Sitting of 14 December 1955

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BLYTH GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 24th January.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  KENYA

    Mau-Mau Terrorists
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consult the Governor of Kenya with a view to reopening discussions with the Mau-Mau leaders with the object of ending the fighting in the Colony and Protectorate.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): The terrorist gangs have been broken up into small groups and there is now no effective leadership. Surrenders continue under the "Green Branch" terms, which are still in force.
    Mr. Brockway: Did not the negotiations at the beginning of the year fail because the Mau-Mau leaders had lost certain political conditions? Would it now be possible to reach some of the leaders, in spite of the facts that the right hon. Gentleman has given, in order to bring an end to the fighting and to allow reconstruction to begin?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think an end is coming to the fighting because of the mastery secured by the security forces and the mass of the people in Kenya.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the number of people with Mau-Mau? Are any terms of surrender still open to them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would hesitate to give an answer to the first part of the question, but I will apply my mind to it and let the right hon. Gentleman know. On the second part of the question, "Green Branch" terms still continue in force, as I said in my reply.

    Book (Prohibition)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the import and circulation of the revised edition, particulars of which have been supplied to him, of "The Trial of Jomo Kenyatta," by Montagu Slater, have been prohibited in Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This book deals with the trial of Jomo Kenyatta in a manner which, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, makes its importation and circulation undesirable in the public interest.
    Mr. Swingler: That is a very different answer from what was said in June. Is not the Secretary of State aware that when the Minister of State was asked this question in June, the sole reason he gave for the banning of this book was that it named certain prosecution witnesses whose names had been withheld at the trial? That is on record in HANSARD as the answer he gave. How is it, when the publishers are now taking the trouble to withdraw the prosecution witnesses' names and substitute pseudonyms, that the Governor produces a quite different and political reason?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was a pity—and I take full responsibility for it—that not all the various blemishes in this book were taken out at the same time. One has undoubtedly been removed, but others remain, and I fully support the Governor's action.

    Kamau Kichina
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the concern at the behaviour of the police as revealed by the case of Kamau Kichina, he will now publish the recommendations for the reorganisation of the Kenya police which were put forward by Colonel Young in his report to the Governor on his resignation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 2nd February about Colonel Young's resignation, and the remarks I made in the debate on 16th February.
    Mrs. Castle: But is it not a fact that Colonel Young resigned because he believed that abuses in Kenya would never be stopped until the police were made independent of the Administration? Was not his point of view fully justified by the case of Kamau Kichina when no fewer than three administrative officers were involved, one of them a regular member of the Service who encouraged the maltreatment of Kamau Kichina by dragging him before a village meeting and inciting the villagers to violence against him? Does this not once again emphasise the need for the reforms which Colonel Young demanded and which have been suppressed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Colonel Young and I agreed on a statement issued at the time, and I have nothing to add to it. In regard to the most distressing Kamau Kichina case, I made a statement on 26th October which set out the steps taken to prevent a recurrence. To the hon. Lady may I say that, in that visit to Kenya which she so recently paid, she said to one of the senior officers of the Kenya Government that as it was difficult to get information in Parliament from time to time the only thing to do was to hit out wildly and hope that some blows would strike their mark. I suggest that that is not a very proper line.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks it in accordance with the position of a Minister to repeat an unconfirmed statement made by somebody without inquiry? Did he take the opportunity of putting that statement to my hon. Friend before making it in the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, nor as far as I know did the hon. Lady check up with the Attorney-General, or anybody else in Kenya, the articles she wrote in the Daily Mirror?
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Colonial Secretary not aware that he is quoting from private talks which I had with the Attorney-General with whom I spent no less than eight hours going into these facts? I told the Attorney-General that I was satisfied as a result of my inquiries made in Kenya that the trouble with this case did not lie with his Department and I was prepared to say so in Parliament, and I say it now. I also said to him that it
    1176
    was so difficult to get replies from the Colonial Secretary that it was difficult to establish where the trouble lay. I am now satisfied that the trouble lies in the administrative service and its control over the police. Everything that has happened since has justified Colonel Young in his demands.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady used very strong language herself.
    Mr. Brockway: It is absolutely scandalous to repeat a private conversation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It led to the greatest distress—
    Mr. Brockway: Absolutely scandalous quoting a private conversation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —in Kenya.
    Mr. Brockway: Absolutely scandalous.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that it is very disorderly to interrupt whilst sitting in his seat.
    Mr. Brockway: May I rise to a point of order? Is it not contrary to all the custom of this House for a member of the Government to quote a private conversation with a civil servant in the Colony and make an accusation of that kind against my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)?
    Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the practice of the House which governs the matter, but I hope this subject will be discussed with moderation on both sides.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady said something which it is essential to answer. The courts and the Administration are independent and if the hon. Lady suggests that they are not, that is just one of those wild statements which I say she is most unwise to make.
    Mr. Dugdale: May we take it that it is now the policy of the Colonial Office that all conversations which any Members have with officials of the Colonial Office are to be made public? May we know that so that none of us may dare to have such conversations in the future? Is that the policy?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the right hon. Gentleman, with his own experience of administration, knows that if a service has been treated to some reflections on it which are deeply resented by large numbers of people, they are entitled to protect their service and to draw attention to wild charges when they are made, particularly as Ministers have not the privilege of being able to write regular articles for the Daily Mirror.
    Mr. Brockway: General Franco.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of these statements is wild? Is it not a fact that, unlike in this country, the police in Kenya are responsible to the Administration and not to the law?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that at the end of October, when we dealt with the Kamau case in a calm atmosphere, there was no disagreement about it. It was made quite plain what steps were being taken and there was no disagreement about the general repugnance with which the whole House regretted what had happened. There was agreement also on the steps being taken to prevent its recurrence. I suggest that in the particular problem of Kenya, rather than rake over things which have gone wrong, it would be helpful to concentrate on the brighter future which could lie ahead.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he will again consider the action which he has taken this afternoon—to make in this House, without prior consultation with the hon. Member concerned, a report of a private conversation which she had or is alleged to have had with an officer in the Colonial Service? If that is to become the practice, my view is that in the long run it will be a very grave disadvantage and not an advantage to everybody concerned in the Colony.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If we were able to conduct our discussions solely on the Floor of the House, that might well be true, but unfortunately in this problem a very large public has been brought in and plied with monstrous slanders in Kenya, and I feel it my duty to draw attention to the sort of manner in which some of these slanders are born.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in order for the Minister to say that another Member of the House of Commons has been guilty of monstrous slanders?
    Mr. Speaker: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the public had been treated to a number of monstrous slanders. That is a general statement.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. The Colonial Secretary has accused me in my articles in the Daily Mirror of spreading slanders against the Attorney-General which justified his reply. [Laughter.] May I claim your protection, Mr. Speaker? I went out of my way in my articles in the Daily Mirror to explain that I had talked to the Attorney-General and that I was satisfied that he was as anxious as I was to see that justice was done. If I liked to quote in the House some of the private conversations and comments which Government servants made to me, it would make the Colonial Secretary's hair stand on end.
    Mr. Speaker: I think we cannot carry the matter further at this stage.
    Mrs. Castle: May I ask the Colonial Secretary for a reply?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must insist on order in this matter. I regret these disturbances. If the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter and gives notice that she will raise it on the Adjournment, we might be able to get on with it, but I do not think we can do so at Question Time when other hon. Members have Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I have already asked you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity on Adjournment day, before the House rises, to raise this matter. I hope you will give me the opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: I will certainly look into the matter, but I never consider these matters until I get the complete list, which will be tomorrow. I will look at it then.
    Mr. Paget: Further to that point of Order.
    Mr. Speaker: There is no point of Order before the House.
    Mr. Paget: With great respect, the point of order which I should have thought was before the House was whether an accusation that somebody has made gross slanders is an accusation which is in order. The Minister has been asked what the slanders were and he has dodged the answer. He has been asked, "What do you say the hon. Lady has said which is not true?" He has dodged the answer. In those circumstances, as a matter of order, is he not obliged to withdraw the statement?
    Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing said which demands a withdrawal. I gather that there is a dispute as to the facts of what was said. I think that sort of question would be much better debated on the Adjournment. We cannot deal with it now.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the medical evidence advanced as to the cause of death of Kamau Kichina which led to the alteration of the charge against the accused from one of murder to that of causing grievous bodily harm.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The reason why the magistrate took the view that committal for trial on a charge of murder or manslaughter could not be justified was that the medical witness before him stated that it was impossible to be explicit as to the exact cause of death and that he could not say absolutely that the deceased did not die from any natural cause.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the medical witness, Dr. Brown, also said in court that he had not made as careful an examination of Kamau Kichina's injuries as otherwise he would have made because of a misleading statement made to him by the regular administrative officer, Mr. Richmond, as to the state of Kamau Kichina's health the day before? Could the Colonial Secretary tell us, in view of that serious fact, what action has been taken against that administrative officer?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no information whatsoever to support that statement of the hon. Lady. As the hon. Lady knows, whatever she may say in public about me or I may say about her, we have a number of talks about colonial matters. I shall certainly show her the only report I have. I will make sure—I
    1180
    am fairly sure it is—whether it is complete or not.
    Mrs. Castle: May I ask the Colonial Secretary if he is not aware—
    Mr. Alport—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Who is rising to a point of order?
    Mr. Alport: I am rising to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which relates very closely to a previous Question which has been referred to as one which is to be raised in an Adjournment Motion before Christmas. [HON.MEMBERS: "No."] I want to ask whether it is in order to continue with questions on this subject?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know when notice was given, or who gave notice.
    Mr. Alport: I understood that it was the hon. Lady asking the Question.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the Colonial Secretary aware that if he would do as I did, go and study the verbatim court records of this case—copies of which I have before me, because I took the trouble to take them down in the Registry of the Supreme Court in Nairobi—
    Mr. Alport—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not understand that this matter was to be raised. I understood the hon. Lady to tell me that she was going to ask for an Adjournment debate on the other Question about which there was a dispute.
    Mrs. Castle: That is right, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I may be wrong, but that does not seem to be the same Question as the one with which we are dealing now. I think the hon. Lady should finish asking her Question.
    Mrs. Castle: In those court records the evidence of Dr. Brown to the effect which I have just given was stated quite clearly and was repeated by the magistrate in his summing-up. Should not the Colonial Secretary take a little more trouble to find the facts before he answers Questions so blithely?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I would say to the hon. Lady is that she knows full well

    1181
    that I am always ready to listen to anything she has to say. If she brings back documents which she believes are authentic and shows them to me, I think that would be better than to make charges affecting the professional conduct and morality of individuals in a privileged House of Commons where they can take no action.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Since the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is considerable concern about one fact in this case—that the charge was reduced, and was reduced because medical evidence was submitted—would he not consider making available to the whole House the medical evidence upon which a decision was based?
    Mrs. Castle: The court records.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Member knows perfectly well that this case has distressed us all, I think, equally. I will certainly look into what he has said, without giving an undertaking, because I do not know what precedents or difficulties might be involved.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware with what contempt responsible public opinion in Kenya will regard the conduct of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)?
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it might be seasonable if I were to remind the House that we are approaching Christmas, the season of good will. I hope we shall get through these Questions with fewer of these altercations.

    Communal Labour
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in some parts of Embu and Fort Hall, Kenya, women are forced to give five to six days' communal work per week with the result that their children are suffering neglect; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Agricultural communal work is limited in Embu to one day a week and in Fort Hall to two days a week, subject to ninety days maximum per annum. In Fort Hall district particular attention is at present being paid to the building of villages, and a considerable amount of time is spent by plot holders on building their own huts.
    1182
    This is an individual responsibility, and is not classed as communal labour, although the people organise the work on a communal basis according to their custom.
    Both agricultural work and the thatching of houses are traditionally regarded as women's work and they are not, therefore, excluded from the regulations. In all districts old people, children, the sick, pregnant women and women in charge of creches, soup kitchens, etc., are exempted from communal labour.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the information which he has just given to me conflicts with information given to me by the District Commissioner in Embu, with whom I did a tour, and that individual women in the villages there told me that they were doing three days' manual labour, some on such general work as maintaining roads? is it not time that we made these jobs the responsibility of paid labour and did not put them on the backs of women and make them forced unpaid workers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know whether the hon. Lady, after three weeks in Africa, has convinced herself that she is now prepared to alter the habits which have gone on for centuries.
    Dr. Summerskill: I think it time that this question was asked: can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, in these villages, is regarded as man's work?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I confess to the right hon. Lady that I asked that question myself.

  GOLD COAST

    Constitution
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the recognition of the independence of the Gold Coast.
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the refusal of the National Liberation Movement in the Ashanti to discuss constitutional issues with Sir Frederick Bourne, he will urge on the Gold Coast Government the desirability of holding a general election to ascertain the wishes of the people in this regard.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There has been no change of policy. It is still the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Gold Coast should achieve full self-government at the earliest practicable date, but, as I said in reply to a question by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) last week, they must first be satisfied that the form of constitution will be generally acceptable throughout the Gold Coast.
    The two principal parties in the Gold Coast appear at present to hold different views on this matter, and, as I said last week, whatever the exact result of a General Election, there would remain a substantial body of opinion behind each of these views. It is the more important, therefore, that the National Liberation Movement should co-operate with Sir Frederick Bourne forthwith to work out a plan that is generally acceptable. Their continued refusal to do so may needlessly delay the achievement of full self-government.
    Mr. Brockway: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and ask him whether, if a general election takes place and the Government win a decisive and well spread victory, he would be prepared to give an undertaking regarding the date of independence, particularly in view of the plebiscite in British Togo-land in the spring and the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers in the summer?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to answer a hypothetical question of that sort he can have no expectation of succeeding me in my present office.
    Mr. N. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that the police and the military forces are largely recruited from the northern regions and that it is essential to have the co-operation of those regions in regard to any constitutional development?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have that point very much in mind.

    Volta Scheme
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement, up to the latest convenient date, on the extent and nature of the works under the Volta Scheme, executed and to be executed, in the Gold Coast; what is the amount of money
    1184
    already spent; and what is the amount still available for the completion of the work yet to be undertaken or executed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) of 16th November. The Gold Coast Government have started work on a number of associated projects, including the port of Tema, and others mentioned in Cmd. 8702, which are in any event required to meet the general needs of the territory. I am asking the Governor for details of these works and will write to the hon. and learned Member when I receive his reply.
    Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is it not a fact that negotiations were on foot and perhaps are on foot to expedite this work and complete it at a date earlier than the right hon. Gentleman contemplated?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is an immensely expensive task, and nothing could be worse than starting it without proper preparation.

    Railways (Development)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state, to the latest convenient date, the progress made with the schemes for railway construction and development in the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A line thirty-six miles long connecting the new port of Tema to the existing system was completed last year. Seventeen miles of single track between Takoradi and Tarkwa have been converted to double track. A new link line of fifty-one miles, which will reduce the distance by rail between Takoradi and Accra by 165 miles, will be completely early next year. Twelve diesel-electric locomotives and considerable quantities of new passenger and goods rolling stock have been delivered.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive Answer, may I ask him if he can give an estimate as to when the whole work will be completed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I imagine that in this, as in so many other fields, the task is never really finally done.
    Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this extraordinary development, characteristic of other developments under the Gold Coast Government, does not prove that the people of the Gold Coast are ready for self-government?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that they have done a remarkably good job.

    Cocoa Purchasing Company
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the composition of the Committee to inquire into the activities of the Cocoa Purchasing Company; and what are the Committee's terms of reference.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Gold Coast Government have not yet decided the composition and terms of reference of this Committee.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the friends of the Gold Coast were delighted with the news of the appointment of the Committee, but will my right hon. Friend stress to the Gold Coast Government the importance of announcing the terms of reference and the nature of the Committee so that it can get down to taking evidence as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that they have that very much in mind.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Hydro-Electric Scheme (Land)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the petition from Mr. Harry Nkumbula, President of the North Rhodesian African Congress, on behalf of several hundred citizens who are being dispossessed of their land in connection with the Kariba Gorge Hydro-Electric Scheme; and what reply he will make.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received the petition and am awaiting the Governor's comments on it.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Africans are already leaving the land in that area in fear of dispossession, as the result of the great disturbance that has taken place?
    1186
    Can the right hon. Gentleman not do something to give an assurance to those people that they will be properly compensated with land if they are dispossessed as the result of this scheme, as it would get rid of the cause of the present disturbance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have every confidence in the Governor's scrupulous regard for the interests of those people in the development plan.

    Penal Sanctions
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the local conditions which require the continuation of penal sanctions in Northern Rhodesia in contravention of the Convention of 1939.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Civil sanctions are still found to be in-effective to protect employees against employers who default in payment of wages, and employers against employees who fail to begin work under a contract or subsequently leave it Retention of penal sanctions by the Northern Rhodesia Government on these grounds does not contravene the Convention which provides for progressive abolition.
    Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with abolition and why it was possible to repeal these regulations in Kenya and Tanganyika but not in Northern Rhodesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No one knows better than the hon. Lady that circumstances vary. Last year there were actually 669 prosecutions against employers and only 76 against employees. This position is not quite so simple as it might appear, but I agree that we all hope eventually to see it go.

    HONG KONG (ELECTIONS)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what reasons guided him in rejecting the recommendation of the Hong Kong Urban Council that a commission should be appointed for the purpose of deciding on measures for increasing the electorate and, in particular, of enfranchising all British subjects in the Colony;

    1187
    (2) why only two polling stations, both in outlying residential districts, one on the island and the other on the mainland, have been named for the elections soon to take place in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if further consideration has now been given to the need of enlarging both the franchise and the number of elected representatives on the Hong Kong Urban Council; and if he will give consideration to the question of determining the basis of a franchise for an elected element in the Legislature.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: During my recent visit to Hong Kong I was satisfied that there is no general demand or need for the introduction of an elected element into the Legislative Council. The Governor has under consideration, however, certain proposals for increasing the membership, including elected members, of the Urban Council.
    If these proposals are implemented, consideration will also be given to an increase in the number of polling stations. The two polling stations at present used are in the most densely populated areas, one on each side of the harbour and are served by frequent public transport. The Urban Council Ordinance in Hong Kong provides that the electorate shall consist of people who, irrespective of nationality, have certain qualifications or have accepted certain of the obligations of citizenship. The recommendations of the Urban Council for an increased electorate were addressed to the Governor in Council who reached the conclusion that there was no justification for extending the franchise either to include British subjects without these qualifications or, in the special circumstances of Hong Kong, to include people whose only qualification would be a minimum of fifteen years residence in the Colony.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that I have had correspondence on this matter with the chairman of the Reform Club in Hong Kong, who is a member of the Urban Council and, I think, also its chairman, and he tells me that there is great dismay at the decision of the Minister to reject this recommendation merely to have a commission to inquire into the matter? May I ask him not to close his mind on the question of a commission but to think over it, and then perhaps, if I put
    1188
    down another Question in the new year, he will be able to give me a better answer?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I also have had the pleasure of correspondence with the same gentleman, and I have added to it by seeing him on one or two occasions. I am always ready to answer any questions, but I can hold out no hope that my decision will change.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent there will be increased democratic representation on the Urban Council, and can he give some reasons why the principle of some elected representatives on the Central Legislature has been completely rejected, and if this is likely to be for all time?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that we must bear in mind the particular circumstances of Hong Kong at this moment in the history of the world. In regard to the Urban Council, if the hon. Gentleman reads my reply he will see that that is under consideration.
    Later—
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. We have missed Question No. 30.
    Mr. Speaker: I have not. I understand that it was answered with Question No. 5.
    Mr. Rankin: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and myself. Is it not carrying the custom of permission too far if the Minister can comprehend in one reply an answer to two entirely different Questions?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member might have raised that matter at the time, but we have passed it now.

  CYPRUS

    Collective Punishments
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how he proposes to enforce the collective fine of £2,000 on the Cypriot village of Lefkoniko, particularly with regard to the aged, infirm and the poor; and what alternative punishments he proposes to inflict upon those unable, because of poverty, to find the money.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The fine has already been collected. This question therefore does not arise, but I can assure the hon. Member that in the assessment account was taken of the varying circumstances of the inhabitants.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence at long last about this abominable practice? Will he be good enough to tell us how this fine was collected from the poorer sections of the people of this small town? Did he distrain upon their goods, did he sell them up—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has really asked his question: how it was collected. I think that is enough.
    Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I am really asking how this instrument is being used by this Government. Up to now the right hon. Gentleman has evaded any answer?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked his question. I do not object to that, but I do not think that he need multiply it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The individual fines, which ranged from £45 in the case of one rich inhabitant to a few shillings, were based on this year's school assessment register prepared by the municipal council, and I think that the fact that the fines were collected in two hours—and thoroughly deserved—is sufficient proof.
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he has agreed to the imposition of collective punishments on certain Cypriot villages, in view of the failure of the same kind of punishments inflicted on Malayan communities and its consequent repercussion on the native people and the British forces.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: His Majesty's Government agreed to the taking of that power as a means of dealing with a recalcitrant village where misdeeds are repeatedly committed which cannot be attributed to individuals, but which may be prevented if they are made matters for collective responsibility. I do not accept the hon. Member's view on the results of collective punishment when it was imposed in the Federation of Malaya.
    Mr. Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the consequences of this penal instrument in Malaya? As it failed absolutely there, and with the most tragic consequences, cannot the right hon. Gentleman and the Government learn a little about the cruelties which they are perpetrating on people in more than one place in the world?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what Her Majesty's Government need more than anything else is the good will of the people in Cyprus, and does he not appreciate that to punish the innocent when one cannot find the guilty increases bitterness and hatred, and the more bitterness and hatred increases the more difficult the task will become?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When a hundred school boys from a local school in a comparatively small district like this burn down a public building of great value, no one is going to pretend to me that someone does not know who did it.
    Mr. Lagden: Would the Minister not agree that when thugs and enemies of this country are concerned, it is extraordinary the sympathy which seems to go to them from the benches opposite?

    Education
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secreretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the history of the British Empire is taught in secondary schools in Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The history of the British Empire is taught as a specific subject only in the English School in Nicosia, as preparation for the General Education Certificate of London University. In other secondary schools it forms part of general history teaching.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister explain why if the British Empire has been so well taught so many students seem to be causing trouble in Cyprus? Is he aware that there appears to be some misconception that in the history of the British Empire many nations have struggled for independence and that some of them regard George Washington as a terrorist?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member could not really have heard my Answer, or he made up his supplementary

    1191
    question before he heard my Answer. It may well be that some of the silliness and foolishness now going on among schoolboys is because they have been taught far too little about the history of the British Empire.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Cut the teachers' salaries?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That has nothing to do with me.
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of children deprived of education in Cyprus as a result of the closing of schools; and whether teachers are being paid while the schools are closed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The number of pupils involved in closing of schools is 2,048, but they are free to apply for admission to other schools. The answer to the second part of the Question is, 64 "yes."
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he proposes to make a statement on the situation in Cyprus today, or will he undertake to make a statement before the House rises for the Christmas Recess?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will consult on that. I had not intended to make a statement today.
    Mr. Griffiths: But will the right hon. Gentleman make one before the House rises?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will consult on that.

    Whipping
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Her Majesty's Government have authorised the whipping of boys under sixteen years of age in Cyprus for attending unauthorised meetings; and for what other offences this punishment can be ordered.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Under the Cyprus Law relating to juvenile offenders, which dates from 1946, a male juvenile between seven and fourteen years of age coming before the court for offences may be punished by whipping. What was done in the present Emergency Regulations was to raise the age up to under eighteen
    1192
    for offences against security under the Regulations. As I said in the House last week, there are cases where it is far more appropriate than fines paid by the parents, or imprisonment. The details of the offences punishable are given in the Emergency Regulations, of which I have had copies placed in the Library.
    Mr. Brockway: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of the deep shame which many of us feel towards the application of these methods in Cyprus which are more associated with Hitler and General Franco?
    Mr. S. Silverman: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the speech made by the Prime Minister two days ago in which he said that the difference between British colonialism and Communist colonialism was that in our Colonies people had freedom to fight and freedom to argue? Are we to regard his answer to this Question as an example of that freedom?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence in Cyprus or elsewhere—
    Mr. Silverman: Answer the question.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —to prevent—
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —abuse of the freedom of which my right hon. Friend spoke.

    Situation
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement about future constitutional progress in Cyprus.
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the results of recent negotiations in Cyprus; and whether he will make a statement on the constitutional future of the island.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot yet add to the statement which I made in the course of the debate on Cyprus on 5th December.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Will the Minister bear in mind, as I am sure is the case, that among hon. Members on this side of the House there is keen anxiety that the

    1193
    House should not rise for the Christmas Recess without a further statement by the Minister?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that question was heard by others than myself.

    Press Officers
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the qualifications and experience of the recently appointed assistant Press officer in Cyprus; and what is the salary.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to deal quicker with constant Press inquiries being received at all hours by the Cyprus Government Information Office, a day and night news desk was set up from 11th December. To staff this the Governor created two temporary emergency posts of Assistant Press Officers at £85 a month. So that this arrangement could start at once, Lord Lumley, who was in Cyprus, agreed to accept one of these appointments for a limited period. In the Governor's opinion the most important qualifications for these posts are intelligence and knowledge of Cyprus.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the latter qualification, a knowledge of Cyprus, mean that the appointee should speak Greek? Is it not a fact that he is only 23 years of age and that there were severe strictures in the Press last week, not only about this appointment but several other appointments in Cyprus? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny one statement in those strictures, that of the 180 British officials in Cyprus only six speak Greek?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We certainly desire to see more people who speak Greek working in the Cyprus Information Service, but I am satisfied that in this appointment which was made locally the Governor—as in everything else he does—acted wisely and with discretion.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Press officers or assistant Press officers below the age of 25 have been appointed by him in the last four years.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir. These appointments are frequently filled by local recruitment, and normally recruitment from this country is confined to cases in which suitable candidates are not
    1194
    available locally. Particulars of local appointments are not available here, but it is known that Assistant Press Officers under the age of 25 have recently been appointed in two Colonial Territories.

  NIGERIA

    Government Houses (Air-Conditioning)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any Government House in Nigeria is air-conditioned, either in whole or in part.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Air-conditioning is being introduced into parts of the Government Houses at Lagos and Ibadan. It is not considered necessary in those at Kaduna or Enugu.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that private enterprise, in order to produce a proper working atmosphere in tropical climates, has in many parts of the Commonwealth introduced air-conditioning, and will he take action to see that these Government offices are so treated?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly on the side of using modern scientific marvels for the comfort of our own service.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who decides whether air-conditioning is necessary or not? Are the people on the spot entitled to say so, or is it done arbitrarily at this end?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In one case which I have in mind, but not necessarily there, had the Governor in question not hated it, it would have been put in already.

    Groundnuts (Clearance)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many tons of groundnuts are waiting clearance by rail from the Northern Region of Nigeria.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Last season's crop of 395,000 tons was cleared by mid-October. Of this season's crop, estimated at 425,000 tons, some 44,000 tons had been cleared by early December. A small amount will be moved by river, and it is planned to clear the remainder by rail over the next eleven months. Movement at present is ahead of schedule.
    Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the management of the Nigerian Railways on doing an excellent job?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall be delighted to do that.

    Surveyors
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nationality of the surveyors employed in the Survey Department of Northern Nigeria.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of twenty-five qualified surveyors nineteen are British (including one naturalised Pole), one is Nigerian, two are Dutch and three are Danish. There are, in addition, a number of locally trained Nigerians who are not fully qualified professionally.
    Mr. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recruitment of surveyors from non-British sources is giving rise to serious difficulties which are hampering the work of the Department, and can he use his influence to encourage the engagement of surveyors of British nationality?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are all anxious that we should do so, and also that we should train Africans to do these jobs. The important thing is to get the surveying done rather than be too nationalist in our approach.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many of these surveyors are women?

  CENTRAL AFRICA (PUBLIC SERVICES PAY)
  Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to establish unified rates of pay and conditions in the public service in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland instead of rates based on racial distinctions.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will adopt for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the recommendations of the Lidbury Commission concerning the application of Civil Service rates and conditions to Europeans and Africans, which have now been implemented in East Africa.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that both Governors are considering the adjustment of certain salaries and taking
  1196
  into account the recommendations of the Lidbury Commission for East Africa; but I do not expect them to reach their decisions for some time.
  Mrs. White: While I welcome that reply, will not the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to speed this procedure, because it is a matter of great irritation to a comparatively small number of persons concerned in the territory?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are all on the same side and want the same goal, but one must beware of the result of the slogan, "Equal pay for equal work," in the Copperbelt of Northern Rhodesia, and I have that always at the back of my mind.

  WEST AFRICA

    Shipping
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will provide an annual subsidy for shipping serving the West African Colonies, particularly Nigeria and the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the very great importance of shipping to the solidarity and development of the Commonwealth and Empire, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such a subsidy would be a very good investment for all concerned?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As a former Minister of Transport, I know the almost pathological dislike of the shipping industry to the introduction of subsidies, and I am not prepared to start the game.

    Auditors (Africans)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been made in West African Colonies to train Africans as auditors.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In Nigeria and the Gold Coast facilities available include intensive departmental training schemes, courses at the Nigerian College of Arts, Science and Technology and the Kumasi College of Technology, and special courses overseas, one Gambia officer is being trained in this country. I have

    1197
    asked the Governor of Sierra Leone for information about that territory and will write to my hon. Friend when I receive it.
    Mr. Pannell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of auditors in Northern Nigeria which is causing a loss of public funds, and would he deal with that in his reply?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I know that there is a shortage, but I believe that 112 West Africans are sitting for this year's examination, and I wish them luck.

  ZANZIBAR (CONSTITUTION)
  Mr. R. Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will reconsider the proposed changes in the constitution of Zanzibar in view of the declarations by the Arab Association and African and Indian organisations in favour of a common electoral roll.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. These proposals have been unanimously approved by the Zanzibar Legislative Council which wishes them to be implemented without further delay. The important question of electoral systems can then be examined by an enlarged and more representative Council in the light of the recommendations of the inquiry to be undertaken shortly into the method of selection of unofficial members.

  UGANDA

    Baganda Chiefs
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been, or are being, taken to protect Baganda Chiefs who loyally accepted previous decisions of the Governor and Her Majesty's Government regarding the exile of the Kabaka.
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further information has reached him regarding a campaign of intimidation in Buganda against persons who have given loyal service to the Buganda Government.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: For the measures taken to protect Baganda Chiefs, I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave on 30th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport),
    1198
    and to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd). According to my information, there have been no further material incidents involving violence since 17th November, but, in addition to the Saza Chief of Bulemezi, to whom I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Colchester two weeks ago, three other Saza Chiefs have resigned.
    Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that people who have stood by Her Majesty's Government in this matter should be protected? Will he further agree that reports in The Times and Manchester Guardian are far more disquieting than his answer would seem to suggest? Will he further consider, if these Chiefs have to resign, the question of compensation being paid to them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am watching this matter with the very greatest care. I think that I can claim to be a friend of Buganda and the Baganda people. On their conduct on matters of this kind, my attitude and that of a large number of other people will largely turn in future years. There may not have been a technical breach of the regulations, but I am satisfied that certain things have happened which are inconsistent with the spirit and understanding which I understood prevailed when we held the London talks, which led to the return to Buganda of the Kabaka some little time ago.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the people of Buganda that all of us—and I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends—who did our best to influence a settlement in this matter, will be very glad indeed to know that they have settled down to work together in co-operation to make a success of the new Constitution?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman endorse that.
    Mr. Alport: Has any indication been given by the three Saza Chiefs who have resigned from their important positions of their reason for so doing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir—as far as I know. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am watching this situation with the greatest possible care.
    Mr. Paget: Altogether apart from Buganda, is it not absolutely vital for the whole Colonial Empire that we should establish the principle that if people are victimised for having co-operated with us we will compensate them and look after them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly share with the hon. and learned Gentleman the recognition that we, too, have a duty in this matter.

    Administration (Officials)
    Mr. Alportasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will hold an inquiry into the intimidation of persons in responsible positions in the administration and other branches of public life in Buganda.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am watching the situation very carefully, but I do not think that an inquiry would serve a useful purpose at the present time.
    Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether any initiative was taken by the Great Lukiko to suggest that an inquiry should be held?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that if there ever was such a suggestion it was a rather different form of inquiry which was in mind.

  TANGANYIKA (LAND)
  Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on whose authority police took possession of twelve African farms at Singisi, Poli, Tanganyika, on 29th and 30th December, 1954, and ordered the farm labourers to uproot the banana plantations, coffee bushes and other crops.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The police did not take possession of any African farms. Africans had illegally encroached over the boundary fence of a private property and the owner removed trees which they had unlawfully planted.
  Mr. Craddock: As I have been informed that more than 11,000 plants were destroyed and that the lady from No. 90 farm accompanied the police, can the Minister say why it was necessary for a local civilian to accompany the police when all these plants were damaged at
  1200
  the instigation of the police? Is he aware that the damage is estimated at more than £4,500? Is compensation to be paid?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, most certainly not. Part of this farm was purchased by the Tanganyika Government in an effort to help the Meru people. It has nothing to do with long-standing difficulties over Meru land. They encroached beyond the part which had been purchased, and, not unnaturally, the people who owned the other side of the fence took exception to it.
  Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the commission appointed by the Tanganyika Government to inquire into the question of the transference of African farms to European settlers is expected to issue its report.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Commission appointed by the Tanganyika Government to advise on the best use of land likely to become available in the Sanya Corridor. The Report of this Commission was laid on the table of the Tanganyika Legislative Council on 3rd November, and copies of the Report, and the covering White Paper, have been placed in the Library of the House. So far from transferring African farms to Europeans, it recommends the transfer of a large area previously farmed by Europeans to Africans.
  Mr. George Craddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what instructions he has given to our representative on the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations on the subject of the petitions dated 20th October, 1955, from the Meru Citizens Union, Tanganyika, to the Trusteeship Council regarding the forcible transference of African farms to European settlers; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No instructions have yet been given. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my replies to his Questions No. 27 and 28.
  Mr. Craddock: Is it not a long time since the Meru Citizens Union lodged its complaint? Will the Minister do his best to hurry the matter?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The provisions of U.N.O. allow for a delay of three months from the date of the receipt of the petition by the administering authority. In this case that was only a few weeks ago.

  BRITISH GUIANA (MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS)
  Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what offences exit visas are denied to citizens of British Guiana.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: People leaving British Guiana do not need exit visas.
  Mrs. Butler: In view of that reply, will the Secretary of State say why in certain recent cases permission has not been given to citizens of British Guiana to come to this country?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course there are all sorts of other regulations during conditions of emergency or other difficult times, and there are of course restriction orders on movement within British Guiana which apply in certain other cases. Of course as well the Governor has power to withhold a passport from a person where there is clear and cogent proof of Communist connections, but I answered strictly the Question as asked by the hon. Lady. No visas are necessary, but there are restrictions on movement which I am sure we would all hope to see go when a new situation fully exists in British Guiana.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the hope, which I hope we all share, that some day we shall renew constitutional government in British Guiana, he will consider applications which have been placed before him for visits to this country? Does he not think that such visits might pave the way to an eventual settlement?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: if such a proposal is made to me for British Guiana, I shall look at it with sympathy.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave a misleading original Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler)? She asked a perfectly clear question, and the right hon. Gentleman gave a categorically negative reply. Ought he not
  1202
  to have included the reservations he has subsequently admitted?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the right hon. Member, with the experience he has had of answering Questions, will know that if every possible nuance is provided for in an answer the House will never get on at Question Time. I answered the Question I was asked.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows what we are all talking about, would he consider approaching the Governor about this matter and not wait in this formal way for an approach to be made to him by the Governor?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am constantly in touch with the Governor and, like other hon. Members, I saw him a great deal a few weeks ago.

  JAMAICAN IMMIGRANTS
  Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that as the Italian liner "Ascaria" arrived at Southampton today with 800 Jamaicans seeking work in England, the liner "Fairsea" was leaving Southampton with 1,470 British emigrants seeking work in Australia; and, since such an exchange of population must be bad for the United Kingdom, if he will consult with the Australian Government to see under what conditions the Jamaicans can emigrate to Australia and our own people be encouraged to stay at home.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept the implications of my hon. Friend's Question. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by consulting the Australian Government about the possibility of Jamaican emigration there.
  Mr. Osborne: May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions: firstly, does not he think that the Jamaicans would be happier in the warmer climate of Queensland than in the cold climate of this country? Secondly, does not he agree that unless there is some control over immigration into this country, we shall build up such a problem that our children will curse us for failing to deal with it?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hesitate to make comments about the immigration policy of Australia. That is a matter for them

  1203
  as a Commonwealth country. Regarding the general issue, I do not think it would be wise to deal with the lives and movements of British people by question and answer in the House of Commons.

  OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVICE (ENGINEERING APPOINTMENTS)
  Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will alter the conditions of appointment in the United Kingdom Overseas Civil Service so that corporate members of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, may be eligible for permanent appointment to the Overseas Civil Service where engineering qualifications are required.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The qualification required for the Engineering Branch of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service is a university degree or a diploma recognised as exempting from the examinations of the Institutions of Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineers, plus some practical experience. Corporate members of the Institution of Engineers, Australia, are therefore eligible for entry into the Oversea Civil Service provided they have an engineering degree of an Australian State university or the diploma of the Royal Melbourne Technical College. Specific mention of this eligibility will be made in the next edition of the appointments handbook of the Oversea Civil Service.
  Mr. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is most welcome news, particularly for the Asian students in Australia under the Colombo Plan at the present time?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend.

  MALAYA (LEAVE SCHEME)
  Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will give details of the scheme whereby European officers in the Federation of Malaya are to get annual leave in the United Kingdom, travelling to and fro by air.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Details of the scheme are given in a Federal Govern-
  1204
  ment Circular, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does my right hon. Friend think that the scheme might be applied with advantage elsewhere?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like first to see what response we get here.

  FIJI (MINERAL RESOURCES)
  Mr. J. Howardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what attempts are being made to develop the mineral resources in Fiji.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since the reply is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  Gold (and associated silver) has been mined on a large scale since before the last war. In 1954 production was valued at about £F.1 million. Following taxation concessions in 1951 and 1952, the mining companies have embarked on an extensive programme of exploration and development with encouraging results.
  The Geological Survey, started in 1951 with assistance from Colonial Development and Welfare funds, has been particularly concerned with the development of mineral resources and it is largely its discoveries which have led to the increase of manganese exports from 631 tons in 1951 to 5,700 tons in 1954; exports are expected to be substantially higher this year. In 1955 the Legislative Council voted fF.1.500 for the investigation of mineral deposits: the year's programme included exploration for radio-active minerals.

  ADEN PROTECTORATE (PUBLIC SECURITY)
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received about the state of public security in the Aden Protectorate at the present time.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to say the reports I have received from the Governor show that, although there have been a certain number of incidents, the security position in those parts of the Western Aden Protectorate which have been troubled by dissidents has of late considerably improved. In the remainder of the Western and all the Eastern Protectorate the position remains satisfactory.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: While thanking my' right hon. Friend for that satisfactory

  1205
  reply, may I ask whether he can say that the Yemen is now playing the part of a good neighbour?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure we are all very anxious that that should be so.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. I want to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter about which I have informed you. Last week a fire took place in the Admiralty, a very serious fire, and I put down a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty, imagining he was responsible for the conduct of the Admiralty, especially in view of the fact that, apparently unknown to those in the Admiralty, somebody was able to enter from outside and help put out the fire before others got any further with it. What was my surprise to find that this apparently is entirely a responsibility of the Minister of Works. Am I, therefore, to understand that all Questions relating to the security of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry are now considered to be matters for the Minister of Works, and that we cannot ask any of the Service Ministers any Questions about those matters?
Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is a question I cannot possibly answer. It is not a point of order. As I informed the House yesterday, I am no judge of the responsibility of Ministers. It is for them to say what their responsibilities are and what duties and responsibilities they accept. I am afraid I cannot help about that.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the importance of the fire at the Admiralty, and of the fact that there is a Question, Question No. 77, today relating to it, and as one of the Ministers at the Admiralty is here, would it not be a good thing if he answered it?
Mr. Speaker: I have not given permission for that, for I have had no request to that effect.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (SUBSIDIES)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): After further consideration, it has been decided to withdraw the White Fish subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, and to lay a new Scheme forthwith. The effect will be to substitute in the case of white fish landed from inshore vessels of 70 foot and under in length, grants of 8d. in place of 6d. a stone in respect of gutted fish, and of 6d. in place of 4d. a stone in respect of ungutted fish. There will be consequential amendments of the voyage payments for seiners of 70 foot and under in length which become eligible for voyage payments under the Scheme. The new Scheme will be laid today and printed copies will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow morning.
Mr. T. Williams: While welcoming the decision of the right hon. Gentleman to amend his original Scheme, may I ask if he will tell us what representations have been made to him recently that brought about the more generous Scheme he has promised?
Mr. Amory: Yes, reconsideration has taken place in the light of a number of representations that have been received from a number of quarters.
Mr. Duthie: We on this side of the House who represent fishing constituencies will welcome this step towards fair play for this industry, but is my right hon. Friend aware that this concession does not meet the case so clearly made by the Scottish White Fish Producers' Association for at least the retention of the present subsidies, when its representatives saw officials at the Scottish Office on 28th November? I can assure my right hon. Friend that Members on this side who represent fishing constituencies will reconsider the matter in the light of this concession before the Scheme comes for discussion in the House.
Mr. Amory: Of course, all views that hon. Members may wish to put forward we shall have a chance of discussing when the Scheme is debated.
Mr. Edward Evans: Although the right hon. Gentleman has modified his original

1207
Scheme, responding to the tremendous pressure that has been exerted upon him from both sides of the House and from the industry, it does very little to alleviate the anxieties of the industry about the subsidy payments. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest bone of contention is that of the stonage payments? Will he have another look at this proposed readjustment and note particularly that in respect of the near and middle waters fishing there is no adjustment whatever of the stonage payments and that that will leave a very grave burden on the industry? I would also ask him to have another look at the stipulation which makes the payment for the vessels of under 70 feet dependent upon their going to sea for eight days before qualifying. They do not remain at sea for eight days.
Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have to operate this within the Act of 1953.
Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Scheme is far from generous, that it means reductions in landing payments in the case of the inshore fishermen and in every other case, and that it will satisfy no one on this side of the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell us when an opportunity will be provided for discussing it, for he has to get, if I am not mistaken, an affirmative Resolution before the end of the calendar year?
Mr. Amory: As to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I think that to keep the matter in perspective I should point out that it is, perhaps, significant that the total estimated cost of this subsidy in the aggregate for the next year will be higher and not lower than the aggregate cost for the past year. As to the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, I hope that there will be an opportunity of debating this Scheme within the next week.
Mr. Speaker: If that is so, we cannot anticipate the debate now

HEROIN (MINISTERIAL STATEMENT)
Dr. Broughton: On a point of order. Many hon. Members of this House have learned today from the newspapers that an important statement was made in another place yesterday concerning a change in the Government's policy about the proposed ban on heroin. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is usual for hon. Members of this honourable House to have to learn of changes in Government policy only through the medium of the Press? Are not the Government ignoring rights of hon. Members? As no statement has been made by any Minister, are not the Government treating this House with contempt?
Mr. Speaker: I would not go so far as that. Hon. Members will know that the general rule against mentioning speeches in another place is relaxed in the case of Ministerial statements in the other place, which means that this House recognises speeches made by Ministers in another place and exempts them from the rule. I think that there is no constitutional matter of great importance involved.
Mr. Edward Evans: Is it not possible for the Government to make an authoritative statement to this House today?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know about that. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. H. Morrison: I would ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to put this point to the Leader of the House. There was a debate in another place, and I understand that the Government made no concession at the beginning of the debate but made one at the end. I follow that, and I do not complain. Another place has a right to have a debate and to have the Government make a statement. That being so, ought not the Leader of the House to arrange for the appropriate Minister to take the earliest opportunity, namely, today, to inform the House of that decision of the Government? I submit to you, Sir, and to the Leader of the House that the House has not been treated with proper respect in this matter, especially as it is an important matter and a matter of controversy about which there is strong

1209
feeling on the opposite side of the House as well as on this side, and I submit that the House ought to have been informed of this decision at the earliest opportunity.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not think I can admit that if statements are made in another place they necessarily and automatically have to be repeated in this place, because the other place is another part of the Legislature and Government statements frequently, in debates or otherwise, have to be made there when an opportunity has not arisen here. However, I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that it is the intention of the Home Secretary to make a statement tomorrow.
Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would add, heaven forbid that everything said in another place should be repeated in this place—[Laughter.]—and vice versa, I admit, for the sake of their Lordships. However, I submit to the Leader of the House that there has been a lack of respect to the House of Commons in this matter. If it were a tinpot matter that did not matter it would be another matter, but it has been a subject of sharp cross-questioning in this House, and by both sides of the House, and I think that it is a case of Parliamentary mismanagement that an opportunity was not taken today to make an announcement in the House of Commons.
Mr. Crookshank: In return, I am bound to say that I do not agree.
Dr. Summerskill: I have on this subject supported the Minister and have felt that the Government had done the right thing to abolish the manufacture of heroin. Nevertheless, there has been a conflict of opinion and the House has taken some time in discussing the matter on various occasions at Question Time. Yesterday, the Minister was informed in another place that his legal advisers had misinformed him. Forthwith, the Minister undertook to rescind his previous decision. I certainly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison). It has been extremely discourteous, particularly to those of us who supported the Minister, for the Minister not to come to the House today to explain the position, particularly with regard to what appears to be a conflict of legal opinion between the Home Office and the Ministry of Health which is extremely serious.
Mr. Speaker: The statement, apparently, is to be made tomorrow. We must compose ourselves with patience until then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the Housing Subsidies Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 194.

Division No. 80.]

AYES

[3.40 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Deedes, W. F.

Altken, W. T.

Bryan, P.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Alport, C. J. M.

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

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Burden, F. F. A.

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

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Arbuthnot, John

Campbell, Sir David

Duthie, W. S.

Ashton, H.

Carr, Robert

Eccles, Rt. Hon Sir David

Atkins, H. E.

Cary, Sir Robert

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Channon, H.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Baldwin, A. E.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Banks, Col. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Barber, Anthony

Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Fell, A.

Barlow, Sir John

Cole, Norman

Finlay, Graeme

Barter, John

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Fisher, Nigel

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Bidgood, J. C.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Fort, R.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

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

Freeth, D. K.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Gammans, L. D.

Bishop, F. P.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Glover, D.

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

Currie, G. B. H.

Godber, J. B.

Braine, B. R.

Dance, J. C. G.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)

Gough, C. F. H.

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

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Gower, H. R.

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Profumo, J. D.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Ralkes, Sir Victor

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Longden, Gilbert

Ramsden, J. E.

Green, A.

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

Rawlinson, P. A. G.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Redmayne, M.

Grimond, J.

McAdden, S. J.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Renton, D. L. M.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Robertson, Sir David

Gurden, Harold

McKibbin, A. J.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Roper, Sir Harold

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

Sharples, R. C.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

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

Hay, John

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maddan, Martin

Speir, R. M.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Heath, Edward

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marples, A. E.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Mathew, R.

Storey, S.

Holt, A. F.

Maude, Angus

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Hope, Lord John

Mawby, R. L.

Studholme, H. G.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Honsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Molson, A. H. E.

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

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Howard, John (Test)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Nairn, D. L. S.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

Neave, Alrey

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Nicholls, Harmar

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Hyde, Montgomery

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Vane, W. M. F.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Vosper, D. F.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Wade, D. W.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Oakshott, H. D.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Keegan, D.

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

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Osborne, C.

Watkinson, H. A.

Kerr, H. W.

Page, R. G.

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

Kershaw, J. A.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Kirk, P. M.

Partridge, E.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Lagden, G. W.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Wood, Hon. R.

Leavey, J. A.

Pitman, I. J.

Woollam, John Victor

Leburn, W. G.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

Pott, H. P.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Powell, J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Mr. Legh and

Colonel J. H. Harrison

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Dye, S.

Albu, A. H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Awbery, S. S.

Callaghan, L. J.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Carmichael, J.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Balfour, A.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Bartley, P.

Champion, A. J.

Fernyhough, E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Chapman, W. D.

Fletcher, Eric

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

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

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Coldrick, W.

Gibson, C. W.

Benson, G.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Beswick, F.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Grey, G. F.

Blackburn, F.

Cronin, J. D.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Blenkinsop, A.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Blyton, W. R.

Daines, P.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hale, Leslie

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

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Boyd, T. C.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hannan, W.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Deer, G.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Brookway, A. F.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Healey, Denis

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Dodds, N. N.

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

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

Herbison, Miss M.

1212

1213

Hobson, C. R.

Monslow, W.

Snow, J. W.

Holman, P.

Moody, A. S.

Sorensen, R. W.

Holmes, Horace

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Sparks, J. A.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm,S.)

Steele, T.

Hubbard, T. F.

Mort, D. L.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Moss, R.

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Moyle, A.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Hunter, A. E.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oram, A. E.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Oswald, T.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Owen, W. J.

Swingler, S. T.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Paget, R. T.

Sylvester, G. O.

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

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Pargiter, G. A.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Parker, J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parkin, B. T.

Thornton, E.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Paton, J.

Timmons, J.

Kenyon, C.

Pearson, A.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Peart, T. F.

Tomney, F.

King, Dr. H. M.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Usborne, H. C.

Lawson, G. M.

Popplewell, E.

Viant, S. P.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Warbey, W. N.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Probert, A. R.

Watkins, T. E.

Lewis, Arthur

Proctor, W. T.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Lindgren, G. S.

Pryde, D. J.

West, D. G.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Rankin, John

Wheeldon, W. E.

Logan, D. G.

Reeves, J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mabon, J. D.

Reid, William

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

MacColl, J. E.

Rhodes, H.

Willey, Frederick

McGhee, H. G.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Williams, David (Neath)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

McLeavy, Frank

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Ross, William

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Mahon, S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Short, E. W.

Winterbottom, Richard

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mayhew, C. P.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mellish, R. J

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Messer, Sir F

Skeffington, A. M.

Mikardo, Ian

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mitchison, G. R.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Arthur Allen

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st December].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

    Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (5) of this section)."—[Mr. Mitchison.]
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted:—
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: When the Committee discussed this matter on 1st December, we had barely 15 minutes in which to put the point of our proposal to the Minister. Therefore, I propose to refresh hon. Members' minds about the purpose of this Amendment. Briefly, it proposes to exempt from the Minister's policy of reduced subsidies, and, finally, the extinction of subsidies, those dwellings built by local authorities which have within their boundaries a new town development corporation. We believe that if our proposal were not accepted it would lead to the gravest anomalies.
    It is important to realise that when the right hon. Gentleman thinks of creating a new town, he designates an area, and, having done that, he appoints a development corporation. The next step is the preparation of the master plan which lays down not only the way in which the development corporation will develop the area entrusted to its charge, but also the exact form of the development to which a local authority within the area must, at the same time, conform. Therefore, in areas already designated as new towns, we have not only the development corporations functioning in the matter of development, but also the local authorities as well.
    In some of the designated areas, the local authorities have been, and still are, carrying out fairly substantial housing development. In the cases of dwellings erected by development corporations, the Minister proposes to increase the subsidy upon houses from £22 1s. to £24 per dwelling, and they will, of course, receive other rate fund contributions as well from
    1216
    exporting authorities. But in the case of dwellings erected by local authorities in precisely the same overall area, the Minister proposes to reduce the subsidy per house from £22 1s. to £10, and, at the end of 12 months or so, to terminate the subsidy altogether. That will mean, in effect, that the development corporation will be building houses in the area with a subsidy of £24 per house, plus any rate fund contribution, but that the local authority will receive no subsidy whatever on the houses which it may build in that part of the area allocated to it for the purpose.
    We think that a very serious anomaly, because, in an area where a new town development corporation is functioning, the local authority is in a very special situation. It is inevitably affected by the activities of the development corporation, and, therefore, the problem of its own housing is accentuated much more on account of the demands that inevitably arise from the existence of the development corporation and the gradual growth and expansion of dwellings, factories, and other enterprises within the boundary of the corporation.
    We feel that, in view of the important part which such local authorities must play in the development of such areas, acting as they do as very important auxiliaries to the development corporations in matters of housing, they should not be called upon to lose the subsidy. It must also be borne in mind that development corporations are temporary bodies and will, sooner or later, go out of existence, when their responsibilities will be handed over to the local authorities.
    We are entitled to ask what the local authorities will inherit. Unless the Minister accepts our Amendment, the local authorities will inherit a number of houses built by development corporations with the benefit of the subsidy, and they will also have their own dwellings which hereafter will attract no subsidy whatever. One can imagine the confusion that will exist when a local authority has two different types of housing estates with different bases of rental. It will be presented with the very considerable problem of how to handle the question of differential rents as between those paid in the development corporation area and those which the local authority will be

    1217
    forced to charge its own people for houses built without the benefit of the subsidy.
    We on this side of the Committee feel that local authorities should not be denied the benefits of the subsidy and that, in fact, they should continue to receive the £22 1s. per house in order that they may go on assisting the development corporations in their work by carrying out, in certain parts of designated areas, housing schemes to meet the needs of their own people and also of people not immediately in their own area. As I said before, the existence of a development corporation must automatically stimulate the activity of a local authority in the same area. Other people in neighbouring ones, perhaps living in congested or over-populated areas, may wish to live in the area of the development corporation and the local authority may wish to provide housing accommodation for them as well as for their own purposes.
    4.0 p.m.
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree to maintain the subsidies for local authorities under such circumstances they will have to bring their housing development to an end, because the rents they will have to charge for their houses will be far too high for the local people or for anyone from outside to afford to pay, and that must react detrimentally on the progress of the development corporation itself, which would be a bad thing.
    On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make an exception of local authorities in the areas of new towns and to allow them to continue to receive the advantage of the subsidy, they will be able to assist the development corporations in their work, thus bringing their period of life to an end much sooner, so that the local authority can resume responsibility for the entire area. If that policy is achieved, it will be wisest for all concerned.
    The right hon. Gentleman has had nearly a fortnight to consider this matter and, having listened to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in moving the Amendment on 1st December, I hope that he has come here today to announce to the Committee that he realises the special position in which these local authorities are placed, that he is anxious to speed the work of the development corporations, that he is anxious that local
    1218
    authorities shall carry out to the full their responsibilities for the development of the areas, and that he will at least exempt them from his edict of bringing to an end subsidies for general housing purposes in such areas. In all the circumstances, I hope the Minister will give some good news to the Committee.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): As the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has reminded us, the effect of this Amendment would be to continue the existing subsidy for new houses provided by local authorities or housing associations in the areas of new towns. I will deal, first, with the specific points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) just before we adjourned this debate a fortnight ago, and then I will deal with the more general problem.
    I did not attempt to make a hasty reply after his speech and I have looked carefully into what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, especially in relation to the new town. The principal point he made was concern that similar houses built by two authorities in the same town should have different rents because some were built by the council and some by the corporation, and he felt that this disparity was wrong. To deal with his own problem, it is true that Corby has built a great many houses. I think the total is about 2,500 since the war compared with only 126 before the war, but that programme is now drawing to a close and that decision was taken a long time before the subsidy proposals were announced.
    In the other new town districts the house building is relatively modest compared with the work of the development corporations and with their existing stock of houses. There is no need for these districts to stop building. They remain in the same position here as almost every other local authority. They have the existing stock over which to spread the rent increases resulting from the Bill. I do not quarrel with the general point of the hon. and learned Gentleman that ideally council rents and new town rents should be alike. In fact, there is a greater disparity than he indicated, an average of about 7s. a week. There are various reasons for that, the main one

    1219
    being that the development corporations have practically no houses built before 1950—a fact limiting their ability to pool rents.
    Certainly, it might ease the problem of the ultimate future of the new towns if the rents of these two bodies were more in line. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perhaps not aware that the difficulty is that it is the new town rents which are the higher. To give the special rate of subsidy to the district councils, as the Amendment suggests, would increase the disparity between the two levels of rent. What the hon. and learned Gentleman wants would be less likely to be achieved as a result of his Amendment. If he means what he said, he should be proposing to give the new town corporations a much higher rate of subsidy, retaining the £10 general need subsidy for the districts. That is what would lead to a levelling up of the rents of the two authorities.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, so far he has added nothing to what I told him the other day. I said that the council rents are lower than the development corporation rents. The point is that what he is doing in this Bill will increase the divergence between the two rents. What I would like him to do would be to treat both bodies in the same way, but if he will introduce a tight Money Resolution, this is the most we can put forward.
    Mr. Deedes: The point I was making was that the effect of this Amendment would not be to achieve what the hon. and learned Gentleman said he thought would be the ideal situation in respect of rents if we could get it.
    Now I turn to the more general point arising out of the Amendment. Broadly, we have no evidence that the housing requirements of district councils in new town areas have increased greatly by the existence of the new town. The hon. Member for Acton spoke of stimulating the activity of the district authorities and suggested that the existence of a new town might attract more people there. The fact remains that the local authority is solely responsible for the housing needs of the existing population. It may well be that more people are attracted to the new town area but that is the responsibility of the
    1220
    corporation, and, therefore, whatever validity there may be to his hypothesis, it does not affect the load upon the district authority.
    In the Bill, my right hon. Friend has given a higher rate of subsidy, namely, £24, to the new town corporations because they have no large pool of existing dwellings built at cheaper prices and they have big building programmes for the future. That is the main point of the £24 subsidy. But the situation does not generally apply to the district councils in the new town areas. They should be in the same position as any other local authority and the dwellings they build in the future should be in modest numbers in relation to the existing dwellings. Therefore, a spread of the rent increases should be possible. For that reason we do not see the case for this Amendment, and we are unable to accept it.
    Mr. Granville West: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be disappointed at the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has dealt with the position of new towns which were established to set up new communities, to develop new industry, and to develop housing estates.
    The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Cwmbran new town is in a special category. It was established for the purpose of meeting the needs of existing industry, and, therefore, the problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has spoken specially affects Cwmbran. Both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know that many representations have been made from time to time about the abnormally high rents which were charged by the new town corporation of Cwmbran. I believe that the Minister realises that the level of rents there was higher than the average throughout the country. The Minister proposes not to give assistance to the new town to enable it to reduce its rents, but to deal with the problem by compelling the local authority so to increase its rents that these become comparable to the new town rents.
    That is not the approach that ought to be made to this problem in that area. Cwmbran is a special case, needing special assistance, because it has not the increment derived from industries, like new town corporations in other parts of the country. Cwmbran is essentially a

    1221
    housing estate. The Bill will make it impossible for the Cwmbran Urban District Council to fulfil its functions as a housing authority.
    I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the matter, which is disquieting to those of us who are trying to help areas in which new town have been set up.
    Mr. G. Lindgren: The Parliamentary Secretary was a little unfair about the position of new towns and the responsibilities they carry. I would agree 100 per cent. with him that, in theory, the job of a new town development corporation is to accept the new populations that move into the area with the transfer of industry. It is the job of the local authority to deal with the normal increase of its own population.
    I am delighted that in all the new towns it is not only the married person who comes in, either with industry, or with the building industry, or is attracted because of the development of work. In all the new towns a number of single persons, and those who have no family and would normally go into rooms, are attracted. As soon as the single persons marry, or there are married people with no family, whom the development corporation do not house but who assume partial occupation of another house, these people become the responsibility of the local authority.
    In the new town in which I live, one of the things that worry the Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council is that it has had to accept upon its housing list a considerable number of persons who have been attracted directly as a result of the increased activities within industry of the development corporation. The council, quite rightly, says that these are persons who, before the activities of the development corporation, were, a few years ago, the responsibility of some other local authority. A special load is placed upon a new town development corporation.
    Equally, in the majority of new towns, the pool of houses available to local authorities is not very large. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has a special case, inasmuch as in the urban district of Corby the number of pre-war council houses was, I believe, about 80. A large number of company houses was provided by the
    1222
    steel companies. In other new towns, apart from Welwyn Garden City, there was only the normal rural development of housing within the areas, and it was not extensive.
    4.15 p.m.
    New towns where there are extensive trading estates have an added case because they have had a considerable extension of industry. In the pre-war years some of these areas had an extension of industry. The incidence of derating hits new towns like Welwyn Garden City and a trading estate area such as Slough very heavily indeed. Even in the pre-war years the number of houses, built in that kind of area was restricted more than in other areas (a) because of derating and because the financial resources in the area were lower and (b) because, in common with other local authorities, they were without subsidy assistance after the 1933 Act. Therefore, we feel very strongly on this side of the Committee that there is a special case for new towns.
    I would ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this point. I think I have shown that the load is larger for new towns and that their financial resources are less, because of the incidence of industrial derating and because their pre-war pool is much less in the normal circumstances of the development of the comparatively virgin area of a new town. It results that they are not even in the position of an ordinary urban authority of having the larger pool that those authorities usually have. I hope that we shall get a concession on this point for the new towns.
    The Chairman The Chairman rose—
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Is not the Minister proposing to make a reply to my hon. Friends on this point about subsidies? Unfortunately, Clause 5 casts its shadow over practically all these exceptional circumstances. I was wondering whether Clause 5 was intended to provide an umbrella in circumstances of this sort.
    New town corporations have made a very substantial contribution to meeting local problems, which would have arisen if the new towns had not been created. That was one of the reasons why they were created. We wanted to have a balanced community and, if industry went

    1223
    to certain places, housing accommodation to be provided at the same time. Thus we should not have a repetition of the Corbys, the Sloughs, the Dagenhams, and places like Hayes, where there was hardly any community provision and where we had growing up, many of us thought, a most appalling social and physical environment for the people. We tried after the war to prevent the re-creation of the Sloughs and the Dagenhams.
    My hon. Friend has pointed out how the housing activities of receiving authorities will be aggravated by this Measure. In the past, when there was very great industrial activity and industrial property was fully rated, the local authority had a pool of rates from which it could meet social problems created by the incoming industries, which was a very important consideration. That cushion has now been removed. The local authority is only able to impose rates of one-fourth on industrial hereditaments in its area, so its resources for meeting social problems arising from specially stimulated activities in its own area are reduced. That is the first and most important point.
    When housing subsidies came to the help of local authorities to some extent, they were added to the financial resources of local authorities and went some way to compensate them for their loss of industrial hereditaments. It is now proposed that those local authorities whose areas might be artificially stimulated by the activities of the new town corporation are to receive less than they were getting before, although their problems were greater.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) gave a striking illustration the other day of what happens when we have chaotic industrial and popular migrations without any proper provision of the services. The fact that the basic services were not expanded resulted in Slough having to wait for some years before it could provide houses on a sufficient scale.
    These are all special cases, but, unfortunately, the measures proposed by the Government exacerbate the special difficulties rather than relieve them. We should have thought that we might have had from the Minister some idea, if these problems exist, how they are to be
    1224
    dealt with and whether Clause 5, which is there all the while as a stop-gap, a cushion, a buffer, call it what we will, is considered by the Minister to be his resource in circumstances of that sort.
    Mr. Sparks: The Minister is quite wrong if he tries to place on an equal footing people who live in local authority areas and those who enter the new town itself. There is a vast difference in the wage standards. Wage standards are lower in the area under the local authority than in the area of the new town and wage rates in the new town are lower than in London. There are enough difficulties in getting people to go to London from new towns, for wage rates are lower and rents are higher. Local authorities suffer a handicap, first of all, through lack of rateable value and, secondly, through the lower rates of pay for local people, many of whom are not engaged in industrial enterprises but are, for instance, shop assistants and workers in other trades where wage rates are low by comparison. Such local authorities stand in greater need of the continuance of the subsidy than many authorities with a high rateable value.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Sir Charles? Several references have been made to my constituency in this short discussion. I wanted to raise that problem on a later Amendment—not so much a matter of new towns as a matter of estates in the border areas. May I have an assurance that that Amendment will be taken later?
    The Chairman: Which Amendment?
    Mr. Brockway: There are several which cover the point.
    Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I may interrupt my hon. Friend for a moment. I think he has in mind two groups of Amendments, one to Clause 3, page 4, line 15, leave out from "the" to "or" in line 21 and insert:
    "local authority's area in which the dwelling is situated."
    and another to the same Clause, in page 4, line 23, leave out "some other area" and insert:
    "outside that area or by some other local authority for the purpose of accommodating persons coming from that area and in either case for the relief of congestion or overpopulation within that area or."
    The Chairman: It is my intention to call the Amendment in page 4, line 15 and to suggest that it be discussed with the four Amendments immediately following. It is also my intention to call the Amendment in line 23 and to suggest that the five following Amendments should be discussed with it.
    Mr. Brockway: That seems to be adequate, Sir Charles.
    Mr. Deedes: In reply to the question by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) about Clause 5, I deliberately did not bring it in as a general umbrella on this Amendment. We can discuss Clause 5 when we reach it. The fact remains that in the case of any undue financial strain being placed on any particular district in a new town area, Clause 5 would bite. I did not wish to use it in respect of the general argument as an umbrella dealing with this Amendment.
    The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) admitted that the new town corporations deal with all immigrants. The right hon. Gentleman said the activities of the district councils were liable to be stimulated by the existence of the new towns. That may be so, but the fact remains that there is no evidence that they are required to build a higher ratio of houses as a result of activities stimulated by new towns than a district unattached to the new towns. There is no evidence that the ratio of houses which a district authority has to build in relation to its existing houses is increased by the proximity of the new town, and that is the sort of evidence which would be necessary to justify the Amendment.
    Derating is not an immediate and relevant factor in the current or future building activities of the district councils concerned, which is what we are discussing now. The suggestion that they have been placed at a special disadvantage in relation to other district authorities where there has been industry did not convince me. There is no difference in respect of industry and derating between those district authorities and other district authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has not proved that these district authorities are in a different position from others, either in respect of the number of houses they must build or in respect of industry.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed out that a consider-
    1226
    able number of houses in Corby were built by the district councils. I dare say that the same thing happened in other new towns. I do not know. These houses were built for people coming into Corby to work at Stewarts and Lloyds. This has had to stop because they have not a sufficient pool of former council houses. They would not have had to stop if Stewarts and Lloyds had been fully rated.
    Mr. Sparks: A point which the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to overlook is that many of these new enterprises, retail shops and other businesses, draw some of their labour from local sources. To that extent there is an additional need for that local authority to provide housing accommodation. Had there not been a new town in the area, quite a number of young men and women would have migrated from the area, because in many of these small towns there is little future for them. There has been an exodus of young men and women from the land for other remunerative enterprises.
    Even more would leave these areas but for the existence of the new town which draws into it young men nad women and encourages the population to stay in the area. The hon. Member will find that a number of these new towns are serviced by local shops and other undertakings outside the new town area. I do not know what evidence he has to show that the existence of a new town does not create a demand upon the local authority for more houses than otherwise would have been the case. It is certainly true in my experience—and I have taken a great interest in this matter for a long time—that an extra demand is made on them.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Frank Tomney: Surely the problem centres around the capacity of the people to pay the rent, whether in the established towns or in the new towns. The historical position, especially in Hertfordshire, in places like Letchworth, Welwyn Garden City, and Hemel Hempstead, which, formerly, were quite small village towns, is that the population used to travel to work daily in places like Luton, and even London, enjoying a low rental as a result of a full subsidy.
    The Minister now proposes to reduce the subsidy and, as a consequence, to put up the rents. He can do one of two

    1227
    things. He can either turn over the whole of the building programme to the development corporation, who would reap the benefit of the full subsidy, or he can retain the subsidy to the local authority at the present level.
    People usually go to new towns on the promise of employment within those towns, and the population already established in the receiving towns has been in employment for, in some cases, many years. The Minister is penalising the people at both ends. Together with the increased cost of travel to and from neighbouring towns and sometimes to London, the removal of the subsidy and the consequent high rents will cause
    added difficulty for the people already established in these towns. I ask the Minister to think again about this problem.
    Mr. West: Will the Minister not say something about the special position of the new town of Cwmbran, to which I drew attention? He knows the problem very well and I am surprised that he has treated the Committee and my constituency with such discourtesy as not to attempt to deal with it. I hope that he will express his views about it before we go into the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 252.

    Division No. 81.]

    AYES

    [4.30 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Albu, A. H.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Logan, D. G.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fernyhough, E.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Balfour, A.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Bartley, P.

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

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mahon, S.

    Benn. Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Benson, G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

    Beswick, F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mason, Roy

    Blackburn, F.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hale, Leslie

    Messer, Sir F.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hannan, W.

    Monslow, W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hastings, S.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Healey, Denis

    Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

    Moyle, A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holman, P.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Holmes, Horace

    Oram, A. E.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Orbach, M.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oswald, T.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Owen, W. J.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Parker, J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Paton, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Janner, B.

    Peart, T. F.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

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

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Popplewell, E.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Probert, A. R.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Daines, P.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rankin, John

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reid, William

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Rhodes, H.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Deer, G.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lawson, G. M.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Frederiek (Newton)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Ross, William

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

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dye, S.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Short, E. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willey, Frederick

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

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

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Thornton, E.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Snow, J. W.

    Timmons, J.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Tomney, F.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Steele, T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    West, D. G.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mr. J. Taylor and

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fell, A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Leavey, J. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Leburn, W. G.

    Ashton, H.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Fort, R.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Gammans, L. D.

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

    Barber, Anthony

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Glover, D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Barter, John

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cough, C. F. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Gower, H. R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Green, A.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Body, R. F.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Grimond, J.

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

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Braine, B. R.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gurden, Harold

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

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

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bryan, P.

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

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

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

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mathew, R.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Maude, Angus

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Mawby, R. L.

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

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

    Campbell, Sir David

    Heath, Edward

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Carr, Robert

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Channon, H.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, G. E.

    Cole, Norman

    Holt, A. F.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hope, Lord John

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Neave, Airey

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicholson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

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

    Howard, John (Test)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

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

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Dance, J. C. G.

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

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

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Osborne, C.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Page, R. G.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Partridge, E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

    Keegan, D.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pott, H. P.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    1230

    1231

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Redmayne, M.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Storey, S.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Benton, D. L. M.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Studholme, H. G.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

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

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Russell, R. S.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    Woollam, John Victor

    Sharples, R. C.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Speir, R. M.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Mr. R. Allan and

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

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (6) of this section)."
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, together with this Amendment, we discuss the Amendment in page 2, line 20, at end, add:
    (6) 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 development corporation or housing association and for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced in order to abate overcrowding.

    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Hynd. The Amendment seeks to remove what we consider to be one of the fundamental defects of the Bill. We are well aware that it is the policy of the Government to concentrate upon slum clearance, and to that extent we do not differ from them; we are just as anxious as they are to get rid of the slum conditions which infest our country today. But it is surely as unjust, morally and in every other way, to compel men, women and children to live together in overcrowded conditions as it is to compel them to live in houses which are structurally unfit for habitation.
    1232
    In our view, the twin problems of overcrowding and slum clearance should be dealt with together. They should receive the same financial assistance from the Government, in a great concerted attempt to remove these social evils from our midst as quickly as possible. Surely it will be agreed that both overcrowding and slum conditions constitute a breeding ground of disease, and are contrary to the best interests of the nation—and certainly of the families who are condemned to live in them. We believe that both are anti-social and should be got rid of as soon as possible.
    4.45 p.m.
    It is worth remembering that the relationship of these twin problems has long been recognised by Parliament. As far back as 1930, Section 7 of the Housing Act of that year stated that an unhealthy area was one in which housing conditions were injurious to the health of the inhabitants, not only because they were structurally unfit for human habitation but also by reason of overcrowding. The Housing Act of 1936 made similar provisions for dealing with these grim problems. I should, however, like to quote a non-parliamentary authority in support of the submission which I am making. A recent leading article in The Times has already been quoted in the debates upon this Bill, but not the part to which I am now going to refer. The leading article said:
    "Before the war dwellings built for both purposes"—
    slum clearance and overcrowding—
    "but not for general needs attracted subsidy. Both duties remain, but only slum replacement is to get a subsidy.… For the next

    1233
    five years or so this aspect of the new policy can be stoutly defended, but Mr. Sandys's"—
    that is, the Minister's
    "stout defence of it is still to be heard."
    That is correct even at this moment. We have not yet heard any stout defence by the Minister of the omission from the Bill of provisions for dealing with overcrowding conditions.
    I do not propose to attempt to give any precise definition of the term "overcrowding." Both the 1930 and 1936 Housing Acts laid down permitted numbers beyond which conditions of overcrowding were reached, but no attempt was made to define the term. Most people, however, would regard densities of two persons or more per room as constituting overcrowding. I should like to quote from a Political and Economic Planning publication, which, I think the Minister would agree, is produced by some very able research workers. That publication, for the month of October of this year, draws attention to the fact that:
    "The Housing Act of 1930, dealing with the rehousing activities of local authorities, lays down provisions which approximate to a standard of one person per room. And indeed, the One Per Cent. Sample Tables of the 1951 Census show that, in England and Wales, those households having dwellings to themselves were housed at an average density of 0·6 persons per room. Even those which shared dwellings were housed at an average of 0·9.
    It is, therefore, safe to say that most people would regard densities of 2 persons or more per room as constituting overcrowding. There were 217,700 households living at these densities at unshared dwellings, or two per cent. of all such households.… Using either criterion (either over 4½ persons per room or two persons per room) the Northern region stands out with a rate of overcrowding almost twice as high as any other region (8·6 per cent. at over 1½ persons per room). This is particularly interesting, since by the first criterion already examined this area did not appear to have had an outstandingly bad housing situation."
    It then refers to an area about which more of us are directly interested—the Midland region. It says:
    "The Midland and East and West Ridings regions have also overcrowding rates appreciably above average (both 4·7 per cent.). All the other regions have rates below the national average of 3·9 per cent."
    In my own constituency, in Tipton, it is estimated that the rate is 5 per cent., although in my other Borough, Rowley Regis, it is much lower—about 2 per cent.
    1234
    These conditions suggest that this is a problem which cannot be put on the shelf. It is an urgent social problem, and I hope that the Minister will show courage and tell us that this policy is not incapable of reconsideration by the Government. Surely there cannot be a more vicious form of economy than to economise at the expense of the happiness and health of large sections of the community.
    I am not suggesting for one moment that the problem is a new one or that for the first time the responsibility for dealing with overcrowding rests upon the present Government. What I do suggest, however, is that for the first time the Government are undertaking a policy which separates this very urgent and vital problem from the other aspects of the housing situation.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the point quite clear, so that we may be able to reply to it effectively? When he uses the word "overcrowding," does he mean the Amendment to be confined to statutory overcrowding within the terms of the 1936 Act, or does he mean overcrowding in general, the problem of people sharing houses, and so forth?
    Mr. Henderson: I do not think it would be beyond the wit of the draftsmen to provide a formula, once there was agreement on policy, which would provide that the subsidy would be attracted to any rehousing carried out by local authorities which would have the effect of reducing the existing overcrowding in their area. I am not going to argue the drafting of the Clause. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to reconsider his policy and bring forward another Clause which would provide for the subsidy to be paid in all cases where overcrowding exists, similar to the concept in the 1936 Act, I do not think that there would be any great difference between the two sides of the Committee upon the approach to the problem.
    What I do say is that this is a fundamental defect in the Bill. We are dealing with a great social problem which confronts the nation, and it is a policy of despair that we should pass the Bill and completely ignore the existence of the need for grappling with the problem of overcrowding at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Mitchison: Might I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) that in this context "to abate overcrowding" probably has the same meaning as in the 1936 Act, and, therefore, means "to abate statutory overcrowding"? Might I let a cat out of the bag and say that we deliberately did not put in a definition to that effect because my hon. Friends and I are always hopeful, though we have not had much encouragement, and we trusted that the Minister would say "Of course, I will accept the Amendment, but perhaps 'statutory overcrowding' is rather too stiff a standard. Let us put in a more charitable definition of 'overcrowding'." Anyhow this will arise under Clause 11, and we have not reached that yet.
    Mr. Sandys: May I take it that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton is referring to statutory overcrowding within the meaning of the 1936 Act, and that he is not asking for a special subsidy for other forms of overcrowding of a more general character?
    Mr. Henderson: What I have in mind, as I said a moment ago, is overcrowding as defined, for example, in the 1936 Act. However, if that is too narrow, all I am saying is that no one on this side of the Committee will object if the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with a much wider definition to enable the country to deal with the problem on its wider concept. If we cannot get that, I for one—I hope I am speaking with the approval of my right hon. and hon. Friends—would be prepared to accept what the Minister calls the statutory definition as contained in the 1936 Act.
    At any rate, I move the Amendment in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not bolted and barred the door permanently in respect of the purpose of the Bill and that we shall have a reply to indicate that he agrees with the views which have been expressed, and will be expressed, from this side of the Committee.
    Mr. Julian Snow: I should like to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), but in the slightly wider context of what I believe to be the
    1236
    variable nature of what is meant by "overcrowding." I do not believe that pre-war concepts of overcrowding have particular application today. Indeed, my chief complaint about the way this matter is being handled arises because I think there has been a lack of phasing between Government Departments which has resulted in the post-war period—it is becoming increasingly more dangerous—in overcrowding.
    I refer particularly to the introduction of new industries into towns which are not necessarily new towns, not being subject to industrial housing association work, and so on, and where new industries have been organised, employment has increased, and work has attracted more people to those places. I believe that there has been a lack of planning by the regional housing committees. I have the impression that during the last three or four years the functions of the regional housing committees have gone by the board, and that the committees do not seem to be as active as they used to be.
    The result is a situation in which important new industries have been organised and workers have been attracted to these places, and there simply has not been the housing to meet the demand. From the human point of view, the situation has become very tragic. Migrant labour has been coming in, and men have had to leave their families behind, and in many cases families have had to be separated for three, four or five years.
    The Amendment ought to be supported not only because of a past and, indeed, predominantly pre-war problem, or a problem arising from pre-war conditions, but because of the variable nature of the housing demands as the result of the introduction of new industries.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: The impression has got around in the country that our urgent housing problem is that of dealing with slum clearance. While I agree absolutely that that has its place in the priorities, I submit to the Minister that the problem of overcrowding, in London in particular, is a much more serious one and, indeed, carries with it much more unhappiness than even the problem of slum clearance.
    The Government have made it clear, or tried to convince the people, that the purpose of the Bill is to get on with slum

    1237
    clearance. That may be so—we shall discover that in the future—but it is necessary to point out that, in south-east London particularly, slum clearance is not the problem that overcrowding is. My constituency has 614 houses which are condemned as slums, but it has thousands of cases of overcrowding.
    There is nothing that sears the human soul as much as having constantly to share common services with other people. At 4.30 p.m. today I was talking to a woman who became a widow a month ago. Her husband, a young man, died of coronary thrombosis. She and her husband and their two children had been living in two bedrooms and a scullery for seven years. The woman says that her husband died because of anxiety about the fact that they were constantly being criticised, nagged and attacked by the landlady.
    I do not know whether that is so, but I do know—it is an experience which I share with every single colleague of mine—that the thread running through all the letters that we receive from people asking for assistance in housing is "My wife's nerves have gone as a result of it." Wives' nerves do go. That is not a cliché. When they come to see us they are nervous, pale and shaky, and their physical condition has been reduced by the dreadful fight that goes on all the time about who is to use the sink or who is to use the gas stove, by complaints about the use of the toilet, rows about hanging out the clothes, and about children making a noise and playing in the garden at the wrong time. The happiness of these people is being destroyed. There are many of my constituents—and I share this view with them—who say, "I would rather live in a slum with a hole in the roof than share living accommodation with someone else under conditions in which I am constantly being criticised, probably for no fault of my own."
    5.0 p.m.
    In London, as a result of the war, we have overcrowding of a kind of which we must be ashamed. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, it is a rare thing to find a family living in one house alone. The percentage of persons living over two per room is 1·7, and in one of my wards it is 6·3. How are we to deal with this situation?
    1238
    Here is this urgent problem, to get these people away from each other, so that they can live peaceful and quiet lives, so that when they have shut their front doors they are inside their own premises. Then, if there is a row, it is a family row and nothing to do with the people upstairs or downstairs. They will not be helped by this Bill. The determination of the council to build on the sites left in the borough for the purpose of dealing with overcrowding will be hampered by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with these subsidies. I ask him to consider most carefully the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    I know that it is an attractive thing to say that we are dealing with slums. I know that it has all the glamour of a great successful enterprise to say that we are to have a great drive against the slums. It may not be so dramatic to say that we are going to do something for the comparatively dull purpose of stopping overcrowding, but, in the end, the sum total of human happiness will be added to more considerably in that way than by dealing with the minority of slum houses which exist in the London working-class constituencies. Because all of us are saddened by the situation which prevails in our constituencies, I support the Amendment and hope that the Minister, in the interest of humanity, will accept it.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am astonished to find that none of the hon. Members who support the Government is taking part in this debate, although there are cases in which Conservative Members do, oddly enough, represent rather overcrowded areas. It seems rather strange that they are not putting forward any contribution this afternoon, although perhaps we may have it later in the course of our proceedings. Some of them may then feel an urge to mention the conditions, or express the views, of their constituents on this issue.
    I make no apology for rising to support the Amendment. As he will recall, I have been asking the Minister some Questions on the problem of overcrowding, as it affects the north-eastern area of the country—Tyneside, in particular. He suggested that this was a matter which was eminently suitable to be discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, so I am availing myself, Mr. Hynd, not

    1239
    only of your kind invitation to me to speak, but also that of the right hon. Gentleman. There are no doubt many other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee who received similar invitations from the Minister during the last few days, all of whom I am sure will be glad to avail themselves of any opportunity open to them.
    I am particularly concerned about this matter because, as I think the Minister knows, the problem of overcrowding in the whole of England and Wales is perhaps most severe in the North-East, especially on Tyneside. If the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of the county census returns for 1951, recently published, he will see that it shows very clearly what a serious problem—an exceptional problem—this is for the North-East of England. I think I can best explain that by pointing out that in Northumberland, including the county boroughs, we have the exceptionally high proportion of about 39 per cent. of dwellings with not more than one to three rooms, whereas in England and Wales as a whole the proportion is 15 per cent. That is to say, there are about two and a half times as many very small dwellings in Northumberland as there are in the country as a whole.
    It is very largely because of this exceptionally high proportion of smell dwellings—the upstair and downstair flats which are so common on Tyneside—that we have this serious overplus of overcrowding in our midst. That is one of the relics, no doubt, of the right hon. Gentleman's forebears, but we have to suffer. This is not local authority housing, but private housing—the kind of housing which the right hon. Gentleman is eager to encourage for the future in place of local government housing, which he is doing everything he can to suppress where that is practicable.
    Because the proportion of small houses is so great—I see that the right hon. Gentleman is smiling—
    Mr. Sandys: It is always dangerous when people say, "The right hon. Gentleman is smiling." I want to make it clear that I was not smiling at any distress in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but at the misrepresentation of my intentions as expressed by him in his speech.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: We shall be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reason why he is specifically withdrawing rehousing for the relief of overcrowding from the general subsidy provision, with certain minor exceptions, which we will discuss at a later time and which it would not be proper for me to discuss at the moment.
    I was going on to say that in view of this very high proportion of very small dwellings on Tyneside and in the North-East in general, we have these very severe overcrowding figures. Some of my hon. Friends will no doubt be mentioning the figures for other parts of the country. Quoting the figures given in the 1951 census, we find that the percentage of persons living more than two persons per room in Newcastle is over 7 per cent. and when we contrast that with other parts of the country we find that it is a very high percentage indeed.
    I am not denying for a moment that despite that very high figure there has been a very great reduction in the figure as compared with the 1931 census. In 1931, it was as high as 23 per cent., which shows the appalling character of the problem which we have to face in an area like this. There are other areas of which we all know that have very serious housing problems of a different character—Liverpool, and areas like that—where their problems are especially those of slum clearance. But here the overcrowding figures that I have mentioned show what a very serious problem still remains for local authorities in Newcastle and the other urban areas on the outskirts of that city and, indeed, throughout the country.
    The problem which we face now is that unless we can get some provision of this kind the local authority is in a very real danger of not being able to complete its task. In view of the cut in the housing subsidy—to some extent it depends on how much we can get out of the overspill arrangement, and how much can be obtained in extensions of further definitions of the Bill—with the best will in the world we shall be obliged to leave a very large part of the overcrowding problem in Newcastle unsolved. As my hon. Friends have said, it is a problem, as we all know, which involves acute human issues. It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman—and it is proper

    1241
    to raise this topic at this point—that a good deal of the problem of overcrowding could be overcome if a better use of existing accommodation were made. That has been said on many occasions.
    No one would doubt that a contribution to solving the problem can be made in that way. I have often said so myself, but so far as we can understand it the right hon. Gentleman's intention is to try to secure that redistribution of accommodation by raising rents all round. There is a danger, almost a certainty, that by this means, and by further legislation in forcing up not only council but private rents, there will not be better use of existing accommodation, but an increase in overcrowding—particularly among old people having to share accommodation already overcrowded, or at least on the verge of overcrowding—in order to save rent charges.
    In considering the Amendment, it is very important that we should realise that we are not dealing with a static problem, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, a problem already solved. We are dealing with a problem that will become more acute as the proposals are carried out. The Amendment is very much more important than at first sight might be thought. I have noticed that many of those who have made their assessment of the right hon. Gentleman's policy have assumed that he feels that not only has the back of the overcrowding problem been broken, but that there will be no such problem within a few years, and that for that reason—he will no doubt give his own explanation—he is proposing the withdrawal of the subsidy.
    Far from that being the case, we may find an increase rather than a reduction of the problem. I urge the Committee, on this vital matter, which affects the homes of so many of our constituents, to give it fresh and further consideration. The Minister may tell us that he is prepared to make some changes in his interpretation of later Clauses which may be of some significance, but I believe that unless he can give some undertaking on this Amendment, none of us will be satisfied. I appeal to him most earnestly to take account of the very serious appeals being made, not only from us and the Committee, but, as he well knows, from local authorities up and down the country
    1242
    who realise only too clearly how much they still have to tackle.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Deedes: Without in any way seeking to curtail discussion on the Amendment, I will at this juncture take the hint of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), who wanted to hear a speech from this side of the Committee. Perhaps I might address myself to some of the points made on the subject of overcrowding. We certainly accept, as have all who have spoken so far, that overcrowding is still a social evil. The four speeches which have already been made, each from a different standpoint, gave examples from different parts of the country.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) spoke of his own constituency and the findings of P.E.P. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) spoke of the effect of industrial expansion on existing needs and the hon. Member who has just spoken for Tyneside referred to overcrowding there. The extent of overcrowding is very difficult to measure accurately, as the survey to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred makes clear. It is fair to say that it is certainly a great deal less than it was. A great deal has been done during the last ten years and at least one can be sure that the problem of overcrowding, bad though it may be in certain places, is now less acute than it was ten years ago.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Will not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in some areas it is still very acute?
    Mr. Deedes: I acknowledge that. A great many local authorities, in selecting tenants for the 1½ million houses which they have built since the war, have given preference to families who are sharing accommodation. In deciding that slum clearance should have a special stimulus, we have certainly not closed our eyes to what remains of overcrowding, nor pretended that it no longer exists. In view of what has been said, it is important to stress that.
    What we must try to do, and what we are seeking to do after ten years of general needs housing, is to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the new houses now

    1243
    go to rehousing families from slum clearance. We believe that the only way we shall achieve that is by financial incentive. My right hon. Friend has rejected the only alternative, which is that of direction. If that stimulus were not applied, as long as the housing shortage existed local authorities would have a very natural reluctance to pull down houses, however unfit they might be. There are, no doubt, many who feel that overcrowding should have an equal place with slum clearance. The right hon. and learned Member referred to slums and overcrowding as twin problems. Other hon. Members, as the Notice Paper makes clear, have suggestions for other things to have equal places with slum clearance.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: This is just an instance of how the problem varies from one part of the country to another. The kernel of the argument is that by cutting down one form of subsidy some areas have been benefited, but not others.
    Mr. Deedes: That is exactly the point I made.
    Some hon. Members, due to local circumstances or other reasons, feel that overcrowding should be given an equal place with slum clearance. In that suggestion, one is up against nothing more nor less than the logic of priorities. That is a matter on which other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have had more administrative experience than I have had. We experienced the logic of priorities and the difficulties of that logic certainly, during the war and immediately after it. It comes to the fact that if we are to give something priority, it involves giving it first place absolutely and exclusively and giving the other thing, however much we might like to give it first place, second place. If all are equal first, there is no priority.
    I would make this point specifically in reply to the suggestion that slums and overcrowding form a twin problem. There could be—I put it no stronger than that—a danger in running slums and overcrowding in dual harness. If overcrowding is put equal first, there is a natural reluctance to pull down any house, even if it is a slum. The point which we have to meet is whether the policy of giving first place to slum clearance is justified. We know from the returns which have been made that 850,000 slums have been
    1244
    earmarked by the local authorities in their survey, now completed. We do not know the number of dwellings in which there are overcrowded conditions. It would be accepted by the Committee that the total must certainly be less than 850,000. Since the war about 100,000 slums have been cleared. That is about one-fifteenth of the 1½ million houses which local authorities have built.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman tells us that slum clearance and overcrowding are separate and isolated questions, when in fact they are not. Overcrowding exists to a considerable extent in slum areas and the inhabitants of those slum areas have been rehoused as overcrowded cases.
    Mr. Deedes: I am coming to that point in a moment. I was trying to say if we take the figure one-fifteenth as the total amount of slum clearance out of 1½ million houses built by local authorities, then it is fair to say that overcrowding, both directly and indirectly, has had a better share in the last ten years than that. The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton asked what happened in the 1930s. What was done then offers some parallel to what we are doing now.
    Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that very interesting statement, in which group of figures does a house appear if it is both in a slum and overcrowded? There are such houses.
    Mr. Deedes: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has not followed the point. It is obvious that out of the 1½ million new houses built since the war, broadly speaking, slums have had a much smaller share of overcrowding.
    Mr. Mitchison: Were there not slums which were overcrowded?
    Mr. Deedes: That may well be so, but I do not think it alters the point which I have just made. In the 1930s, when housing activities were primarily centred on the elimination of slums and overcrowding together, slum clearance was given priority. It was started on a large scale after the Housing Act, 1930, and not until the campaign was running was it found possible to add the abatement of overcrowding to the duties of the local authorities. That was in the Housing Act of 1935. It is fair to add that even then,

    1245
    in Circular 1500A, October, 1935, local authorities were told,
    "If, by reason of local circumstances, it is necessary to give priority to one of these tasks, the priority should be given to slum clearance."
    I suggest that that is partly the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks).
    It is fair to add here one word on the administrative side, to which no hon. or right hon. Member has referred. I think it is questionable—I do not want to exaggerate the importance of this factor—whether a specific drive against overcrowding, giving it the special emphasis which we are to give to slum clearance, could be achieved without some administrative preparation by the local authorities, possibly involving a special survey. That was done before.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in assessing their points schemes and priorities many local authorities have already collected all this information in their town hall?
    Mr. Deedes: Many local authorities are aware of the extent of the problem and others are not. In certain areas it might be necessary for certain local authorities to undertake a special survey, and for such administrative work there would be required principally the services of the medical officers and the sanitary inspectors, who are also parties concerned with the slum clearance campaign.
    It is a fair point to make that there is a danger of local authorities requiring these categories of officer to do too much at once. I do not seek to exaggerate the importance of this administrative side, but it must be borne in mind. It therefore seems to us that socially and administratively there is a case for the policy which we are carrying out, and that is why we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: By a most remarkable use of language, the Government go on talking about their "slum clearance drive," and they oblige me to remind them of the facts. The facts are that on being asked, before the Bill was introduced, how many houses they could deal with in a year by way of slum clearance, local authorities provided a figure of 375,000 over five years. That amounts to 75,000 a year.
    1246
    As a result of this remarkable "drive," the Minister now expects not to raise that figure but to lower it to 60,000 a year. What he is doing by way of a Conservative incentive to the clearance of the slums is simply to maintain a subsidy which already exists. If that is the way in which the Government and others whom they represent think it right to deal with a grave social problem, I hope that the country will take note of it and kick them out hard next time, because that is a misuse of language and a bogus form of political propaganda with which I have remarkably little sympathy.
    That is the position about slum clearance. What we are now asking the Government to do is not to give priority to this, that or the other, but simply to refrain from taking away existing subsidies in cases in which the houses are intended to provide for those who have been turned out of overcrowded houses. That is perfectly plain English, and what the Government are doing under this cloak of "incentives," "drives," "priorities," and "administrative difficulties," is simply to cut the subsidies in cases in which houses are provided for those who have been turned out of overcrowded houses. That is the plain English of the matter. To say that what the Amendment proposes cannot be done, that for some reason or other it is administratively difficult, that it involves questions of priorities, that it really could not quite be managed and the rest of it, is simply the most lamentable failure to face facts.
    5.30 p.m.
    I am not going to try to make any nice comparisons between the number of overcrowded houses and the number of houses in respect of which the subsidy would be maintained by virtue of the rather curious definition of slum clearance which appears in this Bill. "Slum" clearance, by the way, has never appeared in a Bill before, although of course "clearance" has. I am not going to try to assess that kind of thing, but the fact remains that by any standard of overcrowding there are still a number of houses in this country which could not be condemned as insanitary houses or dealt with from that point of view under the Housing Acts, but which are not fit habitations for the people in them because there are too many people in each house.

    1247
    No doubt there are other houses which are both insanitary and overcrowded and in respect of them the former subsidy will be allowed to continue. That is the drive of the Government in aid of slum clearance, but in respect of the overcrowded houses the subsidy will be reduced: the Government subsidy will be reduced by £10 to the figure which we have been given. I quite agree that some may be caught up by other provisions of the Bill, but in most cases the subsidy for them will be reduced. At the same time the obligation on the local authority to contribute what it has formerly contributed is to disappear.
    Let us look for a moment at the problem. I am not going to pretend that it exists in every part of the country. I dare say that I could go to the constituencies of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and find comparatively few slums and comparatively few overcrowded houses, but both hon. Gentlemen know that the problem exists, and that in even comparatively prosperous areas there is some of it.
    In other areas from which we have had really shocking figures today—in the north of England and in the east of London—overcrowding is just as serious as slums. To try to preserve the subsidy in one case and not in the other is to make one's actions depend on some nice verbal distinction which does not really correspond with facts. One cannot say that there is not a grave social problem so long as those sort of figures can be given for Tyneside and for London.
    I will add another type of case, which has not been mentioned so far. In the rural constituencies there are old country cottages which can sometimes be condemned and sometimes cannot. It is only too common to find those cottages overcrowded. I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, "If you do not face this question you will be found out. It is no good talking about administrative priorities. It is no use pretending that you can escape facing this problem and cut the subsidies simply because you have graciously omitted to cut some other subsidies. You will be found out."
    Surely it is recognised by now that decent housing for the family is not merely a duty of the Ministry, the duty of this Committee and this House, but
    1248
    that it is also absolutely essential if we are to have a reasonable social standard in this country and stand comparison with other countries. Stockholm, in Sweden, is a city in which I should not think there is a single house—or, if so, very few indeed—which would be condemned as insanitary, to use the phrase of the Housing Act, but, if one looked at the figures for the centre of Stockholm, one would find that the trouble there is great overcrowding, which is quite as bad as anything we have in this country. One may find the same in many other countries. Those countries know it and are facing the problem. I cannot imagine any civilised country, except one under a Tory Government, which would cut housing subsidies in respect of houses to relieve overcrowding.
    The Minister asked me some questions about what we meant. I will tell him outright what the Amendment means. The narrowest, strictest, most cruel definition of overcrowding is the statutory one. We had some hope until the Parliamentary Secretary spoke. We wanted to leave the way open to him to show for once that the Tory Party had at least some appreciation of social problems and did not want to confine the maintenance of subsidies merely to the very worst cases which arise over statutory overcrowding. One can indulge in verbal quibbles and talk about this, that and the other difficulty of administration, but no one can tell this Committee, and be believed, that it is not possible to refrain from cutting the subsidy where it is intended for houses to relieve overcrowding.
    That is plain English. I hope right hon. and hon. Members opposite will muse a little upon it, search their individual consciences, remember the individual cases in their constituencies and their duty to them, and their duty to people in this country, who have a right to a free, independent existence in a decent home of their own.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: We have had a very powerful speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) after a disappointing effort by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to justify his attitude towards the Amendment by saying that the Government are quite right in giving what he calls a financial

    1249
    incentive to deal with slums, but that incentive, of course, is only relative. It is only made to appear as an incentive because the other incentive has been taken away. There has been no absolute gain to a local authority because of the action of the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman said that we are quite right at this stage—ten years after the end of the war—when so many people have been rehoused, to give a priority to slum clearance, but that priority only becomes a priority because the Government have depressed and made impossible all other forms of local authority house building. He gave figures to show that in past years many slums have been cleared. After all, this wonderful priority and incentive will only improve matters by about 60,000 slum clearance houses in a year. Spread over the whole of the local authorities, that is a quite derisory number.
    I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) that a fundamental defect of the Bill is the failure of the Government to face the serious menace of overcrowding. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) pointed out that in the northern region there is a very serious problem, and the P.E.P. booklet gives figures showing that the total is twice as high there as in any other region. Representing an industrial area in the North-East, I can say from experience in my constituency how grave that problem is. In certain cases if there is only one family living in a house in a slum, and one which is rather house-proud and takes good care of their house, they can make it quite tenantable, but living in overcrowded conditions is quite intolerable. To go on from year to year living in those conditions is completely heartbreaking.
    Now we have to tell people who come to see us and say they have been on the housing list for four, five, or six years and describe the conditions, with harrowing details, "I am sorry but until your house becomes a slum nothing can be done." Of course, this very Bill will create the slums which the Minister is trying to take pride in removing.
    We had a Measure, which is now an Act, dealing with "Operation Rescue," which I thought was to be the Government's answer to the problem of dealing
    1250
    with the slums—patching up. I take it that they have abandoned that idea more or less completely, and now we shall see this Bill creating slums. I should have thought the Government would have been just as anxious to prevent the creation of new slums as to deal with the problem of the old ones; and the only way in which they can do that is to give the local authorities the necessary financial assistance to rehouse people living in overcrowding conditions.
    There are two types of overcrowding with which the Government must deal. First, there is the overcrowding arising from the fact of a single large family living in a small house. We know that local authorities just will not build four-bedroom or five-bedroom houses to accommodate families of that type. It is an impossibility. Then we have the overcrowding—and this is by far the most common and dangerous to health and all other good standards of life—arising out of shared accommodation.
    The twofold danger of the Government's proposal, as I see it, is that the increases in rent arising from this Bill, and measures which have been foreshadowed, will inevitably encourage people to "double up." It will be impossible for them to live on their own and pay the high rent required, and therefore there will be an inducement for people to live with someone else, to take one room and share the kitchen, and to live like that for as far ahead as we can see.
    The cut in local authority housing, which is inevitable upon this Bill, will prevent people who are living in overcrowded conditions from leaving that accommodation. In the provisions of this Bill these is no plan for dealing with overcrowding, apart from the overcrowding which happens to take place in accommodation which comes under a slum clearance scheme.
    I doubt whether the Government's proposals to abolish rent restrictions later will prove a help. They seem to think that a cure, and that if rents are increased things will sort themselves out. Surely, the effect will be just the opposite, that people living in private houses will look round to find someone else to live with them to help meet the increased rent burden. I do not think that we shall find that there are any

    1251
    larger houses available to help to meet the problem of overcrowding.
    I do not wish to go into all the details of cases which have come to my notice. Every hon. Member who goes to his constituency regularly will have such cases brought to his attention every weekend. I was told recently of a case where every night people had to move everything out of the scullery into the back yard in order to put up a bed in the scullery. In the daytime they had to move beds into the coalhouse, or places of that kind, and put everything back into the scullery. They are now condemned to live in that way for as far ahead as we can see.
    A contributory factor to this overcrowding which the Government must face, and which occurs particularly in heavy industrial areas such as my constituency, is that there is not sufficient land on which to build, not even to carry out private building. Even if people wished to buy their own houses—though we know that few can afford to do so—there would not be the space to build the houses.
    Two other points must be borne in mind. Today people are marrying much younger and they are also living longer. There is pressure on the family to keep their married children at home or to look after parents, and in many cases this creates conditions of serious overcrowding. I assure the Minister that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will not be content with the miserable proposals advanced to deal with this overwhelming problem. It should be known throughout the whole country just how much the Government are to blame for refusing to face these grave social problems. We in this Committee should not rest content until every family in this country has a separate home.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad of the opportunity to speak for Birmingham, for the facts about overcrowding in that city have not been voiced so far. In Birmingham our experience completely contradicts the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. We have found it possible to have a housing programme during the last ten years and at the same time to have a slum clearance drive. We pride ourselves, although
    1252
    with some humility, that we are giving a lead to the country. For several years, certainly for the last five years, we have allocated 25 per cent. of our new houses for slum clearance, and we felt it essential to do so.
    So far as this Bill goes—it does not go far enough—we are glad that there is to be some drive to clear the slums. But no responsible member of any local authorities ever thought for a moment that in any large city or urban area we should have a drive to clear the slums at the expense of the alleviation of conditions of overcrowding. Yet that is apparently what is to happen under these arrangements.
    Several interesting reasons were advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why these twin problems of slum clearance and over-crowding could not be dealt with together. We were told that there would have to be a great deal of administrative work. I say, with respect, that that is absolutely untrue. I do not know of any local authority in this country which could not state at any moment exactly the conditions under which the people on their housing register were living. Every local authority of which I have had any experience could supply such information; and if the Minister knows of any local authorities which could not, we should be interested to learn which they are. It is possible to find out how many families are on the register, how many families live in each house, indeed, how many families occupy each bedroom. All this information and a wealth of other detailed information, is available from each city in the country, if the Minister desires to have it.
    It is not true to say that there must be all these administrative inquiries before overcrowding can be dealt with. In Birmingham it is our experience that when slums are being cleared overcrowded conditions must be dealt with at the same time. Every time we clear three houses, we have to provide accommodation for five families. That shows that the overcrowding position is extremely serious, and there is no reason to think that the experience of Birmingham is any different from that of other large cities.
    We may be told by the Minister that local authorities can deal with overcrowding in the normal way in their housing programmes, by housing people without a subsidy, or rather with a

    1253
    reduced subsidy and eventually with no subsidy at all. If that is the attitude of the Ministry, I can only suggest that it is completely out of touch with what is happening in Birmingham and in other places.
    It is unfortunately the fact that there are hundreds of families at present unable to accept a new house when it is offered, because of the high rent. People who, from any point of view, are entitled to have a new house are unable to accept it when offered because they have not the financial resources to meet the present high rent. That social problem already exists. This Bill will accentuate it, which is an argument against the Government, if they intend to reject this Amendment.
    Some of my hon. Friends have dealt with cases of overcrowding which have come to their notice but I do not think that we need to go into them in great detail because I am sure that each hon. Member could quote worse experiences than the previous speaker. We must have some regard to the generalities of the matter. There is the problem of people of opposite sexes sharing bedrooms. The Minister is saying that if it comes to a question of getting rid of overcrowding which entails the mixing of the sexes, the Government are not prepared to do anything to help.
    I am concerned, too, with the question of health. Many local authorities have certain priorities in their housing schemes, and one class of priority is the class of houses which are falling down. In many areas the rate of obsolescence is far greater than the rate of house building. Certainly in Birmingham more houses are falling down in a year now than we can build in a year. That is an ever-growing problem, and it has to be faced.
    The general overcrowding has also to be considered; and we have to concern ourselves with health, with the sick people living in overcrowded conditions, tubercular people, asthmatic people and people with rheumatism who live in overcrowded conditions. The medical officer may say, "You ought to rehouse this family for the sake of their health." He may say that of a family living in overcrowded conditions in a house which is not affected by any slum clearance scheme.
    We have to rehouse tubercular people living in overcrowded rooms, but the Minister is, in effect, now saying that we
    1254
    can do that only if they pay a much higher rent. To the extent the Minister says that he is putting a tax on the sick of this country. It is a shocking thing indeed that local authorities cannot now, to the extent they have been able to, rehouse tubercular people and others with grave illnesses because now they can do it only with houses the rents of which will be greatly increased by the Bill.
    General overcrowding includes the plight of families each of which has to live in a bed-sitting room. Most local authorities give a high priority to people who have to live, sleep and carry on all their activities in one room, a bed-sitting room. Families in that plight to whom we give priority in points on a local housing register will not receive any help unless they have considerable financial resources. All this means more and more difficulty for the local authorities.
    So I say that this is certainly a black day indeed for thousands and thousands of overcrowded families with little means in the large cities of our country. I notice an hon. Member opposite seems to find some enjoyment and amusement in the situation. I can describe that only as disgraceful. I do not know what sort of constituencies hon. Members opposite represent, that they can be amused by the plight of unfortunate people. I associate the hon. Member's amusement with the further disgraceful fact that not one Conservative Member on the back benches has attempted to utter a single word to the Committee on this most important Amendment. I can only hope that the country will draw the right conclusion.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Where are the Birmingham Tories?
    Mr. Howell: I hope that the Minister will further consider the matter in the light of all that has been said, and in the light of experience in Birmingham, which shows that side by side with slum clearance there can and must be an effort to relieve the lot of the overcrowded people. There is an instrument for measuring overcrowding, although it is not a satisfactory instrument; statutory overcrowding can be measured by any medical officer of health. If that is the least we can get out of the Government I think we should be prepared to accept it, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. I hope

    1255
    the Minister will not abandon these thousands of unfortunate people, and that the Amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member has made a reference to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and, speaking for myself, I would point out to him that I represent a constituency in which the local authorities try to help the less fortunate people who cannot afford full rents by adopting a differential rent scheme, and I would commend that idea to the constituency of the hon. Member.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Member's suggestion is a red herring. I would inform the hon. Member that we have a rent rebate scheme, which is a much more respectable method of dealing with the matter than a differential rent scheme.
    Mr. James MacColl: I think that where the Parliamentary Secretary went wrong, when he was taunting hon. Members on this side of the Committee for selecting this subject rather than another for this special treatment, was in not realising that the illogicality of the position is the fault of the Government. It was not we on this side of the Committee who tried to introduce a wholly unworkable method of trying to select certain types of housing. It was not we who said to the local authorities, "Whatever your local situation may be, whatever may be the number and size of families in your area, whatever may be the size of houses in your area, no matter whether you are in a rural district or an urban district, whether you are in the north or the south, it makes no difference. You have to conform to the set scheme which the Government have decided to lay down."
    That, however, is the effect of the financial stranglehold in which the housing activities of the local authorities are gripped, accept those about which the Government wish to make a move. The difficulty here is that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the gentlemen in Whitehall know best. He is the worst type of planner, who is planning in an unsympathetic and thoughtless way, without any consideration at all for local conditions. Why should he force a choice of this kind universally upon the country?
    What, in general, we on this side have suggested is that the only people who
    1256
    really know the situation are the local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary himself said that, and he seemed to think he was making a clever remark when he said, "We do not know how much overcrowding there is in parts of the country. We have no means of measuring it." That is his own fault. He has not troubled to find out. Any local authority faced with the problem can immediately judge how far the problem is mainly one of overcrowding, how far it may be one of the other evils in the housing situation which we have to tackle. The purpose of this Amendment, and of others that follow it, is to try to save the discretion of the local authorities from the cataclysm the Government are intent upon.
    I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think he was making a shrewd point when he recollected that it was in 1935 that abatement responsibilities were placed upon the local authorities. Why was it that in 1935 abatement responsibilities were placed upon the local authorities? Because it had been found in practice that they could not tackle slum clearance by itself. Local authority after local authority found that it was creating social and housing problems if it merely applied the short yardstick of slum clearance to a given area. It found it could not solve the problem of that area that way, but that it had at the same time to deal with the problems of the large families, the problems of the small houses, the problems of the small rooms in houses, if it was to deal with the social problem of overcrowding.
    As hon. Friends of mine have already pointed out, it is very difficult to have a sort of calculus of choice of one type of house over another, and yet if we have to have that sort of thing it is the right hon. Gentleman who makes us, because he is forcing this choice upon us. Can we truly say that the evils of insanitary houses are worse than the evils of overcrowding? It is extremely questionable.
    6.0 p.m.
    It is very unpleasant to have a leaky roof or a damp house. It causes physical ill-health, but overcrowding very often causes moral and spiritual ill-health. I see that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is present. I can assure him that I happen to know a great deal about the social problems of

    1257
    Stoke Newington and Hackney, because I am chairman of the juvenile court which deals with that area.
    The worst cases of moral difficulty, of problems of immorality, and of moral failures in the family do not arise from the physical conditions of bad housing but from different sexes sharing sleeping accommodation, adolescents having to share their parents' bedroom and young children having to do their homework where there is no separate room for the purpose. These are problems which arise in cases where the houses themselves, in terms of brick and mortar, do not come within the ban of the sanitary inspector, but where overcrowding conditions urgently need attention.
    This is what made the Minister who was responsible for housing in 1945, a Minister more humane, more imaginative and more knowledgeable about housing problems than the present Minister, see that we must place upon the local authority the legal responsibility for abating overcrowding. It is still a legal responsibility resting upon local authorities that they should deal with overcrowding where they find it, but although that responsibility remains upon them the means of carrying it out is not given to them. The financial pressure from the Government in the form of reduced subsidies and rising rates of interest is making it more and more difficult for local authorities to build houses in order to get rid of overcrowding.
    The Amendment puts in a nutshell the real complaint which we on this side of the Committee have against the Bill—that it is a rigid Bill lacking the flexibility which is necessary to solve the housing problem. A wide freedom of judgment and responsibility is required on the part of the housing authorities to adapt their programmes to the conditions peculiar to their areas and to the problems which they in their wisdom feel to be the most important. As has been pointed out, the problems of Newcastle might be quite different from those of a town somewhere in the South of England. Those in the London region are different from those on Merseyside. Each locality has its problem to face. Why cannot the local authorities be given the real power and opportunity of dealing with their problems without putting upon them the terrible brake of reduced subsidies?
    1258
    It is no use the right hon. Gentleman asking, as I am sure he will, "What is to stop their building houses to house people who are overcrowded?" The answer is that with the tremendous financial burdens now placed upon them, the programmes of the local authorities will inevitably be distorted. It has been suggested that it is necessary to encourage slum clearance, but it seems to me that what is happening is not that slum clearance is being encouraged but that any and every method of local authority housing is being completely frustrated and obstructed.
    Surely the Government can accept the Amendment. Speakers representing all parts of the country have pointed out that their particular problems are special problems. This is not a case of axe-grinding on behalf of one's constituency. It is part of the problem that the situation differs from one place to another. The wise thing is to recognise that fact and to give a little opportunity for initiative and discretion to each local authority.
    Mr. John Dugdale: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary can convince anybody but himself about the extraordinary phrase "logic of priorities," coming from this Government of all Governments, who have refused to plan anything at all, who have gone out of their way to scrap any existing plan and have decided now, and only now, to start to plan—in favour of overcrowding. This is the first plan that the Government have taken up.
    I rise to speak because I believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, that it is not a piece of special pleading when each hon. Member talks about the problem in his own constituency. I know that of all the problems facing my constituents there is none that is above the problem of overcrowding. The problem of slum clearance is nothing compared with it. One constituent after another brings to one a housing case involving overcrowding.
    The Government say that the houses will be built by private enterprise. I know that in my constituency houses are being built by private enterprise, of a lower standard, incidentally, than those built by the local authority, but they are being built for sale to people who in the main come into the constituency from

    1259
    Birmingham. Those houses will not help our own problem, yet 10 per cent. of our population, or 8,000 out of 80,000, are on the housing list. I do not think that there can be a much worse proportion than that anywhere in the country. This is because people come into the Midlands when they see industry growing up there. It is inevitable that it should happen. One of the faults which we on this side of the Committee may have had in the past, as well as the present Government, is that we regarded housing as an overall problem for the whole country and did not realise that the problem is very much worse in some areas than in others and different things have to be done in different areas.
    The Government's proposals make the situation more rigid than before. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has expressed our view very clearly. We believe that local authorities who know the situation far better than the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should have the opportunity of saying which problem they want to solve. Is it slum clearance or overcrowding? If it is slum clearance, let them clear the slums. If it is overcrowding, let them tackle that first.
    We on this side of the Committee realise, partly from the Ministers' speeches and partly from the lack of speeches by hon. Members opposite, that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are not seized of the problem. They do not realise its urgency. Because we do realise it and we know that it is one of the most serious problems facing thousands of people, we press the Amendment. We hope that even now the Government may agree to some change in their policy, although we fear that that is not very likely. If the Government do not agree, we shall press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Robert Jenkins: The right hon. Member said that the Government might concede something and also went on to say that we on this side of the Committee were not concerned with overcrowding. Is it not a fact that every family placed on a housing list has been placed there for one purpose only?
    Mr. James Simmons: On a point of order. Is it not competent
    1260
    for hon. Members who want to make speeches to make them instead of making interruptions?
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I agree. If the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) wants to make a speech he should wait his opportunity of making it.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: Like my hon. Friends, I have been dismayed at the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary. After the intervention of the Minister we expected that he would make a concession, but it now seems that the Government are barren of any intention to give assistance to local authority finance.
    The Parliamentary Secretary tried again to develop the argument that the Bill is intended primarily to promote a slum clearance drive. I say frankly that I do not believe this. The Bill is simply an excuse to justify an attack upon housing and local authority finance and I believe that it is intended deliberately to limit the activities of local authority housing. If the Government were anxious to have a drive for slum clearance they would not have partially hamstrung the local authorities by raising the cost of houses through the rate of interest which puts up the cost of dwellings—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Those matters do not arise on this Amendment, which seeks to expand the subsidy.
    Mr. J. Silverman: I was merely dealing with a point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir Rhys, and I do not intend to pursue it. Local authorities know their own problems of overcrowding and what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is an insult to every local authority in the country. The presumption is made that local authorities do not want to clear slums, and that to make them do so we must hold over them the financial whip. That is untrue.
    My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) has already mentioned the position of Birmingham. It has a great overcrowding problem, more than 60,000 families being on the housing list. That problem has been accentuated by an inflow of people to the city because of its industrial position. People go there to seek employment and the local authority can do nothing to prevent that. Yet

    1261
    the local authority has to face the problem and also to finance any scheme, whereas that should be the responsibility of the Government.
    Notwithstanding this, Birmingham has been anxious to proceed with slum clearance and every year is devoting 1,000 houses to that purpose. In this respect, Birmingham is neither better nor worse than other local authorities, who are anxious to get on with slum clearance and do not need what are described as financial inducements, though they deprive the local authorities of a large section of their housing plans. They do not need to be induced to clear the slums as quickly as possible, but the question of priorities arises.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that in the first years after the war only 100,000 houses had been cleared. The rate has been accelerated now. It is easy to understand why. A large number of houses were destroyed by the war. But where there is great overcrowding no local authority is anxious to pull down houses which are badly needed for relieving the housing shortage, so that until the acute edge of that shortage has been blunted, and until the demolished houses have been rebuilt, no local authority has felt that it should undertake substantial slum clearance, though as soon as it is possible, this will be done.
    6.15 p.m.
    This is a priority which the local authorities must decide. They have as much social conscience as the gentlemen from Whitehall. They understand the problems and hardships of the people who live in slum areas as well as those who are trying to foist on to them a system of priorities. I represent a mixed area, a large amount of which consists of municipal estates, so no question of slum clearance arises. Many of the houses have been built in the last twenty years and yet in them there is an acute and serious problem of overcrowding resulting in much human hardship. Are we to say that these people are not to be dealt with until all the slums are pulled down? No, both have to be dealt with. Why take the subsidy off one category? It will not assist the people in the other.
    Birmingham's problem applies equally to every other area, so I hope it will not be too late even now for the Minister to announce a concession. He has listened
    1262
    to the many speeches made from this side of the Committee and to the few made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are enforcing a disciplined silence on themselves. This is an acute and widespread problem and I hope that the Minister will make a concession which will abate the attack upon local authority finance and housing.
    Mr. Simmons: I support the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), whose constituency adjoins mine, because in that conurbation of South Staffordshire known as the Black Country our housing and health problems are much the same. The Parliamentary Secretary knows, because I have taken deputations from Brierley Hill to see him, that my constituency has a good record of housing and that it started on shim clearance before the policy of the Government was announced realising that this was a problem which had to be tackled.
    If we support an Amendment which asks the Minister to do something about overcrowding, it is not because we underestimate the problem of the slums. Looking back on recent social history, I would say that the man who did more for slum clearance than almost anyone else was the late Arthur Greenwood, through the Slum Clearance Act. So hon. Members on this side of the Committee cannot be charged with disregarding this acute problem.
    If, however, the slum problem is regarded as the main cause of unhappiness, discomfort and suffering, we shall not be seized of the seriousness of this problem, because overcrowding brings in its train as many, if not more, acute social problems as the existence of the slums themselves.
    Seventy-five per cent. of the people who come to my "surgeries" are concerned about housing problems, and probably 75 per cent. of those cases relate to overcrowding. I meet the housing problem at the three corners of my triangle—in the House, in my constituency and at home. My wife is the Chairman of the Birmingham City Council Housing Management Committee, and from the first-hand information that I get from that source I am convinced that overcrowding ought to be tackled with the utmost urgency.

    1263
    People who live in slum houses have at least lived in houses and had homes of their own. Those who are most harshly dealt with by the housing problem are those who have been on housing registers from ten to fifteen years and have never in their lives had a home of their own. Also, these people, through force of various circumstances, are having their hopes of getting a home reduced. In Birmingham, 50 per cent. of the houses built every year have to be used not to house the ordinary applicants but to relieve special cases such as those involving tuberculosis and eviction. The ordinary applicant is being pushed back all the time. There are about 60,000 families on the Birmingham housing register, and 40,000 of the cases are ones of acute hardship, and the majority of these relate to overcrowding.
    During the past four years, during her chairmanship, my wife has spent every Wednesday morning from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. meeting these people personally. It has not been a matter of leaving it to the gentlemen in Whitehall or the gentlemen in the council offices. I have first-hand knowledge of the problem, and I speak with feeling on the matter. There are cases of daughters-in-law and their families, living with old people who ought to be enjoying the eventide of their lives in comfort and quiet; and these people grow to hate each other, although they are of the same family, because of the circumstances in which they are forced to live. This is a problem which the House and the nation ought to face. In Birmingham, there have been cases of overcrowding where, in desperation, parents have actually obtained eviction orders against their sons and daughters.
    I beg the Minister to look with favour upon our Amendment. I beg him not to be too miserly in his interpretation of "overcrowding." It is not a problem of the slide rule and the tape measure; it is a human problem. He should look at the problem not from the point of view of how many there should be to so many cubic feet but from the point of view of the human, psychological circumstances of people herded together in one dwelling for an intolerable number of years.
    It is not a political question. It is not really an economic question, although economics enters into it in that rents which are too high tend to keep people
    1264
    overcrowded. Above all, it is a human question, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look upon it as such, to accept the principle of our Amendment, and, on Report, to give us generous acceptance of the Amendment in the widest sense of the term.
    Miss Jennie Lee: We are all agreed that one of the worst aspects of overcrowding that we are asking the Government to consider is that of different generations living together. Every kind of appeal has already been made from these benches on human grounds in terms of the happiness and well-being of individual men and women. I am sorry to say that, so far, I see no sign that the Government are lending sympathetic ears to what is being said.
    Ministers pride themselves on the fact that they are concerned about the country's economic welfare. I want to put before the Committee a most serious and urgent inter-relationship between overcrowding and economic hardship, and to give an illustration from the heart of my constituency, which is an expanding coalfield. I have a most alarming recent account of the drop in output and of losing men from the most sensitive part of the pits, the coal-face. Everyone who knows this subject at all realises that we have to depend in the main on the younger men, very often the single men, but sometimes the young married men, for the hardest work at the coal-face.
    I have here some figures from one corner alone of the coalfields. They show that, compared with a year ago, there were 453 fewer face workers, a decline of more than 7 per cent., and the total labour force fell by 589, or 3·7 per cent. I can say from personal knowledge that a high percentage of the face workers that we are losing are being lost because they are young married men who have been unable to find homes of their own, are living in lodgings, or living with in-laws, and, with their wives, are finding the combination of disagreeable working conditions and disagreeable domestic conditions intolerable. I am not saying that coal miners are the only people who ought not to be subjected to over-crowding—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Lady is widening the debate beyond the subject of overcrowding.
    Miss Lee: I have no intention of widening the debate, Sir Rhys. I understood that the Amendment sought to influence the Government's policy so that they will give higher priority to overcrowding problems and greater financial help in solving them. Overcrowding has been dealt with from these benches in many aspects. Because of problems with which I am dealing every day, I am simply seeking to tie together overcrowding occurring at one of the most sensitive economic nerves centres of the nation's life—
    The Deputy-Chairman: There is a subsequent Amendment which will deal with that matter.
    Miss Lee: I realise, Sir Rhys, that the later Amendment will cover a very much larger ground than the limited point which I am making. The Minister may seek to reply on the lines that he does not wish to embark upon further financial expenditure, and he may say that he wishes to reserve his priority for slum clearance alone. I want him to consider, before he finally makes up his mind about the Amendment, whether we can afford not to grant the request that is being made. Not only in mining but also in the heavy industries, we have a combination of circumstances which is driving some of the most important younger workers in the community into other parts of the land. I urge the Minister to consider that before he rejects the Amendment.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I hope that by rising I have not prevented the Minister from making a gesture to this side of the Committee on this Amendment. If he was about to say that a series of moving, impressive and logical speeches, based on hard social facts, have led him to make a concession, I will willingly give way so that he can make an announcement. I should be glad if I might have his attention when he has ceased being "got at" by somebody else on the Front Bench opposite.
    I hope that the Minister, who is being charged with carrying through some of the most unpleasant aspects of legislation of the present Government, will not, during the course of his career as a Minister, mistake stubbornness for strength. It would be a most unhappy rôle for him
    1266
    to perform. I believe that he is capable of human understanding—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and I hope he shows it on this occasion. Some of my hon. Friends doubt that tribute which I have paid to him. One of the testing points will be the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to this debate.
    There is a statutory obligation on local authorities to deal with the problem of overcrowding. The effect of this Bill will certainly be to reduce their power to fulfil those statutory obligations. That is rather a legal approach to the matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) that the essential approach to this problem is the human approach. We readily agree that a problem of social priorities is involved. But I do not know how one establishes which is the most urgent social need—to remove slums or to remove gross overcrowding. I do not know what the standards are. If the standards are unhappiness, evil social influences or a likelihood to lead to crime, I am not sure where the line should be drawn.
    We, as Members of this House, know very well from our weekly or fortnightly "surgeries," depending on the degree of our assiduity, the gravity of this overcrowding problem. In my own constituency, we have two or three thousand families overcrowded to the point of hardship. I am sorry that one hon. Member on the benches opposite, who was in the Committee for a short time and who appeared to be on the point of contributing to the debate, has left the Chamber, no doubt for some very important purpose, because it would be valuable for us to know where are the hearts of those who occupy the back benches opposite. Do they not know of the existence of the problem of overcrowding? Are they not aware that their own Government, by this Bill, are increasing the difficulties of local authorities in tackling the problem?
    One aspect of this matter which is frequently brought to our attention by our constituents is the bad effect of gross overcrowding on marriage. I understand that the Government, in principle, support the institution of marriage, and I understand, also that even on the other side of the Committee the family unit is agreed to be the basis of the social well-being of our community. Overcrowding hits hardest the young married people—the parents of the young generation which is growing

    1267
    up, the best capital that this country has got, the capital which matters most for our future.
    What is the atmosphere in which babies and young children are being born and brought up in overcrowded homes? They are the unwanted children—not by their mothers and fathers, for all the devotion in the world goes to the children from them, but unwanted in the sense that in so many houses they are regarded by others as a nuisance. That cannot be a good social atmosphere for our children to grow up in. I think that being unwanted in an overcrowded home, with three or four families living in five or six rooms, produces as much happiness as is produced for one family in a slum. I do not know where the line of greater misery is to be drawn.
    Overcrowding gravely undermines the married happiness of many thousands of families in our community. Someone has said that wives only make "better halves" in comfortable quarters. They certainly do not make "better halves" in conditions where they have to share kitchens, washing accommodation and other limited facilities. It is those conditions that turn their lives into a misery. Therefore, from the social point of view, the problem of providing housing quickly to deal with this question of overcrowding is of urgent priority.
    Then there is the effect of overcrowding on the health of those who have to put up with these conditions. In this century we have built schools, hospitals and great social services, and yet we get this sort of situation: a child with tuberculosis, a condition aggravated by overcrowding, goes away to benefit from one of the admirable means of treatment and recuperation which are provided by various authorities, both national and local. The child is cured and then returns to the overcrowded conditions and has to go back again as a tuberculosis patient. I am sure that my medical friends, of whom there is none in the Committee at the moment, will confirm that fact. Overcrowding, therefore, is a grave contributory factor to ill-health among hundreds of thousands of families. I cannot understand how, by this Bill, this problem can be dealt with, in view of the indifference that has been shown on the other side of the Committee.
    1268
    As one of my hon. Friends has said, this problem also has an impact on social behaviour. It is my privilege and onerous duty from time to time to deal with criminals, and especially with young offenders. Time and again one has found that the fact that a child has been brought up in an overcrowded home has been a contributory factor to juvenile crime. The misery of the home and the driving of children into the streets are undoubtedly factors contributing to the making of young criminals, which anyone concerned with the day-to-day work of the criminal courts, and especially the juvenile courts, will readily endorse. From that point of view, therefore, this matter calls for high priority.
    Under the Bill as it stands, after the interim period there will be no subsidy available for houses built to relieve overcrowding, unless this coincides with slum clearance or a redevelopment scheme within the narrow meaning of that term in Section 34 of the Housing Act. That is what I understand the position to be, and if I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me. In its present form the Bill will be a setback to local authorities in dealing with this grave problem. As one of my hon. Friends has said, it is the grossest impertinence for the Government to assume that local authorities have no sense of social priorities in their housing programmes, and that they will wilfully overlook the problem of slum clearance if subsidies are provided to enable them to deal with overcrowding.
    Local authorities have social consciences. Even if they did not, their representatives have the need for them visited upon their own doorsteps almost daily by calls from those whom they represent on local councils. It is quite wrong, therefore, to say that there should be sanctions against local authorities in this matter. There is an overwhelming case for giving not only the previous basic subsidies, but the greater subsidies now proposed for the limited purposes of slum clearance, in respect also of overcrowding.
    We on this side regard the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman as a Minister in this matter as one of the tests of the sincerity of the Government about improving the housing conditions of the people. The effect of the financial measures of the Government so far upon the community which I represent has

    1269
    been the exact opposite of the protestations of the Government that they are leading a campaign for the betterment of housing conditions.
    In one of the most badly housed areas of the country, the effect of the Government measures that have been put into operation already, quite apart from any ill effects of this Bill, has been that the local authority of West Ham has had to reduce its housing programme for the next year by 100 houses. That is a community about one-quarter of whose houses were destroyed in the blitz, a community which grew up in the 'eighties and 'nineties of the last century, when the welfare of the people living there and their conditions were about the last consideration of those who established the industries which attracted them there. That community, by the Government's measures, has been penalised already in its effort to provide houses fit for human beings to live in, human beings who happen to be citizens of our own country. The effect of Government action already is to discourage gravely the rebuilding programme of that local authority.
    That picture can be reflected by most of my hon. Friends on this side. Added to it will be this calculated discouragement by the Government of the relief of overcrowding. I beseech the Minister to show humanity and a social conscience by acceptance in some appropriate form of the terms of the Amendment.
    Mr. Sparks: I trust that the Minister will pay heed to our appeals to accept the Amendment. The problem of overcrowding cannot be separated from the problem of slum clearance. In the first place, the Minister is quite incorrect in his assessment of what has already been done in the post-war years to rehouse people living in slum areas.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that in the post-war years only 150,000 people from the slums have been rehoused, although 1¾ million new dwellings had been provided. I challenge that figure it is not correct. If the right hon. Gentleman was referring to slum clearance schemes in the post-war years and relating those figures to houses actually demolished in slum clearance areas and families rehoused, he might be somewhere nearer the mark, but he seems to have confused two things. He has confused persons with structures.
    1270
    It is true that in the post-war years the main burden of the housing programme has been to provide the maximum number of dwellings for people to live in. Those people have been drawn practically wholly from overcrowded families, and overcrowded families are to be found in slum clearance areas as well as any other areas, although that is where overcrowding is most serious. Local authorities have housed considerable numbers of people from slum clearance areas in their general housing schemes, but it is true, also, that the slum house has remained and has become occupied by somebody else.
    6.45 p.m.
    To stimulate and develop slum clearance throughout the country is a laudable aim. Where we part company with the Minister is that in what appears on the surface to be an endeavour to stimulate the clearance of slum houses, he is encouraging the development of a very serious evil in overcrowding, which has existed for a considerable time and still exists now. In addition, the Minister is being very unfair to some authorities. It may well be that some cities whose slum clearance problem is acute may be able to concentrate more of their resources on removing the slum areas, but in many areas, particularly in and around London, technically there are no slums, but there is as serious a housing problem as in the areas where technically there are slum clearance areas.
    The problem in my constituency is typical of practically all the Metropolitan boroughs as well as of the Greater London area. Technically, we have no slums, but we have a serious overcrowding problem. My constituency is not a very large one, but it has over 500 factories of one kind and another. There is always a shortage of labour and people are constantly pressing into the area. Young men and women come up from the country because they think that the streets of London are paved with gold. At any rate, there are jobs for them at higher wages than they would get in the remote areas.
    They come to places like my constituency not only to seek work but, in course of time, to marry and settle down. Consequently, as a result of the large number of factories in the area, overcrowding is a problem which has existed with us for

    1271
    the last thirty-five years. We can see no solution to it whatever as long as there is this great industrial concentration, not only in my constituency but spreading right down to Hayes and on to Slough, and including Wembley and other parts of West Middlesex.
    What the right hon. Gentleman is doing as far as the people in my constituency are concerned is to bring housing construction to a complete standstill. If he means what he says—that subsidies on general housing schemes are to be withdrawn completely at the end of 12 months, or so—the local authority will have seriously to consider ceasing to build any further dwellings, simply because without the aid of subsidy we could not construct dwellings for the people who live and work in the area except at rents which are fantastic and which people simply cannot afford.
    If we lose the subsidy on the flats that we are putting up at the present time—even the typical three-bedroomed ones—we shall have to charge a rent, inclusive of rates, between £3 10s. and £3 15s. a week, and that is on the assumption that the rates of interest on housing loans do not rise above their present rate of 5 per cent. We find that very few people can afford to pay £3 10s. or £3 15s. a week in rent. Consequently, although we have such a problem of overcrowding on our hands, we just would not find people who were able to afford that rent.
    That means that the overcrowding problem will be intensified, and the people who will feel the effects of the Government's policy most of all will be the young married people, or the young men and women who are getting married and who, in sheer desperation, when they see a chance of renting even one small room, think, "We will get married now and hope for the best we can get—a larger flat or a house or something else." Consequently, they go into that small room, and we all know the familiar story; it is not long before a family starts coming along. If they are in furnished accommodation they are then put out into the street, without compunction, by the landlord. In other cases, the young married couple may go to live with their in-laws, and in such a case it very often happens that they get on each other's nerves to such an extent that their parents
    1272
    have to take action to secure an eviction order.
    If the subsidies are allowed to remain in Acton and throughout the Greater London area, not to mention Birmingham and other great cities, it will greatly help overcome the overcrowding problem. As things are at present, even with the benefit of subsidy, the rents which we are having to ask are fairly high; we are already finding some difficulty in getting tenants. The right hon. Gentleman is storing up a great deal of trouble for whatever Government are in power in the next few years by completely running down the general housing schemes of local authorities in the way he suggests.
    I know he will say, as he has said before, that he is not preventing local authorities from continuing to build new houses for families living in overcrowded conditions. It is very nice of him to say that, but he must realise that in this case the determining factor is the level of rents. There might be one or two local authorities who have a good pool of pre-war houses, but there are many others—and this applies more especially to the Greater London area, which has developed in the last 20 years—which have very few prewar houses available to be thrown into any kind of general pool.
    Middlesex, in particular, has developed very rapidly since 1945. Prior to the war it had begun to develop a little, but its major housing schemes have been brought into being since 1945, and there is no pool of any size worth talking about upon which local authorities draw for rent purposes. Even if they could do that, there is a point of saturation. It is not possible to go on indefinitely, hoping that the high rents of new houses are going to be offset—
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:
    House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    Mr. Sparks: The problem of overcrowding is reflected in the figures of marriages. Comparing the years 1954 and 1938, although the population has increased between those two years by 3,290,000, whereas the number of marriages in 1938 was about 409,000, the number of marriages in 1952 was 399,000; in 1953 it was 395,000; in 1954,

    1273
    it was 392,000, and when the 1955 figure is available it will be seen to have dropped to below 390,000. This is very significant. Although our population has risen by more than 3 million since 1938, the number of marriages is shrinking and is dangerously below the 1938 level.
    That is due mainly to the fact that young people hoping to be married find it impossible to get living accommodation. Many of them, realising that the alternatives are to live with in-laws or crowd themselves into one small room, prefer to defer their marriage from year to year, in the hope that things will become brighter as time passes. The right hon. Gentleman will make serious trouble not only for himself but for the country if he endeavours to divide what he regards as the sheep from the goats, that is, to separate slum clearance from overcrowding; if he regards those as separate and isolated phases of the problem when, in fact, they are indissolubly intertwined, one with the other, and cannot be separated in the way he is trying to do.
    I therefore appeal to him to accept the Amendment. If he is anxious to wage war upon the greatest social evils of our time, which arise in the main from overcrowding; if he desires to help young men and women to marry, set up homes and have families of their own, there is no way in which he can do it except by supporting the Amendment, and giving these young people at least a chance, through local authorities, to acquire homes for themselves and their children.
    Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys rose—
    Mr. Herbert Butler: If the Minister is about to suggest that he is willing to concede that for which we are asking, I am quite prepared to sit down. I feel that we should all have great sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. He springs to the Box to give us a reason why the Amendment cannot be accepted. Of course, it is impossible for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—although we know it—that while it is claimed that the Bill is to give an incentive to slum clearance, there is in fact no advance on the subsidy which existed before this great incentive. An examination of flat building in London will show that in many cases the subsidy for flats, whether used for slum clearance or not, will in some cases be lower than at the
    1274
    moment. However, we shall deal with that matter at a later stage.
    7.0 p.m.
    The effect of the Bill is to give not an incentive to slum clearance, because the figure remains exactly at what it was before, but a disincentive to the improvement of the position of people living in overcrowded conditions. That is the dilemma of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about administrative difficulties. He appears to believe that local authorities are not aware of what is happening in their own areas. I am not speaking merely as the representative of a small Metropolitan borough, although in my area 6,000 people have their names on the waiting lists.
    The application forms themselves are a true indication of the general situation, and there is the fact that people have to be classified into categories and have to make statements about the conditions under which they live. At all times we have an up-to-date view of the situation. Another reason which the Parliamentary Secretary advanced was that local authorities would try to do too much. I should have thought that the job of the Minister of Housing and Local Government was to encourage the desire of local authorities to do as much as they possibly could and not to use every opportunity for crabbing their activities and forcing them to stop doing what was necessary.
    Another worry of the Parliamentary Secretary was that sanitary inspectors would be overworked. Those are the arguments advanced against the claims of people living in overcrowded conditions. In my area, before 1939, we had practically come to the end of slum clearance, and but for the intervention of the war we should have completed rehousing the people who were living in sub-standard property. Of course, that was sixteen years ago.
    Generally speaking, our problem today, as in many other places, is not that of slum clearance. It is the problem of young people, ex-Service men and women who served in the 1939–45 war, and whose interests this Government promised to look after. When they returned from the war and had the natural desire to get married, they were unable to find accommodation and so they

    1275
    parked themselves with their parents and in-laws. Eventually a family arrived.
    That is the problem which we are facing in my area. The medical officer of health is continually looking at the slum parts of the borough, and he advises and reports on them to the housing committee and the public health committee. They are dealt with in the ordinary routine of borough council activity. I say that only to indicate that the problem varies from place to place. The problem in Birmingham is different from that in London. Thousands of people in my small Metropolitan borough suffer virtual torment because of inadequate accommodation and through living with people with whom they are incompatible—two generations being forced to live together and share lavatories and toilet facilities.
    Is that the sort of thing which is to be ignored in order to chase a mythical incentive? Do we say that, because the Government are maintaining the subsidy for the erection of dwellings to house slum dwellers, we must therefore ignore the claims of people who are living in slums? I do not expect that the Minister will agree that his Bill is an absolute facade of deceit. If he accepts my point of view, he will obviously accept the Amendment. The Bill is not an incentive to slum clearance, and I hope that we shall divide the Committee.
    Mr. Sandys: I am happy to have caught your eye, Sir Charles. Obviously, the request made at Question Time yesterday is beginning to bear fruit. Hon. Members opposite have been showing great restraint and devotion to duty in remaining away from an important party election meeting, but I understand that the result has worked out as was generally expected and forecast in the newspapers.
    The debate has been one which has given an opportunity to many hon. Members to express their natural disquiet and anxiety about conditions of overcrowding which persist in our towns and villages throughout the country. All unsatisfactory conditions, whatever they may be, breed ill health, unhappiness and broken marriages. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), who is just returning to his place, suggested that I thought that the problem of overcrowding had already been largely solved.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the problem has been largely solved?
    Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Member's mind is on other matters. I understood him to say—perhaps I misunderstood—that he thought that I considered that the problem of overcrowding had already been largely solved. I can assure him I am quite as well aware as he of the serious overcrowding which still exists. Of course, it varies from area to area. In some districts the most urgent needs will largely be met in the next few years, but in others, particularly those where there is a large slum problem too, it is not likely that the housing shortage will be overcome for fifteen or twenty years, or, in some cases, even longer.
    The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) stressed the depressing effect and the strain on the nerves of two families having to share one home. We are all aware of what that problem involves in human suffering and in generally increasing the stress and strain of life. We can all agree about that, and particularly about the aspects of overcrowding mentioned by the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee)—children of mixed sexes sleeping in the same bedroom as their parents, which is an acute and serious social problem.
    But I do not think that everyone will agree with the hon. Member for Deptford that people would prefer to live in a slum than to share a home with another family. That is a generalisation which I could not necessarily accept.
    The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) criticised the Government's policy in giving preferential subsidy treatment to slum clearance. He criticised it on the ground that it would stimulate local authorities to concentrate more attention on slum clearance.
    Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman is confused. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would stimulate local authorities and I was dealing with his argument. I did not make the statement.
    Mr. Sandys: I thought the hon. Gentleman criticised the giving of preferential treatment to slum clearance.
    Mr. MacColl: Or to anything.
    Mr. Sandys: He said that it was wrong to give priority to one category of housing need over another on a national scale and that we should be setting a pattern from Whitehall. That is an understandable point of view, but if we look at the whole series of Amendments to the Clause we find that that is precisely what each one of them seeks to do. It seeks to give preferential treatment to a particular class of housing need. The right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) has tabled an Amendment to give priority to houses in replacement of requisitioned houses. Other Amendments seek priority for old-age pensioners and miners. These are doing precisely that of which the hon. Member for Widnes complains—giving preferental treatment in subsidies to particular classes of housing need.
    Mr. C. W. Key: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely misinterpreting what we are trying to do. We have the power to table only those Amendments which are in order and we can take only one problem at a time. We do not think preferential treatment should be given to this, that or the other; we think that all our Amendments should be accepted, thus bringing us back to the present position, in which the general housing subsidy will cover all the activities of local authorities.
    Mr. Sandys: That is an admission. I had suspected that that was the intention. As the right hon. Gentleman, with his long Parliamentary experience knows, if all those Amendments were to be put on the Order Paper together, and were to be accepted, the effect would be to restore the present position. I believe that that would be regarded, in accordance with Erskine May, as a wrecking Amendment and, therefore, would be out of order.
    Mr. Mitchison: This is comment by the card. We are tied by the Second Reading decision that some subsidies must be reduced. We do not believe that any of them should be reduced and we are trying to save, bit by bit, anything we can out of the wreckage which the right hon. Gentleman is making of local government finance.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) made the position perfectly clear and I will pursue it no further.
    1278
    7.15 p.m.
    The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) said local authorities should be left to decide for themselves the priorities between housing needs. Nothing in the Bill ties the hands of local authorities. The Bill gives them an incentive to pay more attention to slum clearance than hitherto, and, rightly or wrongly, the Government believe that that is a proper thing to do.
    Another hon. Member opposite said local authorities were not unnaturally reluctant to pull down slum houses as long as the housing shortage continues, and that is precisely the problem. As long as there remains a substantial housing waiting list in an area, there remains a natural and very understandable reluctance among local authorities to pull down even slum houses, because it creates a further rehousing problem for them.
    Mr. Key: The right hon. Gentleman will find that practically every application made to the London County Council for housing accommodation at present is answered by the Director of Housing, "We cannot grant you these premises as we are reserving practically everything we have for slum clearance." What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he suggests that local authorities are not dealing with slum houses?
    Mr. Sandys: I did not say that. I said we thought it right to give a special incentive to local authorities to pay more attention than hitherto.
    Mr. Key: "Because they would not otherwise do so." That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Sandys: I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman is reading words into my speech. As I explained on Second Reading, and as the Parliamentary Secretary explained today, there is no doubt, in our view, that the families living in these slum dwellings have not had what we consider to be a fair proportion of the new houses. In the early years after the war it was inevitable and unavoidable that house building should be concentrated on providing homes for people who had no homes, but the time has come, ten years after the war, when, we feel, the people who live in these wretched slum dwellings should have a larger share of the new houses. Rightly or wrongly,

    1279
    that is the policy which the Government are pursuing and the principle behind the Bill.
    Mr. Mitchison: If that is so, why does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the number of houses to be built per year for slum clearance?
    Mr. Sandys: I was coming to that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has quite a good debating point there and do not grudge it to him. He has pointed out that before the announcement of the Bill, local authorities sent in returns in which they gave it as their intension to demolish 375,000 slum houses in the next five years. That figure, divided by five, comes to 75,000, and the Government, in their Election manifesto, undertook to see that 200,000 people would be rehoused from the slums each year. It may be 60,000 houses a year, it may be 70,000, but it is not very different from the figure which the local authorities have given.
    Then the point made by the hon. and learned Member is, why do we need the Bill and this special incentive to get local authorities to do what they say they will do? All I would say is that I agree that there is this natural reluctance to pull down a house, even if it is a slum house, so long as there is a housing shortage. There is that reluctance.
    It is quite a different thing to put in a return to a Government Department saying that it is the intention of the local authority to clear so many slums in the next five years. It does not necessarily follow that that will be done. When the authority draws up its programme each year and the pressure of public opinion and the length of the housing list and all sorts of things crop up, there is a great temptation to whittle down the programme. We do feel that the incentive we are providing in this Bill will be a very great help in keeping local authorities up to the good intentions they have recorded in the report they have sent in.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has rather misstated what I said? I did not refer to any Election manifesto. I have long given up looking at Conservative Election manifestos to find what the Conservative Party will do. What I looked at in relation to the 60,000 houses was what the right hon. Gentleman expected would
    1280
    be the result of this Bill. So far as I can see, the result will be to reduce the building of slum clearance houses by 15,000 in a year. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I say that a special incentive is need. I am not concerned with that. This Bill is not an incentive, special or otherwise; it is just the opposite.
    Mr. Sandys: I think I did answer precisely that point a moment ago. We feel that while local authorities may put in returns of their intentions—which, in many cases, are not much more than hopes—there is every advantage in giving them a real financial incentive to live up to the returns put in. Even so, I think many will find that with the target they have set, their work will be cut out to implement it.
    It seemed to be suggested by several hon. Members that owing to the reduction in the general needs subsidy from £22 to £10 local authorities would be prevented from tackling the problem of overcrowding. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said that Newcastle City Council would be prevented by the subsidy cuts from providing houses to relieve overcrowding.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I said, except in so far as the city council can make use of some of the other provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Sandys: It is absurd to say that a large city with a great pool of existing houses cannot build houses because the subsidy on part of its programme is reduced from £22 to £10. It would be wholly neglecting its statutory duty and its human duty if it decided it could not build houses with a £10 subsidy.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Newcastle City Council will be facing, in three years' time, a deficit of £400,000 because of the increase in interest rates, quite apart from the reduction in housing subsidies?
    Mr. J. Silverman: Surely the whole point made by the Minister is that the Government are to build fewer houses for overcrowding in order to build more houses for slum clearance? Therefore, to suggest that he is not deliberately trying to reduce the number of houses to relieve overcrowding is quite wrong because, according to what he says, that is the basis of the Bill.
    Mr. Sandys: The basis of this provision is to increase the number of houses which are built to rehouse people from the slums. That is the object.
    Mr. Silverman: By cutting down some of the others.
    Mr. Sandys: We are not working to a precise ceiling. We are seeking to give an additional incentive. [HON. MEMBERS: "Incentive?"] "Additional" was perhaps the wrong expression; I should say a definite incentive. [HON. MEMBERS: "What incentive?"] The incentive is that local authorities will get a higher subsidy for houses built to clear slums than for houses built for other purposes.
    Mr. Charles Royle Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West) rose—
    Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.
    It was quite absurd for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East to say that the City of Newcastle cannot build houses with the reduced subsidy. If it spread the reduction in the subsidy and the increase in the interest rates over all its houses, on the basis I have explained on earlier occasions, it would involve an all round annual increase in rents of about 10½d. Who is to say, on those grounds, that it is impossible for the City of Newcastle to build any further houses for general need? I cannot conceive that the council would dream of taking that line.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his figures are quite incorrect? I understand that there are proposals before the city council at the moment which, in view of the interest rate increases, plus the increased cost of house building, will amount to 3s. 6d. extra a week spread over the whole of Newcastle housing.
    Mr. Sandys: I just do not believe that that is correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, but that figure does not follow from this Bill alone. Rent increases are being made in different places for quite different reasons. The L.C.C. made a rent increase within a day or two of the Bill coming out—quite unrelated to the Bill. Rent increases are taking place quite independently. I know nothing of the figure of 3s. 6d. in Newcastle, but I suggest to the hon. Member for
    1282
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East that if that is the figure by which rents are being increased there it is related to other things as well as the provisions of this Bill and other things apart from the recent increase in interest rates. I am prepared to discuss it with the hon. Member, but we cannot do so across the Floor of the Committee.
    Mr. Key: Does not the right hon. Gentleman also remember that, apart from the increase in interest rates which local authorities have to meet, he was responsible for bringing into operation a reduction of subsidy at the beginning of this year?
    Mr. Sandys: We are dealing now with the £22 subsidy—
    Mr. Key: I thought we were dealing with local authorities having to increase rents.
    Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, but we are dealing with the provisions in this Bill in relation to the situation which exists before the Bill is brought into operation. That is to say, a reduction from £22 is, to £10. On that basis, including the rise in interest rates during the period, my information is that the City of Newcastle would be involved in an all-round annual increase in rent of about 10½d.—at any rate, the figure of 3s. 6d. would be very far from the mark.
    7.30 p.m.
    The change in the subsidy rates will, we hope and desire, ensure that slum dwellers get a fair share of the new houses being built. We have had speeches by hon. Members stressing the aspect of "statutorily overcrowded," as defined in the 1936 Act, and speeches from other hon. Members who referred to overcrowding in general, which is more or less the problem of general housing needs. Families who are statutorily overcrowded, or otherwise seriously overcrowded, will still get their high priority. I am now answering the point about priorities. Families suffering from serious overcrowding are, as hon. Members know, and as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has just said, normally very high on the housing lists of local authorities. The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) confirmed that in her speech.

    1283
    We are considering an Amendment which, if accepted, would give a special preference to houses built to relieve overcrowding. I am dealing now with overcrowding in the strict legal sense—"statutorily overcrowded" within the terms of the 1936 Act. If there are any families suffering from such acute overcrowding and they find that other families are above them on the housing list, it can mean only one thing—apart from the question of residential qualifications which, so far as possible, we are trying to minimise—that in the opinion of the council the need of the family highest on the list is even greater than that of the people who are statutorily overcrowded.
    We have had a number of speeches from hon. Members opposite expressing the view that the local authority is the best judge of relative hardship and urgency of the housing needs of different families. The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) referred to cases of tuberculosis. Those kind of cases and people suffering from infirmities, or people in special circumstances of that kind, are sometimes put higher on a housing list, and above people who are living in extremely overcrowded conditions. By giving a special subsidy for statutory overcrowding we should, in fact, be providing a financial incentive to local authorities to rehouse overcrowded families, in preference to others who, in the opinion of the council, are more urgently in need of accommodation. We should be doing the opposite to what has been recommended to us by several hon. Members today.
    Mr. Sparks: Why not do both?
    Mr. Sandys: I am referring now to overcrowding in the broader sense as distinct from the rather narrow sense of statutory overcrowding. Were a higher subsidy paid—the full £22 as suggested—on houses built to relieve overcrowding in the general and wider sense of the term, and not merely statutory overcrowding we should—and no doubt this is what hon. Members opposite really want—be restoring the subsidy for general needs.
    Mr. Sparks: And why not?
    Mr. Sandys: If we restore the subsidy for general needs, we should remove the whole incentive for slum clearance which
    1284
    it is sought to create by this Bill, and that would defeat the whole purpose of this Measure. For that reason it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment. It would be inconsistent with our policy of encouraging and stimulating a real and effective drive for slum clearance.
    Mr. Lindgren: The statements of the Minister reveal his complete lack of knowledge, not only of the housing problem of this country, but of the operations of local authorities as a whole. He has completely overlooked the callous manner in which the Tory Government has, since 1951, dealt with the problem of housing the people of this country. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite—I am glad to see them in the Chamber because we have missed them all the afternoon—are starting to laugh. I hope that they will begin to speak as well.
    What has been happening? Immediately the Tory Government came to power in 1951 they increased the interest rates on borrowed money. Because of their small majority, and because they never knew when they would have to go to the country, they immediately countermanded the effect of that increase on the rents by raising subsidies. These were raised to £26 10s. from the centre and £8 14s. from the local authorities.
    The Minister has referred to an incentive, but that subsidy, £26 10s. and £8 14s., a total of £35 4s., was reduced in April of this year to £22 1s. from the centre and £7 7s. from local authorities. We are not talking about a reduction in subsidies from £22, but from the figure of £35 which was arrived at on the basis of the interest rates as increased by the Tory Party in 1951.
    The Minister has referred to the London County Council increasing rents this year. That was due, not to any problem of housing at the moment, but because during the last year the interest rates have been increased four times. We are dealing with a continuous addition to the burden on local authorities of increased costs arising from increased building costs; increased costs arising from increased interest charges and increased costs arising from subsidy reductions. The Minister's talk about increased charges being spread over and costing 10d. increase in rents is fantastic. No local authority in the country would support his figures. If the Minister will give

    1285
    me his attention for a moment, I would ask whether he can say that any local authority in the country agrees with his figures, either the 9d. to which he referred at one time, or the 7½d. which he mentioned before or the 10½d. which he is now talking about. It is just sheer nonsense, and the Minister knows it. Why he repeatedly uses those figures, goodness only knows.
    Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that the building programme of a local authority is continuous; that after contracts have been let, particularly in the course of the last year, the normal rent would have had to be increased, because of the difference in the interest charges at the start and at the completion of the scheme; that the figure used by the local authority when it starts a scheme would be completely different at the end of last year from what it was at the commencement of the year? The figures which the Minister is now using have no relation to the facts.
    The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said they were giving an incentive to slum clearance. Where is the incentive? Until 31st March this year a local authority, whether it was dealing with slum clearance or the ordinary general housing need, got a subsidy of £26 10s. from the Treasury, and it had £8 14s. from its own local rate fund. On 1st April those sums were reduced to £22 and £7 7s. All that the Minister is saying is, "If you continue slum clearance you can continue to have the reduced subsidy rate operating from April last." There is no incentive in that. For general housing need the subsidy has gone down to £10, and after one or two years it will be nothing at all. To make that offer is not to talk the language of priority for slum clearance.
    What the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends are trying to do is to do what they said they were going to do. They said they would give an opportunity to the private builder to build. I agree that when the Minister gave freedom to the private builders they at first started extensive housing schemes, buying plots and preparing to build houses for sale, but now in my constituency—and I doubt whether it is different in this respect from most other constituencies—the private builders are reducing building because people cannot afford to buy the houses,
    1286
    because they cannot afford to pay the higher interest rates on the mortgages. So now there are no incentives to undertake that sort of building.
    Building for sale is dropping, building for general housing need is to drop, and, as has been admitted by the Minister, even the slum clearance programme building will drop. So in every one of the several branches of housing activity, private and local authority, there will be a reduction. Where is the incentive? I thought that incentive was an inducement to a spurt in development, but the Minister's so-called incentive is not having that effect.
    Let us consider for a moment what the local authorities have been doing since 1945. I am surprised that a Minister of Housing and Local Government who has been in office for some time should need to be told. I doubt very much whether the local authorities of places like Harrogate and Bournemouth have any slum clearance problems, but there is scarcely a local authority which has a slum clearance problem which has not been dealing with it at the same time as it has been dealing with general housing need. That has certainly been so in my constituency.
    It is true, of course, that general housing need has taken a larger portion of the houses built. The Minister has said that the case for the Amendment does not exist because local authorities can still go on providing accommodation to meet the general housing need in their areas. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite get their information or with whom they mix in their off-duty hours, but they do not seem to realise that even under the subsidy at £26 10s. and £8 14s. rents rose above what ordinary people could afford to pay.
    7.45 p.m.
    I live at Welwyn Garden City, not an unduly poor area, an area in which the industrial wage rates are not lower than they are in other parts of the country, but there the rent for a two-bedroom house is now 33s. and for a three-bedroom house 35s. 6d. Because of the difficulty of many of the tenants in paying those rents the local authority has had to shift the tenants around. It is true that there are varying degrees of affluence amongst council house tenants, and many have

    1287
    moved from the lower-rented to the higher-rented houses, but the Bill will mean that those rents will have to go up again by another 10s. a week.
    It is all very well for the Minister to talk about 10d. This is an increase of 10s. a week a house, and it has to be paid for either by the tenant or by an increase in the rent of every local authority house in the area. Let us face the fact that the vast majority of local authorities are not prepared—and I doubt very much whether they will be prepared—continually to increase the rents for every hundred houses they build. Of course, the natural tendency of every local authority in these circumstances will be to curtail building. Perhaps one of the reasons for that will be the effective demand from the people on the lists will dwindle, and the effective demand will dwindle because of the inability of people to pay these rents.
    That used to be the problem in pre-war years. Hon. Members can rightly say that, as compared with the 'thirties, overcrowding generally is lower. The fact that tenants had to huddle together in cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester was not due to their not wanting houses. The fact was that all they could afford was 10s. or 12s. or 15s. a week for two or three rooms. As and when their wages increased and they had purchasing power with which to obtain a decent standard of accommodation, they bought it, and under the Labour Governments, from 1945 to 1951, they were continually doing so.
    Now the Minister is saying, "We will force the ordinary worker back into the conditions where he existed, and lower his standard of housing." That is in effect what he is saying by proposing big rents for the houses to be provided. The Minister gives freedom to local authorities that can show they have approved need. There is a year's time limit. Of course, there is nothing like increasing rents for reducing the numbers of tenants and decreasing housing demand.
    The Minister has admitted that overcrowding still exists and that the general demand for housing still exists which comes from those in overcrowded conditions. Member after Member on this side of the Committee has stated the problem, and the Minister himself must know it, if only from his correspondence. For every letter an hon. Member has from a constituent complaining about the problem of the slums—and we all have such letters—he receives five, six, seven or ten dealing with the general problem of overcrowding, with people having to share accommodation and desperately wanting new homes for that reason. The Minister admits that overcrowding exists, that it is still a social evil, and yet, to use his own words, it will be many years—so he says, and I hope I am not being unfair to him—before the general conditions of overcrowding are dealt with. If that is so, why reduce the opportunity of coping with it, why put a handicap on local authorities dealing with the problem, which is just as essential a problem of local government as is slum clearance?
    We all want to get on with slum clearance. Local authorities have been getting on with it, but why deprive them of the opportunity of being able to deal adequately with the general problem of overcrowding in their areas? The removal of the subsidy and the increase in interest charges mean that local authorities will not be able to provide future accommodation at a rent which the worker can afford to pay. Therefore, unless the Minister is prepared to reconsider his decision my hon. and right hon. Friends will certainly have to divide in favour of the Amendment.
    Mr. Martin Redmayne (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 239, Noes 206.

    Division No. 82.]

    AYES

    [7.48 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Barber, Anthony

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Barter, John

    Bishop, F. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Body, R. F.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Ashton, H.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Braine, B. R.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Osborne, C.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hope, Lord John

    Page, R. G.

    Bryan, P.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Partridge, E.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Carr, Robert

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Channon, H.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Pott, H. P.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Cole, Norman

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Corfield, Capt, F. V.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Redmayne, M.

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

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kaberry, D.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Keegan, D.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Russell, R. S.

    Davidson, Vscountess

    Kirk, P. M.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Shepherd, William

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Smyth, Brig J. G. (Norwood)

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Speir, R. M.

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

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Storey, S.

    Fell, A.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Summer, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

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

    Fort, R.

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

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Freeth, D. K.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Maddan, Martin

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

    Glover, D.

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

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Gower, H. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir B.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. U. (Nantwich)

    Marples, A. E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Green, A.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mathew, R.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Maude, Angus

    Vosper, D. F.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Gurden, Harold

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

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

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Williams, Pau (Sunderand, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Neave, Airey

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Hay, John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Heath, Edward

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Yates, William, The Wrekin)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. Godber and Mr. Robert Allan

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Balfour, A.

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

    Albu, A. H.

    Bartley, P.

    Blackburn, F.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Benson, G.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Beswick, F.

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

    1290

    1291

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Brock way, A. F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Probert, A. R.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Irving S. (Dartford)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Janner, B.

    Rankin, John

    Burton, Miss F. E.

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

    Reeves, J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Callaghan, L. J.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Ross, William

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Royle, C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Short, E. W.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

    Cronin, J. D.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Logan, D. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Steele, T.

    Deer, G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Delargy, H. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

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

    McLeavy, Frank

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Dye, S.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mahon, S.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Thornton, E.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mason, Roy

    Timmons, J.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Tomney, F.

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

    Messer, Sir F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Usborne, H. C.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Monslow, W.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Grey, C. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moss, R.

    West, D. G.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moyle, A.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mulley, F. W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Willey, Frederick

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Hastings, S.

    Oswald, T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tilery)

    Healey, Denis

    Owen, W. J.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Willis Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Paton, J.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pearson, A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Popplewell, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Question put accordingly, That those words be there inserted:—

    The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 243.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    [8.0 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Beswick, F.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Carmichael, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Champion, A. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Bartley, P.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Coldrick, W.

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Benton, G.

    Burke, W. A.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    1292

    1293

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Rhodes, H.

    Craddook, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kenyon, C.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Davies, Stephen (Methyr)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Royle, C.

    Deer, G.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lewis, Arthur

    Short, E. W.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

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

    Logan, D. G.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dye, S.

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGhee, H. G.

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

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sparks, J. A

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mahon, S.

    Steele, T.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Stones, W. (Consett).

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

    Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mason, Roy

    Swingler, S. T.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Hale, Leslie

    Monslow, W.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Thornton, E.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Timmons, J.

    Hannan, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Tomney, F.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moss, R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Hastings, S.

    Moyle, A.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Healey, Denis

    Mulley, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

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

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oram, A. E.

    Weitzman, D.

    Holman, P.

    Orbach, M.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Oswald, T.

    West, D. G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Owen, W. J.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Padley, W. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Paget, R. T.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Willey, Frederick

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Parker, J.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edgehill)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Paton, J.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Janner, B.

    Popplewell, E

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

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Probert, A. R.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Winterbottom, Richard

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

    Pryde, D. J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Reeves, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Reid, William

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Altken, W. T.

    Braine, B. R.

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bryan, P.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Burden, F. F. A,

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Ashton, H.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Drayson, G. B.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Carr, Robert

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Barber, Anthony

    Channon, H.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Barlow, Sir John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Barter, John

    Cole, Norman

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Fell, A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Body, R. F.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Fort, R.

    1294

    1295

    Freeth, D. K.

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

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Gammans, L. D.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Robertson, Sir David

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. Q.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Gower, H. R.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Russell, R. S.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Green, A.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Shepherd, William

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Speir, R. M.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Maddan, Martin

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

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

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hay, John

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Storey, S.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marples, A. E.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Heath, Edward

    Marshall, Douglas

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Mathew, R.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Maude, Angus

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

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hope, Lord John

    Molson, A. H. E.

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

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

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

    Neave, Airey

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th,E. & Chr'ch)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wade, D. W.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Osborne, C.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Page, R. G.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

    Keegan, D.

    Partridge, E.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Pitman, I, J.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Pott, H. P.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Profumo, J. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

    Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (7) of this section)."
    The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss also the following two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks): in page 1, line 8, at end insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (20) of this section).";
    in page 2, line 20, at end add:
    (20) Contributions shall continue to be payable under the said section one, subsection (2)
    1296
    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 development corporation or housing association and for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced from a structure made available to that authority under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act. 1944.

    1297
    and the further Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key): in page 2, line 20, at end add:
    (7) 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, and for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced from a derequisitioned house.

    Mr. Key: This Amendment affects only a limited number of local authorities but it deals with a problem vital to them. Earlier this year the Minister persuaded his colleagues to agree to impose upon local authorities the responsibility for properties which had been requisitioned in order to provide housing accommodation for those whose homes had been destroyed or rendered uninhabitable during the war. What had, during the war and for years afterwards, been regarded as a national responsibility was now to be passed over to the local authorities to be dealt with solely by them, though not of course to all local authorities because the majority had not been concerned with it.
    When introducing the necessary legislation, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "A high proportion of requisitioned property is now concentrated in the hands of fifty authorities. They are the hard core of the problem, and some of them face quite exceptional difficulties."
    To show his appreciation of those exceptional difficulties the Minister said, in effect, to those local authorities, "I will now put upon you the burden of 25 per cent. of the administrative costs of those requisitioned premises but will give you also a 100 per cent. responsibility for solving the problem in five years, getting the people rehoused and all the premises derequisitioned." And the authorities, with their great rehousing difficulties, are now told by this Bill—with typical Tory sympathy—that because they are needy they are helped by the Minister adding to their burden. In other words, he will increase their chances of success by reducing their power to act.
    1298
    The Parliamentary Secretary also said in the same speech:
    "As, I think, all the London Members will know, the load bears heaviest on London, and that will not surprise anyone who knows what the war inflicted on London. We have recognised throughout that the problem of these London authorities is exceptional and deserving of special sympathy and every consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February. 1955; Vol. 537, c. 194.]
    Note the words "special sympathy and every consideration." This Bill shows what is that "special sympathy" and what" every consideration "has resulted in. "We know," says the Minister, "that a large number of houses will have to be built and we will show you our consideration and our sympathy even before the operative date of 1st April next. Full responsibility becomes yours by making a drastic cut in the housing subsidy straight away and securing its total abolition in a year or so." That is how a Tory Minister fulfils his promises.
    8.15 p.m.
    The Minister recognises the seriousness of the situation by making it more and more difficult for those with the greatest problem to do the job that he has forced upon them. Faced with that increase in their own financial responsibility, the local authorities will find it increasingly difficult to provide the alternative accommodation that will be necessary. That they should provide it was what the Minister considered was the essential way in which the council should tackle the problem, for he said in Committee, on 3rd March:
    "There are authorities which might be able to allocate an increased number of new council houses for the rehousing of families who are now living in requisitioned houses."
    Of course the way to help them to do it was to cut the housing subsidy—
    Mr. Sandys: Has the right hon. Gentleman got with him the part of my speech from which he is quoting?
    Mr. Key: I have it here.
    Mr. Sandys: Would he read the piece about the increased number?
    Mr. Key: I will repeat it:
    "There are authorities which might be able to allocate an increased number of new council houses for the rehousing of families who are now living in requisitioned houses."
    Mr. Sandys: And after that?
    Mr. Key: I am coming to that. The way to help them do it was, as I said, to cut the housing subsidy and make inevitable a fall in the total number of houses which the local authorities can provide. Give these hard pressed local authorities responsibility, reduce the financial assistance for general housing purposes which they now receive from national resources, and from the lessened accommodation they are able to provide, expect them to give an ever-increasing number of their houses for derequisitioning. "Of course," says the Minister, "I am not pressing them to do it." Oh, no. On that same day he is officially reported as saying:
    "I have not attempted to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to increase these allocations, although I hope and expect"—
    notice, please, "hope and expect"—
    "that they will continue to provide at least as many council houses for this purpose as they have done in the past. I believe that many of them will increase the number as the building programme advances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd March. 1955; c. 441
    Yes, and the way to get that increase, the way to ensure that a building programme will advance, is to cut drastically now, and abolish entirely soon, the housing subsidies designed to help authorities in their task.
    I know that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary said, in our discussion of the first Amendment today, that the council can spread the cost of this extra building by raising the rents of all existing council houses. Surely he will not say that the expenditure arising from what, when they were asked to act as Government agents the authorities were told was recognised as a national problem to be nationally borne is now to be governed by the limited number of people in a given area who happen to be inhabiting council houses, and that the necessary finance needed to build houses now wanted in connection with derequisitioning will be found by increasing the rents merely of council tenants.
    As one who spent long years in local government, I am distressed by the lamentable betrayal of which the Minister has been guilty in his treatment of local authorities. He is undermining their confidence in his Department and destroying the co-operation and trust which many of us have for half a century been
    1300
    doing all we could to strengthen and develop. I beg him to accept the Amendment, for by maintaining the existing subsidy for houses needed in connection with derequisitioning he will help to restore the faith of distressed authorities, not only faith in his own honesty and sincerity and the things he has said, but faith in the prospect of continued co-operation from the central authority.
    Mr. J. Silverman: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) said, the problem of requisitioned houses is primarily a London problem, but not entirely, for other local authorities are affected, and it certainly affects Birmingham, which recently had as many as 1,800 requisitioned houses.
    The Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act imposed upon such authorities an enormous physical burden in rehousing people, and it means that over the next five years a significant proportion of those on the ordinary registers will have to wait longer—perhaps indefinitely—for a house by virtue of the priority given to rehousing those thrown out of their accommodation by the de-requisitioning Measure. To that burden is now added the extra financial burdens represented by the increase in interest rates and the withdrawal of the subsidy. It represents an intolerable burden for local authorities with large numbers of requisitioned houses.
    When the Minister introduced the Bill we asked: what will happen to the people who are turned out of their houses? The Minister was very coy in replying. We asked: will they be turned out into the street? The Minister knew the answer perfectly well. He knew that local authorities, who have a greater sense of social responsibility than the Ministry, axe obliged to rehouse these people, and the consequence is that other people will, unfortunately, have to wait. Again, we ask him: what will happen to these people when they are thrown out of their houses? The Minister must admit that some, at any rate, will be rehoused by the local authorities. If none is, the Amendment will cost him nothing.
    If it is true, as the Minister says—or if he persists in the pretence—that the Bill is simply intended to stimulate local authority slum clearance, how can that object be adversely affected if the local authorities continue to receive a subsidy

    1301
    in respect of people whom they have to rehouse anyway, because they are thrown out of requisitioned houses? I invite the Minister to answer the question: what has the withdrawal of the subsidies from houses to be provided for these unfortunate people to do with the question of slum clearance?
    If the Minister's sole idea is to stimulate slum clearance and he does not wish otherwise to impose any burden on local authorities, I advise him to consider the Amendment. It can have no effect on slum clearance, because it is clear that people who are turned out of their houses will have to be rehoused anyway by their local authority. I urge the Minister to consider the Amendment very seriously. I do not know what burden it will impose on him, but if his optimistic account during the proceedings on the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act of what is to happen to these people is correct, and if very few go to the local authorities and most of them are rehoused in other ways, it cannot impose a very considerable financial burden on the Ministry.
    In any event, it is a burden which has to be borne. Already, local authorities are being asked to bear a physical burden. It is monstrous that they should also be asked to bear a severe financial burden, for it is thoroughly unjustified and it bestows no benefit upon the community.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: I support the Amendment. It is true that the Amendment affects only a comparatively few housing authorities, but most of them can be said to be authorities which have the most acute housing needs, the areas being congested and already having very serious housing problems.
    My constituency covers the areas of the Tottenham and Wood Green housing authorities. Tottenham has more than 1,000 requisitioned properties. Wood Green has a much smaller number, only 210. It is a serious problem for both authorities to find alternative accommodation for the licensees. When the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act was passed, local authorities were asked, as they had been asked previously, to approach owners of requisitioned properties to inquire whether they would accept the licensees as their tenants. It may interest the Minister to
    1302
    know that only 27 of 527 owners approached in Tottenham have agreed to accept the licensees as their tenants. Only eight out of 130 owners in Wood Green have agreed to do so; nineteen have asked for further particulars, but it is practically certain that most of the inquiries will prove to be abortive.
    I stress that point because it means that, somehow or other, local authorities will have to find alternative accommodation for most of these families. When figures are given of the numbers of requisitioned properties, it is important to remember that many of them, if not most of them, house more than one family. When a requisitioned property is released, more than one family has to be found alternative accommodation.
    8.30 p.m.
    Another important point is that many of these families are large. They have found requisitioned properties eminently suitable in many ways because some of those houses contain a large number of rooms. When these people are rehoused they will not fit into these two-bedroomed "boxes" which local authorities have been compelled to build nowadays. They will need larger accommodation than is normally built, and this £10 subsidy will make the rent one which these people cannot afford. If they go into the larger houses they need, the cost of building will be much greater and the rent will, therefore, be higher than most of them can afford.
    Many of these families went into requisitioned properties during the war, sometimes from very poor areas, and they are poor families. They cannot afford high rents. We were told by the Minister on the Second Reading that many of the figures which were given to illustrate the high rents were purely hypothetical. I have received today from the Town Clerk of Wood Green the information that a small block of eighteen fiats which we are proposing to build, the Tents of which on 1st November we estimated to be £1 14s. 11d. a week, will now, it the rate contribution is not made and they only attract the £10 subsidy, be £2 15s. 6d. a week—an increase of about £1 a week. Those are not hypothetical figures. They are actual figures which will be reported to the housing committee at its next meeting.

    1303
    This small block of flats cannot be made into a four-storey block because of the nature of the subsoil in this locality. It is all very well to say that larger blocks of flats will attract the higher subsidy. It is not always possible to build the larger blocks of flats because of local conditions.
    I stress the importance of this Amendment because, while local authorities may to a certain extent please themselves whether or not they undertake general housing, they have to find means of housing families from requisitioned properties because the Minister has imposed that obligation on them and, therefore, they have no choice in the matter. Since the Minister imposed that obligation on them when the subsidy was at the higher level, I feel that he has a moral obligation to maintain the subsidy at that higher level for these requisitioned families.
    The Amendment is different in substance from many other points which the Minister has said would make the Bill meaningless. This would not do anything of the kind. It would merely bring fairness and equity to a section of the population for which the Minister has given local authorities the responsibility of rehousing.
    Mr. Sparks: I understand that the Chair has agreed that we shall deal with the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 20, to add a new subsection (20) with the one that we are now discussing, and I will therefore say what I want to say about that Amendment—
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): To get the matter clear, I will inform the hon. Member that we are also taking the Amendment in his name, in page 1, line 8, to insert:
    "(not being such a dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (20) of this section)"
    and the Amendment in page 2, line 20, to add new subsection (7).
    Mr. Sparks: The Amendment to which you have referred, in page 1, line 8, standing in my name, is really a paving Amendment to the Amendment to which I have referred, to add a new subsection (20), which relates to temporary accommodation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to accept that Amendment.
    1304
    In 1944, the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act was passed by this House and its main purpose was to erect a limited number of dwellings as quickly as possible in order to give the local authorities a little breathing space in organising their permanent housing schemes. Consequently, in the succeeding two or three years, the local authorities made use of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act to erect approximately 150,000 temporary dwellings, which are commonly known as "prefabs." These dwellings have been erected in all sorts of places—the housing problem was, of course, severe and acute in those early years—a good many of them in parks and open spaces, some on cleared bombed sites and others on pieces of waste ground wherever they could be put down quickly and with the minimum of time and labour.
    The Act intended that these dwellings should not last longer than about ten years. When local authorities agreed to erect them, their attention was directed to that fact and that by the end of ten years the "prefabs" should be ready to come down and the local authorities should arrange for the rehousing of the people living in them.
    The right hon. Gentleman has recently taken up this matter with the local authorities and has directed them to show cause why they should not pull down these "prefabs." In most cases, local authorities have had to put up to the Minister suggestions or schemes for dealing with these "prefabs," indicating those which it was intended to pull down immediately and those which it was preferred should remain a little longer. As a result, local authorities have in suitable cases agreed—presumably, with the Minister's approval—that some of the "prefabs" will be demolished and others allowed to remain for a further limited time. I understand that the latest date to which they will be permitted to remain is sometime in 1965, or, roughly, ten years from now. By that time, they are supposed all to have been disposed of.
    As I have said, many of the "prefabs" have already been pulled down or are in course of being taken down. Therefore, we are asking the Minister not to withdraw the benefit of the housing subsidy from local authorities who, in the main, are carrying out his direction and

    1305
    are demolishing the "prefabs." He should not deny to them the benefit of subsidy in arranging to rehouse the people who are living in the "prefabs." Obviously, if they are pulled down, the families cannot be put out on the street; a housing scheme must be developed and alternative accommodation prepared to which the families will be transferred. Then the "prefab" can be demolished and the site made use of.
    It is unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the subsidy in these cases and to put upon the remaining tenants the burden of the increased cost of providing new dwellings. As has already been pointed out from this side, there is not simply the loss of subsidy, but there is the other important factor of the increased cost of interest on housing loans, which may rise even higher than it is now. Added to the proposed loss of subsidy on rebuilding schemes, this will inevitably place an increased burden upon existing tenants and also upon those who at present live in the "prefabs."
    In view of the fact that the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act was really a wartime Measure—at least, it passed through the House in the closing stages of the war, and was regarded more or less as an emergency Measure—the right hon. Gentleman should face up to his obligation to maintain the subsidies upon this limited number of temporary dwellings. It is not playing the game by local authorities to withdraw the subsidy now and leave them with the extra burden because, had they been made aware at the beginning of the operation that they would very likely lose the benefit of subsidy at this time, many of these temporary houses would not have been erected. They were erected by local authorities in perfectly good faith, on the understanding that the subsidies would be available at the end of ten years, when they had to be demolished and local authorities had to develop housing schemes to rehouse the occupants. The right hon. Gentleman would be letting them down very badly if he now withdrew the subsidy.
    The right hon. Gentleman—I think it was during the Second Reading debate—mentioned something about Portal houses. I cannot see what Portal houses have to do with the Housing
    1306
    (Temporary Accommodation) Act. I was under the impression that only a few prototypes of the Portal house were erected, and that it was found quite impossible to continue their erection owing to the fact that the necessary steel was not available. I do not know whether we are getting confused with terms and names. After all, there are 150,000 "prefabs," which are called by all sorts of names.
    Mr. Sandys: I do not think that we want to talk at cross-purposes. I thought that I had explained what I was referring to. When I referred to Portals I was trying to differentiate between the temporary houses built upon the Portal plan—though not in steel—and the substandard hutments of the Nissen hut type, which we regard as unsatisfactory dwellings whose demolition should be treated as part of the slum clearance problem.
    Mr. Sparks: If the right hon. Gentleman regards those dwellings erected under the Act as being of the Portal type to which he has referred, I do not think there is any difference between us, but I rather thought he implied that he was not prepared to extend the benefit of subsidy to rehousing the tenants of these "prefabs" when they are demolished. I am told that he did say that.
    Mr. Key: He means it now.
    Mr. Sparks: In that case, a wide gulf remains between us. The right hon. Gentleman is apparently prepared to maintain the benefit of subsidy upon the mythical Portal type of house—
    Sir Frederick Messer: No—upon the hutments.
    Mr. Sparks: Well, the right hon. Gentleman is presumably giving the name of the Minister to those dwellings.
    Mr. Sandys: Let us be quite clear about this. I thought I had made myself clear. I believe that the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) is clear about it. There are two types of temporary house with which we are mainly concerned. One is the temporary house built under the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, and the other is the Nissen hut type, to be found in camps of hutments, of which many have already been pulled down but quite

    1307
    a number are still standing. The subsidy for slum clearance is available for their replacement and the rehousing of the families now living in them.
    Mr. Sparks: I now understand the right hon. Gentleman. The subsidy is available for rehousing people living in camp hutments, but not, presumably, in respect of "prefabs." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will change his mind about that. If we were asking him to continue the subsidy upon an indefinite number of dwellings he might have a case for resisting our argument, but we are speaking of a very limited number of dwellings, whose demolition will be spread over a period of about ten years from now.
    8.45 p.m.
    We are not asking a lot from the Minister. He can well afford to make a concession in this case. His agreement to our proposal would receive the thanks of local authorities, because their housing problem in the large towns and cities is large enough without having to carry the problem of rehousing people from prefabricated dwellings without the benefit of the subsidy. As the number would be strictly limited, and demolition will be spread over a period of years, I hope that the Minister will be able to include this with the provision for rehousing families in requisitioned premises. It would be an injustice to the local authorities for him to withdraw the benefit of the subsidy.
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: The Minister will not be surprised, if in supporting the Amendment. I draw my examples from conditions in the Borough of Paddington, part of which I represent. He knows that Paddington's record in this matter is that the cost of the requisitioned buildings in Paddington is higher than the cost of those in any other housing authority. He will also know that we have 2,400 families in requisitioned dwellings, and that constitutes a very great problem indeed.
    However, I do not wish to treat this subject as if it were a local matter concerning one borough. We have here an opportunity to examine the effect of the Bill upon the future type of building in London and upon the chance of providing reasonable accommodation at reasonable rents for the sort of people who need to
    1308
    live in London. There will be opportunities later to pursue the contrast between the two schools of thought, those who think in terms of overspill, new towns and garden cities and those who advocate much higher building in the city.
    My constituents are not really concerned with the niceties of these different points of view. For the most part they are concerned with the fact that they have jobs in London and that London needs people to do those jobs at moderate rates of wages. They must be found homes in London. It is absolute nonsense and a waste of money, whatever the view one might take about the desirability of creating new balanced communities, to put aside these interesting plans for the development of new communities and use up accommodation at a distance from London by filling it with people who merely have to travel back to London to work.
    That is the type of person who lives in my constituency and who needs to live there. There is one more point which I should like to make, in case it invokes an echo of sympathy in the Minister's heart. I am not speaking on behalf of some recalcitrant and rebellious Labour council.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Are there any?
    Mr. Parkin: The Borough of Paddington is very respectable. It did not know very much about council houses before the war. It has been rather abruptly brought into contact with the realities of life in the last generation.
    The majority party on the Paddington Borough Council has done its best to satisfy the Minister. It senses his policy in advance, and there has been an almost fawning, crawling willingness to fall in with the Minister's plans for requisitioned premises. There has been virtually no rehousing in Paddington. Those of us who attend advice bureaux and listen to the troubles of our constituents know that for months and months there has been no rehousing whatever, except that of people from requisitioned properties in order that those properties might remain vacant.
    I am not suggesting that this is entirely a political matter. We have the advantage of the advice and help in municipal

    1309
    affairs of a number of estate agents, and doubtless they can look after their interests and those of their clients very effectively, but there has not been a single case in the last few months where anyone has been able to offer any help to the ordinary people who come to us with their troubles.
    Perhaps I might quote one case to show the ridiculous lengths to which the Minister's policy has gone. A constituent of mine suffered from tuberculosis and, using all the provisions of the National Health Service, the Ministry of Health spent thousands of pounds on having him cured. He went to Switzerland and came back cured, and he then went into a convalescent home. He was released from that home only on the assurance that he was to be properly housed—and that assurance was a letter from Paddington Town Hall which went as near as possible to saying that he was very high on the housing list and could expect to be rehoused in the near future. It was not a promise, because wise officials do not make promises, but certainly no one imagined that there would be an absolute stop on rehousing.
    That man has been left with the choice of breaking up his family or leaving his work. After efforts to find accommodation over a long period, he has in fact given up his work—which his employers were anxious that he should continue—and has had to leave the district. That is one of the most pathetic and desperate cases which I could quote. I will not quote the hundreds and thousands of normal overcrowding cases which are so familiar to my hon. Friends.
    I suggest to the Minister that if he were prepared to make a concession on this Amendment, he would start something with which his name might be very honourably associated for a long time. Under the provisions of the Bill, as outlined, the Minister offers considerable help towards the type of building which is in accordance with modern technological progress and modern architectural ideas—high buildings with a reasonable amount of open space.
    If building is to take place in London to rehouse the working people who have to live here, we must bear in mind that the result will affect the face of London
    1310
    probably for a century. This is an opportunity to do the job properly. I will not get involved in the arguments about density, although it is obvious that if we are to build high we must clear a number of spaces in order to avoid shadows and to provide sunshine, fresh air and so on. There is no doubt that modern technological progress offers the prospect of very much more pleasant and more agreeable living conditions if the blocks of flats are high and not too wide.
    Unless boroughs such as Paddington can get this problem of those dwelling in requisitioned premises out of the way, they can make no progress with rehousing whatever. At the moment they are quite heartbroken. There is no incentive to go ahead with new schemes because they cannot touch the normal housing needs of the borough until they have cleared these requisitioned premises off their hands and handed them back to their owners.
    If the provisions in this Bill applicable to slum clearance were also applicable to rehousing occupants of requisitioned premises, boroughs like Paddington would be given an incentive. With buildings of more than ten storeys on sites where the cost of the site is at the highest, as it is in Paddington, there could be more in the way of subsidy for slum clearance and overspill than under previous conditions. I have not worked out how far that would offset the very grave burden of the increase in interest rates, but at least it would be better than nothing.
    I do not want to pursue arguments for high building in discussing this Amendment. I have no doubt, Mr. Hynd, that you would rule me out of order if I did so, but I want strongly to point out to the Minister that he can not only give fresh hope to a borough which has none at present—and can have none until the ordinary casual vacancies in council properties have absorbed occupants of requisitioned properties—but can give the incentive of extending the subsidy to cover those cases, especially if he matched the financial concessions with personal drive and leadership. He might start a process of building for rehousing people who need to live in the centre which would then be of great service to this capital city and affect its beauty and amenities for many years to come.
    Mr. Sandys: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) on having been able to discuss, within the scope of this Amendment, the desirability of erecting high buildings in London. I must say that I have very considerable sympathy with some of the views the hon. Member expressed upon the architectural aspects of this problem, but the two Amendments with which we are dealing are concerned with very specific and restricted points, as the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said.
    One of those points is the question of the prefabricated temporary house and the other is the question of requisitioned houses. The question is whether the subsidy of £22 should be available for dwellings which are built to rehouse people out of dwellings in those two classes. I will deal with the temporary houses first. I should draw the attention of hon. Members to the terms of the Bill, because the hon. Member for Acton seemed to be rather confused. Clause 3 (3, b) makes clear that the subsidy of £22 is available for dwellings
    "provided by a local authority for the purposes of rehousing persons coming from such camps or other unsatisfactory temporary housing accommodation as the Minister may designate for the purposes of this paragraph; …"
    Mr. Sparks: It would save a lot of time if the right hon. Gentleman would say that the houses referred to come within that definition. Could he designate them?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: My purpose in intervening was to try to explain what is the position. Those are the terms of the Bill. In other words, to come within that paragraph, the dwelling has to be a temporary construction and, in the opinion of the Minister, unsatisfactory. I have already indicated that, without exception, I intend to designate all these temporary hutments to which I have referred—the Nissen hut type and other similar extremely substandard dwellings which were intended only as a makeshift when the housing position was acute at the end of the war and immediately afterwards.
    Mr. Royle: Would the Minister call ten years a short time, as in the case of the prefabricated bungalow?
    Mr. Sandys: I hope we may be clear about this. Those who have had experience in this matter, such as the right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key), understand what I am saying. There are two classes of temporary dwellings which were erected. One was an extremely small, sub-standard, unsatisfactory hutment. There were Service camps and hutments in the London area.
    Mr. H. Butler: Known as "two-year hutments."
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, that is right. I intend, without exception, to designate them as being unsatisfactory for the purposes of this Bill. Any dwelling built to rehouse people coming out of those hutments will qualify for the full £22 subsidy.
    On the other hand, the prefabricated temporary house, which I describe as the Portal model to distinguish it from the two-year hutment, is in a different category. I think it wrong for the hon. Member for Acton to say that if, in 1945 or 1946, local authorities had known that in 1955 or 1956 the subsidy was to be reduced—a subsidy which did not then exist in this form—they would have erected fewer of these hutments, and that it is an act of bad faith to deny them the full subsidy now.
    That is a very far-fetched argument. In the first place, the local authorities knew nothing about the £22 subsidy, which did not then exist. Secondly, the cost of erecting these dwellings and of the dwellings themselves was provided entirely by the Exchequer. At that time the local authorities got something for nothing, and I have no doubt that they were glad to have these houses provided quickly when there was an acute shortage of housing accommodation.
    Mr. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that not all of these houses were erected in 1945. In some cases the schemes were not completed until 1948 or 1949.
    Mr. Sandys: Whenever they were erected, it was because the local authorities wanted them, and the cost was borne by the Exchequer. So I do not think one can say that the local authorities let themselves in for some big financial commitment which they find difficulty in discharging.

    1313
    However, that is not the point. The point is that although these temporary houses are not ideal, they provide conditions, particularly for small families, which are quite as comfortable as those provided by many permanent houses which have many years of life yet. I am not suggesting that the temporary houses should have many years of life, but they do provide comfortable accommodation for small families. While the housing shortage continues, I think it would be an unsound policy to accelerate the demolition of these houses if they are still structurally satisfactory and providing good and convenient homes with modern arrangements for a considerable number of families.
    If, on the other hand, for one reason or another they are unsatisfactory and cannot be repaired at reasonable cost, then there is nothing to prevent the Minister from designating those houses as coming within the category covered by the Clause. Therefore, any houses built to rehouse the families from unsatisfactory temporary houses would qualify for the larger subsidy. I hope I have made the position clear. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that it would not be sound public policy to stimulate the demolition of these houses in any area while a shortage still continued there.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of what the Minister has just said about the temporary bungalows, with which, I think, many hon. Members will agree, will he release local authorities from the undertaking to pull down the bungalows, many of which are structurally sound? Many of them have been pulled down already. Will he release the authorities from having to continue this process of demolition?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a separate issue. I think the hon. Lady is referring to temporary houses erected on open spaces. I think it has always been the feeling in all parts of the Committee that we want to restore the open spaces in our towns as soon as we reasonably can, and, therefore, we have—and I think it is right—to encourage the local authorities to remove those houses, certainly in preference to other temporary houses. Extensions of time have been given. There was a statutory time limit—speaking from memory, I think it was ten years—to the existence of the houses on open spaces.
    1314
    [HON. MEMBERS: "For all of them."] There was no statutory limit put upon the other houses. It was put upon the houses to be erected on open spaces, because, quite rightly, in my opinion, special permission had to be given to erect them there.
    Where there have been special difficulties in an area, to my regret it has been necessary to give an extension of time for the existence of a number of those houses—an extension for a certain further period of years. I think that we have to be jealous of our open spaces in all our towns. We have all too little open space. I think that the hon. Lady will probably agree that this is not a controversial, party issue.
    I shall come in a moment to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar, but I want straight away to deal with a remark of the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman). He spoke about people in requisitioned houses being thrown out. He said that the local authorities had to go to their rescue by rehousing them, and that that placed a heavy burden upon the resources of the local authorities. He implied that this resulted in further prejudice to the people on the waiting lists. I would remind the Committee that the only circumstances in which people can be evicted under the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act are those in which the court has decided that the hardship to the owner in being kept out of his house is greater than or as great as the hardship to the occupants in being asked to leave. Those are the only circumstances in which that can arise. There are very few of those cases.
    Mr. Victor Collins: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the situation now, but what about the situation in 1960 when, if the matter has not been seen to earlier, about two-thirds of the people now living in requisitioned dwellings in my constituency will have to be rehoused by the local authority?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not want to go through all the proceedings on the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act which we discussed at great length. The hon. Member will remember that in the very last resort that Act provides powers to the local authority to purchase all the remaining houses

    1315
    still requisitioned at the end of the period in 1960. Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for anybody to say that that Act can result in anybody being evicted from the requisitioned house in which he is living, except where the hardship to the owner is greater than the hardship to the occupant.
    To be doubly sure, and not to place this extra burden on local authorities, I was careful to include in that Act, as hon. Members may remember, a provision that local authorities were required where necessary to retain a pool of requisitioned houses which had become vacant in order that they might have some reserve in which to accommodate people who might be ordered by the court to leave requisitioned premises.
    Mr. Key: Surely that is in 1960.
    Mr. Sandys: In 1960, in the last resort, there is the power to buy these houses and, therefore, I think that we have looked after these people pretty carefully.
    Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister now saying that in his view no hardship need be caused through the operation of that Act? Will he therefore say that a council which refuses to fill casual vacancies in its own housing accommodation from the general waiting list but fills them with the occupants of requisitioned premises, in order that these premises should be handed back, will be going far beyond his policy?
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) was good enough to read a passage or two from the speech I made on the subject earlier this year. It seems to me that the passage which he read strengthened my case rather than his. In case hon. Members have forgotten it, I should like to read it again. I said:
    "Therefore, I have not attempted to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to increase these allocations,"—
    that is, of new houses for rehousing people who come out of requisitioned houses—
    "although I hope and expect that they will continue to provide at least as many council houses for this purpose as they have done in the past."
    Mr. Key: I read that.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman did, but I was so pleased that he read it that I wanted to make sure that hon. Members did not forget it. Later, I said, and this is the important point:
    "… the Bill … does not rest upon the assumption that there will be any great increase in the allocation of new council houses for the purpose of rehousing the occupants of requisitioned dwellings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd March, 1955; c. 44.]
    That was the important point which I wanted to emphasise. The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) said that the Minister imposed upon local authorities the obligation to rehouse families living in requisitioned houses. That is not correct, as I pointed out.
    Mr. Key: If the right hon. Gentleman says he did not impose upon local authorities the job of rehousing, what he is going to impose upon them is the job of buying, in 1960, all the houses inhabited by those accommodated in requisitioned premises, and he will do that without any subsidy towards the buying and with a very reduced subsidy for building to avoid the necessity of buying.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. As I have explained, the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act does not rely primarily upon local authorities building new houses to accommodate these people. It relies mainly upon other methods. The three principal methods upon which it relies are: first, the release of requisitioned houses as and when they become vacant—that does not involve the building of new houses; secondly, the agreement of owners to give tenancies to existing occupants in return for compensation—that is a financial matter; not a question of building more houses; and, thirdly, the leasing or purchasing by the local authority of the requisitioned house, if it still requires it.
    The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this great burden has been placed upon local authorities, that it will involve them in very serious financial difficulties and that this Bill—after all, we are, discussing not the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, but the Housing Subsidies Bill—will add to their burden in an altogether intolerable way.

    1317
    If I am right in saying that the policy embodied in the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act does not rest upon the assumption that additional houses are to be built by local authorities in which to rehouse these people, but, that they will be rehoused primarily by other methods, then, of course, this Bill does not add to the burden of local authorities except to the extent that they are building houses for rehousing people from requisitioned dwellings. The number which they have been building has not been very large, and, frankly, I am not expecting any great increase in that number.
    Mr. Key: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman be very surprised to hear that more than 25 per cent. of the allocations of new accommodation made in my area are made to people who come out of requisitioned houses?
    Mr. Sandys: I am very glad to hear that. What I am saying is that I do not expect any large increase in that number.
    I now come to the other point made by the right hon. Gentleman about how the costs of these other methods are to be borne. They should not normally amount to more than 1d. or 2d. on the rates. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total cost of the various measures for dealing with the question of the compensation of owners—the question of leasing or buying houses—should not amount to more than a 1d. or 2d. on the rates.
    Mr. Key: It amounts to 4d. in my area.
    Mr. Sandys: That is not possible, because under the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act an additional grant is available which has the effect of fixing a ceiling of about 3½d., beyond which it cannot go. Therefore, it is not possible for it to be fourpence, but, if it is, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring the matter to my notice, because it can only mean that his local authority has not applied for the grant to which it is entitled.
    It is generally agreed, I think, that since the war requisitioned houses have been treated by local authorities as part of their general pool of housing accommodation, and have been used in the same way as council houses to meet general
    1318
    needs. Therefore, in the Government's opinion there is no justification for giving a different subsidy for houses built to accommodate families from requisitioned properties. I think that I have explained the position fully, and I hope that the Committee will see that this Bill is not related to the problem of requisitioned houses. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their Amendment.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: It is difficult to be convinced by all of the reply of the Minister. When he was speaking about prefabricated houses he carried a number of us with him part of the way, but when he referred to prefabricated houses built in parks and open spaces he said that we ought to encourage local authorities to get the "prefabs" out of the parks and off open spaces. By all means we ought to encourage them, and that is the point of the Amendment; but the Minister dropped the argument at that point. Having said we ought to encourage them, he will not make use of the possible method of encouraging them which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is offering in his Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: If I used the word "encourage," it was wrong because there is no need for encouragement. It is a statutory obligation upon the local authorities to remove these temporary houses from open spaces. The only function I have is to decide whether to give authorisation for them to maintain those houses for a longer period than the law otherwise permits. So there is no need for financial encouragement to get the houses removed. All that is necessary is not to give authorisation to allow them to be retained.
    Mr. Stewart: If that was what the Minister had in mind, surely the other part of the atrgument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton applies, because, if we are to accept the position that local authorities have to clear away these houses, then the duty to rehouse the tenants from them is a special separate problem apart from any other housing responsibility that the local authority may have. We ought to consider, therefore, whether there should not be special assistance, and the fact that, compared with the whole housing problem, this is a very limited matter is an additional

    1319
    reason for the Minister making this concession to local authorities to enable them to deal with a problem which, as he has just admitted, they have to deal with. He cannot say that by refusing this concession he is in any way encouraging local authorities to concentrate their resources on slum clearance and not, as he would consider, to use some of them unnecessarily on purposes which they ought not to regard as so urgent; because here is a purpose which, on his own showing, they cannot choose to regard as urgent or not, but one which they have to fulfil. In view of other anxieties which the Minister has been causing local authorities he might have been prepared to make this moderate concession.
    Mr. Sandys: As I explained, where the housing situation is acute in a certain area and there are difficulties, I can authorise an extension of the period during which these houses can be retained on open spaces—and I feel obliged to do so in a number of cases. I do not like it but I have had to do so in a number of cases, and that will probably cover some of the places which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, but it seems to me that the Minister now, in stork-like fashion, has decided to stand on the other leg again. To begin with he said we ought to encourage local authorities to get these houses off the parks and open spaces and then, when he did not like my quoting that against him, he advanced the other difficulty which local authorities have and said he would allow them to stay. So when he said we ought to encourage local authorities to remove these buildings from parks and open spaces, he was really reminding the House, when he used that remarkable phrase, that he has power to enable them to keep these houses longer on the open spaces.
    I cannot understand why the Minister will not make this moderate concession. I concede that he might not want to accept the Amendment as it stands, but perhaps he could concentrate his attention on those "prefabs" which are in parks and open spaces and which either the local authorities are obliged to remove or it is very desirable socially that they should remove. Why cannot he make a concession in that case?
    1320
    I turn to the other Amendment, on requisitioned property. I listened with great interest, as did most of us, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), which dealt with a number of matters. The Borough of Fulham, which I represent, has, in common with Paddington and no doubt many other London boroughs, a very grave housing problem, but if I understood my hon. Friend correctly, our way of dealing with that problem is not quite the same as that which they have in Paddington. Their practice with regard to requisitioned property, if I understood him correctly, was to use as much new council housing as they could for tenants now in requisitioned property in order to derequisition those properties as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend implied that this has caused considerable gratification to a number of estate agents who, as he said, helped them in their municipal government.
    In Fulham, and no doubt in a number of other boroughs, we have taken a rather different view, and in consequence we have been faced, as a result of the Minister's earlier Act, with a different problem. Consider the case of a family in a requisitioned house who have been there, as many have, for some time. Either because the family has become larger or because it has become smaller, or possibly because of a change in the health of the members of the family, they are in urgent need of a transfer to other property. The property in which they are living might suit the needs of some other family very well but it has become seriously unsuitable for them.
    The problem which faces a conscientious borough is that if it transfers them it runs the risk of losing that property and having one less place with which it can hope to satisfy the terrible needs of those on its long housing list—long even in a borough which has to its credit thousands of people rehoused out of its slender resources and in its very limited area since 1945.
    I stress these points to show that the Minister has some responsibility in the matter. His policy on requisitioned housing has imposed that kind of anxiety on conscientious boroughs. It is not the only problem, and it entails, as was urged on him very powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key)

    1321
    and others, very serious anxieties about what will happen in five years' time—anxieties which are by no means dissipated by the Minister's reply.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) pointed out what has been the result of asking landlords to what extent they are prepared to accept the licensees as tenants. It does not look as though that way of dealing with the problem of where people now in requisitioned property are to live will provide a large part of the answer; and the burden, or a considerable part of it, must therefore fall on the council.
    We and the Minister might dispute exactly how much of the problem must fall on the council, but if we are being over-pessimistic, at least we can claim that he is being over-optimistic; and if he reminds us that in the last resort the council can deal with the problem by acquiring property, that will impose on them, in view of some other aspects of Government policy, a very heavy financial burden.
    I wonder whether the Minister realises how slender are the resources of some of the Metropolitan boroughs. I am not sure that he does. Whether the Minister and the council like it or not, this will mean that they will have to provide some council housing to rehouse people now living in requisitioned properties. I do not believe all the Minister's ingenuity can argue away the fact that they will have to provide some housing for that purpose, and many of them, who have been building as hard as they could since the war and have not very much space left in which to build, regard as serious any slice taken out of the future council housing they can provide.
    9.30 p.m.
    Thus, we have a burden which must fall, at least in some part, on the councils. It is a burden which they have to carry. Once again the argument applies that as that is so, the Minister cannot say that by depriving them of subsidy on this part of their responsibilities he is encouraging them to devote resources to slum clearance, because they cannot do that. It is not a question whether they provide these houses or provide houses for people from slums. They have to provide a certain amount of housing to meet the needs of people coming from requisitioned houses.
    1322
    The only question is: are they to do that with or without subsidy?
    Once again, if the Minister is correct in his view that it is only a small problem, and he feels that his optimism is really justified, surely his case for rejecting the Amendment disappears. Let him grant us that there may be, at any rate in some boroughs, a need to provide some council housing to meet the needs of people now in requisitioned property. I submit that, if we are right in thinking that, it is really an unanswerable case that in equity the local authorities should receive subsidies in order to be able to do that. If the Minister is right in thinking that they will not have to provide any council housing for that purpose, putting the Amendment into the Bill will cost him nothing. Will he look at the matter again with regard to "prefabs" in parks and on open spaces, and with regard to the problem of requisitioned houses?
    A very grave anxiety is overshadowing both councils and the people living in requisitioned property. Very often it is not at all a happy matter to be in requisitioned property. It is usually property the age of which does not make it very attractive. It is very often property into which one has been put because of certain special circumstances, and one has been living in it for six, seven, eight or nine years—everyone agrees that it is merely a makeshift solution of one's difficulties—and living there on sufferance.
    Other hon. Members, who have far wider experience of council work than I have, have described much better than I can the anxieties of local authorities. I would merely add to those anxieties the anxieties of the people living in requisitioned property. There really is a case in humanity, logic and equity for acceptance by the Minister of one of our Amendments, and for him to say that he will introduce into the Bill the principle of half the other Amendment.
    Mr. Collins: The Minister will recall that we had very much the same kind of discussion as we are having now on the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, and that he assured those of us who represent London constituencies that our fears that his proposal represented an extra burden upon local authorities were groundless. He recited the various ways in which this could be avoided, such as owners taking

    1323
    over the licensees as tenants, and he told us that it would be a very small problem. We assured him that it would be a considerable problem. The experience of only a few months has shown that we were right.
    Every time I have heard the Minister speak on the subject I have felt that he was completely divorced from reality and had no idea of the real nature of the problem. A fortnight ago I invited him to come to some of our constituencies and see conditions for himself. I hope that before long he will accept that invitation, for he will find it an education. Speaking of requisitioned properties, the Minister talks as if they were desirable residencies. I do not know what they are like in Paddington or Fulham, but I can assure him that there is not a single requisitioned property in Shoreditch and Finsbury which any of us here—least of all, the Minister—would consider a desirable residence.
    The other day I put it to the Minister that some local authorities, having to pay five times the economic rent plus dilapidations, would be involved in expense far greater than the property was worth. The Minister replied—not an unreasonable answer in the circumstances—that he could trust the local authorities not to do things like that.
    Now, the Minister is saying that in 1960, if the people are still not rehoused, the local authorities can buy the property. No self-respecting or responsible member of a local authority would ever put his hand to buying some of the property that people are living in now. I do not suppose that the Minister has made any kind of analysis at all. If he has, it is a false analysis if he is basing his remarks on the Amendment upon it.
    We assured the Minister when discussing the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Bill that it is a London problem. Yesterday, in answer to a Question. he confirmed that there are 45,000 requisitioned properties in London and only 9,000 in the rest of the country. In other words, more than five out of every six are in the Metropolitan area. Even then, the concentration is largely in a few of the boroughs. In other words, it becomes a major problem in a minority even of the Metropolitan boroughs. But in those boroughs—they
    1324
    are, unfortunately, those which in the main have the greatest housing problems—the problem of requisitioned properties is greater still. We do not, therefore, have to generalise but must realise that this is a very serious problem.
    Two or three hours ago, a large number of my constituents came to the House of Commons and put in my hands a petition signed by thousands of my constituents. It points to the fact that although 4,000 new flats have been built in the constituency since the war, 7,000 families still desperately need accommodation and fear that because of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act and because of the present Bill, they will lose all chance of a decent home because there can be no building other than slum clearance. Their fears are not groundless.
    Mr. Tomney: The position is even more serious in London. If the basement of a requisitioned house is condemned on the authority and advice of the local medical officer of health and the family in the basement has to be provided with another dwelling, surely the case should rank for full subsidy.
    Mr. Collins: I agree with my hon. Friend. The situation is even more tragic when so many medical officers of health dare not carry out their responsibilities, because if they determined a tenancy or part of one it would be literally impossible to find accommodation for the family thereby needing to be rehoused.
    As my hon. Friend has said, this is a London problem, and I was dealing with that aspect. I do not want to press the claim of one constituency in front of others; the problem affects not only my constituency, but others, and, perhaps, to an even greater degree. We are all in the same very unfortunate boat, which is being steered very erratically by somebody who has not charted a proper course, does not know where he is going and will sink the ship unless we can persuade him otherwise. An earnest plea was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
    In my constituency we have in good faith made an analysis of what is likely to happen with the requisitioned properties. Of the 21,000 dwellings in my constituency, 1,055 are requisitioned houses with 1,774 families in them. In other

    1325
    words, nearly one-tenth of the whole population at present lives in requisitioned properties. The Minister has said that the requisitioned property is being used as a housing pool. Of course. Faced with a problem which is nothing less than the rebuilding of practically a whole borough, one has to hang on desperately to any kind of available accommodation. That problem faces many London constituencies.
    We are now called upon to decide what is to happen, within the next four years or so, to the people living in those requisitioned properties. In some cases something has already happened. In various cases, which I need not detail, many people who had been living in two or three rooms in requisitioned properties have, for one reason or another, moved out. Those two or three rooms have been withdrawn from the pool. The Minister will not allow them to be re-let. He said to me, "If you like to shift people from two or three rooms in one requisitioned building to two or three rooms in another, and thereby make a whole house empty, I might be prepared to consider that," but when I pointed out that that would merely subtract another dwelling from the pool he said, "It is the wish of Parliament." It certainly was not the wish of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, because we know better
    Now that the Minister has returned, I should like to tell him what, as far as they can determine, the Boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch estimate will happen to the 1,774 families living in requisitioned dwellings. First, they think that one-sixth of the houses will be condemned. That will not present any problem within the context of the Amendment, because if they are slum dwellings they will qualify for the appropriate rate of subsidy. We can, therefore, wipe them off the list. Another one-sixth will be handed back to the landlords with vacant possession and the councils will have to find accommodation for the 300 tenants concerned. In the case of one-third, the licensees will be taken over by the landlords as statutory tenants. It is estimated that another one-sixth of all the houses will be purchased from the landlords. The local authorities estimate that only one-sixth of all those requisitioned properties are fit for purchase, because of their condition.
    1326
    I hope that the Minister will accept these figures as a serious estimate made by responsible local authorities. In the case of that large number of houses they would both feel it right and proper to ask the Minister for his agreement that they should purchase one in every six. That means that by the end of the day about 700 families who are now living in requisitioned properties in Finsbury and Shoreditch will have to be rehoused.
    The councils also estimate that with slum clearance, and the most favourable interpretation of the Bill which we are now discussing, they may build 1,150 more dwellings in the next three years, every single one of which will be required to house somebody from a slum clearance area. There will be no net gain of accommodation; this is a common experience in slum clearance schemes. Those 700 families cannot have housing accommodation offered to them unless the Minister makes some provision such as is asked for in the Amendment.
    The Minister caused this trouble by introducing the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Measure, which we fought all the way. We told him that this trouble would be caused. What we said would happen has happened. We are now offering him a second chance to put right at least some of the damage which he has caused. I hope that the Minister will accept what I and my hon. Friends have put forward as an accurate picture from people on the spot and those who, unhappily, week after week have to meet the unfortunate people who ask for assistance in being rehoused. I suppose that it is an experience which at some time or another all hon. Members have, but it is an experience to which, unhappily, we on this side of the Committee are more accustomed. We have much larger numbers of such cases. I assure the Minister that we are speaking from experience. I hope that he will accept—
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: The large numbers of people who are asking the hon. Member to help them get rehoused are not people who have been evicted from requisitioned houses, are they?
    Mr. Collins: I do not know whether the Minister asked that seriously, or whether he feels that this is a humorous subject. I do not. I am quite aware of

    1327
    the position with regard to evictions from requisitioned property. I am quite aware that if the local authority cannot or does not move them out before 1960, they will still be there; but there are many people living in requisitioned properties who come to see hon. Members, because, as I have indicated, it is completely impossible to live in the properties because they are falling down. I told him that one sixth of these houses in my constituency will inevitably be condemned.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member has answered my point. Nothing in the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, alters that position. If the houses are decrepit, the fact that we passed that Act has not altered the situation in any way.
    Mr. Collins: I said that in precise terms, but apparently the Minister did not hear me at the time. The people about whom I am concerned are the 700 families now living in requisitioned property out of about 1,700 for whom it is estimated that new accommodation must be provided. It is impossible to provide such accommodation, because it will all be required for slum clearance. We can provide additional accommodation only if the Minister provides the facilities. We are asking him to provide the facilities by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I should like to refer to something the Minister said about bungalows in public parks and open spaces. He rather gave the Committee the impression that he was not pressing very hard to get the bungalows out of public parks and commons. In the Borough of Wandsworth, which he and I represent, we have Clapham Common, on which a number of these bungalows were built. They are very well built and are much appreciated by the tenants who live in them.
    However, if he will come that way tomorrow morning on his way to the House, he will find about a dozen empty, I am told, because of pressure by his Department on the London County Council to remove them. The Minister has power to sanction their retention on open spaces for another ten years. In view of the tremendous waiting list in London of people urgently wanting
    1328
    homes, but who are not living in slum properties, it seems difficult to find any justification for pulling down one of those bungalows wherever they are, even though we are all anxious to see all our public spaces as they were before the war.
    The housing situation in Wandsworth is so serious that for the next four or five years we ought not to pull down any of those bungalows. However, I am informed that under pressure by the Ministry they are being closed and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ease that pressure so that the remainder can be left. Every one of the families moved out of the bungalows on Clapham Common robs a family on the waiting list of a chance to get a home. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's experience is, but I hear of such cases every week. Last Friday, I heard of two eviction cases from furnished accommodation. Both of them had been told that neither the local borough council nor the county council could possibly find them a home. Yet, in this situation, we are closing bungalows not only on Clapham Common but on a number of other open spaces. They should be retained at any rate for a few more years.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This seems to me to be beyond the scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. Gibson: I was trying to relate it to the need to encourage local authorities to provide homes by giving them a subsidy for houses provided for families now living in requisitioned properties, and I was about to point to the experience in my borough of dealing with requisitioned houses. The local authority is politically sympathetic to the Minister—in other words, it is run by a Tory majority. So Tory is the authority that it rushed in to operate the Act dealing with the derequisitioning of houses before it was through the House. It has been trying to operate the Act, and the council agenda for this week reports:
    "On October 18th, when we reported upon the steps being taken to bring requisitioning to an end, we undertook to report progress on the general invitation being extended to owners of requisitioned properties to accept licensees as tenants. By 23rd November, 1,044 invitations had been dispatched; 136 owners have accepted the invitation."
    Thus, of those invited to accept licensees as tenants, only one-eighth have

    1329
    accepted. Even that is a slight improvement on the previous report of this borough council.
    If we are to put these people, now in requisitioned houses, into houses built by local authorities in London, or into those which become empty when families move out, we shall be robbing tens of thousands of families, whose need the Minister admits, of their chance of having a house at least for the next ten or fifteen years.
    By giving the full subsidy to a local authority for every house which it provides for a family from requisitioned premises the Minister would encourage the authority to build a little more than it will be able to build under present arrangements. It looks very much as though building of all kinds will slow down tremendously in the London area during the next eighteen months or two years. I hope that in his desire to please his own borough the Minister will reconsider this matter. We can all give illustrations of the situation from our constituencies, and we know that if we are compelled to get rid of requisitioned properties by 1960, that can be done only by putting the families into houses which have been built to house those on the urgent waiting list.
    I am not now making an appeal for the general waiting list. There are about 170,000 names on the London County Council list and 50,000 of them, after careful consideration, have been scheduled as very urgent cases where accommodation ought to be provided at the earliest possible moment. The more we do the kind of thing which councils are expected to do under the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act and under the present Bill, the less will be the opportunity of families to be rehoused.
    If the Minister will soften his heart a little and give this matter further consideration—come to us on Report and say that he agrees with the good case we have made—that will be a slight encouragement to local authorities in London who have really tried, since 1945, to solve the housing problem. They did their best—a very good best—with the assistance of the Ministry of Works to get bomb damage repaired. They have built tens of thousands of new flats and cottages, but we are told that by this Bill all that goes for nothing and that the subsidies are going, except for £10 for
    1330
    the next eighteen months or two years. All these groups of families in requisitioned houses, who, in my borough, form a big group, are to be pushed into new houses—or into houses which become empty by removal—in place of people on the more urgent waiting lists.
    If he cannot agree to accept this Amendment, the Minister should at any rate give London councils very much more encouragement to go on with their work of housing their people than he has given them so far.
    Mr. MacColl: I think that there is a dispute of fact between the right hon. Gentleman and this side of the Committee, but I do not think it is really a dispute of fact which goes to the root of the trouble. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really denies that it is his intention, and has always been his intention, that some quite substantial part of the annual new house production of the boroughs should be used for rehousing people displaced from derequisitioned property. I think the right hon. Gentleman questioned how much should be used, but there can be no doubt at all that it was and always has been a part of his policy that some of it should be used.
    On 26th July, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would
    "give an assurance that he will sanction all applications for increases in house building made by local authorities affected by the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955."
    The Minister replied:
    "This is, of course, one of the factors which will be taken into account when considering applications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 964.]
    It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not think the part Which could be played by rehousing and new accommodation would be as great as the part that the leasing or purchasing of derequisitioned houses would play, but he agreed that one of the factors to be taken into account was the responsibilities of local authorities under the Derequisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act.
    The reason I asked that Question was that I had been told by friends of mine on housing committees in Metropolitan boroughs that in fact the Ministry was going very much further than that and,

    1331
    behind the scenes, was putting considerable pressure upon housing officers and committees, asking them to speed up and increase the proportion of their new housing used for derequisitioning. I do not know whether that is true or not because I have no means of finding out. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman does not know what sometimes goes on over the telephone between Whitehall and the town hall.
    10.0 p.m.
    I say that the impression was left upon members of housing committees that it was the wish of the Minister that they should use some of their new housing allocation for displaced people. If that is true, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is sound and valid—that housing authorities, acting on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, set out upon this course of conduct, the rehousing of people in new property. The Minister says, "It is perfectly true that I have been caught robbing the till, but, in fact, I only robbed it of £50 and not £5,000." But that does not take from him the responsibility of having misled local authorities.
    Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his pink paper? Has he forgotten the Report of the Standing Joint Committee which he brandished in the Standing Committee? Does he remember how he laughed at us because he said that he had the support of the local authorities for the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, and that we were acting out of sympathy with the majority of the Metropolitan boroughs? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he got that pink paper, he told the representatives of the Standing Joint Committee that he proposed to abolish the subsidy for new housing within a few months. After all, the Act received the Royal Assent just before the Dissolution, so that the right hon. Gentleman must have known what he was proposing to do should he be returned to office. He must have known that one of the major undertakings of his Department would be to introduce a Bill abolishing the subsidy on new additional building.
    If the right hon. Gentleman knew that, as he must have done, at the beginning of this year, was he playing fair with the local authorities, whose support he was anxious to obtain and to use in the
    1332
    Standing Committee, and whose pink paper he wished to brandish in defence of his Measure? Was he right in getting that support by suppressing a vital piece of information of which he must have been aware? Although it is sometimes difficult to anticipate the next move of the right hon. Gentleman, no one can believe that he was not aware of that before the Election and that he knew that if he could manage to bamboozle the electorate, the first thing he would do on being returned to office would be to get rid of this subsidy.
    I do not know what would be a Parliamentary word to use about that. It is not a course of conduct on which I would care to venture, and I should be ashamed if I tried to lead the local authorities up the garden in that way. Now that Bill has become an Act of Parliament, and local authorities have to undertake responsibility for dealing with requisitioned property. Having safely got them "in the bag" the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am going to take away the subsidy." What does he wish the authorities now to do? Does he want them to stop altogether derequisitioning property?
    Are we to regard the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act as much a dead letter as the Housing Repairs and Rents Act; as something which has served its purpose? It was quoted extensively during the London County Council election campaign by the Conservative Party—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The discussion is now going wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. MacColl: With respect, Sir Rhys, I do not think that it is. I am saying that, by this Clause in the Bill which we are seeking to amend, the right hon. Gentleman is taking away a subsidy which dealt with the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act and an integral part of the working of that Act, and that Act was used for election purposes during the London County Council election. Having made my point, I will merely add that perhaps the wisest thing for local authorities to do is to stop derequisitioning.
    There is no reason at all why, by accepting this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman should not disperse the unhappy impression which he has left. It

    1333
    may be that he is a misunderstood person. It may be that the local authorities misunderstood what he wanted them to do. It may be that he at no time intended that they should use new housing to provide accommodation for these people. Perhaps this was all an unfortunate mistake, and perhaps the pink paper was extracted from the Standing Joint Committee through a series of unfortunate coincidences. If so, the best way for the right hon. Gentleman to rehabilitate his reputation with the local authorities is to accept the Amendment.
    It will not amount to much in expense. As he said, only a small amount is involved. This, however, is a matter with which his honour is bound up. This is a matter different from the matters with which other of our Amendments are concerned. This is a matter which goes to the root of the relations of the Minister with the local authorities. Unless the Minister accepts the Amendment, local authorities, and especially local authority associations, will feel in future, when negotiating with the Minister, when they are asked to express support for what the Minister is doing and to allow themselves to be used politically for the purpose of discomfitting the other side, that they ought to have a very long spoon indeed.
    Mr. Sandys: I really must interrupt the hon. Member. He is talking an awful lot of nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are talking now about requisitioned houses which are deliberately derequisitioned by the local authorities. It is to those that the hon. Member was referring, and to houses built to accommodate people who have come out of the requisitioned houses. First, the number derequisitioned by the local authority is entirely a matter for the local authority to decide. It was a matter for the local authority's decision before the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act was passed, and it still remains their decision. Even if the Act had not been passed they would have been in exactly the same position so far as any subsidy is concerned in regard to those houses.
    I do not know whether the hon. Member follows me. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Before the Act was passed local authorities were releasing a certain number of requisitioned houses and were building
    1334
    new houses to accommodate those people, and the subsidy they received was whatever was the subsidy of the day. It varied at different times. The position remains the same—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that is to say, the local authorities will have to decide how many of these houses they will release and how many new houses they will build. They will receive the subsidy which is current at the time for that purpose. In the talks that we had on this matter, this was not an issue. It was quite clear that would be the position, and it remains the position. I think that I have made myself quite clear.
    Mr. Royle: The intervention of the right hon. Gentleman shows how very much he has been shaken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has been saying. My hon. Friend has made his argument very clear, and has shown that the Minister led the local authorities up the garden path. A short time ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) sat down, I felt that the right hon. Gentleman was ready then, at all events, to consider giving way on this very important point. I watched him in consultation with the Parliamentary Secretary, and I could not help but notice that conversations were going on behind the Chair. I hope that the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends have impressed the Minister and that, if he is not going to give way at this moment, he will give us an assurance that on the Report stage the matter will be put right.
    The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that this is a small matter. It is small relatively, but in a debate which has been almost entirely one for hon. Members representing London constituencies I want to point out that this is quite a problem in some of the large towns and cities in the provinces. I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes for making a powerful speech without referring once to his constituency. I cannot resist the temptation of making some reference to my own constituency in the City of Salford.
    The Minister knows the problem which faces that city. I think I am fair in reminding him that the Salford City Council and its neighbour, the Urban District Council of Worsley, were pioneers in this matter. The problem which faces Salford

    1335
    in relation to derequisitioned houses and prefabricated bungalows is only one more part of the tremendous burden which the city has to face. During the next four years, by resolution of the council, the city is committed to giving up all the prefabricated bungalows in his area. It was always suggested that these prefabricated bungalows should not remain in use for much above ten years, but in a city like Salford, with the weather which, for want of a better word, we enjoy in that part of Lancashire, added to the density of smoke and sulphur fumes, these "prefabs" are now little more than slums. We are faced, therefore, with the immense problem of replacing them.
    The Deputy-Chairman: That seems to me to be going beyond the subject of requisitioned houses, with which the Amendment deals.
    Mr. Royle: With respect, Sir Rhys, we are discussing two Amendments, one of which deals with prefabricated houses and the other with requisitioned houses. I wanted to deal with the prefabricated houses first before saying a few words about requisitioned houses. I wanted to impress upon the Minister the need to consider that cities in the industrial North are faced with the problem of replacing prefabricated houses very quickly indeed.
    It is an added burden to cities with rates of 26s. in the £ to be faced with this replacement at this time, and without a subsidy. If the Minister is not prepared to give a subsidy in full under that heading we hope that he will consider the matter in the light of his powers in Clause 3 (3, b) to designate these premises and that he will designate them as premises entitled to receive a subsidy.
    I agree that my council has not relatively a great derequisitioning problem, but we have at least 200 houses which will have to be derequisitioned before 1960. That figure represents probably 500 families, an important proportion in a city like ours. It could be—I will put it no higher—that many of the owners of those houses would not accept the licensees as statutory tenants. And, even if they would, it does not solve the problem. If they do not, then the corporation is faced with the tremendous problem of trying to purchase those houses at enhanced prices, and of having to do so
    1336
    without subsidy or any assistance at all. I suggest, therefore, that these are added burdens on an industrial town and problems which the Minister ought to be helping to solve. Indeed, he is doing everything but that.
    10.15 p.m.
    In the course of his remarks today, as he did in his speech in the last debate on the question of overcrowding, the Minister rather suggested that everything must go so that there may be an incentive for clearing the slums. He is saying, in effect, "Here is a great social problem and we have got to do something about solving it. For years, subsidies have been given to this end. Now slum clearance must have priority, so we are going to reduce all subsidies in the spring-time, and when we get to December we shall scrap the lot, except in the case of slum clearance."
    I repeat what has been said by many of my hon. Friends. We are not asking for something new. We are merely trying to retain that which is there. If it is only a small cost to the Treasury, then let the Minister give way. If he does, he will save a bit of time. It will probably save a couple of Divisions, and that in itself would help the right hon. Gentleman to make more progress with the Bill. I hope that the conversation which is going on now on the Government Front Bench is an indication that the Minister is ready to tell us that he is willing to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I thought that the intervention by the Minister at the end of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was a singularly unfortunate one. First, when the right hon. Gentleman says of my hon. Friend that he talks an awful lot of nonsense, let me give him fair warning that if he begins to talk like that there is going to be an awful lot of time spent on this Bill. It is not the kind of language that we will countenance with regard to my hon. Friend, or, indeed, with regard to any other hon. Friend, without some form—subject to your Ruling, Sir Rhys—of retaliation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) has tried his inimitable charms upon the hard-faced Minister, obviously without effect. I do not know what technique will rouse the

    1337
    right hon. Gentleman to ordinary human sympathy and understanding in these matters. I wonder if a few facts might. The Minister's intervention just now seemed to suggest that the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act really did not alter anything that existed before, that really things are very much the same as they were before that Act took effect. But there is one very important distinction. I note, Sir Rhys, that you are looking at me with some anxiety, but I think that what I am about to say has a direct relevance to the Amendment which we are discussing.
    One important difference which has come into being by reason of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act is embodied in Section 1 (2) of the Act. It is the provision that
    "the local authority in whom the right to possession of a requisitioned house is vested under this section may retain possession of the house until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, and no longer."
    The operative words are the words "and no longer." They mean that after that date the requirement of alternative accommodation for tenants displaced from requisitioned houses will be overwhelming.
    It is with apology, Sir Rhys, that I again mention the constituency which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) and I represent; apology only in this respect, that it would be much more attractive to be able to argue in the general terms of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes. Unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North and I represent a constituency which seems to have all the social problems of England in a very uncrackable nutshell and, in particular, it has the requisitioned housing problem very much on its doorstep.
    Although I agree with the Minister that theoretically the local authorities had power to deal with requisitioned houses before the introduction of his Act, in West Ham they did not do so, and they did not do so by reason of the desperate situation of those on the priority housing lists. The present position in West Ham is that there are 2,265 families living in requisitioned houses. How fortunate Salford is to have only 200. We have ten times as many in a community with a not very much larger population, so that there is a huge con-
    1338
    centration, in West Ham, of this problem.
    I am informed by the local authority that it is not likely that more than 400 of those families will stay on after 1960. I warn the Minister that his optimism as to the numbers of requisitioned houses which would be available for tenants was unfounded. He thought that most of the tenants living in them, or a substantial proportion, would stay on, whereas, according to my information, only about one-sixth will stay on. So between now and 1960 there will be a necessity for the local authority to rehouse about 1,800 families in this category alone. When I point out that the authority has built only about 3,000 houses since the war, the nature of the problem will become obvious. Therefore my submission is that there is a clear case for the continuance of subsidy in respect of houses built to provide accommodation for these 1,800 families who will be displaced from the requisitioned houses.
    I hope the Minister will look at this matter again. It is not enough to say, "Oh well, they will go on the priority list and be able to take their turn." If the Bill goes through as it stands, and if there is no modification before 1960 of the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, it means that those living in slums at present will have no opportunity of being rehoused, because the law will compel the local authority to rehouse the tenants of requisitioned houses and so they will of necessity go to the top of the list, taking precedence over the occupants of the foul, squalid hovels which exist in abundance. So this Measure, coupled with the previous Measure of this Government, will have an effect opposite to that of a campaign for slum clearance; it will have the effect of being legislation for the perpetuation of slums.
    There is another aspect of this matter about which I would also like to say something. I refer to the question of the temporary hutments. We have about 550 of these 10-year bungalows occupying valuable building land at a very low density. These temporary houses were provided solely to deal with the effects of the terrific bombardment of the London area. Surely there is a very substantial case for saying that the Exchequer should make some contribution towards the burden of providing a permanent

    1339
    solution to one of the consequences of the war. Surely there ought to be a subsidy in respect of accommodation provided for those living in temporary dwellings, these 10-year hutments. There is a terrible danger that these buildings will exist for decades, and that we shall have a repetition of what happened after the 1914–18 war, with temporary hutments remaining for two, three and four decades.
    There is a very strong case for the Minister at least going this far. Will he undertake that, if a case for their demolition is made to his satisfaction, he will designate these 10-year buildings as unsatisfactory temporary accommodation so that they may attract subsidy? Will he make some half-way gesture of that kind? We are getting tired of the wooden, Molotov-like attitude of the Minister about all these reasonable Amendments. He is driving local authorities to distraction, just as he is driving my hon. Friends and myself to distraction. Let him spare us and make some concession before the Bill is very much further debated.
    Mr. Sandys: The reason why I intervened earlier, when the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was speaking, was that I very much felt that I ought to make it clear immediately that I could not accept the suggestion that there had been a breach of faith of any kind between myself and the local authorities.
    If I spoke with roughness, I am sure the hon. Member will understand. He suggested that some lack of honour was involved in the matter. I am just as well aware as any other hon. Member of the position of local authorities, particularly in the London area, about requisitioned houses. I should not like to give any assurance that I can do anything to meet the points which have been raised about requisitioned houses, but I will certainly read very carefully what has been said during the debate.
    I should feel inclined to consider whether something could be done if I felt that the result of it would be to increase the number of houses which local authorities were likely to make available for rehousing people from requisitioned dwellings. But I do not wish to say anything in that connection which might mislead hon. Gentlemen opposite into thinking that I was giving any sort of
    1340
    assurance in the matter. Also, I should not like to deprive them of their Division, for which I believe they are ready.
    On the question of temporary houses, I thought there was a general feeling among hon. Members who spoke—with one exception—that there was a differentiation to be made between temporary houses which are on ordinary housing sites and temporary houses which are on open spaces. I thought there was the general feeling that we should like the open spaces in our cities to be restored within a reasonable time, though, as I say, there are in many cases very strong arguments for allowing the extension which is permitted by law.
    I was asked to make a concession before the end of this debate, and I should be very happy—and here I might have more prospect of being able to do something—to look between now and the Report stage at the possibility of amending the Bill in such a way as to enable the higher slum clearance subsidy to be available for temporary houses on open spaces which are demolished.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sparks: Before the Minister sits down, might I ask whether he is aware that, apart from parks and open spaces, many local authorities have taken leases for limited periods of time, on land upon which to erect these "prefabs," and that they will, therefore, be under an obligation when the leases expire to demolish these temporary dwellings in the same way as those on parks and open spaces?
    Mr. Sandys: I thought I had made myself clear. There did seem to be a point there, and I should like to consider it and see whether I can do something to meet hon. Members. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. What I am going to look into is whether we could amend the Bill in such a way as to give the slum clearance £22 subsidy in respect of houses built to rehouse people who come out of temporary houses which are on open spaces That is the point.
    As regards the other temporary houses, the reason why I do not feel disposed to concede the point is that I do not feel it is in the general interest that we should accelerate the demolishing of these houses which are satisfactory dwellings, sited in

    1341
    proper places and giving people reasonable homes at a time when the housing shortage continues.
    Dr. Horace King: Now that the Minister has opened the door slightly in respect of "prefabs," I wonder whether I might try to push it a little further open. I agree with his last remarks on the value of "prefabs" and the folly of destroying a good "prefab" if it is providing a home for somebody and is lasting, as most "prefabs" are lasting, much better and longer than we dreamed they would when they were first set up. I would, however, remind the Minister and the Committee of just what this prefabricated housing problem means in size to blitzed towns like the one I represent.
    We in the blitzed towns got the majority—indeed, almost the whole—of the 175,000 pre-fabricated houses that were put up shortly after the war. We were very grateful for them; it was an act of generosity on the part of the Government of those days to give us what was so desperately needed to provide accommodation for people whose houses had been destroyed by enemy action. It will, however, interest the Committee, and give the Committee some measure of the problem that confronts a blitzed town like Southampton, when I mention that we have 1,760 pre-fabricated houses there.
    So far, in his approach to this side of the Committee, the Minister has said that he is willing to look only at prefabricated houses that have been dotted about on open spaces, but in the blitzed towns our aim in the first post-war housing programme was to set out, as far as we could the prefabricated houses in well-designed estates. So I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to limit his generosity to the very small number of "prefabs" to which he has already referred.
    While we appreciate their present advantage, we realise that at some time we shall be faced with the terrific liability of replacing 1,760 prefabricated houses by 1,760 permanent houses. Indeed, it may happen that, like the famous "wonderful one-hoss shay" in the American poem, all the 1,760 will have to be replaced almost at the same time: they were all put up at the same time.
    As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr.
    1342
    Elwyn Jones) has pointed out, their existence is due to a war-time national calamity, and I plead with the Minister to accept, as a matter of principle, that in the replacement of the prefabricated houses he should take that into account. He need have no fear of any local authority rushing to pull down a satisfactory prefabricated house merely to earn a subsidy. Nobody will tamper with a prefabricated house unless it is absolutely necessary.
    I urge the Minister to accept the principle of the Amendment for all prefabricated houses so that when the blitzed towns are called upon to replace their prefabricated houses by permanent ones they will attract for that special rebuildtng programme the old rate of subsidy. I plead with the Minister to follow up the approach which he has made on the prefabricated houses issue by giving us an even more generous and wider assurance than he has given so far.
    Sir L. Plummer: May I ask the Minister to consider, when he is reading our speeches, as he has promised to do, the possibility of the subsidy being continued for the replacement of unsatisfactory hutments, the curved asbestos hutment? It is about the worst thing in which anybody could be housed. It is quite unsatisfactory. It oozes moisture all the time. There are 109 of these hutments in my constituency and they are not on normal open spaces in the sense in which I think the Minister used the phrase "open spaces." They are on sites which are designated for the building of flats. It is essential to get rid of these really quite unsatisfactory hutments.
    They were a mistake in the first case. They were dumped on areas where the bomb damage was very considerable, and it would be proper to assist in pulling them down. I ask the Mnister to give an undertaking to look at the position of constituencies which have these hutments not on open spaces but on spaces which could be used for the building of flats, and consider this as justifying the continuance of the subsidy.
    Mr. H. Butler: I want to thank the Minister for what he said about the 10-year bungalows on open spaces. I hope he will remember that often these bungalows now occupy parts of sites which are being developed with blocks of flats. It

    1343
    is true that these bungalows were handed over to local authorities who were responsible for site development. Many of the rents which have been charged to the occupants have been absorbed in the maintenance costs of these bungalows. I ask only that the Minister should consider the position of those authorities which have had to demolish very many of these bungalows on bombed sites in order to secure reasonable housing sites.
    Mr. Mitchison: I do not propose to add to the debate at this hour, beyond asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point which has just been put to him. We are not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answers and attitude
    tude about requisitioned houses and we propose to divide the Committee. We have not yet come to the Amendment about the "prefabs," if I may so call them. Upon that we should like to wait and see what the Minister will produce at the Report stage. We leave ourselves in his hands to this extent, and only to this extent, that we rely on him to give us, as best he can, an opportunity of returning to the matter on Report. It is not entirely in his hands, but we prefer at this stage neither to accept nor reject what was offered.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 220.

    Timmons, J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Tomney, F.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Willey, Frederick

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Zilllacus, K.

    Weitzman, D.

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

    West, D. G.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Grimond, J.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marples, A. E.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Mathew, R.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maude, Angus

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Ashton, H.

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

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Neave, Airey

    Barber, Anthony

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Barlow, Sir John

    Heath, Edward

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Barter, John

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hope, Lord John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Body, R. F.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Osborne, C.

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

    Howard, John (Test)

    Page, R. G.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

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

    Paton, J.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bryan, P.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

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

    Pott, H. P.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Carr, Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Channon, H.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Redmayne, M.

    Cole, Norman

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Kaberry, D.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Keegan, D.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kerr, N. W.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kershaw, J. A.

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

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kirk, P. M.

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

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Storey, S.

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

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

    Studholme, H. G.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Fell, A.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longden, Gilbert

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

    Fort, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Freeth, D. K.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Glover, D.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Gower, H. R.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Green, A.

    Madden, Martin

    Wade, D. W.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    1346

    1347

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Mr. Edward Wakefield and

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Mr. Godber.

    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    I do so to ascertain the intention of the Government about the time-table. I wish to point out that we have disposed of three matters of considerable importance. The first was, no doubt, a comparatively short point, but both the question of overcrowding and the question about the requisitioning of temporary prefabricated houses are of great importance and affect a number of people all over the country. The finances of local authorities are also affected. I hope that the Government will agree that we have made good progress with a Bill which involves a number of questions of considerable importance.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has pointed out that in his view we have dealt with three matters of considerable importance, and with that the Government agree. But it is also the fact that it is after the normal time of rising on the second day of the discussions on this Bill, and we have dealt with only about half the Amendments to Clause 1; so, taking the larger view, we have not made much progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not say none, I said not very much, and I think that is a parliamentary term quite well understood by those of us who have had to deal with the Committee stage of Bills which turned out to be contentious.
    It is also true that the Government have never any desire to inconvenience the Committee, and I recognise, as well as do other hon. Members, that when we get towards eleven o'clock we approach a rather tricky period of the evening—we need not go into the reasons; it can be accepted that it is. Against that, and I must balance the arguments for the benefit of those who are good enough to listen to what I am saying, the Committee must take note that this is an important Government Bill, and that we cannot spend an indefinite time discussing it.
    While all the points of importance must be brought out, it is the intention of the
    1348
    Government to proceed as rapidly as may be with this Bill. I hope that the Opposition accept that as a reasonable proposition. However unreasonable the Opposition may consider the Bill to be, the Government, having decided to introduce this Measure, are not unnaturally, anxious to proceed with it.
    I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be prepared to consult my right hon. Friend about what would be reasonable in the way of time for the consideration of this Bill. I think it would be very useful if talks could take place on that subject, and to see how they get along. If right hon. Gentlemen were prepared to accept that suggestion, perhaps tomorrow or whenever is convenient to my right hon. Friend and himself to discuss the matter, realising on the one hand the desire of the Opposition to debate important points, and on the other that we really must proceed with this Bill as quickly as may be, for the many reasons which I need not go into now—if that were possible as an arrangement between ourselves, I should not want the House to sit very much longer.
    Mr. Bevan: The Amendment which we are about to discuss is a very important one, and if we start discussing it I am afraid that the discussion will go on for a very long time, and we do not want to start at a time of the night which is not congenial for serious consideration of an Amendment of such status as this. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to go home just now.
    I am perfectly prepared to talk with the Government about the future course of the Bill. We should, of course, take with us a very long spoon. Nevertheless, we are always prepared to discuss these matters, and we hope that we shall find the Government in an accommodating mood, because this is a very important Measure. It affects all the local authorities of Great Britain and almost all the population. It is not a trivial matter. There is also a further point which the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, and that is that the Government really have got the Measure already.

    1349
    They have the appointed day, so we are not holding up Government business. Their policy will, in fact, be in effective operation from the beginning of November, so there cannot be all that need for hurry in that respect. I do not know of any legislation which the Government have that would arouse any other than the anxieties of the whole population, so I do not know that we are holding up anything of very great importance in that respect.
    The next point which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind is this: he ought not to judge the future course of the Bill by progress made on Clause 1, because it is really the fundamental Clause of the Bill, the matrix of the whole Measure, and when we have dealt with that, all the others, as it were, come off the presses. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be accommodating, and let us go home. It may be that when the cushion of the Recess has been put between us and the present situation we shall all find each other more accommodating.
    Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman says he is coming to these talks with a very large spoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "A long spoon."]—very well, a long spoon, but it is quite a large pudding that has to be stirred up, if I may use a Christmas phrase tonight. However, I take it that from his point of view it means that he is prepared to enter into conversations about the future conduct of the Bill.
    Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan indicated assent.
    Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman says that we must not judge the time it will take by the length of time spent so far on Clause 1. I know it is often the case that the first Clause of a Bill raises the bigger issues which the others do not, and I accept that as a general proposition. When he says that
    1350
    my right hon. Friend has secured the essential point by having already got the appointed day, that is true. I hope the Committee will not lose sight of the fact that undue delay in passing this Bill wilt be a considerable inconvenience to local authorities. It would be a great inconvenience for them not to know where they stand on the other issues apart from the appointed day. But the right hon. Gentleman wants us to rise now because, he says, consideration of the next Amendment will take a long time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that it will take a long time because it is eleven o'clock now or that if we started it at, say, the next time the Committee meets at 3.30 p.m., perhaps at that hour of the day the debate might be slightly shorter. Is that the implication, because it is a possible implication of what the right hon. Gentleman said?
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman said that there were certain arguments present in the minds of all hon. Members which he did not wish to deploy. That is why I said it was not wise to start a serious argument at eleven o'clock at night.
    Mr. Crookshank: I think I have probed the mind of the right hon. Gentleman without needing to have a spoon. On the understanding that there will be talks with a genuine desire to find a reasonable solution about the time which consideration of this Bill ought to take—
    Mr. Bevan Mr. Bevan indicated assent.
    Mr. CrookshankI see the right hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. So I take it that that is understood between us, and I am prepared, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government, to accept this Motion now.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  MENTAL HOSPITAL, HUDDERSFIELD
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I wish to raise a matter which directly affects my own constituency although it has a generalised importance to the country, and I am grateful that the Minister of Health is here to listen to it.
  There is in my constituency a large mental hospital known as Storthes Hall, and when I went round it a few months ago I was distressed to find that in the female part of the hospital a number of old ladies, far from being accommodated in dormitories, had their beds in the corridors. That was the degree of overcrowding which was being experienced in this hospital. I can believe that as a result of the devotion of the staff these patients are well cared for, but I cannot believe that it is ideal or desirable that for a moment longer than is absolutely necessary that degrees of overcrowding should persist, and I understand that what I saw in that mental hospital applies equally to such hospitals in other parts of the country. I therefore begin by appealing to the Minister to do whatever he can to relieve this overcrowding by a hospital building programme, and one of the questions I want to ask tonight is, what building plans has the Ministry for relieving that overcrowding?
  I find that in this hospital the number of male patients, which in 1939 was 993, has now risen to 1,148, and that the total number of patients, male and female, is about 25 per cent. more than it was before the war. While the number of patients is up, the staff is substantially down. Before the war a nursing staff of 87 had to look after 993 patients. Today, a staff of only 52 has to look after 1,148 male patients. I was seriously alarmed by the staffing position in some of the refractory wards. In one ward before the war there were 48 patients and a nursing staff of seven to look after them. In the same ward today there are 80 patients and a staff of only four to look after them.
  1352
  Outside the nursing staff the position is just as bad. The kitchen staff is one-third below the complement, which should be 24. When one remembers that figure, the turnover is shown as being really shocking. No fewer than 37 members of the kitchen staff have left in recent years. The reason for this turnover, so I am informed, is that the hours of work and the rates of pay are not sufficient to maintain an adequate staff, and far from sufficient to provide the staff which there should be for all the duties to be carried out.
  The staff is pressing for the working hours to be reduced. At present, there is a six-day week of 48 hours, but in the main industries around Huddersfield the basic hours are 44 in a five-day week; and, inevitably, with the hours fewer and substantially higher pay in industries in the town, people are drawn off the hospital staff. There are negotiations for the purpose of trying to improve the conditions of the existing staff in order to attract other people to come in, and these have been going on for the best part of two years. However, the only move which the Ministry has made is that of trying to make good the deficiencies in the staff by suggesting that nurses from West Africa and elsewhere should be invited to join. The unions concerned have objected, not because of any colour bar. Thank goodness, in the West Riding of Yorkshire we do not have ideas about a colour bar; but this objection was based on two grounds.
  First, that if these nurses came in they would be bound for two years to suffer the existing conditions and terms of employment, which are considered to be bad; and, secondly, it was felt that this might provide the Ministry with an excuse for not really trying to remedy the conditions at all. The Minister seems to have shown a great interest in this, as in other hospitals, although in this specific case he is trying to compel the hospital to get rid of a farm. The hospital runs this farm at a substantial profit of about £4,500 a year, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to leave well alone. The farm is very successful and there is, if I may say so, no need for his interest in that direction.
  I would ask him to direct his interest to the provision of new hospital buildings and especially to the problem of improving the wages and conditions of the staff so that the shortages will settle

  1353
  themselves and the work become once more attractive.
  I said at the beginning that this was a constituency point; that I would speak of a local hospital but, as the Minister knows, similar examples could be produced from all over the country. I should like to refer to a resolution passed in 1954 by the Conference of the National Association of Hospital Management Committees. It stated that to avoid a breakdown of the hospital services the immediate attention of the Minister should be drawn to the critical position relating to the ancillary staffs' wages and conditions, and that they be altered so as to allow the hospitals to compete with local government and industry. I am in wholehearted agreement with that. It bears out what the people in this hospital in my own constituency are saying, and it also bears out the feelings of hospital workers throughout the country.
  There is a serious danger that the hospital services in general, and mental hospital services in particular, will break down; and, if they do, we have not the right, as a society, to impose any longer on the loyalty which the staffs have always shown. I recommend the Parliamentary Secretary to study the Hospital Management Committees' resolution. I recommend her to think over the points which I have raised about the hospital with which I am concerned, and I ask her to take some action.
  11.10 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I rise to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). I know the hospital to which he has referred extremely well. For a time it was in my constituency, and it was only at the last redistribution that it went into Huddersfield, East, the constituency which is so ably represented by my hon. Friend.
  I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, in case she does not know, that the facts are as my hon. Friend has stated them. There is gross overcrowding, the accommodation being quite insufficient and patients sleeping in corridors, and the staff is very much undermanned.
  Eighteen months or two years ago, a very valiant attempt was made to recruit staff. We held, among other efforts, a mass meeting in Huddersfield in an
  1354
  attempt to attract nurses, male and female, into the hospital. I am sorry to say that the campaign had practically no results whatever. Making inquiries afterwards, I easily discovered why. It is because the pay is insufficient and the hours are much too long. In that area it is possible for people to have much more money for many fewer hours' work per week. Unless a woman or a man has a vocation for this work, it is impossible to attract persons into an institution of this kind—certainly into this institution—purely by the return that they get.
  Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the Ministry is so bent on taking away the very lucrative farm which is part of the establishment? If it were run at a loss, I could easily understand why the Ministry should be so anxious to sell it, but it is extremely well run and makes a profit of about £5,000 per annum, and it provides fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs and other food for the patients. I cannot understand why the Minister is so anxious to get rid of it.
  Now that we are on this subject, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what the present situation is with regard to the farm. I gathered that inquiries were being made to ascertain whether it could remain as part of the institution. It would be of interest to my hon. Friend, myself and all concerned to know whether at long last the Minister has seen the light and whether the farm may remain with the hospital.
  11.14 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) for raising this important subject, and I appreciate the various problems which they have put forward.
  I will deal, first, with the farm, because the answer is very clear. My right hon. Friend would be pleased if he could continue to run farms in conjunction with mental hospitals at a profit, but it has been found that under the powers conferred by the National Health Service Act he has no power to run farms as such. He can only run them within the strict limit that they should provide considerable occupational therapy for the patients.

  1355
  It has been found that modern farms, with their mechanical implements, when run by hospitals are solely farms rather than centres for occupational therapy for the patients. We have no power, under the Act, to run farms as such. My right hon. Friend, has had to bow to the interpretation of the law. That is the basic reason why farms, as such, are no longer permissible, and why they never have been in the wide application given to them by some mental hospitals. They could not have been continued, and the Minister has had to bring into conformity with the law the farming at mental hospitals.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does that mean that this farm, in so far as it gives work to patients—and I believe that it gives them considerable work—will be allowed to continue?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I was not aware that this point would be raised tonight. All farms of any size run by hospitals are being reviewed by the Ministry, and where we are within the law laid down by the National Health Service Act in continuing certain farm services we are prepared to allow their continuance. We are, however, strictly bound by the Act, and farming as such is not within our province. Therefore, we have to confine it to cases in which it can be shown that the main purpose of the farm work is for the occupational therapy of the patients in the hospital.
  My right hon. Friend is seeing the chairman of the regional hospital board tomorrow. He has asked me to say that he will be happy to discuss the points raised tonight with him. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Members concerned, because I was not aware that this question of the farm was to be raised, and I do not know the extent, or the diversity of the farming there.
  Now let me turn to the real problem of Storthes Hall. It is situated 6 miles south-east of Huddersfield, and 1¼ miles from a main bus route. It would be unrealistic to suggest that we can possibly do without this accommodation. We require more in the region. Therefore, we have to face the great difficulties of getting staff to this rather distant location. Against that, however, the hospital is beautifully positioned. It has spacious and well-planned wards, and so far as conditions
  1356
  in the hospital are concerned they do not appear to be unreasonable as compared with other mental hospitals.
  I do not deny that the hospital is overcrowded and understaffed; but it is fair to say that in facing the problem over the whole country we have had to meet a situation in which most of our mental hospitals were built during the last century, and in which there has been an increasing demand on accommodation because of an increase in voluntary patients. I do not mean that there has been an increase of mental sickness, but an increase of voluntary patients seeking early treatment. That has increased the demand on accommodation, and until last year no new mental hospital had been built for a considerable number of years.
  As the hon. Member knows, two years ago deliberate priority was given to the mental side by the allocation of the "Mental Million," and under schemes approved, we are providing 2,800 additional beds. Many schemes are in prospect, including the early provision of one new mental hospital, with two others to follow as soon as planning can be completed. The provision of new beds by building new units of hospitals, or entirely new hospitals, is not likely to produce an early solution of overcrowding because we have also to face the waiting list on the mental defective side, but we consider it is necessary to look also in other directions, to relieve what we appreciate is very severe overcrowding in some hospitals.
  A lot of this arises from the increasing longevity of the mentally sick patient and from the increasing number of elderly sick within the range of population that will have to be cared for within the next few years. At present, a complete survey of the facilities for the chronic sick and elderly is being carried out, and the results are being studied at this moment. In this connection, we have very much in mind the position of the elderly mental patient and the considerable relief of overcrowding which would follow if we could find some half-way intermediate accommodation elsewhere for this type of patient. It is, therefore, not entirely wise to contemplate at present additions to such a very large hospital as Storthes Hall, which has already more authorised beds than the Ministry has thought desirable.

  1357
  With regard to our policy on further development, the share of the available capital resources for the mental and mental deficiency hospitals has increased very considerably in recent years. It is not easy to determine what proportion at any one time in relation to general hospital priority is being given, because that is entirely a matter for the regional board. The local people, who know their county areas or the area of their particular region, determine the priorities between their own hospitals.
  Nevertheless, I can say this. In addition to the ordinary regional capital allocations, the Ministry has found it possible to make specific allocations for the provision of additional beds at mental and mental deficiency hospitals for schemes totalling £2·3 million over and above the ordinary regional allocations. Further, my right hon. Friend announced last July an expanded hospital programme with provision for centrally financed large schemes of hospital buildings to the total of 17·5 million, in which many schemes are included for mental and mental deficiency hospitals.
  The general drive to upgrade the mental hospitals should be able, under this deliberate priority, to gather considerable momentum. We quite understand the desire to accelerate progress, but I can give hon. Members the assurance that my right hon. Friend regards the mental health services as a prime priority. He has always given very deliberate priority to them.
  If I may deal specifically with Storthes Hall and the staff questions which the hon. Member raised, I think we have to face the fact that it is not only in the nursing service that there is a shortage of staff. Every single profession and trade is advertising at present for staff, and it is idle to suggest that merely by raising salaries we could automatically acquire the number of people needed, because we know that at the moment, with full employment, one has only to open any newspaper to see that, whether it is employment in trades or the professions, all are seeking more pairs of hands.
  This being the fact, I regret very much that the local branch of the National Union of Public Employees should have refused to accept the recommendation of the hospital management committee to recruit Nigerian nurses. Our first con-
  1358
  cern in the Ministry is for the patient. We recognise that there is an overwhelming shortage of hands in the country, whether it be in the teaching profession, in office work, or in most other trades or professions.
  The hon. Gentleman assures me that there is no colour bar in the hospital, and, indeed, in making public its resolution the union claims that it has no colour bar. Frankly, the terms of its resolution imply that the employment of these nurses will depress their standards.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, surely not—that they would help the authorities to keep the existing standards very depressed. They would not depress them further. Their point is that bringing nurses in will provide an excuse for not doing anything. They want them to come in.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: If they want them to come in, there is nothing to stop them.
  Mr. Mallalieu: At decent rates of pay.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: The rates of pay for any coloured or foreign nurses who come to this country are identical with those of any United Kingdom student, or nurse or assistant nurse, as the case may be.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Of course they are, but those rates are too low either for white or coloured persons. That is the point.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I still do not accept that it is right to deprive patients of the nursing staff whom they want as a deliberate means of pressure against the authority.
  The authority is not the Government. We do not decide wages or conditions within this House. They are decided by means of the normal negotiating machinery between employer and employee, in this case the Whitley machinery, and I hope that they always will be. I hope that wages and working conditions will never be a matter for decision in this House and that we must not have Dutch auctions as to which industries are to get whom and what. If they were to be decided in this House they would bring with them the direction of labour to one or other industry. I am convinced that wages and working conditions should—as, indeed, I am sure all hon. Members on both sides will agree—remain a matter for negotiation between the staff and the

  1359
  employers' side of whatever the industry or profession may be.
  I deplore the terms of this resolution because, frankly, we have a dual duty. There is an acute shortage of pairs of hands in this country and, whatever the wages, we should still not be able to fill all the vacancies there are for teachers, physiotherapists, radiotherapists, and nurses. If we did not take many of the pairs of hands we have from colonial and foreign staff in mental hospitals, the position would be far worse than it is at present.
  Mr. Mallalieu: That is not disputed.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I feel very strongly about this, in view of the fact that any nurse, from whatever country, and of whatever colour, comes to this country on equal terms with nurses from the United Kingdom. They get the same pay, they take the same training, they have to qualify by the same examinations. As British citizens—as is the case with the Nigerian students whom the hospital management committee wished to take—they have a right to be treated equally.
  We in this country have very good reason to be grateful for the hundreds of coloured nurses who are now serving in our hospitals and doing a wonderful job, in co-operation with their United Kingdom colleagues. Let us also remember that we have a duty to the Colonies to provide the training ground for coloured nurses who have no training in their own countries and who rely on the training they receive in our hospitals to enable them to go back and to man the services in their own countries.
  Mr. Mallalieu: It is simply a question of whether they are being brought over here on fair conditions. They are very welcome here for all sorts of purposes. We need them and they are needed in the Colonies when they are properly trained; but it is not fair to bring them over here on unfair conditions.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: Wages and conditions are questions for the Whitley machinery.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall Mr. Glenvil Hall rose—
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have only a minute left to me, and I have not covered half the ground I had hoped to cover.
  I wish to inform the House that a claim for increased remuneration and
  1360
  allowances has just been before the Whitley Council. I want to emphasise that this is a matter for the Whitley Council and not decision by the Minister. That claim has resulted in increased allowances being granted. The new basic training allowance for student mental nurses is £285 for the first year, instead of £270; £295 for the second year instead of £280; £310 in the third year. The supplementary allowance paid to students with dependants will rise from 15s. to £1 a week for wife or other adult dependant.
  I cannot accept the protestations that there is no colour bar and no prejudice in this particular resolution. We are desperately short of hands in every profession in this country. I will endorse the remark of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East about the magnificent work which has been done by the staff of this hospital in very difficult circumstances. That I accept, but I most sincerely hope that the National Union of Public Employees will again consider the resolution which it has passed, and which is a reflection on coloured nurses.
  Mr. Mallalieu: No.
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is very strangely phrased. Not only does it deprive those nurses from getting their training in this country when they are willing to come, but it also deprives patients of additional staff which we believe they should have, if possible.
  The Whitley Council decision, was made only yesterday afternoon, and I was glad to have the chance to give early information to the House about the £15 increase. I should like to point out that in all these salary questions we have to work in consort with the General Nursing Council and the Whitley Council. The Whitley Council makes the decision and there is a limit to which one can expand the disparity, or, shall we say, the increase between the mental and the general nursing staff. It is a matter—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC TERRITORIES (COPRA MARKETING)
  SOUTH-WEST PACIFIC TERRITORIES (COPRA MARKETING)
CENTRAL AFRICA
  Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
  Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland
WEST INDIES
  Trinidad
  Trinidad
  West India Regiment
  West India Regiment
  British Guiana (Cotton and Jute Growing)
  British Guiana (Cotton and Jute Growing)
  Hurricane Damage (Restoration)
  Hurricane Damage (Restoration)
  Nassau (Colour Discrimination)
  Nassau (Colour Discrimination)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (PAPER-MAKING TESTS)
  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (PAPER-MAKING TESTS)
EAST AFRICA
  Zanzibar
  Zanzibar
  African Boys, Kenya (Court Case)
  African Boys, Kenya (Court Case)
  High Commission (Information Officer)
  High Commission (Information Officer)
  GIBRALTAR (PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)
  GIBRALTAR (PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)
UGANDA
  Buganda Appointments Board
  Buganda Appointments Board
  Economic Adviser
  Economic Adviser
  NORTH BORNEO
  NORTH BORNEO
  UNITED STATES SYNTHETIC RUBBER (MALAYAN REPRESENTATIONS)
  UNITED STATES SYNTHETIC RUBBER (MALAYAN REPRESENTATIONS)
CYPRUS
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
  Civil Disturbances (Administrative Costs)
  Civil Disturbances (Administrative Costs)
WEST AFRICA
  British Cameroons (French Cameroonians)
  British Cameroons (French Cameroonians)
  Nigeria (Private Enterprise Investment)
  Nigeria (Private Enterprise Investment)
ROYAL NAVY
  Weekend Flying, Benson Airfield
  Weekend Flying, Benson Airfield
  Fire, Admiralty
  Fire, Admiralty
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Home Service Reception, Wales
  Home Service Reception, Wales
  Live Programmes, North-East England
  Live Programmes, North-East England
  Electrical Interference (Suppressors)
  Electrical Interference (Suppressors)
  Independent Television Authority
  Independent Television Authority
  Sets (Separate Licensing)
  Sets (Separate Licensing)
POST OFFICE
  Underground Lines
  Underground Lines
  Private-Box Mail (Collection)
  Private-Box Mail (Collection)
  Automatic Telephone Exchange, Enfield
  Automatic Telephone Exchange, Enfield
  Sub-Offices, Longton and Fenton
  Sub-Offices, Longton and Fenton
  Services, Stoke-on-Trent
  Services, Stoke-on-Trent
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Messing Standards, Cyprus
  Messing Standards, Cyprus
  Officers' Pay
  Officers' Pay
  College, Cranwell (Entrants)
  College, Cranwell (Entrants)
  Discharged Officers (Dishonoured Cheques)
  Discharged Officers (Dishonoured Cheques)
  Redundant Aircraft (Sales)
  Redundant Aircraft (Sales)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Surplus Airfield (Lincolnshire Agricultural Society)
  Surplus Airfield (Lincolnshire Agricultural Society)
ROADS
  Construction Programme, London
  Construction Programme, London
  Level-Crossing Gates, Lincoln
  Level-Crossing Gates, Lincoln
  Safety Campaign
  Safety Campaign
  New Bridge, Linlithgow
  New Bridge, Linlithgow
  Headlamps
  Headlamps
  Kingsway Tunnel
  Kingsway Tunnel
  Schemes
  Schemes
  Accidents, Otley-Wetherby Road
  Accidents, Otley-Wetherby Road
TRANSPORT
  Bus Station, Pwllheli
  Bus Station, Pwllheli
  B.T.C. Vehicles (Legislation)
  B.T.C. Vehicles (Legislation)
RAILWAYS
  Accident, East London
  Accident, East London
  Workshops (Use)
  Workshops (Use)
  Overhead Railway, Liverpool
  Overhead Railway, Liverpool
SHIPPING
  Radar Trials, Fraserburgh and Arbroath
  Radar Trials, Fraserburgh and Arbroath
  British Ships (Registration)
  British Ships (Registration)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Forces, Germany (Deaths)
  Forces, Germany (Deaths)
  Science Graduates (National Service)
  Science Graduates (National Service)
  Forces, Malaya and Hong Kong (Christmas Mail)
  Forces, Malaya and Hong Kong (Christmas Mail)
  LEGATION, BUDAPEST (IMPRISONED LOCAL EMPLOYEES)
  LEGATION, BUDAPEST (IMPRISONED LOCAL EMPLOYEES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar Stocks
  Sugar Stocks
  Support Payments
  Support Payments
  Cereals (Deficiency Payments)
  Cereals (Deficiency Payments)
BRITISH ARMY
  Mauritius Pioneer Companies, Middle East
  Mauritius Pioneer Companies, Middle East
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Fire, Admiralty
  Fire, Admiralty
EDUCATION
  Penmorfa Primary School
  Penmorfa Primary School
  Secondary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  Secondary Schools (Cost Per Place)
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Morris of Kenwood—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, no doubt your Lordships will have seen in this morning's newspapers the announcement of the death of the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon. I have to inform your Lordships that tributes will be paid to him at the beginning of Business to-morrow.

INLAND TRANSPORT
2.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to call attention to the position of the internal transport of the country, with special reference to the British Transport Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I placed my original Motion on the Order Paper I sought to invite your Lordships to consider the Report of the British Transport Commission upon their activities of last year. Circumstances, however, caused continued postponements, until we are now almost at the end of 1955; and I thought that to ask your Lordships now to consider a Report for the year 1954 was rather like offering your Lordships' a dish of last Sunday's cold joint. So I have altered the wording of the Motion to invite the House to review the inland transport position to-day, in all its aspects—with, perhaps, the possible exception of air, with which I do not intend to deal.
I think it would be a fair assessment, in making a quick survey of the inland transport position, to say that more people travel to-day; and with 26 per cent. increased productivity from 1949 to the middle of 1955—a wonderful thing—more goods are in transit. But why is it that the roads of the country appear to take
96
more and more goods and freight—certainly that is incontrovertible when we come to short hauls—while other forms of transport take less? Road congestion increases, and traffic flow on the roads is slower and slower. Yet if one discusses this problem with industry and commerce, one is told that, in spite of these factors, road transport is still the cheapest form of transport, taking efficiency and cost factors into consideration. Our road transport fleet, in terms of commercial vehicles, now stands at a record figure of 1,091,000. The increase has been steady. Why is it that other forms of transport find it so difficult to compete with road transport?
Let me take, first of all, the railways. I think it would be fair to say that the speeds of passenger trains are slower—I am talking about the actual speeds, not the schedules—and punctuality is worse. One draws on one's experience. Over the last two years I suppose I have travelled by train to a greater extent than I have ever done in the course of my life. I do not like the roads, because they are too congested, and I travel by train. I think it would be a fair assessment if I said that over the last twelve months, at least, in only about 10 per cent. of the journeys I have made has the train arrived at its destination at the time the timetable said it should.
There may be many reasons for this, and I will deal with one or two. The other day, on a bright day when there was no fog, my train, in travelling a journey which should take one and a quarter hours, arrived twenty minutes late. I went along and had a word with the engine driver and asked him why it was late. I will not repeat precisely what he said, but the purport of it was that I could not even boil a kettle on the coal he had been given to raise steam for his engine. That is one expert's opinion, and I make no comment about it. Delay on our goods services and delay on freight is still the prime reason given for not sending goods by rail. Why is that? The proposed plan of reorganisation and development was supposed to put the railways on a more competitive footing and to enable them to compete with other forms of transport by increasing their efficiency. I am going to ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is to reply for the Government this afternoon, whether he can give us a progress report. What is the reason for the present

97
position? What lessons, if any, can we learn from it?
I suppose the first thing that would enter the head of those connected with industry, or those used to conducting large industrial enterprises, would be that there is an apparent lack of drive at the top—real commercial drive. Can that be true? If it is, to what is it attributable? I would suggest that it may be to one of three things, or to part of each: lack of commercial ability on the top strata of management; interference and lack of decision at ministerial level; or, perhaps, the fact that the system under which the British Transport Commission have to work to-day, under the conditions laid down not only in the 1947 Act but in the 1953 Act, is still too rigid. I will hazard a guess that some of each of those three reasons may be true, and perhaps my bias would be in favour of the third.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that Rome was not built in a day, but history records that at least it was burned down while Nero played a tune on a fiddle. From the standpoint of his reputation for quick decision in road development, I do not think I should be guilty of an exaggeration if I said that even Her Majesty's Minister of Transport is rather adept at playing tunes on fiddles. What can be done? I do not think the Government realise—and I am certain that the country does not realise; nor do I think Parliament realizes—that the British Transport Commission are the only nationalised corporation which have to face fierce competition. I have given your Lordships the number of goods vehicles—1,091,000. If we exclude the small vans and the vehicles operated by the Commission the total of vehicles running on A, B and C licences is about 900,000. I am not complaining about that. I am not complaining about the competition the Commission have to meet. But do the Government realise it? I would say quite frankly to your Lordships that if the British Transport Commission were 100 per cent. on its commercial toes, it would still have a 100 per cent. commercial job on its hands.
Is it handicapped? I cannot help thinking that although by the Act of 1953 the Government loosened the bonds, they have not yet been loosened enough. I want the Government to give serious consideration to this matter, because in the fiercely competitive world of transport how can one expect real progress when
98
the commercial heads of the British Transport Commission have to spend a large amount of their time preparing cases for increases in freight rates and fares to go before tribunals? And before they have completed one case another is on the way: they are always about twelve months behind. Do not forget that coal, gas and electricity all have a monopoly in their own field, while the British Transport Commission have far from a monopoly, and unless the Transport Commission are given the same freedom as the other nationalised industries in the matter of charging and freedom to adjust their rates quickly, and the same freedom as their competitors, is it fair to expect them to compete successfully in the fierce competitive world in which they are placed? I ask the Government to consider that point very seriously. Perhaps that is why I feel there is an absence of commercial drive.
There is another direction in which I think there is an absence of drive. In industry to-day, a department of equal importance to the selling side in any industrial concern is the buying side. When an industry finds itself up against shortage of supplies, believe me they have, if I may use the vernacular, to "get cracking." Take steel. One of our shortages is lack of sheet steel. That is now a dollar import. I understand that one of the lags in the railway development plan is on the supply of wagons and coaches. There are over 4,000 coaches which are now being run on the railways of this country but which should have been scrapped twenty-five years ago. What a tragedy! Mention of the word "tragedy" reminds me of the evidence I read in the Press that was given about that unfortunate disaster at Barnes. It came out in evidence, as published in the Press to-day, that those people would not have lost their lives had steel coaches, and not obsolete wooden coaches, been used.
What efforts are being made to get steel? Do the British Transport Commission just passively stand in the queue? When you are in industry and in a queue, you have to use your elbows if you want to get supplies. Of course the Government policy is that there must not be any priority of supplies; there must be no physical controls, so it is "Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost." How far down the queue

99
are the British Transport Commission? This point requires some serious consideration in quite a number of directions. Here we have something that is vital to the industrial life of this country. We cannot do without the railways; we must have an efficient railway system. I am not asking the Government even to show bias in favour of the railways; but is the dice loaded against them? In other words, have the Government taken their policy so far that the railways of the country do not even get a "square deal"?
Let me take one other aspect while I am talking about railways. I would say that the fundamental issue in railway development in this country, as it appeals to the commercial and the travelling world, is speed, safety and punctuality. After all, the commercial and travelling world want speed, safety and punctuality, and any form of transport that cannot provide those things will not get business. I would say that the secret of getting those three things on British Railways to-day is the adoption of the fully-braked freight train. Frankly, it is no good increasing the speed of your passenger trains with diesel engines or the speed of your goods trains when you cannot stop the wretched things. The speed of all our freight trains, or the vast bulk of them, is governed by their automatic braking power. I suggest that this is so fundamental that it is no good trying on our railway system and upon the lines that we have to-day to do anything at all in the way of higher speeds and greater punctuality until we have solved this problem of fully-braked freight trains, because our lines are cluttered up with slow goods trains.
Will the noble Earl tell us what progress is being made? I understand that some great delay has been occasioned because technical decisions could not be made; but whether it will be this pattern of coupling or the other pattern of coupling the noble Earl will very likely tell us. I have been brought up in a competitive industry where, to use an industrial phrase, the time comes when somebody says "Let's go" and we go ahead with something. If we are going to wait until 100 per cent. perfection is reached on paper before we go into production, we shall, I think the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will agree, never go into production. That is one of the things operat-
100
ing against the railways to-day. They cannot do the job to compete with other forms of transport because of some of the things I have mentioned. The position is so serious for the future economic situation of this country that the Government will have to bring in a priority, and that is a priority for steel for railways.
The other day I walked down a street in Westminster—I happened to be going to the Passport Office. I passed a huge steel structure and saw on it a board saying, "New office building for the National Society of Locomotive Engineers." I suppose they are housed somewhere now. I know that structure was of a different kind of steel from sheet steel, but at a time when steel is being rationed through inability to produce it, when steel is a dollar import, surely it is carrying dogma a little too far when we say that we must slavishly adhere to no controls and let the most artful or the most energetic get the supplies. Some of the bonds and shackles which were implicit in the 1947 Act and which bound the British Transport Commission's right to increase their charges to the public were loosened a little by the 1953 Act. There was always a case for the old Railway Rates Tribunal, I admit—although I never thought it worked very well—but in those days the railways of the country had a monopoly. As I have pointed out to your Lordships, however, that monopoly went years ago. The only monopoly that it could be said that the railways have to-day is in the carriage of heavy minerals such as coal, and that is not the bulk of the freight of this country.
I am apprehensive, but not pessimistic, about the future finances of the railways. As I say, they are always lagging twelve months behind. Their costs go up overnight and the vast bulk of their chief commercial and administrative staff are engaged in preparing cases. I say quite frankly, that I do not think the demands upon the British Transport Commission for increased wages have anywhere near reached their limit. And they must be reflected in increased charges to the public.
May I state a case I have in mind? Two great factories in this country situated just outside Oxford—Morris Motors (now the British Motor Corporation) and Pressed Steel—have reached an agreement with the Government that their labour force at those works has reached

101
the optimum and will not be increased. Pressed Steel, a vigorous, go-ahead concern, are building a huge plant at Swindon, where the local authority are building houses, and I think the L.C.C. are going to populate the area with some kind of labour. If the present average skilled man's "take away" pay packet resembles anything like that which is being paid at Cowley, it will be precisely double that of the average skilled man employed in the railway works at Swindon. What is going to happen? Who is going to pay? That is the kind of thing that is gong to occur in the future—and I think we have to face it.
If we are going to live in a world of full employment, as I hope we are, competition for labour is going to be very great, and what really counts is not an increase in the basic rates but the size of the "take away" pay packet. That is going to hit the underpaid industries. Perhaps I should not say that the railway men are underpaid; let us say that they are receiving below the average wage for that class of work. There is a problem which will remain until there is flexibility in management and in costing. If a motor car manufacturer wants to increase the price of his product he does not have to go to a tribunal to get permission to do it. If the Coal Board want to put up the price of coal, they do not have to go to a tribunal; nor do the Electricity Authority or the Gas Board. Why should transport? I think this problem must be faced.
Having said what I wanted to say on the railways, I now come to coastwise shipping. To my mind, coastwise shipping has always been linked with internal transport. I am told that coastwise shipping concerns—I am not talking about the tramps, which carry most of the coal cargoes—are having a slump: freight is going down ships are not being built. Coastwise traders are not having ships built because the traffic is diminishing. Yet we still have thousands of tons travelling by roads. Through the courtesy of the Minister of Transport, I had sent to me the other day a memorandum pointing out that the Minister proposed to tighten the regulations in regard to abnormal loads; but, with great respect, I say that the amount of tightening up will have about the same effect as sticking a pin in an elephant. This problem must be tackled. Road traffic
102
is coming to a standstill, and although we may like freedom, there is not much freedom in travelling at about three miles per hour for mile after mile when carrying goods urgently required at the other end. I should like the noble Earl to do something about that.
Then again, what is the Government's policy regarding canals?—Blow hot, blow cold. Can the canals of this country be used as a commercial proposition? If they can, how many miles of canal can be used commercially? For goodness sake! let us get on and use them, if it is possible to do so. Do not let us keep setting up committee after committee because the Minister cannot make up his mind. I want the country's transport facilities used to their greatest advantage. I am not so concerned about the amenity side of the matter. I understand that there is now a proposal by the Minister to set up yet another committee, to investigate something that two or three committees have already investigated. To me, this is a subject of vital urgency. I know that there is a project to build a new "tube," at a cost of £50 million, between Walthamstow and Victoria. The other day the Minister of Transport said that this scheme would make perhaps the greatest single contribution to the relief of London's congestion, but that it would involve the London Transport Executive, on the reckoning of the chairman of the Executive, in a yearly deficit of £2½ million. Who is going to pay? Who is going to decide who is to pay? And when? If we do not make decisions in these matters, how are we to solve the problem, which is daily getting more urgent?
I come now to the last of the subjects about which I wish to speak—namely, British Road Services. Of all the sections of the British Transport Commission deserving of the thanks and congratulations of this country, those who have been responsible for building up British Road Services occupy a high place. They have been subjected to vilification, abuse and derision. I know it is said that a leopard cannot change its spots, but I wonder whether the present Minister of Transport, or the present President of the Board of Trade, ever read the speeches that they made about the British Transport Commission when they occupied the Opposition Benches in another place. The British Road Services have survived. They

103
have proved themselves to the satisfaction of all commercial interests in this country, and have built up one of the most efficient transport organisations this country has ever known. I think, frankly, that on this subject and on this controversy—if controversy it can be called to-day—politics have almost evaporated. British Road Services are now a commercial proposition, dictated by sound commercial principles and common sense.
If what I read in the Press is correct, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government that in this matter they have stiffened their backs against a last "die in the ditch" fight by the only people who think they have something to gain—that is, the road haulage competitive interests. If I may be so bold, I would congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I hear that he was called in. I cannot imagine any unruly body not "caving in" after the noble and learned Viscount has used his influence on them for any length of time. I beg Her Majesty's Government to stand fast on this issue and bring the Bill in quickly, in order to give British Road Services the vehicles they require and so that they can retain those which they now have. I see no reason why I should not repeat the statement that I made in a previous debate: it would be a national service if the Disposals Board were to be disbanded overnight. That Board has not done one solitary act which the British Transport Commission could not have done in the ordinary course of its business. Any great concern of that kind, with huge fleets of vehicles, disposes of its obsolete vehicles year after year, as with plant and machinery. What has this overweighted body, the Disposals Board, done? The same thing, but at great cost to the country.
I have tried to avoid being politically controversial in what I have said, and I hope to maintain that approach. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, will not think me politically controversial when I say that I cannot imagine what, in the dictates of common sense, ever made Her Majesty's Government form this company to dispose of the share capital of the Parcels Service of British Road Services. The sum being asked, or which will have to be raised, for the share capital, is £7 million. If one adds up all the other extras required as working capital,
104
the money market has to find about £10 million to £12 million to effect a purchase of a kind that will not act to the detriment of the taxpayers' assets. For the taxpayer has some assets: the most efficient parcels service that this country has ever had. Why do it? The noble Earl admitted to me across the floor of the House, when I asked the question, that the outside cost of forming the company was, I believe, £56,000. The internal costs were at the very minimum another £50,000, with all the hours, days and weeks of labour by the administrative staff—and for what? The noble Earl has not had a "bite," has he? He has not had an offer?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): I am not in a position to say.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I ask the noble Earl to tell us: has the British Transport Commission had an offer for this company.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is most improper for the noble Earl to ask that question, as offers do not close until the end of the month. If I had had offers I should not tell him.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: There are not many days now to the end of the month.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I mean the end of next month.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I will hazard a guess that they have not had anything near an offer. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks of going into the City for £10 million. I thought there was a freeze or squeeze, or something of that kind on just now. I read to-day in The Times newspaper that the biggest "casualties" in this credit squeeze have been one-man businesses. They have gone. The bankruptcies are up. Fancy that! just to save the face—however, I promised that I would not be political and controversial, so I will end there.
Will the noble Earl say why this is allowed to go on? If the British Transport Commission had the whole of the vehicles they now have—the number they had originally, and the number which the Minister has given them permission to retain—what would it amount to? Perhaps

105
your Lordships would like to know the figures, which are: general haulage 7,750 vehicles; special traffics—those are some of the vehicles of which I complained, which carry abnormal loads—1,000; meat traffic vehicles, 500; railway cartage, for British Roads Services cartage for the railways, 400; contract hire vehicles, 2,000. Parcels vehicles would be 4,000. Those figures add up to 16,000 vehicles. If I take out all the C licence-vehicles under 2 tons, delivery vans and tradesmen's vehicles, there are just on 900,000 vehicles with A, B or C licences in general use in this country competing against those 16,000 vehicles. Even those of your Lordships who have great appetite for companion must admit that that should be sufficient. The sad part is that the reason given for the destruction of British Road Services, as it was originally, has not been achieved: the small man has not come back into the haulage business. There has been no great influx of capital into the haulage business. Twenty per cent. of the vehicles obtained from the Disposals Board changed hands overnight. Many were "traded in" for new vehicles.
I would therefore ask the noble Earl to consider whether the last scrap of politics cannot now be taken out of this matter. I do not believe that the efficiency of the British Transport Commission's British Road Services is a matter of political controversy. If the noble Earl wishes to make certain that everything possible is done to smooth the way for the Commission to go ahead and fulfil their function, as we in this House all desire, where-ever we sit, to be an efficient service, I hope that he will accept my suggestions for releasing the shackles on the railways and giving them priority of materials, so that they may give better competitive service. And if he will give up this disposal of the taxpayer's assets in British Road Services, not only can we see it as an efficient service but we can also see politics buried so far as the transport of this country is concerned. I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of taking part in the debate at this stage. My only regret is that I shall be unable to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on his maiden speech. I can only
106
welcome very warmly his reported intention to address your Lordships. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has done great service in raising this matter in the House to-day: it is high time that it was discussed.
I am not going to attempt to follow him on anything except the railway problem, because I believe that other noble friends of mine will be dealing with the road problem later in this debate. I will, however, just make one comment on the road haulage problem. I am sure that during nationalisation a very efficient depôt structure and organisation for the interchange of goods and parcels trade was set up, and it must be utterly wrong to think of breaking that up—indeed, no one has suggested breaking it up. But that is quite a different thing from stopping the disposal of motor vehicles and making it impossible for those who had to part with them compulsorily to get them back voluntarily. Therefore, I could not agree with the noble Lord's suggestion that the activities of the Disposals Board should be terminated now. But other noble Lords will be dealing with that side of the problem much more efficiently than I could do.
Coming to the railways, I shall have to begin by declaring an interest in that I am connected with firms manufacturing locomotives. That, in its turn, has given me a rather closer view of the railway scene than I otherwise should have had, and that is one of the reasons why I am venturing to say a few words this afternoon. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that those who have the fortune, or misfortune, to travel by rail nowadays suffer a good deal from unpunctuality and, shall we say, alleged inefficiency. But these things, as the noble Lord would certainly agree, are not the disease itself; they are symptoms of something which lies below. I have seen these symptoms as, of course, every traveller has seen them. But let us try to see for a moment what are the underlying causes of these troubles on the railways, because all of us here are at one in wishing to make some contribution to solving the problem of our railways and to improving their efficiency and the service they give to the customers.
I think we must go back to before the 1939–45 war, when the railways were in the hands of private enterprise. Some people may disagree with me, but I do

107
not think that anyone could claim—with the possible exception of the Southern Railway, which had problems separate from those of other companies—that the railway industry in this country was remarkable either technically or, in the higher direction, for forward thinking, forward looking, or, indeed, forward financing. I am saying that as what I believe to be a fact, and I am not making any comment upon it. During the war an intolerable strain was placed upon the railways. It may be that when the war started they were not in the best condition. There again, I am putting it as a fact and not commenting upon it.
After the war, we had nationalisation. I am not going to argue here the merits or the demerits of nationalisation, but I am going to say that during that period of major upheaval in the industry which nationalisation was bound to cause it was almost impossible for anyone to get going on research or development or forward plans. No one can do it when the higher financial direction and higher policy direction of the railways are in the melting pot, whether the cause of that is nationalisation or anything else. Indeed, it meant that for another four or five years no serious steps could be taken to build up the deficiency which I think had begun to accumulate before 1939 and certainly since the outbreak of the war. Of course, when the Government changed there were prospects that the higher direction of the railways might change again. That climate, in its turn, was not favourable for any development, so I think one can say fairly that there was very little forward planning and very little technical progress on the British Railways until the beginning of this year or the end of last year.
What did happen, which seemed curious to those who could see what was happening overseas, was that, despite the difficulties of the coal position, which have been referred to to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, difficulties regarding the quantity and quality of the coal, those who were in charge of mechanical engineering on the railways in those days thought fit to bring forward a whole range of new steam locomotives, not in essentials very different from the ones in use before the war. It is true that only two or possibly three of those types have been brought out, but there
108
was a plan which was produced in brochure for a complete new outfit of locomotives for British railways in the year 1949 or 1950.
That brings us up really to the point where we are now. There has not been a great deal of research or planning—I am talking about main line railways and not about London Transport. Railways, as we read in the papers to-day, are facing a great staff shortage, particularly a shortage of footplate men. But, as we shall see in a moment if I may be allowed to refer to the modernisation plan, a great deal of that shortage is largely due to the fact that people are being employed as they are now, and no attempt has been made to save manpower by modern methods—certainly nothing comparable with what has been accomplished in other industries. There is on the railways a high proportion of men of very low skill—I am not talking about footplate men, but about what an airman would call "ground staff." I think it is true to say that there is a bigger proportion of really low-skilled men on the railways than in any other industry of comparable size. And, of course, as we know from reading the papers, for the last few years human relations and industrial relations on the railways have been far from what they should be.
It is curious to think that the railways are having all these difficulties and that the same difficulties do not seem to be occurring in any other nationalised industries. One never hears, for example, of such difficulties, either labour or financial, in, shall we say, the British Electricity Authority—granted that the industrial problem there is a good deal smaller than that of the railways, though I think that the financial problem is not. I believe there must be a lesson there for those who can draw it. I think there is a lesson to be drawn from the smooth passage which Lord Citrine and the British Electricity Authority have compared with that experienced by those who have the task of running British transport now. I wish I knew more about that matter so that better acquaintance with the facts might help me to suggest an answer to this problem, but I am afraid it is not now for me to say what the answer to the problem might be.
That brings me up to the beginning of this year, when this plan was produced for modernising the equipment of British

109
Railways. I think we shall all agree that this plan, as a plan, was an excellent one, and it had in it the germs of really worthwhile reorganisation of the railways. Those who studied it will remember that there is a page which deals with the main elements in which alteration and improvement are necessary. There are four or five headings, but they can be cut down to three. The first two are modern signalling and traffic control, and steam locomotion and steam traction giving way to diesel or electric in its application both to main line traffic and suburban. Last but not least in importance, there is the point about continuous braking. That is a very important point indeed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Ghilworth, knows, continuous braking has to become general if there is to be any real speed-up in the operation of the railways. Noble Lords will also know that ours is the only country in the world where freight trains are allowed by law to operate without vacuum brakes. So we see where we stand in progress. If your Lordships will allow me I will come back to that matter in a few minutes.
The whole scheme, we find, is to cost about £1,200 million over a period. I, for one, should have nothing but praise for this plan, as a plan. It was dated December, 1954, and surely the time has come when we can fairly ask what has happened between then and now. I should like to spend a moment to look at what I think has been the gap between promise and performance. To the layman, to the person who is a passenger or consignor of goods, I should say little has happened to indicate any improvement. It may not be quite fair to expect improvement after only a year; nevertheless. I say that I do not think there has been any sign of improvement to the passenger or the person who sends goods by train.
To those who have seen a little more of the railways than the passenger or consignor of goods, what then? There are very few of those outward signs of control and progress which exist in the British Electricity Authority, nor have the workers the same happy trade union relationships with the Commission as the B.E.A. and the Gas Board appear to have with their workers. It is true that much might have been done behind the scenes about the modernisation of signals, the replacement of hand signals by coloured
110
lights, and arrangements for the centralisation of traffic control at big railway centres; but very little is apparent and very little has been said about what is being done. As for continuous braking, I think I am right in saying that all goods wagons which are now being produced and delivered to British Railways are still being delivered without vacuum brakes. If I am wrong, I apologise in advance, but I do not think I am. Sooner or later this problem of continuous braking and the alteration in shunting procedure consequent on it has to be tackled, and it is no good putting it off from year to year because nobody wants to take the cold bath of making a start with it. With the present density of railways traffic we shall never get any worthwhile improvement by better tracks, better locomotives or anything else, until we can solve the problem of speeding-up trains, which solution depends entirely on the adoption of continuous braking.
What about locomotives? Up to date, British Railways have ordered 130 diesel electric, 11 diesel hydraulic and 30 power equipments. The first two kinds have been ordered from the outside industry and the 30 power equipments have been ordered to enable locomotives to be built in railway shops. Again I must declare an interest, but as the matter has been ventilated in another place I do not feel entirely inhibited from putting another point of view. Why are British Railways wanting pilot models for these diesel locomotives? There is only one type of diesel locomotive which is being offered to British Railways—namely, the English Electric "Deltic," which has not been tested all over the world under far harder conditions, on far greater gradients and with far less skilled attention and driving than they will get from British Railways. The only people who do not appear to know the capacities of the diesel electric locomotives which can be bought here through the trade must be the engineers of British Railways. This business of ordering pilot models is simply delaying the whole re-equipment of the railways, for no reason that I can see. I think that should be known.
I want to say a word about the question of building locomotives in railway shops. As I say, I must declare an interest, but already the matter has been raised by an honourable gentleman in another place, who, on December 1, said that the railway

111
shops in South Wales are likely to be deprived of work as the result of the decision of the British Transport Commission to put out to tender these 141 new diesel engines. Let me say, first of all, that the amount of locomotive building, as opposed to repairing, in British Railways locomotive works is only about 6 per cent. of the whole. Secondly, private locomotive builders are able to build them at once, as they have the plant; British Railways have to start anew. I suggest that in a period of over-full employment there can be no better time to redeploy labour. The workmen in both railway shops and private shops are members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and no doubt they will decide where the unemployment should be taken. I shall leave it at that, but I should like to have this point considered by noble Lords opposite, if they will.
Having given your Lordships some indication of the battle which is going on, may I come back to a more general point raised by the Report? Recently British Railways engaged as an adviser a great railway expert, Mr. den Hollander, of the Dutch Railways. He gave an interview to the Press, in which he made these remarks, among others:
"A railwayman's job is to run trains. It is not his business to be a caterer, hotelier, painter or builder of locomotives."
I suggest that Mr. den Hollander gave very sound advice, which he is following with the greatest success in Holland, as all railwaymen know.
Where does all this take us? I think it is fair to say that there has been unreasonable and unjustifiable delay in putting into force this modernisation plan. I think it is perfectly reasonable to suspect that battles are going on behind the scenes which are not to the good of the users of the railways. I think it is justifiable to ask this question in regard to the British Transport Commission: who is actually calling the tune, and for whose benefit is the tune being called? So far as the railways go, several people can conceivably be calling the tune—the trade unions, the old guard of railwaymen, the chairman and members of the British Transport Commission, the Minister of Transport, or some gentleman in the Treasury. You can take your choice, my Lords. For whom should the tune be
112
called? To that there can be only one answer; the tune should be called for the people who make use of the railways, who want to travel by train or send their goods.
Of course one knows perfectly well that no decent employer, least of all the British Transport Commission, would want to make changes without proper regard for the personnel they employ; but, as I have already suggested, in a time of overfull employment the difficulties are not great. It is a case of doing the difficult thing at once, and of the impossible taking a little longer. If, in this time of full employment, we cannot redeploy labour, when on earth shall we be able to do it? Unless we get busy, we shall have the railways nothing but a museum, because at the present rate of progress we are not overtaking the backlog and we are dropping back a little more and more.
Before I finish I want to say one thing which perhaps I should not say. For all I know, there may be excellent reasons for having two unions in the railway world, but for the ordinary layman like myself those reasons grow less and less and the disadvantages to the railway industry and the public grow more and more apparent. I feel intensely sorry for the British Transport Commission having to try all the time to implement this plan and to produce industrial peace on the railways when it seems that no plan can be produced which is agreeable to one union without, ex hypothesi, its being anathema to the other. This may be something that is quite impossible—and noble Lords opposite will know that better than I. None the less, I have no doubt that on the day when the British Transport Commission—leaving out the railway shops—can negotiate with one powerful union, a large number of the difficulties and problems which dog the railway industry will disappear. That is not the only problem, but it will be no good our improving our rolling stock and control, and doing all these things, if we still have behind us an industrial situation which does not match the improvement foreshadowed in this pamphlet. Otherwise, as I say, the railways, instead of developing, will become a museum, and it would be a great pity if among the other Emmett-like exhibits in that museum there was ever to be found an uncut copy of the pamphlet on the modernisation of British transport.
3.42 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, debates such as this, which take place at infrequent intervals in your Lordships' House, necessarily compel the speakers to cover a wide field and to leave unsaid much that they would like to say and perhaps much that ought to be said and asked. When I appeared before a Committee of the other House some time ago, with your Lordships' leave, I ventured to suggest that the setting up of a Joint Committee of Both Houses might be the best way of enabling Parliament to keep in touch with the progress of the nationalised industries in a way which cannot be done in ordinary debate; and I feel that if Parliament does desire a closer knowledge of the progress which those undertakings are making, that still is the most hopeful approach.
This afternoon there are three or four points I should like to touch upon briefly. If there is one part of the changes on which the British Transport Commission seem to be entitled to congratulation it is the smooth way in which the regional boards have been brought into being and, so far as one knows, have worked. With the disappearance of the Railway Executive I felt that some step of that sort was necessary: indeed, as some of your Lordships know. I should have been glad to see a regional board for Scotland introduced at a much earlier date than was in fact done. They should enable greater flexibility to be introduced into problems of management, on which railwaymen themselves never have been agreed, and probably never will be agreed, such as the relations between the commercial and the operating departments; and it is a good thing that one region should be able to try one plan of organisation and another region something different.
I come now to a different point, and I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply what use has been made of the freedom from the old restrictions against discrimination in charges and the old obligation to publish rates, a freedom which the railways secured two and a half years ago. In many quarters it seems to be supposed that those freedoms do not come into existence until a Charges Scheme has been approved by the statutory Tribunal, but unless I completely misread the 1953 Act, that is not so. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has made a great point of the difficulties
114
the railways have in putting up their charges. That is the freedom which they still lack. It is a difficult point, and I am not altogether convinced that, in the long run, in transport, which has always been regarded in a special class by Parliament, some approval by a tribunal, where everything can be threshed out, may not be necessary. I have a bitter recollection of the occasion when, in my time of responsibility, we did go to that Tribunal and, after many weeks of argument, got leave to put up certain fares, and the Government came to Parliament and asked Parliament to stop us. The same kind of thing had happened before, as far back as 1894. It has left in the minds of railwaymen a feeling that, in the long run, they and they alone among the industries of the countries are likely to be dealt with by that sort of restraining action. Although I can sympathise with what the noble Lord said, about how nice it would be to be free of that restraint, I am not convinced in my bones that it would work, having regard to the state of Parliamentary and public opinion. But at any rate, the railways have had for over two years the freedom from these old restrictions which were undoubtedly hampering them.
Once it had been decided to adopt a policy of intensified competition between road and rail, it was clearly necessary that the railways should have some measure of relief. I do not take quite the same poor view as does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of the commercial ability of the railway officers. I can understand their caution, and even their hesitation—if hesitation there has been—to exercise the new right to cut rates in all sorts of directions in order to get traffic, without being certain that, if their estimates or speculations do not prove quite right, they will be able to put up charges in other directions. They may be wise in waiting. Nevertheless, the trend of merchandise traffic has not been too encouraging, and I feel that undoubtedly some additional revenue could be obtained by a more active commercial policy. It is not too soon to ask the noble Earl if he can tell us whether any substantial volume of goods traffic has been regained by the exercise of these freedoms upon which the Government laid so much stress; and, if so, from where that traffic has come. Has it come from the general road haulier, the

115
C licence holder or the coastwise shipowner?
I now turn from commercial to technical developments. I listened with the closest interest to the speech which has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who dealt with some points which are of fundamental importance. I cannot agree with him that, even in the early years of the Commission, a great deal of attention was not given to thinking out the methods and directions for technical development. Within a few months of the appointment of the Commission we set one party to work on the future of motive power, one of the fundamental questions, and another party to work upon the standardisation of rolling stock, out of which arise some of the problems to which the noble Viscount referred. I feel that it is not true to say that, in spite of all the other preoccupations, thought was not given to these matters. I will give one or two instances in a moment. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to withhold agreement—though I am sure many of my old colleagues would not agree with me in saying so—with the suggestion of the noble Viscount that many of the highly placed and most experienced technical railway officers of that time still thought that the iron horse, as they knew it, and as they themselves had largely developed it, was going to have quite a long run yet.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: May I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I am sorry if I gave him the impression that no thought had taken place during the time he is referring to. What I intended to say was that nothing had happened; that no steps were taken as a result of the thought.
LORD HURCOMB: With that I am bound to agree. We could not get the money which is now to be so generously forthcoming. We were only too anxious to move, had we been allowed to do so. Undoubtedly there was in the minds of some very able and experienced men the feeling that we were not going to see a revolution in the method of traction in the future on the scale that most of us in the Commission believed was inevitable. There was a certain slowness, also, in developing the new types. There was the disposition upon which the noble Viscount has commented, and I think
116
fairly criticised, that something that had been known to be running quite satisfactorily in some other part of the world needed a long period of test piecemeal in this country. I chafed against that very often, and without much success.
On the other hand, I am bound to point out to your Lordships that many improvements of seemingly undisputed technical advantage did, in practice, require prolonged tests and a long series of adjustments to meet the exacting conditions of day-to-day operation. I would not too lightly dismiss the caution, if you like to call it that, of the practical men and the operating men in not going wholeheartedly for a new type of vehicle or instrument until they had had it tested under the conditions of actual operation. Look, for example, at the simple case of what is called automatic train control—a device accepted in principle by the Commission five or six years ago but still, I believe, not brought to that point of final test which satisfies the railwaymen themselves and the Inspecting Officer of Railways as to its complete suitability under the actual conditions of operation. So, though I admit that I chafed against these delays which the noble Viscount has criticised, I would not dismiss the cautious attitude of others as something approaching obstruction.
May I for a moment come to some of the instances he has mentioned. I have been an advocate of large wagons for over thirty years. It is five or six years ago that the Commission decided to standardise the mineral wagons with a 24½-ton wagon as being the largest load which can be carried on two axles. We told the Coal Board, the Electricity Authority, the Gas Council, the Federation of British Industries and all the representatives of large industrial users that that was the decision, and urged them to adapt their tips and sidings to enable them to take the larger wagon, from which a very large economy can undoubtedly be secured. I wonder what progress has yet been made. I thought that was a fair point for the noble Viscount to stress. Still more so is the need for continuous brakes. We decided that matter, in principle, some three or four years ago. The Plan itself (I hope that I draw the right inference) has said quite definitely that the Commission mean to standardise on the vacuum type—it was a question whether the vacuum or the air brake should be

117
adopted. Anyhow, that seems to be something definite. The noble Earl who replies will tell us whether that decision still stands. In any event, I am afraid that the cost of the change, which was then put at £75 million, will prove much greater than that.
I should like to see some concentration on further electrification. The directions in which electrification would be of great benefit to traffic were indicated years ago: the completion of the electrification in south-east England; action to remedy the obsolete and, indeed, appalling conditions round Glasgow; the very good field for electrification in the industrial areas of Lancashire; the extension of the electrification now proceeding to Chelmsford and, I should hope, a real main line scheme starting from King's Cross.
As between the expectations and intentions of four or five years ago, and the promise in the early part of this year, what progress is, in fact, being made? There is an important new factor there of which your Lordships may not be aware. Some four years ago or so it was discovered in France that they could adopt a method of taking a high voltage current from the original source of generation and transforming and converting it on the locomotive itself. I will not weary your Lordships with technical details, but by eliminating sub-stations and reducing the section of the wire, the capital costs of electrification could thereby be much reduced. I am sure that the Commission must be giving anxious consideration to the question of whether that method will be practicable in this country, in spite of our dense traffic, our numerous tunnels, the lack of clearance under our bridges and so forth. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, whether he can tell us something about that matter, or whether one is deceiving oneself in thinking that this is a hopeful means of reducing capital expenditure. Is there any risk that the process of electrification which could go on rapidly on presently accepted methods will be put off for a period of years if the new method is adopted? I do not see why that should be so, and I hope it will not; but I would ask the noble Earl whether he can give your Lordships some information on dial: important point.
Before I leave the question of electrification I should like to refer to Lots
118
Road Power Station, a familiar object in the landscape to most of your Lordships. Much of the plant it that station is still non-standard, and some of it must be verging on, if not past, obsolescence. Is it the intention that London Transport should itself meet the cost of re-equipping that station and of continuing to generate current for itself, or is it the intention that the provision of current should be regarded as the duty of the national grid, transport buying the current as it needs it? I am well aware that there are many powerful arguments why London Transport should generate a supply for itself, separate from the grid; but it is a big issue, involving many millions of capital. A decision cannot be long deferred. I should like to feel that all the considerations have been properly formulated and balanced and that a definite decision on that issue of policy will before long be taken.
In suggesting the advantages of electrification, I am not in any way criticising the British Transport Commission for continuing to introduce diesels, particularly on the lightly-trafficked lines. Like the noble Viscount, I cannot see why prolonged periods of tests should be necessary in order to find a suitable diesel for main line use, but I am bound to add that we have been told very little about the economic justification for wholesale dieselisation of the main lines under the actual traffic and operating conditions of this country. If the facts and figures have in truth been worked out, I suggest that they ought to be made available.
I will not now go into another large question at which the noble Viscount hinted. Either electrification or dieselisation must involve revolutionary changes in the location, layout and staffing of the present railway workshops and maintenance shops. He may very well be right, if I may say so with respect, in saying that, if that problem and that revolution have to be faced, it could not be better faced than at a time of full employment. Otherwise, it might indeed give rise to problems of redundancy of which the staff would be legitimately apprehensive.
On all grounds, the techncial plans necessary to the efficiency of the railways ought to proceed, even though in the absence of much more detail than is available their net financial results are

119
obscure. I need only remind your Lordships that all previous estimates mean very little, for they were based on the conditions prevailing in the Autumn of 1954. They need recasting. I am afraid that that will mean that all the costs will be raised. My view remains that neither freedom to discriminate in charges nor radical technical improvements will, of themselves, or in combination with one another, prove a sufficient substitute for a transport policy co-ordinating and combining different branches of transport. I remain convinced that it is a mistake to look in blinkers at the economy of the railways alone.
Unfortunately, at the end of last year it was necessary to add £12 million to the deficiency of some £27 million which still remained in the British Transport Commission's accounts. It was a deficiency accumulated in the first three years of nationalization, when some deficiency was by general admission inevitable, and the actual deficiency was increased by the cause to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred, at a time when he and his friends were responsible—namely, the delay in allowing the Commission to put up their charges in spite of large increases in costs. There is that accrued deficiency now of £39 million. It would have been much greater if in 1954 the road haulage business had not made a large working surplus, no less than £9 million, a higher rate of return than that obtained on any other part of the Commission's business and in itself a high proportion of the total working surplus of the Commisson. It is not correct to belittle the earning capacity of the road haulage part of the Commission's undertaking. It is true that it is small if it is compared with the gross receipts of the undertaking, but it is substantial if compared with the net receipts—and that, surely, is the proper comparison.
I do not know what the deficiency for the current year in the Transport Commission's accounts as a whole may be, but when one has a profitable business, is it wise to go further in dispersing it? Forced by the statutory limitation on the number of vehicles which they might retain, the Commission, quite rightly in my view, elected to keep a general haulage business, to such extent as the
120
figures allowed them to go. But why should they be forced to sacrifice and sell the Parcels Service, now on offer? May I, without offence, put it this way? I am sorry I have so largely to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in this particular matter. I hope he is right in saying that politics are evaporating from this subject. I have no politics to evaporate.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Lord has no politics, I do not know why he has to express regret that he has to support my argument, which I thought was non-political and based on sound common sense.
LORD HURCOMB: My regret is that I have to appear to follow so closely one of the political leaders when I do not base my arguments on any kind of political ground. On this particular point of the Parcels Service, over twenty years ago the four main line railways thought it right, proper and in the interests of their shareholders to acquire Carter Paterson & Co. Why is it not equally right, proper and in the public interest that the Commission should retain what they inherited, especially after they have developed and improved that service at considerable cost to themselves and with an immense expenditure of effort? I find it difficult to answer that question. I venture to think that if, as we should like, politics are to be taken out of this matter, it is the very sort of transaction which almost invites reversal if there is a political change at some future date.
I do not think that anyone can fairly attack the Government for not having amply fulfilled their undertaking to allow previous hauliers who wanted to do so to come back into the long-distance field. Every haulier who wanted to come back has had a good chance of doing so. I wonder how many of the vehicles which have been sold recently have been sold not to hauliers but to dealers—or, perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said, to hauliers who have at once disposed of them to others. Can anyone reasonably attack the Government if they go no further in a direction which has weakened, and must weaken, what remains a national transport structure?
I do not know when we are going to recover the lost financial equilibrium or begin to pay off the accumulated losses.

121
As regards this year, we have been told with commendable frankness, that the deficiency is going to be a "thumping" one. Before it begins to thump on the door of the Exchequer for relief, if not by subsidy then by some postponement or remission of interest, or relief in some form or another, I would appeal to the Government to consider whether they should not now end the long-drawn-out process of dispersing the profitable road haulage assets of the Commission, including the Parcels Service. I recognise the realism with which they have already faced the situation and, if it would not be thought presumptuous on my part, I would also say the courage, with which they have faced it. It would mean going very little further to say, "We will sell no more," and to stop this expensive machinery which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has fairly said, costs a good deal of money. It also distracts and takes up the energy of men who ought to be giving their whole time to the improvement of their organisation and the solving of the serious problems which press upon them.
Sir Malcolm Eve himself has said that the minimum number of vehicles required to maintain a general haulage service is a difficult matter of opinion. Without attempting to make nice calculations of less or more, I cannot see that the road haulage industry outside would be harmed, and I am sure the strain and difficulties of the Commission would be greatly relieved if the Government were now able to say "We will leave with you all the vehicles, including the parcels service, which you are now so successfully operating." My Lords, I apologise for having detained your Lordships for so long and for covering such a variety of points, but, as I said in my opening remarks, I think these periodical debates on a subject of such vast importance and interest, drive one unwillingly to cover far too many points in one short afternoon.
4.13 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will grant me the usual indulgence given to those who speak in your Lordships' House for the first time. I need not tell your Lordships what my feelings are at this moment, as I am sure that those of your Lordships who have already spoken in this House will remember only too vividly what their
122
feelings were like when they made their maiden speech. I should like to begin by referring to the Transport Commission's Report of 1954 and, at the outset, to congratulate the Commission on a clear and concise Report. However, I think I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact, as stated in paragraph 24 of the Report, that during the year under review there was a decrease of 3 per cent. in the amount of freight carried, as compared with 1953. It is about the carriage of freight, especially long-distance freight, by rail, that I wish to speak, since I feel that the freight system of our railways to-day is the weakest link, although, from a national point of view, it should be the strongest.
I know that it is easy to criticise, but I wish to attempt something perhaps not quite so easy. That is, with all humility, to offer some constructive criticism, in the hope that it may be useful not only to the Transport Commission but also to Her Majesty's Government. We all know that during two great wars the railways were hard used, with the result that the Transport Commission are now only just catching up on arrears of maintenance. However, the Commission now have "the green light" from Her Majesty's Government, and it is up to them, like any other trading organisation, to go ahead and give their customers, the general public, what they want. I am sure that your Lordships are all in agreement that a first-class system of moving freight by rail is of paramount importance. I therefore hope that what I have to say will not be too controversial, though I realise that I shall probably have to attempt to handle the porcupine without disturbing its quills.
May I now give your Lordships some figures to illustrate how freight is carried in this country to-day. Working on a ton-mileage basis (which I maintain is the only reasonable method of comparing the carriage of freight), 43 per cent. of the freight goes by road, 37 per cent. by rail, and the remainder by coastal shipping. I think this illustrates that too little freight is going by rail and, conversely, that too much is going by road, thereby adding to our already over-congested roads. This is because the present system of moving freight by rail is outdated and slow; also it is the present practice of industry and retailers alike

123
to keep small stocks. This means that, when an article is wanted, it is usually wanted urgently, with the result that the railways, unlike the road services, are not in a position to give this quick delivery, except by passenger service, which in the majority of cases is far too expensive.
My Lords there are two essentials in moving freight by rail: the first is speed, and the second is a schedule of services which should be available to the public. I say "a schedule of services," because the receiver of goods must know when his goods are going to arrive. With the present system, the consignee does not know the time of arrival of his goods; nor does he know the date of arrival of the goods. This compares most unfavourably with the road services, where at least the consignee can usually find out the date of arrival of his goods. I maintain that a new system of moving freight by rail must be evolved, and I suggest that in this system there should be a degree of co-ordination and integration between road and rail, and that all unnecessary handling of goods should be cut out. This will produce speed, and it will also conserve manpower. To achieve this, I suggest that fully laden lorries should be moved by rail as well as by road. Your Lordships may remember that during the last war many Service vehicles fully laden were successfully moved by rail, as well as by road. If this practice was successful then, I do not see why it should not be even more successful to-day. I would also advocate that the present system of moving goods by containers and pallets should be gradually developed.
I should now like to give your Lordships a few examples of how I consider these systems should work. I will take first the moving of lorries by rail as well as by road. The lorries of the British Transport Commission would collect goods from a certain area; they would then be driven direct to the railhead, which, in the case of large towns, could be sited outside the town, so that it would cause the minimum amount of congestion and would be less vulnerable in the event of war. On arrival at the railhead the lorries would be checked and marshalled into train loads before being driven to loading banks where they would be loaded on to low-loading flat railway wagons. The railway wagons would have end flaps to let down, so
124
as to bridge the gap between the wagons. In this way lorries could be driven across the railway wagons so that the train could be loaded from front to rear. Once the drivers had secured their lorries on the railway wagons they would then return to the local Transport Commission depôt.
The train would be an express goods train, capable of high speed and averaging not less than fifty miles an hour. For this purpose it would be necessary for all wagons to be fitted with continuous brakes. The train would be scheduled in a timetable on sale to the general public so that the consignor of goods could notify the consignee of the exact time of arrival at railhead of the goods. It would be an essential factor in this service that trains should run to time. On arrival at railhead the train, or part-train, would be met by a pool of drivers from local Transport Commission depôts. The drivers would check the lorries, then drive them direct to the consignee; part-loads would be driven to the local depôt for sorting. I sec no reason why this system should not be made available to the private haulier. The only difficulty might be that the private haulier would probably want his drivers to accompany the lorries. In that case a carriage would have to be attached to the train to accommodate those drivers. This system might appeal to the private haulier for we all know that long-distance haulage is a very wearisome business for the driver, apart from the element of risk and uncertainty through accidents and mechanical breakdown.
My second system would cover the movement of goods by the existing container and pallet systems. Containers are used for moving a variety of goods from door to door by road and rail. There are various types of containers—insulated, for moving refrigerated goods; others for moving perishable goods and types for moving goods in bulk. The great advantage of the container system, apart from eliminating unnecessary handling of goods, is that containers can be sealed, which should reduce pilfering to a minimum. Bricks are one example of the goods which can be carried by the container system. Bricks can be loaded into a container at the factory and delivered direct to the building site without being touched on the way. To illustrate

125
the expansion of the container system I need only quote two figures. In 1938 there were 15,511 containers available; in 1954 the number was 32,403. Akin to this system is the pallet system of moving goods. Pallets are used mainly for moving goods from factory to shop. As your Lordships will know, pallets are flat platforms on to which goods are loaded. They are then manœuvred into position for loading and unloading by mobile fork-lifts. It is an essential part of these services that adequate mechanical means for handling containers and pallets should be available at railhead.
One further brief point: having been elected to your Lordships' House in what I might call a truly democratic manner, I should like to attempt to do some justice to my Scottish electors. For this purpose I should like to take your lordships to Scotland for a moment, not to look for that winged grouse last seen going over the crest of a hill but to examine a point in connection with the Firth of Forth ferry service. Whilst we welcome the statement, made on page 173 of the Report, that the piers at North and South Oueensferry are being improved, and that an extra ferry-boat is to be added to the service, facts must be faced. No ferry-boat is, or can be, made suitable for carrying large lorries, such as six- or eight-wheeled vehicles. Even to load four-wheeled lorries on to a ferry-boat is as awkward as trying to put bulls into a china shop. With the industrialisation of Fife there will be more articulated lorries plying north and south of the Firth of Forth, with the result that the present system will be further adversely affected. The present improvements being effected to the Firth of Forth ferry service by the Transport Commission do not get to the cause of the trouble. I know that no system can be ended abruptly, just like a rabbit's tail. I would ask, however, that the present system should fade away as quickly as the sun goes down on a winter's evening and that, in the meantime, the Transport Commission should concentrate on bringing up to date their existing equipment, which will be of use in the system which I have just outlined.
To sum up, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise that the present Firth of Forth ferry system is to-day becoming totally inadequate and that, if the Transport Commission are not to go on wasting money, a road bridge or tunnel must be
126
constructed just as soon as it becomes within the resources of the nation to do so. I would also ask the Transport Commission to give their railway freight system that new look which it so urgently requires, so that operating costs may be reduced. This should lead to reduced charges and, later, to increased traffic. It is my fervent hope that the British Transport Commission will be among the first to start reducing charges instead of carrying on with the now familiar and distasteful medicine of increasing charges.
4.29 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, it is now my privilege and pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on an excellent, knowledgeable and well-argued maiden speech. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that the Scottish democratic system has worked extremely well in this Election and we hope to hear a good deal more from the noble Lord. Not because of any reference to the spines or quills of the porcupine would I venture to criticise what the noble Lord has said—obviously, one does not do that in replying to a maiden speech—but I can tell the noble Lord this from my own experience in the railway service. He has spoken of people constantly knowing at what time traffic would arrive by rail. I can tell him that that usually happens with a regular flow of traffic. For instance, in the heyday of the export trade in cottons from Manchester through the London docks, at the station where I was employed we knew what train that traffic would arrive by, and though it is forty years ago I still remember the time of that train—it was the 10.23 a.m. And so careful were we to see that the necessary documents were forthcoming, that we would not trust to the Post Office to deliver invoices: copies of the invoices accompanied the goods. A later instance relates to the Aberdeen fish train, which used to arrive at Broad Street at a time when your Lordships would be, or should be, in bed—that is to say, in the early hours of the morning. And the fish was in the fish market by 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. That was pretty good going. There were one or two other points in the noble Lord's most interesting speech which I could deal with, but I will not attempt to do so now.
In the long and chequered history of our railway industry, it is, I think, only fair to say that the railways have been

127
hampered. They have been hamstrung by ignorant legislators and by the rapacity of landlords and lawyers who piled up a heavy capital debit for the railways, responsibility for which has still to be borne to-day. Factors such as these helped to give us a railway system which if it were possible for us to plan to-day would be developed on different lines. But we have to take the situation as it is and make the best of it—except that I would say that the time is rapidly approaching when, in the interest of transport itself, there should be a searching inquiry into the question of transport capital, to see what should be the legitimate charge on the transport industry and what might be transferred to other quarters. I know of no other industry in this country which is subject to the criticism of such a large number of people who think that they could run the business better than it is run by those concerned. I do not know of any other industry which could be compared with the railway industry in that respect. In any railway carriage running on one of our suburban lines, you will hear these amateur railway men explaining in detail how much better they could run the railways than the railways are run by men who have devoted their lives to the task. Even to attempt to put these people right would require a day or more of one's time.
Sometimes, in regard to goods traffic, the fact is overlooked that the standard wagons of ten tons and twelve tons have been imposed on the railways by the nature of traffic which offered itself from British industry. Were other opportunities offered, things might be different. The old Great Western Railway Company, for example, was quite willing to make trucks of larger carrying capacity. And even to-day, when the transport industry is hampered, restricted and be-devilled by politics, no one knows what is the real future so far as the road transport still with the British Transport Commission is concerned. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, in his plea for the Transport Commission to retain the great organisation which had been built up under private enterprise.
I wish Her Majesty's Government would make up their minds about what they are going to do with regard to the inland waterways of this country. It is quite unfair that the British Transport
128
Commission, having itself conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the waterways, should not be allowed to dispose, in appropriate ways, of redundant pieces of waterway—canals which are no longer required. I should think that the appropriate river boards, with Government assistance, would be the bodies to take over the pieces which are not required. Again, something ought to be done, I think, to deal with the position which immediately arises when the Transport Commission wish to close a redundant branch line. Duties have been imposed on the Transport Commission to conduct their undertaking in accordance with good commercial principles, and no business man who wanted to keep out of Carey Street would carry on branches of a business which had ceased to be remunerative. But, as everyone knows, Members of Parliament are bombarded, and there is an outcry in the local Press and much local agitation when proposals for closing down are made known. People who have never travelled on a branch line, and never intend to, men who habitually travel by car, will join in the protest. Railways are regarded as quite legitimate sport in cases of that kind.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has referred to the putting out to contract of the construction of a number of diesel engines. I am not aware of the circumstances, but it may be that British Railways, or the railway undertakings of the past, never built diesel engines. I am not quite sure. But, at any rate, they did build ordinary railway locomotives in their shops, and I believe that the old London and North Western Railway made everything in their shops, from a wooden leg required by a man who had lost his leg in a railway accident up to locomotives. Therefore I would suggest that the question of putting the making of these engines out to tender is a matter for the Transport Commission to deal with in the best way. All the time, at the back of my mind there is the view that in this post-war period the railways of this country have not been treated fairly. They have been left to get on as best they could, starved for capital, and subjected to a public outcry if they do not immediately reach a very high standard. While I agree that there may be some delay in carrying out this modernisation plan, I would plead for care and consideration so that mistakes are not made

129
like the mistakes forced on the railways in years gone by. I believe that in regard to modernisation the railways are taking into account the best informed engineering opinion they can get, and I know that they will make the best possible use of that opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made the comment that the railways have not yet attempted anything in the nature of automatic train control. I think I am correct in saying that on the Western Region at the moment a method of automatic control is being worked.
I was interested to see that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has become converted to the idea of industrial unionism. He said that there were two trade unions in the railway service. There happens to be three large unions—the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association, which used to be the Railway Clerks' Association; and of course there is a host of craft unions in the workshops. I wonder what the noble Viscount would say if there were one union for the whole of the Civil Service, from the administrative grades right down to the office cleaner. There is the obvious argument that it would be better to deal with one union, but the point is that small, or even large, minorities with special skills feel that their interests are not always properly safeguarded in a large industrial union. It would be hopeless to attempt to go into the reasons why trade unions in this country have grown up in a haphazard and, if you like, unsystematic manner, but they are typically British in that respect.
I should like to say a final word to the Transport Commission and to the railway unions. I know that the primary purpose of a trade union is to maintain and improve the standard of living of its members, but I suggest that trade unionism to-day, particularly in the nationalised industries, should be moving away from that idea, though it must never be lost sight of, and should be developing a different outlook, regarding themselves as partners in a great industry serving the public. To do that, a spirit of understanding is required on the trade union side and on the management side as well. I know that on paper we can demonstrate that there is an excellent system of consultation from the departmental committee right up to the top, but I am con-
130
vinced that that machinery requires a new spirit infused into it. I believe that there is a latent fund of good will and a desire to co-operate among many of the older men in the railway service, and that if that spirit of mutual co-operation and understanding could be developed it would help many of the problems which are arising, because the younger men in the railway service do not always seem to be imbued by the old ideas which some of us in the railway service felt to be in our blood.
In the old days men developed a love of and loyalty to their service. To a large extent that is missing to-day and nothing has come in to replace effectively the old affection and understanding which existed in the days when I was an active railwayman. We had our rows, like all families, but when we met we argued our differences across the table and always parted good friends. So I would say that we might have the finest of modernisation schemes worked out, but until the men and women working on the railways are brought into conscious co-operation with that new machinery, things will not go well. My appeal is to both the railway unions and the Transport Commission, from the top to the bottom to try to get that new spirit into the railway industry, that spirit of service to the community as a whole.
4.48 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships for only a short time. I start by congratulating the Transport Commission on the admirable way in which their Report has been produced: I think it is clear and effective. One thing we do not often see in your Lordships' House is the special edition of the Report, produced by the Transport Commission for circulation to all men. It is an admirable document, much smaller than this, not too long or burdened with a great many statistics, yet it contains a great many of the attractive features of the full Report.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said about the need for better co-operation between all grades in the railway industry. I am sure the noble Lord was correct when he said that we shall never get what we really want until there is a better understanding and until more trouble is taken to see that the men, in all grades, understand what the

131
management are trying to do. I think that effort is being made. Of course in these days of full employment it is extremely difficult to get men to serve the railways in any dirty job. There are plenty of people who will sit by the fire in the porters' waiting room, but very few who will work on the permanent way. The shortage of labour on the railways is very serious and is affecting the efficient operating of the railways. I think the railway unions might show a little more willingness to assist in recruiting, even foreign labour, if it is available, to work on the railways, certainly on the permanent way.
I should like to add, from this side of the House, my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for his admirable maiden speech and for bringing to the attention of your Lordships the difficulties of handling goods unless all modern contrivances are used. In the old days of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway the large sum—at least, I thought it was a large sum—of £25,000 was offered to any engineer who could design a lorry with an engine which would haul itself on to the vehicle on the rail, to save travelling from one end of the train to another, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. That reward was offered; many people put in schemes, but not one of them, so far as I know, was practical, and nearly all involved the use of a crane or something of that sort. What is necessary nowadays is that the design of road vehicles should be, as the noble Lord said, of the type that we had to evolve during the war, which enables them to be carried on a low-loading wagon. But if that is done it must be remembered that the loading gauge of British Railways, both for tunnels and stations, restricts very considerably the operation of vehicles carrying existing loads. There is no doubt that some further move in that direction can be made.
I want to deal with two points that I feel are important, because we do not want to go from one period to another and always be late for the developments of each of those periods. I know that the Transport Commission are actively engaged on this matter, but it is as well that your Lordships should realise that, although we are, necessarily, spending large sums of money on dieselisation, in
132
my opinion, long before the last diesel is delivered we shall be in the nuclear age and shall have nuclear power stations operating. Seven years from now, in 1962, there will be probably four nuclear energy stations in practical operation. Their siting, of course, will depend on various things. It is of the greatest importance to realise that seven years is not a long time in which to place orders for the new rolling stock that will be necessary for intensifying the electrification of railways in the United Kingdom. It takes a long time to get delivery of this sort of vehicle.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, mentioned, one of the greatest developments recently has been the work done on the French Railways to utilise A.C. and D.C. in a different way from that usually adopted. This method enables much higher speeds to be attained; it is much cheaper to operate, and I believe it involves, not the third-rail system but the overhead wire system. That saves a great deal of trouble, but it means that the equipment of the electric locomotives has to be of a dual character if a particular train has to operate by drawing current from the third rail or from the central wire. Many of your Lordships will have seen the developments in France and Switzerland. We have to remember that hydro-electric power is much more readily available in those countries than it is here, although great steps are being taken by the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board. But there again millions are being spent, and before the last project that has just been approved is carried out, one of these nuclear energy stations will be capable of providing current even more cheaply than by hydro-electric power. In 1975 few of us in this House will still be alive, but I think it is worth recording that the complete change over to electrification will be a practical possibility, utilising not only the power that can be derived from coal and from hydro-electric schemes but an ever-increasing amount from nuclear energy. By that time breeder stations may have been evolved; and that will mark the beginning of an epoch which will make a complete change in the operation of transport in this country.
The other matter with which I wish to deal concerns the Disposals Board. I think that we all feel that the railways are already burdened enough without having more burdens put upon them, and

133
I do not think the Disposals Board are likely to give any further assistance to the transport of the country. It is always puzzling to me to understand the whims of Party politics. Frankly, I do not understand them, but they have a disastrous effect, especially on the transport industry. Each political Party has its own particular remedies and attempts to apply them whenever it is in office. The consequence is that the unfortunate railwayman is perpetually having to readjust himself completely to try to carry out the new political ideal.
With regard to road hauliers, when this matter came up in another place (I was then a Member of the other place) we did our best in order to provide the Transport Commission with an adequate number of vehicles to operate transport in this country in an efficient way, looking upon transport as something which was one and indivisible, which indeed it ought to be. The argument that the hauliers must come in to give competition was quite a feasible argument, up to a point. But surely it has now been tried long enough. The vehicles that are available are all getting very long in the tooth, and many of them have been completely re-built. And if your Lordships read or follow the proceedings of the Disposals Board you will realise that even members of that Board are not very optimistic about their ability to carry their business any further forward to the advantage of the taxpayers.
We are told by the Treasury that everybody has got to be "squeezed"—except, of course, the Government, who are spending money lavishly on all sorts of schemes—and it seems to me quite fantastic that this Disposals Board should be allowed to continue, because I do not believe that advantage has been taken of that scheme to enable road hauliers to obtain the sort of vehicles they want. I do not believe that it is practical politics. In studying the paragraphs in this Report dealing with the road services, and reading between the lines, one sees not only the large sums of money that have been thrown away because we have not had the advantage of linking road services with rail, but the further sums that have been wasted—as, in fact, they have been wasted—through the endeavours of the Disposals Board to sell vehicles that people do not want to buy.
I do not believe that at this time it is justifiable in any way to stand between
134
the Transport Commission and their frequently expressed desire, which I am thankful has now been supported by the Minister of Transport. Although there are in another place certain people who are still opposing the idea, I trust that the Minister will stand absolutely firm and will endeavour to work out with the Transport Commission a scheme; because everybody engaged in transport, without exception, realises that that is the only means of getting an efficient transport system in this country without considerable waste of money. That is a matter which I believe is of such importance that the House ought to know the views of the British Transport Commission on it. I think it has been stated quite clearly that they cannot bring the road services back to a condition of efficiency unless they are permitted to retain those vehicles and see that no further vehicles are sold.
5.0 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am going to deal with only one aspect of this country's transport to-day, but before doing so I should like to join with other noble Lords in giving my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes—I am sorry he is no longer here to receive it—for his extremely able and convincing maiden speech. My own maiden speech is not so far back that I can forget what a terrifying experience it was, but I gather from the way in which the noble Lord made his that he did not find it so.
I want to confine myself solely to the canals and inland waterways. I have been studying both what is said about that subject by the Transport Commission's Report and the Report of the Board of Survey, made in 1955. On reading these Reports, the general impression I have is that canals as a whole, or, shall we say, taking them on an average, are a decadent and rather outmoded means of transport, and a financial burden on the country. I must confess that my view is entirely the opposite. I do not by any means hold that there are not some canals which are quite useless and which should be disposed of, but I feel that there are a great many which have been considered only suitable for disposal but of which a great deal of use could be made. The Board of Survey have classed them under three headings: those which are to be developed, which cover 336 miles; those which are to be maintained, which

135
cover 994 miles; and those which are no longer considered as suitable for transport, which cover 771 miles.
Speaking of canals generally, I feel that, without unreasonable expenditure, a great many of them could be made a valuable means of transport and a useful way of easing the ever-increasing and ever more menacing congestion on the roads to-day. There is the old argument that canal transport is slow, but, even if it is slow, I do not think that in some cases one could say that it is slower or anything like as slow as rail transport, where a truck may lie in a siding for something like ten days. Also canal transport is steady, and that is a desirable thing. A steady delivery of goods is for many industries a much more useful thing than a large delivery in bulk, followed by an interval of some weeks.
In looking back at the history of the canals, I must confess that I find a surprising statement in the historical background which the Board of Survey have given. They seem to imply that during the nineteenth century, at the time when the railways arrived, the canals were steadily falling into decadence and that the railways, in order to support them during their last years, bought them over. I hardly think that any business concern, however altruistic its outlook, would be quite so foolish as to buy up a rival concern during its last tottering years, when it was dying a natural death in any case, just to support it until it died. No, the obvious reason why the railways bought up the canals was that they considered them a very serious competitor. Of course, once they had bought them up, the railways did what was in their own interests—namely, they let the canals fall into decadence; and that, of course, is the unhappy state in which they arrived into the hands of the British Transport Commission.
I will take as an example one particular canal, not because it is in any way unique but because it is typical of many others. It is one which has been discussed, I believe, quite a good deal lately—the Kennet and Avon Canal. I happen to live quite close to that canal, so I have had an opportunity to inspect a good length of it. I must say that it is in rather an unhappy state. Except for a short length of it near Bristol, it has been
136
classed in Group 3—those which are to be abandoned. The Kennet and Avon Canal provides a through route for water traffic from London to Bristol which, I feel, is of great commercial advantage. After leaving the Thames at Reading, it does not pass through any important commercial centres until it arrives at Bristol, with the exception possibly of Bath; but it does go through a large area of agricultural land, grain-growing land. As such, I think it might be of great use to the farmers, not for perishable goods, of course, because the transport would be too slow, but for the transport of grain, farming machinery and other things.
A NOBLE LORD: And coal.
LORD SOMERS: Coal, too, indeed. The figure given by the Transport Commission for the restoration of this canal to a condition where it could be used for navigation is £700,000. I happened to see in The Times of December 2 an article which mentioned another estimate, I gather by somebody who knew something about the subject, which is very different indeed—only £250,000. In view of the great discrepancy between those figures, I feel that before condemning the canal to its final death there should at least be a public inquiry into the matter, to find out whether the canal is of use and whether it is possible to put it on a working basis again or not.
The question is: would this expenditure be justified? An experienced manager of warehousing and shipping has estimated that warehousing and storage alone would bring in £40,000 a year, with the existing facilities as they are. Naturally, in time those facilities would be expected to expand and so bring in more. Potential traffic for the year would include £10,000 wood pulp, £10,000 timber, and £200,000 stone from the Mendips. That is important. The canal, even in its present state—that is to say, provided that it was dredged and restored to its proper condition—would take motor-driven craft of 80 tons. I do not feel that the restoration would necessarily require the sealing of the banks. After all, rivers do not need that, and I cannot see why the wash of motor traffic craft, travelling at the speed at which barges would go, would necessarily require the scaling of the banks. I think the natural banks would be perfectly satisfactory. The

137
necessary annual revenue to make this a paying proposition has been estimated at something like £92,000 a year and from the figures I have mentioned it seems to me that this would be easily achieved. In view of all the figures that I have quoted to your Lordships, I think the Transport Commission are turning rather a blind eye to a valuable source of transport and, as I have already said, a useful way of getting traffic off the roads, which is something we all want to do. Even if it did not do it directly it would do it indirectly by easing rail traffic and so providing more rail transport for that which at present goes by road.
I come now to another point. Even if the arguments that I have produced do not sound convincing to the Transport Commission what are their responsibilities towards this canal and, as I have already said, to others in a similar condition? A few days ago I walked along a short length of it. In many ways it is in a poor state. The water level has been allowed to fall in some cases to a depth of no more than eighteen inches. The canal is used as a means of drainage for the population all around. If the water level is allowed to fall to a depth like that, it is obvious that before long it will prove a serious menace to health and hygiene. It seems to me that the Transport Commission's responsibilities towards the canal, even if they do not put it back into working order, must include the maintenance of the water level. When one takes over a property, one naturally has responsibilities towards it. If one buys a house which is likely to fall to the ground and kill those who are walking by it, one is bound, legally, to do one of two things: either demolish it altogether or put it into proper repair. It seems to me that the Transport Commission are here faced with the same problem: either they must put the canal back into working condition or they must maintain the water level. They must not allow it to go into decadence and so prove a great menace to the health of the population.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in opening this debate this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth spoke of British Railways working in what he might have described as a statutory straitjacket because, under the terms of the Act, they were unable to enjoy the
138
commercial freedom that was necessary if they were to discharge their proper duties. That applies not only to the railways side of the British Transport Commission but also to the side to which I should like to confine myself this evening; the British waterways. Other noble Lords this afternoon have expressed the hope that some decisions would be come to and sonic finality be reached, and that canals would be enabled to play their full part in the transport system of the country. That is a hope which I am sure is shared by everybody.
It is for that reason that I regret very much that an eight months' delay has taken place without any sign from Her Majesty's Government of action or decision since the issue of the Report of the Board of Survey on the British Transport Commissions' Waterways, which has been referred to by other noble Lords. That Board was set up, at the suggestion of the Minister, by the Chairman of the Transport Commission. It consisted of one member of the Commission as chairman and two independent members. It published its Report and, as your Lordships will have heard, its main recommendation was that the Transport Commission should be allowed to concentrate on those waterway routes which were of real value as part of the transport system. Following up this recommendation the Board divided the waterways into three categories. The first, your Lordships will remember, comprised waterways to be developed and modernised to the maximum. The second category were those to be retained in the hope that they would prove of more use for transport than they had proved hitherto. The third were classed as waterways having insufficient commercial prospects to justify their retention for navigation.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention first to these group one waterways because it seems to me that all public attention is being concentrated now on the least important waterways, the ones that have ceased to play a part in the national transport system, whereas we ought to be thinking of the really active ones where the Transport Commission are having great success in expanding traffic and which are playing a part in the economic system of the country. Which are they? We have the North-Eastern and Yorkshire waterways, serving the Humber, including the

139
River Trent; we have the River Severn, in the South West; we have parts of the Grand Union Canal and the River Lea, serving the Port of London; and the River Weaver, serving the Mersey. Those are the waterways on which a surplus of £300,000 was earned in 1953. They carried over 10 million tons of cargo, which is 85 per cent. of the total tonnage carried on inland waters in this country. Can there be any doubt that the Commission should concentrate on those waterways? They carry millions of tons of coal and oil, so relieving the congestion on the roads. There is the unique system of coal-carrying on the Aire and Calder Canal, which made a handsome profit—the system whereby coal is carried in trains of boats capable of being lifted up and tipped like ordinary railway wagons. That is where the profit and benefit lie to the economy of the country as a whole. So, by any standards, I cannot understand how Her Majesty's Government hesitate to endorse a recommendation of that sort.
The second category is something very different, because many of the canals are narrow and inherently uneconomic; they have not been successful in maintaining the traffic. Whereas the canals in group one have mostly increased traffic, those in group two have almost all lost traffic in six years. These are such important waterways—the ones crossing England, such as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, the Trent and Mersey, the Grand Union, going right up to the Midlands, and the complex system of canals round Birmingham, the Shropshire Union and the River Avon, which forms part of the Kennet and Avon. Those canals carried 2¼ million tons of cargo, yet they made a net deficit of £150,000; so one might say that it was almost on the basis of probation that the Board recommended their maintenance. It would not be justifiable to spend a lot of public money on modernising or enlarging these canals, because many of them do not serve the purpose that they did when they were built.
Finally, there are the group 3 canals, the 700 miles of waterway which have cost £200,000 a year—a dead loss to the Commission. Of course, if this loss were removed from the Commission, they would show a handsome surplus over the
140
whole year on their canal owning. The noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers, spoke about the Kennet and Avon, and he quoted a number of figures from an article which appeared in The Times. Perhaps he did not see a subsequent issue of The Times, in which I took the opportunity of casting some doubt on the figures that were quoted in the original article. The Board of Survey were businessmen, actuated by no motive other than to examine the waterways system, and to make the best recommendations for its future. They invited evidence from a number of bodies representing trade, industry, the waterway industry itself, the Electricity Authority and a number of others, all of which are listed. The great majority of those whose lives have been spent in transport, particularly in waterway transport, were convinced that the recommendations of the Board of Survey were correct. There were some dissenting voices, but they were not those of the experienced and expert people.
What is the business of the Transport Commission but to provide transport services for the country? On a matter of transport, I would take the opinion of those most versed and experienced in the business. In default of some definite evidence that there is a given quantity of traffic waiting to be carried on certain routes, in certain quantities, to certain destinations, and without having that evidence almost in the form of an advance contract, I should be most hesitant to accept anything other than the recommendations of the Board. Still more should I be hesitant to invest a lot of money, on the chance that the traffic might be there when the canal was restored. I think we must take the opinion of those who know the subject, and also that of the users. Let us not forget that the Transport Users Consultative Committee have also expressed complete approval of the recommendations of the Board.
My Lords, there are two problems arising out of the Report of the Board. The first, I have already dealt with: should we allow the Commission to develop, modernise and enlarge certain of their canals and their navigable rivers? The second problem is: what shall be done with those for which there is no present-day transport use? I say again in regard to the first problem that I cannot

141
understand why Her Majesty's Government hesitate to endorse this view. It is not a new idea. The same idea has been put forward by every single major Government inquiry in the last fifty years—namely, that certain waterways are of use in the modern world and, naturally, that the others are of less use or are of no use at all. It is not as if there were anything revolutionary about this proposal. The Royal Commission on Transport in 1931, the Chamberlain Committee, in 1921, and the Royal Commission on Canals, in 1906, all said that in the twentieth century world only certain waterway routes are of value, and they are the ones upon which concentration should be centred. No doubt circumstances and other Governments are to blame that nothing has yet happened during this century to deal with the canals; but surely Her Majesty's present Government should act on the advice that the Transport Commission have now received.
The second matter that arises from the Report is not one of transport but one of amenity. We should all like to keep all the amenities that we can in this country, and in my view the canals have a high place among those amenities. I have travelled some 1,200 to 1,500 miles over them, and there is nothing I should like better than to see all these waterways kept for pleasure cruising—the Kennet and Avon included. But who is going to pay? It is clearly not a question of transport to allow holiday makers to cruise wherever they like. It would he delightful, but the cost should not fall on the transport interests: it should be borne by the pleasure-boat owners themselves or by the local interests who will benefit by the presence of tourists. There is nothing that I should like better than to see all of the Kennet and Avon kept open, including the Summit Pound and that remarkable monument of engineering, the pumping engine built in 1796, which is still the only source of supply of water to the summit above Savernake.
Apart from the pleasure boating side there are other questions of amenity. Undoubtedly, these canals and bridges, aqueducts and so on, are a feature of rural England and it would be a great pity to lose them. Moreover, there are the towpaths, which at present are not a right of way. But in 1947 the Hobhouse Committee on National Parks threw out the suggestion that if all canal towpaths were
142
made into public rights of way it would add a tremendous system of long-distance footpaths to the amenities of the country. Some of these waterways are in, or very close to, national parks—for instance, those at Brecon, in Abergavenny, in the Peak Forest, and near the Yorkshire Dales. All those would be adjuncts to national parks which would be of enormous value. Wherever there is a town, small or large, the addition of pleasure-boating facilities, even over only short lengths, would be of benefit to local inhabitants. Some towns I have seen have been enterprising in this respect, but a great many have not; they have neglected the facilities at their doors. For all those amenity reasons we should treat these waterways like any other amenity that we like and want and are prepared to pay for—public parks, public libraries and other things—for they are an addition to the total sum of the amenities of the people of this country. We should decide how much we are prepared to pay for that amenity and which authority is to maintain and operate it for that purpose; and we should decide, also how the money is to be raised, whether locally or as a subsidy from the Central Government.
Canals perform two further functions. One is water supply. Numerous parties, industries, or private residents, possess water rights, some dating back centuries, which cannot be extinguished. Water must therefore continue to run in these canals. Then, the land drainage question arises. The noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers was perhaps confusing that question with urban sewage disposal. This is a matter of carrying surplus water off the land and has nothing to do with health.
LORD SOMERS: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, I was referring to urban drainage. I believe that this applies in this particular canal at Pewsey.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, though I am not well versed in local government, I should be very surprised if sewage were ever allowed to flow into a watercourse in this country. These two functions, land drainage and water supply, are essential for the countryside; and for that reason, if no other canals will not be filled in wholesale, as suggested by a great many people, for they have to be maintained with water flowing in them. But who is to carry out those functions?

143
A Report was submitted five years ago, upon which, last week, I asked a Question. That land drainage sub-committee gave as their opinion that on the whole the river boards were the bodies most suited to take over these functions; but, as was to be expected, there was a great deal of disagreement and no doubt other local authorities had something to say on the subject. I repeat what I then said in a supplementary question: that, however divergent opinions might be, I should not regard five years as an unreasonable time in which to expect Her Majesty's Government to come to a decision. I hope that on that question, as on the question of concentration on important waterways, Her Majesty's Government will shortly come to a decision. Not only the Transport Commission but all the members of its staff, traders and potential traders, and others who might provide traffic, are in a state of complete uncertainty; and until a lead is given by Her Majesty's Government there will be no development in this small but not unimportant branch of the transport industry.
5.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like at the outset warmly to congratulate, as a number of your Lordships have already done, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on his maiden speech to-day. He speaks with that authority and real knowledge of his subject which this House always enjoys; and, for myself, I can say that he has given me great fortitude in thinking that I cast my vote in the right way at the last Election.
This is a difficult debate to which to reply because it is couched in the widest possible terms and it has gone into some extremely fine detail. It is not easy for me within reasonable compass to do justice to a number of the very important questions which have been brought up. We must remember the broad general position of transport in the country to-day. I suppose that the characteristic of the twentieth century, as compared with any other, is the great technical change. There has never been a century in which change has taken place more quickly and more formidably. Yet in the field of transport that change has gone almost hand in hand with capital starvation. All the way through there seems
144
to have been starvation of capital investment in transport of all kinds at a time when rapid change was taking place. It is very much against that background that we must view what is to be done to meet modern requirements.
Your Lordships probably recognise that for some twelve or thirteen years, from 1939 to 1951, there was a complete stoppage of all capital development. Now some noble Lords say, "We want all this development carried out very quickly." I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and some other noble Lords would be the first to complain if the Transport Commission took a quick decision and made a mistake which they subsequently had to regret. Taking the Motion as it stands, I would only say that the road programme announced in February stands unaltered by any budgetary provision, and I very much hope that that programme will be shown to be more considerable in effect than was, perhaps, at first thought. It is right that we should realise that this is the third major revolution in the organisation of the railways over the last thirty-five years. There were the amalgamations in 1921, there was nationalisation in 1947 and now we come to the development of the 1953–54 era, now taking place.
In this last there are three factors: first, freedom of the railways to organise their affairs on a competitive basis. Here I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that he is not quite right in saying that these freedoms took effect immediately upon the passage of the 1953 Act. Certain matters, like equalisation of charges and discrimination, took effect from that time; but the general and most important regulations enabling the railways to be quite free as to their charges, subject only to a maximum, will take effect only when the new freight charges scheme goes into effect. It is true to say, therefore, that the full benefits of that freedom are not yet available to the British Transport Commission as a whole.
The second factor in the present stage is decentralisation in the Regions, including the appointment of the area boards. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, speak on that, for, whatever may be one's views on this point, no one who is interested in railways can but be filled with a sense of

145
pleasure at the quality of the men who have accepted appointments in the area boards throughout the country. That goes to show the profound interest which the railways naturally and properly hold among many people at this present time. They are seeking (and I say this especially to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth) to set a keener commercial sense in the area and region of the board. I think anyone reading the new directive to the Eastern Region must realise the importance which they are attaching to personal relations—not only relations with the staff but also relations with the general public—which I suggest is a matter of very real importance.
The third point about development is the emphasis on capital development. Some people appear to have formed an impression that major technical development in the railways has more or less come to an end. Lord Hurcomb, who, if I may say so, knows more about this subject than any of us, very rightly talked about a revolution in the technique of railway management—or words to that effect. I think it is true to say that technical development on the railways holds out greater possibilities than technical development on the roads. I say that deliberately. I think it is of tremendous importance that the younger people to-day should appreciate the importance of possible developments on the railways. If any of your Lordships feels inclined to doubt that, I would ask him to think for one moment of the question of discipline. Where there is higher discipline, clearly there are opportunities for better technical development, such as the development of automatic signalling and things of that kind. I think it is for that reason that railways hold possibilities of development of a very far-reaching character.
I believe it is also true to say that, in its proper sphere and under proper conditions, the movement of passengers and freight can be cheaper on the railways than ever it can be on the road. I do not say it is true, but I am given to understand by those who can speak with authority that the cost of a loaded freight train can be less than a halfpenny per ton-mile, which I understand is a figure never likely to be reached in road traffic. I have used the word "proper" to indicate that the railways must concen-
146
trate on the right traffic. To use the railways for transporting odd loads, small quantities in erratic trickles of goods and passengers, is to use them not for the right purposes but for the wrong purposes. The true economic value of the railways will never be realised so long as that is done.
If I may, I will carry that one step further. Your Lordships have asked for a statement on long-term finance. We have to make up our minds whether we want the railways to be competitive or to carry other burdens, possibly of a social character. I believe it is extremely important that that should be clearly before our minds. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said he wanted the railways to be competitive. That is what I think we are coming to more and more. More and more we are realising that the railways must be competitive, if they are to fulfil any economic purpose. That means that those parts which are completely uneconomic have to be cut out. It means that any duplication of services with a demand which perhaps does not justify either service, must be dealt with by the cutting out of one of the services. I am quite certain that in that way, and in that way only, can our railways be made selfsupporting. And may I say, at this stage, how glad I was to hear Lord Hurcomb emphasising that point. It is not the wish of the Government that there should be subsidisation of the railways, and I am sure that it is the wish of the Commission that they should stand independently and not have to rely upon any form of Government finance. In these circumstances, it means that progressively we shall have to eliminate uneconomic services. It means that we shall have to cut out those services which are not sufficiently popular to take anything like enough traffic to justify their continuance. It means, of course, that branch lines where there is just not enough traffic will have to be closed. It means that slow trains which stop at every station will have to be abolished. It means that the railways will have to concentrate on long-distance traffic and on high-frequency, short-distance traffic. In France this fact is fully realised, and I am given to understand that they have already closed about one-quarter of their system of passenger traffic. They have done that in spite of a subsidy of upwards of £100 million a year. Very much the same

147
thing is being done in the United States of America.
I should like to underline this point by reference to a speech made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport last July. My right honourable friend quoted from an American journal which said:
"The disappearance of the branch line and a large part of local trains is only a matter of years."
I know that what I am saying is highly unpopular. I know that changes of this kind will be extremely unpopular when it is learned in many parts of the country that they are to be made. I want to emphasise that where it is possible to use diesels as an alternative system to steam, that will he done. But I must emphasise that their adoption is limited by the high utilisation which is essential if the best use is to be made of a diesel engine. These matters are always referred to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, and the greatest care is taken to ensure that any inconvenience is mitigated by the provision, so far as possible, of alternative transport. None the less, I think it must be frankly recognised that the railways have got to close down some substantial part of their present system and concentrate on those services which they can run most economically. I think we must recognise that there is here a very sharp division between local interests and long-term rail interests. In the matter of essential transport services in this country, there is inevitably a conflict of interests, and we must all recognise that we are living to-day on a pretty narrow edge and that the welfare of our transport services goes to the roots of the sound economics of this country.
I now wish to refer to one other side which I believe is an essential element to the modernisation plan. The British Transport Commission is probably the largest single commercial and industrial organisation in the world—something like as big as General Motors or the Ford Corporation. It is essential that people of the first calibre should go into our railway industry. We take trouble to send our ablest young men to universities to get the best education we can give them, and it is essential that a fair percentage of those should find their way into British transport. I believe that
148
this is happening to some extent, but I am given to understand that there is both scope and need for a larger number of technical men and men who have the ability to become first-class organisers and administrators.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked for a progress report with regard to the modernisation scheme. The scheme has been going on only a short time, though it had some roots about twelve months ago. I think it is fair to say that progress is not unsatisfactory. I cannot endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, to the effect that the scheme is being unduly held up. Very big decisions have to be made. Early next year a two years' forecast will be published of the work which it is intended to carry out in 1956–57. It is still hoped that the whole programme will be put through in fifteen years. Among the difficulties that have been experienced are shortage of technical staff and shortage of steel and other materials. I really cannot agree, however, that a complete system of steel allocation to meet this requirement would be justified. We believe that the steel shortage will be caught up in due course.
As your Lordships will see from the Report, last year some 40,000 16-ton steel wagons were produced, and last May an order was placed for 120,000 wagons which will be delivered in 1957. I think that meets the point the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made about the standardisation of wagons at the present time. In regard to 24½-ton wagons, which the noble Lord is anxious to see more frequently used, we are held up by the limits of existing facilities for unloading at terminals of the National Coal Board and other big users. Until terminal facilities exist for the larger wagon it is no use increasing indefinitely the number of 24½-ton wagons. There was a good deal of pressure on the question of brakes. It is the policy to put brakes on all wagons in future. I hope that when the decision has been made as to the precise nature of that brake, that decision will include its use on every single new wagon next year.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean to tell us that there has been no decision made up to the present time upon what type of brake is to be used?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am indeed telling you that. I am not going into details, but I am certain that if there is any doubt about the best kind of brake to be used it illustrates the care with which the decision is being made. This problem occurs with regard not only to brakes but to other technical questions which arise: should we standardise what is best now or go on trying further? That is a very ordinary problem. I am not in a position, and I doubt whether the noble Lord is, to criticise the Transport Commission on this matter.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lord, the plan says that it was the vacuum type of brake and gives an estimate of the cost. I do not want to press the noble Earl unduly, because it may be necessary to reconsider this matter, but that was one of the respects in which the plan was definite.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I understand that the decision on this matter is to be made in the very near future. I am afraid I cannot claim any further knowledge, because it is a technical point about which the noble Lord knows far more than I do. I can say that 10 per cent. of the wagons at the present time are already fitted with continuous brakes. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, wanted some information about the number of express freight trains which are being used. I can tell him that this number is increasing. In the week ended March 27, 1955 (which, for some reason, appears to be a convenient date), there were 2,900 express freight trains, which was a substantial increase compared with the number in 1939. The average speed of these trains was 37 miles an hour.
I would inform the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that a large number of the recent orders for diesel locomotives have gone to outside contractors—in fact, 140 out of 170. Of course, this is no indication of their final decision, but I think it shows that the Transport Commission are willing to consider the capacity of outside interests and are fully aware of the specialised knowledge of the private contractor. What I can say, although not a great deal, indicates the success of these new methods of locomotion. For instance, in the West Riding of Yorkshire the new multiple unit diesel trains have proved extremely popular, and passenger bookings have
150
increased by something like 30 per cent. this year. Similar results have been shown in West Cumberland, where results for six months' operation have been almost twice as successful as had been expected. Next year the inter-city diesel service, betwen Glasgow and Edinburgh should be in operation, and in the following year there should be a similar express between Birmingham and Swansea. This is only the initial stage of the modernisation plan, but I think it shows progress. I think most noble Lords would agree that the main line coaches have been steadily improving over the last few years. So far the contracts for locomotives, freight and passenger rolling stock placed under the modernisation scheme amount to £45 million, which is a substantial figure.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that the Commission will submit their future electrification policy to the Minister in the very near future. I think the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, also referred to that point. Putting the plan in one word, it is utilisation—higher utilisation of locomotives, rolling stock and available manpower. I would explain this by saying that the new locomotives will give higher utilisation of locomotives because they can be refuelled on the spot instead of having to go round to the local depôt; they can be more easily looked after as they stand; the lines can be more fully used as trains will run more rapidly behind each other; and there will be greater cleanliness to the public which I am sure will improve public relations. The new signalling will allow for higher frequency and greater safety. Freight traffic will be speeded up through better marshalling yards and the installation of brakes on freight wagons. We shall be able to make much better use of manpower which is available and give more attractive services to the public. On this basis the British Transport Commission have every confidence that they will be able to balance their accounts.
Perhaps we are inclined to criticise our railways a great deal because they are old friends who have been with us for a long time, but I should like to quote an analysis made by the Railway Gazette, comparing the position of British Railways with the railway services of fourteen other countries in Europe. Only three of these fourteen show better results than British Railways, and of the remaining

151
eleven who showed less satisfactory results many are in receipt of subsidies of one sort and another. I do not advance this point because I think the British Transport Commission are above criticism. Speaking on their behalf, I would say that they welcome criticism, and it is right and proper that they should do so. If they are able to get on to a competitive system by cutting out services which are better done by other people, and as a result are able to give a better service themselves, so much the better, so long as they are able to do this whilst retaining what we all regard as important—that is, the freedom of the public to select their own way of travel, whether for themselves or for their goods. If any noble Lord doubts the value of that, I would commend him to read the recent lecture of the noble Lord, Lord Heyworth, on transport. Is it the business of any transport authority to decide how margarine should be distributed? Is that not essentially something about which the manufacturer must make up his own mind?
May I turn to some of the more detailed questions that were raised? The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, emphasised the value of containers and pallets. I think the Transport Commission are in full agreement with him there. I have little to add to what the noble Lord said, because he knows the facts and figures of the situation well. I can say that 200 more pallets will be added to their stock by the end of this year, and the latest figures show that containers in October, 1955, had risen to 34,000. There are a great variety of containers—ventilated, insulated, available for fish, fruit and frozen foods, and those which are used for special conveying of bicycles, chemicals and grain in bulk, building materials and cement. I think this indicates that these are recognised as important steps forward, and I am glad the noble Lord emphasised them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked about punctuality. We agree that punctuality is not good enough and, in fact, it has deteriorated slightly since last year. I feel that the figures which the noble Lord gave of his experience are unfortunate, because the general figures are that about 70 to 80 per cent. of the trains run within five minutes of their advertised time, which is perhaps not
152
too bad in itself. What should be recognised is that this year there has been a great speeding up of trains, which indicates that they are working to a rather narrower schedule. In point of fact, there has been an increase in the number of trains which have an average speed of 60 m.p.h. between starting and stopping. That is quite a good speed, taking it from start to stop.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Timetable speed?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is timetable speed, of course, but it is also what happens. I do not think the railways put out a timetable which they never keep to, although I recognise that they do not live up to the timetables in every case. This is a subject that is being discussed between the Consultative Committee and the Transport Commission.
I should like to refer now to the question of freight wagons. One of the problems that exist in this connection is that a number of organisations persist in using freight wagons as a form of storage, and that problem, on the whole, has tended to become worse rather than better over the last four years. The Chairman of the British Transport Commission appeals to people not to use them for this purpose, and it is desirable that they should not do so. Another difficulty in regard to freight wagons is that we are now using more coal in this country, and the coal is not going a short journey to the coast but in many cases is being distributed inland. The installation of brakes is important, and the shortage of footplate staff at the present time presents a difficult problem. What is of significance is that, for these reasons, some hundreds of freight trains have to be cancelled every day. That, of course, is a serious matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, did not mention the matter of cleanliness, but I imagine it is one of the general subjects that he may have had in mind. The British Transport Commission are anxious about this matter, and it is true to say that the last years have shown an improvement in cleanliness, on the whole. Part of the carriage cleaning has been put out to contract, and the Commission are spending currently about £1 million on washing machines. I would add one further point

153
in that regard. In two years' time the Commission hope to reduce the consumption of coal by about 2 million tons a year, and that, in itself, will be an aid to cleanliness.
A good deal has been said on the subject of canals, and really it is worthy of a debate to itself. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that I do not want to keep the House unduly long at this time of night. I think it is a pity to suggest, as some people do, that there is something underhand going on about canals. It is one of the subjects that at one time or another has been extensively examined by a number of committees, as the noble Lord himself said. Moreover, I do not think it is fair to argue that the railways bought up the canals deliberately to starve them. Whet happened in some cases was that the canals deliberately challenged the railways. The Avon-Kennet Canal was one in point. A railway was built along its banks to challenge the Great Western Railway, and they were bought up in due course. There were a number of cases of that kind. Having come under common ownership, what was to happen? The companies could have put all their money into canals, and it is conceivable that to-day we might have been deploring the starvation of the railways to the benefit of the canals.
What would have been required if they had wanted to develop the canals would have been a really big scale development. I want to express it in this way. If we think we can compare canals with the waterways on the Continent of Europe, we must recognise that in place of 20-ton or 30-ton barges we should need 200-ton barges. A great many of our canals are not capable of taking those craft except by a substantial capital expenditure of some sort or another. Even seventy years ago, when this matter first started, it would have been extremely expensive to accommodate the larger barge. What has happened—the noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers, mentioned this—is that the canals have been divided by the British Transport Commission into three categories: those which are to be developed, those which will be, retained for the time being and those which have insufficient commercial prospects. It is only the third category that is really in question at the present time. What is to happen to them? Perhaps I might mention, in passing,
154
that the Commission have already spent something like £2 million—I think that figure was mentioned—on improving the canals, and are currently expending a further £500,000.
These canals are being used sometimes purely for amenity purposes, such as disposing of surface water and trade effluent, and a variety of other purposes. It is really a question of who is responsible and what is the best way of dealing with a problem of this sort. The British Transport Commission have said: "We do not think this is our job," and I think one can have a certain amount of sympathy with them in that respect. I can assure noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the problem and are anxious to bring it to a termination as soon as they reasonably can. I am afraid I cannot add anything further on that point. I might say that the matter of the Avon and Kennet Canal is dealt with in the British Transport (No. 2) Bill, which is already deposited in the House, and I would rather not make any statement on that subject which might be held to be prejudging the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned coastal shipping. I really do not think I can add anything to what I said (I dislike using the expression) to the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on October 26. However, I must say that I do not think it is true, from our figures, that coastal shipping is carrying less. There are slightly larger ships and rather fewer of them. I would say, also, that they are not doing too badly in regard to the coal traffic which has unexpectedly come to them from Continental ports. There are a number of protective clauses for coastal shipping in the 1953 Act. They have statutory rights in certain respects which I do not think they will hesitate to use if they want to use them; and particularly I would call to the mind of the noble Lord the statutory right they possess where the actual rate charged by the railway to the trader can be shown to be less than the cost to the railways of providing the services. In other words, if the railways subsidise a competitive service, the coastal shipper has a clear statutory right to object to it. In allowing this commercial competition I think we are probably serving the best interests of all those who are concerned.
There has been a certain amount of talk about road haulage. There will

155
shortly be a Bill presented to Parliament, as my right honourable friend said last July, and it will contain provisions which I hope will expedite the termination of the disposal of certain classes of vehicles one way or another. How long that will go on for I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, seemed to think it was right and proper that the railways should go on benefiting from the profits of road haulage. Does he really think it is right that road haulage should sub-sidise the railways? It is not integration; it is not working the two together at all. It is simply asking the people who are working road haulage to subsidise the railways. I am going in the other direction. I want to see the railways competitive, so that they can meet competition from road haulage by the efficiency with which they serve the public, and get the traffic in that way.
LORD HURCOMB: I will not seek to argue that point at the moment, but I would ask the noble Earl to answer the question I put to him, which was that if before amalgamation railways thought it right to acquire, operate and get the advantage of Carter Paterson & Co.'s services, why is it not right that it should remain part of the national transport structure now? That is the point I put to him, and I will not argue the general one.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord does not agree with everything that was done in the pre-nationalised railways, and he picks out some things which suit his policy and others which do not. The matter will come up for discussion in this House, and I think it is better to leave these points until then. I do not know whether there is any other point I have missed. I appreciate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I think he made a number of important points. The personnel factor behind the modernisation scheme is of tremendous importance. Personnel engaged in the industry on whom the whole thing necessarily depends must realise that they are in an expanding—I mean expanding in ideas—and a progressive industry. It is of the first importance that they should be conscious of cooperating with new machinery. These are the words which were used: that they are, in fact, partners in a great industry. If we can get to that stage, then I am sure
156
we shall turn over a new leaf in this respect. I am sure I can express your Lordships' good wishes to Sir Brian Robertson and all those who work with him in carying out this difficult task.
6.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his forthright reply, for the trouble he has taken, and for the tone and tenor of his reply. I also endorse what he said about cutting down unremunerative services. I am glad he said he is facing unpopularity and opposition, but it does betoken one thing: that the Government must see that country services of some kind, obviously by road, are provided for the rural areas. The last thing we in this country can afford is a drain from the rural areas into the urban areas because of a lack of transport. I hope I live to see the day with the noble Earl when my freight can be carried by rail; then, at least, we shall have made some progress. Again with my best thanks to the noble Earl and my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on his maiden speech, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WHITE FISH SUBSIDY
6.14 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a statement about the White Fish Subsidy. After further consideration it has been decided to withdraw the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1955, and to lay a new Scheme forthwith. The effect will be to substitute in the case of white fish landed from inshore vessels of 70 ft. and under in length, grants of 8d. in place of 6d. a stone in respect of gutted fish and of 6d. in place of 4d. a stone in respect of ungutted fish. There will be consequential amendments of the voyage payments for seiners of 70 ft. and under in length which become eligible for voyage payments under the Scheme. The new Scheme will be laid to-day and printed copies will be available in the Printed Paper Office to-morrow morning.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making that statement. It is rare that a Government has second thoughts twice on successive days, but if those second thoughts are an improvement on their first thoughts they are extremely welcome and, to my mind, a sign of strength rather than weakness. I welcome this statement. I think the more generous terms of the proposed subsidy will make a great difference to the white fish industry. Because the time factor is important—if I remember rightly the existing scheme expires at the end of the year—I should like to ask the noble Earl when he will submit the revised Scheme to your Lordships' House.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: On Tuesday next, December 20.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed.

CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION FACILITIES
6.17 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take in order to improve the facilities at ports, so that delays in customs and immigration sheds may be reduced to a minimum; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it can be said that my Motion has had rather a rough passage. First of all it suffered from what might be called an infringement by the Copyright Bill; it then suffered from an overdose of heroin, and now it has been very much delayed by British Railways. However, I am pleased that I am at last in a position to initiate this debate. Any debate on ports should, in these days, include both airports and marine ports. I propose to confine my remarks mainly to the latter, because I think there is little to complain about in passenger handling at London Airport and our other big airports. I propose later in my speech to say a little about the handling of air freight, in which I think there is considerable room for improvement.
To turn to the facilities at modern ports, I should like to set my remarks out under three main headings: first, better
158
organisation of existing facilities; secondly, the possibility of relaxation of some of the formalities; and, thirdly (which is a much bigger question), major works entailing capital expenditure. May I say at the outset that since I decided to initiate this debate I have visited a number of ports and have had discussions with marine superintendents and senior officials in the Customs and Immigration Department. From all of them I have had the greatest help and courtesy, and I hope that nothing I say this afternoon will be construed as saying anything against the way in which they carry out their duties. I firmly believe that the standard of courtesy and efficiency in our customs and immigration services are as high as any in the world.
Like everything connected with travel, the main difficulties at ports are accentuated during peak periods such as Saturdays and Sundays in July and August, and it is extremely difficult to provide a staff adequate to handle the large numbers of travellers who pass to and from the United Kingdom at that time of year. Our airlines are able to supplement their traffic staff, and the railways, to a certain extent, are able to supplement their staff by temporary labour during the peak periods. I believe that B.E.A. have successfully used university students and people of that kind, but obviously one cannot employ a temporary customs officer or a temporary immigration officer, because he has to go through a long training and is under strict security regulations. But there is one way in which these services might supplement their staff during the peak periods, and that is by bringing back pensioners on a temporary basis. Undoubtedly, the worst congestion occurs on what might be called the short-sea routes to the Continent. I intend to say more about those than about the long-sea routes. When the delays occur on a short journey they are, psychologically, far more irritating than delays on a long journey. If one has been on board a ship coming from Australia for several weeks, the fact that one has to spend an hour or two dealing with one's luggage and the customs formalities on arrival does not seem to be so irritating, but, when the sea journey is only, as in the case of the trip from Calais to Dover, just over an hour, it is most irritating. Then, even twenty minutes' hold up or delay in the

159
queue is irritating and causes short tempers.
I propose this afternoon to say rather more about Harwich than other ports, because it is the one which, in the Press and previously in debates in your Lordships' House, has suffered most criticism. I would say at once that I think that some of the criticisms in the Press have been unfair, although certain things that have been said, particularly in the Daily Telegraph, have been justified—but not all of them, even in the Daily Telegraph. By courtesy of the Eastern Region of British Railways, I spent a day at Harwich and was taken around the whole of the port facilities there. I do not know whether your Lordships realise the number of movements that take place there. There are no fewer than ten movements in the summer period—that is to say, five boats in and five boats out, although it is only right to add that those include two military boats. They are Danish, Dutch and British boats. I am here going to make one criticism. When I was looking at those boats drawn up at the quay, I noticed that the paintwork and general appearance of our British boats did not compare in smartness with that of either the Danish or the Dutch boats. It is fair to say that the chief complaints about passenger handling at Harwich come from aliens—a horrible word; perhaps a better expression is "visitors from abroad." Delays on arrival create a very bad first impression. Returning Britons have only to show their passports, which takes a few seconds; but, with the best will in the world, visitors from abroad must go individually before an immigration officer for an interview and for their particulars to be checked.
In this connection, I think one should point out that among these aliens arriving, particularly at Harwich, there are quite a number coming here for employment; and obviously their work permits and papers of that sort take longer to deal with than the papers of ordinary tourists. So there is this not unnatural source of irritation to the visitor when he sees British passengers streaming through the customs hall and eventually on to the platform for a train while he is still held up in a queue. I believe that much more can be done than is being done at present by dealing with immigration facilities and the interviewing of visitors either on
160
board ship or, in certain cases, at the Continental port of departure. It can be said that we have always had the most happy relationship with the Netherlands customs and immigration services. I know they would be most co-operative in any scheme of that kind.
The problem on the day boat is rather different from the problem on the night boat. On the night boat, the system of British railways is that nearly everybody on board has a bunk. It would therefore not be practicable for immigration people to be on board: there would not be room for them. To turn people out of their cabins at night for immigration formalities could not be done, but I think it would be possible to have what I may call a small enclave on the quay at the Hook of Holland where those people arriving by the earlier Continental trains could be interviewed by British immigration officials sent across on the day boat, helped by, and in conjunction with, the Dutch officials. They would then be given a landing ticket to say that they had been through immigration, which would enable them on arrival at Harwich to pass straight through the customs hall with the holders of British passports.
It may be said that it would be impracticable to pass all through at The Hook, or the appropriate port, and that therefore it could not be done. I do not believe that that matters. Even if only half the interviews that take place in the early hours of the morning, when it is cold and sometimes wet, could be eliminated, it would add greatly to the comfort of visitors to this country. To my mind, the day steamers present a much easier problem. The voyage takes somewhere about six hours and, without undue queueing, I think it would be possible to carry out all the immigration formalities on board. People could be called up in groups, according to the letters of their names, so that there would not be a large number queueing at any one time. I understand that this process is operated in reverse by the Dutch immigration authorities on the outward journey. I think it could be done by the British authorities. It would not mean a great deal more staff because there might be some saving at Harwich. This proposal was originally put forward in the Daily Telegraph, which used the term "cross-posting of immigration officials." It is a good term which

161
describes what I am trying to explain. Before passing from this matter, I should like to pay tribute to the women police officers at Harwich who control the foreigners through the immigration hall. They are extremely tactful and I understand that they have been much more successful than their male colleagues in this rather irritating job.
It is only right, I think, that our visitors should remember that we in this country spare them one irritation which no doubt all of your Lordships have suffered many times on the Continent. Having filled in the immigration form on arrival (and there is another one on departure), they are not required, when they arrive at the hotel and want to go up to bed after a tiring journey, to fill in that other familiar form in three languages as one does on the Continent. Our particulars are all taken on arrival and departure. We are able to do that because of our island location. I would therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he will look into the question of better immigration facilities on board. I believe that an experiment was made last autumn on the Dover-Boulogne car ferry, and I air sure that it could be extended. I am equally sure that the question of immigration facilities on trains could be looked into, although I fully realise that, owing to the shortness of rail journeys in this country—it takes only about one and half hours from London to Harwich—that might present some difficulty.
Another great cause of hold-up at Harwich is the fact that all registered baggage, both inward and outward, has to be examined at the port. For many years there has been at Victoria an excellent system whereby, as soon as a traveller registers his baggage, it is cleared through the customs, and he probably does not see it again until it reaches his hotel room. The same applies on the inward journey: registered baggage goes through the customs at Victoria. At Liverpool Street, however, there are no facilities for that and, consequently, all the registered baggage, some of it heavy, has to be unloaded from the rail containers on the boat train, put on to trolleys, carried into the customs hall, passed through the customs, and then reloaded again into the containers to be put on to the boat. In a busy period that operation wastes a great deal of time. At
162
Dover the containers are simply hoisted on board; the container truck is shunted alongside the boat and the containers go straight in without any examination.
I have only one other proposal with regard to my first heading, that of organisation. I feel that where a boat service is duplicated care should be taken that the relief boat is not right on the heels of the first one. Once a boat gets into the harbour or starts to slow down, it is only human nature that people start queueing. But on the night boat, provided that people knew that the relief boat was not going to get in quite so early, they would quite happily, and I think enjoyably, stay in their hunks until half past seven, instead of half past six. The relief boat would not then come alongside until the passengers from the first boat were through the formalities. Very often at present, the second boat comes telescoping in on the first and the passengers hang about in a queue on board or on the quay, waiting until the customs and immigration people are free to attend to them.
My next point is: what can be done to relax customs and immigration formalities? The first question I would ask is whether the outward customs examination is really necessary. Before the war, there was no outward customs examination. I realise that there are reasons for the change—the prohibition of the export of currency and valuables, and some other items—but I feel that the time must soon come when the authorities will have to consider the possibility of a relaxation of the outward customs formalities. If they could not be abolished altogether, there might possibly be a right to search without notice in any case where suspicions were aroused.
I now turn to my third point, which concerns material improvements. These are badly needed in many of our ports, but of course they all entail large capital expenditure. But something will have to be done soon, otherwise conditions will become chaotic. The number of people travelling increases every year. I understand that last year half a million passengers passed through Harwich alone. In my view, at Harwich two main improvements are vitally necessary. Harwich is mainly a cargo port, and the wharves are designed with cranes and other equipment for handling cargo. Passengers have to walk quite a long way in the open before they get to the customs and

163
immigration sheds. Some berths are worse than others; there is one berth that is not bad, but they vary. But the passengers have to go into the open to a certain extent, and even on a day in the autumn, at not at all a busy period, queueing takes place in the open, long enough for it to be necessary for a policewoman to go along the queue and ask if there are any women with young children, so that she can take them into the shed where they can sit down. I think the only answer is to move the passenger-handling facilities up, so that people go up on escalators into a sea terminal similar to the Ocean Terminal at Southampton, though perhaps on a less grandiose scale, where there is adequate space for them to wait in the warm and the baggage can be laid out with plenty of space.
There is no doubt that Parkeston Quay is quite out of date and not suited to modern conditions. The second capital improvement, which to my mind is even more necessary, is that there should be a marine terminal station at Parkeston Quay. At present there is a most extraordinary set-up at Parkeston Quay, where the station accommodates just two tracks running through, both of which are on the main line, such as it is, to Harwich Town. There are no bays at all, and delays arise in the morning, when there are three trains. The first is alongside the platform. If there is no suburban train, the second one can also be brought alongside the platform. But the third one, the relief boat train, cannot be brought to the platform until the first train has gone. Consequently, hundreds of people have to stand about on the platform in the cold until the train comes in. What is vitally needed is three or four bays where the trains can be drawn up, so that the people can go straight into them and, if they are so minded, start their breakfast.
I hope that this question of a marine terminal at Harwich will be looked into most carefully. Your Lordships know Dover. I would suggest for Harwich something on similar lines to what is provided at Dover. Of course, the traffic staff of British Railways have great difficulty with boat trains. There is the question of priorities. If there are complaints in regard to the lateness of trains and if they give priority to the boat train, the season
164
ticket holders from Colchester and Chelmsford, naturally, get most annoyed. The traveller from Vienna gets equally annoyed if he finds himself held up for a local train. But there is very little complaint about Dover which has a modern terminal. There are great difficulties at Folkestone, but as the station is built out on a narrow pier I do not know what improvements could be made without any great expense. Southampton, of course, has one of the finest ocean terminals in the world. Plymouth, at no great expense, has a most warm and comfortable lounge, properly equipped with a buffet, paper stall and a bank, where passengers can sit in comfort. Facilities in Liverpool are very inadequate. That, again, is mainly a cargo port and passengers have to be embarked from a floating ocean stage. This stage dates back to the last century, and the baggage rooms and amenities are quite inadequate. One must not disguise the fact that it would need a major operation to improve them. The same remarks apply to Tilbury. I understand that the Port of London Authority has certain proposals but that other works may have to take priority.
I have made a brief survey of the more important of our leading ports, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer on that subject. I want, however, to say a few words about the arrangements at London Airport and others. I would say at once that passenger-handling arrangements are excellent, but there the matter is simple, for passengers arrive in neat "parcels" of about fifty, instead of arriving in parties of 700, 800, or even 1,500, as they do by boat. The handling of air freight, however, badly needs attention. The methods in use are almost exactly similar to those which have been used for years for marine cargo. If someone takes the trouble, and pays the very heavy sum necessary, to send freight by air, it is obviously very urgent, otherwise the shipper or businessman would not send it in that way. It is disgraceful that something sent by air on a journey which takes an hour or two is then held up, through customs delay, for even a matter of days. It is quite common for customs clearance to take twenty-four or forty-eight hours.
One particular point here, I am advised, is the question of freight received for onward shipment. There is a great deal of traffic. If there is an urgent parcel to

165
be sent from Italy to the United States or Canada the most obvious place for its transhipment front Al Italia to Trans-Canada Airlines is London. That would, of course, bring considerable revenue to B.E.A., and through B.E.A. to Trans-Canada. I can assure your Lordships that there is practically no freight sent to London for transhipment: it is going to Zurich or Amsterdam, where customs formalities take five minutes, while, I am told, transhipment formalities here in London take four hours. In other words, it is now impossible for air freight to catch a connecting plane.
An important businessman, taking samples to the United States from Rome, comes to London expecting that his samples will be transferred and will catch the same plane as he himself catches; but that is impossible because the formalities take four hours, whereas the Dutch and Swiss customs take the view that the samples are not really coming into their country at all and are no concern of theirs, so that the formalities on which they insist are quite, nominal, taking only a matter of minutes. Before the war, customs used to permit parcels not requiring an export licence to be shipped by air documentation being done afterwards. By this means, delays of several hours were avoided. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, can see whether this could not again be done. Only the most urgent freight can be cleared here on Saturday or Sunday. There are customs officials there to deal with it, but the consignment can be passed only if urgency can be proved. In this connection, the airlines pay overtime for the week-end and late working of the customs officers, so there is no question of Her Majesty's Government having to pay extra money.
There is a further small point, the question of passengers' luggage sent in advance. One would naturally expect that if a passenger sent his suitcase in advance it could he cleared by the water-guard by the time the passenger arrived, perhaps a few hours or a day later. But that is not so. The passenger has to go to a landing officer in another part of the airfield to clear the suitcase as freight. That is a matter which should be considered. The whole system is archaic for vast modern air transport operations, and I suggest that a Committee of Inquiry should be set up, at which the airlines
166
should be represented, to see how these various difficulties can be overcome. I would repeat here what I said earlier; that individual customs officers are as helpful as they can be, within the framework of the present rules, but the rules badly need overhauling.
My Lords, I have tried to make a few constructive suggestions on what I believe is a most important subject and I have covered only a small part of it, points that I consider absolutely essential. I hope that I have said enough to emphasise that something must be done, and done quickly. The pressure on our ports is rising all the time; the number of travellers is increasing every day; and unless action is taken the congestion will get worse and worse. As your Lordships know, I speak from personal experience in the travel world. I beg to move for Papers.
6.49 p m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I do not propose in this debate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, along the path he has taken, but there are two points which I want to bring out to the noble Lord who is to reply. I think he knows of them. I have given him warning, for we have been having a certain correspondence on this matter for some time, and I have taken this opportunity of bringing up my point again. I always find it peculiar that when foreign visitors come to this country they tend to be asked a lot of questions about why they have come, whether they are going to stay a long time, what they are going to do here and questions of that kind. The mother of a friend of mine came to this country. She was a member of a club in London and is a frequent visitor here. For some reason she was asked for her letter of invitation and where she was going to stay. I do not want to give many more cases, but things of that sort happen more often than they should. I have travelled abroad a good deal since the war. I have been in each country in Western Europe on various occasions, sometimes for pleasure and sometimes for business. So far as I remember, I have never once been asked a single question when crossing the frontier of one of those countries.
One of the reasons which are sometimes advanced for the questions which are asked here is that we are a big country,

167
we have a big population and we have to be careful. Surely the same thing applies to other countries, such as, for instance, Holland and Belgium. They are not big countries, it is true, but they are very overcrowded; I think Belgium is even more overcrowded than we are here. But at the frontiers of those countries they ask no questions at all. So I cannot think that the reply which I have quoted has any validity whatever. If there were unemployment here, and we had to be careful to see that people did not come in and take jobs, it would be a different matter. But we have full employment at the present time. And note what happens in Italy, where there is a great amount of unemployment. They do not there put these questions to visitors. I well know that their tourist trade is more important to Italy than our tourist trade is to us in this country. Nevertheless, we are told a great deal about the need to build up tourist trade, and I suggest that it would help to do so if we stopped a lot of this rather tiresome questioning of people when they come from foreign countries to our ports and airports.
It always puzzles me that when one arrives at London Airport, even as a British subject, one has one's passport examined by two people. At the immigration desk, one is confronted by two officials. One of these looks at the outside of one's passport and the other looks at the inside. That seems to me to be a great waste of manpower, and it is also a great waste of money, because the enormous hall at London Airport was built at vast expense and a large area of it is used for the accommodation of these young men who are looking at passports—one of them, as I have said, scrutinising the outside, and the other the inside, of the passport. I wonder whether that system could not be modified in some kind of way.
Next, I should like to ask a question regarding what occurs in the case of foreigners who come to this country from countries where a visa is still required. I am speaking especially about people who come from Paris—I do not, of course, mean French people, but other people who need to have visas. These people have been to the British Embassy and have had a long interview with the visa-issuing authority, and after this long talk they have been granted a visa. But when
168
they arrive at a port in this country they are subjected to another long interview, in the course of which the same questions are asked as those already put to them at the first interview. Surely once these people have been given a visa their passport is valid, and they should be allowed to come into the country with no further questioning at all. As a British subject I have visited countries abroad where a visa has been required—Spain and, in the old days, Portgual, though I do not think it is so now in the case of that country. There, again, I have never had a single question put to me on crossing the frontier. I have been travelling sometimes on business, sometimes on pleasure. Sometimes I have travelled by air, sometimes by car, but my experience has always been the same. I think that these are points that could well be looked into, because I am sure that a good deal of discomfort and trouble is caused to visitors by this foolish form of questioning. One would prefer to have what happens in most foreign countries: that is, that if one stays beyond a certain time one has to report to the police. That seems to me a very civilised system.
There is one other matter upon which I wish to ask a question—the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may not be able to answer it now, but perhaps he can let me know what the answer is later. What is the number of wicked people who are caught coming into this country with visas which they have obtained after being interviewed by the visa-issuing authorities abroad? What number have been stopped after further questioning here? What is the number of people who have been caught and turned back when they have come over here with visas? May I make one final suggestion. When one travels in all European countries, no matter what they are, I think it is the case that one has to fill in a little form on arrival, giving such particulars as name and address, Christian name and occupation. This seems to me an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. There must be thousands of millions of these cards filled in every year. What becomes of them? I feel sure that they are all filed away and destroyed. I know that people often treat them as a joke. They fill in all sorts of names and occupations, sometimes putting themselves down as murderers and criminals, and then go gaily on their way without being

169
held up. Would it not be possible, in this country, for a test period, to stop the filling in of these white cards by foreigners? Can the noble Lord tell me what amount of valuable information, or rather information showing that a person has some undesirable qualities or characteristics, is obtained from looking at these cards which are filled in every year by the thousands of foreigners who come to this country?
6.56 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I think we must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, on having finally got his Motion debated. It has really been a more difficult matter for him than it would be for him to get through any of our systems of port control in this country. As your Lordships know, a large number of authorities are concerned at each one of these ports and airports. The Treasury is responsible for Customs and Excise, and there are the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, British Railways, local authorities, the Board of Trade, tourist agencies and, finally, the Home Office, responsible for immigration. I think it is rather poetic justice that I, who have the honour to represent the Home Office in your Lordships' House, should be called upon to reply to this debate. Every time anything goes wrong at a port it is always the Home Office that gets the blame for it. As I say, though, it is poetic justice and I do not complain.
We wholly realise the need for cutting down to the minimum the unnecessary delays and obstructions and we agree wholeheartedly with what has been said on the point that in order to further our tourist trade and, indeed, to support our reputation for courtesy and good will, the system should be as smooth-working as we can possibly make it. There are, of course, obvious grounds for friction at a port. People arrive after a rough passage, feeling out of sorts and tired, and they do not enjoy having put to them a series of rather awkward questions of a kind which a foreigner may well consider to be of a rather prying character. I am bound to admit that occasionally this questioning causes some annoyance; but, on the whole, complaints are remarkably few, and I
170
should like to pay a tribute, from my own personal experience, to the almost infallible good temper, tact and efficiency of the customs and immigration officers at the various ports. It is our aim to keep these complaints down to the barest minimum.
Let me briefly consider three possible grounds for complaint. I turn first to immigration. I think that in order to understand and possibly answer some of Lord Amulree's questions we must bear in mind that the purpose of our immigration control is slightly different from the purpose of the Continental control. They at their ports ask only perfunctory questions. The immigration officer is really no more than a stamper of passports, because their long land boundaries make it impossible for them to have the sort of immigration control that we have. They rely entirely upon their interior police control system, but we rely primarily on control at the ports. Therefore it is not much use comparing the system at our ports with systems in Continental ports.
LORD AMULREE: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask whether it would not be better to consider following the system to which he has just referred, rather than to put people to the trouble of undergoing the questioning which they now have to undergo at our ports?
LORD MANCROFT: We have tried our system for a considerable length of time now and, on the whole, we are satisfied that it works better than the foreign system. But it does place an immense burden on the immigration officer. He has to ask a lot of questions, and, frankly, some of them may seem to the person questioned a little impertinent. He has to ask the questions tactfully, swiftly and not perfunctorily. Having watched many of these officers at work, I can say of my own knowledge that they do their work remarkably well. They are very swift indeed. The delay to people coming here and going past the immigration officers is very small. The officer has to satisfy himself on a considerable number of points. He has to find out whether a visitor is a bona fide visitor. He has to use initiative and considerable intelligence in putting his questions. The obvious evidence that that person has a return ticket is not necessarily infallible. The immigration

171
officer must assure himself whether the man has any intention of trying to remain here. He must seek to find whether the man is bringing in any disease, whether he is mentally unstable, or whether he has a criminal record. The officer has to ask a lot of questions which people may reasonably resent being asked. These difficulties sometimes occur.
As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said, although the number of aliens is small, we do this because we have to be careful about the number of permanent admissions we make to this country. We are delighted to see visitors in their thousands and millions, but we have to be careful about whom we let in permanently. Despite the abuse levelled at us all over the world, people still seem to want to come and live in this country in large numbers, possibly larger numbers than we can accommodate and much larger numbers than Britons who wish to go abroad. That is one of the reasons why we have to take particular care, but I assure your Lordships that there is no intention to allow this examination to become an inquisition, and every effort is made to keep it within the bounds of normal courtesy. We are constantly seeking to improve the service, but we do not want to let the service become tied down with red tape or firm regulations covering everything without alteration, from one port to another. The immigration authorities have certain discretion which they use with great tact, and I think that, on the whole, the system works pretty well. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked how many villains get through. We do not know how many get through. We do not catch many villains, but what we believe is that our rather exacting restrictions upon aliens reduce the number of potential villains—they do not think it worth while to risk it. It is the same with regard to the cards, which provide a useful check to make certain that our system is working properly.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, of what good can check cards be when it is known that they can be filled in with any name—John Brown or Tom Jones, or anything? What good can that be?
LORD MANCROFT: Some of them are filled up by humorists, I know. One was
172
found signed "Marilyn Monroe," who declared that she had £10,000 worth of hashish in her possession. Leaving the funny ones aside, the vast majority of travellers fill in the cards correctly and genuinely and give an accurate indication to the authorities of how the system is working and where improvements are needed.
Customs is an easier business. I think most people understand the customs system and the need for it more than they understand the need for immigration control. Here, again, the customs officers carry out a difficult task courteously. I should like to say from my own experience that there is no question of departmental barriers between customs, immigration and other authorities in ports. I was gratified to find during my visits how the authorities are working together as a team. There is no attempt to "pass the buck." Immigration willingly help customs, and everyone tries to make the reception of visitors, who cannot possibly tell what authority is responsible for what, as smooth as possible. They are not in fact being passed around among a number of petty officials.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked whether the customs examination on leaving the country could not be cut down. This examination is very perfunctory, a spot check more than anything else, and when carried through so quickly it hardly forms any serious obstruction. I will certainly look into the question the noble Lord raised about freight at London Airport. I was not aware that the delay was so serious as the noble Lord suggests, but I will take the matter up and see whether I cannot find him an answer. On the whole, I think people understand the customs system and regard it as a goodhearted game which everybody plays good humouredly. We seldom hear of any serious cases of anyone being put through an inquisition. We did have one case a little while ago. A gentleman, a perfectly respectable sales manager of a well-known firm, was turned upside down, both himself and his baggage, several times in the course of six months. He was very angry and eventually sent in an official complaint. We found that what had happened was that some young lady with whom he had fallen out over a private matter knew his movements, and whenever he was

173
coming back to this country she sent an anonymous letter to the customs telling them that he was carrying valuable jewel-lery about his person. I am happy to say that this kind of practical joke has been insured against and cannot be repeated.
The real problem is that of basic facilities at the ports. There have been great improvements since the war, at Dover, Southampton and Plymouth, and at London Airport which, of course, is a law unto itself. Further improvements are contemplated, both big and small, but there are two difficult ports—Harwich and to a lesser degree, Folkestone. We have done everything in the way of minor improvements that human ingenuity could do; but there is no getting away from the fact that nothing but a major overhaul will solve the problem in these ports. Difficulties are bound to pile up next year if we have fine weather and heavy tourist traffic during the peak period. Until we have electrified the railway lines to Harwich, Dover and Folkestone—and this must obviously go together with the reconstruction of the harbour facilities, and the whole depends on decisions on priorities and finance—we cannot solve the problem completely. But, even so, the time lag, even at peak periods, when things are not going well, is not really serious.
We admit that there is a time lag which we shall try to remove if we can, particularly because our tourist trade is increasing at an enormous rate, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said. This is due to the social revolution which has put money in the pockets of people who previously never thought of going abroad or of visiting this country. We welcome the; revolution, but it brings trouble in its wake. More than on a million foreigners landed here in the year ended September 30, an increase of 16 per cent. on the previous year. In the same period two and a half million British people went out and came back. That would have been unimaginable a few years ago, and as I say, it has brought a great problem in its wake, a problem, however, of which both the authorities and the British Railways are fully aware, and are tackling as best they can.
Dover, which I believe is the biggest passenger port in the world, handled over one million people in the peak travel
174
quarter of this year. Thirty-five passenger ships were handled in one peak twenty-four hour period. The time factor is often governed by physical limitations. With the best facilities in the world, with only two gangways one cannot unload a ship full of passengers faster than a specified time. That must always be the final limitation. Here the immigration control comes in. Often it is useful as a filter, to prevent the customs from being swamped, as it would be if there were no immigration officer to act as a filter. We are doing everything we can to stop this delay by putting immigration officers on ships, particularly on short packet services. We have tried this out on the Dover car ferry. It was not possible on the Harwich night boat, as we discovered. We are looking into this point, and where we think it useful to have an immigration officer, if we can find one, on board ship we will certainly do so.
Most of our ports were built before the days of passports and immigration control and it will be a long job to put them all right. We have, of course, the £12 million programme of modernisation for packet ports, but I cannot promise that these improvements will be carried out immediately. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I have personally investigated the question over the last few months, and my investigations have convinced me that on the human side we are doing everything possible to reduce the delays about which the noble Lord rightly complains. I cannot promise a speedy solution of the physical problems, because noble Lords will understand that that is a long-term and expensive problem, but we are getting on with it, because we want to make our tourist services as friendly, efficient and speedy as we possibly can. On the whole, I think our system is probably not bettered for efficiency and courtesy by arty that exists in the world; but we are determined that it shall be, without exception, the best.
7.9 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his comprehensive answer. I did not expect him to say that everything I proposed would he done at once, but I hope that the various suggestions I have made will be looked into by those responsible, in order to see that some of

175
them, at least those not requiring capital expenditure, can be put into effect. I was glad to hear him say that he found at the ports that there was no departmentalism; that everybody, the immigration authorities, the customs authorities, the marine superintendent and the railway people, worked as a team. I found that team spirit very much developed. Having said that, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee, made, and to be printed.

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.