities, and, undoubtedly, in order to provide for the immediate needs of the people who want homes, we must provide certain types of council houses. In that process we have neglected—and this applies to both parties in the House—quite properly neglected, the serious problem of clearing out the slums. Now is the time for us to make a start upon that task, and I believe that if we were to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering it would put back our plans and programme for the clearance of our slums.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: First of all, I assume that the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) was speaking on behalf of the Tory council of Ilford, and I take it that there are no property owners or estate agents on that council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] The position with regard to my own local authority is entirely different from that described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    The night before last a meeting was held in Leicester at which a very important development scheme had to be reconsidered. I have brought to the attention of the House on a number of occasions the position which exists in the district known as St. Margaret's, Leicester, in the Wharf Street area, where for very many years landlords have been obtaining excessive rents. Instead of repairing houses with the money which they have been receiving in consequence of an Act for that purpose, they allowed the district to become a slum. The result was, and indeed still is, that many people there are living under conditions which I have described in this House before as being unfit for dogs, let alone human beings.
    The council decided that it would clear that area, and, of course, obtained the approval of the Ministry to do so. It proceeded to pull down a large number of these houses, and intended to pull down
    2540
    the whole area. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South can immediately be dealt with by reference to what happened at the Council meeting in Leicester two nights ago. In dealing with the slum area in Wharf Street, Leicester, it had been decided that 750 dwellings should be built to accommodate amongst others those persons who would be removed from the slum dwellings they were occupying either in that area or in others. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me his attention, because this is an interesting point and provides the answer to the case he was making.
    It is interesting to note that, at the meeting of the council to which I referred it was said that the whole future of this area and of the surrounding district would have to be reconsidered, because according to the chairman of the committee dealing with the matter the proposal that the area should be used for flats and maisonettes to re-house slum dwellers would now be too expensive as a result of the reduction in the housing subsidies. That is not my statement: it is the statement which is reported of the chairman of the committee, Alderman Keen. He said that the proposal to build 750 dwellings there in three-storey flats and four-storey maisonettes had to be reconsidered. Why? It is because the council stand to lose from £10,000 to £21,000 a year in subsidies, apart, of course, from the rise in the costs of building and so on. Assuming that the accommodation was not to be used for the purpose of rehousing slum dwellers, he said that there would be an additional loss of about £12,000.
    The result of this would be that, instead of a three-bedroom dwelling being available at 22s. a week, the tenant would now have to pay something between 37s. and 50s. a week apart from rates. This is beyond the reach of those who were to have been accommodated in that area. Instead of dealing with this particularly important problem of housing and re-housing some of those who are living in Leicester itself, and there are about 12,000 applicants on the housing list, proposals are now to be considered to use the site—which had been regarded as a centre for housing people living in unsatisfactory conditions—for other purposes. I hope the Minister will take note

    2541
    of this matter, because it is one of immediate moment in Leicester. That is what is happening with regard to one site at least, and I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be able to quote similar cases in their own constituencies.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Minister may say, "Build something else there, and select other sites for the displaced slum dwellers," but he knows as well as I do that land is not available. Furthermore it is important that people should be near their work instead of having to spend time going to and coming from outside districts. There is also the very human aspect, which often escapes the attention of those who deal with these matters from a purely theoretical standpoint, that living near the dwellers in slum areas are members of their families and friends and that these have been living next to each other for many years. A kind of warm family spirit grows up amongst them. They are not anxious to go miles away from their friends and relatives to occupy houses elsewhere and restart their lives in a new area.
    It is inevitable in some cases that one provides housing accommodation at a distance, but when rehousing people from areas we must do our best to keep them as near as possible to those with whom they have been associated all their lives. Intimate family connections will have grown up in that way, not only for decades but possibly even for a century.
    Mr. Robert Jenkins: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) told us a moment ago that his council were extremely worried over the financial aspect of clearing 700 houses from a slum clearance area. If the council is doing slum clearance, the Minister has provided for that on page 1 of the Bill by promising to give not £10 but £22 1s. in respect of the clearance of slums. I therefore remind the hon. Gentleman that the County Borough of Leicester should not have any problem in this regard because it will get the full subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On the other hand, perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not mean that it was a slum clearance area.
    Mr. Janner: The hon. Member is not aware of the facts of the situation. This is a clearance scheme and, in addition,
    2542
    it is a question of flats being put up. The hon. Member will find that what the chairman of the committee said was perfectly correct in consequence of the alteration in subsidies, the amounts I have mentioned will be lost on the building of the flats. The council knows its position, and I am certain that the chairman, in giving these facts, calculated the amounts correctly. I am anxious that in any arrangement that is made we shall follow as near as possible the line I indicated, and try to keep people in the districts in which they have lived before.
    I want to give an opportunity to hon. Members who have similar cases to raise, and there must be very many. I hope that the Minister will take what I have said into consideration and will give an opportunity to councils who have been sufficiently farsighted to try to provide facilities for housing their slum dwellers in the best possible way to do so by accepting this Amendment. These councils have been encouraged to make their plans by Ministers and their advisers, so the present Minister should at least see to it that the plans can be put into proper effect.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: I think it is clear from today's debate that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will have the same trouble as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had. In the debates on the Finance Bill the Chancellor was somewhat embarrassed by his own back benchers, some of whom attacked his Bill, while those who got up to support it gave it the kiss of death.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) made the astonishing statement that we were exaggerating when we said that the Bill received the opposition of local authorities. He produced what he described as proof in a brief that he had received from the borough council and which he said contained no criticism of the Bill in the terms that we are using.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: I said that I had received no criticism from the Ilford Borough Council in connection with Clause 1, which deals with timing.
    Sir L. Plummer: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see that he was not referring only to that, but was indicating that the Ilford Borough Council

    2543
    was not criticising the Bill at all. That was mentioned to show that the Bill has the support of local authorities. I shall make it quite clear that my own local authority, the Deptford Borough Council, is very much opposed to the Bill. It passed the following resolution on 23rd November:
    "That this Council registers its deep concern and indignation at the action of the Government in introducing into the House of Commons the Housing Subsidies Bill, which, if carried into law will have disastrous consequences upon the housing schemes of local authorities, more especially those in the Metropolitan Area. The Council calls upon the House of Commons to reject the Bill, which, if it becomes law, will force this borough and many others either to cease providing housing accommodation altogether or to increase the burden of rents or rates, or both."
    The stern views of Deptford Borough Council are entitled to be heard in this Chamber rather more than those of the sycophantic burgesses of Ilford, represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    There is every reason why the Amendment should have the sympathetic consideration of the Minister. We have in my borough three sites which have not so far been developed. The acquisition of these sites in Metropolitan London resulted very largely from the pressure put upon local authorities by successive Ministers of Housing. Ever since 1945, the council has been urged to secure for the provision of houses. In the Metropolitan area particularly—I know that my hon. Friends who represent Metropolitan boroughs will agree with me —some of these sites have had to be used for temporary housing as the result of destruction caused by bombing.
    We in Metropolitan London have not yet completed the replacement of houses destroyed in the war. In my own constituency we lost 2,000 dwellings by bombing; we have built 781. We have, therefore, the appalling problem of making good those war losses, apart altogether from not being able to touch the problem resulting from the natural increase in population. Here we are, with these sites which have not yet been developed. Some of them, as I say, contain these temporary houses—I say "temporary," but they are beginning to grow into a permanency and, if this Bill is passed, I do not know when we shall
    2544
    ever be able to get rid of these shabby shacks, which are a disgrace to our civilisation, but whose retention will be made absolutely necessary by the provisions of the Bill.
    These sites have been sterilised for another reason. Building costs in London are frighteningly high. I do not know why it is so much more expensive to build a block of flats in Metropolitan London than it is to build it outside.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are more racketeers in the City of London.
    Sir L. Plummer: I would not disagree with that argument so cogently put by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Donald Wade: Is the hon. Member taking into account the considerable difference in site values?
    Sir L. Plummer: Now we are really coming down to earth. The fact is that uncontrolled capitalist exploitation of land in London has made the provision of houses appallingly difficult. It is for that reason also that these sites have not been developed. We now have heavy programmes ahead of us, and if these sites are to be developed economically they need Government assistance.
    There is no moral reason why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to provide a subsidy for these sites. They were acquired at his request. It was his, or his predecessor's suggestion that they should be secured. Is he now to argue that, in an area so devastated as Deptford, the nation cannot afford to subsidise houses or flats built on those sites? Of course, he cannot argue that the nation cannot afford them. The nation cannot afford to continue spending money at the present rate on obsolescent arms, if it cannot afford to subsidise the provision of homes for the people.
    Another problem is that rents are already far too high. The Chinese mathematician, the friend of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), goes astray when he starts to compute the wages and earnings of people in London. The suggestion is that the average earnings of the industrial workers of this country amount to £11 a week. Those workers do not earn £11

    2545
    a week in the Metropolitan areas. That is not the average earning of people who work as clerks, warehousemen, porters, bus conductors and all the rest who constitute these great teeming populations of the Metropolitan boroughs.
    Dwellers in the Metropolitan boroughs are neither in a position to earn £11 a week nor to pay £3 and £3 10s. a week in rents—which is what they will have to pay if this Bill goes through, as the result of the reduction in subsidy, and the increased interest rates which this Government has authorised.
    Mr. John Hay: How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that figure of £3 10s. a week? We have had a good deal of information about the general effect in the country, but will he give us the detail of how he reaches such figures?
    Sir L. Plummer: I am talking about the situation in Deptford. The figures provided by the borough council show quite clearly that, as the result of the increases in the interest rates since 1951, and the reduction in subsidy now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the cost of a maisonette—there are no houses to let, because we have not the room for them; we have to build upwards because we cannot go outwards—the cost of a maisonette which is now 53s. ex rates will become 58s. 10d. a week, ex rates. The cost of a two-bedroomed flat, now 36s. a week, will become 55s. 2d., an increase of 19s. 2d. a week, and the cost of a three-bedroomed flat, now 41s., will become 60s. 2d. per week, ex rates. The rates in Deptford can be taken as about 10s. a week.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Hay: I take it that those figures are computed on the basis that the maisonettes which are to be built are to be charged the economic rent. Has the council no pool of pre-war council houses to which it can apply the measures provided by my right hon. Friend?
    Sir L. Plummer: Deptford has no pool of pre-war council houses. This illustrates a confusion which exists in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He has not yet appreciated that the conditions which he outlined in his speech on 17th November as to the application of the subsidy to the new towns could also apply to the Metropolitan area. On 17th November, he said:
    2546
    "I come to the special rate of subsidy proposed for houses built in new town areas as part of town expansion schemes and to accommodate overspill population from congested cities. I may be asked why we are increasing to £24 the subsidy on those houses when, at the same time, we are reducing to £10 the basic subsidy for general needs. The explanation is that these new towns have not the same financial resources that ordinary housing authorities have. Their rents are already well above the average"—
    as they are in Deptford—
    "and they possess no large pool of existing houses "—
    just as we, in Deptford, possess no large pool of existing houses—
    "over which they can spread the loss of subsidy on their future houses. In particular, they have no stock of low cost pre-war dwellings to help them bring down the average economic rent in their areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 802.]
    I was probably wholly out of order in allowing myself to be seduced from the purpose of this Amendment. I promise now to stick strictly to it, but I was tempted by the hon. Member.
    I ask the Minister to look again at the situation of a heavily-bombed, overcrowded, under-housed borough in London which, as I said before, at the request of the Ministry, has acquired sites for no other purpose than to build dwelling of one sort or another. The right hon. Gentleman's arbitrary decision that the subsidy shall be reduced as from 5th November means that the development of those sites must be checked. Every day wretched, unhappy people write me these simple, agonising letters asking "When can I get a decent place for my own? Have I forever to live with four or five people in two rooms? Is it reasonable that I, who have fought in the war, should come back to raise my family under these hideous conditions?" The Minister's decision means that we have to say to those people" We are sorry; it is reasonable that you should live like that, because the Government think it right and proper to treat the application of the borough council, which wants to do something for you, as though you are indigent paupers asking for something to which you are not entitled."
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to go down in history as the Minister who produced such a situation. Possibly he did not intend at the first meeting which he held with local authorities to give the impression that

    2547
    existing sites would be protected and would receive the subsidies, but certainly the delegates left that meeting firmly convinced that situations like these would be covered, and that the full subsidy would be granted. I ask him to consider most sympathetically my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment and at least to take one of the meaner things out of this disreputable Bill.
    Mr. James Harrison: I apologise for referring again to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), but he is the only Member from the Government benches who has spoken on the Amendment and we are channelled to some extent into considering his speech if we are to make this into a debate.
    He stated categorically that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) had exaggerated considerably when speaking of the opposition of local authorities to the Bill.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: It was the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop).
    Mr. Harrison: The point is that he has tempted me to read this communication which I have had from the Nottingham City Council. I might explain, first, that Nottingham has a Conservative-dominated council. All my hon. Friends know exactly what that means when we are dealing with the Bill. This Tory council says:
    "This Council is dismayed at the Government's intention to cut and eventually abolish the housing subsidies. The Council points out that the abolition of the Exchequer grant on Nottingham new houses will mean an extra 8s. 5d. rent per week on each new house, in addition to 6s. 2d. increase already imposed by the latest rises in interest charges. This Council stresses that this is a serious setback which will inflict hardship on 8,000 families on the housing waiting list. It deplores the discrimination against local authorities contained in the Government's latest financial proposals and it calls upon the Members of Parliament for the City of Nottingham to oppose vigorously this unjust and pernicious legislation."
    Coming from a Conservative council, that should be considered very seriously by the Minister, not only when considering this Amendment but when dealing with others which my right hon. and hon. Friends have put down.
    2548
    I would also point out that the abrupt introduction of the terms of the Bill has a dual effect in the city, because nine months ago I attended a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary in the Minister's Office when we were protesting—the town clerk and myself—about a 50 per cent. cut in the housing allocation for the city. We then warned the Minister that if he persisted with this 50 per cent. cut the number of houses in our pipeline would be very seriously reduced, affecting the continuity of building.
    On top of that reduction in the number in the pipeline we now have the abruptness of the terms of the Bill, so that we are affected in a dual way by this decision to give a month's notice. Widespread preparation of land has been made for the building of houses and sites have been prepared for a large number of houses. They were prepared as a longterm plan before we were told of this 50 per cent. reduction and before we knew anything about the provisions of the Bill.
    When we argued with the Minister about the 50 per cent. reduction we were promised that we could raise the question again at the end of the year with a view to getting an increased allocation. The terms of the Bill make it unnecessary for us to seek an increase in the allocation from the Minister, which reduced the possibilities of our building programme in the city very substantially. Already we have incurred heavy expenditure on the preparation of this very large site which I have in mind.
    It is not necessary for me to redeploy the arguments which have been used by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the fairness of the Amendment and the necessity for it. The examples which we keep giving to the Minister could, I am sure, be multiplied many times throughout the country. If he will agree to the Amendment it will make the blow which he has struck at housing less severe. Even he must agree that he should consider the possibility of easing the burden which the Bill will most certainly inflict on all municipal housing schemes.
    Mr. James MacColl: The Amendment is a very simple and practical suggestion which, I should have thought, would have commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman. On the assumption, regrettable and deplorable as it is, that

    2549
    we are to have a reduction—a very drastic reduction—in the subsidy immediately and the abolition of the subsidy ultimately, what has the Minister to gain by resisting the Amendment? He will cause a great deal of irritation and annoyance to housing authorities who will feel that he is not just carrying out a policy in which, for some strange reason, he seems to believe, but is almost venomously and obstinately making himself as difficult as possible to the unfortunate people who have the very heavy and often very unpopular burden of trying to carry out housing responsibilities in areas where housing is the gravest social problem.
    For many years there has been a partnership between the central Government and local government in the provision of houses. That partnership, which has gone on year after year, has been recognised as part of the service—something to which local authorities have grown accustomed. The Government now propose to break the partnership and to leave this heavy responsibility to the local authorities. They intend to shrink from and to shirk their duty.
    All right It is a pity and a tragedy that that is to happen, and we all very much regret that this divorce is to take place, but what is worse, having made up his mind that he is determined to have a divorce, the right hon. Gentleman is being very precipitate in repealing the marriage bill. Why cannot he at least go through the elementary courtesies of allowing some time to elapse in order that the councils can reorganise their lives and their households and prepare themselves for their somewhat lonely future.
    Sir L. Plummer: And leave him holding the baby.
    Mr. MacColl: Local authorities have great difficulties to cope with in financial planning as a result of the change in valuation next year. Their budgets will be extremely difficult and precarious in the next year or two. Why not at least give them the assurance that for the next few years the schemes which they have already prepared—schemes which in many cases they have discussed exhaustively with divisional officers at the Ministry and which in some cases have already had tacitly and even explicitly the blessing of the Department—will, as part of the gentility and decency of the
    2550
    divorce, be given financial support by the Ministry? This seems to me a very sensible and very reasonable proposal. This Amendment is not attacking the principle, deplorable as it is, behind the Bill. It accepts that principle, but says that where local authorities were under the impression that the Government were not going to back out of their duties the authorities should be assisted.
    5.30 p.m.
    It is hard to blame local authorities, in many cases Conservative local authorities, whose members have read Conservative manifestoes and Election addresses and were stupid enough to believe them. They thought the Conservative Government were serious when they talked about the determination to remain in the housing business and to provide houses for the people. On that basis they acquired sites, prepared plans, and got specifications. All those things have to be done before preparing a tender. They have been acting in the belief that the moral assurances of the Government were behind them.
    I am sure the right hon. Gentleman wants his reputation for dealing honestly with local authorities to be kept, but unless he is prepared to accept an Amendment of this kind, I cannot see how that can be so. That could be done if he said that, where sites have been acquired, the Government are prepared to extend the subsidy for another period. That seems an entirely constructive proposal to put forward. It is an attempt to do what the Committee should do—to try to improve the Bill, having accepted Second Reading as a fait accompli. On the basis of our knowledge of what is going on in our constituencies we have put this suggestion to the Minister. If he wants to keep faith with the local authorities—with whom his reputation at the moment is rather low —this is an opportunity to establish his reputation.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The speeches which have been delivered from this side of the Committee can be divided into two categories. There have been the speeches of our national experts on local authority matters, such as those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and my hon.

    2551
    Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I cannot imagine listening to any speeches more convincing and persuasive.
    Those speeches have been supplemented by contributions from hon. Hembers speaking from experience of their constituencies. There was the overwhelming speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) showing that in a Conservative council there was a denunciation of the Bill and an implied plea that it should be put off for as long as possible. I want to make a contribution to that second category of speeches. I do so without any apology because, if the House of Commons is to be regarded as a democratic assembly, it is the duty of each hon. Member to express the feelings and experiences of the constituency he represents. If he adds them together, the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill can obtain a picture of the feelings about it in the country.
    I do this more readily in this case because I represent the constituency of Eton and Slough, with which the Minister also has some associations. I say frankly that I shall be speaking more from the point of view of Slough than of Eton. Nevertheless, Eton in these matters has been very co-operative about the difficulties of Slough. I want to speak in favour of the purpose of this Amendment, which is that at least one year's notice should be given to local authorities before subsides are withdrawn from new houses.
    I was in my constituency last night and met representatives on the local authority. Also, last night, I met tenants from our housing estates. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the sense of bitterness and indignation they are feeling about this Bill. I am astounded that even the Ilford council can have any good word for this Bill, particularly for a Clause which would not postpone the evil day for one year. All experience shows that local authorities, whether Conservative or Labour-controlled, are astonished and almost stunned by the effects of this Measure.
    I wish to illustrate why the Borough of Slough wishes to see the Bill postponed for a year at least, as is proposed by this Amendment. Slough is a town which
    2552
    thirty years ago, was not much more than a village, or rather two villages—the little village of Chalvey, and the little village of Slough. In thirty years its population has grown from 17,000 to nearly 70,000. People have come to it from South Wales, from the North-East Coast, from Lancashire, Scotland, and from Belfast in the years of the depression. As a result of that rapid growth, the local authority have had extraordinary difficulties.
    We did not even get the drains which we could attach to houses to be built for that rapidly-growing population. We had plans for a sewerage scheme and drains, but the war of 1939 came and they had all to be postponed. Meanwhile, the industrial expansion of the town was proceeding. Workers were pouring in. The Postmaster-General knows of a similar problem in his constituency of Luton. Until a few years ago our people were living in dilapidated Army huts, which were condemned during the war and were living—as they still are—in old railway coaches. As the census shows, they were living six to a room in houses. Yet we could not build. Only last year was the drainage system put into such a condition that we could begin to build.
    The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of local authorities which have a large pool of pre-war houses. Because of the circumstances I have described, in Slough 40 per cent. of our total housing has been erected by contracts signed since January of last year. Those houses have been built whilst the interest charges have been increased. It is not merely a matter of the rate of interest when the contracts are accepted. The loans are made as the housing proceeds. Almost month by month the rates of interest have increased. Consequently, the figures given on the last occasion by the Minister about the increases in rent, even if spread over all the houses, are absolute nonsense as applied to Slough. I am quite sure that they are nonsense as applied to a number of other towns, also.
    This argument demands that local authorities, particularly those experiencing the difficult conditions which I have described in Slough, should at least be given a year's notice before the Bill is put into operation. Let me give an example. We are building heavily now. One of our last building schemes is at Cippenham, where we are to have 130 new houses. The scheme was discussed

    2553
    in great detail with the Minister and was endorsed by him. The tenders went out on the understanding by the council that the subsidies would remain. But suddenly there came this Bill and the date of 3rd November. If housing tenders are received after 3rd November, the subsidies are to be lost.
    After all the discussions with the Minister, in which not one warning was given that the subsidies might be withdrawn from these houses, the date for the tenders in Slough was 4th November. By one day, despite all the discussions with the Ministry, the increased subsidy is lost. This represents a loss of £94,000 to the town. It means that as we want to go on building houses to meet the difficulty of the lean years when we were without drainage, we will lose the subsidies upon the new houses that we need.
    Therefore, for the local authorities who put through their schemes after discussion with, and endorsement by, the Ministry, the only decent and honest thing that the Minister can do is to give them at least one year's notice before the terms of the Bill are applied. I hope that after both the national and constituency appeals which have been made from this side of the Committee, the Minister will at least accept the Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I am fully aware of the keen desire of some of my hon. Friends to express their opinions about the Bill and, therefore, I shall not detain the Committee very long. We can all apply the effects of the Bill to local circumstances, but the Committee's attention should be drawn to this general fact at least: is this the time for change?
    We all realise that we are passing through a phase of inflation. In recent debates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated on more than one occasion that this is a temporary phase in our economy. While we all realise the impact of this temporary phase of inflation, and are conscious of its existence, I consider that this is the worst moment that the Minister could choose to change his relationship with local authorities so far as subsidies are concerned. The Minister can reassure us by accepting the Amendment. We all hope that his acceptance of it will tide us over the temporary in-
    2554
    flationary period through which we are now passing.
    Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, it is obvious that all local authorities will be beached with very high interest charges to be met when this tidal wave of inflation recedes. This is a very unfortunate moment for the Minister to choose to break up his financial relationships with local authorities.
    There are also other reasons why it is unfortunate that this change should take place. The Minister himself has mentioned in recent debates that the proposals in the Bill are only one of the many facets with which local government and the Ministry are concerned. He has already indicated to the House that he intends within the present Session to announce the Government's policy as to the future relationship of local authorities and the Minister. In that respect, I anticipate that the Minister had in mind not only a change in the structure of local government, but intended this Session to make announcements such as would affect the future relationship of local authorities with the central Government.
    One could refer to the anticipated reports of the valuations of the Inland Revenue. One can anticipate the possibility of a change in the equalisation grant formula having regard to that disturbance of the existing values. One can also anticipate a possibility, at least, of an alteration in the derating of industry. If local authorities are facing that situation at present, with their future unpredictable financially, the imposition of this additional financial responsibility upon them is not only unethical, but is anti-social.
    Whatever may be the general proposals of the Government, I believe that the proposal to disturb the existing subsidy grants should be not the first step in the Government's comprehensive scheme, but the last step. If that were the case, local authorities would be placed in a far stronger position clearly to appreciate, appraise and assess the financial impact of the proposals contained in the Bill. That being the general setting of this problem, I think the Government have made a mistake in putting these proposals first, and not waiting until such time as they could put their more comprehensive proposals before us.

    2555
    I think it is proper that I, as the representative of a mining constituency in the heart of the South Wales coalfield, should point out that this Bill will have very serious repercussions. It will strike a blow at, and will undermine, the efforts of all who are really seriously concerned about the coal output of the country.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I think that the hon. Member is now so extending his argument as to be making a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Thomas: No, Sir Rhys, I am coming to the point that the proposals in the Bill do not make provision for subsidy to be paid in constituencies of the character of mine, because no miners have been transfered into my area. I was proceeding to demonstrate that my authority has an obligation to rehouse more miners than many of the authorities that will be able to obtain subsidy under the Bill.
    The National Coal Board in my constituency alone is spending over £10 million at present in the reorganisation of the mining industry, and one of the problems it has to face is that of the labour force, the question where to get it from. There are several miners leaving the Rhondda—
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is really a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. Thomas: With great respect, Sir Rhys, I am only asking for an extension of the time by twelve months in order that my authority, which is excluded from the advantages of the Bill, shall have more time to rehouse miners in its areas.
    For example—and the example can be multiplied—there are miners who require houses in the Rhondda near their place of work. The local authority, therefore, as a result of the financial impact of the Bill, will be paralysed in the efforts it makes to provide miners with decent homes in mining villages in South Wales. There are miners in my constituency—in my village—who are married and have two or three children, and the man and his wife and children have to sleep in one bedroom. The chances of those people being rehoused are seriously handicapped by the proposals in the Bill.
    I ask the Minister to give the matter further consideration. I urge upon him
    2556
    acceptance of the Amendment, because it will give the authorities more time to do the maximum they can for those to whom they owe responsibilities, more time than is permitted by the Bill. The Bill means notice to quit for many miners in the Rhondda, and they will be tempted to go over the border to the English coalfields, because they can get houses there, but cannot get them in their own communities in South Wales. I hope that the Minister will give very serious consideration to all the arguments which have been reasonably advanced in the Committee for the lengthening of the interim period, so that local authorities may be better placed to appraise their responsibilities, and have more time to do all that is possible before they have to endure the severe impact of the proposals in the Bill.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: It is not very often I have the privilege of speaking in housing debates, but I think I must speak on behalf of my constituents who are adversely affected by the proposals in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will understand that for East London the provisions of the Bill are very serious indeed. Doubtless other local authorities elsewhere will be in difficulties similar to those of the local authorities in East London, but the boroughs in East London will find it absolutely impossible to rehouse anybody on the basis of general need. I do not want to reiterate all that has been said already, but I do want the Minister to understand the situation.
    In Stepney, for example, two years ago, in connection with a scheme of ours called the Smithy Street scheme, we were told by the borough treasurer, when we were first thinking of it, that the rents—the net rents—of certain flats, taking subsidy and loan charges into consideration, would be about 31s. We are now told by the borough treasurer that, as a result of the Bill and the present loan charges, the net rent, which was 31s., will be increased to 74s. Under the old subsidy we could have proceeded with the scheme, but in the face of these shocking proposals we are now having to decide whether, because of this Bill, we ought to suspend or even terminate the operation of the scheme—and that after having gone to so much trouble and cost.
    I ask the Minister very earnestly to bear these facts in mind. If the Amend-

    2557
    ment were accepted it would enable Stepney Borough Council, and many other local authorities in similar circumstances, to go forward with their schemes —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Lewis: I do not want my hon. Friends to think that I have changed sides because I have crossed the Floor, but I thought that as there was no one sitting on these benches, and they looked rather barren, I would sit over here, in the hope that I should be of some assistance to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. James Callaghan: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is now just a National Liberal.
    Mr. Edwards: We have 4,500 families on the waiting list of Stepney Borough Council, many of them young married people who have never had a home of their own. Because of the provisions of the Clause it will be impossible for my local authority to provide accommodation for young married couples unless they happen to live in a slum clearance area.
    I do not want, as I say, to repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, but I do want the Minister to understand that these are the stark facts with which the local authorities are confronted at the present time. The acceptance of the Amendment would ease their lot for at least twelve months. What will happen after that we all know. It will probably be the end of local authority building for people in general need. However, the Amendment would ease the situation if the Minister would accept it, as I hope he will.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Victor Collins: I find it impossible to believe that anyone who really appreciates the mounting tragedy of the housing situation in Metropolitan London, and, indeed, in many other parts of the country, can possibly be responsible for the Bill. The only reasonable explanation is that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no idea of what our people are suffering. I am encouraged in that belief to some extent by the fact that some months ago the Minister told me that he knew all about my division of Shoreditch and Finsbury because he had once lived
    2558
    in Finsbury Park. Hon. Members will know, of course, that Finsbury Park is many miles away from Shoreditch and Finsbury.
    I urge the Minister to pay particular attention to the speeches of hon. Members for Metropolitan constituencies, mining constituencies and other areas which are densely populated, because as this Measure has become known—and in some areas its details are known it has shocked the people beyond belief. I ask the Minister to realise the situation which confronts some of us who represent Metropolitan boroughs. I do not say that my constituency is in any way the worst, but I believe that it is representative of a good many. It is extraordinary and, indeed, unfortunate that we should have to address the Committee when it is almost completely denuded of Conservative Members. There are two Ministers, two Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Whips, and no one else present on the other side.
    One thing which confirms my view that the Government do not know what they are doing is that, naturally, hon. and right hon. Members opposite represent areas where in the main people are reasonably well housed whereas we on this side of the Committee represent areas where people are very badly housed indeed. In my constituency 4,000 flats have been built since the war. The two boroughs easily lead, in proportion to population, in the number of flats built, but even with that number the grand total of dwellings is 2,000 fewer than it was before the war. That is partly because over 18,000 out of 21,000 dwellings were destroyed or damaged by bombs.
    The rest of the property in the borough, apart from local authority building, is entirely substandard. There has been no private enterprise building in the constituency for a hundred years. There never will be. It is quite impossible on such land as is available. There are no suitable vacant sites. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not run away with any idea that there is any hope of rehousing 7,000 families who are on the waiting list, that is, one-third of the total population, by means other than local authority building.
    Other hon. Members have referred to some of the housing conditions. How

    2559
    would the Minister like to have to interview a mother who in two months' time is going to have her fifth child and who is living in two leaking rooms in one of which her four children sleep, two to each single bed at each end of the room? How would the Minister like to have to tell that woman that after consulting the London County Council and the local authority he has found that she is by no means the worst case and that she must go on living there for a long time?
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not know about these things let him go and see for himself. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would be pleased to show him round and complete his education in this respect. It is impossible to believe that anyone in the Committee, Minister or otherwise, could subscribe to a Measure which inevitably will perpetuate those conditions and drive people to absolute despair.
    The Amendment merely asks that the operation of the Minister's decision should be suspended for a year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) gave details of the situation as a whole. Other hon. Members have quoted particular cases. I should like to quote a case affecting the Borough of Finsbury, which covers two points. Finsbury is quite a small borough, but for some time the local authority has been negotiating a big slum clearance scheme for 350 dwellings. The Minister will be aware that before the local authority can even think of making a start and of making proposals to him for approval it must decide where to put the people in the meantime. In this case the local authority decided that the slum site, which is a dreadful one, should be divided into two and that half the people, about 160 families, should be housed in an area, not yet built upon, which is covered by Part V of the Housing Act, 1936. When that operation is completed, the local authority will be able to build on the slum clearance site which by then will have been partially demolished. It is a most sensible scheme and one which one assumes would qualify for the subsidies proposed under the Bill for slum clearance.
    What is the position of the council now? The proposal is before the Minister for consideration. It has not got as far as the tender stage, but on
    2560
    2nd November, and certainly on 31st October, Finsbury Borough Council had every right to think that the scheme was going through. It was a highly commendable and desirable scheme. There is no possibility of rehousing people in any other way than by some such scheme as this. According to my interpretation of the Bill and the interpretation of the local authority, the Part V area to which the people would be sent when the flats were built would not qualify for the rate of subsidy appropriate to slum clearance.
    In effect, that means that the scheme cannot go on, because rents would be too high. This is a problem which at a later stage the Committee will no doubt consider. The Minister will be able to tell us whether, in future, he intends to provide that subsidies should be applicable to Part V areas in order that we can take people out of Part III slum areas and so keep matters moving.
    If we were granted the twelve months' extension for which the Amendment asks, this scheme, and I have no doubt hundreds of others all over the country, would be covered. They could go for approval. They could be put out to tender and they would be carried out. This is merely a concrete example which illustrates the point.
    Whatever the Minister's intentions are, whatever his determination is, it is absolutely unfair and a gross betrayal of the faith which local authorities have hitherto reposed in Her Majesty's Government to announce to them bluntly, as the Government are doing today, "Your schemes are set at naught. All the time that you have spent on planning comes to nothing." It is a complete breach of faith and an insult to our local authorities. More than that, it is a betrayal of the people.
    I ask the Minister to look very thoroughly into the points which have been put to him by my hon. Friends and to realise that they are true. I ask him again to accept our invitation to come and have a look for himself. I am sure that he would be appalled at the conditions in which people are living, not only in slum property but, because of overcrowding, in areas which cannot be regarded for a long time yet as clearance areas. I do not think that any Minister who saw the conditions for himself could

    2561
    go on with a Bill which will condemn his fellow human beings to suffering which he has no right to ask anyone to bear.
    Mr. William Warbey: As a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have crossed the Floor, I hope we may take it as a good omen that the Minister will change his mind about this Bill, or if not about the whole Bill, at least about this Clause. After listening to the speeches made by my hon. Friends on this side, I would have thought right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have realised by now how utterly remote from reality were the notional figures which were put into the brief on which the Minister made his Second Reading speech. They were totally un-typical of the situation in which most local authorities in this country will be placed.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas), my constituency is mainly a mining one, but the local authorities will not benefit from the special subsidy for the houses built to meet the urgent needs of industry, because miners are not being transferred into this district. They will not benefit from the new town or overspill provisions. In fact, they will benefit from none of the special subsidy provisions except those for slum clearance. And in relation to slum clearance I find, on consulting the two major local authorities concerned—the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District Council and the Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Council—that through slum clearance they will not be able to rehouse more than between one-tenth and one-eighth of the persons on their housing lists.
    In fact, the majority of the people on the waiting lists of these councils, as on the waiting lists of most of our local authorities, are persons who are not living in houses which can be designated under clearance orders, but are persons living in overcrowded conditions, living with their in-laws, living in unsatisfactory houses which cannot be condemned, and very desperately in need of decent homes.
    During the Second Reading debate, the Minister gave some notional figures which suggested that on the average, to meet general needs, housing authorities would build about the same number of houses as they would build to meet the special needs for slum clearance and the other
    2562
    special provisions of this Clause. However, having looked into the figures of the local authorities in my constituency, I find that the right hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark as far as they are concerned.
    If we take the case of Sutton-in-Ashfield, for example, we find that this authority in its 1956 programme, planned to build 120 houses for general need as against only 30 for slum clearance. If this housing authority were to base itself upon the notional figures which the Minister used, instead of building 120 houses for general need, it would build only 30. I wonder whether that is what the Minister wants it to do? If one takes its long-term programme one finds that over the coming years, on the basis of its estimate of local needs, the housing authority plans to build in all 1,130 houses to meet general need and 183 for slum clearance purposes.
    6.15 p.m.
    Does the Minister desire that the figure for general need shall be reduced to the figure for slum clearance? Because that will be the effect of this Clause. It so happens that the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District Council was caught out specially badly by the date inserted in the Bill, and which is the subject of this Amendment. I have here a letter from the Sutton-in-Ashfield Council dated 16th November, which reads as follows:
    "Whilst my Council are strongly opposed to the Government's policy in regard to Housing Subsidies as provided for in the Bill they are particularly aggrieved, like very many local authorities in the country, by the provisions of Section 1 of the Bill relating to the introduction of the proposed new subsidies. In their own particular case they look like being severely penalised in respect of 110 dwellings the tenders for which were accepted by them on 3rd November, 1955."—
    which is the date specified in subsection (1, a) of Clause 1. The letter continues:
    "The plans for these particular dwellings were approved by the Minister on 18th July last and authority given for the Council to proceed to invite tenders for the erection of the dwellings."
    The position is that on 18th July last the Minister himself authorised this local authority to proceed to tender for these houses. In other words, he authorised the authority to commit itself to a degree of expenditure on these houses which he must have known would be greater than it was aware of.

    2563
    I am not suggesting that the date has to be altered because an authority comes inconveniently on one side of the dividing line, but this only points all the more sharply the case being made by all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee for at least a year's grace during which the local authorities can execute the programmes they have already in mind and in the pipeline, and so that they can carry out their commitments on the basis of the estimates made previously, without having to revise them, and so that they can revise their future programme in the light of the unfortunate situation in which the Minister is now placing them through this Bill.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke with considerable feeling of the way in which people in difficult housing conditions come weekly to the "surgeries" of their Members asking for help. We all know how helpless we feel in that situation. When they come to us on other matters such as pensions, National Assistance, and so on, there is nearly always something we can do about it. We may be able to get a little extra National Assistance through a discretionary allowance of some kind. We may get a pension reviewed or a new medical board hearing. We may be able to ask in this House for scales to be raised, and so on. But when it is a question of housing we can do nothing because we cannot rehouse a family until the house for it is actually in existence.
    That is why we are so helpless, and what the Minister is doing through this Bill, and will do still more if he rejects this Amendment, is ensuring that fewer houses will be actually in existence and that more and more of our constituents will get dusty answers when they come to us.
    Mr. Herbert Butler: My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) suggested that possibly the Minister was not aware of all the implications of this problem. If we are to consider this Amendment, which deals with the question whether we have had adequate notice given to local authorities, and even if we confine ourselves to that aspect of the matter, the Minister will learn something of what actually happens in these housing operations.
    2564
    In my constituency, last Saturday, we had a ceremony to mark the completion of the thousandth flat by the local authority's direct labour department. We have found that in many cases direct labour is more economical and efficient than private enterprise. Looking into our scheme, we found it had taken four years to complete. That was because local authorities have to enter into negotiations particularly in inner London, for the purchase of existing large houses and then acquire other parcels of land around them, and eventually a scheme fructifies.
    Here the Minister is departing from all the practices which have applied in connection with subsidies. Notification has nearly always been given to local authorities and they have been brought into consultation. At the end of the financial year the Minister would state what the amount of the subsidy would be. Local authorities who were keen on providing houses for the people would go ahead and, if possible, expedite their schemes in order to qualify for the existing subsidy if the subsidy was to be lowered. That in itself was an incentive to them to get on with the job.
    Now the Minister has suddenly announced that 3rd November would be the deadline. Many local authorities will possess parcels of land which they have purchased, and if he consults his files the Minister will, find that in some instances his inspector has held an inquiry into the compulsory acquisition of other adjacent parcels of land for the purposes of a scheme. Yet the Minister has now told local authorities, who may have purchased parts of the required land two years ago in order to supply houses for general need, "Your subsidy will be cut whatever your proposals are."
    I would remind the Minister of Housing and Local Government that in good local government when a scheme is placed before a local authority, estimated figures for the cost of land, the cost of building, and rents are also submitted and considered. Local authorities have acquired properties and parcels of land on the basis of the existing subsidy, and their schemes have been worked out accordingly.
    The Minister is quite definite about the way in which he regards his powers in relation to the housing subsidy. He said on Second Reading:
    "I think it is worth remembering that housing subsidies are granted with one object, and

    2565
    one object only, namely, to ensure that nobody, through lack of means, shall be prevented from having a decent, healthy home."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 796.]
    That is his sole conception of the purpose of subsidies. Some of us have regarded subsidies in a little more charitable light, that of the understanding that the community has to come to the rescue of its own citizens if private enterprise fails to provide what is necessary.
    In this matter we start by believing that local authorities have provided a service which private enterprise has failed to provide, and we are convinced that the Minister has introduced the Bill to stop that social service being rendered to our people. It is a retrograde step for the Minister, in reviewing local government organisation, to deprive local authorities of one of their biggest functions, that of providing houses for our people. He has emasculated local authorities in other ways. He has made things difficult for them by increasing rates of interest. He is telling local authorities that they cannot carry on their normal services. He has now said that they must stop providing houses for general needs.
    There is hypocrisy about this matter. The Minister said that he was giving local authorities an incentive to destroy the slums. However, he is filching from the local authorities the part of the subsidy which made it possible for them to build houses at reasonable rents, and because he does not filch from the slum part of the subsidy, he suggests that that is an incentive. That is an absolute travesty of the meaning of "incentive."
    Some hon. Members opposite have said that this is an incentive to destroy slums. However, the Minister has said that if he really met the requirements of the existing financial situation the subsidy should be increased to at least £30. He then got his boys to work out how much it would be per week. Although the Minister says this provides an incentive to local authorities to rehouse slum dwellers, he is, in fact, really taking away from local authorities the power to provide housing accommodation for people living in overcrowded houses and old houses not possessing modern amenities. He is really saying that the only purpose of the Government's intervention is to ensure that the needs of the people shall be analysed and he is rather sorry that he
    2566
    cannot send them to the old boards of guardians to get some rice and loaves of bread. That is the theory and philosophy behind the Government's proposal.
    On this occasion local authorities have not fallen for the Minister's blandishments. No local authorities in the country will write to him and tell him he is a good boy. Local authorities have gone on record against him, and he knows it. If apologists like the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper) are prepared to tell their constituents that it is a good thing that the Minister has now said that State money cannot be provided for the purpose of dealing with a social evil, good luck to them.
    The Amendment contains a modest proposition. All we ask is that local authorities who have entered into commitments, expecting a reasonable deal from the Government, are entitled to say that they went into those commitments with the Government's agreement because in many cases inspectors from the Ministry had agreed to the compulsory purchase schemes on which they had embarked. It is not right that they should now be told that they are to have the subsidy halved because they are providing housing to meet the general needs of the population.
    Mr. Bevan: I am not rising to make my contribution to this part of the debate. I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. MacPherson, if it becomes necessary. I should have thought that by now the Minister had heard sufficient to enable him to give his reply and tell us that he accepts the Amendment. If he cannot accept the Amendment, we shall have to try to persuade him further. However, there has been no defence of his position from the Government benches, except in one speech, and I should hardly expect hon. Members opposite to be indifferent to the issue. I should have thought that we had now reached a situation in which he might accept the basis of our Amendment.
    6.30 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I am only too delighted to accede to the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that I should intervene at this stage in the debate. I was waiting

    2567
    only because I felt that this was the opening debate on the Committee stage and, with all respect to the Chair, there is no doubt that to a large extent many of the speeches have been Second Reading speeches and have ranged over a multitude of subjects with which it would he out of order for me to deal. However, I will trespass on your indulgence, Mr. MacPherson, to reply to one or two points which are outside the scope of the Amendment.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that there were human figures behind the statistics. We can all agree about that. We have all listened to the speeches and we have all of us received disquieting correspondence from constituents who need a home. Nobody has suggested in any, sense that the housing shortage is at an end—except the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who did that about ten years ago. We have forgotten and forgiven that. He said that the whole housing problem would have been dealt with by the next General Election, which was in 1950; but I do not want to pursue that.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that housing statistics were exceedingly difficult, and with that we can all agree. Incidentally, he challenged a figure which I gave during the Second Reading debate when I said that the current rate of local authority house building including new towns, was about 160,000 a year. The hon. and learned Member quoted the figure of 140,000. I have had my figures checked and compared them with those of the hon. Member, and I understand that he now agrees that my figures are correct.
    Mr. Mitchison: I did agree. That only illustrates the incredible difficulty of getting the right figure in the statistics.
    Mr. Sandys: The Amendment is really divided into two parts. The first part proposes a postponement of the new subsidy rates for one year and the second part does the same for sites—it exempts sites acquired or agreed to be acquired before the operative date of 3rd November, 1955. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked why we did not give local authorities some warning so that they could adjust themselves to the new position. That, of course, is just what
    2568
    we are doing and that is what I made clear in the debate on Second Reading.
    We have been quite frank and we have made it perfectly clear that the Government's intention is to abolish the basic subsidy for house building for general needs. To assist local authorities in gradually adjusting themselves to that change, we have introduced—perhaps unnecessarily; but it is better to be on the safe side—a £10 subsidy as a purely interim measure to tide over that period and make the change more gradual and more smooth.
    Mr. Warbey: When did the Minister make that clear to local authorities?
    Mr. Sandys: I will come to that. The point is that the operative announcement which I made recently is that we intend to abolish the subsidy. To assist the transition we are maintaining the 10 subsidy during an interim period.
    Mr. Sparks: That is only for houses. What about flats?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) knows that there are corresponding subsidies for flats which. in all cases, are £12 less than the subsidy for slum clearance and other purposes, so the two things are related.
    Several hon. Members said that longer notice should have been given. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that the Opposition, while proposing that it should be one year, would not be unduly insistent upon the figure of twelve months and would be prepared, if the Government were so disposed, to accept some lesser period of, say, nine or ten months.
    Mr. Mitchison: I was not prepared to compromise on the question of acquired sites. To some extent the other period is an estimate.
    Mr. Sandys: I was dealing with the first half of the proposal. He said that it would be a reasonable solution acceptable to the party opposite, if we could agree on nine or ten months, or something of that kind. He said that when the subsidies were reduced by my predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, in June, 1954, the new rates were not brought into force for nine months. He urged me to follow the example of my predecessor. I am anxious to be as helpful as possible in all these things and I

    2569
    should be willing, if local authorities desire it, to apply the same procedure in this case. Apparently that procedure commends itself to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    I must point out what that means. I discussed this with the local authority associations when we had our consultations, and while some of them were in favour of it it did not commend itself generally; but I am quite prepared to consider it again. I believe that it probably does not commend itself to local authorities generally, because the procedure proposed in the Bill is more favourable than that which was adopted by my predecessor. The nine months' notice proposed in June, 1954, applied to dwellings completed before the end of March, 1955. Since houses at that time were, on the average, taking about ten-and-a-half months to complete, it meant that some houses already started at the date when the notice was given did not qualify for the existing rate of subsidy.
    Mr. H. Butler: I made the point that many local authorities managed to get the increased subsidy by expediting their programmes.
    Mr. Sandys: I know that some did speed up their programmes to qualify for the subsidy. I am anxious in these matters to be as forthcoming as I can and if this procedure is felt by the party opposite to be more favourable, I am quite prepared to consult the local authorities.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope he will allow me to pay him the compliment of saying that I regard him as highly intelligent and that I doubt, therefore, whether he has really misunderstood what I said. What I did say was that on that occasion nine months' notice was given of the change, and on this occasion I think that it would be only right to give similar notice. I did not suggest that what should be introduced at the end of the nine months was something different from, and less than, what is now suggested.
    Mr. Sandys: It is very relevant what form the notice takes. There was no notice given—that is what I am really saying—last time, because houses were taking on an average, ten-and-a-half months to build, and the statement was
    2570
    made that nine months from that date the new rates of subsidy would be introduced. Therefore, if anything, it was a notice of minus one-and-a-half months. I was only answering the point made It was suggested that the procedure which was adopted in the Bill was less generous and less favourable than that adopted by my predecessor. My reply is an absolutely clear and categorical one, and if, on reflection, hon. Members opposite still feel that, I shall be happy—
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again. But notice of minus one-and-a-half months is exactly like the incentive to slum clearance, which reduces by one-quarter the number of houses that would have been built without the incentive. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. If the right hon. Gentleman will read out—or I will do it for him—what was said at the time he will see that what he has said now is quite inconsistent with what was said then. It was said then:
    "Taking all these factors into account, the Minister concludes that the present rates of subsidy can no longer be justified. He has, however, decided that in order to ease the transition it would be proper to pay the present rates for all houses and flats completed before 1st April, 1955."
    That gave about nine months' notice of the change which was being made. I suggest that similar notice ought to have been given on this occasion, and that the cure would be by postponing the operation of this particular change for nine months or one year from now.
    Mr. Sandys: I still do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seems to me that if what he said has any point at all, which I am sure it has, it must be to suggest that on the previous occasion a longer notice was given. Therefore, when I say that we would be prepared to do the same on this occasion, I think that that is a reasonable reply.
    I have been perfectly frank in saying that I do not believe that that would suit the local authorities. The only reason why it was possible to give nine months' notice was because there was no action open to the local authorities in the interval —except by speeding up house building, which was a very good thing, but which did not make a vast difference in the number of houses that would qualify—to alter the number of houses that would

    2571
    qualify. If it is thought desirable, I will look at this again. My feeling was that the hon. and learned Gentleman was stating something that was incorrect, namely, that longer notice had been given on the last occasion.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I should like to be quite clear on what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that my right hon. and learned Friend said. Is the Minister suggesting that he is prepared to postpone the operation of Clause 1, as drafted now, for nine months, or is he suggesting that the formula used on the previous occasion by the then Minister, which gave a notice of nine months, should be adopted, because if that is so, it is not worth having?
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: That is what I am saying —it is not worth having—but I want to dispose of the suggestion that we were taking a less generous attitude on this occasion. I think that in view of the interruption of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) we are all clear on that point. I think that was the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and I think that I have answered it. The suggestion was that we had been less generous and less favourable to the local authority in the notice that we have given, and it is obviously clear that that is not so.
    Mr. Collins: Not only less generous than before but less generous than in its present form. If the right hon. Gentleman is only putting forward this nine months proposal, no houses for which tenders have been accepted will be built in that time, and it is a lesser proposal than the one in this new Bill.
    Mr. Sandys: This is the real point that I was making in regard to the warning given on the last occasion. If we were to agree to a twelve months' warning period on the same basis as the Bill is now drafted, local authorities would have on this occasion an almost irresistible temptation to approve tenders for an enormous number of houses, a sufficient number to keep them going for a number of years. In this way the purpose of the Bill and the intention of Parliament would be entirely frustrated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that we are agreed on that.
    Mr. C. W. Key: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that subsection (1) ends with the words:
    "and which is approved for the purpose of this Act by the Minister:"?
    Mr. Sandys: So what?
    Mr. Key: The right hon. Gentleman was saying that local authorities would do this, that and the other, but they would never have a chance of doing it because the Minister would not approve.
    Mr. Sandys: I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would say if it were found that local authorities were putting in to me large numbers of tenders in perfectly good order and I was rejecting them just to prevent them getting the subsidy. I do not think that would please them.
    What I have been saying about it is not pure conjecture. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I have given a month's notice. I do not claim to have given a month's notice. I announced in the House the Governent's intention to introduce this Bill to reduce subsidies on 27th October. I consider that that was the first real notice that was given. Between then and 3rd November, there was an interval of only one week, yet several local authorities found it possible during that time to rush through tender approvals at an altogether abnormal rate.
    Mr. H. Butler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember going to Harrogate and what he told them there?
    Mr. Sandys: One local authority approved tenders for no fewer than 1,000 houses in one day.
    Mr. Mitchison: What I had in mind was that the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had consulted the local authority associations and put before them his proposals. He was asked if they agreed and he replied, "Of course, they did not." or words to that effect.
    Mr. Sandys: I was not claiming that I had given a month's notice, that is all. I think that the point which I have made about 1,000 tenders approved in a day during that week shows the sort of situation with which we should have found ourselves faced if they had had twelve months in which to regulate the position. We might as well have with-

    2573
    drawn the Bill altogether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that we can agree on that, too.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said that on Tyneside house building had to be concentrated on relieving overcrowding. I realise that is a very serious problem in that part of the world, as it is in many others. But I think the hon. Gentleman under-rated the proportion of houses which, if the plans go through as they are announced, will be devoted to slum clearance and which will secure the present rate of subsidy. The Newcastle Council has stated that it intends to clear 2,136 slum houses in the next five years. To rehouse the occupants will require at least 2,200 new houses and possibly more. That is an average of about 440 houses a year. The present rate of construction in the city is about 1,400 houses a year. This means that houses for slum clearance, which will continue to attract the present rate of subsidy, will account for about one-third of the houses built in Newcastle.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the point I was making was that his proposals are endangering the other total? If the housing on Tyneside is to relieve overcrowding, the building of the other 1,400 houses may not be able to proceed.
    Mr. Sandys: There is an Amendment on the Order Paper concerning overcrowding, and I think that we should leave this point until we come to it.
    A point which I think pertinent to the Amendment—for a change—is that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the old rate of subsidy would be lost in the case of tenders sent back to the local authorities for revision, as those would miss the date. I can give him an assurance that that is not a correct understanding of the position. Except in rare cases where the tender is completely rejected and a new scheme has to be produced any tender submitted before 3rd November, though it may have to be sent back and revised, will qualify for the existing rate of subsidy; though the final approval be given after 3rd November.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Suppose, as so often occurs, a tender has been received, in consultation with the right hon. Gentleman's officers on a regional basis, but
    2574
    has not been approved by the local authority; may I take it that in such a case he will agree to consider it as ranking for the higher subsidy?
    Mr. Sandys: I should not like to say "Yes" or "No" to some words which the hon. Member has spoken without looking at them carefully. But I have indicated to the Committee clearly that it is not our intention to try to catch out local authorities by holding up their tenders and sending them back for revision, if they have been genuinely submitted to us before that date. If revision has to be made, they will still qualify under the Bill. But if further information is needed, perhaps at a later stage I can give the hon. Member that information in a more precise form, if he would put the question to me in an absolutely precise form.
    Mr. Brockway: I do not wish to make an unhelpful interruption, but I desire to be clear on this point. The words used by the Minister were that no tender which had been submitted before that date would be ruled out. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean "submitted" or does he mean "accepted"?
    Mr. Sandys: The word I used was "submitted."
    Mr. MacColl: By the council?
    Mr. Sandys: I think I have made myself clear.
    Mr. Brockway: No. I am sorry, but the Minister has not.
    Mr. Sandys: If it was submitted by the local authority before 3rd November, even though it may have to be sent back because some revision was required, it would none the less qualify. But if, for some eason it has to be completely rejected, then the new tender would be regarded as a new tender and would not qualify. I think I have now made myself clear.
    Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman means submitted by the local authority to the Ministry.
    Mr. Sandys: That is what I said.
    The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) referred to my association with Eton, an association happily shared by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. He suggested that

    2575
    the average figure of 7d., which I quoted during the debate on Second Reading, was misleading, and that the effect on Slough would be altogether more serious. I have had a calculation worked out for Slough —the same calculation as I had made which produced a 7d. average for the country as a whole—and the figure is a little below the general average.
    Mr. Brockway: Oh, no.
    Mr. Sandys: It works out at about 6d.
    Mr. Brockway: The figure which I have had from the town hall at Slough, which was worked out by the officials there, is 9d. instead of the Minister's 7d.
    Mr. Sandys: We can compare our sums.
    The second proposal in the Amendment is that the new subsidy rate should not apply to sites acquired, or agreed to be acquired, before 3rd November. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that, were the Bill to go through in its present form, local authorities would be "saddled"—that was the word he used—with a large number of sites which they had already acquired before 3rd November.
    I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman should speak in that way. Local authorities will need these sites, they will not be "saddled" with them. If they are to build houses they will need the sites and will be glad to have them. Suppose they had no sites at all. They would have to buy sites and those would come under the new rates of subsidy just the same.
    Mr. Janner Mr. Janner rose—
    Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I must get on with my speech. I have listened patiently to a number of speeches this afternoon, and I should have been listening still, but for the intervention of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
    Probably about half of these sites will be required for slum clearance and overspill, and will be attracting the same subsidy, or higher, as before.
    Mr. H. Butler: Overspill in London.
    Mr. Sandys: The problem in London is that there are so few sites left on which to build houses. Therefore, a lot of these
    2576
    calculations are, unfortunately, theoretical, because there is no land on which to build houses. I am talking about the country as a whole. The remainder will be required for general needs. As I have said, if local authorities did not have sites, they would have to acquire them, so there is no question of hardship being caused because local authorities are "saddled" with a lot of sites which they would not have acquired had they known that the subsidy rates were to be altered.
    Mr. Mitcliison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he give me the number, which I tried to extract on the basis of the need last year, of how many houses are there in respect of which a site has been acquired, and no tender or estimate submitted as at 3rd November, 1955?
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot give that figure. We formerly gave it in the Housing Returns, but when we checked we found the figure to be so inaccurate and misleading that we decided not to publish it any longer. It is an extremely difficult figure to track down.
    7.0 p.m.
    As I said during the Second Reading debate, there are already about 250,000 houses in the pipeline for which tenders were approved before 3rd November. These will all attract subsidy at the existing or higher rates. It is impossible to say precisely how many more houses would qualify for the old rates if this proposal were adopted—I am now talking especially about the sites; the second proposal—but since many local authorities have been acquiring sites as much as two years in advance of approving the tenders, which may mean that it is three years before the houses are completed, it is probable that another 250,000 or 300,000 houses would continue to receive the existing subsidy.
    This would bring up the total in the pipeline to at least 500,000, and probably more—some of which might not be built for three years or longer—quite apart from the enormous number of additional houses which would qualify for subsidy if we allowed a twelve months' interval to elapse before we closed the date for receipt of tenders. The effect of the two proposals combined would make it quite possible for local authorities to continue to draw the existing rates of subsidy

    2577
    upon almost all their houses, at least until 1960. The Amendment is really equivalent to an Amendment "That the Bill be read this day five years," and for that reason I cannot accept it.
    Mr. Bevan: When I was a boy there was a book I used to read several times over with very great interest. It was called, "The Riddle of the Sands." We are having it back again now, in a less attractive form. When the right hon. Gentleman's speech is read by local authorities tomorrow, he will earn a new title—"Shifting Sandys." Later on it may be vulgarised into "Shifty Sandys," because I have never heard a more disgraceful performance than that which he gave in opening his speech. He seemed seriously to be suggesting, following a complete misrepresentation of the purpose of the Amendment, that he was prepared to concede it in such a way as to do very considerable damage to local authorities.
    That is fundamentally irresponsible. It was either a silly debating gadget or a serious suggestion. If it was a serious suggestion—
    Mr. Sandys: I thought I had made it quite clear. I was trying to point out that there was nothing in the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
    Mr. Bevan: On the contrary; the right hon. Gentleman is on the record as saying that if that were the intention of the Amendment—which he knew it was not —he would in fact accept it, or consider it. That is what he said. In other words, stimulated by a piece of vague polemics, he was prepared to mutilate his contract with the local authorities. That is a monstrous way to handle a serious matter like this. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to be facetious, he should give us notice beforehand so that everybody outside can know that what he is going to say is not intended seriously.
    He ended by pointing out that the Amendment was a really serious one. It is intended to be serious. It is, in fact, intended to postpone the operation of this proposal for a very considerable time —for a year—so as to embrace a far larger proportion of local authority operations than is now embraced. In other words, it seeks to take into account
    2578
    those plans—the acquirement of sites, and similar matters—which local authorities have been encouraged to make under previous arrangements made with them by the Government. That was the intention, and the right hon. Gentleman need not be so complacent about the situation. There are many pitfalls ahead for him.
    In its leading article this morning The Times gives me a black eye. It always does; I am used to having it from The Times. But it also warns the Minister that his present proposals are by no means as clear as they might be. It says that they are not coherent.
    Mr. Sandys: What does it say about you?
    Mr. Bevan: It would be a real bore to read that out. It is not news when The Times attacks me, but it is when it attacks the Minister. It says:
    "The Bill…moves in the right direction, but its effects will need to be treated experimentally."
    We are trying to extend the experiment. We are trying to add another year, so that the whole question can be examined with more leisure, in order to see how it will alight upon different parts of the country. The leading article continues:
    "The reasons for much of what the measure proposes or omits have still to be explained."
    That is following two days' debate in the House of Commons, during which time the right hon. Gentleman made two long speeches and we did our best to help him. Even after all that The Times does not understand. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently not yet made himself clear.
    Mr. Sandys: The Tribune understands.
    Mr. Bevan: The Tribune is clear about it. The Minister should read it regularly. If he does that his education will be considerably improved. The article continues:
    "Though its basic assumptions were disputable, the formula which determined the Bevan and the Macmillan rates of subsidy was logical and known. The underlying logic of the various new rates is not apparent."
    It certainly is not. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that his housing policy is coherent, and hangs together. It "hangs" all right; but "together," no. It is a most disparate Measure.

    2579
    It is a serious thing that he is doing. I admit that it is always difficult, administratively, to tell when the axe should fall. Whenever one makes a change in a subsidy there will always be some people on one side of it and some on the other. It was always known, for example, that local authorities would complete more houses by 31st March of every year, because they were hurrying up in the fear that the subsidy would be reduced. We all knew that; there was always a bump up in March.
    That was perfectly natural, but we did not have such excessive exertions by local authorities as entirely to disrupt all their plans, because the arrangement between the State and the local authorities was such that they knew there could not be very much alteration in the subsidy. They knew what the building costs were throughout the year, and that year by year they were taken into account, as was the 10 per cent. of the average wages. They had some atmosphere or climate or predictability. They knew within very narrow percentages how the subsidy would be affected. That was because, as The Times says, whatever may be thought about the fundamental assumption of the Labour Government's housing proposals and schemes, there was an underlying logic, which was that the cost of providing rented houses by local authorities should have regard to certain factors which were known and which could be measured and, therefore, for which local authorities could plan.
    What the right hon. Gentleman is now doing is violating all those arrangements. As one of my hon. Friends said, the Minister is proposing to contract out of the municipal housing business. I want to remind hon. Members opposite of this. I know that some of them regard it as a kind of King Charles's head, but now that the Ministers are getting a little more experience, I hope they will listen to it with more credibility. It is always dangerous to try to bring about abrupt changes in physical planning because of temporary financial difficulties.
    This Bill has its origin in the Treasury. It is a part of the general attack on the social services of the country. It is a part of the general attempt to bring about a certain amount of disinflation. It smells of the Treasury from beginning to end. What the right hon. Gentleman
    2580
    has been compelled to do is to accept certain financial limitations and then to try to work out a Statute which will enable him to live within those financial limitations without doing too much damage.
    The Treasury say, "You must retreat from the housing business and retreat as much as possible." The right hon. Gentleman has now to disengage himself from his obligations to the local authorities. The amount of physical damage either way will be very considerable. He has already told us that if he accepts the Amendment local authorities will hurry up and put a large number of houses into the pipeline, so he dare not do that. In other words, the financial changes will bring about very important physical alterations in housing programmes.
    Mr. Sandys: I was not suggesting that if we accepted the Amendment it would result in a speeding up of local authority house building. I said authorities would put a lot more tenders on the list and get them approved.
    Mr. Bevan: I did not say that, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the report of my speech. No matter how many houses they put out to tender, the physical limitations will still be there as to building them. We know that very well.
    On the other hand, if the Minister does what he is doing now he is violating the spirit of the contract made with the local authorities, because that contract was that there would be Government co-operation. Of course there can be no legal contract between the House of Commons and local authorities—we know that; but there can be an understanding, and the fact is that local authorities in Great Britain were for some years extremely diffident about accepting any further cooperation with the State in the building of houses because they had seen so many abrupt legislative changes. For example, after the war the Addison schemes were dropped, and then the Wheatley schemes were put into operation and then suddenly dropped.
    In fact, one of the greatest charges made against the State by the building trade unions is that there has never been security of employment in the building industry for long enough—that no sooner has one housing policy been adopted than some political crisis or another has

    2581
    lopped it off and all the plans prepared for training apprentices and for getting rid of the poison which existed in the building industry have had to be dropped.
    The Committee should remember the fears of unemployment which resulted in a species of Ludditeism in the building industry and the fact that the building workers of Great Britain were for years brought up on "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist." Even today it is a fact, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, that one of the imponderables, one of the mystiques, of the building industry is that we cannot get modern methods of building adopted with the success which we want because of the resistance psychology of builders who are afraid all the time that these abrupt changes in Government policy will cut the ground from under them.
    7.15 p.m.
    Long before the housing problem has been solved and long before this psychology has been cleared up, the right hon. Gentleman is once more engaged in an operation the secret intention of which is to bring about a significant degree of unemployment in the building industry. That is the intention behind it. He shakes his head, but he knows very well that what the Treasury boys are saying is, "Bring about a degree of frictional unemployment—enough unemployment to needle the workers into discipline." That is behind the proposals.
    In 1945–46, as a direct result of the continued abrupt changes of Government housing policy, I found for a while the utmost difficulty in persuading local authorities to face up to housing after the war. I went all over the country to conference after conference imploring them not to be depressed by the magnitude of the problem facing them, telling them that the Government were entering into an enduring partnership for housing, telling them that they need not be afraid in building their houses that the Government would ultimately land them with higher building costs, telling them that if they did this job we should not suddenly, abruptly and violently unload on to them higher building costs and withdraw the subsidies.
    This was the basis of the bargain, and the reason I am angry now is because the
    2582
    bargain was made as a result of my efforts all over the country.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman should recall what was said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) on 6th March, 1946, as reported in column 342 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, for it is diametrically opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman is himself now saying. The right hon. Member for Poplar said:
    "…high subsidies must not be an incentive to maintaining high costs, and, since we are determined that high costs shall be temporary, high subsidies must be temporary, too."— [OFFICIAI REPORT, 6th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 342.]
    Mr. Bevan: How does that quarrel with what I am saying now? I am dealing with something entirely different and saying that the basis of the partnership in 1945–46 was that the local authorities and the State should between them build the houses and carry the financial burden. That was the bargain, and on that basis they entered into it.
    It was on that basis that local authorities such as Plymouth, Coventry, Hull, Exeter and London put out to tender in a very short time a much larger number of houses than other Government Departments believed they ever would. One of the factors which led to a slight unbalancing of the housing programme immediately after the war was that the Ministry of Works, for which the present Minister of Housing at one time had responsibility, never believed that local authorities could be inspired into such activity so quickly.
    The right hon. Gentleman started with his usual sneer about my remark that the housing problem would be solved by ten years ago. But he knows very well the answer to that. The answer was that I took his figure; it was his figure and not mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Coalition Government."] It was the Coalition Government; he was a member of it and was a Minister in it. It was intended at that time that the Ministry\ of Works should be responsible for housing after the war—a most unfortunate decision, but that was the intention. The figure which they produced was that if only 750,000 additional units of accommodation—that is the language—could be provided, the accommodation and housing problem would be solved. Then we would be left with slum clearance.

    2583
    I have explained to the point of weariness that where the right hon. Gentleman went wrong was that before the war the Government did not realise that the unemployment of 2 million men every year concealed the real magnitude of the housing problem of Great Britain. When ultimately those men—women now as well as men—had employment on an unprecedented scale the size of the housing problem revealed itself, and it was revealed only when that was accomplished.
    As we all know, that problem of providing additional accommodation is still with us. I can give the right hon. Gentleman this; superficially he is quite clever. He did what his predecessor did. He does what the Tory Party does so cleverly all the time. When it wants to do something really evil, it always dresses itself up in the cloaks of virtue. Whenever it wants to get away with a lot of swag, it pushes the widows and orphans forward. When the predecessor of the Minister was in office he produced a Bill to the House which had nothing to do with slum clearance at all. Slum clearance schemes could go on, but that Bill did not build a single house. Nevertheless, because he wanted to give landlords higher rents, the Minister actually said that it was slum clearance. The Bill had in it a Clause requiring local authorities to send forward their slum clearance schemes. Did he need a Bill for that? Only a letter was needed to do that, yet the Minister has to put it in a Bill—
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: "Operation Rescue."
    Mr. Bevan: "Operation Rescue," but it did not even rescue landlords. It was one of the clumsiest efforts that has ever been made. [HON. MEMBERS: "A mouldy turnip."] Yes, I called it a mouldy turnip, and that is what the landlords call it now. I shall have to be very careful, or I shall become known as the landlords' friend.
    The right hon. Gentleman now says, "We are going to cut down subsidies in order to give an incentive to build slum clearance houses." He cut the subsidy last year and, on his own showing, it ought to be £30. It is lower, not higher. He says that it will encourage local authorities to build more slum clearance schemes by making it too expensive to
    2584
    build other schemes. He asks what we are complaining about now and suggests that he is giving local authorities notice of his intention and reducing the subsidy now in order to ease it down because later he is to take it away altogether? "Is that not a just thing to do?" he asks. It is like a man saying, "You ought to accept this black eye, now with thanks, because later on I am going to cut your throat." That is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
    Furthermore, he has the impudence to tell the House that, as a result of these schemes, slum clearance will go ahead. There is not an officer in his Department who believes it. He does not believe it himself. Why? He gave the answer in his own speech. He said the local authorities had estimated that they would be able to build 75,000 houses a year, before they had the incentive—before his scheme was announced. They were going to build 75,000 a year but now he says they are to build 60,000 a year. This is a Bill to prevent at least 15,000 slum clearance houses being built, yet it is put forward as a slum clearance Bill. Of all the dishonesty—it is really dishonest.
    I have a few other things in pickle for the right hon. Gentleman later. He is going down as a very bad housing
    Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will accept any challenge hon. Members opposite like to make on that business. I am perfectly prepared to accept any challenge they like to make. I said on Second Reading that hon. Members opposite were not building houses but were building a majority and using the majority to stop building houses.
    Mr. Sandys: All I want to say is that the right hon. Gentleman is certainly a good judge of what is a bad housing Minister.
    Mr. Bevan: Of course I am. We have seen two bad housing Ministers; we do know it. The houses that have been built recently—in very great numbers, I grant them that—were described by The Times when they were undertaken as "the slums of the near future." That is what hon. Members opposite have built. Later, when we come to the relevant part of the Bill, I shall deal with the decline in superficial feet of houses built since the war to show what has been happening and how careless is the party opposite, not only of the wellbeing of the people of

    2585
    Britain, but of the amenities of the countryside and towns.
    I say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course if he accepts this Amendment it will effectively postpone the operation of the Bill for at least five to six years. Why should it not? It is a miserable Bill. Nobody wants it—nobody on his side of the Committee really wants it. When the full consequences of the Bill are known to the country as a whole, the party opposite will find itself face to face with many an angry demonstration in their constituencies.
    Mr. Gibson: In many respects the Minister successfully avoided the Amendment, although, in fact, he really provided the case for it.
    The right hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that nobody suggested there is not still a big housing shortage. He said the same in the Second Reading debate. He is right; of course there is a tremendous housing shortage all over the country. If that is so, why is he reducing the subsidies without which local authorities simply cannot build houses to let at reasonable rents—rents which the average working man can afford to pay? My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was right in suggesting that the birthplace of this Bill was somewhere else than in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Minister is being a willing tool of the financial pundits who run the affairs of the country from Threadneedle Street.
    The right hon. Gentleman once defeated me at an Election. He had a very big majority in Norwood, but I remember saying immediately afterwards that we would put him out at the next Election. We did, but there had to be a war in between before we could do so. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not accept some of the Amendments we are moving to the Bill in an effort to improve it his chances of holding Streatham at the next Election will be very small. Already, there is considerable disturbance among people in that part of London. When we tell them, as we shall, that the right hon. Gentleman admits there is a big housing shortage— not of tens, but hundreds of thousands of families—and that the chances of those people getting houses in the next ten years are to be killed by this Bill, I am sure
    2586
    he will find a great deal fiercer opposition than he has so far found in his constituency.
    7.30 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman admits that to accept the Amendment might bring half a million houses into the range of the subsidy. That is what we want. It is what the country and local authorities want. None of them is satisfied with the Bill. None of them will agree that there is any case for reducing the subsidies on general housing, for they all agree that the general housing problem has not been solved.
    That being so, it is a scandal that the Government should have brought in this Bill. It will inevitably mean that hundreds of thousands of families, living not in slums or in houses which could be declared slums under the existing law, but living in overcrowded conditions, four or five families to a house, in some cases with two or more families in small two-storey houses, will have no chance whatever—there is very little now—of ever getting a decent modern house in which to live and to raise their famlies.
    Because the Amendment would bring in about half a million of the new houses, the right hon. Gentleman says that that is too much and would cost a lot more money—it would pour out a few more millions from the Treasury for general housing purposes. But I believe that that policy would be right. Had the country been told during the Election that this would be done, I am sure that the people would have said that we on this side were right about it. In Wandsworth, which the right hon. Gentleman represents with me in the House, nobody mentioned housing subsidies during the last Election. I certainly did not, and none of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends mentioned it, He did not mention it himself, but he was not then, of course, the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I suspect that he had not even thought of it.
    The Government have no possible mandate for putting this mean trick across local authorities and across the people who so badly need houses. It is being done entirely at the dictation of a Victorian kind of philosophy which has always failed the country every time it has been allowed to dominate political actions in the past.

    2587
    Many authorities, my own included, bought sites, as the Minister advised them to do, on which to build years ahead. I used to tell the people who bought sites for the London County Council, "Think four, five and six years ahead and find empty sites. Let us see them and be prepared to buy them." I said that in the belief that we would be able to build decent places for people to live in. Many of the sites bought by local authorities all over the country will not come under the terms of the Bill, because no tenders have been accepted and no resolutions have been passed to build new houses. There will, therefore, be a complete waste of public money. I cannot see any of the local authorities building on those sites which they already own.
    One instance is reported in today's newspapers. It is a small one, but is typical of what is happening. Bungay, in Suffolk, has decided that in view of the heavy cost of building and the high interest rates and the loss of subsidies, it will do no more general housing.
    Mr. Percy Wells: The council in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary—East Ashford Rural District Council—has taken the same decision, for the same reason.
    Mr. Gibson: Not only are local authorities already making that decision, but housing societies are doing the same. The big housing societies, with big money behind them, which have done magnificent work in housing so far as they were able, are deciding that, in view of the situation which the Bill will create, they cannot go on with housing for the next few years. I know that one society cancelled its negotiations for the purchase of a site in a town outside London. This trend will spread.
    For a Minister who admits that there is a terrific housing problem and that hundreds of thousands of families badly need homes, to bring in a Bill which will abolish subsidy altogether and make building impossible for all but the very wealthy local authorities, is a crime. He might ease his conscience a little by accepting the Amendment, which is merely a sweetening of the bitter pill which local authorities have to swallow.
    Judging by what the Minister has just said at the Dispatch Box, he does not
    2588
    propose to accept the Amendment. If so, he can be sure that people outside the House of Commons will take note of that and will realise, as some of us have said about the Bill from the beginning, that it is an attempt to kill municipal housing in the hope that it can be thrown into the hands of the speculative builders, as happened between the wars. If that happens, it will be goodbye to decent housing for the ordinary people.
    There is a lot more to be said on this subject and I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends are anxiously waiting to have their say. I hope, however, that before the evening is out the Minister will think again and accept the Amendment, which would afford some little easement of a situation which will be tragic in a few months' time.
    Mr. Arthur Probert: I am glad of this opportunity to speak on one of the stages of the Housing Bill. It is nearly twelve months since I last spoke in the House, when I made my maiden speech, but that is not due to any lack of trying. However, I do not propose to waste time with reminiscences.
    In introducing the Bill, the Minister commented upon the fact that it was his desire to bring a feeling of reality into the position. This is what he said:
    "I believe that it will be generally recognised that the policy which I have announced represents an important step in the direction of restoring some measure of reality to housing finance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 382.]
    How true that was, judging by the almost unanimous reactions of local authorities. I have quotations from practically all the local authorities of South Wales and Monmouthshire, who are unanimous in rejecting the proposals of the Bill. In that sense, it is true that the Minister has succeeded in bringing some measure of reality into housing finance.
    In the twelve months that I have been in Parliament, I have had a high regard for the ability, knowledge and experience of the Minister. What I certainly do not envy are the methods by which he uses that experience and knowledge to settle the problems which confront him on housing. Indeed, the application of the measures included in the Bill can be described by the one word "calamitous."
    By no stretch of imagination can it be deduced that the Bill will solve the

    2589
    housing problem. It may solve certain financial problems which are impinged upon housing by the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it is obvious that it will bring more and more upon local authorities a burden which is already intolerable. Indeed, there is no question of the blatant fact that the Bill is merely a matter of fiscal policy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has pointed out. If we are not careful, it may apply the coup de grâce to the administration of housing problems by local authorities.
    The right hon. Gentleman himself has in the past continually stressed the fact that we must be more devolutionary, that we must continually take administration away from the central machine to the local machines. On Second Reading he said that if we took the number of local authority houses as 2¾ million and assumed a mean figure of housing production of 80,000 houses a year, and that if we did this and if we did that we should have a figure of 5d. and 2d. and 7d. per week increase in the rent of every single house. We were warned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale a little while ago that if we intended to be facetious we should warn the Committee. I am not being facetious when I say that many of us will remember a little rhyme we knew in our school days:
    "If ifs and ands
    Were pots and pans
    There'd be no need for tinkers."
    The right hon. Gentleman's hypothesis of "if this and if that" is by no means inconsequential, as he is already finding out. I am sure that he is feeling by now that that phrase of his is being alluded to ad infinitum, and no doubt it will be used ad nauseam, to his own sad experience.
    We have heard much of the experiences of the larger local authorities, and I am grateful to have the opportunity of illustrating the difficulties of the local authorities which comprise my constituency. There are two urban district councils with almost equal populations of 40,000 each. Whatever may be the difficulties inherent in London, the Midlands, and so on, and we know they are very great, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals affect extremely adversely the smaller local authorities whose populations number about 40,000. As evidence of that I will quote some figures which
    2590
    I have obtained from the treasurer of the Aberdare Urban District Council.
    I quote these figures to impress on the right hon. Gentleman what will be the impact of the immediate cessation of the housing subsidies. These figures are grouped in four sections, and in each the treasurer has included a rate of interest of 5 per cent. which, I think, is a fair assumption. When last I was employed by this local authority on housing we were building about 300 a year. That was the tempo of building, and I think it fair to assume that that would have been the tempo in the future, but for certain things that I shall mention in a moment.
    The treasurer has also included a number of houses recently completed, approximately 200, and houses which are built on sites where we are endeavouring to build for the future. The sites in that locality are difficult because of mining subsidence. Therefore, the inclusive cost of these Laing's Easiform three-bedroom houses is £1,970. That is fairly high but inclusive. It is fair to assume that the type of house we shall build will cost at least that. However, I want to be fair, and I shall assume that the figure is exact.
    In fairness to the Minister I would say that we in Aberdare, at least, have incorporated a pool system of rents. That local authority, with the exception of one or two, has the lowest rents of any authority. I do not say that with any special pride, because there are relevant circumstances that enable that to be so, but I think that it will show these figures in a more glaring light.
    7.45 p.m.
    The treasurer says that assuming an Exchequer subsidy of £10 and a rate subsidy of seven guineas and a rent of £1 2s. 11d., then if those houses are to be economic the rent will increase by 90 per cent. to £2 4s. 2d. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent. and the Exchequer subsidy £10 and the rate subsidy nil—we have to consider that eventuality—the mean rent of £ 2s. 11d. goes up more than 100 per cent. to £2 7s. immediately. With the Exchequer subsidy nil and a rate subsidy of seven guineas—which is likely within a year or so—the rent will go up 109 per cent. from £1 2s. 11d. to £2 8s. The extreme possibility is a rate of interest of 5 per cent.,

    2591
    Exchequer subsidy nil and rate subsidy nil, when the rent goes up 122 per cent. from £1 2s. 11d. to £2 10s. 10d. I admit that is the extreme case.
    I am pleading for a period of grace for these authorities, which is what the Amendment seeks. Let us assume that we build at a tempo of 300 a year, as we did in the past, and that we can pool these rents with the present rents. There are approximately 2,000 houses owned by the local authority. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his quotation of 2d., 5d. and 7d. These will be the facts. I take the fourth category to save time. If the rate of interest is 5 per cent. and the Exchequer subsidy nil and the rate subsidy nil on 300 houses, the rent of every single house owned by the local authority of that area goes up 4s. per week per house. That is how these proposals will affect my local authority.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) that it is our duty to bring constituency problems to the committee. Therefore, I will tell the Committee that about 18 months ago the building programme of my authority was thwarted by what I can only describe as a stupid decision of the Minister. I shall not now go into the reasons why it was stupid, but his decision stopped the local authority from acquiring—I think it was —a hundred or so acres of land, which meant that, in view of the difficulties of subsidence in our area, the local authority found it could not build for some years to come, because the National Coal Board had suggested to the local authority that building should be halted on those sites until investigations had been made to see that they were sound.
    The effect has been that for practically 14 months not a single house has been built in the area of my authority. But recently the local authority received the approval of the Ministry for the acquisition by compulsory purchase of a site on which to build 200 houses. It now means, because the local authority has not been able to build in the last 14 months, that the houses will bear rents at the high scales which I have indicated.
    2592
    I say quite sincerely as a Socialist that we on this side of the Committee apply our experience to this problem and attempt to make a human approach to it. It has been obvious in the twelve months that I have been a Member of Parliament that that is not the case with the other side of the Committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has indicated. The approach of the other side of the Committee is enshrouded with platitudes and red herrings. The truth is that the Bill is a fiscal Bill and the Minister, whose position I do not envy, is dictated to by the desires of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    I remember from my worst days and most embarrassing experiences some of the words of Hamlet. I am not being facetious in saying that the time will come when the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wish that the earth would swallow them up. They will say, in the words of the immortal Prince,
    "O! that this too too solid flesh would melt,
    Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew;
    Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
    His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God!
    How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
    Seem to me all the uses of this world."
    Those last two lines are particularly applicable to the Minister.
    We on this side of the Committee will attempt to bring that situation about for him as quickly as possible. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman may not worry about us, but he will worry when the general public, and in particular the electorate, begin to worry him. That time will come quickly. I shall do my best to bring it about as quickly as possible, and when it comes I shall welcome it.
    Mr. David Weitzman: On Second Reading I referred in particular to the disastrous effects of the Clause on my constituency. I am tempted to repeat what I then said, but I shall refrain. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) that the Minister had the honour of either living or being stationed in Finsbury Park. That is part of my constituency and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should be very well acquainted with what will be the serious results in that area of the application of the Bill.

    2593
    I want to put this matter from a new point of view. If anyone said to the Minister and to any member of the Government that they were doing something which was in conflict with the recognised principles of our law they would be aghast at the idea. If any person makes a representation that a certain state of affairs exists, and on the strength of that representation another person does something or alters his position, it is a recognised principle of our law that the person who has made the representation cannot change his position and say, "I did not do it." It is the principle in English law of estoppel.
    The Government are today breaking the bargain they made. They are not only breaking it in the ordinary sense of the term, but they are doing something which is in direct conflict with a recognised principle of our law. They have represented quite definitely to the various local authorities that if the local authorities built houses, adopted planning schemes, and drew up their estimates, they could do those things upon the basis of receiving the old subsidy. The plans of the local authorities have been drawn up on that basis.
    On Second Reading, I gave certain figures in relation to this matter in connection with Stoke Newington Borough Council and Hackney Borough Council. It was made clear that they had involved themselves in very considerable expenditure in adopting plans and acquiring sites on the basis of receipt of the old subsidy. Compulsory purchase orders had actually been drawn up and approved by the Minister in connection with schemes taken up because the local authorities believed—and were led by the Government to believe—that they would be able to receive the old subsidies.
    Is it not little short of a fraud on the part of the Ministry to go back on that? I cannot conceive of a business man entering into an arrangement with someone and then altering the whole basis of that arrangement, going back upon his word, and not being accused of a gross breach of faith, of a breach of contract, or of actual fraud. I know that the Minister said by way of answer to criticism, "It is all very well. They will get the sites and will he able to use them."
    2594
    Does not the Minister recognise that when a local authority draws up its plans and arranges its finances it has to have regard to the position as it then knows it to be? How can the Minister say afterwards, "It does not matter. They can utilise the sites for something else, on the basis of the reduced subsidy."
    I ask the Minister to consider this matter again and look at it from this point of view, bearing in mind that the local authorities have drawn up their plans and he has approved those plans and therefore has recognised that the local authorities are justified in adopting them and preparing to proceed with the work. I ask him to consider whether it is not elementary justice to postpone the effect of the Bill for a period so that the local authorities will be able to proceed with their plans as originally intended.
    If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter in that light, he will recognise that unless he adopts a proposal like that put forward in the Amendment he will be open to a charge of a breach of faith and of sheer fraud, because he has previously made representations to the local authorities that he, on behalf of the Government, was prepared to see that their plans went forward on the basis of the old subsidy. Now, as the Minister himself says, with only one week's warning he is going back on that representation. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again and agree to accept in some form an extension of the time before the Clause comes into effect.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mrs. Slater: I want to add my plea to that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) to the Minister to look at this Amendment again. It was obvious when the right hon. Gentleman spoke that he was trying either to make a clever debating point or to delude people into thinking that he was really concerned about the local authorities. I hope, therefore, that he will reconsider this point in the interests not only of local authorities but of the many thousands of people on the waiting lists for houses.
    There is no doubt that this Bill is part of the policy of the Chancellor, continued from the Budget into housing. That statement was made time and time

    2595
    again in the debate last week. The hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston (Miss Pitt) said that it was part of a deliberate policy to stabilise the financial position of the country and to tackle inflation and that it sought to put realism into the country's housing policy. So there is no doubt that this Bill is a continuation of the Budget in another direction. Therefore, the immediate policy in this Bill is to cut down the expenditure of local authorities on one of their most important services, houses.
    Mr. Julian Snow: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. No doubt she is aware that in tonight's newspaper there is news of the failure of the Glasgow Corporation loan on the London money market on the ground that the interest rate offered is too low. This is a typical result of the policy of the Government.
    Mrs. Slater: I thank my hon. Friend for that interruption, because it is an added argument for my case. The longterm policy in this Bill is to force gradually more and more local authorities into the position where they will have fewer and fewer houses to let. The next step will be to take away rent control, so that we hand over those poor folk at present in rent-controlled private houses to the people who are making money on the money market.
    The year before last, when we listened to the arguments put forward on the Housing Repairs and Rent Bill, we were told that the Bill was "a crusade" to get more houses fit to live in. I suppose that this is part of the same crusade. We are told that this is a crusade to get more houses built for slum clearance, but it is a blow to many thousands of folks living in conditions which are degrading.
    I speak tonight on behalf of my own local council, the Stoke-on-Trent City Council. My city council is at the head of 24 county boroughs in its housing record. Why is it in the lead? Because we had a Labour-controlled council which was determined to build houses for the people. Anyone who looks up the record of county boroughs and local authorities will find that some of the best housing records are those of Labour-controlled councils. This is because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, it is a matter of
    2596
    our philosophy, namely, that we must build decent homes for the people.
    Soon after 1945 our housing committee decided to ensure two things in its housing policy. One was that we would give continuity of labour to those employed on our housing sites. That we have done, and we have done it because we have had a follow-on of houses. We have known that so many had footings in, so many could go on to the next stage, others to the succeeding stage. There was definite planning, so that when the bad weather came the workers could work inside. In pre-war days those same building labourers had to go on the dole in the winter months.
    The second was that we would endeavour to give continuity of building to the contractors and the public works. We met the contractors and the people who supplied the bricks and the concrete. Concrete was almost impossible to get then but we came to an arrangement with the suppliers. This was important in such an area where concrete is vital because of mining subsidence, since we have to put more underneath to ensure that the houses last the length of time for which they are built. When it was impossible to work with the bricks we had them sent to the sites so that as soon as the frosty weather was over, we could go ahead. In this way we gave continuity to the contractors and the workers.
    In addition, the council decided to experiment. When we were told that we must erect prefabricated and non-traditional houses, we decided instead to build traditional houses but to cut expense, not by reducing standards but by good organisation. We were successful in this. We were also determined to plan our housing policy for the kind of people we desired to serve. For the last two years we decided to build 1,200 slum clearance houses before this idea was thought of, and we arrived at the stage where we were building 2,500 houses a year.
    Not only have we experimented in cutting the cost of houses without reducing living standards, but we have experimented in the type of houses built, in the variety of design and in the variety of size in order to serve families of different sizes. We have built houses so that our old people can be housed. Recently, the

    2597
    Parliamentary Secretary opened a good block of flats for single persons which I think is a credit to our local authority, showing originality and a desire to serve this class of people in need of homes.
    We have about 8,000 folk on our waiting list, 3,000 of whom are desperately urgent cases. Some of them have tuberculosis in the family, so it is necessary that they should be rehoused quickly. Many of those 3,000 live in terrible housing conditions. As a woman, I suggest that it is difficult for two women to work continually in one small kitchen. There is nothing more annoying and soul-destroying than having somebody under your feet all the time and it is almost impossible to work in such conditions.
    To those 3,000 urgent cases as well as the other 5,000, all of whom have a housing need, we now say, because of the attitude of the Minister, "You cannot expect a house within years. You must go on living in overcrowded conditions. If you have decided that you will not have any children until you have a house of your own, then you will not nave a family. If you decide that you want children, you must be prepared to have your mother-in-law or father-in-law saying that you must get out because they cannot stand the crying of the child." We shall have to tell them that they cannot have a decent room in which to put a cot, and they will not be able to buy new furniture because they have nowhere to put it. That is the kind of thing that we are now saying to these people.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the point of the Amendment is an extension of the time.
    Mrs. Slater: I am coming to that, Sir Rhys. It is necessary for me to say what I am saying now. It is a reason why it is necessary to extend the period for the benefit of local authorities like my own, who have a plan of operation which they will be unable to carry through unless the period is extended. I urge the Minister to look at the matter in the light of the facts which I have given him, bearing in mind the desire of local authorities to provide their folk with homes.
    It is absolutely necessary that local authorities should have a longer period in which to submit their plans so that
    2598
    they can assure the people on the waiting lists who are in desperate need that they will at least receive human consideration. The Minister's attitude is that there is no human approach to the problem. I urge him to look at the problem not in the way that he has done but as a person possessing some milk of human kindness who is anxious to help local authorities desiring to build houses in which their people may live comfortable lives.
    Sir Frederick Messer: I think all hon. Members will agree that the matter has been very well argued. However, there are one or two points that I should like to make.
    It has been represented to me that here are certain local authorities, and even local authority associations, which believe that they are being subjected to what they describe as, in effect, a breach of contract. There is not a local authority which has purchased a site on its own responsibility. Local authorities have obtained consent from the Ministry to borrow and have then succeeded in raising the necessary loans on the understanding that the site was being acquired for house building. They have then begun to meet their obligations. They have had to meet sinking fund charges and interest charges on the loans.
    If local authorities have to build houses without the subsidy, will it be possible for them to find tenants who can afford to pay economic rents? The answer to that question is easy. Many hon. Members have quoted figures. In my constituency, not a prosperous one, the type of person who would enter such a house is not earning enough to be able to afford the economic rent. The result would be an accentuation of the present deplorable situation.
    At present there are 11,000 people on the Tottenham waiting list. Week after week people come to me and say, "Can you give me a letter to the registrar of the county court, because a court order has been made against me?," "Can you obtain an extension of time for me?," and "Can you get the local council to place me high on the priority list?" I have given up. I know full well what the answer is. Finally, we come to the breakup of family life, and the father is

    2599
    accommodated in one place and the mother in another, and the children are in a children's home.
    8.15 p.m.
    The Amendment might at least prevent some break-up of family life and give local authorities an opportunity to rearrange matters. We have to realise that local authorities have bought their sites on the anticipation that they would receive a subsidy. Not one thought it would be left to foot the bill itself. In this respect I limit myself to the terms of the Amendment. I am asking for nothing more than that local authorities should be given an opportunity. The notice which they have received gives them no opportunity.
    I should like to know what will happen to the site if the local authority is convinced that it cannot let the houses which are built without a subsidy. Does it mean that it will have to continue paying sinking fund and interest charges, and that the site will be left unused? Local authorities are entitled to have these matters explained to them.
    I realise the Minister's difficulties. What he is saying is, in effect, "I am telling you frankly that ultimately the subsidy will go. I am not cutting it off all at once. The present stage is to warn you of the coming complete abolition of it. We are letting you down lightly at the moment by cutting by a first instalment only."
    That does not take full cognisance of all that is happening. I appeal to the Minister to look at the matter in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said. This is not a financial problem but a deep, painful, human, social problem. We who live fairly comfortably in our homes probably find it difficult to appreciate what it means to persons living in overcrowded conditions and people who have been on housing lists for a long time and are in real distress. They will now be told that, no matter how long they have been waiting and no matter what the circumstances of their home life may be—they may be living in congested conditions, perhaps with a member of the family suffering from an infectious disease, maybe tuberculosis—they can be given no hope.
    2600
    It would be easy to make political capital out of this, but I put it on a higher level than any party interest. I hope the Minister will be able to show us a change of mind, which we shall not get unless there is a change of heart, and will do something to minimise the severity of the situation which the Government will find facing them if they continue with the policy outlined. What I want to know is what will happen to the people if fewer houses are to be built.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I should like to reiterate the plea, made by my hon. Friends with such moving eloquence, that at least the Minister should reconsider the operative date for the reduction of the housing subsidies. I venture to suggest that if an ordinary commercial undertaking were to behave as the Government are behaving in this Measure it would be out of business within a few weeks, because no one would enter into an agreement with it. Its word would be unworthy of belief, it would have a dishonourable reputation and would be rapidly out of business altogether. If we play ducks and drakes with local authorities like this, there is a very grave danger of local authority administration completely breaking down.
    In planning their housing development, local authorities are entitled to make certain financial assumptions. Where a local authority has, with the Minister's approval, acquired land for the building of houses, it is entitled to assume that the subsidies prevailing at the time of approval of the acquisition will continue. When that assumption is proved by reason of a change in Ministerial policy to be wrong, how can local government officials and councillors, who so generously give freely of their time, have any faith in central government? Already the difficulties of local councillors are considerable. One of the effects of this kind of Measure on some councillors is to make them shrug their shoulders and say to the Government "Get on with it yourselves. We will have no part in it."
    There is a tendency by the Tory Government to make local councils more and more the hand-maidens of their dirty work, and that is proving increasingly unacceptable to local authorities. There is also vacillation in the policy of the Government on local authority matters in this as in many other subjects. How can any

    2601
    local authority build a stable policy on the shifting sands of Ministerial vacillation? In this Bill the date of tender is regarded as the test of the operative date for the reduction of these housing subsidies, but it is clear that the acceptance of the tender is almost the last stage in housing development. A great many expensive and difficult things have had to be done before that: compulsory acquisition of the land, or agreement to purchase it, and obtaining Ministerial approval.
    What earthly comfort is it to the authority to be told by the Minister, "At least you can keep the land"? The land is acquired for the building of houses. An authority like West Ham, with the desperate housing need there, does not want to acquire the land for market gardening or playgrounds, but to relieve a hideous social problem of gross overcrowding and miserable living conditions which is defeating the whole fabric of social security and welfare which we have sought to build in this century in our country. The terms of this Bill inflicted on local authorities without due warning constitute a grave breach of faith by the central government with local authorities.
    I ask the Minister to look again at least at this part of the Bill. Overwhelming arguments have been put to the Minister on this point. He has dealt with it in his own observations in a most inadequate fashion, and I ask him once again to apply his mind to it and to tell the Committee that he will at least make the operative date for continuance of subsidies at the higher level the date of the acquisition of the land with Ministerial approval. I ask him to look at this again, because it is putting the good faith and good name of the central government in issue and providing a very serious conflict between us and the local authorities.
    Mr. Sidney Dye: The whole weight of the arguments on the Amendment so far has come from those representing London and the larger towns. They have made their case, and an effective case, but the Minister has sat there with a very hard and tight-drawn face which has indicated that he has made up his mind and is going to stick to it, that he will see the Bill through as it was brought in, and he will carry out the
    2602
    intention of the Government at whatever cost and against whatever arguments are put forward.
    I should have thought that on the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill he would have been able to indicate that he will be reasonable with the Committee and will listen to arguments, that he knows the human problem with which we are concerned and that he will give way on some aspects of this problem. This is the first, namely, to postpone the date so that some local authorities can make more progress with the larger scale of subsidy. That argument probably applies with greater force to the rural areas than to the towns. The object of the policy which the Government have pursued over the past year or two has been to encourage private building. That private building has very largely taken place in certain towns.
    However, in agricultural England there has been a comparatively small amount of private building to meet the needs of farm workers and similar people. As, no doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to advise the Minister, in the Ashford area of Kent practically no private building has taken place in the villages to meet the needs of the workers. He can probably also advise the right hon. Gentleman that in those areas there is as great a need to attract and hold farm workers as at any time and that the difficulty is now at its most acute, and that the problem of houses is one of the matters that enters into the holding of the farm worker population in the countryside.
    Where fewer privately built houses to meet the needs of the workers have been erected, I should have thought that the Minister would have looked at the problem from the broader point of view. In some parts of the country a good many privately built houses have been erected in the past two years. But not so in the agricultural districts if it is the expectation of the Minister that during the next year or two there will be more privately built houses and, therefore, there will not be the need for rural district councils to build so many houses, I think that it is wrong for him to think along those lines. Only this week there has been announced a reduction of 10 per cent. in the price of pigs.
    8.30 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That is very far removed from this Amendment.
    Mr. Dye: With great respect, Sir Rhys, my argument is that if the purpose of the Minister in reducing the subsidy for council-built houses in the rural areas is to encourage farmers to build more houses for their workers, a reduction in the price of pigs will not give the farmers security for the future, and that they will not invest in houses built for their workers.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment is concerned with postponing the date of the subsidy.
    Mr. Dye: It is for that reason that I want the rural district councils to have another year in which to build houses to meet this great need. If you do not wish me, Sir Rhys, to look at the prospects of private individuals investing money in building houses for the workers in agriculture, I will turn to another aspect of this important problem.
    For over twenty years I have been a member of a rural district council. Many of the rural district councils are largely composed of farmers or their wives, or of solicitors and other people connected with them. The most difficult thing to get any rural district council to do is to condemn a cottage, and if the right hon. Gentleman is expecting that the rural district councils will now off with their jackets and turn up their sleeves to go into this question of slum clearance on a great scale to remove the blots—these wretched little hovels which have been inhabited in many cases for 500 and 600 years—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. Dye: Now, Sir Rhys, that there are 40 hon. Members present who represent rural constituencies they will be able to bear me out.
    Mr. Hay: I have been listening with very great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about rural constituencies, and I hope to follow him.
    Mr. Dye: Now that we have some representatives of rural England and Wales present, I want to take up most seriously with them this question of slum
    2604
    clearance. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and, no doubt, of his Parliamentary Secretary, is that the rural district councils will now face up to the question of slum clearance, pull down the old cottages and build anew. I notice that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) shakes his head.
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: They do not have slum cottages in my area. They have some good ones.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) is getting wide of the Amendment. This Amendment is concerned with postponing the date of the subsidy.
    Mr. Dye: The argument in favour of maintaining the position as stated in the Bill and by the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech was that he would expect slum clearance to take precedence over the building of council houses to meet the needs of those who are on the waiting lists. Now that we have had an indication from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do not think this will happen, it makes the arguments in favour of this Amendment even stronger, if we are to overcome this problem of housing our rural population at a suitable standard.
    Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite argued on political platforms, to win votes for the Conservative Party, that they had built so many houses and done so much. But they did not indicate that, when they came to power, one of the first things they would do would be to reduce the number of houses being built. Obviously, there are hon. Members opposite who are sincere in their desire to see the people of agricultural England and Wales adequately housed; and they would welcome the chance to express their feelings against the Minister and of postponing this reduction in the subsidy, so that district councils might make further progress in rehousing the people. That is important from the point of view of producing much which we need.
    I have met a number of rural district councillors who would like to see local authorities given another three years to build more houses in an effort to ensure that no one will be without a decent home. I think that it would be a good thing if hon. Gentlemen opposite would realise that the arguments for this

    2605
    Amendment are stronger when applied to the needs of agricultural England than to the needs in the big towns.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Is not the hon. Gentleman in some degree anticipating the permissive power to pay an extra subsidy under Clause 4?
    Mr. Dye: I do not know what may be contained in the permissive Clauses until the Minister has explained them more clearly.
    We must be concerned with councils who are engaged in the task of rehousing. There are difficulties, but what is needed more than anything is continuity of policy, a continuous programme of building, if we are to have decent housing at a price which the nation can afford. I hope that these points will be given attention by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that if he cannot accept this Amendment, because the Minister will not permit him to do so, he will look favourably on some of the other Amendments which we have yet to discuss.
    Mr. Lewis: With the exception of an occasional few moments' absence, I have sat here the whole afternoon. I know that the Minister is himself interested in averages, particularly when they concern a ld., 2d. or 3d. on the rent, and therefore, it is interesting to note—as I am sure the Minister has noted—that on average there have never been more than four Members at any one time during the whole debate on the Government back benches.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This certainly has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. Lewis: I was trying to give an example, Sir Rhys, of how this question of extending the period for another 12 months was relevant, and to point out that if more hon. Members opposite had been present to listen to the debate, some of them would probably have supported our endeavours to get this Amendment accepted by the Minister. Of course, the fact that there are now fourteen hon. Members present on the benches opposite is solely due to the fact that we recently had a count, and I would like to recapitulate for their benefit our argument in favour of the Amendment and why we think that the Minister should accept it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member ought not to give me warning that he is going 4o engage in repetition.
    Mr. Lewis: I would not dare attempt, Sir Rhys, to flout the wishes of the Chair, and I am now going on to explain the objectives of this Amendment and how it will affect not only my constituents, but the constituents of many hon. Members opposite who are now present for the first time in this debate, and to explain to them what great damage will be done if the Amendment is not accepted, particularly in the rebuilding of blitzed areas.
    I think it is true to say that local authorities have to go through a long rigmarole of procedure before they can acquire sites, can get Ministerial approval and can get on with the job of actually building the houses. Inevitably they have to enter into great financial obligations which some of them cannot really afford, even with the assistance of the existing subsidy. My own local authority is in that position. We in West Ham have the unenviable reputation of being the worst blitzed borough on the country.
    West Ham lost completely 14,000 houses, and, as a result, two-thirds of its rateable income. It has vast areas on which probably stand one or two derelict ruins. The council acquired the land, but has not got on with the actual job of rebuilding because it wants to do that which the Tories never did in the inter-war years—build on a proper basis instead of building potential slums. The council has got its plans prepared, but has not got down to inviting tenders for rebuilding on the sites.
    It is true that the present Minister, his predecessor and other Ministers advised the blitzed areas to get on with the job of rebuilding. But under the Bill as drafted, we find that unless councils actually invite tenders before 3rd November, they will be left in the difficult position of not having the financial assistance which is rightfully theirs.
    8.45 p.m.
    That may not worry hon. Members opposite who represent Henley-on-Thames, Bournemouth, Bath or Boscombe. Their local authorities are in the happy position of having a good rateable income and a relatively low rate. But what will be the position of an area

    2607
    such as West Ham, or a blitzed London borough, or any other London area? West Ham now has a rate of 28s. in the £, and with the increase in the interest rates which the Government have put on a further £30,000 will have to be found, meaning an increase of at least 6d. in the £ upon the rates for the next 60 years, assuming that there is no further increase in the cost of living, or other inflationary effects from the Budget—which, of course, will certainly not be the case.
    That means that areas such as West Ham will have to do one of two things. They will either have to try to rebuild and put the cost on to the rates—and hon. Members opposite will appreciate how difficult that will be with a rate burden of 28s. 6d. in April and inevitable further increases—or stop house-building except in respect of slum clearance. But West Ham's problem is not so much concerned with slums, because one good job that Hitler did—although he did it with a great amount of tragedy, and loss both of human life and treasured possessions—was to clear practically all the slums in West Ham. He has left the problem with the local authority, because it cannot invoke the Clause relating to slum clearance and, hence, cannot get the so-called additional subsidy. It must now either rebuild and add the whole additional cost to the rates or, as the Minister suggested, spread the burden over both the pool of existing houses and the new ones which it intends to build.
    I do not know where the Minister gets his 2d. or 3d. from, but the West Ham borough treasurer has told me that, spreading the cost over both the old and the new, it will mean 5s. 8d. per week on the rents, assuming again that no further increase in interest rates takes place. It will mean—and it is already happening—that many tenants of prewar council houses will pay more than the tenants of rent-controlled houses owned by private landlords.
    Mr. F. Blackburn: Is it not a fact that, if this burden is spread over all classes of houses, the more houses that are built the higher will be the rents of all the council houses?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The discussion is getting a little wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Lewis: I was going on to show how essential it is for the Minister to accept the Amendment, and to explain that, unless he does so, it will be impossible for local authorities such as West Ham, East Ham, Poplar, Clapham and even the Minister's own constituency, to carry out the normal job of rehousing persons in urgent need. It is essential for the Minister and his hon. Friends to appreciate why we are so insistent that the Amendment should be accepted or at least considered by the Minister.
    When the Minister interjected, by invitation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), he never attempted to deal with any of the legitimate and very concise arguments put by my hon. Friend. No part in the debate has been taken by hon. Members opposite, except the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford, South (Squadron Leader Cooper), who said that Ilford was very happy with the Bill; they wanted it, and wanted to see all the housing subsidies done away with.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a little hyperbole, but not to exaggerate out of all knowledge.
    Mr. Lewis: I withdraw that. I must have misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am pleased to understand that he like myself, is against the Bill.
    Squadron Leader Cooper Squadron Leader Cooper indicated dissent.
    Mr. Lewis: It appears that he is neither for it nor against it, neither for the Amendment nor against it. He said that the Ilford Council were not opposed to the Clause and are not in favour of the Amendment. I do not know whether they are in favour of it or not. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in favour of it or not. All I know is that there was a rent strike recently in Ilford, and if the Amendment is not carried—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman comes back to the Amendment now and again. I wish he would stick to it a little more.
    Mr. Lewis: I was about to explain, Sir Rhys, that unless the Minister accepts the Amendment the strikes which we have seen in Ilford will be as nothing compared

    2609
    with what we shall see not only in Ilford, but in West Ham, East Ham, Clapham, Woolwich and elsewhere.
    This is a very serious matter. Some hon. Members have mentioned the present difficulties of local authorities in trying to rehouse the people on their growing waiting lists, even with the present limited subsidy. The Minister has himself admitted that with the increased cost of living and the depreciation in the purchasing power of the £, the existing subsidy is not sufficient. Unless he accepts the Amendment to continue the subsidies for the next twelve months, we shall find that because of inflationary effects the subsidies will be pro tanto reduced, and as a consequence we shall not even rebuild the slum areas.
    That is the situation which now confronts local authorities and which will be aggravated if the Amendment is not carried. We have 14,000 people in West Ham on the urgent, priority waiting list. We have had to scrap our general waiting list because there are so many on it that we cannot keep count. When I hear hon. Members speaking about four, five or six people living in one or two rooms, I tell them, with respect, that that is nothing; in East and West Ham families are having to live apart, one parent in one borough, one parent in another borough and the children spread all over the country. That is going to be made worse now. West Ham will not be able to build houses for those in urgent need because the subsidy has been reduced and will eventually be completely abolished.
    If it is the desire of the Minister, I am sure it is not the desire of his hon. Friends to see that housing for those in urgent need shall cease altogether. If it is their desire, perhaps they will give the Committee the reasons why they feel that housing should cease. I have sat here all the afternoon and have not attempted to take part in the debate. I have sat and listened because I wanted to hear the views of hon. Members opposite on this Amendment. I am open to correction, but I think the hon. and gallant Member for Ilford. South is the only Member opposite who has taken part.
    I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary has been away from the Front Bench, I hope it was in order to get information from his advisers. Since all
    2610
    my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity of explaining the difficulties to him, I hope that at least he will do better than the Minister in considering the points we have put to him. I want particularly to emphasise that those areas which of necessity have had to clear sites and are in process of clearing sites will not rank for grant under the reduced subsidies because, technically, that work will not be slum clearance within the meaning of the Bill. I do not think it right that people who were bombed out, not once but four or five times in the war—people who are having to pay 28s. in the £ rates—should have to pay increased rates because the Minister refuses to accept the Amendment. I see, Sir Rhys, that you are attempting to rise—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The reason I was about to rise was because the hon. Member was repeating an argument which has already been used.
    Mr. Lewis: With respect, Sir Rhys, I have not repeated the argument. I was going to explain to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is an additional point that I have not mentioned. It is that people have been bombed out four or five times and have not had a home of any sort for ten years since the war—and many of them during the whole period of the war. We think it is immoral, it is indecent and, in fact, disgusting to expect them to have to pay an additional amount per week, either on rent or rates, to have houses to replace those knocked down during the war. That point I have not mentioned and I want to emphasise it, because it is a point with which the Minister did not attempt to deal. I want to ask him to give consideration to it in so far as it affects his division of Streatham.
    I know my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), had he had an opportunity, would have liked to develop the point he made about the effect this provision has on areas like Clapham. I am glad to see by hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. L. Jeger) present. She has been here all the afternoon and she will agree that it affects her area as well. I ask the Minister not to dodge the issue but to give us some answer that, even if he will not accept this Amendment, he will favourably consider granting to

    2611
    authorities in the situation I have described an extension under Clause 5 of the Bill—
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is not Clause 5 of the Bill.
    Mr. Lewis: I shall not mention Clause 5. All I ask is that if the Minister cannot accept this Amendment he will find some other means under another Clause to give assistance to authorities in this dire financial position.
    Mr. Gibson: I should like to ask my hon. Friend through you, Sir Rhys, if it is not a fact that houses built in the next 18 months in replacement of those destroyed by bombs will not come under the subsidy provisions at all.
    The Deputy-Chairman: May I make an appeal to the Committee. This discussion is getting beyond the Amendment. The Amendment is a serious Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Very serious."]—and the Committee should keep the arguments directed to the Amendment.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. I would suggest that I have been speaking with some feeling and some seriousness of the dire consequences now confronting local authorities—
    The Deputy-Chairman The Deputy-Chairman rose—
    Mr. Lewis: With respect, Sir Rhys, will you let me put the point of order? I was putting to the Minister and to the Committee that unless the Amendment is accepted there will be areas which have been badly blitzed and damaged in the war which will now be in even worse financial difficulties. I suggest that is a very serious and pertinent argument to put forward on this Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: On that argument I cast no reflection at all.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I listened with considerable interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis). Although perhaps on one or two points he strayed near to going out of order, I think that on the whole he expressed his case within order.
    I was interested to hear the Minister's intervention and was impressed once again that he seems to have failed to
    2612
    realise the complete departure from previous subsidy reviews which is embodied in the Bill. He told the Committee within the last hour or so that he was prepared to consider rearranging the Clause so as to permit the same length of time to be given as was allowed with the last review of subsidies. He offered to consider allowing local authorities a period of ten months. In effect, he said, "I will allow local authorities, as was done previously, to claim subsidies for those houses that are built within the next ten months."
    The Minister, in making that tentative concession, which, in fact, was no concession at all, seemed to assume that his proposals in the Bill were of the same nature and on the same level as have applied in the past when the House has reviewed the housing subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems, fails to understand that his Bill is quite different from any past review of subsidies. Indeed, the Bill is not a review of subsidies but represents a definite slashing of them to the extent of a very large cut. It is insufficient, therefore, for the Minister to propose that the same measure of time as was allowed with previous subsidy reviews should apply to the Bill, for the whole method of dealing with subsidies is now on a different level and is a far more vigorous cutting policy than we have had in the past. The Minister, no doubt, believed that he was putting forward a reasonable concession, but we know there would be no concession if we were to allow the same interval to elapse before the subsidy ends as was allowed on previous occasions.
    I am rather inclined to think that the Minister fails to realise the gravity of the charge laid against him this afternoon. Time after time, hon. Members have charged him seriously with breaking faith with local authorities. He has been told of the view of authorities throughout the country that this wholesale slashing of subsidies, unprecedented in severity, is a breach of faith. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. McColl), my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) and many other of my hon. Friends have made that charge against the Minister.
    The time allowed for the local authorities to adjust themselves to the new rates of subsidy was indeed very short.

    2613
    Today, the Minister has himself admitted there was only a week's notice for the local authorities to adjust themselves to the 50 per cent. cut in the basic subsidies he proposes. What happened? Local authorities were obliged to adopt all kinds of unusual procedures and to snap at contracts to get as many contracts as possible before 3rd November so that the old rate of subsidy would apply.
    My own local authority, in carrying out its duty to the ratepayers and to the many thousands who are in housing need, took some vigorous action in that miserably short week the Minister allowed. It called a special meeting of the housing committee, an extraordinary meeting of the council, to push through one or two tenders ready to be endorsed by the council, and it did that to get the tenders through before 3rd November, so that the houses to be built to those tenders would qualify for the existing and higher subsidy.
    It is quite wrong that local authorities should have to adopt such tactics to pursue their housing policies. The Minister forces them to such tactics. He forces these authorities to cast aside their accustomed usage, to disregard the normal dignity and usual procedure of their committee and full council meetings, forces them to adopt extraordinary procedures to push in a few tenders to obtain higher subsidy rate.
    The Minister knows very well—he has been told this several times today—that the local authorities during the last twelve months and longer have devised schemes, in great detail in many cases, acquired sites, set their officers to elaborate preparations; members of councils, giving up their own private time to the public service, have met night after night to work out schemes for rehousing the people; and the schemes have been prepared. The Minister's approval was sought for the schemes, and in many cases the Minister approved them. It would be interesting to know how many schemes the Minister has approved during the last twelve months, all of which he now intends to repudiate. Schemes which he himself approved he now intends to overthrow.
    I repeat what my hon. Friends have said, that that kind of action can justly be called a breach of faith. The Minister, in acting in that way, is making for himself
    2614
    considerable difficulties with the local authorities. The smooth functioning of his Department largely depends on the good will of the local authorities. He knows that. He knows that behind him he has a local authority organisation which is the finest in the world. If he sacrifices the good will of those authorities, if he tries to work at cross-purposes with them, his function as the Minister will be retarded.
    It is of fundamental importance that the Minister of Housing and Local Government—if the present Minister can make a claim to that title—should have close understanding and a smooth relationship with the local authorities.
    I warn the Minister that this action of his in suddenly and arbitrarily overthrowing agreed understandings will undermine his whole position as the Minister of Housing. I know that we cannot expect the treatment from a Tory Minister of Housing that we had from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) from 1945 to 1950, but there are differences even between one Conservative Minister and another. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, at least attempted to help forward housing programmes. The present Minister does not even attempt to do it and he has forfeited his right to the title of Minister of Housing.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: I support the Amendment for which, within the strictest terms, there is an unanswerable case. Nothing that we have heard from the other side of the Committee suggests that there is any answer at all. My hon. Friends are murmuring round me about the lack of contributions from the benches opposite. I hope that the public will comment on that lack. It is unfortunate that at a time when the Committee is discussing a matter affecting thousands of households not one hon. Lady has occupied the benches opposite and shown interest in the debate. We have opposite a collection of gentlemen so lethargic that they have not even the strength to rise in an attempt to intervene. Either they do not understand or they do not care. I submit that they are guilty on both counts.
    In asking for a few months' consideration, local authorities are coming forward in full seriousness and appreciation of the

    2615
    difficulties involved. I should like to put this matter into some perspective. We have all been rather parochial in the debate and it is quite right that we should have been, because the subject of our discussion impinges on local authorities. It is only by reference to the way in which it so impinges that we can judge the justice or otherwise of the Government's proposals. Therefore, I make no further apology for trying to relate the Amendment to the situation in St. Pancras.
    I do not pretend that St. Pancras is a typical borough. In fact, it is a very distinctive borough. There is none like it in London or elsewhere. In our attempts to rehouse some of our people we have tried very hard to acquire sites and use them to the best advantage. We have on one site on the edge of Regent's Park a most remarkable housing development. It is so remarkable that it has been visited today by a Royal personage.
    Under the existing arrangements we receive, on a four-storey block of flats, equipped with lifts, a subsidy of £56 8s. a year. If the Clause with which we are now concerned is approved without amendment that £56 8s. will be reduced to £20. That is an enormous reduction when one is concerned with a big, bold and imaginative scheme for clearing away many acres of obsolescent property which does not qualify under the tight definition of slum clearance. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave loan sanction and another Department gave planning consent for the proposals. Therefore, everyone, including the Minister, agrees that the proposals are not irrelevant, frivolous or unnecessary.
    9.15 p.m.
    I submit that there is a more than adequate case for the consideration of local authorities who find themselves in this difficult position. If we were able to persuade the Minister that a certain area was part of a slum clearance scheme, he would still give us only £32 on a comparable block of flats. How, therefore, does he expect local authorities to effect slum clearance when he has told my council that although last year they had £56 for this job, next year they will get only £32 even if the work is slum clearance. The only argument we have
    2616
    heard from the other side of the Committee is that the Bill will help slum clearance but, as I have demonstrated, in this case the subsidy is reduced, even on a slum clearance basis, by £20—
    Mr. Graeme Finlay: The hon. Lady should get her facts right. Would she not consider that if a 10-storey block of flats is built for slum replacement and a council gets under the new arrangement £59 14s., this would be an increase of £3 6s.?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The level of the subsidy is only relevant here because the reduction is an argument for postponement, but it should not be gone into as a separate argument.
    Mrs. Jeger: I will keep to the Amendment, Sir Rhys, but I am glad that at least one hon. Gentleman opposite has been lured to his feet.
    We are engaged in a great deal of housing which is not strictly slum clearance within the definition of the Act. I find from a report on slum clearance published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, that a five-year slum clearance proposed for St. Pancras involves the demolition and rebuilding of 371 dwellings within the next five years. But we have 7,000 families on our waiting list, and that is a measure of the proportion which we must observe in approaching this Bill and in trying to evaluate how far it is any help to us. Those 371 slum houses are, apparently, the only ones in which the right hon. Gentleman is interested.
    Over the next five years the London County Council is to erect 18,500 dwellings for slum clearance but has on its waiting list 165,000 families, and that list is growing at the rate of 30,000 a year. Fifty thousand are in Category A. It is in the attempt of the L.C.C. to house these non-slum dwellers that Clause 1 is completely frustrating the efforts of local authorities. It is all too modest on our part that we are asking for only a year's grace. We know from experience of local authorities how short a time a year is for all the machinery and paraphernalia that has to be gone through before the builder arrives at the given site.
    It is most unfortunate if the Government are not prepared graciously to accept

    2617
    the Opposition's moderate approach. In pressing our Amendment, we are deeply concerned about people living in houses which do not come within the definition of "slums" but are, nevertheless, most uncomfortable, undesirable and unhealthy places for people to live in.
    The Committee ought to spend a moment thinking about what a slum is. The definition adopted for legal purposes is very narrow. What makes a slum? I could take the right hon. Gentleman to charming houses in my constituency, some of the delightful—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that that subject arises on the Amendment.
    Mrs. Jeger: I am sorry, Sir Rhys—
    Mr. Bevan: On a point of order and a point of explanation, Sir Rhys. The Minister himself said that, if the Amendment were carried, the housing programmes of the local authorities would be so inflated in every respect that the Bill would not operate for five years. That seems to expand the Amendment to almost every part of the Bill.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have nothing to do with the merits of the argument. I am only seeking to interpret the relevance of the Amendment.
    Mrs. Jeger: I was thinking that it would help in relation to the Amendment if the Minister would come with me on a trip to St. Pancras—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Lady should make that invitation privately.
    Mrs. Jeger: Thank you for that advice, Sir Rhys.
    The Amendment seeks to safeguard the non-slum issue for a year. The majority of people on waiting lists are not necessarily living in what are generally defined as slums. What makes a slum? I submit that it is the circumstances in which a family has to live, and that one person living in a dwelling which the Ministry would schedule as a slum may be better off than a whole family living in one room with no conveniences, although living in a perfectly sound house which no medical officer of health could conscientiously condemn or represent as a slum.
    2618
    There are many houses of the sort that I have in mind. I refer, in particular, to the Nash houses behind the terraces in the Regent's Park area, which were built for single family accommodation and, as such, could never be represented as slums. They have become slums only because they have been neglected as a result of war damage, because they are over-occupied, and because they contain facilities sufficient for only one family, there being, for example, only one toilet. Because many people are having to live in these houses, they are, in effect, slums which the right hon. Gentleman under Clause I will be depriving—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We are dealing not with Clause 1 as such, but with an Amendment.
    Mrs. Jeger: It is because the right hon. Gentleman will not, under Clause 1, help these people that we have tabled our Amendment, and I urge it upon the Committee for the sake of people living in that kind of accommodation, people living in houses which are not materially and intrinsically in bad condition, and separated families.
    I have just seen a young married couple in the Central Lobby. The husband is an ex-Service man. They have been married for two years. They began by living with their in-laws. It all went wrong; they did not like their mothers-in-law. The wife is living with her mother and the husband with his, and they meet on Sundays. Now, when we try to help people like that, the Minister says that it is nothing to do with slum clearance and that the tender for the new flats in which this couple might have made a home was not put in before 3rd November, so nothing can be done.
    I have tried to keep within the terms of the Amendment, but it is far-reaching and affects thousands of people who live in London and in my constituency particularly. I have referred to St. Pancras and to be fair, and with your indulgence, Sir Rhys, I must refer to Holborn, which is another delightful borough of London which will greatly benefit from the Amendment, if the Government feel able to accept it.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Lady is not going through the boroughs one by one.
    Mrs. Jeger: It might be a good idea for the right hon. Gentleman to go through the boroughs one by one. He might see the cumulative effect of what he is doing to London housing. In Holborn—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am trying to keep the debate within order. I cannot do so unless I get assistance from the Committee.
    Mrs. Jeger: I am sorry that I am being so unsuccessful in assisting you. Sir Rhys, but I am very concerned about hundreds and hundreds of families in Holborn and I maintain that it is my right to come here and say so. I am sorry if the Committee is bored. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if some hon. Gentlemen are so disinterested that they want to leave the Chamber, I shall not mind.
    To return to this most interesting part of my constituency, 650 homes were destroyed by bombing in the war and the borough council has so far managed to build only 2N. The L.C.C. has built 20, making a total of 300, and that means we have not got half-way to catching up on war damage. Tenders approved up to the date embodied in the Bill amount to only 23. I am very ashamed of that, but it is a Conservative council, so I may not be entirely responsible.
    That means, without paying any attention whatsoever to slum clearance, to general overcrowding, the needs of young married couples, tuberculous children, or cripples living up long flights of stairs, that the Minister has said that for building, even to replace that which was lost in the war, there will be either no subsidy or a very reduced subsidy. In this Amendment, which asks for only a year's grace that will help every local authority just a little further forward in its housing plans, we are putting before the Government a case which in equity, in reasonableness and above all in humanity and justice they should accept. A refusal to accept this very modest Amendment must indicate to the people, and will certainly indicate to my constituents, a completely cynical lack of concern and interest by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those of us who have to say to these people, "Well, we told you so" will, unfortunately, be right again.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gibson: Surely we are to get a reply from the Government Front Bench. It is now nearly three hours since the Minister spoke and a number of speeches have been made since then, none of which has repeated what another hon. Member has said. Surely we are entitled to expect the Parliamentary Secretary to make an effort to reply to the discussion. If he does not intend to do so, I have no doubt that there are hon. Members here with plenty to say. We can understand his worry to get away from this subject, but I appeal to him, out of respect to the Committee, to reply to the many points which have been raised and to which no answer has yet been given.
    Mr. Lewis: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). The Minister did not make one reference during the whole of his speech to the question of blitzed areas. This Amendment, I suggest, has a great bearing on areas such as those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), and Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), which will be in grave financial difficulties.
    Is it too much to ask the Minister to say that he appreciates that for these particular areas especially the Amendment is necessary, or, if he cannot accept the Amendment, to say that he will at least favourably consider bringing in some other Amendment on the Report stage, or when the Bill goes to another place, which will give to these areas some indication that they will not suffer again?
    They suffered during the whole period of the war and after the war. They are suffering now, and they cannot even get a reply from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. Surely we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary not necessarily to commit himself, but to say that he will give consideration to the Amendment between now and the next stage of the Bill.
    Mr. Stephen Swingler: Are we, Sir Charles, to have no democracy in the Committee at all? There has been only one hon. Member opposite with the audacity to speak in support of the Government's policy and

    2621
    the feeble arguments of the Minister. Are we now to say that there are no arguments against this Amendment at all, apart from that of the vested interests of hon. Members opposite? We have had six hours' debate, and presumably hon. Members who have spoken and listened to it are entitled to know whether there are any reasons for voting against the Amendment.
    Mr. A. Evans: I addressed to the Minister some questions about his relationship with the local authorities, and
    said that as a result of certain actions this relationship has deteriorated. This is a serious matter.
    The Minister should explain to the Committee how he regards the present position in relation to himself and the local authorities.
    Question put, That these words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 217.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES

    [9.35 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Albu, A. H.

    Hannan, W.

    Probert, A. R.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hastings, S.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H,

    Anderson, Frank

    Hayman, F. H.

    Rankin, John

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Reeves, J.

    Hartley, P.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Holman, P.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Benson, G.

    Holmes, Horace

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    Houghton, Douglas

    Ross, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Royle, C.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Blyton, w. R.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Short, E. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Janner, B.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Snow, J. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Steele, T.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Champion, A. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Chetwynd, G. R,

    Ledger, R. J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Clunie, J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    MacColl, J. E.

    Thornton, E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    McGovern, J.

    Timmons, J.

    Cronin, J. D.

    McInnes, J.

    Tomney, F.

    Daines, P.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Viant, S. P.

    Deer, G.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Warbey, W. N.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Weitzman, D.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    West, D. G.

    Dye, S.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Moss, R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Oram, A. E.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

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

    Parker, J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Parkin, B. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Grey, C. F.

    Pearson, A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Peart, T. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. A. Allen.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Popplewell, E.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    MacLeod, John (Rose & Cromarty)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grimond, J.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maddan, Martin

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Maude, Angus

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Barter, John

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hay, John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Neave, Airey

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Heath, Edward

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Bishop, F. P.

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

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Page, R. G.

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Partridge, E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Holt, A. F.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pott, H. P.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Horsburgh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Howard, John (Test)

    Ralkes, Sir victor

    Carr, Robert

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Channon, H.

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

    Rawlinson, P. A. G

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hughes, Hallett Vice-Admiral J.

    Redmayne, M.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cole, Norman

    Hurd, A. R.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

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

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Roper, Peter (Heeley)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Robertson, Sri David

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roper, Sri Harold

    Crouch, R. F.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Russell, R. S.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col, W.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Sharples, R. G.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Keegan, D.

    Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Stanley, Geoffrey

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kirk, P. M.

    Steward, Sri William (Woolwich, W.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Storey, S.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Summer, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Leburn, W. G.

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

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Thomes, P. J. M. (Conterbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

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

    Fell, A.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Finlay, Craeme

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Tilney, Sir Gordon

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Foster, John

    Longden, Gilbert

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Glover, D.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Watikinson, H. A.

    Godber, J. B.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gower, H. R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Vates, William (The Wrekin)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Green, A.

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

    Mr. E. Wakefield and

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (5) of this section)."
    The Chairman: This Amendment, I think, might be discussed with the Amendment in page 2, line 20, at the end to add:
    (5) Contributions shall continue to be payable under the said section one, subsection (2) or subsection (3), as the case may be, in respect of any new dwelling, as regards which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say that—

    (a) each such annual contribution is not less than the annual Exchequer subsidy payable under this Act in respect of such dwellings as that dwelling, and

    (b) that dwelling is provided by a local authority in exercise of their powers to provide housing accommodation or, in pursuance of authorised arrangements with a local authority, by a housing association and is situated in an area designated under the New Towns Act, 1946.

    Mr. Mitchison: I agree, Sir Charles.
    This is a smaller and less general point than the one we have just been discussing. The Amendment relates entirely to the subsidies for dwellings provided by a local authority in a new town area. We desire that those subsidies should continue at the existing rate. It is of course £22 1s. as far as the Government are concerned, and the Bill provides for a slightly higher rate—£24—with regard to houses provided by development corporations in new towns.
    9.45 p.m.
    If the Bill stays as it is, unless I am quite mistaken in my reading of it, when houses in new towns are built by a development corporation they will attract a subsidy of £24, but if the local authority puts them up they will attract the standard reduced subsidy under the Bill, and the local authority will stand to see the subsidy disappear altogether in a year or so, as we were told by the Minister.
    We desire—and in this matter we have the support of the District Councils (New Towns) Association—that both development corporations and local authorities in new towns should be treated in the same way. The Minister may very well say, "Well, after all, the duty of the local authority in a new town is to house the existing inhabitants. True, the number of existing inhabitants may increase, but
    2626
    it still remains the duty of the local authority to deal with local area needs." He may go on to say, "The development corporation is in a different position. It has to deal with a large influx of population; it is dealing not at all with people inside the town," and so on.
    One could very closely and critically examine that sort of ideological difference between a local authority and a development corporation inside a new town. These new towns are highly important social experiments. They are not just housing or industrial estates with other buildings attached; they are attempts to create new and good communities, which will serve the double purpose of giving some relief to the large towns from which the people for those new towns will come and of starting, as we believe, a very valuable form of community life which has great possibilities. That is the broad intention behind the creation of the new towns.
    Our proposal ought not to be looked at as a mere matter of this, that or the other section of this, that or the other Act. It should be looked at in the light of the real position which exists in the new towns. I have the new town of Corby in my own constituency. When Corby became a new town the urban district council had already done a considerable amount of house building. Some more had been done rather earlier by Stewarts and Lloyds, who are the largest employers in the town, and behind all that were the remains of a comparatively small Northamptonshire village. That is the way it grew up.
    Although the history of these new towns has not been the same, and the conditions are not the same, one is apt to find an old and small community, with accretions to it partly from the development corporation and partly, as in the case of Corby, from the local authority. The position in Corby was, for some time, that the urban district council were building nearly half the new houses that were going up, and the development corporation were building others. There was a line through the middle of the town, on one side of which was urban district council buildings and on the other development corporation buildings—and if one looked at both sorts of houses one could not see very much to choose

    2627
    between them. In fact, I think the council houses were rather better than the development corporation houses, but that is a matter of opinion.
    It is now proposed that for any houses built by those two bodies in the future there shall be a complete difference in the rates of subsidy which they attract. It is true that these local councils in the new towns have had to reduce by quite a lot the amount of building which they can do, and of course if they are now to receive only a reduced subsidy, that will mean a complete stop everywhere. Is it advisable that when we get similar houses built by the two authorities in the same town, as will be the case, their rents should be different because some are built by the council and other by the development corporation?
    It may be said that already there is a very wide difference in rents between the two and that a little pressure on the council will push up the council rents and bring them more closely into line with those of the development corporation. I have been looking carefully at the last reports of the new towns and I think a fair summary of the position is this: that there is now nothing like the same acute problem of disparity between development corporation rents and council house rents as there was some time ago. The reason, of course, is that council house rents have risen under the rise in interest rates which has taken place in the last year and generally under the discouragement which has been given by this Government to council building. That has had the unfortunate result from one point of view in pushing up the council rents instead of what we would all have preferred—bringing the development corporation rents down.
    I come back again to Corby. The position in Corby is that for some considerable time past quite a number of workers in that town have been offered development corporation houses and have been unable to take them because the rents were too high. What is now alarming is that exactly the same thing is happening, to a rather smaller extent, with council houses. If that is the position—and I believe it to be so—this is certainly not the moment in areas such as that to dock the council house subsidy. It seems to me perfectly clear that from a social point of view, at any rate, the right thing
    2628
    to do is not to reduce the council house subsidy at this moment but to allow it and the development corporation subsidies to be as nearly level as they may be.
    Another point to be considered is that the development corporations are not eternal; there is a provision in the New Towns Act—a highly important provision—that in due course these new towns shall pass over to the local authorities. I see no particular reason for attributing to these temporary creatures of ours, the development corporations, some particular sanctity in the matter of subsidies and rents. It seems to me fair, not only in the present but in view of what will happen in the future, that those rents and the corresponding subsidies should be as nearly level as possible.
    I could go on dwelling on these points. I want to come back to a very simple thing. We are told that the reason why these cuts will be so little felt is that they can be spread over a pool of existing houses. We have no pool in Corby, and most new towns have no pool. The most they have is a puddle. The puddle in Corby is 84 pre-war houses in a town of 22,000 or 23,000 rising, as it is intended to rise, rapidly to 40,000. We shall not get much further by puddling rents in a place like that. Broadly speaking, it is the same in practically all the new towns.
    We should remember that a development corporation brings with it not only population from an adjoining big town, not only—as in the case of Corby and some other towns—a particular industrial population for industrial purposes, but that it also brings a natural increase of all the ancillary trades, shops, transport and the rest. It puts on the council not only the burden of dealing with the housing needs of those people because that falls principally on the council, but also the burden of considerably more local authority expenditure on the ordinary services. That includes things like sewerage, refuse disposal and things of that kind which fall on a local authority which has to meet the heavier cost because there is a new town.
    I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman—on the grounds of fairness, on the ground of making as homogeneous a social community as we can in these new towns, on the ground also of fairness in the matter of finances of these local authorities, on the ground that they have

    2629
    not the resources to fall back upon which other places are said to have—that the right thing to do is quite clearly to give similar treatment to councils and local authorities. So far as we can do it within the terms of the Money Resolution in respect of this Bill, we should do it by continuing the £22 1s. subsidy for the ordinary house, corresponding not exactly, but as nearly as we—we not being the Government—can get to the £24 given in the case of development corporation houses.
    In those circumstances, I move the Amendment. I hope that when we next meet the right hon. Gentleman will have thought the matter over with great care and be able to say to us, "Well, I did not think very much of this when I saw it on the Paper, but I was profoundly and deeply touched by the speech made to me so late at night. I have come to the conclusion that you really were right, although the Amendment did not quite do you justice." It is a small point I hope we should be able to dispose of as such, but I rather hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to get up now and dismiss all the councils of all the new towns in 60 seconds. That would be a bit too much.
    Mr. Sparks: I should like to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in the case he has made this evening and to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point of view which is being put forward, because it seems quite clear that an anomaly does arise here.
    It may have arisen through the Minister not being aware of its existence, but it is really absurd to have an area of a local authority containing the development corporation side by side with the local authority and to grant a subsidy to the development corporation of £24 per house but to the local authority only £10 and, at the end of 12 months, nothing at all. In many cases the local authority is an auxiliary to the development corporation and as the new town development corporations—
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS
The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Cinematograph (Children) Regulation, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 1131), dated 22nd July, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be annulled.
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that the Minister is about to withdraw the present Statutory Instrument and promulgate another. In view of this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Prayer.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It has not been moved.

TEACHERS' SALARIES, SCOTLAND
10.2 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Teachers' Salaries (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 1301), dated 17th August, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd August, be annulled.
The purpose of the Regulations is twofold. They seek to prescribe the first two of seven increases in salary to be granted to women teachers in pursuance of the general policy of establishing equal pay for men and women. With that purpose, we on this side of the House are in complete agreement.
The Regulations, however, seek to attain another end. They prescribe two new scales for men holding the teachers' technical certificate in physical education and certain other subjects, who do not enter into training before 1st January next year. While we support the Regulations in their principal aim, we condemn them completely and without qualification in their second purpose. In our view, they seek to achieve two entirely different ends in one step, just as the Government so often seek to walk in two opposite directions at one and the same time.
The two new scales which have to be introduced for future entrants to teaching in the subjects named have lower maxima

2631
than the existing scales. The difference in the maximum of Scale Ina compared with the existing Scale III is £50, or approximately £1 a week. That is a serious reduction. The difference in the maximum of Scale IVa compared with existing Scale IV is £15. It may be said that that is not quite so serious. However, if we have a Tory Government imposing taxation on every nook and cranny they can find in every household, looking into every place where they may find a little domestic utility on which to inflict tax, then even a reduction of £15 in the maximum is bound to worry the teaching profession.
The Regulations also do this. While they increase the salaries for the women they also seek to achieve a reduction for certain men teachers. Whether this is deliberate or not, I know not; but having heard the views of some hon. Members on the other side of the House I can imagine, with some justification, knowing their opposition to the principle of equal pay among men and women teachers that there is some design in this reduction of the salaries of certain men at the same time as the salaries of women are being increased to implement the principle which so many hon. Members on the other side of the House oppose. There is no doubt that doing these two things at the same time is casting odium on the implementation of the principle of equal pay for men and women. It has created hostility. There can be no argument about that, and no one is better aware of that fact than the Joint Under-Secretary of State. We object to the Regulations on that ground.
There is a sort of defence. In Circular 310 we are told that there was a difficulty in implementing the principle of equal pay because of the structure of the existing scales. These existing scales, it should be pointed out, allow men who hold the Teacher's Technical Certificate to proceed to the maximum for the graduate teachers but keep the women who hold that certificate on the same maximum as that of the Scale IV non-graduate teachers. That is a defence, and, in my view, it is a mighty poor defence indeed, because it involves at least two distinct breaches in the existing arrangements and in a promise which was made on the Floor of the House.
2632
First, that excuse means that the Government are now seeking to revise—in an indirect fashion, perhaps, but, nevertheless, to revise—a negotiated salary scale. These negotiations, as we and the Joint Under-Secretary of State know, are long and protracted. They are engaged in by representatives of the teaching profession and also representatives of the local authorities. Their result is accepted on all sides in good faith, and it is assumed that when the salary scale has been negotiated that salary will be paid to the teachers affected until a new revision of salary scales takes place at the appropriate time. That appropriate time is 1957.
Therefore, in the middle of the period which the negotiated scale was supposed to cover, the Government now step in and, by means of this circular, revise that agreed salary scale which is to operate until the end of 1957. That is breaking an agreement and it is not to the credit of any Government that it should indulge in a practice of that nature.
Further, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us some months ago that the Government were prepared to implement the principle of equal pay for men and women he did so on the understanding in all parts of the House that that new arrangement of equal pay had to be implemented on the existing salary scales. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. These Regulations, having betrayed the teachers, are now going to break the promise which the Chancellor made in good faith to the House and which was accepted by the House on that understanding.
The third ground on which we condemn the Regulations is that they could prejudice the negotiations between the teachers and the authorities on the existing scales which are bound by statute to take place in 1957. These are three very serious fractures indeed on the part of the Government. We must consider very carefully what steps we can take in future, in view of the Government's actions.
It might be said that because of the difficulty stated in Circular 310 there was no other way out. There was another way out and that way was presented to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It seemed to me an easy and simple way out. The women who are affected are

2633
those women who are paid under Scales IX, X and XI, and the representatives of the teachers put forward what seems to me, and what must seem to all fair-minded people, a simple and easy solution. They suggested that in the salary year ending next March, these women should he given an increase of 2½ per cent. on their existing salaries, and that in the salary year ending March, 1957, they should be given an increment of 5 per cent. That was a purely interim arrangement. There was nothing final about it, but it was made so that there would be no prejudice in the salary negotiations that must take place in 1957.
There is another serious objection to the Regulations. This downward revision comes at a time when the Secretary of State has told us that teachers are in short supply. In fact, the whole system of Scottish education is threatened at this moment by the shortage of teachers. Yet, at a time when we have that shortage which, as I think the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has admitted, will be more acute in the future, we are asking more people to come into the teaching profession to enjoy the reduced salaries which the Regulations now propose to introduce. That is not a very hopeful prospect. Whereas recently one local authority in England has decided to increase its salary scales over a range of subjects, in Scotland we are proposing to reduce them. Yet we expect to get more teachers into the profession.
I have not time to go into the history of this matter, but it may be said that some of the subjects, such as physical education, woodwork, cookery dressmaking and needlework—
Mr. E. G. Willis: Cooking?
Mr. Rankin: Yes, cooking. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State gets his steak burned as a result of this reduction in the salaries of cookery teachers. These are important subjects because education has to cater for more than the academic side of life. It has also to educate the child for nonacademic life. The first things we use are our fingers. They are our source of learning. We learn by doing sooner than we start to learn by reading or by spelling. So these are the fundamental subjects in
2634
the development of the child which the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing to penalise.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The hon. Gentleman knows that no male teacher does any teaching of cooking in Scotland.
Mr. Rankin: No, but he teaches woodwork and physical training, and women are engaged in cookery, dressmaking, needlework and other subjects, and some of the men will be affected under these Regulations.
We are opposing these Regulations because we think they are unfair to the teacher, they are unjust to the child, and they will be detrimental to the structure of Scottish education which, for so many years, has occupied so proud a place in the affections of the Scottish people.
10.19 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) has gone into the somewhat complicated details of this question and I do not propose to repeat his arguments. I want to refer mainly to the psychological issues which the Government appear to have ignored. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome the somewhat belated start in the implementation of equal pay. If we accept the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the recent education debate, however, I understand that there are members of the Government party who are opposed to equal pay. Yet we assume that the Government are anxious to implement the unanimous decision of this House. We always thought, in our innocence, that equal pay meant revision of salaries in an upward direction and not a downward revision of certain salary scales.
I should like to quote, not the organ of the E.I.S., but the organ of the English N.U.T., which on 22nd July, referring to the Scottish issue, said:
"The Secretary of State for Scotland appears to have some strange ideas about the way equal pay in the teaching profession should operate."
It goes on to refer to the machinery of negotiation. I consider there is room for improvement here, but we cannot discuss that at any great length in this debate.

2635
The article goes on to say that the Secretary of State:
"… has badly bungled the operation of equal pay as it affects two categories of teachers in which there is no strict parallel between men and women. He proposes that the maximum of two of the men's scales should be reduced for new entrants and that the new scales should be the scales for both men and women. To the N.U.T.…"
and, I think, to the E.I.S.:
"… this is a travesty of equal pay. Neither in spirit nor intention has equal pay been envisaged as other than the raising of women's scales to men's. No responsible advocate of equal pay has ever suggested or contemplated a lowering, even slight, of any men's rates."
That sums up the situation fairly well. The article concludes by saying:
"We believe that to persist in the particular proposal which has been so roundly condemned would be a blunder which would have very serious repercussions on the general teaching body, and, moreover, on the confidence of the Scottish teachers in their judgment of the Secretary of State."
That is a fair summary of the position in which we find ourselves.
The history of the proposals is rather interesting. Draft Regulations were introduced last June. The gist of them was published in Circular 310. The draft Regulations were published in mid-June just when the schools were going on holiday—rather significant timing of the Circular and publication of the draft Regulations. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary has taken careful note of what I have said, because I propose to make a suggestion to him about this in a moment.
When the draft Regulations were introduced on 23rd June, it was made clear that representations about them had to be made between that date and 2nd August, which was the 40-day period. That was the very period when, because of school holidays, members of the teaching profession would be dispersed and would, therefore, have some difficulty in organising opposition. I suggest that draft Regulations should in future be issued when schools are in session so that the teachers can become organised and make their representations in an adequate fashion.
The position is set out in Circular 310 as the Secretary of State sees it, but there is no reference at all in it to the E.I.S. proposals which my hon. Friend has underlined. It merely says that the
2636
Secretary of State, after careful investigation and study, has accepted the proposals of the local authorities As we have said, the effect is a reduction of two men's scales at the maximum.
Let me say bluntly that I hold very little brief for the E.I.S. as an organisation, for it has about as much militancy as a petrified rabbit, but the Opposition are concerned about the future of education generally in Scotland, and that is why we are raising the subject tonight. My hon. Friend called attention to the basic problem in the Scottish education system, which is the shortage of teachers. No one need wonder why there is a shortage of teachers, not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
No industrial worker, no trade union would tolerate the conditions of work and the extraneous duties imposed on teachers or expected of them. No industrial worker would tolerate the miserable salaries which in our view are forever lagging behind the rising cost of living. I believe that teachers' organisations are greatly to blame for that and successive Governments have been encouraged by the weakness of organized teachers. Encouraged by that, the Government hatchet men have moved in and cut salary scales as a step towards the implementation of equal pay. Next week we will have a further instalment of the same process when we debate the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, which will impose a further cut in teachers' salaries. This comes at a time when all informed opinion in the country is saying that in the highly competitive world in which we now live the basic and crying need is for educated men and women yet here we are making cuts all along the line in teachers' salaries and teachers' conditions. When will any Government realise that a teacher is at least as valuable as a doctor or dentist and infinitely more valuable than any lawyer, and pay them accordingly?
I do not propose to say any more than that. I believe that the timing of the Regulations has been a major blunder. I believe that the psychological approach of the Government has been a bigger blunder. While we obviously cannot vote against the Regulations—we have to accept or reject them in toto, which is the dilemma in

2637
which we find ourselves—let the Joint Under-Secretary not misunderstand our position. We deeply regret and deplore that in the implementation of equal pay the Joint Under-Secretary will go down in history as the man who urged implementation on the principle of a cut in the salaries of two sections of the male teachers.
10.28 p.m.
Sir Ian Clark Hutchison: I intervene for a few minutes to refer to the position of the teachers of technical subjects, one of the grades affected by the Regulations. The Explanatory Note to the Regulations makes it clear that the proposal to reduce the new maximum scales will not affect existing teachers, but will affect those who are to enter this particular grade. However, it has the most unfortunate effect of making the teachers who are at present engaged in teaching metal work, mechanical drawing, and so forth, feel that their particular status has been reduced.
The Joint Under-Secretary knows, because I have had a great deal of correspondence with him on this matter, that I have interviewed a number of teachers affected. I feel that now is the appropriate time for a review or inquiry into the position of this particular branch of the teaching profession. There has been considerable development in technical teaching since pre-war days and in both junior and senior secondary schools the Chapter VI teachers engaged in metal work, wood work, mechanical and technical drawing have wider responsibilities and greater duties to perform than they used to have.
I do not think that the present grading or the standard training course for these teachers is satisfactory, nor that the diploma is commensurate with the duties which they now perform. It is a matter which should be considered. We are all agreed that it is very important that we should do everything possible to encourage technical developments both in our schools and in further education, because the future of the country depends upon that and upon our skill. I therefore feel that the position of this rather, what I may call, almost forgotten branch of the profession should now be looked at.
I would ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to pay very serious consideration to this point, and to try to do something to have the status and salaries
2638
of these teachers considered, and, I hope, improved, before the next triennial review takes place in 1957. This is a very complicated subject indeed, which I have very great difficulty in understanding. I have had a great deal of correspondence on it, into which I will not go tonight. It is a matter which ought to be considered in the interests not only of the teachers but of the whole future of technical education in Scotland. I ask my hon. Friend to consider it very carefully, and I hope that he will meet me and discuss it in greater detail at an early date.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) seems to think that those engaged in the teaching of technical subjects in our schools in Scotland have been forgotten and overlooked. I do not know whether he has read the Regulations. Far from them having been overlooked and forgotten, part of the complaint of hon. Members on this side of the House is that they have been very much remembered by the Secretary of State and others, because after these Regulations come into force new entrants will be subject to a lower maximum than those already in the profession.
If he was sincere in trying to do something for these people, I should have thought that the hon. Member would be pressing his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and asking why, recognising that there is a review due so soon, he takes this opportunity to cut the maximum salaries for those engaged in a task so important as the hon. Gentleman has led us to believe he thinks it to be—at any rate this evening. They have not been overlooked, nor forgotten, and that is part of the case we are making this evening.
Sir I. Clark Hutchison: My point is that I think they have a case which ought to be looked at. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that.
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may have made an unfortunate choice of words, because I took a note of them. He said that they had been forgotten and overlooked. The fact is that the Motion deals with them and draws attention to the fact that the maximum for new entrants will in future be lower, which is a very serious problem. All those whose scales are related to such maxima

2639
will equally be subject to the same reduction. It is a very serious matter indeed, and goes beyond the question of the men.
We are dealing here with the introduction of equal pay, and I should have thought that one of the first things the Secretary of State would have sought in this connection would have been the complete agreement of the professional body concerned. Well, it must be obvious to him now that he has not got that agreement, and he has certainly divided the profession in Scotland very considerably, because very few people are satisfied with what has come out of this, even the women themselves. I have had letters from many women who are concerned about the way this step has been taken, and who would have preferred that in reviewing these salaries, as he insists on doing, more importance should have been given to their claim regarding dependants' allowances, and so on; and secondly, that there should certainly have been no reduction of the maxima for particular grades.
On that second point, the position is really shocking, because what the Secretary of State is doing is reducing the maximum payable, not to teachers already in the profession, but for those who are voiceless, those who have still to come in, and who cannot therefore themselves complain about what is happening to them. This step strikes at those who are not yet in the profession, and it does not make it sure that more of them will enter the profession.
As well as involving the financial reduction these Regulations automatically reduce the status of this section of education. I have had communications from people concerned to the effect that they feel that this involves a considerable reduction in status. The differential between them and graduates and Chapter V people is considerably widened. There can be no argument but that financial considerations and status go hand in hand.
Therefore the Secretary of State is striking at one of the important parts of that school to which so much importance has been attached, the junior secondary school. There is no doubt that this is keenly felt, not only by those who will be affected later, but by those already engaged in that branch of the profession. I have had many complaints that they are being placed on a lower scale. In-
2640
evitably the subjects taught will drop in educational prestige.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State turned down the pro tern suggestions made by the Educational Institute of Scotland, which would have gone part of the way towards equal pay, and at the same time withheld any reconsideration of scales until the right and expected time 1957. We need teachers in all these branches, and teachers should be the propagandists for their own profession, but they have no enthusiasm for encouraging others to enter it. It is indeed a serious blow.
It is the firm conviction of many people that in the proposals to establish equal pay it is wholly wrong to lower the salary rate for certain men and then apply that reduced scale as the maximum for all the other Chapter VI teachers. When one of my hon. Friends mentioned teachers of domestic science the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland shook his head. Is not it true that the scale for women domestic science teachers is related to the scales we are discussing, and so they are directly affected?
Mr. Henderson Stewart Mr. Henderson Stewart indicated assent.
Mr. Ross: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me now. The position concerning domestic science teachers in Ayrshire is chronic.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Regulations increase the pay of women domestic science teachers.
Mr. Ross: Yes, but if the proposal had been related to the old maximum it would have been so much better. It is being related to a maximum which is reduced. Of course the rates for all women teachers are being increased. We realise that, but in view of the reduction in the maximum for the Chapter VI teachers, to which the others were related, the amount they would have received themselves is automatically reduced. There is a cut in both.
The position is that it is difficult enough to get people to enter this branch of the service. There is a long period of training involved, and it is costly. As I said, it plays an important part in the junior secondary schools, not only as vocational training, but as a realistic approach to home-making and citizenship. I have no doubt that the Regulations will have an effect on recruitment. The Government have done the worst possible thing.

2641
We had hoped to get expressions of opinion from hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had outspoken comments from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn). He really should be opposing the Regulations tonight on the fundamental issue of the introduction of equal pay, because he is flatly opposed to equal pay and the bringing of women up to the standard of men in the teaching profession. The same applies to the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) and the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison). Where are they? What are they going to do? Are they going to force a Division on this matter tonight? I hope they are not going to remain silent but that they will follow their expressed convictions into the Lobby tonight.
There are certain benefits for many of the women in the profession, but we wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland had been much more statesmanlike in his approach to this matter, that he had considered the whole of the teaching profession, and had tried to take the profession with him in securing agreed scales.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. E. G. Willis: When these Regulations were introduced I received a large amount of correspondence violently protesting against the changes which were made in respect of Chapter VI teachers. I want, therefore, not to follow all the arguments which have been made by my hon. Friends but to ask one or two questions.
First, I want to know why this reduction is being made at this time. We have had no really satisfactory answer—at least, not in the correspondence which I have had with the Joint Under-Secretary of State. Is it that these subjects are considered to be unimportant? I should have thought that some of these subjects were important. They seem to me to be of a character that develop the faculties which should be developed if we are to survive in the modern world. In fact, our survival almost depends upon the development of the ability to use one's hands skilfully and carefully, as well as upon the acquisition and use of technical knowledge. In terms of the importance of the acquisition of skill alone, it seems to me that it is a very retrograde step, at this moment in the fortunes of this
2642
country, to commence to reduce the status of these teachers.
The argument that the women teachers are not affected is not very sound if, in introducing equal pay, we reduce the pay of the men teachers, then the women teachers are getting equal pay at a lower level. That seems to me to be a most mean and niggardly attitude for the Government to adopt.
The second question that I want to ask is this. If the Government do not think that these subjects are unimportant, is it that the Government are dissatisfied with the teachers who have been carrying out this work during the past years? I know a number of these men—in fact, I am very closely acquainted with some of the men who have been engaged in this particular type of teaching—and I cannot think that they are unsatisfactory. These people have been doing a very fine job of work. That being so, why set about reducing their status? This surely is a very poor reward if, as the hon. Gentleman indicates, he is very satisfied with what they are doing. This is the first time that I have heard of a Government expressing satisfaction by lowering the status and the future emoluments of the profession with which they are satisfied.
This proposal is not justified at all. To use the excuse of bringing women's salaries to the level of men's salaries as an opportunity for reducing the wages and status of men in a certain section is not playing the game. I am surprised that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) has not spoken in the debate. He made a great speech during the education debate when he spoke about the "three S's". He had a great deal to say about what the teachers wanted—salary, status and another requirement which I forget for the moment. The hon. Gentleman ought to be protesting against this proposal. These Regulations attack precisely those things which the hon. Gentleman thought were so important when he spoke in the education debate. If he really believes what he said in that debate, he ought to join hon. Members on this side of the House in protesting against these Regulations.
I will conclude now because I know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to explain the matter. I do not think that he will be able to explain it satisfactorily, because I still think

2643
that this attitude is a most mean and niggardly one for the Government to adopt. It is thoroughly unjustified, particularly as the cost of living is going up month by month, and it is bound to cause an enormous amount of dissatisfaction in the teaching profession.
10.45 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: It has been made perfectly clear by hon. Members on this side of the House how strongly they feel about the second provision in these Regulations. We have heard one lone voice from the benches opposite. The hon. Member made some representation, but he made it very mildly indeed.
We have said quite clearly that we welcome this beginning of the implementation of equal pay. I wish that some hon. Members opposite had got up and said the same thing. Of course, if they had, they would have found themselves in a very difficult position after the speeches which they made in the education debate a few weeks ago.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) has been mentioned, but I think that the fiercest attack against equal pay came from the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison). It is evident that the few hon. Members opposite who are present will stay glued to their seats because they have nothing good to say about the first provision in the Regulations and are afraid to say very much about the second provision.
It has been said by hon. Members on this side of the House that the second provision will have detrimental effects in a number of ways. It will not only lower the status of those entering the profession to teach technical subjects, such as educational handwork, commerce, music and physical education, but also that of those already in the profession. I go further and say that not only will the status of that category of teachers be lowered by these Regulations, but that the status of all teachers, particularly men teachers.
What, in effect, does this provision do? I have compared the scales very carefully. Scale Ma is to take the place of Scale III for those who enter a training college after January, 1956. My hon. Friend said that people in that category would lose about £1 a week. I have worked it out and find that, even before they reach their maximum salary, each new entrant
2644
will have lost £275. After teaching for another twenty years—and many of them will teach for much longer—each of those new entrants will have lost an additional £1,000. That seems to me to be very serious indeed.
We have been told, time and time again, how difficult it is to attract people into the teaching profession in these days of full employment and that men in particular prefer to take the attractive jobs available outside the profession. If we compare the increases made in teachers' salaries with the rise in the cost of living, we find that they have not kept in line with rising costs. It is because of this great difference in salary and because of the great financial loss over their teaching years that we oppose the Part II provisions of these Regulations.
Under the heading "IVa," which is to take the place of "IV," new entrants will have lost, by the time they reach their maximum, £420, and in twenty years' time they will have lost an additional £300. I have made some inquiries and find that at present there are only about 20 such teachers in the schools. It seems to me that the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to create difficulties for himself and to sow dissension among teachers.
It is not only that the new entrants will be paid less and that their status will be lowered. I taught in schools where there were graduate women teachers on one scale of salary and non-graduate women teachers on another scale, and there was always dissension about the difference between these scales. This dissension will grow rather than lessen as these numbers increase, and that will be detrimental to the best interests of education in Scotland.
A most important point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and touched on by other of my hon. Friends, is that the next review is to be made in 1957. The review takes a considerable time, for most detailed attention is given to every aspect of salaries. It seems to me that that would have been the time to consider whether any changes ought to be made. It has been very foolish of the Government, to put it at its lowest, to use these Regulations, which are to begin the implementation of equal pay, to introduce the second provisions, which will do great damage to the teaching profession.
I will make a suggestion to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. When I was Joint Under-Secretary of State I had

2645
something to do with the 1951 Regulations. I found that it was of the greatest importance to listen to the points which were put forward to me by the National Joint Council, and because of strong arguments which were made to me I ultimately changed certain Regulations to suit them. I think the Joint Under-Secretary would have been wise to have done that on this occasion.
I think that the present method of deciding what the salaries of teachers are to be is a very bad method indeed. I think that it is bad that the question of teachers' salaries should be brought, willy nilly, into the political arena. That happens almost every time we have Regulations. During my experience—and I use this as an example—I suggested to the officials in the Department of Education that if I had anything to do with further Regulations I should urge that there should be a change in the procedure. The Joint Under-Secretary knows that the English Minister is in a position different from that of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He gets the recommendations from the Burnham Committee and he can either accept or reject those recommendations—but he cannot amend them. The Secretary of State can amend them. I think it would be an improvement for the Secretary of State to be in the same position as the English Minister.
I do not think that goes far enough, however. Salaries of those employed in the National Health Service are decided by the Whitley Council procedure. The two sides get together and if agreement cannot be reached the matter goes to arbitration. These salaries are never brought up as a subject for debate on the Floor of the House. I suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary of State should have it considered quickly whether it would not be better for the salaries of teachers in Scotland to be on the same footing in this respect as the salaries of those employed in the Health Service. In considering that point the Joint Under-Secretary would require to have discussions with employers and employees. If the hon. Gentleman could reach agreement with both sides in this matter we should be doing much to help to raise the status of teachers in Scotland, and we should certainly be taking
2646
the question of their salaries out of the political arena.
If the Joint Under-Secretary is thinking first of what is best for education in Scotland, he will persuade the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, not to carry out the provisions which apply to technical teachers. I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that also for another reason, which has been touched upon by my hon. Friends. We as a nation are in a very difficult position. In spite of Tory claims to prosperity, the nation is in a serious position compared with many others in the world. We must provide the very best for our schoolchildren, to ensure that they in turn provide the very best for the nation.
This applies particularly to technical matters. The teachers who are to have their salaries reduced must have a fairly long training before they become teachers. They are doing very important work, particularly those who do educational handwork. These teachers develop in children skills of the greatest importance to us if we are to secure the best technicians and craftsmen, and the Government must realise that we need the best people if we are to compete successfully in world markets.
Representations on this matter have come from many sources, and not merely from men teachers. These Regulations have caused a split in teaching organisations in Scotland. That is very bad, because when an organisation is split one does not secure the harmony among teachers which is necessary if we want to get the best out of the profession. I can understand the feeling that exists among some of the men. They feel that if technical teachers have been attacked this time in order to fix the rate for the job, they do not know when the turn of the graduate and the Chapter V man will come. The Scottish Schoolmasters' Association has taken a completely wrong line in this matter by breaking away from the Educational Institute of Scotland. They should realise, as workers—and I hope that they call themselves workers—that workers never get anywhere if they are in divided organisations. If they are really perturbed about these things they are going the very worst way about bringing about any benefits or any improvements. I do urge the Joint Under Secretary, because of the case which has been made—I do not think it has been

2647
exaggerated—to consider the points which I have made, and also to consider some new method of coming to decisions on teachers' salaries.
11.0 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): I have been very much impressed by what the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has said. She speaks, of course, with very great authority on these matters. I am not, unfortunately, able to accede to her suggestion that we should withdraw these Regulations, for reasons which I shall explain.
When the hon. Lady asks that we should review the system of arriving at teachers' salaries, that suggestion—coming from her—merits earnest examination and of course that will be given; we shall examine what she has said. She will, of course, know that the present system, the National Joint Council, is based on the 1946 Act, introduced by Mr. Tom Johnston, has been operated without amendment since then, and, to my certain knowledge, without any criticism from the teachers' organisation the E.I.S. I am not aware of any criticism by that body. Therefore, when the hon. Lady pleads for a change she will realise that we have to consult with the teachers' main body—
Miss Herbison: I said so.
Mr. Stewart: I know that—and I do not anticipate that it would be particularly favourable to a change. Nevertheless we shall examine what the hon. Lady has said very carefully and without delay, although I do not hold out a great deal of hope in view of the circumstances I have described.
It is very difficult to know how to answer this debate. It has been most useful, I think. I welcome it because there has been a great deal of controversy about these Regulations and there has been a great deal of misunderstanding. The most wild figures have been thrown about in the columns of the Press, some of which I shall perhaps be able to correct. Therefore, it is all to the good that we should have this public debate about the Regulations and that I should be able to answer the question put so bluntly and properly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)— "What is the purpose of this? Why have
2648
you done it? What is the reason?" It is right that the hon. Member should ask that, and that one should have to reply.
This matter, as the House knows, started with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th January, to which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) referred, to the effect that equal pay was to be gradually introduced in the non-industrial Civil Service. On 1st February, a few days later, my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the National Joint Council on Scotland to the Chancellor's statement and invited the Council to consider the question of equal pay for teachers.
Mr. Rankin: Could the hon. Gentleman say if there was a single hon. Member in the House of Commons on that day who imagined that that statement was not made on the understanding that equal pay for men and women would be introduced on the basis of the existing scales, and not on reduced scales?
Mr. Stewart: I do not know what the views of hon. Members were, but if the hon. Member will be so kind as to look at the terms of the Chancellor's statement, he will see the answer to his question. I invite him to look at it.
Mr. Ross: Quote it.
Mr. Stewart: If I am asked to do so, of course I will. What the hon. Member is suggesting to the House is that there was nothing in the statement to suggest that there might be adjustments—
Mr. Rankin: Or reductions.
Mr. Stewart: Very well. I will read the statement—not all of it, because it was a long statement. My right hon. Friend said:
For certain special grades … a compromise is proposed by which the new scales eventually to be applied to both sexes would be higher than the present women's scales but somewhat lower than the scales at present in force for the relatively small number of men serving in these grades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 31–2.]
I am not making much of this, but I am saying that the kind of interpretation put upon the promise—as the hon. Member put it—of the Chancellor was not strictly accurate. I do not want to make too much of it.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that any section of opinion in the country which supported equal pay thought for one moment that the implementation of equal pay would

2649
mean reduced salaries for even a tiny minority?
Mr. Stewart: I quite believe the hon. Gentleman took that view, and I am not pressing this point but only pointing out that that statement was made publicly by the Chancellor, and from that moment, therefore, it was impossible for persons not to realise that there might, in implementing this very difficult matter, have to be temporary adjustments. I will show the House exactly what I meant by that.
It was, of course, open to the National Joint Council to make what recommendations it thought fit on this matter of equal pay. It might have said that the work of women teachers was not equal to that of men, but it did not do that. It might have recommended that it was not desirable that they should be brought up to the same scale but the Council did not do that. Both sides of the Council agreed that the basic scales for women teachers should be assimilated to those of men, by annual instalments over a period of seven years. There is no argument on that.
The trouble arises because the two sides of the National Joint Council failed to agree on two matters that were associated, as it were, with the main principle. Those two matters concerned family allowances and male non-graduate technical teachers. Perhaps I should say what this implementation of equal pay in Scotland will cost. When equal pay is in full operation the total additional annual cost of teachers' salaries in Scotland, on the basis of the present men's scales, will be £2·6 million. The cost of equay pay in Scotland when fully implemented will be about £600,000 a year more than the eleven-eightieths of the corresponding cost in England. That is largely because Scotland has a higher proportion of women teachers, since one man's group—the non-graduate primary male teacher—is virtually non-existent in Scotland.
Mr. Willis: It would be equally interesting to know what it would have cost not to have reduced the Chapter VI scale.
Mr. Stewart: So these were the two matters on which the Council found themselves in disagreement, and they decided that the best way to deal with it was not to try to arrive at a conclusion, but to put to the Secretary of State these two divergent views.
2650
In the case of family allowances the teachers wanted to associate equal pay with the payment of family allowances, and the employers objected. In the case of non-graduate male teachers, the employers wanted to face the issue right away. The E.I.S., as the hon. Member has shown, proposed a temporary expedient of a 2½ per cent. increase. I will say a word on each of those matters, because they are very important.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) has been greatly concerned about the first—the linking of equal pay with some kind of family allowances. That is not included in the Regulations, and I should like to say why we did not include it, and why we turned it down. The introduction of allowances as part of the salaries structure would, I suggest, in effect be a breach of the principle of equal pay, since family allowances would reintroduce differences in salary, and the differences would be based, not on the merit of one teacher as against the other, or on what one teacher did compared with the other, nor would they even be based on sex. They would be based entirely on the number of dependants the teacher, male or female, had. And, of course, that situation would be open to the same objection as has been made to differential salaries for men and women namely, that in times of under-employment employers would tend, or even be encouraged, to withhold employment from those to whom the higher level of remuneration had been given. That is a real danger which we had to consider.
In any case I suggest to the House that it is at least doubtful whether, as a principle, it is the function of the employers, whoever the employers be, to adjust wages to meet family and social responsibilities of particular employees, and it would be wrong to use public funds to introduce the provision of family and dependants' allowances for one occupational group only. The House will remember that such allowances are in any event made now, directly or indirectly, through the social services by children's allowances and by Income Tax concessions, and so on.
It is worth remembering, too, that the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service and for teachers in England and Wales was not, and is not, accompanied by any special provision for family and dependants' allowances, and I should add, for the information of the House, that teachers in England and Wales have

2651
definitely taken the view that equal pay and family allowances are two entirely different, independent things.
Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to escape on arguments which we have never advanced from this side of the House.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not think family allowances arise on this Motion.
Mr. Stewart: This aspect arises because it was one of the two matters upon which the members of the National Joint Council were unable to reach agreement, but I do not want to trespass against the rules of order, and I want to deal with the main issue raised by the Opposition about the non-graduate men.
On that aspect of the matter, as I have said, two alternative proposals were proposed. The E.I.S. proposed that there should not be any change in the salary scales now but—recognising that something must be done to bring the pay of women somewhere near that of the men—that there should be a temporary increase of 2½ per cent. The employers took the view that we must grasp this nettle now.
May I first let the House know something about the numbers of teachers involved in this matter? We are talking here about what are called in technical jargon Chapter VI Teachers of Technical Subjects, and we are talking about teachers, not in further education, but in the schools. There are 5,806 such teachers in Scottish schools now, male and female, 2,872 of whom are women and about the same number, 2,934, men. Of that 2,934 about 1,000 are graduates or graduate equivalents and are therefore not affected by these new Regulations; so that the number we are concerned with here is 1,900 men non-graduate technical teachers.
I want to tell the House how the total of 2,934 men technical teachers are distributed among the various subjects. There are 661 art teachers, all graduates or the equivalent. There are 36 teachers of applied science and technology, and most of them are graduates or the equivalent. There are 58 who teach agricultural and rural subjects. There are 297 who teach music, 558 who give physical education, 125 who teach commercial subjects, and 1,199 who teach educational handwork.
2652
When talking about technical teachers people are really thinking not about teachers of art, certainly not teachers of gymnastics, but of the men who teach boys and girls in the schools handwork, craft work, woodwork and so on. I hope that the House will realise that when talking about these teachers we are talking about approximately 1,200 persons. It is that figure—
Mr. Willis: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not trying to justify this action by saying that the number involved is small.
Mr. Stewart: Not at all. I am stating the figures involved.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North told us some interesting history. Before 1951, non-graduate and graduate teachers went to the same salary maximum, one for men and one for women. In April, 1951, because of the need to encourage graduation, differential maxima were recommended by the Council. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North accepted that, and introduced legislation at that time which provided differential scales for graduate and non-graduate women; but she did not introduce at that time any similar differentials for men.
Therefore there arose an anomaly, and since I have been at the Scottish Office I have not heard the end of it. Women have all the time been saying, "You put our graduate scales higher than our non-graduate scales, but you did not do so for men. You let graduates and non-graduates reach the same maximum. It is not fair."
In the 1954 triennial review we suggested getting rid of this anomaly by giving lower increases to non-graduate men than to graduate men. That seemed an easy way to correct an obvious anomaly; but it was not popular. We were under great pressure, and, always trying to be agreeable, we withdrew the proposal. I think that was a pity, and many teachers took the same view.
The introduction of the question of equal pay threw this anomaly into sharper relief. That is the problem we have to face. There was only one of two things which could be done whatever Government was in power, or whatever Joint Council examined it. One thing was that all men and women, graduate and non-graduate, must rise to the men's graduate maximum. That would be equal pay. But that would destroy

2653
all incentive to graduation, which was the point of the action taken in 1951, and rightly taken. The alternative was to establish new, and lower, men's non-graduate scales to which the women's non-graduate scales would be assimilated. Whether we liked it or not, no other opening was possible to us, apart from the temporary expedient, to which I have referred.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tie what the Government have done to what was done in 1951, and says there is no other way out. Non-graduate men with no degrees go up to the graduate level, and this could have been done the same way without touching their levels at all.
Mr. Stewart: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Lady. Either she wants non-graduate men and graduate men to go to the same maximum or she does not. She demonstrated clearly in 1951 that she does not agree with that principle; she thinks there should be different maxima. So do I. That is why these Regulations are now being introduced.
Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman means for the women.
Mr. Stewart: I mean for both.
We must aim—and I hope that the House will accept this principle—at implementing the idea that graduates should be paid on a higher scale than non-graduates—both men and women. I stand solidly upon that principle. The employers recommended that course—that is to say, establishing new and lower men's non-graduate scales, to which the women's non-graduates could be assimilated and therefore reach equality of pay. The employers recommended the latter course, with the proviso, which the House knows about, that existing men non-graduate technical teachers should continue to be paid their existing scales. The teachers asked, as a purely interim measure, that the men's scales should be left untouched and that the women non-graduates should receive an increase of 2½ per cent. We all know that.
Now, why did we take the view of the employers rather than of the teachers in this matter? First, it was necessary to eliminate the anomaly in the scales, otherwise, if we had not done that, equal pay would not have been introduced. There is no reply to that; that is a statement of absolute fact. We wanted equal pay introduced. The teachers'
2654
proposal merely postponed consideration of the anomaly. Indeed, the teachers' proposal—and I would invite the hon. Lady to consider this—would have aggravated the difficulty, because non-graduate women might have assumed that there was at least a possibility of their rising to the graduate maximum. It would have been a pity if they had got that view in their minds.
It seemed to us essential to preserve the differential between the maxima for non-graduate and graduate women, otherwise the 1951 women's relativities—now I am becoming a little technical—especially introduced by the hon. Lady to encourage graduate recruitment, would have been destroyed. I should add that the teachers' side has never at any time suggested to us that these relativities should be destroyed, and I think they should be maintained.
If the anomaly was to be eliminated and the women's relativities preserved, new scales had to be introduced for non-graduate men. There was no alternative to embodying the same relativities between the men's non-graduate scales and graduate scales as those between the women's non-graduate scales and graduate scales. I hope that the House follows that. This meant that non-graduate men would no longer rise to the graduate maximum, and in our view that is a proper principle, as graduates ought to be rewarded.
I will give just a few figures of men's graduate scales, the former men's technical non-graduate scales and the new scales. For graduate men, the former scale was £520 to £810; the new scale is the same. For non-graduate men, Chapter VI—this is the bulk of them—previously the scale was £480 to £810; under the new Regulations it will be £495 —an increase at the beginning of £15—rising to £760. For non-graduate men, Article 47 BB—the 20 men the hon. Lady was speaking of, who are further education teachers, and are only incidental in schools—the previous salary was £470 to £730; it will now be £465 to £715.
There have been a number of criticisms, one being that this was not the right time to alter the scales, in the middle of a triennium. I quite see that argument, but I do ask the House to consider that had we taken the teachers' suggestion, that would have been another way of sliding out of the difficulty and postponing the trouble. Yet sooner or

2655
later we had to face this position. We should have had to face up to this anomaly in two years' time. I think that it was honest and straightforward to face it now.
It is true that negotiated scales have been lowered, but that was the only solution. Scales have not been lowered for non-graduate men in post and now in training. It was said that it was wrong to lower scales when the cost of living is going up. Hon. Members opposite know quite well that that is confusing matters. The proper time and place to consider the effect of the rising cost of living is at the time of the next triennium, and I have no doubt that it will be taken into account then. I should be very surprised if increases are not proposed for these technical non-graduate men and others.
I have heard it said elsewhere, though not in the House tonight, that the lowering of scales lends substance to the fear of men teachers that, under equal pay, men's scales will be assimilated with women's rather than vice versa. I give an absolutely categorical assurance about this. The new scales for non-graduate men were introduced solely because of the anomaly in the salary structure, and the Government have absolutely no intention of assimilating men's scales with those for women. Similarly, I would give the assurance that the lowering of the men's scales at the maximum was not a money-saving effort. There will in fact be no saving whatever during the period of the Regulations.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North said that this action might affect recruiting because it lowered the status. I should be very sorry if anything like that were to happen. The House might like to know what has been happening about recruitment for these technical non-graduate posts. The supply of men teachers of physical education is quite good. The supply of teachers of commercial subjects, including shorthand and typewriting, is fair. The recruitment of teachers of music has been bad but is improving, while the supply of teachers of educational handiwork is quite good.
It is not for me to say that all is well and that the prospect is bright, but it would be wrong to assume that we are not getting a fair recruitment for these posts.
Mr. William Hannan: Is not it the case that emergency training for music teachers is now being terminated, and that the prospect there is likely to be worse?
Mr. Stewart: As far as we can see the prospects are not too bad.
We were asked "Are you running down these technical teachers?" Of course we are not. I recognise that they do very valuable work, but it would be wrong and unrealistic to think of them as directly the trainers of technologists of the future. That is not what they are there for. These are men teaching children, mainly in junior secondary schools, in handiwork. They are not vocational teachers. They are not teachers of boys apprenticed to painters or carpenters. They teach those with a general interest in woodwork and metalwork. Therefore, it would not be sensible to say that this can have any real effect upon the development of technology and the higher techniques.
For these reasons, I beg the House to believe that we have done wisely in this matter. I hope that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends may feel disposed to withdraw the Motion.
11.29 p.m.
Miss Herbison: I am very sorry that we have to withdraw the Motion, and that I have not been able to—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The Motion cannot be withdrawn. The hon. Member who moved it is not here.
Miss Herbison: I was about to say that I am sorry that I cannot follow the Joint Under-Secretary. In order to demonstrate the difficulty where there is a non-graduate woman teacher of general subjects, and the non-graduate teacher of technical subjects—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot make a second speech.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [13th June].
Question negatived.

NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Williams: This is the first time in twenty-five or thirty years that I have raised in the House a matter on the Motion for Adjournment. I do so now only because I think that the War Office and the Secretary of State have been most unreasonable and lacking in humanity, and have acted without regard to the best interests of the nation and National Service men in particular.
The case that I want to raise concerns a National Service man who joined the R.A.F. on 16th February, 1954, as a volunteer for three years' service. I want to emphasise the fact that he volunteered for service. Unfortunately, after six days he was discharged as unfit, with ear trouble, but after a few weeks he was sent for by the Army and was sent to Sheffield. He visited Sheffield Barracks, which is some sixteen miles from home, on no fewer than six occasions. Finally he was sent to a specialist at a Sheffield hospital, but all this time his ear continued to discharge.
Nevertheless, this young man was called up by the Army for service in August, 1954. His medical category was so low that his service was restricted to temperate climates. He constantly complained of pain in his ear which got worse rather than better. But with the usual generosity of the Army, so far as I can make out, he was called up in August and was sent to Germany in January, 1955. To add to his trouble with his ear, he picked up, in Germany, some sort of skin disease which apparently baffled all the medical authorities within the Army.
He told me that he suffered agony, especially with his ear, week after week, but the medical officers in the Army could make no progress towards solving his problem. In these circumstances, what use could this young man be to the Army, racked as he was all the time with pain and anxiety, and deteriorating rather than improving?
I brought these facts to the notice of the Secretary of State for War early this summer, and I suggested that this young
2658
man might be released on medical grounds so that he could seek outside medical treatment. I thought that if he consulted a civilian specialist he might avoid further deterioration, and that it might be possible to secure a cure for his trouble. But that was not to be.
I received the following letter from the Secretary of State for War on 22nd July:
"Dear Williams … Driver Newman has been admitted to hospital and given a thorough examination. His medical category remains unchanged as a result. This restricts his service to temperate climates only."
I would draw attention to that last sentence. There is no doubt about his medical category or his restricted service.
The letter goes on:
"The ear and skin conditions of which Driver Newman complains are neither serious nor disabling and there are at present no medical grounds for his discharge from the Army, nor is there any need for him to be released to receive medical attention."
It should be remembered that the ear troubled has persisted since 16th February, 1954, and that the letter I received was dated 22nd July, 1955. From the latest medical examinations in hospital, there had apparently been no improvement to date. However, the Minister said in his letter
"… nor is there any need for him to be released to receive medical attention."
I have been in the House for thirty-three years and have received all kinds of letters from all sorts of Ministers, but never have I received a letter showing less human sympathy than that one. If that is the sort of humane interest that the Secretary of State for War shows in the men for whom he, at the top, is responsible, what can one expect from the lower orders?
It is a scandal that a young man who volunteered for service in the R.A.F. in February, 1954, but who, unfortunately, had a physical disability and who was later called up by the Army, should be treated in this fashion. Probably because I put down two Questions to the Secretary of State for War in July, the medical officer saw this soldier no fewer than five times in August. He was in hospital in September, on 25th October, and, finally, before my Questions could be answered, he was in hospital on 15th November.
In reply to a Question, the Under-Secretary of State for War said that by this time the skin disease had cleared up and that the ear trouble had been dis-

2659
posed of. The point I wish to emphasise is that despite the fact that this young man was discharged from the Royal Air Force because of ear trouble, the Army called him up and he was kept in the Service. What kind of a soldier he has been during his service, I cannot imagine. He has been racked with pain and filled with anxiety about his physical future.
I cannot believe that it was right for the Minister to detain this man all these months. It may be that in the past month or two there has been an improvement in his physical condition, but that is no justification for the Secretary of State for War keeping him in the Army and declaring that there is no need for him to be released in order to receive medical attention.
For seventeen months the Army medical authorities tried to treat this man's disability, but they all failed and the pain continued. I have raised this matter tonight because, if it proves anything at all, it proves, to me, at all events, that the Secretary of State for War is unfit to be in charge of young men called up for National Service. I wish to protest as violently as I can against the treatment meted out to this young man.
11.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has made some very strong accusations against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, against the Army and against the War Office. He said that they are lacking in humanity and are unfit to carry out their duties. In order to put this case in its proper perspective, I cannot help feeling that it would be useful if I were to start by giving a full account of the events which have taken place in chronological order and so clear up a number of misapprehensions on questions of fact.
Driver Newman came before a medical board of the Ministry of Labour in December, 1953, preparatory to call-up. On that occasion he told the board that he had had recurrent skin trouble and he also said that he had never suffered from any discharge or running from the ears. After communicating with Driver Newman's own doctor, the board placed him in Grade 1 on 6th January, 1954, and he was then called up for the Royal
2660
Air Force. As the right hon. Gentleman said, shortly afterwards he was discharged, and I understand that the reason for that was that he had contracted ear trouble. That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air, but my information is that he was discharged because he had contracted ear trouble. I would point out that the Royal Air Force and the Army have different standards of fitness in certain respects.
Driver Newman was given a further medical examination, again by the Ministry of Labour, in May, 1954. He was examined in particular by an ear specialist, and this time he was placed in Grade 3. That was in June, 1954. In July, 1954, he was given yet another examination by the Ministry of Labour and the grading was confirmed, and he was graded as fit for any form of service in temperate climates only. On 16th September he joined the Army. He was given further routine medical examinations on 21st September and on 20th November. There were found to be no significant changes in his state of health, although he was given a new pair of spectacles.
Quite clearly during these months, in the course of 1954, Driver Newman was examined extremely carefully by a number of different boards of the Ministry of Labour and also by Army medical authorities, and the conclusion reached was that he was fit for any form of service in temperate climates only.
He then proceeded to do his training. He qualified as a driver and he was posted to Germany on 18th January, 1955. On 27th January he reported sick. He was found to have a slight discharge in both ears which was cleared up in a few days. He had two further medical sick reports. I am giving every single detail of this man's health. On 23rd February he reported sick when he sustained an injury to his big toe while playing football. On 7th March he reported sick with an ingrowing toe-nail. On 15th March he had slight pain in his ear. That is the first we had heard of that since he joined the, Army, and that trouble was cleared up in two or three days by means of glycerine ear-drops.
On 28th March he again reported sick, this time with sinusitis which yielded very speedily to inhalations. Finally, on 6th

2661
April, he was admitted to a medical reception station because of an irritant skin rash, aggravated by scratching. He remained at the station under treatment for nine days during which he was off duty. On 27th April he again had slight ear trouble for a day or so, which was again cured by ear drops.
That is the history of the case up to the time when the right hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend on 24th June, to which my right hon. Friend replied on 22nd July in the terms which have already been read to us. As a result of and entirely because of the right hon. Member's inquiry, Driver Newman was admitted to hospital on 5th July for a thorough examination by an ear specialist and by a medical specialist. He was discharged on 7th July with his medical category unchanged. On 9th September he was re-examined by two fresh specialists and their opinions agreed with those given at the earlier examination. Again on 7th November he was seen by his unit medical officer. That was as a result of a Question placed on the Order Paper by the right hon. Gentleman, who wanted the very latest up-to-date information. On 7th November, there was no sign of the previous skin trouble. There was little activity in his ears, but he was suffering from a mild attack this time of ringworm of the groin.
On 21st November, after the right hon. Gentleman had postponed his Question, a further examination took place in order that we should have an even more up-to-date report. This time there was no evidence of active disease of the ears. Driver Newman's skin was perfectly clear. The ringworm of the groin had yielded to treatment, and so had the sinusitis, the ingrowing toe-nail and also the injury to his big toe.
To sum up, Driver Newman has at different times suffered from two principal afflictions. First of all, he suffered from mild chronic otitis externa. This is a mild chronic inflammation of the external ear canal leading from the ear drum to the outer ear. It is not a serious condition and carries no danger to life, health or hearing. It is an inconvenience rather than a disability. He has also suffered from an allergic skin condition which is said to appear every summer. It appeared this April but responded well to treatment and has not re-appeared.
In spite of what the right hon. Member for Don Valley has said, neither these
2662
two conditions is in any way baffling, and neither is likely to give rise to much trouble, provided that Driver Newman remains in a temperate climate. And, as I have said, he has been restricted to service in a temperate climate. Furthermore, there is no reason whatever to say that his condition is deteriorating or that he remains uncured and uncared for. Therefore, I think it fair to say that when the right hon. Member talked about agony and said, as he did just now, that Driver Newman was racked with pain all the time, when he suggested, as he did in the House last week, that Driver Newman had been in the hands of the doctors from the day he was called up, that he has been continuously in hospital, I can only say that he is guilty of a gross exaggeration.
Mr. Williams: But I think the hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I never said Driver Newman was in hospital all the time. What I did say was that he had been intermittently in hospital but that all the time he had been in pain and that he had complained to his medical officer so frequently that he was just weary and tired of complaining when nothing happened, until my Questions appeared on the Order Paper.
Mr. Maclean: What the right hon. Member said, and I was careful to note it down, was that he was "racked with pain all the time," "in agony" and "in the hands of the doctors from the day he was called up." The right hon. Member cannot dispute that.
As to the question of not getting treatment, the facts I have given the House already make it perfectly clear that whenever he reported sick, whether it was for ringworm, urticaria, ingrowing toenails, sinusitis, or trouble with the ears, he was given prompt treatment and the condition in each case cleared up within a very few days. That is why I say the right hon. Member has been guilty of gross exaggeration.
Mr. Williams: Of course I am not accepting the statement of the hon. Gentleman. He must bear in mind what I stated tonight, and I do not withdraw a word, that at the end of 17 months the Army authorities agreed that the condition had not improved and that his medical category remained the same.
Mr. Maclean: I really think it would be better if the right hon. Member would let me conclude what I have to say as

2663
we have not much more time. The fact remains that during the whole of the 17 months, or the year and some months, Driver Newman has been in the Army, he has been in hospital for medical treatment for nine days only—in April for treatment of skin trouble and his condition certainly has improved. We agree that he suffers, or is apt to suffer, from these two mild disorders. That is why he has been restricted to temperate climates. There is no question of sending him abroad. The right hon. Member said that his category had not changed. What has not changed is this restriction, but he is certainly better in the sense that his ear trouble has cleared up and he has had no skin disease since April.
At present Driver Newman is employed in Germany in the Royal Army Service Corps as a petrol issuer and motor transport storeman and he is doing a useful job. He takes part in all the normal unit activities as a perfectly normal soldier. His disabilities are of a minor nature and have not interfered with his military service. He is not expected to become worse, but merely to remain within the normal standard required for retention in the Army. He is able to do a useful job and, with his limitations, he is able to free a fitter man for more exacting tasks in more trying climates.
I really cannot help feeling a little surprised that the right hon. Member should have seen fit to take the line he has in this case. It seems quite unreasonable that he should suggest in the light of all this evidence that Driver Newman is not fit for service. It is quite clear as my right hon. Friend informed the right hon. Member in his letter of 24th July, that he is fit for service within those limitations. Secondly, it seems that the right hon. Member has no grounds whatever for suggesting that the Army or my right hon. Friend has been in any way remiss in the handling of this case from the very start, nor for that matter has the Ministry of Labour.
Everything that has happened has shown that Driver Newman was quite rightly called up for service in the Army within the grade in which he was placed, his health is not deteriorating but, on the contrary, that there has been an improvement and there is every prospect that he will complete his service in the Army and at the end of his time will have done a very useful job.
Mr. Williams: He was discharged by the R.A.F. in six days, was he not?
Mr. Maclean: Yes. I have already explained that the R.A.F., owing to the different nature of the duties required of men called up for that Service, have in certain respects rather different standards from those that we have, but that has nothing to do with this case. He may not be fit for service in the R.A.F., but we consider him fit for service in the Army, and he has been shown to be fit. The fact remains that he has spent only nine days under treatment in hospital during the whole of his time in the Army. The other two days he spent in hospital he was being investigated or examined as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiries.
These are the only two occasions when Driver Newman was off duty. The other times when he reported sick his illness was so slight that it yielded to treatment and was cleared up in a couple of days, and he was able to lead a normal life while receiving treatment. That really does not justify the right hon. Gentleman in saying that he was constantly racked with pain all the time, that he has been in the hands of the doctor from the day he was called up, and less still does it justify him in suggesting that my right hon. Friend does not always regard these cases, as I try to do myself, as sympathetically as possible. We do not want men in the Army who are not fit to do a job, and when it is so we are only too glad to release them.
The right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks that it was 25 years since he raised a question on the Adjournment.
Mr. Williams: Even more than that.
Mr. Maclean: Well I really think that after so long a lapse of time he might have found a better case to take up.
Mr. Williams: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman in the last moments that, having met this boy in my own house and having listened to his own story, it is very difficult to believe all that the hon. Gentleman has said.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL SERVICE
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Coal Miners (Release)
  Coal Miners (Release)
  COST OF LIVING
  COST OF LIVING
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages
  Wages
  New Industrial Building
  New Industrial Building
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Channel Car Ferries (Passport Formalities)
  Channel Car Ferries (Passport Formalities)
  Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill
  Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill
  Prisoners (Remuneration)
  Prisoners (Remuneration)
  Planning Conference, London
  Planning Conference, London
  Motor Vehicles (Obstruction Prosecutions)
  Motor Vehicles (Obstruction Prosecutions)
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Scotland Yard Documents (Loss)
  Scotland Yard Documents (Loss)
  Drunkenness (Prosecutions)
  Drunkenness (Prosecutions)
  Airports (Immigration Staff)
  Airports (Immigration Staff)
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Station (Armed Attack)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Station (Armed Attack)
  Civil Defence Corps (Rank Badges)
  Civil Defence Corps (Rank Badges)
  Mr. Ben Hecht (U.K. Visit)
  Mr. Ben Hecht (U.K. Visit)
  General Elections (Use of Cars)
  General Elections (Use of Cars)
EDUCATION
  Grammar School Places, Essex
  Grammar School Places, Essex
  Primary School, St. Columb Minor
  Primary School, St. Columb Minor
  Wales (Circular 283)
  Wales (Circular 283)
  Secondary Modern Schools, Cardiff (Classes)
  Secondary Modern Schools, Cardiff (Classes)
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Teachers' Superannuation Fund
  Teachers' Superannuation Fund
  Burnham Committee (Representation)
  Burnham Committee (Representation)
  Technological Students (Assistance)
  Technological Students (Assistance)
  Diplomas in Technology (National Council)
  Diplomas in Technology (National Council)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
  United States Cotton Exports (Discussions)
  United States Cotton Exports (Discussions)
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
  IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY
  INDIA (SOVIET STATEMENTS)
  INDIA (SOVIET STATEMENTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Vegetables and Fruit (Chemical Sprays)
  Vegetables and Fruit (Chemical Sprays)
  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  Food and Agriculture Organisation
  White Fish Industry (Subsidies)
  White Fish Industry (Subsidies)
  Forestry Commission (Trainees)
  Forestry Commission (Trainees)
HOUSING
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Chesterton
  Compulsory Purchase Order, Chesterton
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Miscellaneous Building and Repairs
  Miscellaneous Building and Repairs
  Nuclear Weapon Tests (U.S.S.R.)
  Nuclear Weapon Tests (U.S.S.R.)
  Nuclear Energy (Reports)
  Nuclear Energy (Reports)
POST OFFICE
  Forces Mail, Cyprus
  Forces Mail, Cyprus
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS)
  AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Heroin
  Heroin
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
SCOTLAND
  Nursery Schools, East Kilbride
  Nursery Schools, East Kilbride
TRANSPORT
  Cargoes, London Airport (Monkeys)
  Cargoes, London Airport (Monkeys)
  Driving Tests, Feltham and Hounslow
  Driving Tests, Feltham and Hounslow
  Car-Hiring Trade
  Car-Hiring Trade
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Police (Widows' Pensions)
  Police (Widows' Pensions)
  Entertainments Duty
  Entertainments Duty
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two Messages from Her Majesty the Queen, signed with her own hand. The first is as follows:
  "I have received your Addresses praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, and the various Defence Regulations and enactments which you specify, be continued in force respectively for a further period of one year, until the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-six.
  "I will give directions accordingly."
  The second Message is in these terms:
  "I have received your Addresses praying that the Patents (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1955, and the Registered Designs (Extension of Period of Emergency) Order, 1955, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before Parliament.
  "I will comply with your request."

DISPOSAL OF FORDOUN AERODROME
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: 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, in view of the policy announced after the Crichel Down case, they intend offering the land comprising Fordoun aerodrome, Kincardineshire, back to the two original owners and two successors in title at a price to be fixed by the district valuer.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, there is no further requirement for this airfield, and Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sell the land back to the former owners, or their Successors, at a price to be fixed by the district valuer. The sale would be subject to existing occupations. As was emphasised in tie statement to which the noble Viscount refers, the disposal of airfield land presents special difficulties owing to the layout of the runways and the obliteration of former boundaries. These make it impracticable to apply any rigid rule far the return of individual parcels of land and it is proposed to discuss with the former owners the division of the laud at Fordoun, to seek the solution most satisfactory to all concerned.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the four former owners concerned have already agreed, if they are allowed. to buy this block of land from the Ministry as one purchaser and to settle the boundaries inter se afterwards. Therefore, in this particular ease, I do not quite see what difficulty there can be about boundaries. The other problem here is that the existing tenant has no lease.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: In reply to the second part of the noble Viscount's remarks, may I say that Her Majesty's Government cannot guarantee to resell land with vacant possession, and there was nothing in the statement on July 20, 1954, of my right honourable friend the then Minister of Agriculture which gave any undertaking to the contrary. As I said at ate end of my reply, it is proposed to discuss any division of the land, where discussion may be required, with the owners on the spot.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I thank the noble Lord for his Answer.
EARL JOWITT: May I take it that the public consideration will be the overriding consideration in this case?
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: Yes, certainly.

THE BAN ON HEROIN
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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, with reference to an answer given in this House on 27th April and a report in The Times on 23rd November, whether Dr. E. A. Gregg, the Chairman of the British Medical Association wrote to the Home Secretary early in November stating that he was convinced that the decision to ban heroin was exceedingly unfortunate; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that Dr. Gregg has also stated that he and the members of the Association, who are on the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, are not on it as representatives of the Association, and that it was most regrettable that the B.M.A. as an Association was not consulted as regards the ban so that the opinions of doctors thoroughly representative of the profession might be obtained regarding the use of heroin; and whether in all these circumstances Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of appointing an ad hoc committee to inquire into the position, and of postponing the operation of the ban pending the committee's report.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, in view of the debate on the subject of heroin which will take place in your Lordships' House on Tuesday, 13th December, on the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I hope that it will accord with the convenience of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and of the House, if I do not reply in detail to his Question to-day. I would propose to restrict myself to-day to a short statement, setting out very briefly the history of this matter, which I hope may be of some assistance to your Lordships.
The possibility of dispensing with heroin in medicine was considered five years ago, in 1950, when the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland were advised by the bodies which advise them in medical matters that it
1012
would be justifiable to prohibit the use of heroin in the United Kingdom if international agreement were reached to prohibit the manufacture of this drug. In 1954 the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations adopted a resolution urging all Governments to prohibit the manufacture, import and export of heroin except for such small amounts as might be necessary for scientific purposes. In December, 1954, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health consulted his advisory bodies and was told that they concurred with the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to accept the resolution of the Economic and Social Council. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in another place on 18th February last his decision to grant no further licences after 31st December, 1955, for the manufacture of heroin except for small quantities needed for scientific purposes or the manufacture of nalorphine. I repeated this information in answer to a Question by the noble Viscount. It was not until May last that the first indication that the British Medical Association was opposed to this decision reached the Minister of Health.
My right honourable friend, with the Minister of Health and the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs received a deputation from the British Medical Association on 11th July. He and his colleagues discussed the matter very fully with the deputation, and subsequently considered most carefully, in consultation with his colleagues, the representations which the British Medical Association had made. As those colleagues adhered to the advice which they had originally given him, after consultation with their advisory bodies, my right honourable friend came to the conclusion that the decision not to permit the general manufacture of heroin after the end of this year must stand. He notified his decision to the British Medical Association on 17th October last.
Her Majesty's Government have given the most anxious and sympathetic consideration to all aspects of this very complex problem, including the position and experience of other countries. It is their view that the proposed ban should be maintained. They will, of course, keep its working under constant review in the light of the experience gained.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but may I ask whether he is aware that that Answer is not the whole story of what took place although it will provide food for debate? Is he also aware that I speak as one who during weeks of agony has experienced the beneficial results of heroin, for which, in the opinion of my eminent physician in Edinburgh, Dr. A. B. Flett, there was no adequate or equal substitute? May I also ask the noble Lord whether between now and the date on which the debate on the Motion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is to take place Her Majesty's Government will give the most careful consideration to the interests of the many patients, the mitigation of whose sufferings ought to be one of the cardinal points in this controversy but which is a point sometimes too readily forgotten by some of those who favour the ban.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I feel that it would be undesirable to go into detailed debate now, but I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that the question of the suffering of patients was foremost in the mind of Her Majesty's Government when this matter was considered.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I quite understand the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in not wanting a debate to-day, and in view of the Motion which I have on the Order Paper I believe he is quite right. I hope that when that debate comes the noble Lord will be able to consider the possibility of limiting the ban to the export of heroin and will bear that suggestion in mind when we come to discuss the matter on December 13.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is not the case that the bulk of the best medical opinion in this country is in favour of a ban on heroin at the present time; that
1014
the question of heroin production, manufacture and use is a world problem and that heroin has already been banned by fifty-four nations? And is it not desirable that we should follow suit in our practice here, thus giving a lead towards the disuse of a drug which is not essential and can be, and frequently is, replaced by other drugs?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is a fact that this drug has been banned by fifty-four other countries. The suggestions in the supplementary question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, command a certain respect but are controverted by others. I feel that it would be better to leave this controversial subject until our debate on December 13.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question? Though I am not clear from the statement of the noble Lord that this is so, I believe that in the first case the British Medical Association was not consulted. A deputation was seen at a later date, but from what one has read in a report in The Times newspaper of November 23, and in a subsequent letter, it seems that the British Medical Association was not fully consulted. As in this case, it seems that often authorities who ought to be consulted on such legislation are not consulted. I wonder if those who represent us on the Front Bench cannot ensure that when there are questions affecting them, such bodies are always consulted as a matter of course?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, whether or not the British Medical Association were consulted is again a matter of acute controversy in this matter. That will be one of the aspects which undoubtedly we shall discuss in our debate. May I therefore confine myself to saying that Her Majesty's Government will adhere firmly to the view that they took all the consultation that they properly should have taken?

ROYAL COMMISSION ON COMMON LAND
2.47 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 they are able to announce the composition of the Royal Commission on Common Land.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, The Queen has been pleased to approve that the following persons should be appointed members of the Royal Commission to inquire into the law relating to common land in England and Wales:

Sir William Ivor Jennings, K.B.E., Q.C., Litt.D. (Chairman);

Mr. Charles Arnold-Baker;

Mr. Trevor George Corry Evans, O.B.E., F.L.A.S.;

Mr. Charles Murray Floyd, O.B.E., F.R.I.C.S., F.L.A.S.;

Dr. William George Hoskins, Ph.D.;

Mr. Alan Lubbock, F.S.A., J.P., D.L.;

Mr. Ivor Raymond Morris, J.P.;

Mrs. Florence Beatrice Paton, J.P.;

Sir George Lionel Pepler, C.B., P.P.T.P.I., F.R.I.C.S.;

Professor Robert Alun Roberts, Ph.D.;

Sir Robert Donald Scott, and

Professor Laurence Dudley Stamp, C.B.E., D.Sc., D.Lit.

EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may we take it that there will be ample opportunity for this Commission to make Interim Reports? The subject is such a vast one that I can well understand this inquiry lasting for years, and it would be very desirable for Reports relating to particular counties or commons to be made before the Final Report is issued.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am sure that the Chairman of this Commission is fully aware of the magnitude of the task which he has to undertake and I am fairly convinced that he will be making Reports at intervals; but I cannot, of course, commit him to that at the moment.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 7:
Special exceptions as respects libraries and archives
(2) In making any regulations for the purposes of the proceding subsection the Board of Trade shall make such provision as the Board may consider appropriate for securing—

(a) that the libraries to which the regulations apply are not established or conducted for profit;

(e) that persons to whom copies are supplied under the regulations are required to pay for them a sum not less than the cost (including an appropriate proportion of the general expenses of the library) attributable to their production,

and may impose such other requirements (if any) as may appear to the Board to be expedient.
(3) The copyright in a published literary dramatic or musical work, other than an article contained in a periodical publication, is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of part of the work, if the copy is made or supplied by or on behalf of the librarian of a library of a class prescribed by regulations made under this subsection by the Board of Trade, and the conditions prescribed by those regulations are complied with:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if, at the time when the copy is made, the identity of the owner of the copyright in the work is known to the librarian or could by reasonable inquiry he ascertained by him.
(5) The copyright in a published literary, dramatic or musical work is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of the work, or of part of it, by or on behalf of the librarian of a library of a class prescribed by regulations made under this subsection by the Board of Trade. If—
(b) the librarian by or on whose behalf the copy is supplied does not know the identity of the owner of the copyright in the work and could not by reasonable inquiry have ascertained it; and
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2):
"A library shall not be deemed to be established or conducted for profit solely because it is owned or operated by a profit-making body."

1017
The noble Lord said: In moving an Amendment to the last clause I explained the interest of the Libraries Association in this matter. Clause 7 deals particularly with the libraries aspect. It sets out special exceptions with regard to copyright in articles contained in periodicals and publications when the libraries provide copies for the purpose of scholarly research. That is very welcome and acceptable to the libraries and to the world of scholarship at large. Subsection (2) contains a number of safeguards which I feel we can agree are generally sensible and reasonable. The first says that the libraries to which the Board of Trade regulations are to apply must not be established or conducted for profit, and in so far as we are dealing with commercial libraries which are run for profit in the ordinary way, that is undoubtedly a very reasonable provision.
But there have grown up during the last generation a number of great industrial organisations whose work requires scientific application of a very high order. Those organisations have established scientific libraries of great importance and value which the companies concerned halve freely placed at the disposal of scholars and on which scholars make requisitions for copies in this sort of way. It would be a great misfortune if libraries of this sort were thrown outside the area of this concession on the ground that they are established for purposes of profit. No doubt the companies which own them exist for purposes of industry and commerce and are established for purposes of profit; and it might well be said, without some sort of proviso such as that which I am moving in this Amendment, that that has brought the libraries in question within the area of paragraph (a). It would be most unfortunate from the point of view of the scientific community if scientists could not obtain the copy from one of those libraries belonging to the great industrial organisations in exactly the same way as from a library in one of the universities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, al end insert ("A library shall not be deemed to he established or conducted for profit solely because it is owned or operated by a profit-making body.")—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: I was pausing for a moment because I thought the
1018
noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would be on his feet strongly opposing this Amendment. When we parted company the night before last the noble Lord delivered a powerful speech on the subject of erosion. He was worried about the constant erosion into authors' rights, and he commanded sympathy from all parts of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has put down a series of Amendments which carry erosion much farther than it has been carried so far. What the noble Lord is saying is this. There has been for many years the night of the bona fide scholar to get what he wishes in the genuine scholars' libraries, a right, I suppose, which has existed from time immemorial, from the days when books were chained. The introduction of microfilms, photostat procedure and other developments has, of course, produced an entirely new aspect. Every time one of these processes is used it is an erosion upon the rights of the author, The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in this Amendment and several others which follow, seeks the whole time to take away what many people, including the author, would take to be his just rights. I am afraid that we cannot, except perhaps for one or two minor details, accept the spirit which lies behind all these Amendments.
The Copyright Committee were perfectly firm about this matter. They recommended that the new protection which they were proposing to give should be restricted to non-profit making bodies and should not be an additional prejudice to the income which the copyright owner has a right to expect. There does not seem to be any need to go further than we have done here. Let me make this point quite firmly. Our present Bill takes away none of the "fair dealing" provisions of the Act of 1911—which are themselves a derogation of the copyright owner's rights. Clause 7, as drafted, is a further derogation of those rights, and each of Lord Chorley's Amendments would, directly or indirectly, still further prejudice them. In introducing the Amendment at present before the Committee he spoke about technical libraries in big industrial firms. They are the tools of a particular trade. I cannot see why they should not provide that material for people to copy, provided that proper payment is made for it. I cannot see

1019
why they should make this derogation of the author's rights which he is entitled to expect. For those reasons I am afraid that we cannot help the noble Lord in these Amendments.
LORD CHORLEY: I am disappointed that the noble Lord should have taken this extraordinarily reactionary view. The object of this Amendment is not to assist these libraries, but to assist the scientists on whose work the future of this country depends more than anything else. For the noble Lord to make a speech of this kind is really antediluvian, but it is obviously no good my arguing and I shall have to ask you Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), to delete paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: This is on the same sort of lines as the previous Amendment, and as I gather from what the noble Lord has said that he is equally unsympathetic I do not propose to take much time in dealing with it. The subsection in question is no doubt put there to ensure that publishers are not subjected to undue competition and that, broadly speaking, is very reasonable; but in effect that is secured by the three paragraphs (b), (c) and (d). They restrict this concession, so far as it goes, to research and private study, prevent it from applying to more than one copy, and go further and say that no copy is to extend to more than one article contained in any one periodical. I should have thought that those were ample safeguards, and that to make this provision in regard to general expenses was altogether unnecessary.
It puts the libraries into an exceedingly difficult position. They are not allowed to make profits. They are almost all libraries which exist on the basis of being non-profit making concerns. Most, if not all, of them do make charges which are roughly calculated on the cost of the labour and materials involved; but if they are to carry out this clause as it stands in the letter, it is going to require very elaborate costing and bookkeeping, because overheads will have to be taken into account. It is going to be a serious obstruction to this most valuable service which the libraries afford to scientists and scholars. In those circumstances it seems
1020
to me that there is a very strong case for deleting paragraph (e). I am sorry the noble Lord has indicated that he is not prepared to be helpful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: I will take up no more time than is necessary. Let me throw the noble Lord a crumb, and say that, if there is any weight in the point about over-elaborate costing or complicated accounting, I will look at it and see whether I think he is right. But on the general principle I cannot possibly agree. This clause has been worked out very carefully to hold a balance between the interested parties. To do what the noble Lord wants to do would run counter to the Copyright Committee's recommendation and act as a serious prejudice to the rights of the author. I will not weary your Lordships with the arguments again, but they still hold good.
LORD CHORLEY: In the circumstances, I have no other course but to ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.0 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved in subsection (3) to leave out the words "literary, dramatic or musical." The noble Lord said. This is, in effect, an Amendment which I moved in connection with Clause 6. On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred me to Clause 9, and he said that if I tied the two clauses together I should find that this particular point was covered. I have, in fact, attempted to do so but I cannot, as I indicated at the time, agree with him. Clause 9 deals with artistic works. It is true that in subsection (5) there is a reference to drawings. The main object of this Amendment is to get diagrams and drawings—
LORD MANCROFT: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Is he, not speaking now on Amendment No. 35? The Lord Chairman called the Amendment, No. 34. I thought that I dismissed Amendment 34—the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, seemed to think rather callously. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I think, is speaking now to Amendment 35, and that Amendment is on quite a different point.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon if I have made a mistake.
LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Lord would like me to do so, I will explain his Amendment to him.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Amendment 34 was called, and it has not yet been dealt with.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry. Amendment 34 was connected with the last one and I thought I was dealing with the two together. I do not move that Amendment.
The object of this Amendment is to leave out the words "literary, dramatic or musical." As in the case of the Amendment which I moved on the previous occasion in connection with Clause 6, the purpose of this Amendment is to leave the law as it stands under the 1911 Act, because plans and diagrams are not included in these words. The noble Lord who replied for the Government on Tuesday indicated that in his view this was effectively covered by Clause 9, and while not altogether accepting that view, I withdrew my Motion. If you look at Clause 9, your Lordships will see that it deals with artistic works. While it is true that in subsection (5) there is a reference to drawings, and drawings are defined in the definition clause, Clause 42, as including diagrams, surely the drawings which are aimed at here must come within the genus artistic work. Many of the diagrams and plans of the kinds with which librarians are concerned are geographical diagrams and plans of a type which would not be included in the definition "artistic works" at all, and so really cannot be brought within Clause 9. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to the wider protection given by the 1911 Act, and take out the words "literary, dramatic or musical," because if they are left in, it means that plans and diagrams are included. I hope the noble Lord will bear with me and possibly agree with me also that it is necessary that the words "literary, dramatic or musical" should be taken out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("literary, dramatic or musical").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: I was a little puzzled to know what was in the noble Lord's mind when I saw this Amendment
1022
on the Order Paper. Now that I have listened to his argument, I can see what he is getting at. I think he has a point here. Where the copying of such things as diagrams or mechanical drawings or other specialised forms of drawings is concerned, I can see difficulties. But I do not think that the clause is intended to cover, for example, the making of what may be a high-grade photographic reproduction of a copyright picture, possibly in competition with similar works issued by the copyright owner. If the noble Lord will consent to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to go into this matter and we will see whether we cannot devise something to meet the point which he has made. I think it is a good point.
LORD CHORLEY: I am pleased to hear what the noble Lord has just said, and on that undertaking I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to leave oat the proviso to subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that the copying which is authorised by this clause is very limited in extent, it seems to the librarians quite unnecessary to make copying conditional in any circumstances on the consent of the owner of the copyright being obtained. The deletion which is proposed in the Amendment would bring the copying of pictures into line with the copying of periodicals. It seems to the librarians that this is reasonable. I put the Amendment down with a view to securing what they seek and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, leave out lines 46 to line 2 on page 9.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: These two Amendments—that is, Amendment 36. which the noble Lord has just moved and Amendment 37—are, I imagine, alternative Amendments. The one which he has just moved would allow the copying of a substantial part of a book without any attempt whatsoever being made to communicate with the copyright owner. If the noble Lord will turn to paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Report of the Copyright Committee he will see that they recommended that the consent of the copyright owner should be sought before his rights

1023
were interfered with, and the reasons given in those paragraphs seem to me to be absolutely conclusive. I am not prepared to ignore that recommendation or to agree to copying of this kind without at least some attempt being made to make contact with the copyright owner or possibly the publisher.
EARL JOWITT: Supposing you know the identity of the owner of the copyright, and you communicate with him. These people often possess artistic temperaments and are notoriously bad at answering letters. I take it that the relevance of knowing the identity is that you may write to him. But if, as so frequently happens in these cases, he does not answer, what do you do?
LORD MANCROFT: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor suggests that you send him a wire, and I think myself that a prepaid telegram might well produce a result. Of course, artistic people are notoriously lax in these matters of correspondence. If the noble and learned Earl's hypothetical artistic friend puts the letter into the waste-paper basket, or does what Disraeli said he used to do with letters—leaves them in a drawer for five years without answering them in the hope that they will answer themselves—then he must stand the consequences. But it is only reasonable that if you get in contact with the copyright owner you should give him a chance to refuse or take some other steps, by way perhaps of striking a bargain. One must take some reasonable steps and one would hope that some reasonable answer would be available. But I quite agree that what the noble and learned Earl has suggested is quite likely to happen on numerous occasions.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I say that to me it seems that there is nothing in the subsection which enables a librarian to provide a copy in those circumstances. If the identity of the author is known he is bound to communicate with him, and if the author does not reply he is still debarred from supplying a copy.
LORD CHORLEY: That would appear to be so. Would the noble Lord, perhaps, agree to look at this point again? I agree that there is a good deal in the noble Lord's argument, but I think the clause
1024
as it stands is not tightened up effectively. As is shown by my next Amendment, the address is required, and possibly—I am racing ahead a little—he will be prepared also to look at that point. Even so, the clause should deal with the situation where a man fails to respond to a communication, and I think that could be provided for without lengthening the subsection very much. Would the noble Lord be prepared to look at it with the idea of tightening it up?
LORD MANCROFT: What I will offer to the noble Lord, if this is acceptable to him, is that, so long as I am not asked to go any further than the principle which I have stated as clearly as possible, I will look at the points which both he and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, have made. While the noble Lord has been talking, it has occurred to me that it might be possible to shift the onus of receipt from the recalcitrant author who does not reply to his letters to the publisher, who probably answers letters more efficiently. I will look into this matter, if I may, without making any promise, to see whether I can help the noble Lord; but I must not be taken as going any further than that.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for going so far as that. As these two Amendments go together, I beg leave to withdraw this one and shall not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) The copyright in any work is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of the work or any part thereof by or on behalf of the librarian of any library if the making of that copy by the person to whom it was supplied would not constitute an infringement of the copyright therein."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to make clear that the protection given to students and research workers by the fair dealing provision extends to librarians when acting on behalf of students and research workers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: I am afraid that this Amendment will not do, either. I ask the noble Lord to consider what he has proposed in such a light and easy

1025
manner. Under the fair dealing provision there is no limit to what can be copied by a person for his own private study. But in this clause we are dealing with a method of mechanical reproduction by a third party, such as photostatic reproduction, involving no activity on the part of the student himself. Under this Amendment a student could ask a librarian to copy a whole work without any formalities whatsoever, without even attempting to secure the consent of the copyright owner. Does the noble Lord imagine for a moment that this is in accordance with our Convention obligations or with justice? I am certain that is not what he means, but that would be the effect. He now proposes to throw completely on one side the recommendations of the Committee regarding the status of the libraries which were to be given these powers and he makes no provision for payment for copying. What the noble Lord proposes is to assist in setting up a traffic in the reproduction of copyright works without let or hindrance. That is the effect of his Amendment and I am sure that neither he nor I would tolerate that for a moment.
LORD CHORLEY: I explained that I was not wedded to the drafting. It may be that on the drafting, what the noble Lord has said is right, but he has not really answered the spirit of this Amendment. I am sure he appreciates the point I have in mind; simply that the position should be tightened up to protect librarians who are acting on behalf of students or research workers. I had hoped that the noble Lout would have accepted the spirit of this proposal, and, having skilled draftsmen at his command, would have offered to redraft the Amendment to meet the point, which is a good one. I wish he could have taken up that point of view. As he has refused to do so, I am afraid I have no recourse but to ask your Lordships for permission to withdraw the Amendment, but I will try to redraft it so as to make it viable, and will put it down on the next stage.
LORD MANCROFT: May I make it perfectly clear that I do not disagree with the drafting, but precisely with the spirit that lies behind the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Special exception in respect of records of musical works.
8.—(1) The copyright in a musical work is not infringed by a person (in this section referred to as "the manufacturer") who makes a record of the work or of an adaptation thereof, if—

(a) records of the work, or, as the case may be, of a similar adaptation of the work, have previously been made for the purposes of retail sate, and were so made by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright in the work;

(b) before making the record, the mamufacturer gave to the owner of the copyright the prescribed notice of his intention to make it;

(c) the manufacturer intends to sell the record by retail, or to supply it for the purpose of its being sold by retail by another person, or intends to use it for making other records which are to be so sold or supplied; and

(d) in the case of a record which is sold by retail, the manufacturer pays to the owner of the copyright, in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time, a royalty of an amount ascertained in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the royalty mentioned in paragraph (d) of the preceding subsection shall be of an amount equal to six and one-quarter per cent. of the ordinary retail selling price of the record, calculated in the prescribed manner:
Provided that, if the amount so calculated includes a fraction of a farthing, that fraction shall be reckoned as one farthing, and if, apart from this proviso, the amount of the royalty would be less thin three-farthings, the amount thereof shall be three-farthings.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: When the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, sought to enlist my aid to do his job, which he Goes so much better than I could ever hope to do, I listened with interest to his sturdy declaration that he would not budge one inch from the incontrovertible right of an author, composer or artist to have the absolute natural properly right in the creation of his own brain, as we on this side of the Committee have always maintained. When I come to this Amendment, I find myself with the noble Lord as one of my most enthusiastic supporters. He cannot do anything else but accept this Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT: It has nothing to do with librarians at all.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: It has everything to do with the copyright of authors, which should not be infringed by librarians or anybody else. This Amendment deals with what is known as a compulsory licence. I would ask noble Lords to turn back the pages of the Bill to Clause 2 (5), where it says in unmistakable terms:
"The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are—
(a) reproducing the work in any material form;"
If I may use the expression, that is the Ark of the Covenant of this Bill. When we come to subsection (1) (c) of Clause 8, we are seeking to take away that right in regard to any subsequent record or reproduction of a work which a composer has permitted to be recorded or reproduced only once. I intend to follow the example I have set before by not going into a technical explanation but by giving a concrete example. Let me cite the recording of a symphony written by one of this country's greatest composers—say, Vaughan Williams. Vaughan Williams consents to the granting of a licence for the recording of one of his symphonies. Jealous of his reputation, he chooses the orchestra with care, and he chooses the conductor. He might say: "There is only one conductor who can conduct one of my compositions properly, and that is myself." He goes into detailed, artistic and, indeed, scientific, discussions with the recording company, and eventually the record is produced as a masterpiece of artistic work. Once he has done that. any orchestra in this country, with any conductor, can perform that symphony without having to ask the permission of the composer. What is the idea of the Government in this regard?
Again going back to Clause 2, we find it there says:
"The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are—
(a) reproducing the work in any material form …"
The composer says: "My work may be ruined. To any orchestra, second, third or fifth rate, or any conductor, I am compelled to give a licence. I do not want anybody to reproduce my work without my consent. I am jealous of my reputation, and I will allow the reproduction of my work to be undertaken only by orchestras, conductors and artists who I think are fully qualified." What is the
1028
object of the Government in this clause? I cannot see it. It is damaging to the prestige of the natural property owner, and, after all, copyright was instituted to protect that very thing. Not only does, it go that far, but at present it gives the producer of the record a performing right. I think it must be a mistake, although I can quite appreciate why the Government have put in this clause. When this matter was before the Copyright Committee I suppose I must admit to recommending, it to a certain degree, and perhaps that is going to be what the noble Lord will tell your Lordships. But although in the course of this Committee stage I shall, when it suits me, pray in aid this Report, as, of course, will the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I do not consider that the Report of the Copyright Committee is Holy Writ.
I think I should tell your Lordships that in 1951, when the Copyright Committee considered this problem of the compulsory licence, there were only about three major recording companies in this country—and when I say "major recording companies," I mean recording companies that issue a catalogue of the works they record. But the advent of the tape recorder has revolutionised this matter, and there are to-day in this country about fifty recording companies who will record for anybody. They do not issue a catalogue for the market. So—if I may use this term quickly and without too much emphasis—the piracy that can go on is most damaging to the original artist, because he must give consent. I do not say that he does not get royalties, if he can track all these tape recordings—and those who record for special people do not market their recorded works in a comprehensive manner.
I want the noble Lord to underline what he has said: that no reproduction of a work can take place—as is said in Clause 2 (5) (a)—"in any material form," otherwise it is a breach of copyright. In my opinion, that is an unanswerable case, underlined by the almost passionate denunciation of the first Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Chorley. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, thought I was going to fly to his aid, and he committed himself to this principle. With those words, I beg to move this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 25, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like to support the Amendment which my noble friend has just moved. This clause establishes a principle which is quite alien to the rest of the Bill. If there is to be a right, without any permission whatever from the author, to reproduce a musical work, why should there not be a right to reproduce a literary work? Exactly, the same argument, presumably, can be applied: that if the author has once chosen to have an edition published, then any other publisher should have the right to publish another edition of the work, paying to the author the minimum royalty laid down in the Statute. So, also, with works of art and other things. Let us come to a case in which the reproduction takes a material form different from that of the original work itself. If an architect produces the plans of a building, is it to be suggested, after a building has once been erected in accordance with those plans, that anybody should have the right to erect other buildings according to those plans, subject to payment to the architect of a royalty? If this principle is correct in the case of musical works, why is it not correct with regard to all the other works which are the subject of copyright under this Bill? There cannot be any excuse for making an exception of musical works.
Let us consider this matter a little further. This provision is absolutely arbitrary, in that it fixes a rate of remuneration for the records made which has no relationship to any free bargaining between the parties. It has no commercial or economic significance of any kind; it cannot be justified by any kind of calculation; it has nothing to do with the merits of the work. Further, suppose this provision is put into operation and some company makes a record of a musical work using an inferior orchestra and producing it very badly, how damaging that may be, in the long run, to the author of this piece of music! It may interfere with the sales of the record which he has originally allowed to be made. It may give a totally wrong impression and damage his position extremely seriously. I really cannot see what justification there can be, once one admits the principle of copyright in the productions
1030
of human intelligence, whether they take a musical, an artistic or a literary form, for derogating from the principle in this extremely arbitrary way.
LORD BURDEN: Whilst I agree entirely with the general case put up by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, for the purpose of the record I should like to know whether the illustration he used with regard to the position of the architect is a correct one. I have always understood that once a building has been erected nothing can prevent another arehitect from using the general building for his plans for a similar building. May I recall an instance within my knowledge? I was a member of a local council which obtained permission of the Ministry of Health to erect a nursery for children under five. The council with which I was connected was obviously a good one, because before the Ministry would allow any other local authority to build a nursery for children of the same age they instructed the local authority to go down and see the one which we had erected for our children. It seems to me that in that way there was no copyright at all in that form of art, whatever there may be in others. I am raising the point in a general way because I think we ought to get the position clear.
3.32 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: Now let us see if we can get back to the purpose of this clause, which is entitled:
"Special exception in respect of records of musical works."
The other points are interesting, but I hope I shall be forgiven if, just for the moment, I stick to the clause we are discussing. The gist of the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is this. Dr. Vaughan Williams grants record company A the right to make a record of his Fourth Symphony. Under this Philistine clause which this terrible Government have suddenly popped into the Bill, record company B, an inferior lot, can make a record of the same symphony and do it in a disgraceful, shoddy and tasteless sort of way. Let me say straight away that this is nothing new at all. The Amendment which the noble Lord has now put before us proposes to take away the right which is deliberately given by subsections (2) to (6) of Section 19 of the Act of 1911 under which, where a composer has given

1031
permission to one record manufacturer, other manufacturers can secure a licence of right. That right has existed since 1911; it is not new to the Bill. We have not put it in; it has been there since 1911, when, for the first time, composers were given the right to authorise the recording of their works. The Copyright Committee made no recommendation to abolish the right, and Article 13 (2) of the Brussels Convention envisages that Member States may make such provision. The existence of the arrangements made in 1911 allow for the play of competition, not only between record manufacturers but, of course, between bands and orchestras.
Let us get back to the real point which is worrying noble Lords opposite, which is the question of inferior performance of the second recording. If the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, would be good enough to follow me through subsection (6) of this clause, I think that will answer his question. Subsection (6) says:
"For the purposes of this section an adaptation of a work shall be taken to be similar to an adaptation thereof contained in previous records if the two adaptations do not substantially differ in their treatment of the work, either in respect of style or (apart from any difference in numbers) in respect of the performers required for performing them."
That subsection is put in specifically to prevent the vulgarisation or the "jazzing up" of a distinguished piece of work which, naturally, might annoy and aggravate the composer. This right has gone on for a long time without much trouble. I think the composers would be upset if it were taken away. They would lose far more than they would gain. I do not doubt that there may be one or two composers who would like to have their works played by the Royal Philharmonic or B.B.C. Symphony Orchestra, and by none other; but I do not think they are numerous, and the reason is because of this safeguard. Of course, if there were the risk of a piece being vulgarised or "jazzed up," one could readily see the objection.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord forgive me? I have not mentioned the terms "vulgarisation" or "jazzed up." That is an entirely different thing from being performed by an orchestra which the original composer does not think will increase, enhance or even affect his reputation.
LORD MANCROFT: Is that a very serious handicap? It has not been so in the last fifty years, and has not caused much trouble. Look at the other side of the coin. It means that you are going to limit the performance to one orchestra of the composer's choice. Take a slightly less elevated example—that of the popular dance tune which some of us hear played a bit too often by too many bands. It would mean that you would have the right to confine it to one band, and nobody else could make a record of it.
LORD CHORLEY: Surely, the composer would always license some other orchestra or band to play it. In the case of a dance tune he obviously would.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, but what is the objection to its being done in the way in which it has been satisfactorily done for fifty years? I cannot see why noble Lords are worried about something which has been quite satisfactory for a long time. That has caused fair competition; it has met with the approval of the public, and there have been no complaints. It met with the approval of the Copyright Committee, comes under the terms of the Convention, and appears to work satisfactorily to the interests of everybody. I cannot see why something should be removed from the Bill which has been satisfactory to the law of the land for fifty years.
EARL JOWITT: I am sorry to hear that reply. I regard this as an important matter and of first principle. I have been approached personally by the composers of this country on this question and I will re-state it to your Lordships, because it seems to me that what we are doing here is a monstrous injustice. I am not the least concerned about dance music. It may be possible to differentiate by the length of time which a record occupies or something of that sort—you may get out of the difficulty in that way. But in the case of really serious works, such as those by Sir William Walton or Vaughan Williams, they take the greatest trouble in making up their minds whether to authorise the recording of that work. They go to the studio to satisfy themselves that the orchestra is of the correct quality and that the conductor is the right man. It is a common thing for them to say, "I am not satisfied with that performance; we will have another." These

1033
people are difficult to satisfy. I am only telling your Lordships what I am told by these eminent people themselves. They could say, "I am satisfied with that performance, but I am not satisfied with any other."
It is perfectly true that the proposition which the Government are making is enshrined in the existing Act, but, after all, the object of this Bill is to amend the existing Act. The circumstances are now entirely different, because, owing to the fact that we now have this method of tape-recording, the number of people who are making recordings is growing rapidly, and is likely to grow even more rapidly. In the days of 1911 (I speak subject to correction) there were only two or three people who did recording, and they were people of the highest repute and with some artistic outlook. To-day, the position is very different. The composers are complaining bitterly, and I ask all your Lordships on all sides of the House to have regard to them. If Dr. Vaughan Williams gives his consent to the recording of a particular performance, having regard to the way in which it is done, the artistic skill displayed, and so on, is it really to be said that, having once given his consent to that performance, he is to he taken as having authorised any other performance by an orchestra which he would regard as unworthy, with a conductor whom he would consider not a good conductor, it being, generally speaking, a performance which he does not like at all? As the Bill stands, that is what we are proposing to enact.
I make it plain that I have not spoken to Dr. Vaughan Williams himself about this matter, but I take this illustration which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. Dr. Vaughan Williams, for instance, has to be content with a royalty of 6¼ per cent. It is utterly different from the case of a dance band, where recording is done mainly for profit. I can assure your Lordships that these eminent people regard profit as purely subsidiary. What they want to see is a performance of their work which corresponds with their ideal of how it should be rendered. I am not dealing with the obvious case of "jazzing up," or anything of that sort. This case arises where an orchestras trying to reproduce a work and is reproducing the work honestly and sincerely, not trying to alter
1034
it or "jazz it up" in a way that the composer regards as utterly unworthy.
I press the Government on this point most sincerely. Is it really to be said that the composer of such a work is bound to allow these recordings, and that it is enough to say, "Well, it is quite all right; he will get 6¼ per cent." Let us just look at this for a moment. It is a mere chance of the wheel of political fortune that I am not on that side of the House introducing this Bill and that noble Lords at present on that side are not on this side of the House criticising. There is nothing of a Party nature about this Bill. Sir Stafford Cripps said, "When I have finished my Patent Commission, I want to do what I can about the law of copyright." The Committee on the Law of Copyright was, in fact, appointed in our time. I remember, if I may let your Lordships into a secret and perhaps be a little indiscreet, the President of the Board of Trade coming, either in person or by his deputy, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and asking me for a Lord of Appeal to preside over the Committee. I responded, as Lord Chancellors are rather apt to respond to these requests, "I am sorry, but I have not enough Lords of Appeal to attend to their ordinary work. I cannot do it." We looked about, in place of a Lord of Appeal, for some eminent lawyer who could preside over this Committee. We were very fortunate to have the noble Marquess sitting opposite me. Lord Reading. He started and presided over this Committee until, I think, the end of the evidence period, but he cannot be held responsible for these recommendations. It was unfortunate that, at the formative part of the Committee's Report, we did not have as Chairman some very distinguished lawyer, such as he is, or such as a Lord of Appeal would be.
It is perfectly true—I will give the, Government the point—that this provision is in the existing Act, if I am right. But I beg your Lordships to consider this fact. These people are a small group of people who write serious works. They are works the performance of which takes much more than five minutes. I throw myself upon your Lordships when I say this: they object most bitterly to

1035
the idea of having to authorise performances of these works by all and sundry just because they have authorised the performance of one particular work by one particular orchestra which they personally have supervised. That is the case. I beg your Lordships to do what you can to remedy what seems to them to be a gross injustice. What is at stake here is not money but, as they see it, their reputation, their aesthetic reputation and they do not like these performances going out which they have not approved. I know very well that we cannot go into other artistic matters because, as the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, pointed out, this clause applies to musical matters. We do not gain much by considering paintings, but I can well understand that an artist would allow a reproduction of his painting by A but would be very annoyed if he were bound to authorise reproductions of his work by B, C and D, and content himself with a 6¼ per cent. royalty. He might think their reproduction was wholly unworthy.
I say this, further, to your Lordships. We feel strongly about this matter and, even if we are in a hopeless minority, we shall ask the House to divide on it. But I suggest this via media. The works which I have in mind and about which I care are works which cannot be performed in a minute or five minutes, or anything of that sort—they are serious works. I am not in the least concerned with a dance tune, a jazz tune or anything of that sort. With them it may be right to say that if a composer authorises orchestra A to reproduce it, by all means let it be reproduced by B, C and D and all the rest. The main object of that composer is, of course, to get money, a perfectly laudable object, and I have no complaint about that. But where you have something other than that, some serious work, where the main object of the composer is not merely to make money but to see that his work is worthily produced, I beg your Lordships to say that this provision, albeit it was enshrined in the 1911 Act, in different circumstances, has proved onerous to the composers. The composers have come to me and asked me to put their case to your Lordships, and that case, to the best of my ability, I have endeavoured to put.
3.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am sure that all your Lordships will have been impressed by the force and sincerity with which the noble and learned Earl has put his case. Especially in the last part of his remarks he has made clear that the case which he is putting is, in truth and in fact, a limited case dealing with what your Lordships will agree is a small section of a great subject. My noble friend Lord Mancroft has said that we had no complaints in this particular field, but the noble and learned Earl has made us well aware of his feelings on the matter. At the risk of occupying a little of your Lordships' time, I want to show your Lordships that we have not approached the clause and the problem with which it deals in, if I may be Victorian for a moment, a Philistine attitude of mind. As my noble friend made clear, the code was laid down, as I am sure noble Lords who have studied this matter have seen, in the Act of 1911, in seven subsections, numbers (2) to (8), of Section 19.
We have tried to improve the situation. The noble and learned Earl will agree with me that the Act of 1911 was silent on the question of the selling of a record. We have made it clear that copyright now arises when a record has been offered for sale. That means that the composer is protected if the B.B.C. use a recording for putting out his work. We have tried to meet that point. I think we have also dealt fairly—if necessary, we will consider whether it can be improved—with the case where there is another copyright in respect of words, namely, songwriting: and I think we have also dealt with the question of adaptation.
We have tried to improve the clause, but, as the Government of the country, we must look at the whole problem. I hate to speculate how much of the joy and happiness of young people in this country comes out of records of light music, especially dance music and popular music of the day. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would think sympathetically on this point. When you have had a recording made of a dance tune it is sometimes desirable to have competition between bands in the production of different versions of it. I really cannot see what

1037
is wrong so long as you are fairly treated, and we have tried to make fair arrangements.
EARL JOWITT: So far as dance music is concerned, the Lord Chancellor need not bother. It is the serious work with which I am concerned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree; but this point is a fair one. I think I take the noble and learned Earl with me in saying that the Government must deal with the whole situation; they must see the problem as a whole. I would not for a moment accept this Amendment which would destroy this right. I think I should be wrong in accepting it. I think that that existing right, which affects a large section of music, is certainly something which has worked well. The matter has been given a good deal of consideration. It has been considered not only by the Committee presided over by my noble friend, but also by the Convention, which has come to the conclusion that it should exist. Therefore, on the first point, of doing away with this tight as a whole, I should certainly advise the Committee not to do it.
Now I come the second point. The noble and learned Earl, with his vast experience of drafting Bills, knows that the hard case he has presented to me is a most difficult matter. It is so trite to say that "Hard cases make bad law" that I hesitate even to mouth the words in your Lordships' House. But if, on the noble and learned Earl's hard case, I had to do away entirely with the limited right in regard to light music, I have no doubt in saying that I should be prepared to vote against that, even if I were the only one of your Lordships who did. I believe, equally strongly with the noble and learned Earl, that the public interest and public enjoyment demands that it should be kept.
Therefore, what the noble and learned Earl and I have to consider is: can we differentiate the hard case? It is the kind of task we have often had to undertake. We have often had to consider it together or on opposite sides of the House, and we sometimes have to say: "If I deal with this hard case I shall vitiate the principle." I hope we shall not have to say that here. Therefore I ask the noble and learned Earl to try to find some way of making a category of his case. I am prepared to
1038
consider that and to help him if I can. I think that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to put to your Lordships. I am not prepared to accept the principle of this Amendment at all in doing away with a limited right. I do not think it is common sense. I think the answer of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, is right: that it has gone on for forty years with success and satisfaction to the public, and it has been reviewed by the independent bodies who have considered the matter, and they have not found fault with it. I am prepared to reconsider the point if the noble and learned Earl can find some method of delimiting his serious category. I do not think I can be fairer than that. As the noble and learned Earl knows. I put forward that suggestion in a most conciliatory manner: but I am not prepared to accept an Amendment on a principle with which I fundamentally disagree, merely to cover a hard case which is only a small portion of the field which Her Majesty's Government must consider.
EARL DE LA WARR: When I started to listen to this discussion I must confess that I had no idea that I should feel a wish to intervene; but I should like to say that what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just said certainly gave me personally, and I believe a number of other noble Lords, a great sense of relief. This is not a Party matter and I should not for a moment wish to press the Government to accept this Arnendment—I am not sure whether the noble and learned Earl opposite wishes to do so either. But we are not here discussing just a hard case; we are discussing something of quality—the sort of thing that to-day all too often gets brushed aside in favour of the amusement of the largest possible number. It is really the soul of the nation that we are discussing—the really great things that only a few great men can produce. I beg the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to use his wisdom and his ingenuity, as well as throwing the ball to the noble and learned Earl opposite, in trying to produce something to cover this point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sorry that both the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor have

1039
adopted the argument they did. Either they did not hear my argument or I failed to make myself clear. First of all, to say that this compulsory licence has been going on since 1911 and that what was good in 1911 is therefore good in 1956, is to my simple mind unconvincing. The object of bringing forward this Bill is to revise a law which is now totally out of date, to deal with the mechanical contrivances of 1956 which were unknown in 1911.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Lord help me on one point, because I am trying to approach this subject seriously? Why does he make a distinction—apart from the special case of the noble and learned Earl—of serious music of the highest quality? Why does he make a distinction, and how does he make a distinction?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am coming to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In regard to an ordinary performing right, where ordinary music can be played by bands, no one doubts that it is subject to the payment of a performing right. I should like the noble Lord to develop that point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am going to do that. But let me come back to what I was saying, about whether what has been good for forty-odd years is good to-day. When the Committee was set up, I had the great pleasure of persuading the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to become its Chairman. When the Committee started its deliberations there were only three recording companies. No one could plagiarise, because the three recording companies were responsible companies who produced catalogues. I think I am right in saying all three employed first-class orchestras. When the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, had finished his deliberations as Chairman of the Copyright Committee in 1951 there were five recording companies. By 1952 the number had grown to nine; in 1953 there were thirteen; to-day, in 1955, there are eighteen. These are all respectable companies who issue catalogues. But there are between fifty and sixty recording companies in this country who have a perfect right to record any composer's work under compulsory licence, and who
1040
do not even issue a catalogue. That is one circumstance which has altered, and of which we have to take care in 1956.
I do not suggest that this matter will be confined, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seemed to insinuate, to one orchestra and one conductor. I mentioned Dr. Vaughan Williams. We have in this country at present first-class composers and first-class orchestras. If such orchestras wished to perform the work of Dr. Vaughan Williams he would doubtless willingly agree, on the proper terms. But why should he be subjected, as he is to-day, to "under-cover" recordings of his works on tape machines by very inferior orchestras for circulation through inferior channels? The man who writes a "boogie-woogie" ballodia is only too glad to get as many records as possible on the market because 99 per cent. of the people of this country could not tell whether that particular tune was played by a good or a bad orchestra—it is a hell of a row anyway! When one comes to really serious works, however, works where, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, says, British prestige and the prestige of British composers is at stake, that is an entirely different matter.
This is not a hard case. I am not seeking to create a monopoly so that a composer of classical or serious music can have only one orchestra or one conductor. This is the very essence of copyright, as I pointed out on Clause 2 (5) which lays down perfectly clearly:
"The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic, or musical work, are—
(a) reproducing the work in any material form …"
But this sort of recording is reproducing the work in a material form. With cheap jazz music the more records that are made the better it is for the author, but, as my noble and learned friend has said, with the classical composer it is not a case of money. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor wants to put the onus on the Opposition. Why should he? This is a Government Bill, and we have put down what we believe is the correct Amendment to delete the subsection. The Government say, "We cannot accept it so go away and think of something better." My suggestion to Her Majesty's Government is that they, not we, should do the thinking. Theirs is the Bill, not ours. I have said before, and shall never tire of saying, that the noble and learned

1041
Viscount is always receptive to any point of view which we put forward. If the noble and learned Viscount will say that the Government will take this matter back and look at it again, we will refrain from asking your Lordships to express your opinion in the Division Lobby; but unless the noble and teamed Viscount will say that, we cannot depart from this for it is a vital principle. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would like to say something.
4.2 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I have not been here during the whole of this debate but I have listened with the greatest interest to the part which I have heard. I should like to refer only to the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he was quite ready to consider any Amendment which the Opposition chose to put forward and to examine it carefully to see whether it was at all practicable. I think that was a fair answer, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, says, "No, no; we are only the Opposition. You are the Government, you are the people who are introducing this Bill, the people who do not wish to divide your Lordships' House." I do not think that is quite fair. Her Majesty's Government, rightly or wrongly, were quite satisfied with the wording of the clause. Although I am not criticising him in any way, for it is a difficult point, the noble Lord was not satisfied. It then turned out, as I understood from that part of the debate which I heard, that it was what might be called "limited criticism" as expounded by the noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt. Though they did not really object to the wording of the subsection as it applied to light and dance music, where they felt it did not matter very much, they were concerned about the better type of music.
It appears that the important point, to which everyone should put his mind, is whether it is possible to draw a differentiation. Where are we to draw the line? Honestly, I do not think it is right for the Government to have to do that. That is for noble Lords opposite and those in various parts of the House who support them, and who have raised this difficulty. If they have no solution, they cannot very well expect Her Majesty's
1042
Government to have one. They have not produced a solution in the light of the debate which has taken place, although the two sides have come closer together. The real difference of opinion is over the question of whether or not it is possible to find a dividing line, between types of composition which matter and those which do not. I should have thought it was quite possible for noble Lords opposite to think it over, and I am quite certain that my noble and learned friend would be willing to do so. If we can, between us, find any way out of this difficulty, then it should be possible to have that incorporated in the Bill. If not, there is nothing to be done but to ask your Lordships' House to decide. But it is not at all fair for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to throw the whole onus on to the Government when it is he who has raised the complaint.
EARL JOWITT: I agree. It is no good trying to throw the onus either upon Her Majesty's Government or upon the Opposition. This is a very difficult problem. I think we are all agreed that the particular case which I put is a monstrous one. Frankly, I think it is shocking, and acting like a Philistine, to say that because a composer of serious music authorises a particular orchestra to perform a work he is therefore bound to let any orchestra thereafter perform his work. To my mind, that is an absolute abuse; and if Her Majesty's Government are to adhere to that proposition then I, for my part, should ask the House to divide. On the other hand, if the Government are saying, in effect: "We quite realise that it would be utterly wrong to do that, and we are going to say that some way must be found of preventing that result with serious music, and we will gladly take you into consultation to see what can be found," that course will be our ambition and ideal. If Her Majesty's Government will say that I will advise my noble friend—though of course he must please himself—not to divide the House to-day.
My test would be that we should have from Her Majesty's Government a statement that, in the sort of case I mentioned (I do not care tuppence about jazz or dance music), they will agree with my principle, and will consult with us as to how that principle can best be carried out. I should not then seek to divide the Com-

1043
mittee. Unless Her Majesty's Government, in perfectly clear terms, can say that they agree to my principle, I must ask the Committee to divide. This is not in the least a Party question: I should divide as a matter of artistic principle, for I believe it to be utterly wrong that, because a composer has authorised one performance of a work by a particular orchestra, with regard to which he has taken every possible care to get things right, it necessarily follows that he has to authorise its performance by every band in the country on a 6¼ per cent. royalty basis. That is wrong, and I want Her Majesty's Government to say that it is wrong. We will then collaborate with them to see how to put the matter right, without a great deal of trouble over jazz music records which I, being old-fashioned, think were much better not performed at all.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I just refer to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who intimated to us that the quality of reproduction and the reputation of the composer were safeguarded by subsection (6) of this clause. That is not at all the effect of that subsection. It deals only with adaptations. An adaptation of a musical work is a case, for example, where the work was originally written, let us say, as a pianoforte piece and is afterwards adapted as an orchestral piece. Subsection (6) says only that where there has been such an adaptation and where, under this clause, someone is given the right to make another adaptation the two adaptations are not to differ substantially in respect of style or in respect of the number of performers required. But it has nothing to do with safeguarding the quality even of the adaptation, let alone the quality of the reproduction of the original work.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I want to go as far as I can to meet the noble and learned Earl. On the other hand I do not want to promise to do something I cannot do. I will never do that. But within what can be done in drafting, I shall do my utmost to meet the principle of the point made by the noble and learned Earl, as I understand it—that serious musical works of a higher standard should be treated specially in the sense which he has stated. I will try and find a way to do that and do my utmost
1044
to collaborate with him in doing it. I cannot go beyond that, because I do not think that would be right, and I am not going to buy off the Division by promises.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Viscount has altered the position entirely. He now says that he will look at this matter and see whether he can meet us on this narrower issue of the classical composer. I accept that willingly. We put down our Amendment, but, as I understood the noble and learned Viscount, he said that he could not accept it and he could not accept any deviation from the principle. What was the good of our putting down another Amendment? The Government have an advantage that we have not: they have Treasury counsel in the Department at their beck and call; we have but our own poor efforts. Now the noble and learned Viscount has not slammed the door. We want to meet the noble and learned Viscount on this matter. If discussion breaks down, it breaks down, and we will return to it as best we can at the next stage of the Bill, poor though may our effort be. I do not suppose our effort will commend itself, but we will try. This is a principle in which we are vitally interested. May I say this in conclusion, so that the noble and learned Viscount can have clear what I have in mind. I say it does not matter whether it is the cheapest jazz tune or the best classical symphony, this is wrong in principle; but I do not think it would operate for practical purposes against the composer in the cheaper field, because there the more the merrier; in the classical field one might almost say the fewer the better. So with those words and with my grateful thanks to the noble and learned Viscount, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD REA: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say this with regard to the point the noble Lord made about "the more the merrier"? Surely in that case the composer of cheap music is equally anxious to get as big a spread as he can. May I ask the noble Lord's Party and the Government to consider whether this rigid line between what is called good music and the other does exist, or whether the principle should not extend over the whole field?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the problem: whether we should not try

1045
—I will not say who tries first, because we are both going to try—to see if a line can be drawn. I have certainly stated the view that I do not agree with applying what has been suggested over the whole field, including light music; and by that I will stand. But within that position I believe we can consider profitably whether we can meet the noble and learned Earl. I say that in answer to that particular point, and I hope it does not vitiate the withdrawal of the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.19 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"The following provisions of this section shall not apply to a record of a work the playing of which occupies more than five minutes."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has some bearing upon the last Amendment. I do not think it will prove controversial. Perhaps I might, to save your Lordships' time, also deal with the subsequent Amendment, because one really hangs on the other. This is what I seek to do, but my drafting may not be good. The Bill at the present time says (and it only repeats what was said in the 1911 Act) that the statutory royalty upon records should be 6¼ per cent.—if I am not right perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, wall correct me. That was drafted and settled in the Act when the maximum size of a record was what we call a 78 revolutions per minute record. To-day we have long-playing records which play for any period up to an hour and a half, and the new tape recordings that are coming out will play for hours. My suggestion is that on the 78 revolutions per minute record—which is now an old-fashioned type, being, in fact, the ordinary 14" record—the statutory royalty of 6¼ per cent. should stand, while with regard to anything of a long-playing nature (that is, anything over five minutes; the 78 revolutions per minute record plays for about five minutes), whether it be a long-playing record or a tape recording, the matter should be one for negotiation between the composer and the producer of the record.
At the present moment there is an arrangement in the case of the leading big record manufacturers. In their agreements with regard to long-playing
1046
records or recordings they do not, if I may use a colloquialism, "stick" to 6¼ per cent. because so many and such varying circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Some of these long-playing recordings enable a complete opera to be played. In some cases one tape lasts for hours. With regard to such recordings, a different kind of commercial contract is made for their production. I think I cart say that this arrangement with regard to long-playing records and tape recordings would meet with the approval of everyone in the industry—perhaps I had better qualify that by saying that I think it would meet with the approval of the very big and responsible manufacturers; that is to say, in effect, those who control the bulk of the recordings. While we are on the task of revising the law on this matter, I submit that my two Amendments might well be accepted. If the noble Lord does not like my wording, well, he has skilled draftsmen at his service who can alter it. It is the principle that I want him to adopt—the principle of leaving the statutory royalty on the 78 revolutions per minute record at 6¼ per cent. whilst the royalty on long-paying records and recordings is left a matter for negotiation between the producer and the composer and no statutory figure is laid down.
I want to make one suggestion, however, and this is tie first of the suggestions that I shall make throughout the passage of this Bill. The noble Lord will have seen that by a later Amendment—I think it is on Clause 22—I suggest altering the title of the tribunal. The reason for that is that I think that the tribunal could usefully be used for other purposes than those specified. I would suggest to the noble Lord that if he would accept the principle which I have put forward—that with respect to these long-playing records and these tape recordings the matter should be left to free commercial negotiation as between the record manufacturer and the composer—he should also agree that if the matter cannot be settled amicably between the two the tribunal should be asked to adjudicate. I shall make another suggestion of a similar nature later also. I think it would be a very simple method of adjudication. The noble Lord may or may not already chow that recording at the present time is going through a

1047
revolutionary stage. I do not think we shall be able to look to recording in the future as being part of the same stereotyped process which was carried out in the case of the old 78 revolutions per minute discs. So I believe I think it would be well to stick to the 6¼ per cent. statutory royalty for those old-fashioned records and leave it as a matter for negotiation when any of these varying forms of long-playing records and tape recordings are in question. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MANCROFT: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the whole process of recording long-playing records, making tape recordings and so on, has changed vitally from the old days of the 1911 Act and is changing from day to day. I myself do not possess a long-playing record machine unfortunately, but I think that the price of such records is considerably higher than that of the older ones, and of course the royalty is correspondingly higher. I think it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has overlooked the provisions of subsection (3), under which the Board of Trade may hold a public inquiry if satisfied that the rate, that is the rate of 6¼ per cent.
"has ceased to be equitable, either generally or in relation to any class of records."
After the inquiry the Board may make an order prescribing different rates for different classes. If, therefore, a case exists for a different rate of royalty for long-playing records from that for ordinary records, there seems to be the solution—the way is open for that difference to be recognised. I should have thought that that would have met the noble Lord's point. It seems to cover what he seeks to ensure.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think that two years is too long a time. In a revolutionary age such as that in which we are now living, two years is a very long time, especially in view of the advances which are being made all the time with these mechanical contrivances. Why have this period of two years? What is the virtue in two years? Why not have it left open? I have suggested
1048
that there should be provision for reference to the tribunal. Once either side has gone to the tribunal they cannot go again for, I believe, twelve months. That appears to me quite fair. It would not be right that somebody should be able to rush along to the Board of Trade every five minutes and ask them to hold an inquiry. I trust therefore that my object in mentioning the tribunal is clear. I think that the period of two years after this Bill comes into operation is too long. Consider the revolutions that we have had in two years. Two years ago we did not have the I.T.A.—some of us wish we had not got it now; but that is by the way. We have had a great many revolutions in the last two years. Would the noble Lord agree to consider cutting down the period?
LORD MANCROFT: There is nothing sacrosanct about the two years. It was put into the Bill only because there is, obviously, a great deal to be done in the way of costing, calculations, inquiries and so on before an equitable figure can be arrived at. I will certainly look at this matter again. As I say, there is no magic in the period of two years. If the progress of mechanics is faster than the progress of this Bill we may have to reconsider this point. I can assure the noble Lord that I will certainly look at it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Upon that assurance I will withdraw my Amendment. I shall not move the next Amendment, No. 43, because these two Amendments hang together, but may I put this point? I do not like this rate of 6¼ per cent. which is set out in the Bill. What are the mechanics of the matter, supposing the Government wanted to alter it at any time? The Board of Trade, I suppose, would have to put an Order before the House.
LORD MANCROFT: That is so.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What a paraphernalia to go through! Why does not the noble Lord take out this provision and give the matter to the tribunal to settle?
LORD MANCROFT: That is quite a different question.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not think it is. As matters stand, when two commercial concerns, both anxious

1049
to reach an agreement, come to an amicable agreement it is necessary to invoke all the machinery of statutory orders to ratify what both parties have agreed. I think that is a cumbrous and laborious process to invoke. Would the noble Lord, when looking at the other point, also look at this one? I am sure he does not want to have to stand up at the Despatch Box and move numbers of such orders, as people like he and I have had to do in the past. Why not leave this to the free play of the market and let it be referred to the tribunal if an agreement cannot be reached?
LORD MANCROFT: That suggestion. I think, is verging on blackmail. For the moment I should like to keep away from such a controversial point and stick to the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If I do not like what the noble Lord proposes after reconsidering this matter, I can put the Amendment down again at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [General exceptions from protection of artistic works]:
4.30 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) No fair dealing with an artistic work for purposes of teaching in establishments maintained or assisted by a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or by the Minister of Education, shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any exhibition to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise."
The noble Earl said: I may perhaps discuss this Amendment and No. 49 together. I am not going to move it at great length, because your Lordships discussed this question of educational establishments after I had gone on Tuesday, but as there w is a failure to reproduce the point I had in mind I should like to put that point briefly.
I find this an extraordinarily difficult Bill, and I think that we are doing most valuable work in predigesting it so that we can present it in a better and more appropriate form. On the last occasion I
1050
was surprised to find that when we discussed establishments under the Ministry of Education a differentiation was made between schools of that type and schools of other types. I am not so much concerned with the words "fair dealing." I agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that we are putting such a burden on this unfortunate phrase that the whole thing may break down, and I sympathise with his point of view. If we can, let us avoid trying to define "fair dealing," because if we put certain things in, expressis unius exclusio alterius, we shall have to leave all sorts of things out, and the last state may be worse than the first.
Let us consider the broad principle. I am so confused by this Bill, and particularly by subsection (3) of Clause 3, on which we had a great deal of discussion, that I may be wrong in what I am going to say. For a good many years when I was at the Bar I lived with the Copyright Act of 1911 and I go back to that, because I am fairly familiar with it. In that Act the broad test of the infringement of a copyright was public performance. I believe that that point still survives, though I am not sure, in view of the clause to which I have referred. If this Bill passes in its present form I understand that I shall still be entitled, if I like, to play a copyright piece on my own piano in my own house, or even, if anybody should be rash enough to ask me, to sing a copyright song. What I cannot do is to play that piece or sing that song in public. It is difficult to see what is in public and what is not in public. There are many illustrations, but crudely and unscientifically stated, anything outside one's own home may be said to be in public.
Now we come to the question of schools. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence suggested on the last occasion that we should have a special clause to provide for schools. First of all, let us consider the question of preparatory schools, run by people who take a large house in the country, which could hardly be used for any other purpose in present circumstances. Suppose they have a group of 50 or 60 small boys there, and try to bring them up in the way in which they should go. Suppose they are teaching these children by means of music, or teaching them appreciation of art, or what you will. Is a performance given in that school a public performance or a private

1051
one? I should have thought that it was probably a private performance, not a public one. It is given under the roof of a house where all these children are living, and the schoolmaster is in loco parentis. I should regard that as a somewhat extended family and the performance as being a private performance. Therefore, no question of copyright is involved. I may be easily wrong about that, and I hope your Lordships will not feel that I am being dogmatic when I say that I think that is right. I think the noble and learned Viscount would agree with me, but neither of us is committed hereafter if it becomes necessary to consider the point.
Then we come to the class of schools called public schools—Eton, or we might even take Harrow; or, if you like, Winchester or Marlborough, or any other school of that sort. The school buildings are vested in trustees or governors. Again, I do not know whether a performance there is a public or a private one. This seems to me the crux of the whole matter: it is on this that the matter turns. This point was not mentioned in the previous discussion, so I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not mind my speaking about it now. It was assumed that the concession that ought to be given to schools coming under the local education authorities should be given also to other classes of school. But to my mind the real difficulty is this: is a performance given in any kind of school a public performance at all? I am certain that as a result of our passing this Bill there is going to be a good deal of litigation. May I tell your Lordships that some members of the Bar who practise on that side of the courts are rubbing their hands with glee over the prospect of the good things coming to them as the result of the passing of this Bill.
I am not going to press this matter to a Division nor do I contemplate so doing, but it is worth considering whether we ought to have a clause making plain the position of educational establishments. Of the three sorts of schools I have mentioned, I think the institutions maintained by the local education authorities are probably "nearer the knuckle" than any of the others. They are more likely than the others to be held to be staging
1052
a public performance. I think we must consider whether it would not be possible to have a separate clause for schools making it plain whether performances given in the course of teaching, in a limited class to which the public cannot go, are to be regarded as public or private performances. Of the two Amendments, I am inclined to prefer No. 49 to that now before the Committee. As I have said, I agree with the Lord Chancellor and I do not want to press this overworked term "fair dealing" too hard. However, I am not at all wedded to either Amendment. All I want the noble and learned Viscount to do, if he will be so good, is to consider this case with a view to avoiding a good deal of the confusion, uncertainty, and possible future litigation by making plain the position with regard to schools. If he takes it into consideration and comes to a conclusion about how to deal with this problem, we can again consider it when we come to a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert—
"(2) No fair dealing with an artistic work for purposes of teaching in establishments maintained or assisted by a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or by the Minister of Education, shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any exhibition to which members of the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise."—(Earl Jowitt.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I ventured to take part in the previous discussion on this question and I do not want to repeat what I said then, but I cannot resist the opportunity of suggesting to the noble and learned Earl that for the time being he may have overlooked the provisions of Clause 43 (2) (a) of the Bill as it stands. It is obvious, to my mind, that the position of artistic works, to which these two Amendments, Nos. 44 and 49, specifically refer, is rather different from that of literary, dramatic and musical works, whether for the purposes of schools or generally. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, appears to be under the impression that the exhibition of an artistic work ordinarily comes under one of the restrictive actions. In that I venture to think he is mistaken, because it is expressly provided in Clause 43 (2) (a) that the exhibition of an artistic work is not a publication. If one starts with the

1053
premise that the exhibition of an artistic work is not a publication at all, I should have thought that one would rather question the need for the proviso in the Amendment immediately under discussion; and one would rather tend to sup-pose that, at any rate as regards schools, the mere display of an artistic work need not be dealt with specifically by an Amendment, because what, in the main, schools do, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, explained in relation to previous Amendments, is to retain a library of these copyright pictures—if they are copyright at all—for the purpose of reference by the scholars. I should have thought that was already outside the ambit of an infringement by virtue of the provision to which I have drawn attention.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I will not attempt to intervene in the legal argument in which the two noble and learned Lords have been taking part, but I would simply say this. First of all, the arguments I ventured to use on the last occasion on Amendment No. 20 seem to me to apply with equal force to this Amendment; and for that reason I do not propose to repeat them. Secondly, whatever may be the outcome of the argument which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has just used about schools, I feel that the privately maintained schools should not be in any worse position, because of the final shape of this Bill, than the schools under local education authorities.
LORD BURDEN: I assure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has said about schools. The Amendment that I ventured to put down, and which we discussed earlier, was not intended to be of a limiting character. Perhaps we have all been rather led astray by what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said when I ventured to raise this point on Second Reading, when he suggested that, so far as schools were concerned, he did not see why the author or composer should not get his pennies from the schools; and we have proceeded from that basis. We are all grateful to my noble and learned Leader for raising this interesting point as to whether work in the schools in connection with works of art and so on can conic within the ambit of a public performance, and we shall listen with great
1054
interest to what the Lord Chancellor has to say on it.
LORD SILKIN: I want to say only a word or two on this matter. We are all giving thought to what is the best thing to do, and I do not think it matters whether we are consistent or inconsistent. I believe that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has to-day said something different from what he said the day before yesterday, but I do not worry about that because we are all sincerely trying to think about this problem. I should like to ask try noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt whether he really wants the proviso to his Amendment at all. It looks as if the Amendment may not be necessary. I have read Clause 43 (2) (a), and it may weft be that that would protect performances of this kind. But do we really desire to say that if there is a school concert, to which the parents are invited, and where an artistic work is performed, that is subject to copyright? I should have thought that we might well leave the test as to whether payment is made.
In the ordinary way, where there is a small family celebration, which is what these concerts are (I have attended many), where, perhaps, parents are invited, would the fact that half a dozen parents turn up convert the performance into a public performance for the purpose of bringing it within the copyright provisions? It looks as if this whole question of educational establishments (the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does not like the word, but I repeat it for want of a better one) needs looking at; and it may well turn out that nothing further is necessary in the Bill. I, for one, should like to make it clear that in my view, whether or not anything is necessary, a performance of the kind I have indicated should not be made subject to copyright.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for raising this point again and for making his contribution on it. I entirely agree with him in thinking that this Committee is performing a most valuable task in regard to the Bill, and I should very much like to think, as I am sure would all your Lordships, that by the time it leaves this House, by our united efforts we shall have put it into a shape which commands respect. The

1055
noble and learned Earl will realise (and I think it is an answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with regard to the proviso) that here we have to consider all the time the two Conventions that we want to ratify as a consequence of passing this Bill. As I pointed out on the last occasion—and I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will agree with me—the conception of fair dealing is something which springs from English law and is not a matter that, so far as I know, is covered by the Conventions. Therefore, we have to be careful that we do not overwork it; and I am glad the noble and learned Earl agrees with me about that. Equally, we have to be careful not to over-define it. That is why I have suggested, and I think the Committee agree, that I should consider the educational position as a whole, and come before the House on Report with my suggestions, having in mind the position of the Conventions.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has posed an interesting question as to when public performance arises. I should have little doubt myself—though again, I do not want to be dogmatic; nor do I want it to be held against me if I have to reconsider the point, after considering the arguments on both sides—about performances in any school. On the other hand, I think the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, does raise difficulty, because then, in deciding whether a performance is public or not, one would have to consider not only who comes, but who could have come as the result of the invitation. If, in fact, the practice was that only two or three parents came in to hear their own children doing their work, that is one thing; but if you had an invitation as a result of which a number of parents might come, then I think the position would be more difficult. Equally, I think the position put to me on Tuesday would be difficult; that is to say, if a school choir gives a performance to some gathering outside the school. But if there was a gathering of 500 or 1,000 children at a school in their own hall, I think it would still be arguable. If it were not too common I do not think anyone would worry about it, because it would be said that each of the children was still taking part in private study, although they did it
1056
together. But that is right on the line, or on the fence, and it shows that we have to consider the points.
I am grateful to my noble friends who have intervened in the debate. My noble friend Lord Hailsham has assisted us again, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridgeman that this raises the same point, and I shall include it in the consideration that I have undertaken to give. I think this is a point well worthy of our consideration, and the only reason that I have intervened at any length is that I am sure your Lordships will have in mind that this is not only a question of our adjusting our law but a question of adjusting our law so that it will meet Conventions which Her Majesty's Governments have signed, and which both sides of the House are anxious should be put into effect. Within these limits, I shall do my best and will bring the matter before the House on Report.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: As on previous occasions in connection with this Bill, we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for his offer to look at this matter from the points of view expressed. However, when it comes to consultations, especially when he comes to take legal advice either as to what would be a malpractice under the Act now, or would be constituted as such in any revised legislation, would he kindly bear in mind one or two points? The specific Amendment which my noble and learned Leader moved refers only to schools which are aided by local educational authorities, and he has based his comments on preparatory and public schools. But there is a wealth of work going on in the country besides the work in either of those two types of school. If one takes the work of a local education authority for example, one finds it makes quite a big contribution to extra-school education through continuation classes, some of which are not always conducted in schools: they are often conducted by outside bodies, such as the Co-operative, the Workers' Educational Association and Youth Clubs. They deal with artistic works, whether they be music, art, drama or literature. I should not like those to be excluded from consideration, always remembering the words which the Lord Chancellor used at the end of his speech about consideration being given

1057
to what is to be defined as a public performance.
There are other things to be borne in mind. There are large numbers of individual instructors in private schools—schools for quite young children in elocution and, as they get a little older, in drama and the like—all of which will run some danger of coming under penalty unless the position is clearly defined. It is quite clear to me, from one or two of the matters of which I have knowledge, that where a person conducting such schools for private profit holds a public performance at the conclusion of a particular session, that is something which would have to be taken into consideration on the lines suggested by the Lord Chancellor. But there is a wealth of difference between that and their being liable to considerable penalties in regard to the conduct of these quite desirable pieces of extra education.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, and I shall certainly take that into account in the consideration which I will give to the general point.
EARL JOWITT: Let me assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsharn, that I have not forgotten Clause 43 (2). I know very few clauses in this Bill, but that happens to be one of them, and I had that in mind. If the noble Viscount looks at that clause he will see that if these performances about which we are talking are not private, then, of course, one need not regard them any further: they are out of the matter altogether, if I understand it aright. The question is, are they in private or in public? It is really that point which I want to get cleared up, If any of them are said to be in public, then Clause 43 (2) (a) may not be applicable.
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for saying that he will look at this matter. There is a wide ambit of schools and educational establishments, from the preparatory school to the extra-mural work of the universities, and so on. One wants to clear up the position as to whether they are public or private. First, I want to do nothing which will prejudice our rights to adhere to the Convention to which, on balance, I think we ought to adhere, and that is why I put in the proviso. I should like the Amendment better without
1058
the proviso, but that is the reason why I put it in. Secondly, I want to do nothing to interfere with the rights of authors, composers and so or. After all, they are the people who have given us much that makes life worth living, and I think we ought to be most careful not to erode their rights more than we need. The whole question is whether these performances should properly be regarded as public or private. Unless we can have some clause dealing with that matter I foresee a great deal of litigation about it, in which, unfortunately, in these days I shall not be able to take part at the Bar. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I shall not move Amendment No. 49.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() The making of a photographic reproduction of a picture by or on behalf of the owner of the picture and the publishing of such photographic reproduction to a prospective purchaser of the picture shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the Picture."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment concerns a small matter. I can speak with some knowledge of the old days about how you bought pictures and also how you sold them. Some odd remarks of mine, which were meant to be humorous, were taken seriously, I am sorry to say. A person interested in buying pictures will often tell a dealer that he wants to buy the works of a particular artist and that dealer will communicate with him when he has anything suitable.
In the old days I used to buy pictures largely from Paris. The dealers there would write to me if they had available, or knew where there were available, works of a particular artist. They would send me a photograph of a picture which would have the date written on the back. In those happy far-off days it was sometimes possible to get the dealer to send a picture over. If you could not do that, there was an excuse to go to Paris. You went to Paris to look at it—and for other purposes, too, no doubt. Equally, if you want to sell a picture, the first thing the dealer will want to do is to see that the picture is adequately cleaned; and then he will ask if he may take a photograph of it. Obviously, he

1059
will want his prospective buyers—who may not be in this country—to have a photograph of this picture, to see whether they are interested. That is always done; it has been done for years, and I do not see how dealers can work without these photographs. I am perfectly certain that no artist I have ever met would object in any way to this practice. They all know of it. I do not know what happens nowadays, but I have never bought a picture about which I have made any stipulation as to the copyright, and I do not know anybody else who has—one just goes and buys the picture. If I were asked who held the copyright of the pictures that I possess I should be hard put to it to say; certainly I had not stipulated about it. In some cases, the pictures have been given to me by the artists, and what the copyright position is there I do not know.
That is my reason for moving this Amendment, which I commend to your Lordships. I do not think it infringes any Convention—at least, I hope not. I do not think any of the artists would in the least object to it so long, of course, as the photograph was not used in the Press or anything of that sort, but simply put in an envelope and sent to the prospective purchaser. It should be done; it has been done; and I have no doubt that it will be done, whatever is put into this Bill. I think it is a pity that anybody doing that should be guilty of an offence—I am not quite sure whether it is a criminal offence. Anyhow, it will be a breach of the law unless we have some such provision as this. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is a technical difficulty about the form of the Amendment which I will ask the noble and learned Earl to consider, in that the Amendment talks of
"the publishing of such photographic reproduction to a prospective purchaser."
The noble and learned Earl will agree, I think, that one does not publish it by sending it to a prospective purchaser—
EARL JOWITT: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —because, under Clause 43 (2) (c), "publication" is the issuing of the reproduction
1060
to the public. I agree with the noble and learned Earl that I do not think the difficulty which he has had in mind is likely to cause much practical inconvenience because, in the first place, the artist, if he learned about it, would probably be more pleased than otherwise.
EARL JOWITT: Certainly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And if we put it in the more astringent way in which the noble and learned Earl and I have looked at it in other years, it would be difficult for the artist to show he had suffered any damage by the action that had taken place. As I have said, there is difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment as it stands, but I will have another look at it with those who advise me and consider it both from the point of view of its practical need and from the point of view of the Conventions. I will communicate with the noble and learned Earl. He will agree that this is a limited point. I hope that, for the moment, he will be content with that promise.
EARL JOWITT: I agree that this is a very small point. This practice always has been followed, and always will be. The only question is whether we should have it within or without the law. It will be done in any case. "Sending" may be a much simpler and better word than "publishing." If the noble and learned Viscount will look at it, I am content. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the difficulty not be met by omitting all the words between "and" in the second line and "picture" in the fourth line? Would not that get rid of the difficulty?
EARL JOWITT: Maybe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JOWITT EARL JOWITT moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() The reproduction of a picture in the catalogue of a public art gallery shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the picture."
The noble and learned Earl said: This is another small point to which I do not attach great importance, but it came up when I was concerned with certain public galleries. I agree that, if you have a picture which is in the private domain and of which you have not the copyright, you

1061
must not publish Christmas cards of it; that would be reproducing the picture. But it seems to me that it is a pity that you cannot publish it in a catalogue. Some art galleries publish catalogues which contain small reproductions of the pictures. If that is done as part of the catalogue, it is really quite innocuous. The artist would not mind—in fact, he would probably rather like it. For instance, in the case of the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool, it would be rather a pity if they had to leave out all the works which were still in the private domain.
It is easy to say: "Why do you not write to the owners of the copyrights and get their consent?" My experience is, first, that it is difficult to ascertain who are the owners of the copyright; and secondly, that they never answer letters; and so it is difficult to get permission in that way. If this proposal does not infringe the Convention—it is a very small point—I should like to see it included. If there is any difficulty on those important grounds, then I certainly agree that we should not bother about it. In any case, I shall certainly not press it. If the Lord Chancellor thinks we could do something on these lines, it would be agreeably received in artistic circles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jowitt.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid there is a difficulty here. It is not that I am out of sympathy with what the noble and learned Earl says, but the publication in a catalogue of a photograph would be an infringement unless the consent of the copyright owner were obtained. To provide to the contrary would be to fail to implement our Convention obligations, since possibly those reproductions might take the place of the reproductions of the picture which the artist might wish to have made and to sell. The consolation is that in most cases where you can get in touch with the artist he is only too glad to agree. I suspect that the noble and learned Earl has been reading the same books about the lives of various French impressionists that I have been reading. Having read these, I realised that he had a good point when he said there might well be some difficulty in getting hold of them in order to obtain their consent—I am referring to those
1062
who are now dead, and not to those who live to-day. Even so, I do not make that slightly obvious answer to the noble and learned Earl, but I say there is that difficulty about the Convention. I sympathise with him. Again, if either of us can think of a way round the difficulty, I shall be pleased to consider it.
EARL JOWITT: I have given my little rabbit a run and it has not stayed the course very well. I never thought it would, because I realise there is a difficulty about the Convention. Having ventilated the point, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.9 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD LORD ARCHIBALD moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"(6) No fair dealing with an artistic work shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is incidental to the making of a cinematograph film."
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively small point but one of some practical importance to the makers of films. I will try to explain it briefly. After the remarks which have been made in the course of this afternoon with regard to not overburdening the "fair dealing" side of the Bill, I regret that I should have raised this matter in the form in which it appears, but I am sure that the same effect could be obtained by a skilled draftsman without bringing it under the category of "fair dealing." The point at issue refers in the main—and I am willing to limit it if suitable words can be found—to an artistic setting in the film of, shall we say, buildings and sculpture. There is an increasing tendency among some of the quite important film makers, in order to get a greater element of realism in their films, to take certain shots in the street, in public places, instead of building sets in the studio. It may well be that, for the purposes of the film, a character is walking down a London street and it is necessary to identify the street. If it so happened, as is quite likely to-day, that in that street there is a new building on which there still exists the architect's copyright, the mere inclusion of that building in the photograph would, I think, technically be a breach of the architect's copyright. Then, for the purpose of a point in a story, people may be shown as meeting alongside a modern statue

1063
which would still be in private copyright, and that fleeting shot would again constitute a breach of copyright. To require that the film producer should in all cases seek out the owner of the copyright and get his consent might well be impossible.
Let me take an example of a type of film for which one of our studios is rather famous, where very often the film finishes with an exciting chase, it may be with the criminal driving a car in effecting his escape, and with the police pursuing him. The camera flashes along street after street. In those streets there may be buildings and statues which are still the subject of copyright. To seek out the owners of the copyright would be an impossible task and one which is quite out of proportion to the point at issue, because obviously no harm is done to the owner of the copyright, it being a purely technical infringement. The Amendment is confined to an artistic work. It includes only those limited items of artistic work which are found in public places, which are naturally caught by the camera, and which might put the film-maker in a great difficulty. He will have done something which does no one any harm at all. I am not concerned about the form of words in the Amendment; if the noble Lord who is to reply can indicate some sympathy with the practical point at issue, I shall be more than satisfied. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Archibald.)
LORD MANCROFT: The point which the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has in mind is admittedly a small one, but I can see that there is a risk, in extreme cases, of an infringement. When I first saw his Amendment I did not know what he was going to argue, but I can think of one example only that I have come across. There was a film in which a long scene between the hero and the heroine took place in front of Epstein's statue of Rima in Kensington Gardens. I think the film was taken sufficiently long ago to be well within copyright. That is the type of case the noble Lord has in mind. Merely flashing through the streets and past buildings is strictly within fair dealing, but I can see one or two remote cases where there might be an infringement of an artistic copyright. I cannot go quite
1064
as far as does the noble Lord in the wording of his Amendment, as I think he foreshadowed in his observations; but we are trying to tidy up Clause 9, which relates to fair dealing, and we will see whether we cannot put something into our Amendment to meet the point he has just made.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Special exception in respect of industrial designs
(2) Where copyright subsists in an artistic work, and—
(b) articles produced by so applying the design are sold or offered for sale to the public, and
then, subject to the next following subsection, it shall not thereafter be an infringement of the copyright in the work to do anything which, if the design in question had been registered immediately before that thing was done, would have been within the scope of the copyright in the design as extended to all associated designs and articles.
5.14 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "or offered for sale to the public" and to insert instead:
"let for hire or offered for sale or hire."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 50 marches with Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. As your Lordships will have seen, the intention is that all artistic works shall have copyright protection initially, but that when the work is industrially applied and commercial use is made of it, the only protection available to the articles embodying the work shall be that obtainable under the Registered Designs Act. In our Bill, we provide that an article is put to commercial use when it is sold or offered for sale. But to hire an article is also to put it to commercial use, and these Amendments provide accordingly. I believe that there are some commercial products which are never sold but which manufacturers exploit solely by hiring. I believe there is such machinery in the shoe business, and things like Hollerith machinery, linotypes and various other things. Although I have no personal

1065
information on this point, I believe it will be of use to industry and those who make common use of this type of product if we insert these quite uncontroversial Amendments in the Bill. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35 leave out from ("sold") to ("and") in line 36 and insert ("let for hire or offered for sale or hire,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD CAWLEY: This is a small point, but the words "let for hire" are not found in the Registered Designs Act, 1949. I would suggest that the words "let for" are omitted.
LORD MANCROFT: I am sorry to say that I have not the Registered Designs Act readily to hand, to look at the point which the noble Lord has made. I will get a copy and will look at the point. At a later stage I may be able to help him if he has a good point. Perhaps he will allow the Amendment to go through now, and I will look at it afterwards.
LORD CAWLEY: Certainly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37 leave out from ("sold) to second ("the") in line 38 and insert ("let for hire or offered for sale or hire,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This, too, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 47, leave out from ("sold) to second ("the") in line 1 on page 15 and insert ("let for hire or offered for sale or hire,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: On the question whether the Clause shall stand part of tilt,' Bill, I should be extremely grateful if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would elucidate a little of the meaning of part of the clause. I understand its primary purpose, which is to differentiate between copyright and rights in a registered design, so that they shall not overlap. Subsection (1) deals with that case, but subsection (2) deals with a case in which the design is not
1066
registered under the Registered Designs Act at all, and it appears now that this wording is so extensive that it will impinge upon the meaning of certain other provisions in this Bill.
Subsection (2) deals with a "corresponding design," which is defined in subsection (6) as meaning a design which, when applied to an article, results in a reproduction of that work. Let us take the case of an engraving, which is an artistic object to which copyright is given by this Bill. An engraving is reproduced by something which, within the meaning of these words, is quite clearly a "corresponding design," which is applied to a piece of paper and which results in a reproduction. It looks as though subsection (2) is going to destroy the protection which hitherto has been given to engravings, and to put them in a totally different category. I should like an explanation of these provisions. I may be mistaken, for they are extremely complicated and difficult to interpret, but I should like to know that this point has been considered.
LORD MANCROFT: As the noble Lord says, this is an extremely complicated clause and I have not had the advantage of having notice that he was going to raise this point. I will certainly look at it and take advice upon it. The subsection to which the noble Lord has referred deals only with a case where copyright subsists in an artistic work, the copyright design has been applied industrially, and the articles produced are sold or offered for sale, and at the time that the articles are sold the design has not been registered as a registered design. We are now trying to achieve that it will no longer be an infringement of copyright to do anything which would have been in the scope of the design had the design been registered; and that is the purpose of the clause, which I thought had been achieved. If, as the noble Lord thinks, the clause has gone wide for its purpose we will look at it again and see whether we have made a mistake.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The clause virtually achieves that purpose, but my question was whether, in doing so, it has not achieved the entirely different purpose of destroying copyright which would normally exist in the engraving.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Claues 12:
Copyright in sound recordings.
12.—(1) Copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every sound recording made in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which this section extends.
(2) Copyright subsisting in a sound recording by virtue of this section shall continue to subsist until the end of the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which records embodying that recording or any part thereof are first issued to the public, and shall then expire.
5.23 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words after "recording" and to insert instead:
"of which the maker was a qualified person at the time when the recording was made.
(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, a copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every sound recording which has been published, if the first publication of the recording took place in the United Kingdom or in another country to which this section extends."
The noble and learned Viscount said: I hope your Lordships will allow me to move this Amendment, which stands in the name of Lord Mancroft. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has considered it, but it might be helpful if we had a rather wide discussion on the first Amendment to Clause 12 so that I could explain the general line of Her Majesty's Government on these points. The noble Lord will then be able to consider how we are to deal with each of these separate points.
This Amendment, and Amendment No. 55, with the help of some consequential Amendments which come later, alter the conditions upon which copyright in sound recordings can be acquired. Your Lordships probably know the difficulties in which the gramophone industry say that they are placed by the fact that the Bill gives copyright to sound recordings only when they are made in this country. We are therefore providing that making in the United Kingdom shall no longer be a criterion for acquiring copyright. Instead, there will be copyright in every recording made by a qualified person (that is, a British subject or company) wherever it is made. In addition, there will be copyright in every recording, no matter by whom it is made, if it is first published in this country.
1068
By a later Amendment, No. 55, your Lordships will see that the publication of the recording lies in the issue of records to the public.
The point I wish to put to the Committee is that sound recordings which comply with those conditions will have copyright here, irrespective of any Orders in Council that we may make. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is generous treatment to sound recordings made by foreigners, since we are under no Convention obligations to protect such recordings. We were urged by the gramophone interests, and no doubt we shall be urged by those to whom the case of the gramophone interests has commended itself, to go even further and to protect all records published here, irrespective of the place of first publication of the recording which they embody. Although we have not fully met this claim, I hope your Lordships will think that we have gone a long way.
I will mention the difficulties shortly but I am prepared to elaborate upon them if necessary. To adopt the gramophone industry's suggestions about "published," as distinct from "first published," would have the effect of bringing back into private ownership recordings which had been published and were in the public domain, and therefore were free for anyone to use. Her Majesty's Government must look at the point of public convenience, and it is important, in their view, that when something is first published the general public should know whether or not they are free to use it. If a recording is published in circumstances in which it enjoys no copyright, it is wrong that at some later date it can, at the option of its maker, subsequently acquire copyright. For that reason we must adhere to the conception of first publication.
As I understand the case which the industry has sought to make, it is that over 50 per cent. of their repertoire consists of records pressed from American recordings and that, for a number of reasons, it is impracticable to ensure that a record will be published in the United Kingdom within thirty days of its publication in the United States, with the result that, under the Bill, even as we propose to amend it, as time goes on there will be a large proportion of records prepared

1069
by the British industry which will enjoy no copyright. Under the Bill as it stands, none of these records will enjoy copyright unless an Order in Council is introduced under Clause 29. Irrespective of the words used in subsection (1) of Clause 12, whether they be "made in the United Kingdom" or, alternatively, "first published in the United Kingdom," the industry represent that the presence on the British market of so large a proportion of records out of copyright would be a great loss to them, and, additionally, that since these records could be played in public without being subject to any control the interests of instrumentalists and bands generally would be gravely affected. I have summarised the case because I do not want your Lordships to think that I have ignored anything. Every interest has the right to have its case considered before legislation takes place, and I haw tried to consider the case, as I understand it, which the gramophone companies have spared no pains to put forward.
I would remind your Lordships, if I may speak generally on the matter at this point, that the series of Government Amendments to the clause which are being made will, I think, help considerably; and a number of them (again I am speaking generally) are on substantially the same lines as several of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has in mind. They deal with the old Amendment which he originally thought of making at line 30, and provide new requirements as to marking in lines 32 and 33. They will propose a limit on subsection (6) (and as to this, the Amendments on page 16, line 43 and page 17, line 3, are relevant); and they will make a new provision as defining publication. Again I ask your Lordships to consider the proposal to add a new subsection (8) on page 17, line 13. I hope your Lordships will feel—that is the object of my speaking at such length on this Amendment—that we have tried to understand, and to meet, so far as we can, the difficulties which the gramophone industry has found. I come back to the difficulty which I have ventured to put before your Lordships: that the idea of a record switching in and out of copyright is one which would be extremely inconvenient to the public, and I thought the noble Lord would not mind if I gave him preliminary notice of the difficulty that was in my mind. I am grateful to
1070
the House for allowing me to go a little wide of this present Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 9, leave out from ("recording") to end of line 10 and insert ("of which the maker was a qualified person at the time when the recording was mace.
(2) Without prejudice to the preceding subsection, copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every sound recording which has been published, if the first publication of the recording took place in the United Kingdom or in another country to which this section extends.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I personally, as, I ant sure, are all your Lordships, am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for having a general discussion upon this aspect of this Clause. May I follow his example? This is one of the most vital clauses in this Bill; it is the one we have been waiting for. It can readily be divided into two distinct parts. The first part is the one which the noble and learned Viscount has now explained to your Lordships: that is, copyright protection for the gramophone record manufacturers against copying and piracy. The other part concerns the public performance of gramophone records. I propose at this juncture to confine myself to the half of the vital issues in this clause which the noble and learned Viscount has most generously, if he will allow me to say so, dealt with; because he has spent more time on the Opposition's case than he has upon his own. That is characteristic of the noble and learned Viscount; I believe he wants to be quite fair.
Let me say at the outset that I realise to the full the dilemma in which he finds himself. As the clause is drafted, without any of the Amendments to which the noble and learned Viscount referred, it would have the effect of practically putting out of business the British recording industry, which I believe (and I do not think I am making any exaggerated claim: I am not a spokesman on their behalf; I ask your Lordships to believe that), is the foremost gramophone recording industry in the world in quality, and also, I believe one might almost claim, in quantity.
I should like to explain very simply the dilemma in which the Government

1071
find themselves. When they found that, under the original drafting of this clause, 70 per cent. of the gramophone records produced in this country would be devoid of any copyright whatsoever, and unprotected against any infringement, they naturally had to have another "think." That is quite apparent if one looks at subsection (6) of Clause 12, which says that copyright can exist only in a recording made in this country—and "making" was defined as the actual physical recording in this country of artists in this country in a studio in this country. But 50 per cent. of the records on sale in this country are made by foreigners in foreign countries, and 20 per cent. (making the total 70 per cent. to which I have referred), are made in a foreign country by British companies.
The technique to-day has developed along the line that it is far easier to take the recording apparatus to the artist than to bring the artist to the recording apparatus. For instance, take recording opera at La Scala, in Milan. A British company has a contract running into thousands and thousands a year. It takes its whole delicate recording apparatus to Milan, records the whole of the opera on a steel tape that can be brought back to this country in a waistcoat pocket. When the Government realised the dilemma they were in, because they had no desire to put the British gramophone recording industry out of business, they produced the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has just moved and which includes the words
"of which the maker was a qualified person at the time when the recording was made."
As the noble and learned Viscount has said, that Amendment has made a dent in the problem, because it will give copyright for all purposes required by Clause 12 to those records recorded in a foreign country by a British concern—that is, the 20 per cent. to which I have referred.
But it will still leave 50 per cent. of the records on sale in this country without any copyright whatsoever. As the noble and learned Viscount has said, the vast bulk of these—indeed, practically the whole—are American records, recorded in America and sold to the British companies for manufacture in this country under licence. I think I have explained to your Lordships the dilemma, because
1072
these records will not be copyrighted in any way under this clause, unless an Order in Council is made under Clause 29, which will extend the provisions of this Act to countries with which this country is in Covenant obligation. So America will then be included. But there will be, of course, an interval between the two.
If the noble and learned Viscount could arrange that the necessary Orders in Council came into force simultaneously with the coming into force of this Bill, as an Act, I think that would meet the case. But will they? I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount can give that assurance, whether that is a physical possibility, or whether it can be incorporated in the Act. But at present between the time an American record is first published in America and the time when the Orders in Council cover publication in this country—and I am told that Orders in Council may take eighteen months or two years—that record is not copyrighted at all. The noble and learned Viscount has been kind enough to explain to your Lordships why he feels in a difficulty about removing the word "first" from any of these Amendments. That is the stumbling block; it is first published in another country. What would happen would be this. A steel matrix would be made and it would come over to this country under licence. The licence-holder may make a record from the matrix at once, or he may delay making it for commercial purposes which he thinks proper from his own point of view. But although he is the licence-holder and entitled to make that record under licence in this country, it is still open to anyone to go to America—or to anyone in America—purchase one of those records, bring it over to this country, take a recording of that recording, make a record and publish it to all and sundry, because it is not copyrighted until the Order in Council comes into force.
What is baffling the noble and learned Viscount is this. If he omits the word "first" from "first published" and leaves the single word "published," and, in the interim, a pirate—I use the colloquial term "pirate" so that your Lordships will understand who it is I mean—steps in, or anyone other than the licence-holder, or it may be even, indeed, the licence-holder, then any record that is made can be sold outside or in the

1073
public domain. And as soon as the licence-holder publishes it—that is, if the word "first" is eliminated—what was in the public domain immediately goes into the private domain. In other words, something that may have been uncopyrighted for three months or six months then becomes copyrighted. I think the noble and learned Earl will say that it is not right, in the case of something which has been to the free use of the public for a length of time, to the free use of everyone, that because a licence-holder then makes his record the axe should come down and no one be able to make that record again: that it cannot be performed in public because it is fully copyrighted.
My answer to the noble and learned Viscount is this. Unless the Order in Council is published simultaneously with the coming into force of this Bill, the dilemma he will he in is this. A record is made and is first published in America. It is then brought over to this country. Thousands of records are made and sold. As soon as the Order in Council comes into force it comes out of the public domain into the private domain. That is my interpretation. So the noble and learned Viscount really is not getting out of his dilemma. I am suggesting to him that there are only two ways out of his difficulty. The first is to make the publication of the Order in Council simultaneous with the coming into force of this Bill, so that there is no time lag. The second way out of his difficulty is to accept my series of Amendments.
My Amendments do not do anything other than do those of the noble and learned Viscount, except that, by my Amendments, the copyright comes into force immediately the licensee first publishes the record and so exercises his licence. That is the position as I see it. I do not know any other way to get the noble and learned Viscount out of his difficulty unless he says that we must put up with having 50 per cent. of the records on sale in this country non-copyrighted. He might—though I do not think he would—turn round and say: "Would not that please you, in view of your insistence that there cannot be a performing right in respect of a record which is not copyrighted?" Unless it is copyrighted three things would be permitted: copying, performing in public and broadcasting.
1074
My final point in reply to the noble and learned Viscount is this. He may say: "Is not a producer of a record in this awkward position: that although he has a licence to produce this record in this country it has first been produced in America, and until he actually produces someone may do all this in an act of piracy?" I say: "Yes, but that is a commercial risk." The holder of a licence to produce the record must run this risk if he does not want to produce the record in this country straight away. That is his business. If he does not get to work straight away, others—to use a colloquial term—may" muscle in "before him, and he must put up with it. But I think it is against the interests of industry to have that risk multiplied by the time lag which I think must occur between production in America and the operation of the Order in Council. So I now leave this point with the Government, having explained my Amendments, which are practically the same as those of the noble and learned Viscount, but I leave out the word "first."
The effect of my first Amendment would be to make subsection (1) of this clause read:
"Copyright shall subsist, subject to the provisions of this Act, in every sound recording published in the United Kingdom or in any other country to which this section extends."
That is the simple point. If the noble and learned Viscount, putting the word "first" in, thinks he gets out of the difficulty of coming out of the public domain into the private domain, my contention is that he does not, because he comes into the private domain from the public domain as soon as the Order in Council becomes operative. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but that is the other side of the story. I am afraid that for the present I shall have to leave this problem to the noble and learned Viscount. I would suggest that it would be a very serious thing for British industry in future if this were allowed. I would further suggest to him that he should seek some way of salving his conscience over what I think is this rather academic point of coming from the public domain into the private domain.
LORD CONESFORD: This is, I think, a very difficult clause, and it is made more difficult to follow in some ways by the multitude of Amendments that have been put down. I am grateful to my

1075
noble and learned friend for his clear exposition of the Government Amendments. I think there is no doubt at all that they make a great improvement in the clause as it was originally drafted. Nevertheless, I am not clear about the effect on some of the interests of this important industry, many of which have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
I want to make my points in an interrogative way, to make certain that I have understood the matter correctly. I agree with the noble Lord that, were it possible to accept the Amendments he has put down, the position of the industry would be more satisfactory; but that does not mean that my noble and learned friend was wrong in pointing out the substantial difficulties of abandoning entirely this conception of first publication. Hitherto all records in the industry's catalogues have enjoyed entire protection against piracy, and the industry would be content if that could continue to be the case for the period of copyright conferred, subject to any provisions dealing with the tribunal and so forth. The first question I wish to put to my noble and learned friend is this: even if amended by the Government Amendments, is not this clause making a great change in the existing law, to the disadvantage of the industry? That is not necessarily a final argument against it, but if I am right in saying that it does make a considerable change in the protection that the industry has enjoyed, certainly de facto and I think de jure, for many years, it is a little surprising that that change was not pointed out either in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill or in the comprehensive speech of my noble friend on Second Reading.
Now we have these Amendments. I would draw attention to the concluding words of the first Amendment:
"—if the first publication of the recording took place in the United Kingdom or in another country to which this section extends."
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, that takes us to Clause 29. I was glad to see that the Government Amendment, No. 118, has been tabled to that clause. I think it is germane to consider it in this general discussion. It may be that the difficulty felt by the industry can be dealt with by the Order in Council procedure under
1076
Clause 29. I fully appreciate the difficulty of my noble friend in making any definite pronouncement about what might be contemplated under Clause 29, but if the protection of the British industry should depend on an Order-in-Council procedure which is primarily concerned with giving benefits elsewhere, it is a little curious. That may not be a great objection.
There are other matters which concern me. It may be that they are inevitable difficulties. One is that there is no certainty of an Order in Council in the case of all countries that may be involved, but by far the most important is the United States, and if this Order-in-Council procedure is adopted under Clause 29 it may greatly diminish or do away with the difficulty to which I have drawn attention and to some extent with the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred. But I think it would be reassuring if my noble and learned friend could give us some idea of what might be contemplated under the clause. I am encouraged about what might be contemplated by Amendment No. 118.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I think the noble Lord is a little muddled in his numbers. The clause is No. 29, and I think the Amendment to which he refers is No. 121.
LORD CONESFORD: The difficulty may be that we are using different lists of Marshalled Amendments. In the list I am using it is No. 118, but it may be No. 121 in some other list. However, I think the noble Lord and I are referring to the same thing. To remove all difficulty it is the Amendment which reads:
"insert 'sound recordings'."
I am obliged to the noble Lord for clearing up any doubt there may be. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could tell us whether this is new law in the sense not merely of redrafting but of the withdrawing of a protection that has long been enjoyed by the British industry; and secondly, whether he can give me any general idea of the use that will be made of Order-in-Council procedure which may largely remove the difficulties I feel and which I believe the British industry fears.
EARL JOWITT: This is a very difficult clause and I think the noble and learned

1077
Viscount the Lord Chancellor is wise in having a general discussion at this stage. May I add a word or two, because I think it was I who pointed out on Second Reading that the position would be deplorable in a case where people were sent, for instance, to Milan to take a recording of a performance at La Scala. Do not let us pass that by as a mere mechanical matter. To get the occasion when all the artists are singing in tune and the orchestra is doing its best would involve a good many performances. It is a matter which involves not merely mechanical skill, but also musical and artistic appreciation, and it would be unfortunate if anybody sent out to do such a recording, with all the necessary staff, had no copyright whatever, which is the position as this Bill is drafted before we pass this Amendment; and it is, I believe, the position under the existing law. The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong, because I am becoming muddled. There has been no assertion to the contrary, which gives me some confidence.
We must bear in mind that copyright involves three things. First of all, it means that no one can pirate a recording. For instance, in the case I have given, if somebody sends out to Milan and takes a recording, nowadays it is perfectly easy, I understand, to play that record through on your gramophone and make a tape recording (it may be even simpler), and then, from the tape recording, make a new record. I believe that is quite a simple thing to do for any mechanically-minded person. By that means, without having borne the burden and the heat of the day, without having gone to Milan and got the recording, or used the considerable artistic musical knowledge and appreciation, you can reap benefits. That is what I call piracy. The second point is this: if it is copyright, you have the right to prevent its being played in public—and that is a very different right. Third, comes the question as to broadcasting, which does not arise here.
The general proposition on which I stand is this. I am all against copyright in so far as it involves any question of public performance. I think it a great misfortune that, by a side wind and by an accident, this right ever came in. It was never intended, and personally I should like to see it ended. However, on
1078
this occasion, as on many others, I have made friends with the mammon of unrighteousness and have been in touch with the gramophone people. I must say that they have been most reasonable and helpful. Amendment No. 56, the Amendment on broadcasting which we shall come to in due course, I drafted myself, although I am not at all proud of the drafting; I did it in a few minutes, while others were talking, and undoubtedly it can be improved. But it does represent, by and large, subject to consideration with them, the length to which they are prepared to go. It is fair to add that I think they have gone a considerable way; and if they go to that length, I think a good many of the objections which I have previously felt to giving them the right to prevent public performances will disappear.
On the other hand they think that where somebody hires a cinema or a concert hall and gives concerts, simply by using records, there is no reason in a case of that sort why they should not have some royalty paid to them. I should have thought that that is an unlikely thing to happen, but I am assured that recording has become so good that it is not by any means inconceivable that that form of concert may take place in future, when people will like to go and hear these records, to hear music played by a good orchestra rather than by a not so good orchestra. So it is not fanciful to imagine that there may be occasions when a concert hall or a cinema will be engaged and, for purposes of gain, with the public paying for admission, somebody will give a concert of gramophone records. In a case like that my objection is much less strong than it is in the other cases. But that is all broadcasting.
Having taken a rather hostile view to the gramophone people on the question of performance in public, where, frankly, I feel they ought not to have any rights at all, I have great sympathy with them with regard to piracy. Frankly, I do not think it is playing the game, if they have had all the expense and trouble of sending out their people and recording a performance, that any Tom, Dick or Harry should be allowed to take advantage of their work merely by buying one of their records, playing it through, producing his own record and selling it. I would give them every protection I could against piracy,

1079
but I would give them no protection in the sense that they have a copyright to prevent public performance. That is where I stand.
I was greatly impressed with the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, gave us, and I know what trouble he has taken in this matter. This country is in a fortunate position to-day. A large part of the records from all over the world come to this country and are sold from here. I do not mean that the records sold from here are necessarily mechanically produced here, but they are copied here, and under licence. Again, I do not think it is fair that if anybody here gets from an American manufacturer a licence to reproduce his records—so that he is not a pirate in any way—he should be more or less put out of business by somebody who had got in first, who has managed to get that American record, bring it over here in his suitcase, coming over on the "Queen Mary," and publish it. At this stage, unless the Orders in Council are made simultaneously with the passing of the Act, there will be no copyright.
The case I want your Lordships to imagine is this. One of the gramophone companies enters into a contract with some American people—for which they pay in many cases many thousands of pounds—to have the right to reproduce their music. It frequently happens, and commercially it generally happens, that the American company will not let that be done until they have first had a run. Therefore, there is not simultaneous publication in America and this country. That, I believe, is the general rule. We therefore have to consider the difficulty of a company here, paying a large sum of money in order to secure the right to reproduce those records, who can more or less be put out of business by an individual who happens to be in America, who buys this record—which ex hypothesi is on sale in America before it is manufactured here—flies back to this country with it, and having got back here manufactures his own group of records from that one record (which, as I have said, is quite easy to do) and thereupon proceeds to vend it. I do not think that is very commendable work, and I do not think we should give that gentleman much encouragement. He can, of course,
1080
say: "At the moment I am making my copies and I am doing nothing wrong, because the work has not yet been published in this country, and therefore, there is no copyright in it." But he knows that in all probability very soon afterwards the record will be manufactured here under an agreement for which a lot of money has been paid. He is taking a chance and making hay while the sun shines. If the licence is granted to some manufacturer who starts making this record, then from that time on the records which the man as a semi-pirate has made should no longer be allowed.
That is the object of the group of Amendments which we have put down. I say that only because I think it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between stopping performances, on the one hand, and stopping piracy, on the other. The broad attitude of noble Lords on this side is that we want to do away with the decision in the Cawardine case, so far as we can, and do away with the right of the gramophone people to prevent performances in public—though I am prepared to settle on that basis broadly on the lines I have indicated. On the other hand, I want to give them every protection I can against all the trickery which may—and probably does—exist to-day whereby the work for which they have gone to a great deal of trouble, or the record for which they have paid a large sum of money in order to be able to reproduce it, is taken from them by somebody who has paid nothing at all other than in the purchase of a gramophone record. I hope those lines will become plain as we discuss the rest of the Bill. With regard to this particular Amendment, I need hardly say that we welcome it. It is a fundamental change in the Bill, and I venture to think that the existence of this Amendment, if nothing else, justifies the task which at some length and after some heavy work we of the Opposition have been trying to carry out. It shows how important it is that in this House, as in the other place, there must be some Opposition in order that these matters may be debated.
6.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It might be convenient if I gave my views in answer to what has been said so far. The noble and learned Earl has been kind enough to say that he is prepared

1081
to accept this Amendment pro tanto, and accept it as something which makes an improvement. I want to confine my remarks to the aspect of the matter which has been largely discussed—namely, whether the Bill, with the Amendments that are proposed, provides the best means for the protection of foreign records. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and my noble friend Lord Conesford drew attention to Clause 29, under which the provisions of this Bill, either in whole or in part, can be applied to the works of other countries. Both noble Lords drew attention to the Amendment which it is proposed to make to Clause 29 (1) (a), after which it will be possible, by an Order in Council, to extend the full protection of Clause 12 to gramophone records made from recordings made it the United States and first published there I submit to your Lordships that that provides a means of protection, and in short time I shall come to the question of how far I ought to go to-day and also, let me be frank, how far your Lordships ought to ask me to go to-day in saying what the contents of the Order in Council shall be. I am glad that the Amendment we are now discussing has removed part, at least, of the grievance of the British gramophone industry by bringing within the scope of the clause any maker who is a qualified person.
I have listened carefully to the argument that this is not enough, in view of the large proportion of foreign, particularly American, records in the repertoire of the British companies. As it is convenient, may I contrast it for the moment with the noble Lord's suggestion in his next Amendment, which is to substitute for "made" in line 9 of page 16, the word, "published." I think the noble Lord is aware that, despite its attractions at first sight, that Amendment introduces a concept which is entirely foreign to the principles on which copyright is granted. I am afraid—and I should like him to consider this—that it would also have mischievous results. What I meant by saying that it is foreign to the principles is that it is inconsistent with the general scheme of copyright, which, in so far as it depends on publication, depends on first publication. Your Lordships will remember that I went into that point in speaking on this Bill on Second Reading. To take the example of a book, your Lordships may remember that I men-
1082
tioned that a book first published in a Convention country secures copyright, but if the first copyright is in a non-Convention country and there is no simultaneous publication, the book enjoys no copyright in the United Kingdom.
I have indicated that I appreciate the point which the gramophone companies are making; and it has been urged on their behalf by some of your Lordships to-day that there may be a lapse of weeks, or even months, between the publication of the record in the United States and its subsequent publication in the United Kingdom. So one has to face the difficulty that, even if an Order in Council were to be made applying Clause 12 to American recordings, it is improbable that many of them would enjoy the protection of the Order in Council. Unless the Order in Council confers copyright on recordings made by American nationals this would be true, and I think that is the point one comes down to. It would not be right for me to anticipate the form of the Order, but I submit to your Lordships that it could be done; and if it were done, surely the industries on both sides of the Atlantic can so manage their business that they can take advantage of the provisions relating to simultaneous publication. I submit that that could be done, and, as I say, I do not think it would he right for me to anticipate the Order in Council. But I think your Lordships should be convinced that that will be the position under the Bill after it has been amended.
I want your Lordships to appreciate the difficulty which I put earlier. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, appreciated the other horn of the dilemma, if I may put it that way. Of course, he will remember that this is not a matter in which the United Kingdom and the United States gramophone industries are alone concerned. On the facts which, as I understand them, form the basis of the noble Lord's argument—that there is a considerable period of time between the publication of records—the position might well arise that an importer of records will have bought American records, will have sold them and that they will have been played. That is apart altogether from any sinister position. As I see it, that would be a perfectly ordinary and proper commercial transaction. They will have been played, and they will be in course of being played in public. All this

1083
will be perfectly legal, and neither the importer nor the persons playing the record will be liable for any infringement. Nevertheless, at a much later date the whole of these rights which have been in the public domain will, by the mere act of pressing and publishing records, have passed from the public into the private domain. That is the difficulty. I do not see, on the other side of the line, how we can relieve that position.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am following the noble and learned Viscount with great care. Would not the same position arise when the Order in Council is made? There would be a lapse. The same thing could happen, as the noble and learned Viscount has just said, from the quite legitimate purchase of a record in America, bringing it over here and quite legitimately selling it. But the Order in Council is then made and that takes it back into the private domain, because it then becomes copyright.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, but surely—and this is the point I want the noble Lord to consider—the Order in Council plus provisions for simultaneous publication would get us out of that difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But let us suppose—I think I am right in this—that the arrangements that were made for simultaneous publication were not a feasible proposition on both sides of the Atlantic.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I find difficult. One horn of the dilemma is, as I have said, putting people in the position that I have just indicated, and the other is the argument that the gramophone industry, with its enormous size, wealth, position and business experience on both sides of the Atlantic, cannot arrange for a reasonable application of simultaneous publication. I shall need a lot of convincing on that. The very apprehensions which your Lordships have had in the other field is a tribute to the tremendous ramifications and power of the industry.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put to my noble and learned friend a case where it can arise? Supposing it is a recording of a musical play that has been produced on the other side of the Atlantic but has
1084
not yet been produced in this country; then there may be the greatest difficulties in publishing a record of the musical comedy before the musical comedy itself has been produced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like, if I may, to give some expert evidence on that. I visited New York last September. While I was engaged on rhetorical activities, at which the noble and learned Earl will probably be able to guess, my family went to the New York performance of The Pajama Game. They brought back a record of the New York performance of The Pajama Game and also a long-playing record of the American version of Wonderful Town. I do not know about your Lordships (I am speaking only for myself) but I often find that I want to hear the American version of good musical plays and that whether I go to the version in London or not may well depend on whether I have enjoyed the American records. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has a point. I am sure that other people may well say, "Well, that is the thing. We have heard the American records and we are not going to hear another version." But it may work the other way. It is a point of some persuasion, but not absolutely conclusive.
EARL JOWITT: Before we leave The Pajama Game, that is a perfect illustration, because in that actual case the Americans would not allow the publication of the records over here until after the records had been published there. I was told that that frequently happens. If that is so, then difficulty arises.
6.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a difficulty and I quite see that it is a reasonable point of view, as I have admitted, although it did not happen to be persuasive with me. If one took an ordinary Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra recording of a popular song, I should not think that any such difficulty would arise—at least I cannot see any a priori reason for its arising. The same applies to a large field. I think the noble and learned Earl has a point. If you have a long-playing record of a whole play, or of the main numbers in a play, as, for instance, these Wonderful Town and The Pajama Game records, there might well be an objection; but that forms a special class. Broadly, I should have thought that it

1085
was rather difficult to imagine that they could not use the two things, the Order in Council procedure plus some arrangement as to simultaneous publication. That would have met the noble and learned Earl's point. As I say, I cannot give any undertaking as to what would be in the Order in Council, but I am concerned to-day to show that it is a possible line that could be pursued. The other horn of the dilemma really worries me because, by it, people are, so to speak, lured into the use of the records and then are put in great difficulties. I am glad that, so far as this Amendment is concerned, your Lordships are prepared to accept it—indeed, are not merely prepared to accept it but regard it as an improvement on the position under the Bill as it stands.
With regard to the next Amendment, I have, in anticipation, stated the difficulties that I feel with regard to the noble Lord's substitution of "published" for "made". As to the general matter, I have gone part of the distance in helping to overcome the difficulties of the gramophone companies, and by Amendment. No. 118, which I propose to make, I have provided the means. In that way, we have gone a considerable distance to meet the difficulties of the companies in this regard. I hope that at this stage of the Bill your Lordships will be content with this, but if your Lordships do feel that we should consider it again, that can be done on Report. Of course everything that is said will be studied. I do not want to tic myself in any way, but I give that promise.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will permit me to say this. As this particular subject must have far more careful consideration than we can give it across this Table, and as the noble and learned Viscount has said that he wants to do the best he possibly can—from the first I have appreciated his dilemma—I would ask him one or two questions so that we can have this in our minds. If my figures are right—and I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that they are —if we pass all his Amendments, that will still leave 50 per cent. of the gramophone records in the catalogues of this country unprotected by any form of copyright during the
1086
interim period before the Order in Council is made and the copyright subsists. I am right there. And if I am right there, does not this, for all practical purposes, nullify subsection (4), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of Clause 12?
Subsection (4) says:
"The acts restricted by the copyright in a sound recording are the following, whether a record embodying the recording is utilised directly or indirectly in doing them, that is to say

(a) making a record embodying the recording;

(b) causing the recording to he heard in public;

(c) broadcasting the recording."

That provision falls to the ground in regard to 50 per cent. of the records. Taking paragraph (c), does this mean that not only the B.B.C. but also the I.T.A.—and when we are talking about the I.T.A. we are really talking about the programme companies—can, without let or hindrance, use all American records for the purpose of their entertainment and that they are rot covered by copyright? Is that not a serious threat to British industry and to the British artist? Are we not saying, in effect, that the only records that can be used with impunity and without charge of any kind are American records? Fifty per cent. of the records used are British-made records or records made by British companies in foreign countries.
I want the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to think this over. It is all very well for the purist to say, "We cannot bring something back again from the public domain into the private domain." I believe that if the noble and learned Viscount would study carefully the Patents Act of 1949, he would see that there is an assumption in that Act that an article is patented. I am not a lawyer. When I get to a problem such as this, I always say, "Thank goodness, I am not!" But I would beg the noble and learned Viscount not to be misled by the purists who may be advising him that one cannot bring anything back front the public domain to the private domain because it has never been done before. If some of the facts I am now giving about the damage it may do to industry are right, it is about time it was done.
I am not going to put the supposed rights of a pirate—again I use the word with reservation—who knows that he

1087
pirates these records. He buys them; he does not do anything illegally, but all the time he knows very well that he can "make the going good" only for a short period, until the Government make an Order in Council; then back the matter comes into private domain. He is then high and dry. He knows this from the start. The noble and learned Viscount who bought his record of The Pajama Game in New York—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was given it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: —is not going to pirate it. There may be hundreds of people who do the same thing. The person who is going to buy a record in America to come over here and pirate, knows that he can enjoy his life as a buccaneer only for a limited period. Meanwhile, these three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), which contain the purpose of this clause, cannot operate in regard to 50 per cent. of the records. The B.B.C. or any programme company can play these records. Records are playing a bigger part in broadcasting every day, until, in my view, there will come a time when there will be no live broadcasting at all, either on television or on sound. They can play all American records; they can play all the best symphonic music, so long as the record is first published in America. The noble and learned Viscount must seriously think about this problem. I am not going to hamper his thought. If my noble Leader acquiesces I am quite willing not to divide on the Amendments of the noble Viscount, or to move mine—
EARL JOWITT: I do not agree to that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I speak only in regard to this limit—I have not come to Amendment No. 56. I think the Committee need to give a lot more thought to this matter; we shall have to return to it upon many occasions until this Bill is through. Why is this being done? It is because the Copyright Act, 1911, needs revising, and we are afraid to revise it. We have not the courage to do something that the purist does not want done—that is, to bring something back from the public domain into the private domain. That is the dilemma. If my noble friends wish to discuss any other of the noble and learned
1088
Viscount's Amendments on this matter, I am perfectly willing; but I am going to leave this problem with the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord finishes on this matter, I want to make one thing clear. It is not a question of our not wanting to alter the law. What worries me is the true dilemma: that on the one side we have the noble Lord's point that there will be these records coming in, with the difficulties which he has mentioned. But there is still my point—not the mere fact that these records are coming back from the public to the private domain but that millions of people may have treated them as being in the public domain and will then suddenly have to switch back at a difficult date. I hope that I may make a reciprocal request to the noble Lord, who obviously has taken great trouble over this matter, to have another look at simultaneous publication.
EARL JOWITT: If the Lord Chancellor looks at Clause 43, at page 50, line 20, he will see that the Bill there deals with unauthorised publication. I agree that it is in rather a different context, but we are considering what is publication and what is unauthorised publication. It seems to me that it might meet this point, if the licensed, authorised publication were made the first, disregarding all the unauthorised publications, such as where a man has cut his own record.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I find it not easy to understand the difficulties which are alleged to exist in this matter. The whole object of affording copyright to gramophone records is this. The maker of a gramophone record has to undertake considerable overhead expenditure in the first place in order to make a record, and if somebody is allowed to take an Impression of his record and to reproduce it, he is robbing the person who originally made the record of the fruits of his labour. The person who makes the record expects to get the reward of the fruits of his labour by selling the record. If he takes steps to sell it in this country, he will get protection. If he does not bother to take the step, of having his record sold in this country, why should he get any protection at all? Why should not the market be

1089
free to anybody who chooses to sell it here? Surely that is the criterion. Immediately he begins to take active steps to sell it here, having made the record, let us say, in the United States, at that stage he becomes entitled to protection, because he is then determined to exploit it here. Why should he get protection in anticipation, for a possibly unlimited period, because he simply made a record somewhere else and is not exerting himself at all to sell it in this country?
With regard to the difficulty which the noble and learned Viscount raised towards the close of his last observations, it is true that it could then happen that a number of unauthorised copies would be sold in this country because the original maker of the record had not taken the trouble to exploit it here. But he is not damaged by that; he has not been trying to sell records here; he has not apparently been trying to get his profit by selling them in this country. If he afterwards gets copyright in his record, because he then exploits it in this country, it is true that he will have lost part of his market because he did not exert himself sooner; but why should he have any compensation for that, and what practical inconvenience will arise? The records will have been offered to the public and the public will have bought some of them. His future sales will be to that extent diminished, but that is all that will happen.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Is it not possible that the noble Lord who has just sat down has rather over-simplified the issue when talking of certain manufacturers of records not exerting themselves sufficiently to bring recordings over to this country? The position is a little difficult. Every manufacturer of gramophone records here will have various commercial agreements with other people, for example in America; but it does not follow that those commercial agreements automatically make it possible for him to bring the records over and publish them simultaneously. It may easily turn out that although one has a perfectly good
1090
commercial agreement and everybody on this side is exerting themselves to fulfil it, that commercial agreement will not, for various good reasons, allow simultaneous publication, and therefore there is bound to be a lag in time.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Publication need not necessarily be simultaneous. If a man makes an agreement which does not allow him to have simultaneous publication, why should we worry about it? That is a private deal between the people concerned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 15, and insert ("the recording is first published,").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I ask your Lordships' indulgence here? Most of us have had a tiring day. Through the usual channels, we had arranged to break oil at seven o'clock and it is now almost a quarter to seven. The next Amendment is a vital one. I would therefore ask the indulgence of the noble and learned Viscount to resume the House. We could then begin this Amendment with rather fresher minds and voices at our nest sitting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am pleased to accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We shall deal with this entrancing subject at our next sitting.
House resumed.

RUNCORN-WIDNES BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before seven o'clock.