Sitting of 14 February 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Metals and Minerals
    Sir H. Roperasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to co-ordinating existing knowledge and formulating a policy which will ensure for the future an adequate supply of metals and minerals, he will appoint a Minerals Advisory Board to assist him.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): It is not clear that the appointment of a Minerals Advisory Board at the present time would be advantageous but I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I will bear in mind.
    Sir H. Roper: Has my right hon. Friend considered the prospect in the years ahead of a steadily expanding world demand for metals and the great opportunities for meeting that demand from within the Commonwealth? Can he assure the House that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to help industry to make full use of those opportunities, if possible with British capital? Will he bear in mind that the first step is to make the facts available, and will he press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can in the sphere of taxation?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear in mind the important considerations which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    Mr. Bottomley: In speaking of considering the proposal to have a Minerals Advisory Board, did the President mean that he is not satisfied with the present arrangements?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I did not mean that.

    Textile Labelling
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give some details concerning the voluntary agreement reached by the laundry organisations, the British Standards Institution and the representatives of his Department on the problem of textile labelling for washing and cleaning purposes; and when he expects to be able to do so.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot at present add to the reply I gave to the hon. Lady's Question on 26th January, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.
    Miss Burton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman getting very embarrassed at having to make this statement month by month? Does he hope that if I put a Question to him at the end of a month he will be in a less embarrassing position than he is today?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have represented to those concerned that both the hon. Lady and myself have been embarrassed as a result of these Questions and Answers. I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady a satisfactory answer.
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that ever-increasing quantities of flammable material are being sold for women's and children's dresses and that some of this material ignites on close proximity to fires, radiators, etc., however much these are protected in terms of the Heating Appliances Act; and if he will introduce legislation to ensure that all flammable material, made up or sold by any measurement, shall bear a warning label as to flammability.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I share the hon. Lady's concern about the danger of dresses catching fire, but I am not aware that this risk has increased significantly. The problem of what safety measures are appropriate presents a number of difficulties and research is going on into some of these. So far as I can see at present, I doubt whether the solution proposed by the hon. Lady is a practicable one.
    Mrs. Mann: If the right hon. Gentleman is hopeful of legislation to label garments according to their washability, is it not much more important that he

    2143
    should ensure that garments which are highly inflammable should be labelled? If the right hon. Gentleman is not convinced, will he allow me to come to his office and bring with me some of these materials, which are now used as bedcovers, and which ignite two feet away from an open flame? Does he not realise that this is a matter of life and death?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the seriousness of what the hon. Lady says. Accidents of this kind, sometimes of the most tragic nature, take place. At the same time, this question of labelling with degrees of flammability presents serious practical problems, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Lady has said.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Will my right hon. Friend please give us an assurance that he will continue to do all he can to ensure that materials which are suitable for children's clothing, particularly nightgowns, are definitely guaranteed to have been tested for non-flammability? Is he aware that every year the number of deaths in the home due to burning is very shocking, and that it worries a great many of us? Anything that can be done to increase the safety of materials will be very much appreciated.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

    Toothpaste (Advertisements)
    Miss Bartonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the claims made by toothpaste manufacturers in their Press advertisements which constitute an offence under the Merchandise Marks Acts; and what steps he is taking to deal with the matter.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, but if the hon. Lady will let me have particulars of any claims I will consider them.
    Miss Burton: I will send them to the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that the whole trend of toothpaste advertising at present is really calculated to mislead the public and that the British Dental Association is very disturbed at this trend?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am frankly not aware of it. Perhaps I do not study toothpaste advertisements sufficiently closely, but if the hon. Lady will let me have details I will certainly look into them.

    Prepacked Goods (Weights)
    Mrs. Mannasked the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries were made by the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation into the number of household products in packages or containers which are sold to the public without obligation to state weight; and the result of these investigations.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Nearly all prepacked articles of food are required under existing legislation to bear a statement of the minimum weight, measure or number. The Committee considered proposals that similar requirements should be applied to a number of household articles other than food and recommended their application to a limited number of such articles.
    Mrs. Mann: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is now almost five years since the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation made these recommendations? Is he not further aware that one of the most important recommendations extended to the self-service stores which are packed with pre-packed goods, none of which bears the weight? What is the use of a combine assuring us that it is going to stabilise prices over the next six months if, behind our backs, it can reduce the weights in the packages?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware that this recommendation was made, amongst a large number of others in the voluminous Report of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation but, as the hon. Lady knows, this matter would require legislation which in any case could not be introduced this Session.
    Mr. Usborne: If a mere man may interpolate here, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he realises that cream and ice-cream are now often sold in little containers which have false bottoms that are obviously deliberately made to "fox" the customer?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I should require notice as to whether that was covered in the recommendations of the Committee on Weights and Measures Legislation.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it the intention of the President of the Board of Trade not to proceed with legislation for weights

    2145
    and measures? On an earlier occasion we were told that the Government were treating this as a most important matter.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As I said, not this Session.

    Carpets (Metric Size Markings)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the South Western Magistrates' Court on 1st February, when a London company was fined for carpet selling offences as the result of a successful prosecution by his Department, evidence was given that these cotton carpets were imported and marked with metric sizes; that they were then marked with the nearest British standard size; that this was always to the advantage of the wholesaler or retailer; and what steps he proposes to take, under the Merchandise Marks Acts, to deal with such a system of marking.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the prosecution to which the hon. Lady refers. The Merchandise Marks Acts, under which this prosecution was taken, are adequate for dealing with any similar cases.
    Miss Burton: Whilst wishing to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade on having won this case, may I ask him if the British carpet manufacturers have not stated that this is a most unfair method of trading because British carpets are all correctly listed? Is he further aware that cotton carpet manufacturers have wondered how the prices of imported carpets have been able to undercut their own? Does he still say that the present Regulations cover that?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It seems that the Regulations are satisfactory because the prosecution succeeded.
    Miss Burton: Yes, but why was there any need for a prosecution if the Regulations were satisfactory? I feel that they are not.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This was a breach of the Regulations. The translation of the metric into the imperial measure was done in a manner which favoured the seller on every occasion. Under those circumstances the prosecution was brought, and succeeded. That is what the Merchandise Marks Act is for.

    Steel Supplies
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the need for an increased output of coal to sustain our economy, he will take steps to provide an adequate supply of steel to manufacturers of mining equipment and machinery.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Although steel production is rising rapidly, many industries are experiencing some shortage of steel. In order to ease the position, import duties on steel sheet are suspended until March, 1957, and on most other forms of steel until September, 1956. I do not accept the suggestion that steel should be allocated on a preferential basis to particular industries or manufacturers.
    Mr. Roberts: But does not the Minister agree that since the economy of this country is bound up with coal for at least the next twenty-five years, something should be done to see that there is a sufficient allocation of steel to the makers of mining equipment and other machinery for the mining industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly fully appreciate the importance of steel to that industry, as to many others, at the present time. One of the important things is to proceed with the capital construction necessary for new steel production.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Did I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he did not himself believe that some measure of priority ought to be given to the coal mining industry? Is he satisfied that the allocation of steel to that industry at the present time is adequate to develop the new plant as quickly as the country needs it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I said that I did not think that a comprehensive steel rationing and allocation scheme ought to be brought in at present.
    Sir L. Ropner: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the loss of output due to a shortage of modern equipment compared with the loss of output owing to voluntary absenteeism?

    Canada
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what disequilibrium occurred in Anglo-Canadian overall trade, including invisibles, during

    2147
    1955; whether he will give figures for such trade; and what steps are being taken to restore balance, overall.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot accept the implication that equilibrium in our balance of payments as a whole requires the attainment of the balance individually with Canada or any other country. But what we need to help ease our dollar problem is to win a larger share of Canada's import market. The visible deficit in our trade with Canada in 1955 was about £200 million; imports c.i.f. were £344 million; total exports f.o.b. were £145 million. I regret that the figures of our invisible trade with Canada cannot be separated from those of the dollar area as a whole. The measures which the Government have taken to curb inflation should result in an expansion of our exports to Canada as to other markets.
    Mr. Nabarro: Since the deficiency— and there must be a deficiency from the United Kingdom point of view—presumably has to be met by gold payments, what is my right hon. Friend proposing to do about that, in view of the position of the gold and dollar reserve?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It has to be met by gold payments or else by sales to some other market. I do not think it would be practical politics to imagine that we can balance exactly with every country.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the President say what steps are being taken to restore the balance of trade, particularly in view of the latest trade returns, which show a further decline?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: To start with, there is the series of measures which the Government have taken to counter inflation. The most important are the increase in the Bank Rate, the reintroduction of hire-purchase restrictions, the call upon the banks to reduce their overdraft facilities and the increases in Purchase Tax in the autumn Budget. All those measures, though no doubt unpopular, are the essential prerequisite of expanding exports to Canadian and other markets.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the President say why trade with Canada is still declining?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not accept that it is still declining.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask my right hon. Friend, particularly in view of the amount of capital now being spent
    2148
    in Canada by the United States, whether he is taking every step to ensure that British people who wish to invest capital in Canada have that opportunity?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I attach importance to that matter, but the question is primarily one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Newsprint (Import and Use)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are still imposed on the import and use of newsprint.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of newsprint this year are subject to a limit which has, in fact, proved much above the amounts for which the Newsprint Supply Company has been able to place contracts.
    As regards the use of newsprint, I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: This has been going on a long time. Why do the Government cling so tenaciously to this last relic of rationing? [An HON. MEMBER: "Set the people free."] Are the Government so terrified of what the Daily Mirror,the Daily Express or the Daily Herald might print if they had an extra page or two? Or is the balance of payments still so precarious, despite the last two successful Budgets, that we must choose between extra pages for newsprint or the devaluation of the £?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am not clinging to rationing in this matter, and perhaps he will await the statement that I propose to make later this week.

    Exports and Imports
    Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade why exports to foreign countries increased by only 10 per cent. in value in 1955 compared with 1954, Whereas imports increased by 22 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gowerasked the President of the Board of Trade what circumstances resulted in a much greater increase in imports than in exports during 1955; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The basic reason is that excessive home demand has checked our exports and swollen our imports.
    Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend satified that the measures which have been taken will stop that process say this month or next?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there are indications that the measures which have been taken are beginning to work in the economy.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend considering the possibility of any special incentives, fiscal or otherwise, to encourage those who develop the export markets?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The subject of whether we should or should not have export subsidies has been debated in this House on a number of occasions. The policy of Her Majesty's Government remains as stated, that we are opposed to export subsidies in this or any other country.
    Mr. Jay: Can the President say what are the indications that the situation is improving?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not in the course of Question and Answer.

    Artificial Silk Tissues (Import Duty)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the application by Italy for a reduction of 10 per cent. in the import tariff on artificial silk tissues.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot disclose details about concessions sought or offered in tariff negotiations, nor anticipate the outcome of the discussions now going on at Geneva. Requests for reductions in the United Kingdom tariff have been discussed with the trade associations concerned, and their views will be fully taken into account.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he gives way on this, not only will the industry suffer, but other countries will queue up for the same concession? The silk and rayon industry is going through a difficult time. Will he do what he can to protect it in this instance?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am anxious not to discuss the pros and cons of tariff concessions of any particular industry in the course of these negotiations, or we shall
    2150
    have to discuss the lot. I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall bear in mind the representations made to me on this, as I have on other industries.

    Jute
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to restore private trading facilities for importing jute goods; when he proposes to wind up jute control; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not at the present time, Sir.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does that reply mean that nationalised jute control is to be a permanent feature of Tory Government policy?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It means that it has not yet been possible to find proper measures to safeguard the United Kingdom manufacturing industry in conditions conducive to efficiency without this particular form of control. However, my hon. Friend has debated this point on a number of occasions, and I need not add to it at present.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the views of his hon. Friend would cause almost immediate mass unemployment in Dundee, and that his attitude is wholly unrepresentative of the users of the product of the Dundee industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware that the views of my hon. Friend, with whom I am on almost all occasions in complete agreement, do not on this occasion command universal acceptance.
    Mr. Bottomley: The President of the Board of Trade said "not at present." Can he give an assurance that he will not do away with jute control without full consultation with employers and labour, and perhaps getting their assent?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sure that I shall fully take into account the views of everybody.

    Capital Expenditure (Information)
    Captain Orrasked the President of the Board of Trade by what methods and on what basis he obtains information about capital expenditure by industries in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Information on capital expenditure is obtained from the annual census of production and from a quarterly inquiry on a voluntary basis in which I am happy to say a large number of public companies co-operate.
    For further details I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to articles in the Board of Trade Journal of 31st December, 1955, and 4th February, 1956.
    Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a senior official in the Board of Trade recently wrote to the chairman of a company, saying:
    "The companies to whose chairmen I wrote were selected at random from undertakings of various sizes in order that the results of our inquiry might be based on a balanced and representative sample."?
    Does my right hon. Friend think that this method of taking samples at random is satisfactory.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I believe it to be, but I am always prepared to discuss it with my hon. and gallant Friend, if he has any improvement to suggest in the system, and I should be happy to do so on this occasion.

    Steel (Imports and Exports)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what agreement he has made with the steel industry regarding its imports and exports in 1956; and how this agreement differs from 1955.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The steel industry is free to import semi-finished steel, such as ingots and billets for further processing, on its own account. Finished steel is imported by steel consumers and merchants. Exports of sheet, plate and tin-plate are limited by export licensing, and the steel industry has undertaken to restrict its total exports to the 1955 level or slightly lower.
    Mr. Chapman: What estimate, after discussion with the industry, does the Minister make of the net effect on our balance of payments?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know about the net effect on our balance of payments. It means that the policy with regard to steel exports in 1956 will be broadly the same as that followed in 1955.

    Motor Cars (Exports)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the motor car industry regarding the level of its exports in 1956.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Export prospects for motor cars are discussed in the day-today contacts between the Board of Trade and the industry: the subject was also examined at the last meeting of the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry on 30th November, 1955.
    Mr. Chapman: Does that reply mean that, following what one can only call the very disappointing response of the motor car industry in 1955, when it was completely feather-bedded by huge deposits on the home market, the Board of Trade is taking no action to see that that situation does not recur in 1956?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The view of the Society of Motor Manufacturers, expressed on 21st January in the Financial Times,was that the export of motor vehicles in 1956 would be higher than the record level achieved in 1955.
    Mr. Jay: Is the President aware that in the opinion of many observers, both British and American, in North America there is a large market open to British cars which at present is largely going to the Volkswagen as a result of lack of effort by our manufacturers?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, I am aware of the various comments made about British manufacturers. At the same time we have a very fine record in the export markets, and we should give some credit to the very great achievements by that industry.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that one cannot sell British cars abroad on a greater scale by any decree or regulation of the British Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true that there is a limit to what Governments can do.
    Mr. Bowles: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the proposed increased freight rates across the North Atlantic which are to start on 1st April, and which will have a deleterious effect on the prospect of exporting more cars in 1956?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is clear that freight rates are an important factor in this as in other matters.
    Mr. Edelman: Despite the Minister's complacency, is he aware of the great anxiety in Coventry which arises out of the proposed dismissal of more than 2,500 motor workers, which will inevitably result in a decline in output? As a matter of high national importance, will he consult his colleagues in the Government to work out for the motor industry a policy which will result in increased exports?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the Government are called upon at present to intervene to sustain the home market.

    Sheet Steel (Imports)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the level of sheet steel imports in 1956.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have not been able to make an estimate. A material increase in sheet steel production is expected in 1956, but I cannot tell how far manufacturers will find it necessary to buy from abroad to supplement domestic supplies.
    Mr. Chapman: Does this mean that if the motor car industry finds an opportunity to sell an enormous proportion of its output on the home market, instead of exporting it, we shall continue, as in 1955, importing sheet steel for home market cars at the rate we did then?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true to say that the proportion of sales on the home market will have an effect upon the import of sheet steel. That is a fair comment.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: In view of our balance-of-trade situation, cannot the President of the Board of Trade inform the motor car industry that the level of imports of sheet steel will substantially depend on its success in exporting cars? Is he aware that pressure of that sort, proposals of that sort, had a most stimulating effect on the motor car industry in the period after the war?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not wish to be dogmatic about this, but I would be loath to introduce a system of steel allocation, even one of those ingenious systems which
    2154
    allocates raw materials to exports, and matters of that kind. They have not had universal success in the past, and I wish to avoid them in the future.
    Mr. Nicholson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that by far the most effective stimulus to exports is a contraction of the home order book?

    Danish Bacon (Imports)
    Mr. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Danish Government about supplies of Danish bacon.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The negotiations are still in progress and I cannot therefore add at present to the Answers which I have already given on this subject.
    Mr. Willey: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that these discussions are proceeding on the basis of a 10 per cent. food tariff, to be met by retaliatory duties on British exports to Denmark? Will he at once intervene and see that these discussions do not proceed on that retrograde basis?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no comment to make on the basis upon which the discussions are proceeding. I merely say that they are going on, and no useful purpose would be served by debating them while they are in progress.

    Raw Materials
    Mr. Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade what efforts Her Majesty's Government are making to reach agreement with Dominion and colonial Governments to increase the supply of scarce raw materials to this country.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We attach importance to the continuous consultations between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Governments on all economic matters of common concern. I do not, however, think that agreements of the kind the hon. Member appears to have in mind would be the most effective way of securing adequate supplies of raw materials. These are not, generally speaking, scarce, and temporary shortages are most effectively dealt with by direct negotiations between the commercial interests immediately concerned.
    Mr. Lee: Would not the President of the Board of Trade agree that this country is more dependent upon the import of raw materials, which are now becoming scarce, than is any other great manufacturing nation? Is he not further aware that the manufacturing potential of others is increasing at such a rate that, if we are not careful, we shall find ourselves in the middle of a raw material famine?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very much aware of the dependence of an importing-exporting country such as ours on supplies of raw materials from all over the world. That is why Her Majesty's Government have pursued a policy of opening up commodity markets and making materials available to manufacturing industries at the cheapest price.
    Mr. Leeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue a White Paper outlining the supply position of the principal raw material imports upon which our industries depend, and the countries from which they come, with the estimated increases in world extraction and industrial consumption rates since 1950.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. This information is readily available in various publications, but if the hon. Member would let me know of any particular raw material about which he requires information I will do my best to provide the answers.
    Mr. Lee: The Minister has already informed me of a world shortage of nickel. Is he aware that other alloys, steel alloys and things of that type, are in short supply, and that this attitude of the Government of waiting until calamity hits us before they begin to do anything about it is disastrous? If he will consult industry—I am not merely instancing the trade union side—he will find that there is great apprehension in industry itself. Will he look at the problem and give us a White Paper which will clearly depict the state in which we hope our raw material supply will be in the future?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am happy at all times to have the views of the industry, including of course those of the trade unions, on important matters of this kind. But I do not see that any useful purpose would be served at the moment
    2156
    by the issue of a wide-ranging White Paper which would probably be out of date in its information by the time it had been out for a week. I prefer to give information on individual cases, as requested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nabarro: A very polished performance indeed, if I may say so.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Dollar Expenditure (B.B.C. and I.T.A.)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantities of dollars he has authorised to be spent by the programme contractors to the Independent Television Authority and by the British Broadcasting Corporation in the period since the authority was established; and the annual sums of dollar expenditure he is prepared to approve for the purchase of United States material for the Independent Television Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation, respectively.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The amount authorised for the B.B.C. and I.T.A. together since 1st July, 1954, is about £1⅓ million. No precise ceiling has been fixed, hut my right hon. Friend is watching the position.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the latest trade figures and the dollar gap, is not this a rather large sum to pay out to get "Hopalong Cassidy"? Will not the Treasury pay greater attention to the fact that a very large proportion of recorded material for commercial T.V. is being bought from the United States, and is not this in fact a breach of the Television Act and a wastage of dollars?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add to what I have said. Questions about the Television Act should be put to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

    Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce discriminatory tax reliefs in favour of the exhibition of British films as part of a scheme to lower the level of taxation on cinematograph entertainment.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
    Mr. Swingler: Will not the Financial Secretary give an assurance that the Treasury will pay more attention to suggestions of this kind than it has done in the past? Will he, at any rate, give an undertaking that the Treasury will give serious consideration to proposals put to it for such a discriminatory tax relief, which would be beneficial both to the film-producing industry and cinemas in general?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that this proposal was put up by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association two or three years ago. The whole tax will be reviewed by my right hon. Friend before the Budget, but I cannot say more than that.

    Treasury Bills
    Mr. Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Treasury Bills outstanding at the latest available date; and the amount outstanding at the nearest equivalent date last year.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The figures are published weekly in the Exchequer Return.
    Mr. Freeth: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that in fact the figures, or at any rate the latest figures that I have seen, show a very considerable increase over the equivalent figure at the same time a year ago? Would not he agree that after a year of credit restriction this increase in Treasury Bills is most regret-able? Can he give some assurance that the Treasury will cease to finance long-term loans by further issues of Treasury Bills?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has raised some large questions which are more suitable for debate. In fact, the rise in the number of Treasury Bills issued is not in itself inflationary.
    Mr. Stokes: What about Sir Oliver Franks?
    Mr. Wade: Does the Minister regard this substantial increase in outstanding Treasury Bills as a cause or a symptom of the present inflationary condition?
    Mr. Brooke: That again is a question suitable for debate and is not capable of a short answer at Question Time.
    Mr, Jay: Do not the figures also show a figure of about £200 million a year in interest bills over and above the figure of four years ago, and does the Financial Secretary really think that that huge rise in Government expenditure is justifiable?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not committing myself to any figure as to the rise in the interest bills, which is a separate issue from that raised in my hon. Friend's Question.

    Hospital Building Schemes
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will adopt the recommendation of the Guillebaud Committee that the Ministry of Health should no longer be required to submit hospital building schemes of less than £100,000 for prior approval by the Treasury.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this kind of day-to-day direct control by the Treasury on the spending of regional hospital boards is acceptable to no one except the Treasury itself? Will he seriously consider putting an end to this arrangement, which can lead only to delay?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is one of a number of interesting recommendations made by the Guillebaud Committee, and these are under consideration as a whole.

    National Savings
    Mr. Bryanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what degree the measures introduced in the autumn Budget to encourage small savings have been effective.
    Mr. Gowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to give further incentives to private savings, he will increase again the maximum permitted holdings of National Savings Certificates and Defence Bonds; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Some £37 million has so far been subscribed to the new issue

    2159
    of 4 per cent. Defence Bonds. No figures are available of National Savings Certificates bought by holders who already possessed the previous maximum holding since the limit was raised at the beginning of November.
    As the Prime Minister said in his Bradford speech on 18th January, we are actively considering what further steps we can take to make savings attractive. The suggestion about limits will be borne in mind, along with other suggestions.
    Mr. Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some more attractive and possibly entirely new sort of inducement will be required to ensure that this type of saving is fully carried out?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this extremely important matter of expanding National Savings. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made public reference to their interest in finding some new method of attracting savings, and in due course my right hon. Friend will, no doubt, be declaring his intentions.
    Mr. Gower: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the existing limits appear to have little relevance at present?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the £37 million actually represents new savings and how much of it is made up by withdrawals from war savings at 2½per cent. and reinvestment in Defence Bonds at 4 per cent.?
    Mr. Brooke: No, I am afraid that it is impossible to say that.
    Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the other measures in the autumn Budget have been effective?
    Mr. Brooke: That supplementary question is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper.

    War-time Dollar Loans (Repayments)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what repayments of dollar loans incurred during the war were made in the immediate postwar years.
    Sir E. Boyle: In the years 1945 to 1951, 296 million United States dollars on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation Loan and 402 and 12 million Canadian dollars on the interest-free loans from Canada and Newfoundland respectively.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will circulate that reply to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, particularly in view of their constant statement that repayments of war-time loans was one of the main reasons why the American Loan was so quickly exhausted?
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not the fact that these loans are being repaid by £s which are worth much less than they were when the amounts were borrowed?

    Guaranteed Loans (Liabilities)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, as at the latest convenient date, the total of contingent liabilities incurred by Her Majesty's Government through Treasury Guarantees.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The total nominal net liability of Her Majesty's Government at 31st March, 1955, in respect of guaranteed loans in sterling was approximately £3,350 million. In addition there were contingent liabilities at that date in respect of certain loans in currencies other than sterling. Details can be found on pages 68 to 73 of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom 1954–55.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would my right hon. Friend consider, among other things, the question of reducing these liabilities, certainly so far as the nationalised industries are concerned, by making them go to the market at a much earlier date, rather than that they should be allowed to rely on funds under Treasury guarantee?
    Mr. Brooke: That opens up a very big question.

    Credit Policy
    Mr. Leeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how far his instructions to the banks enable them to accept unemployment or short-time working in a given industry as a sufficient reason for relaxing existing credit restrictions in its favour.
    Sir E. Boyle: No instructions have been given to the banks how to reduce their outstanding advances. This has been left to their discretion.
    Mr. Lee: Is it the policy of the Government that an industry the products of which play an important part in our exports is to be permitted to languish, and to have unemployment and short-time working, at the same time as the import-export gap is widening month by month? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that priority is given to an industry which can help the export market?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically mentioned in his statement last July the great importance of increased production in exports, and drew the attention of the banks to this.
    Mr. Chapman: Has the attention of the Economic Secretary been drawn to the statements of the chairmen of the banks, who, in chorus, have said how much they hate doing the Government's dirty work for them?
    Sir E. Boyle: I have read all the statements of the chairmen of the banks.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that not less that 80,000 of our manufacturing units employ fewer than ten men? Is it not further a fact that those are the people who, for the most part, have been squeezed? Will not they be the people who will go bankrupt and, in turn, affect the production of everyone else? Why are the Government following this insane policy?
    Sir E. Boyle: The right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a later Question on this subject upon the Order Paper.
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the credit squeeze is pressing with particular severity on the small independent businessman; and what action he will take to mitigate this.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is aware that small traders, like other members of the community, are finding it more difficult to get credit. But he does not think that the limitation of credit is affecting them so severely that he ought
    2162
    to ask the banks to discriminate in their favour.
    Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the banks appear to be working on the principle of "the smaller the man the tighter the squeeze"? Will he ask them to tackle their larger customers with the same ferocity as they sometimes use towards their smaller ones?
    Sir E. Boyle: If my hon. Friend has any evidence that he would like to send me in writing I shall be glad to consider it, but I would remind him that the control of credits to large businesses is operated not only by the banks but also by the Capital Issues Committee.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend has accurately stated Tory Government policy in his Question? Is he further aware that there is an automatic discrimination against the small man, because of his lack of reserves? Would not it be desirable to ask the banks to counteract this discrimination and allow credits upon rather easier conditions to smaller businessmen?
    Sir E. Boyle: It was precisely with the second half of the right hon. Gentleman's question in mind that I referred to the control now being operated by the Capital Issues Committee. With regard to the first part of his question, I think I can claim to be at least as authoritative an exponent of Conservative policy as he.

    Initial and Investment Allowances
    Mr. Freethasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give an estimate of the cost to the revenue during the financial year 1955-56 of the initial and investment allowances.
    Mr. H. Brooke: It is too early to give a firm figure, but, provisionally, the cost of initial and investment allowances combined is expected to be between £80 million and £90 million for the current year.
    Mr. Freeth: In view of the fact that since these allowances were reintroduced or instituted, substantial reductions in direct taxation have been made, does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is a case for considering their reduction or abolition, especially in view of the fact that the investment boom has exhausted our supply of men and materials?
    Mr. Brooke: If I were to seek to answer my hon. Friend's question it might be thought that I was anticipating my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, and that I cannot do.
    Mr. Warbey: Will the Financial Secretary save some of this vast sum by withdrawing investment allowances from those wasteful forms of capital investment to which the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce called attention in a recent speech?
    Mr. Brooke: I refrained from giving an answer to the previous supplementary question, and I must refrain equally in this case.
    Mr. Jay: Has not the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend asked a very pertinent question? Why are the Government simultaneously discouraging investment by a credit squeeze and encouraging it by these allowances, both of which are expensive to the Treasury?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not Budget day and, therefore, it is not a day when announcements of any kind can be made.

    Public Corporations (Written-off Sums)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, to the latest convenient date, the amount that has had to be written off, or through accounts presented to this House will have to be written off, from sums made available to Public Corporations created between 1945 and 1951.
    Mr. H. Brooke: About £50 million; the figures call for some explanation, and I will, with permission, circulate a short note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is the end of this dismal story of the money wasted during those years, or whether there are still further sums to be written off in the future?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that it is the end, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the statement which I propose to circulate, he may wish to ask further Questions.
    The particulars are as follows:
    Overseas Food Corporation
    The figures for the Overseas Food Corporation (including the Queensland Food Corporation) of sums written off out of advances from the Consolidated Fund or from voted moneys are:

    £

    Under Section 3 (4) of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1951

    35,871,125

    Under arrangements set out in Cmd. 8760

    540,000

    Under Section 4 (1) of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1954

    3,691,403

    Interest has been waived on the written-off advances to the Overseas Food Corporation.
    Colonial Development Corporation
    Power has been taken in the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1954, to remit the interest on the net capital lost by the Colonial Development Corporation on abandoned undertakings; the amount of capital likely to qualify for remission of interest is expected to be about £4 million.
    National Film Finance Corporation
    The last Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of N.F.F.C. for the year ended 31st March, 1955, (Cmd. 9464) shows a deficiency to date of £3,780,000. Nothing has yet been written off in the account presented to the House under Section 8 (2) of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1949, but it would be reasonable on present information to infer that something of the order of £3½ million of the £6 million advanced to the Corporation is likely to be irrecoverable and will have to be written off.
    Raw Cotton Commission
    When the winding up and dissolution of the Commission began on 1st September, 1954, the balance sheet showed an accumulated net deficit of just over £7 million. When the winding-up is completed the deficit may prove to be something between £8 and £9 million.

    National Land Fund (Woodlands, Sussex)
    Captain Duncanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for the purchase out of the National Land Fund of the woodlands at Whyligh, Sussex, the property of the late Lord Courthope, now offered for sale, and hand them over to the Ministry of Works, so that the oak for repairs to the roof of Westminster Hall may always continue to come from the same estate as the oak used originally 650 years ago for its construction and continuously used since for its repair.
    Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will certainly consider using the National Land Fund to enable these woodlands to

    2165
    be placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commission, if they should be offered towards payment of death duties, and if satisfactory arrangements can be made.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware—if he has read The Times—that these woodlands are being offered for sale? Will not he take steps to see that the Government make an offer for this traditional oak, which has been used in Westminster Hall for so long?
    Mr. Brooke: I very much appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. I did read in The Times that these woodlands were to be offered for sale. That is rather different from offering them to the Inland Revenue in part payment of Estate Duty.

  HOUSING

    Temporary Houses (Open Spaces)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many temporary prefabricated houses situated on public open spaces have been removed since the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, received Royal Assent; and how many of these were in Manchester.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): One hundred, and none, respectively.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it will be impossible to rehouse the people who live in these houses in Manchester if they have to be pulled down by 1965, unless new sites are found for the city to build upon?

    Building Sites, Manchester Area
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking about the proposals put forward to him for the provision of building sites for Manchester outside the city.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have been giving much attention to this problem, following my visit to Manchester in September. Since then I have
    2166
    obtained further necessary information from the local authorities concerned. With the object of clarifying conflicting views, I have invited Manchester Corporation and the County Councils of Cheshire, Lancashire and Derbyshire to send representatives to discuss the whole position with me at a joint meeting next week.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement which he has just made will be received with considerable satisfaction in Manchester? I do not in any way wish to anticipate the course of those discussions, but may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the corporation will be able to build far fewer houses than they have built hitherto unless new sites are found outside the city; and that in a few years it will be quite impossible to proceed with a slum clearance programme unless Manchester can get some more sites?

    Non-traditional Houses (Defects)
    Mr. W. Wellsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether his Department will accept financial responsibility for defects that are common to a type of non-traditional house whose construction has been authorised by his Department.
    Mr. Sandys: Only in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Wells: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that with the B.I.S.F. type of house, and many other similar types, there is an additional fire risk which causes local authorities to have to bear a highly inequitable burden of expenditure? Is he further aware that the Ministry of Works laid down the specifications for these houses? Is not the Minister's refusal to accept responsibility for them a symptom of his prejudice against local authorities?
    Mr. Sandys: The last remark made by the hon. and learned Member contained an absurd deduction. I set out the general position in a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 3rd November, of which I will send a copy to the hon. and learned Member. The Government offer such technical advice as current knowledge permits. This advice is given without charge and without liability.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Pools and Lakes (Fencing)
    Mr. Fernyhooghasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to compel owners of old pits, pools, lakes, etc., adjacent to urban areas which are a danger to young children, to either fence them or fill them in.
    Mr. Sandys: The existing laws already provide considerable powers for this purpose.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving generous grants to local authorities who want to remove these danger spots to the lives of young children, so that those local authorities can use them towards making such places secure and safe?
    Mr. Sandys: I think I am right in saying that we are talking about ponds, quarries and pits which are not owned by local authorities. Such local authorities have power, within certain limits laid down by law, to require the owners to put up fences, and the cost falls upon the owners.

    Town and Country Planning (Claims)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average time from agreement to payment by the Central Land Board of claims under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954.
    Mr. Powell: This information could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. The circumstances of individual cases vary greatly, but, generally speaking, if only the applicant is concerned, the Central Land Board makes the payment as soon as he agrees with its determination.
    Mr. Remnant: Surely my hon. Friend would agree that, when a claim is agreed, the Central Land Board is quite unable to state when the person is likely to receive payment. Might it not hasten payments if interest were paid on the same basis as is demanded by the Inland Revenue from taxpayers who have not paid?
    Mr. Powell: The rate of interest is fixed by the relevant Statute, but I am
    2168
    advised that the time interval between agreement and payment is normally very short.

  ISRAEL AND ARAB STATES
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his attempts to bring about direct negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbours; and whether such negotiations are now to take place.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement I made yesterday.
  Mr. Henderson: In view of the statement issued by the Soviet Foreign Office and the allegations contained in it, would the Prime Minister make it clear that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Middle East, including the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, is entirely consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; the declaration of 1950 is wholly in harmony with the terms of the United Nations Charter. In fact, so far as I know, I have never hitherto heard anybody cast doubt on that fact.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that his statement yesterday in regard to the situation in the Middle East was not as clear as it ought to have been? Would he be good enough to state quite categorically whether it is the intention of the signatories to the Tripartite Declaration only to prepare to take action in the event of aggression—that is, after the event—or whether they propose to take any kind of positive action before an event takes place, in order to prevent it taking place—in other words, to prevent aggression?
  The Prime Minister: So far as the 1950 Declaration is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows well that our position has been, remains and will be that we will carry out the terms of the 1950 Declaration. I do not think I can possibly go beyond that or put a gloss upon it.
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister what further steps he proposes

  2169
  to take to emphasise and secure the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement of 1950 on Israel.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made yesterday.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday that there was a danger that both sides did not fully understand the implications of the Tripartite Declaration—and anybody who has been out there clearly knows that there is a failure to understand it—is my right hon. Friend able to say when the negotiations which he indicated yesterday are in progress between the signatories to the Declaration will be concluded?
  The Prime Minister: No, I could not say that. There are discussions for the purposes which I described yesterday, and I have no reason to suppose that their conclusions will necessarily be made public.
  Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention, possibly after consultation with the United States and France, to make any official reply to the statement of the Soviet Government on the Tripartite Declaration?
  The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. His question does not actually arise from the Question on the Order Paper, but I will gladly consider it. Of course, I have not had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in detail on the matter, but I will certainly consider it.

  WASHINGTON DECLARATION
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will give the dates, titles and authors of the documents and manifestos in which, according to the Declaration of Washington, Communist rulers have announced their intention to spread Communism over the whole world by military, among other, means; and whether he will publish the relevant passages from these documents and manifestos as a White Paper;
  2170
  (2) which are the peoples who, according to the Declaration of Washington, have been forcibly incorporated in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the names of the ten once independent nations which, according to the Washington Declaration, are compelled to work for the aggrandisement of the Soviet State; and whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will continue to conduct their relations with all the East and Central European Members of the United Nations consistently with the obligations of the United Nations Charter.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted the Washington Declaration.
  The hon. Member must be well aware of the facts of Communist doctrine and propaganda, and I see no need on this occasion to reproduce them all in a White Paper. The hon. Member must also be aware of the names of the former Baltic States and of the satellite States.
  I can see no need for any further assurance that Her Majesty's Government will conduct themselves consistently with their obligations under the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Zilliacus: On the former point, may I ask if the Prime Minister denies that, according to the Declaration of Washington, numerous documents and manifestos exist in which the Communist leaders have proclaimed their intention to spread Communism throughout the world by military, among other, means? That is not an exact quotation, but that is the meaning of it. If the Prime Minister does deny that, will he also deny that such statements exist, because they do not exist? That is the first point.
  The Prime Minister: I want to quote from the Declaration, and not from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of it. What it says is slightly different, but very importantly different. Our Declaration says:
  "The Communist rulers have expressed in numerous documents and manifestos their purpose to extend the practice of Communism by every possible means until it encompasses the world."
  I think that is an accurate statement of fact. We then go on to say that to this end they have used military and political force in the past.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does "every possible means" include military means or not? That is what I want to know to begin with. On the second point, is it not a fact that under the Charter we are pledged to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of members of the United Nations, and not to interfere in their internal affairs? Is this an obligation which applies also to the States of Eastern Europe?
  The Prime Minister: The world would be a considerably happier place if some for whom the hon. Gentleman is now protesting would follow the practice against which he is inveighing.
  Mr. Nicholson: Is not this innocence and ignorance of otherwise intelligent people absolutely bewildering?
  Mr. Daines: Does the Prime Minister recognise that Russian actions speak far louder than their words?

  INFLATION (CHANCELLOR'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether the recent speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the National Production Advisory Council on Industry on the question of inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend made it clear that the speech was a diagnosis and not a statement of policy.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that in that diagnosis the Chancellor stated that during 1954 retail prices rose 1½ times as fast as in the previous year, that imports rose by 15 per cent., which was three times as much as exports—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quoting."]—and that our reserves fell by about a quarter? Yes, I am quoting. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the housewives want to see the hole in their purse mended, the hole in their husbands' pocket mended, and the pound really worth something? When will the Government do something about that?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that there is shortly to be an economic debate, in which perhaps a repetition of the speech which we have just heard will be appropriate.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PRICE STABILISATION)
  Mr. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister, in view of the need for price stability, and the lead given in implementing this policy by recent pronouncements of private enterprise cement firms and one nationalised board, namely, the South of Scotland Electricity Board, whether he will now call a conference of the heads of nationalised boards, to be presided over by himself, with a view to evolving a price stabilisation formula and agreement, for all nationalised industries during 1956.
  The Prime Minister: I hardly think that all the different conditions could be dealt with by a single formula or by the procedure my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say what response, if any, other than in the case of the one relatively minor nationalised concern, has been made to the appeal in his Bradford speech, for is it not manifest that until the nationalised industries, which are basic industries, make a contribution to his policy, nothing whatever can be achieved?
  The Prime Minister: The investment requirements of the nationalised industries have, quite properly, been discussed with the heads of the nationalised industries, like other investment requirements. Although I understand the motive behind my hon. Friend's Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I do; it is a perfectly proper one—I do not think it will be possible to apply one flat and universal rule to all nationalised industries, which have very many differing features among them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Could not the Prime Minister, in addition to the nationalised industries referred to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), have a look at British Petroleum, which is a nationalised industry, making a considerable profit, in which the Government have a majority holding of shares? Will he please have a look at that?
  The Prime Minister: I think the Government are doing pretty well out of the shares.

PRINTING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
Mr. Kirk (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the present position in the trade dispute in the printing trade.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Since I last reported to the House on the disputes in the Printing Industry on 24th January the main development has been that, following unsuccessful discussions between the London Master Printers' Association and the London Typographical Society, the Association has recommended its members to dismiss on Wednesday, 15th February, those employees who will not undertake to observe the normal conditions of working. My officers saw representatives of the Association this morning and will be meeting representatives of the Society this afternoon.
Mr. Kirk: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask him whether these dismissals will apply in B.F.M.P. offices outside London, where working to rule has also been going on? Further, can he impress on both sides that a dispute of this kind will have an effect far outside the printing industry, particularly on free-lance journalists who depend on this sort of work for a lot of their income? Finally, if no settlement can be reached, would my right hon. Friend consider setting up a court of inquiry after tomorrow?
Mr. Macleod: To reply to the first of my hon. Friends three Questions, there is not, at the moment, any indication that provincial employers are contemplating this sort of dismissal. Secondly, it is, of course, true that in this, and indeed in any trade dispute, there may be considerable repercussions. Thirdly, a court of inquiry is certainly one of the matters which we are considering and which, if the climate is favourable, we might well set up.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether, since his officers are in touch with the employers concerned, he would advise those employers to suspend the notices while the talks are proceeding?
Mr. Macleod: My Chief Industrial Commissioner saw the employers this morning and is seeing the unions concerned this afternoon. I do not think we will be in a position to get a full picture until after we have seen the unions, but that sort of possibility will, of course, be taken into account.
Mr. Bowles: Can the Minister say what is the position of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and will he bear in mind the possibility that if printing stops there the work of this House might also stop until the dispute is over?
Mr. Macleod: The Stationery Office is not a party to the action that is being taken by the London Master Printers' Association and is not contemplating such dismissals. It is, of course, always possible that such a dispute might spread to the Stationery Office. In that case, emergency measures would have to be taken to ensure that the business of the Government and of the House goes forward.

MALAYA (CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS)
Mr. Gaitskell: In view of Press reports, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal when we may expect a Government statement on the constitutional changes in Malaya?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will make a statement on this subject after Questions tomorrow.

BILLS PRESENTED
  ARCHDEACON JOHNSON'S ALMSHOUSE CHARITY (OAKHAM AND UPPINGHAM) SCHEME CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity called Archdeacon Johnson's Almshouse Charity, in the Parishes of Oakham and Uppingham, in the County of Rutland, presented by Sir Hugh Linstead; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
  BAPTIST CHAPEL AND OTHER CHARITIES (TOTNES AND TUCKENHAY) SCHEME CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity known as the Baptist Chapel and other Charities at Totnes and Tuckenhay in the County of Devon, presented by Sir Hugh Linstead; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
  LEIGH ALMSHOUSE, STONELEIGH AND OTHER CHARITIES SCHEME CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of certain Charities in the Parish of Stoneleigh, in the County of Warwick, presented by Sir Hugh Linstead; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
  Order read for consideration, as amended.
  3.36 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we begin proceedings on the Bill, I should tell the House that I have considered the very peculiar circumstances which have surrounded the discussion hitherto, and, for that reason, have seen fit to call some Amendments that are put down for Report though their subject matter has been discussed in Committee. That is contrary to my usual practice; and I only do it in the special circumstances which surround this particular Bill.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, lines 24 and 28, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I beg formally to second the Motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

    Clause 3.—(RATE OF SUBSIDIES FOR DWELLINGS.)
    Mr. David Jones: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after the second "area," to insert "either."
    We have considered it necessary to bring forward this matter again because we regard it as of vital importance to local authorities. At an earlier stage of the Bill it was stated that, in dealing with a related matter, the Minister had, by Clause 3 (3, e,)said that houses
    "…provided by the local authority of a congested or overpopulated area in some other area as part of a scheme of comprehensive development the general character of which is, in the opinion of the Minister, similar to the development for the purposes of a new town under the New Towns Act, 1946"
    would, in fact, qualify for the increased rate of subsidy. As I say, this Amendment is of vital importance to our municipal authorities. The Association of Municipal Corporations which speaks for all our borough and county borough councils has made it

    2177
    quite clear that for a number of reasons it regards this Amendment as of very great importance.
    I am not clear—and I do not know whether we shall be able to get information from the Minister this afternoon—at what point the Minister would regard development by an authority in another area as being big enough to constitute a new town development. Would it be 200 houses? Would it be 300, 500, or 5,000? As far as I know, no one is at present in a position to say at what stage the Minister would consider such a development constituted a new town development.
    It will be well known to the Committee that the local authorities vary in size. The designation of the authority is no indication of its size, either in area or in population. It is no indication of the availability of land for building in the authority's area. For instance, there are very small county boroughs, such as Canterbury, with a population of 23,000, whereas in the County of Durham there is a rural district council with a population of more than 60,000.
    Very many of these small authorities, particularly borough authorities, are in considerable difficulty in finding suitable land within their boroughs to develop housing estates of reasonable size. This applies to a high degree to the London boroughs, but it also applies in the Provinces: quite a number of them are contemplating, and many are in the process of negotiating, the erection of groups of 200 to 300 houses in the areas of neighbouring authorities. I am not thinking, nor was the Association of Municipal Corporations, of just an overspill over the boundary. One can understand the Minister's reluctance to accept that aspect, because it might be a justification for an application for an extension of the boundaries in the not-too-distant future.
    The Amendment, therefore, has been designed to provide for a distance of not less than five miles from the boundaries. It is quite clear; it reads:
    "Not less than five miles from the boundary of their area for the relief of congestion or over-population within their area."
    Many of these medium-sized boroughs would find themselves in substantial difficulty if they had to proceed with the development of housing in these other areas at the lower rate of subsidy. This would place them at a disadvantage.
    2178
    There would, in fact, be more than one disadvantage to them, as I tried to draw from the Parliamentary Secretary in our earlier debates. One would be that the erection of these houses in the area of another authority would not create new rateable value for the authority responsible for erecting them. Indeed, it might have the consequence of a reduction in its population, with a detrimental effect on the grant which it would receive from the Exchequer equalisation fund.
    If the local authority were under those two handicaps in any case, and if, in addition, it had to build these houses at a lower rate of subsidy, it would be placed at a distinct disadvantage compared with other authorities of approximately the same size, and would certainly be very much at a disadvantage by comparison with its bigger neighbours whose development in another area, because the problem in relation to the size of their areas was so much bigger, would constitute new town development and would attract the higher rate of subsidy. As I say, the smaller authority would find itself at a material disadvantage.
    For those reasons we feel that this matter ought to merit the Minister's sympathetic consideration.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Royle: My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has made quite clear what are the purposes and the intentions of the Amendment. Perhaps I would put it in different words: when a city or town is compelled, because it has little or no building land left within its own confines, to purchase and develop land for housing in the area of some other authority, the houses so built should attract the £24 subsidy, just as though the development were similar to a new town under the New Towns Act, even though it were only a group of houses. The distance laid down is five miles from the authority's boundaries.
    I return to the point which I tried to make in a previous debate on the subject. On that occasion the Minister tried to show a difference between purely housing sites and new towns. I think I am right in my interpretation of what he said. He argued that they had to be proved to be complete entities in themselves in order to receive the designation of a new town.

    2179
    Further to what was asked of him the other day and what has been asked of him by my hon. Friend today, I want to put another question to the Minister. How does he know how near in size these groups of houses will be to a new town ten years from now? Let hon. Members consider the case of Wythenshawe— Manchester's great satellite town—which has, I suppose, a population of 100,000. It is not a new town within the meaning of the Act, yet community centres, schools, churches and shopping centres have sprung up there and industry is fast growing in many parts of the Wythenshawe area.
    Bearing in mind that 100,000 population, and all those amenities attached to it, are we advocating that a district is to be regarded as similar to a new town only if it has its own town hall? I suggest that that is a ridiculous anomaly. It means that 100,000 people can occupy a housing estate and 30,000 people can occupy a new town.
    When we consider the values and rates of subsidy, is it not utterly crazy that the 100,000-populated town attracts only the lower subsidies whereas the smaller development, which happens to be called a new town, attracts the higher rate of subsidy when we are dealing with the question of moving population from one area to another?
    I hesitate to mention the word "Salford" again after the way in which it was used during the early parts of the debate, but I feel that this city, part of which I have the honour to represent, is an illustration of what is taking place in this overspill problem. Salford has recently opened negotiations, as I have said previously, with the Urban District Council of Tyldesley, in Lancashire, and with Cheshire, and the areas of land which it has in mind are probably six to seven miles from the boundaries of the City of Salford.
    I should like one point to be clear, and if the Minister would nod in agreement with me here I should be very happy. Am I right in understanding that under paragraph (c) houses built by Worsley in Worsley for Salford people will get the full £24 subsidy? Does the Minister agree that that is correct?
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys)The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys)indicated assent.
    Mr. Royle: I am very much obliged. That satisfies me completely on that issue, and I am quite sure the corporations of Worsley and Salford will be very happy.
    I go on from that and ask: why then, if Salford builds in someone else's area for people who have exactly the same needs, should the houses not have the same subsidy? If Farnworth is to get the full £24 for houses it builds for Salford, why does Salford get only £10 for the houses it builds for itself in another area? The situation seems to me quite ridiculous. If the houses are in a new town the sum is £24; if the houses are defined by the Town Development Act, 1952, the sum is £24; if they are built by the same hard-pressed authority and come under neither the 1946 nor the 1952 Acts, they get only £10. There is the same human problem, the same spoiled family life and the same anxieties on the part of the authorities and their constituents.
    I say to the Minister, "You have given us nothing up to now during the Committee stage of this Bill. You have dug your heels in all the way through. At no point have you shown us that you are ready to do things to help the people in these difficult areas." All the municipal authorities are behind us on this Amendment. I would only repeat what has been said in the Committee before on this subject. Compared to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Molotov is a yes-man. I say to the Minister now, at this late stage, on this issue, "For the love of Mike say,' Yes'."
    Mr. Sandys: It is an unusual procedure to have two debates in Committee on the same proposition. Hon. Members will not, therefore, expect me to be able to advance any very different arguments from the ones that were advanced on the previous occasion, but I think that there are still the same misunderstandings about the position and about the reasons why the Bill provides a £24 subsidy in certain cases and only £10 subsidy in others.
    The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) referred to two disadvantages which would result from the provision in the Bill as it now stands. The first disadvantage, he said, was that the

    2181
    building authority—that is to say, the exporting authority which builds and owns houses for its population outside its boundaries—would not receive any increase in rateable value, because the houses would be situated in the area of another local authority.
    That is, of course, quite true. But he must remember, also, that the exporting authority will not have the burden of providing the services. What will happen is that the receiving authority, the authority in whose area the houses are built, will have the cost of building the services, and will also have the increased rateable value. It is not an unfair division of financial responsibility and of income.
    The second point he made was that the reduction in the population of the exporting authority might affect their entitlement to equalisation grant. Again, that is true in theory. It is true in practice, but unless there is a wholesale exodus of population from these big cities the possible effect on the amount of equalisation grant they will receive is really so trifling as not to be an important factor.
    Mr. D. Jones: We are not dealing with big cities; we are dealing with medium-sized authorities. The problem of having to build outside their area is not one confined to big cities. There are London boroughs which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as big cities who have to go outside their areas.
    Mr. Sandys: The point is not so much the numbers as the proportion. I should be glad of the hon. Member's attention. He did intervene, and I should like him to listen to the answer I have to give him, which is that the issue is not really one of numbers but one of proportion. Unless the proportion of the population of a borough which leaves that borough to go and live outside is a very substantial one the effect upon the equalisation grant will really be quite trifling. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not be unduly alarmed on that score.
    As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have explained on more than one occasion during our debates, the general objection to this Amendment is really best understood if we consider what is the justification for giving the higher subsidy of £24 for these expansion schemes. The £24 subsidy is payable
    2182
    under the Bill only to the authority of the receiving area which builds houses to accommodate population from a congested area elsewhere.
    Now, the reason for that is that we do not consider it fair to expect a receiving authority, which is very often quite a small authority, and which may be engaged on a comparatively small housebuilding programme for its own people, to have to accept the very serious burden of building very large numbers of new houses for people coming in from outside—and to do it with a £10 subsidy or, before very long perhaps, with no subsidy at all.
    To keep rents down to levels which the incoming tenants could afford, it would be necessary for the receiving authority to pool the rents and subsidies and to average the rents of its own population with the rents of the people coming in from outside. That is all right and we think it necessary and desirable. I think there is widespread agreement that it is a natural and desirable process for a local authority within its own area dealing with its own people.
    We think, however, that it is asking altogether too much to expect some small receiving authority to agree—for their agreement is necessary—to put up the rents of its own population in order to keep down the rents of tenants coming in from outside. If that issue had to be put to a receiving authority in negotiations between the receiving authority and the exporting authority I have no doubt that all these town expansion schemes would come to a complete standstill.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Royle: I think that most of us on this side of the Committee will agree with the Minister's analysis of the position of the small authorities and their right to the full subsidy, but it is up to him to justify why he should pay the smaller subsidy only to the authority which is exporting. We know about the justification for paying a high subsidy to the receiving authority.
    Mr. Mitchison: I would ask the Minister whether he has really considered what this Amendment is about. It does not seem to raise any question as between an exporting authority and an importing authority. All it does is to allow a subsidy to be paid to an exporting authority when that authority is exporting rather less.
    Mr. Sandys: I think the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is the same as that made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). If the hon. and learned Member heard what I said, he would know that to understand our objection to this Amendment it is necessary to understand the purpose and justification for the payment of the higher £24 subsidy to the receiving authority.
    Having explained that, I was going on to explain why the exporting authority, in our view, is in a quite different financial position from the receiving authority in these cases. The exporting authority is not faced with the problem of averaging up the rents of its own population for the benefit of some outsiders coming into the area. It is concerned with the housing of its own people and many larger authorities which do not have enough land to build the houses they require within their own boundaries decide to build houses for their people outside their boundaries.
    So long as those houses are built and owned by the exporting authority, and so long as that authority has the full right of an owning authority to nominate the tenants to those houses in perpetuity it is quite clear that—except for the question of rateable value raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, to which I have referred—those houses are in exactly the same position as any other houses owned by the exporting authority within its boundaries. There is no difference.
    If it is proper for the exporting authority to pool the rents and generally to look upon all its houses within its boundaries as constituting a single housing pool for the purpose of finance, there is absolutely no reason why it should not also look upon those houses built outside its boundaries in exactly the same way. The authority can pool its subsidies and use them as it likes.
    There is no reason why it should make the slightest distinction among houses in its subsidy pool as between those built within its boundaries and those outside its boundaries. There is no additional financial burden placed upon the exporting authority by reason of the fact that the houses it has built are just over the boundary and not just inside the boundary. That is the reason why we do not see the justification for giving houses built outside the boundary a larger
    2184
    subsidy than those built within the boundaries of the authority.
    Mr. Mitchison: The fishing season is about to commence and the practice of fishing requires great patience. In the Committee stage of our proceedings we flung over the head of the Minister quite a collection of flies and this was one. It had peculiar advantages, to which I will refer in a moment. The Minister did not rise. We are now trying him with one fly only.
    We hope that because he was a little frightened by the multiplicity of proposals last time, he will not turn down again a proposal which is excellent on its merits and which has the further advantage of being the identical proposal put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations, the character or sponsoring of which led some hon. Friends of the Minister to be more than doubtful in supporting him in his refusal.
    This Amendment does not seem to me to raise any question whatever as between an exporting and an importing authority. It relates entirely to subsidies to an exporting authority when the area of that authority is so congested or over-populated that it has to deal with its housing difficulties by building outside its area.
    The right hon. Gentleman has made quite a good speech, if he will allow me to say so. It would be wholly appropriate if he were moving to delete from the Bill paragraph (c), because everything he said was as much an objection to an exporting authority getting an additional subsidy when the export was in the nature of a new town as it is to what we are proposing. We are proposing, by this Amendment, simply to take into the principle which the Minister has accepted by putting in paragraph (c) similar instances of an exporting authority which does not send out so much as to amount to a new town, but does send out an appreciable amount.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more to recollect why a local authority does that. No local authority will start exporting unless it is obliged to do so. If it has building room in its own area, of course, it will not do that. The existence of congestion or over-population in the area is the very best argument for giving that local authority some additional help. It still has to buy the land.

    2185
    it has still to build the houses and, if the houses are to be treated as the right hon. Gentleman would have them treated, as part of the proposition of that local authority—if I may use a general term— surely there ought to be some recognition of the fact that that part of the proposition is artificial. It is caused by particularly difficult conditions and involves the local authority in particular difficulties if only in the way of maintenance, administration and that sort of thing.
    I suggest that I need not argue the principle. It is accepted when there is enough export. Is there any logical reason why it should not be accepted when there is rather less export? That is all we are asking. Surely, on a matter of this sort, the local authorities are fairly good, practical judges. They caused this Amendment to be put forward because they know perfectly well that the question is identical in the two cases—the relation between the importing and exporting authorities on matters like rates, costs, and the rest.
    The only practical point is: ought we to give a special subsidy to the large towns, which may be in a position to export enough to amount to a new town development, and, at the same time, to refuse it either to the smaller ventures of those large towns, or to the ventures of the middle-sized towns?
    We have heard one voice from Salford today. Salford could not be a better instance. If we took the whole of Salford and put it outside Salford it is still open to question whether it would really amount to a new town. Perhaps it would and perhaps it would not. Anything that is likely to be done by way of dealing with the congestion or overpopulation in Salford will clearly not amount to having a new town outside it. We are asking that these places which often have, as in that case, really acute housing difficulties should have the treatment for the same reason, and on the same principle, as those which do this on a much bigger scale.
    This is really a sensible practicable proposal. I want to know what the Minister intends to do about it. If he does not accept this Amendment, what is the position? Even boroughs of middle size, such as Salford and quite a number of Metropolitan boroughs or boroughs
    2186
    around outer London, are in this position. How are they to deal with their difficulties? They have no decanting space inside, and they have to do something of this sort. They are, in the nature of the case, in difficulties. The mere fact of exporting increases their difficulties.
    If ever there were a case for giving them something more, for retaining or slightly increasing the existing subsidies, this is that case, as a matter of horse-sense and fairness between the local authorities concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget for one moment the human aspect of congestion and over-population. Bad houses are bad enough—we all agree about that—but congested houses, houses that are overcrowded and in an over-populated area as a whole cause a mountain of rising misery made up partly by the bad houses themselves and partly by the conditions under which people have to live and carry on their daily work.
    Any Government which has a faintly progressive attitude towards housing problems surely ought not to refuse what we are asking in this Amendment. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, first, to read the Amendment—when he was speaking I was not certain whether he had read it—and, secondly, to consider the point as between the larger exports and the smaller ones. I hope that he will reconsider his decision on this matter.
    Mr. Sandys: I have not risen to say that I am reconsidering my decision. I want to give an explanation to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not believe that he has quite understood the difference between this type of scheme which need only be just outside the boundary—five miles away—and need only consist of housing accommodation pure and simple, that is to say, purely a dormitory scheme, and the schemes envisaged in paragraph (e). The hon. and learned Gentleman said paragraph (c), but I think he meant paragraph (e)——
    Mr. Mitchison: Yes.
    Mr. Sandys: What we are concerned with is comprehensive development, by which we mean development which consists not exclusively of housing but also of shops and industry, and perhaps offices, or something of that kind. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that even if the whole of Salford went

    2187
    out it still would not constitute a new town. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would."] Salford has a population of about 170,000 and I should have thought that it would make quite a sizeable new town.
    4.15 p.m.
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read paragraph (e) he will see that we are concerned there—and this is what I want to emphasise—with the character of this development and not with the scale of the development. We are not saying that the £24 subsidy for the schemes under paragraph (e) will only be payable in the case of schemes which are on a scale comparable with a new town. We are also concerned with the comprehensive character. That is to say, that it will be some kind of neighbourhood or scheme, development or estate, where people will have an opportunity not only to sleep and then travel long distances—at least five miles under this Amendment—before they get to the outskirts of a big city where they may be working, but where they may have the opportunities to find work near their homes.
    I think that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will feel that it is desirable to do what we can to encourage comprehensive development and balanced communities where people can live and work and have their interests and recreation on the spot, and not merely to plan dormitory estates miles away so that they will have to travel still longer distances to their work in the big cities.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, because it seems to me, from what he has said, that this may be a matter of considerable practical importance? Is this the point? It does not matter what the size of the exported estate is, if I may use the word "estate," if, in fact, it contains a certain number of shops and amenities, and in that respect resembles a new town——
    Mr. Sandys: And industry.
    Mr. Mitchison: —it will qualify under this Clause. Even though it is only 500 or 1,000 people, if the character is right and there is some industry with it and some amenities, the right hon. Gentleman will not look at the number? I was not taking Salford as a serious arithmetical instance but as a new town; the smallest
    2188
    of them is about 25,000 to 30,000 population. The Minister would not debar those with populations of 1,000 or 2,000 if the character was right, I take it?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not want to commit myself on precise numbers. Broadly speaking, what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is correct. The size of the operation is not what is important. In my view, what is important is that this is a community which is being set up, a balanced community, with employment as well as sleeping accommodation.
    I say quite frankly to the Committee that I want to encourage local authorities which have an overspill problem to stimulate the export of industry as well as the export of population. Unless industry goes out with the population, all that will happen is that other people will come in and take the places of those who have gone out. Therefore, I think that as a matter of social and planning policy it is desirable that we should do everything we can to encourage local authorities to frame their overspill schemes on the basis of balanced communities rather than on the basis of dormitory estates. It is with that in mind, as well as with the financial aspects of the problem, and to give encouragement in that direction, which, I believe, is generally welcomed by all interested in town and country planning, that we have framed paragraph (e)of this subsection.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The local authorities attach importance to this matter from an entirely different point of view. No one in the Committee disagrees with the Minister when he says that in the main what we want to do is to cultivate new towns and comprehensive schemes of development of the kind he has described. As the right hon. Gentleman says, they will qualify for the higher rate of subsidy; that is quite clear.
    The municipal authorities, however, are concerned with schemes of a more modest character but which, nevertheless, are still desirable for their own sake. Suppose, for example, that an exporting authority is aware that in a particular area there are sources of employment, either there or growing, and it wishes to put down a number of houses in a group near enough to be of access to those industries, not necessarily having to put up industries itself.

    2189
    In other words, the industries being established there or growing there are exercising their own natural tug on congested population, but there is not sufficient living accommodation and so it comes to the knowledge of the exporting authority that that would be a desirable spot to which to export its overcrowded population. It would not, therefore, export industries from its own area at the same time, although those industries might be impelled to go there by the natural attractions of the area; but it would not be a purposeful and planned operation.
    If the local authority which was exporting put down, say, a small community hall or something of that sort, it would not be a comprehensive development of the kind that qualifies under paragraph (e)but nevertheless, because of the contiguity of other social amenities, with the addition of one or two small amenities, the neighbourhood would be a perfectly suitable one. Would it not be desirable to encourage the exporting authority to do that? Is not the right way to let it have the higher rate of subsidy? This is what the local authorities have in mind. I should have thought it was the kind of development that the right hon. Gentleman should look at again. He is not really using his housing policy as an effective instrument of social planning unless he does this.
    May I put a further point to the Minister? He has emphasised on several occasions, especially with regard to slum clearance, that the higher rate of subsidy would encourage the local authority to slum clear rather than to build houses for general accommodation; that is one of the main purposes of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at considerable length about the importing authority not being prepared to co-operate unless it had the additional attraction of the higher rate of subsidy. Is it not necessary also to encourage the exporting authority to carry out works of this sort by exporting these small communities?
    The right hon. Gentleman used a highly artificial argument when he suggested that the exporting authority would be able to make use of the houses that it had established outside its own area for purposes of its own housing pool. Let us consider the situation. It will be hard enough for local authorities to pool the rents in areas
    2190
    where there is a sense of community. When the argument starts and meetings are held on the housing estates, as they are almost certain to be held, either by the local authority or by enraged tenants, the argument will go that, after all, they live together and are helping to support each other, and the rents of some of them are going up because others are in worse position to pay higher rents. That is the main argument.
    If the scheme is to succeed at all—and there are many who think that it will not succeed, and ought not to succeed— it can only be because there will be a community sense and, therefore, a sense of responsibility to each other among people living in the same community in the same neighbourhood.
    But suppose that the argument is advanced that the right hon. Gentleman has made the rents go up by quite substantial sums in a congested neighbourhood in order to keep down the rents of some people who have gone to more delectable areas outside. That is a highly artificial conception which can only begin and end in Whitehall and could never have reached the local authorities. To assume that these people on those housing estates in those less attractive areas will enthusiastically subscribe towards a rent pooling scheme because some people quite considerable distances away in better areas are tenants of the same authority, is something that will not work. It has nothing to do with social planning or with humanities. It only has something to do with the Treasury.
    The Minister ought to look at this again if he is really to make his scheme work, or the worst alternative will arise that the exporting authorities will not export. After all, the addition of new rateable value is an important incentive to local authorities. But they will not have the new rateable value. It has been worked out over and over again that housing authorities have in the past not had the housing burden that some people have suggested, because once a new house is put up and it is rated, a very substantial addition to the rates is therefore made. The local authorities in this instance will not have that incentive. They will lose the rateable value entirely. Therefore, there will not be the same encouragement for local authorities in congested areas to take part in these exporting schemes.

    2191
    The whole thing is in the Minister's own hands. He might, for example, take a more generous view of what would be the sort of schemes to qualify for the higher subsidy. In other words, if he is satisfied that there are amenities in the area and that additional amenities of a quite modest kind are provided by the exporting authority, he ought to tell the Committee that in circumstances of that sort he would allow them to qualify under paragraph (e.)
    The right hon. Gentleman has been far too resistant in this matter and ought to have given way more. It may be that we have been a little too amiable and have not given the Minister enough trouble, but we can easily alter; there is no difficulty about that. In fact, our amiability has been lying rather heavily on us recently and it is quite easy for us to change. The Minister should be a little more forthcoming than he has been so far.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I apologise to the Minister for not having heard the whole of his speech, but I have been engaged on the perhaps better duty of trying to influence the electors of Taunton as to how they should vote today.
    I want to plead with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. I quite agree with him that, in great communities like London, it is desirable that if the population is to move outside to other areas, industries should follow. But I ask his consideration for a problem with which he is familiar and about which I have made pleas before: that is, the problem of Slough, which is typical of other areas.
    Because of its trading estate and its development of industry, Slough has attracted populations from all over the country. They came first from the distressed areas. Now, they are coming from London itself. I spent Saturday morning on the large new London County Council estate at Langley, in which 10,000 people from London will be accommodated and where already, within a few months, more than half of them have been found employment in the industries of Slough.
    2192
    4.30 p.m.
    In that town we have now reached a position where we cannot build another house. Every available yard of land has been used for building houses, or is planned for that purpose, and still we have between 1,000 and 2,000 vacancies for employment and people are coming from 20 and 30 miles away to obtain work in the town. How are we to deal with that problem? The only possible way is to provide accommodation in the neighbouring areas. The right hon. Gentleman knows the area very well. I am perfectly sure that he does not want to see factories established in the village of Eton. I am quite sure that he does not want the countryside of the Thames Valley, Thatchet, Wraysbury, Clivedon and Cookham spoiled by the development of factories and industries.
    What are we to do? We have the factories and the industries in Slough. The people there should be accommodated, with reasonable planning, within an area which they can reach. I suggest to the Minister that the solution of the problem would be for the local authority in Slough, in conjunction with the authority for Eton urban area and with Eton Rural District Council, to come to agreement on some joint scheme by which communities might be developed.
    Architectural planning is such now that it might easily be possible to have in the Thames Valley quite beautiful communities which would not imperil the loveliness of the valley. We could plan them together and they would be real communities. They would not only have houses but they would have schools, community centres, churches, and local cinemas.
    The right hon. Gentleman is surely not going to ask that before a subsidy is placed on houses in those development areas we must have factories and industries. It would be much better to have the factories and industries in the trading estate of Slough where they are already —and they are not a pretty picture— rather than destroy the beauty and amenities of the Eton which the right hon. Gentleman knows and loves so much, and of the Thames Valley.
    Is not that a sensible proposition? Will the Minister not agree that if Slough Borough Council, in agreement with the

    2193
    Eton rural and urban authorities, comes to the conclusion that we should have housing estates which can relieve over-populated Slough it should be entitled to a subsidy on the houses without being required to make the area ugly by the development of factories and industrial centres which are absolutely unnecessary?
    There seems to be a more conciliatory atmosphere in the Committee today and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that in such circumstances as I have described, where there is a population which cannot be accommodated in an industrial centre and which goes outside to an unspoiled area, the beauty of that area should not be destroyed by insisting upon its industrial development.
    I ask him to say that he will agree that in those areas there should be communities without industrial workshops, because those are easily accessible by transport, and that he will extend the subsidy to new houses in those areas.
    Mr. Sandys: I imagine that the Committee will soon wish to reach a decision on the Amendment, and perhaps it would be useful if I replied now to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on the rather different point which he raised. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps he had been too amiable. I would only say that occasional amiability becomes him well.
    The right hon. Gentleman raised the case where the population was exported —if we may use that term—to an area in which there was industry already, but where there was an insufficiency of labour and into which, therefore, it would not be reasonable or necessary for industry to be exported together with the population, and yet the area would not constitute a dormitory because the people would have work in the new place where they went to live. There are cases of that kind, though they are not very numerous. The best way of handling them is through a town expansion scheme. That, to a large extent, is the purpose of the Town Development Act, 1952.
    Mr. Bevan: It does not always happen.
    Mr. Sandys: That is the best and most effective way of doing it. A local authority in an area where there is shortage of labour and industry has every interest in carrying out an expansion on
    2194
    its own responsibility, financed through the Town Development Act and with the higher subsidies which are provided in this Bill. I recognise, however, that there may be cases, though I think that they will be exceptional, where an exporting authority builds houses for its people in some small or medium-sized town not very far away in which there is a shortage of labour.
    Mr. Bevan: Or where there might be.
    Mr. Sandys: And where the exported population will find work on the spot. Where those cases exist we would, naturally, welcome any scheme of that kind. 1 notice that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) seems to disagree.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: What the right hon. Gentleman is now saying does not apply to London and Greater London because they are such cosmopolitan areas. It is quite impossible to go outside these areas to a near vicinity and provide employment where the people go, because so much overlapping takes place.
    Mr. Sandys: I said that there might be exceptional cases where this kind of solution was proposed by the authority, that we should wish to encourage it and that we should welcome it.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: With £24?
    Mr. Sandys: Because we welcome it and wish to encourage it, it does not follow automatically that we are justified in paying a higher subsidy for that purpose. The purpose of the higher subsidy is to meet higher costs.
    On more than one occasion I have made it clear that a local authority which builds outside its boundaries for its own people, retaining the ownership of those houses and disposing of them as part of its general housing pool, is not involved generally in higher costs than if it built those houses within its own boundaries. It may be that labour costs a little more and probably the land costs a little less, but there is no reason to suppose that in general it will cost the authority more to build those houses five miles away from its boundaries than it would cost to build them inside its boundaries.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is not meeting my two points which, although not of major importance, are

    2195
    points of substance. One is that the local authority does not possess the rateable value and the other is that it does not effectually add to its own housing pool. Certainly, it does not do so psychologically.
    Mr. Sandys: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here earlier he would know that in reply to the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) I explained that the receiving authority gets the additional rateable value——
    Mr. Bevan: Yes.
    Mr. Sandys: At the same time the receiving authority has to bear the cost of providing the services. By and large, the one offsets the other. As to the question of pooling, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was not reasonable to expect the exporting authority to regard its houses outside as belonging to its general housing pool as regards the subsidies and general averaging of rents——
    Mr. Bevan: I was not speaking about the landlord relationship. I was speaking about the tenant relationship to the landlord.
    Mr. Sandys: I was talking about rents, in the main. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not reasonable to expect them to pool their subsidies and to use them for the purpose of subsidising rents, as might be necessary with the whole of their housing property inside and outside the boundaries of the authority. I think I am right in saying that tie L.C.C., which goes in for these out-county estates in a big way, treats those which are outside the County of London as part of its general housing pool. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) will correct me if I am wrong——
    Mr. C. W. Gibson Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham)indicated assent.
    Mr. Sandys: I see that the hon. Member for Clapham nods agreement. The L.C.C. regards the whole of its property, whether inside or outside its boundaries, as part of one housing pool——
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
    Mr. Sandys: —and I believe that local authorities generally will treat their
    2196
    houses in that way. Where it is necessary to provide subsidies, they will do so out of the common pool of subsidies which they receive. Therefore, while welcoming any schemes of this kind, I do not think that there is any financial justification for giving increased subsidy, because in general I believe that local authorities will be able to undertake any financial commitment involved in such schemes.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman does not argue fairly. He takes one segment of a case and treats it as the whole. I did not speak about pooling rents. I said in the last meeting of the Committee that I have always approved of local authorities pooling rents. I am well aware that exporting authorities such as the L.C.C. pool the rents of houses inside and outside their boundaries.
    That was not the point I was making. I was dealing with the psychological difficulties that will arise when the major rent proposals of the right hon. Gentleman as to differential rents have been brought in. I was saying that there will be a considerable psychological resistance by tenants inside schemes of that kind to having their rents adjusted because of tenants living outside in somebody else's boundary. That point has not been met, but I do not press it further.
    Mr. Sandys: The proportion of tenants outside is small compared with the total number of tenants of a local authority and it is inconceivable, on the scale on which we are operating even with the largest authorities, that the number of tenants living in estates outside the boundaries of an authority would have an appreciable effect upon the level of rents inside.
    Mr. Gibson: To get this right on the record, may I make it clear that while it is true that the L.C.C. has a pooled rent account—indeed, the 1936 Act provides for a revenue account which pools all the estates—that does not result in the case of the L.C.C. in anything like a differential rent scheme or even a rent rebate scheme? It provides for varying rents, varying with the type, age, structure and value of the premises being let. However, there is nothing like this nonsensical attempt to divide over the whole of the estate the amount of the subsidy, producing a silly figure such as 7d.
    Question put, That "either" be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 224, Noes 271.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended, considered.

    Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)
    Mr. Julius Silverman: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section)",
    This Amendment should be considered in conjunction with that in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert a new subsection (4). It seeks to provide for the continuation of the existing subsidies for houses provided by local authorities for overcrowding under Section 57 of the principal Act, which is the Housing Act, 1936.
    Section 57 lays a duty on local authorities to make inspections to ascertain what dwelling houses in their areas are overcrowded and to prepare and submit reports to the Ministry to show the results of the inspections and the number of houses required to abate overcrowding in their areas and, having provided the Minister with the proposal, to proceed with the provision of those houses. Section 59 goes on to provide penalties in cases of overcrowding taking place after the appointed day.
    The position of large local authorities in London is very serious. Local authorities are not complying with their statutory duties for the very obvious reason that if they were to prosecute in every case they would simply be turning into the street families for whom no provision can at present be made. Therefore, even with the present law and with present subsidies, overcrowding is flagrant. It is certainly flagrant in my own area of Birmingham. For instance, the City of Birmingham has more than 60,000 applicants on its housing register, and of those 40,000 are in acute need. Many thousands of these cases come within the provisions of the 1936 Act and prosecutions could be instigated.
    2202
    5.0 p.m.
    To my knowledge, there are houses in which 17, 18 or 19 people are living under shocking conditions of overcrowding. That is happening not merely in Birmingham, but in the areas of many large local authorities and in London. If we take away the housing subsidies it is obvious that the situation will become worse. I suggest to the Minister that the problem of overcrowding should receive equal treatment with that problem presented by the slums. In 1936, it was considered to be a serious problem which demanded the attention of the local authorities. Today, the situation is no better; indeed, in some places it is even worse.
    Many hon. Members could testify from personal knowledge to the human misery caused by conditions of overcrowding. Two or three or even more families living in the same house presents a danger to health as great, if not greater, than that presented by the continuance of slums. Both problems must be dealt with and we should not give preference to one at the expense of the other. This Amendment provides that the Minister shall give assistance to local authorities to carry out their statutory duty, already laid down under the 1936 Act, to deal with the problem of overcrowding in the same way as they have to deal with the question of slum clearance.
    If the Minister is seriously concerned about the question of slums, I ask him to consider that a new problem is arising in these areas which are not at present slums and do not attract the subsidies for slum clearance. In some cases, they are municipal houses built at a comparatively recent date. If overcrowding continues at the present rate—and probably it will be accentuated if this Bill becomes law— these houses will be converted into slums and it is only a matter of time before they will be an addition to the slum problem.
    I ask the Minister to reconsider the question of providing subsidies for houses which may be dealt with by the provisions of Part IV of the principal Act. We are

    2203
    asking only for subsidies for municipal local authorities to perform their statutory duty of relieving what is a real human need.
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), in places such as Birmingham there are conditions which demand that this concession should be made. The Government may consider that Section 57 of the principal Act is restrictive and not an easy one to operate. We have had considerable discussion in Committee, but we did not derive much from it, and it is in an attempt at a solution of the problem of overcrowding which faces local authorities that we make this effort on Report.
    Everyone will agree about the problem which arises from slums. It has been emphasised time and again by the Minister during the various stages of the Bill. Slum life is depressing. It has a detrimental effect on health. To live in overcrowded conditions is almost, if not equally, as depressing. Those who have been associated with local government will know that the effect of overcrowding on health is almost as bad as that of slum conditions. If we are to have proper treatment of the problem which is confronting local authorities, we must try to relieve overcrowding. I therefore hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming over this Amendment than he has proved to be on previous Amendments.
    Mr. Sparks: I wish to support the Amendment, although its effect is not as great as would appear. The problem of overcrowding is serious, but Part IV of the 1936 Act lays down a standard of overcrowding so low that if any family can be designated as being overcrowded in those terms they must be in conditions worse than in some slums.
    I think that the Minister could reasonably accept this Amendment. It is hedged round with so many conditions and restrictions, and while it is good so far as it goes, it does not approach the question of the general housing needs of the population. Many people are in dire need of accommodation but are not technically overcrowded according to the terms of Part IV of the 1936 Act, though
    2204
    they are very near to slum conditions. Part III of the Act deals with slum clearance and Part IV relates to overcrowding. When we pin-point precisely what cases would be regarded as cases of overcrowding under this Section, we find, for instance, that in a small room 10 feet by 11 feet—not very much longer than the table which stands on the Floor of the House—it is possible for two persons to live without being technically overcrowded. One will realise that any cases worse than that require to be dealt with.
    But, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman says that nothing is to be done about it. In such a room as I have described— measuring 10 feet by 11 feet—more than two persons can live without their being deemed to live in overcrowded conditions —because, under the Act, the two persons concerned must be adult persons over ten years of age. One could have three or even four persons in such a room—one adult and two children below the age of ten, or one adult, one child below the age of ten, and two children below the age of one year—without their being deemed to be technically overcrowded. Part IV of the 1936 Act is so constructed that, in order for overcrowding to exist, the conditions must really be appalling.
    The right hon. Gentleman will find that under Part IV of the Act there may be cases which, although not meeting the requirements of the definition of a slum, are far worse than slum cases. The object of the Amendment is to extend the subsidy to dwellings erected for the purpose of rehousing families of this type. The Amendment also places upon local authorities the responsibility—upon the direction of the Minister—to undertake surveys of their areas and to establish within those areas precisely where overcrowding exists, and also to indicate what they propose to do to abate it. In effect, that requirement really asks them what housing scheme or schemes they are proposing to develop in order to rehouse persons living in overcrowded conditions.
    We regard Part IV of the 1936 Housing Act as every bit as important as Part III. We do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the right thing in allowing overcrowded families to continue to exist, and in not providing for local authorities to receive the benefits of subsidy to provide for their re-housing. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt put

    2205
    forward the usual stock argument, that he is not preventing local authorities from developing housing schemes for this purpose. Although they will not receive the benefit of the higher subsidy they will receive a temporary subsidy until it is withdrawn—because under the Bill as now worded the re-housing of persons living in overcrowded conditions will come under the heading of general housing need. We say that it is quite wrong to suggest that the need for rehousing these families should be treated as part of the general housing need.
    5.15 p.m.
    There is a great deal of distinction between the two categories. In many cases the re-housing of overcrowded families is a far more desperate and urgent matter than re-housing for the general need. The right hon. Gentleman should be willing to admit the urgency of these cases, because they occur mainly in built-up areas. Earlier this afternoon we were discussing the problem of overspill and over-population. Overcrowding exists primarily in over-populated and congested areas, where local authorities have no room for expansion—no more land which they can buy in order to develop housing schemes. In such cases they have to rely either upon new towns taking some of these overcrowded families, or upon other local authorities being prepared to come to an agreement with them under the Town Development Act.
    Although the new towns are doing great work in their way, they are not providing a permanent solution to the problem of overcrowding or over-population. There is much which they are unable to do. The Town Development Act is certainly not working, and it is not likely to work when the Bill becomes an Act. Faced with overcrowding problems, local authorities will be able to do very little, if anything, within their boundaries, and must therefore look outside to develop housing schemes in order to relieve their burdens.
    The Minister must know that some shocking overcrowding still exists in our great towns and cities. It is true that over 2 million new dwellings have been erected since 1945, but that has scarcely made up for the back-log of the war years, and in the towns and cities there is an ever-growing problem of overcrowding because more and more people are pressing into
    2206
    less accommodation. My constituency provides an example.
    Earlier on the right hon. Gentleman said that if there was an industry in a certain area he would look very favourably upon the exportation of surplus population to man that industry. In my constituency and in many others in Greater London the position is the exact reverse; we have too many industries in the area and, because we are heavily industrialised, the housing problem is much more acute. There is a permanent shortage of labour in my constituency because there are so many factories there. Consequently, although people coming from all parts of the country to get work in the area are able to do so, they cannot find anywhere to live. They look all round the area and sometimes have to go into furnished accommodation.
    We realise that under Part IV of the 1936 Act it is possible for two adult persons to have to sleep in one room 10 feet by 11 feet and not be legally overcrowded; in other words, we should have to have three adults sleeping in a room of that size before it would be overcrowded. Where, as in this case, we could have one adult, a child under ten and two children under one year of age, making four altogether, and the family still not be regarded as overcrowded, we realise that when there is a case of overcrowding it is far worse than the two illustrations which I have given.
    That in itself ought to be a sufficient reason for the Government being prepared to do something to alleviate a social problem which is just as acute and just as bad a social evil as the conditions in slum clearance areas. In fact, it is very difficult to isolate the one from the other. Overcrowding and slum clearance are part and parcel of the same problem, and, for this reason, we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to extend the benefit of the subsidy to those buildings erected by local authorities—and of course approved by him—which have for their purpose the abatement of overcrowding in the area and the provision of better housing accommodation for people who are living in these deplorable conditions which I have done my best to describe.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I would not disagree with the descriptions of the problem of overcrowding which have been

    2207
    given by those hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. They are familiar to all of us in our ordinary constituency work, and no one would disagree about their seriousness and the human misery involved.
    I noticed that everyone who has spoken put the overcrowding and the slum clearance problem on an even footing. The hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) asked for an equal attack to be made upon the two, and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said that in some cases people who are overcrowded are living in worse conditions than those who are living in the slums. Again, the hon. Member said that he regards Part IV of the principal Act as being no less important than Part III. But these two problems have not had equal attention in recent years. Recently, overcrowding has been substantially attended to and dealt with by the housing operations of the local authorities, while the slum problem has been virtually neglected even in the very recent past.
    In practically any scheme whereby the local housing authorities allot their houses, overcrowding is a major factor. It certainly would be difficult for a house to be allotted by a local housing authority to a family which was not in some sense, though not, I agree, necessarily statutorily, overcrowded. At any rate overcrowding is the biggest single factor which by and large determines the allocation of local authority accommodation. That fact is reflected in the improvement in overcrowded conditions which came about in the years immediately before the war since the passage of the 1935 Act, which was only consolidated in 1936, and also since the war.
    During the Committee stage on 31st January, I quoted—and I will not weary the House again with the details—the figures of the pre-war survey, the 1951 census and the housebuilding since the 1951 census, which strongly conveyed the fact—and it is one which one would have expected—that overcrowding in the last 20 years has yielded substantially to the attack which has been made upon it, and that it was still on the decline in these years.
    Mr. J. Silverman: While there may be something in what the hon. Gentleman
    2208
    says, there are some areas—and 1 would mention my own area of Birmingham—in which there has been no improvement and in which overcrowding is probably as bad as, if not worse than, it was before, largely due to the influx of population or to other local circumstances and conditions.
    Mr. Powell: We are of course legislating for the country at large, and I quite agree that there are areas in which the general housing problem is infinitely severer than in others. There may be areas where, due to exceptional circumstances—and they are exceptional—overcrowding as a single factor has become worse rather than better in recent years, but generally we are entitled to conclude that, as the result of housing operations continued over the last 20 years, overcrowding is yielding to our attack and that it will still be dealt with by the building of houses by local authorities for general need.
    I hope the House will not be misled by the expression "general need," as though it implied something less than acute need. Of course, a local authority will continue to allot the houses they build by order of priority, and in the determination of that order of priority inevitably they will give weight to overcrowding, so that the attack on overcrowding will still continue.
    When we turn to slum clearance, we have a great contrast. Unless the occupation of an unfit house is combined with overcrowding or other qualifying conditions, it is not usual for that occupation in itself to put the family concerned anywhere near the top of the housing waiting list. It may be an additional factor where there is overcrowding, separation of the family, sexes sleeping together and so on, but it has had so far, and probably rightly, relatively little weight in the allocation of houses built by the local authorities. The result of that has been that we have made slow progress in the last few years with slum clearance. Even in 1955 only about 10 per cent, of the houses which were built by local authorities went to the rehousing of families from demolished slum houses.
    Mr. Sparks: The hon. Gentleman referred just now to slum houses demolished since 1945. I am sure he

    2209
    will appreciate that the number of families who have been rehoused is very much larger than that of the houses which have been demolished.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, of course, but the problem of the slum is that it continues to be lived in until either a closing order is made, it is demolished or a compulsory purchase order is made in respect of it. Therefore, it is fair to count in terms of houses demolished in recording the impression which has been made on the problem.
    It is the fact that in the last twelve months only one-tenth of the housebuilding of local housing authorities has been devoted to this problem. But if we are serious about slum clearance, we have to do something to bring the attack upon slums up to parity with the attack on overcrowding. It is still lagging behind, and it is the intention of this Bill—which will enable local authorities to continue to build, in their discretion and according to their circumstances, for general housing needs; among which that of overcrowding will undoubtedly have first place—to direct them, by the placing of the subsidy, to concentrate their attention far more than hitherto upon the rehousing of families from houses which can then be demolished and lived in no more.
    5.30 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Aston referred to the history of the pre-war years and to the 1935 Act which introduced subsidies specifically for the abatement of overcrowding. That history is instructive in another way. That Act came five years after the first Act, which was directed specifically to the problem of slum clearance. Only when there had been five years' progress in the attack upon the slums did we come to the next stage of switching the attack to overcrowding. Only then—and the hon. Member touched upon this point also—was it possible to take the inevitable concomitant action of prosecuting overcrowding wherever it occurred.
    Hon. Members opposite in drafting their Amendment have recognised that the two things go together; that a premium cannot be put upon the rehousing of persons taken from overcrowded conditions unless and until we are prepared to prevent overcrowded
    2210
    conditions, and to prosecute overcrowding wherever it occurs. The hon. Member for Aston recognises that the time has not yet come when it is practicable for local authorities, which are the prosecuting authorities under Section 66 of the principal Act, to do this. That I take to be an indication that we are proceeding in the right order of events by attacking first the slums—through this Bill—continuing to deal with overcrowding as part of the building for general need, and reserving a specific attack, if need be, for a later stage——
    Mr. J. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt, but on this point I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. How will this Bill, which takes housing subsidies from the provision of houses for overcrowding, help local authorities to provide houses in order to be able to prosecute, and to carry out their statutory duties?
    Mr. Powell: I did not say that it will help local authorities to provide more houses, but it will have the result that, by and large, local authorities will devote more of the houses they build to the rehousing of persons displaced by slum clearance. That must happen if we are to get slum clearance even on to a level footing with the abatement of overcrowding. At present it is lagging far behind.
    I should like to mention another practical point, and one which, I imagine, was one of the factors determining the order of events in the inter-war years. The same local authority staff—the same personnel—would be called upon to do the administrative work in connection with the slum clearance as would be called upon to carry out the very necessary survey mentioned in the Amendment. We should risk delaying, we should risk stultifying the slum clearance campaign, were we to heap further obligations upon necessarily the same people who would be involved in carrying out a survey and then enforcing standards of overcrowding.
    If, as I believe, the House is serious in believing that slum clearance should have a higher priority now than it has had since the war, and if it is serious about wanting to see a slum clearance campaign initiated now, I would ask the House to reject the Amendment, which would inevitably have the effect of delaying and stultifying that campaign.
    Mr. Lindgren: With permission, I would say that we on this side are very disappointed at the line which the Parliamentary Secretary has adopted. He is very diligent in preparing his replies to Amendments—and we compliment him on it—but to us he seems to be far more concerned with percentages than with the facts of local government administration.
    It is perfectly true that since the war housing development has relieved overcrowding, but that has not been statutory overcrowding. The housing need that has been met has related very largely to those families which during the war and afterwards were living with in-laws or in rooms. It was nowhere near the statutory overcrowding that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) described as being defined in the Fifth Schedule of the principal Act. The fact is that in prewar years families had not effective purchasing power for accommodation, and where they had small incomes—and often no income because of unemployment— the tendency was for people to crowd into what houses there were. There might be five or six families in one house while in the same street three or four houses stood empty. There was overcrowding because of lack of purchasing power for accommodation. One big improvement has been that since the war people have had effective purchasing power and so have demanded not only better standards of furnishing, foodstuffs and the rest, but higher standards of housing.
    That demand has been met on a basis of need. Let me assure the Parliamentary Secretary that in his visits to local authorities throughout the country— which I know he is undertaking, and 1 wish him well in them, because they will be an education for him—he will find that the worst standards of overcrowding still exist where the general standard of income tends to be lower. It is because of that that we seek acceptance of this Amendment. We are really not over-impressed by this problem of staff, because we can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole basis of slum clearance work has already been completed by local government sanitary authorities. Schemes are all ready. In fact, much of the work would already have been done but for delay in his own Department in connection with clearance orders and
    2212
    inquiries necessary because certain landlords required that certain properties should be excluded. The result has been considerable delay. We feel that we have made out our case and that the Parliamentary Secretary has ignored it. We shall therefore have to press the matter to a Division.
    Mr. Sparks: Perhaps I might have the leave of the House to put this additional point. The real burden of the Parliamentary Secretary's case was that the Government wanted to get on with slum clearance and, therefore, wanted to leave overcrowding to take care of itself to some extent. There are, however, a large number of authorities which, technically, have no slums and, therefore, cannot do what the hon. Gentleman is asking them to do. At the same time they have an overcrowding problem, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would regard favourably joint action by local authorities which have overcrowding problems but no slum clearance problems to develop rehousing schemes outside their boundaries on the basis of overpopulation and over-congestion about which he spoke favourably just now. It might be possible for a number of local authorities with overcrowding problems to pool their resources, acquire land outside their boundaries and develop a housing scheme. That might well be development of a comprehensive character, not the same as new town development but similar to development under the Town Development Act.
    These local authorities working together might jointly be able to undertake such work with the assistance of the subsidy, but alone and isolated each local authority would be powerless to do much. The problem of overcrowding will grow worse as time passes because of the intense industrialisation in those areas which constantly attract people.
    If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the situation from that point of view, it would be most helpful because, as I have said, in many of these areas where overcrowding is a serious problem there is technically no slum clearance problem.
    Question put, That these words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 272.

    Division No. 104.]

    AYES

    [4.45 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Parkin, B. T.

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Paton, J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pearson, A.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworh)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Peart, T. F.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, P.

    Popplewell, E.

    Anderson, Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Baird, J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Probert, A. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bartley, P.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Randall, H. E.

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

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Rankin, John

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reeves, J.

    Benson. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reid, William

    Beswick, F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Rhodes, H.

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

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Boardman, H.

    Janner, B.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

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

    Ross, William

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

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

    Royle, C.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Short, E. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Jones, Elwyn (W, Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jones, J, Idwal (Wrexham)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Kenyon, C.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Champion, A. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Steele, T.

    Clunie, J.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Coldrick, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

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

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Logan, D. G.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    MacColl, J. E.

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

    Cronin, J. D.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGovern, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McInnes, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Daines, P.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thornton, E.

    Deer, G.

    Mahon, s.

    Timmons, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Dye, S.

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

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mason, Roy

    Weitzman, D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Fienburgh, W.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Finch, H. J.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    West, D. G.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Monslow, W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Forman, J. C.

    Moody, A. S.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

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

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

    Wigg, George

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moss, R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mulley, F. W.

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

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oram, A. E.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Orbach, M.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oswald, T.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Owen, W. J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

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

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hannan, W.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hastings, S.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parker, J.

    Mr. John Taylor.

    NOES

    Agnew, cmdr. P. G.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gammans, Sir David

    McKibbin, A. J.

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

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Glover, D.

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Godber, J. S.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gower, H. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maddan, Martin

    Ashton, H.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

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

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Green, A.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Baldook Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Balniel, Lord

    Gurden, Harold

    Mathew, R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Barter, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Medlioott, Sir Frank

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

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

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Bevlns, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bidgood, J- C.

    Hay, John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Neave, Airey

    Black, C. W.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Body, R. F.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Hill Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Page, R. G.

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

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Partridge, E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pitman, I. J.

    Carr, Robert

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Pott, H. P.

    Channon, H.

    Hutchison, Sir James

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Redmayne, M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith Sinjohn

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Keegan, D.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kerr, H. W.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lagden, G. w.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Russell, R. S.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Leavey, J. A.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

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

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lindsay, Martin (Sulihull)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Erroll, F. J.

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

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Fell, A.

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

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Storey, S.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Fletoher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Fort, R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Teeling, W.

    2200

    2201

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

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

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Wade, D. W.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Tilney John (Wavetree)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Touohe, Sir Gordon

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.

    Division No. 105.]

    AYES

    [5.41 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Parker, J.

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Parkin, B. T.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paton, J.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pearson, A.

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Holman, P.

    Peart, T. F.

    Anderson, Frank

    Holmes, Horace

    Popplewell, E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Balfour, A.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bartley, P.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Probert, A. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Proctor, W. T.

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

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Pryde, D. J.

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

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Randall, H. E.

    Benson, G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rankin, John

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reeves, J.

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

    Hunter, A. E.

    Reid, William

    Blackburn, F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Rhodes, H.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Isaacs, Rt, Hon. G. A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon, A. G.

    Janner, B.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

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

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

    Bowles, F. G.

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

    Ross, William

    Boyd, T. C.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Royle, C.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Brookway, A. F.

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

    Short, E. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Brown, Thomas (Inca)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Kenyon, C.

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

    Carmichael, J.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Clunie, J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Steele, T.

    Coldrick, W.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Logan, D. G.

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

    Cronin, J. D.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Daines, P.

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McInnes, J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Deer, G.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thornton, E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Timmons, J.

    Dye, S.

    Mahon, S.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

    Usborne, H. C.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Weitzman, D.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Finch, H. J.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mitchison, G. R.

    West, D. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Monslow, W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moody, A. S.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Gibson, C. W.

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

    Willey, Frederick

    Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moss, R.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moyle, A.

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

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Grey, C. F.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Orbach, M.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Oswald, T.

    Woof, R. E.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Owen, W. J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Padley, W. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hannan, W.

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

    Zilliacus, K.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Hastings, S.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

    Mr. John Taylor.

    2214

    2215

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clover, D.

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

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

    Godber, J. B.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Gower, H. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maddan, Martin

    Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Green, A.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Ashton, H.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Marples, A. E.

    Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Mathew, R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Barber, Anthony

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

    Barter, John

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Beamish, MaJ. Tufton

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hay, John

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Neave, Airey

    Black, C. W.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Fiorence

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

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Howard, John (Test)

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Page, R. G.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R, A.(SaffronWalden)

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

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Partridge, E.

    Carr, Robert

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Channon, H.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hutohison, Sir James

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Conant, MaJ. Sir Roger

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Pott, H. P.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Crouch, R. F.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp-Northwood)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith Sinjohn

    Redmayne, M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Keegan, D.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Davies.Rt.Hon.Clement (Montgomery)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    D'Avigdor-Coldsmld, Sir Henry

    Kerr, H. W.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

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

    Lambton, Viscount.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Eccies, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Eden,Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

    Russell, R. S.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersflald)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Enroll, F. J.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Fell, A.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longden, Gilbert

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

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Fort, R.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Gammans, Sir David

    MeKibbin, A. J.

    Storey, S.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    2216

    2217

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Teeling, W.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Woollam, John Victor

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Wade, D. W.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.

    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (6) of this section)".
    I spoke at some considerable length on this subject in Committee, and I do not want to go over all the same kinds of argument that were deployed very amply then. However, this is, I think, a very important Amendment, which goes to the root of the difference between the two parties in their attitude towards housing policy; it exposes what is a fundamental difference of approach.
    It is quite clear from the attitude adopted by the Minister in Committee when discussing this question that his primary interest is the demolition of unfit property. Put in that way, of course, it sounds very plausible and a very attractive programme. The snag about it is that it turns on the meaning attached to the words "unfit property."
    One of the points at issue between us is that it is fairly generally recognised, not only on this side of the House, but also among those engaged in solving housing problems, who have experience of the difficulties of dealing with bad housing, that the definition of "unfit property," in the narrowest sense of the term, as in the 1936 Housing Act, is not adequate to meet modern ideas of what is required to meet the major housing needs, particularly of large and old industrial towns.
    The emphasis the right hon. Gentleman has placed all through has been on demolition. He would be perfectly happy if he succeeded in getting through a demolition programme of one million unfit houses demolished in so many years. He would feel then, I think, that he had made all the contribution he was called upon to make towards housing, and he would be quite happy to shut down municipal housing activity and regard the job as achieved. We on this side of the House prefer to look, not so much and not only at the question of what is
    2218
    to be demolished, but also at the question of what is to be put in its place. That is the fundamental difference of approach. We are constructive in our approach to the problem; we look at it in terms of builders, not destroyers; we regard the destruction of unfit property as ancillary to the rebuilding of our towns, particularly the rebuilding and redevelopment of the core of our towns. That is the main difference between us on this part of the Bill, and I should like to confine myself to dealing with those two points.
    Again and again in the course of our discussions, the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend has been, on the face of it, a very plausible one. He says, "We have got to start somewhere. The thing to do is to start with the worst property. The worst property is, by definition, the property to be found in a clearance area, and therefore we want to give a financial incentive to a housing authority to demolish property in clearance areas rather than in the wider areas of overcrowded, badly planned property."
    The weakness in that approach, and what makes that approach extraordinarily academic and theoretical to the whole problem, is that the old-fashioned definition of "unfit property," which is based entirely on medical considerations, is not adequate for modern ideas of what is really wrong with housing. The problems of housing today are not primarily problems of injury to health. The problems of housing today are social problems, the problems of human family relationships, overcrowding, and of people having to live in mean streets where they have not got adequate open spaces, the problem of not having reasonable access to decent shops and decent industries—the problems of community living which are really inherent in bad housing.
    The insistence of the Government on this approach is, as I say, academic and theoretical. It is the kind of insistence to be expected from people who do not

    2219
    know very much what the whole thing is about. The Government approach is to say, "We want to have a spectacular housing policy. How shall we have one? What will go down with the electorate? 'Slum clearance' is a very convenient slogan, therefore we will go all out for slum clearance, "and they barge into it without really understanding what they are doing, and without understanding the essential character of the problem. The Bill has revealed that that is the general approach of the Government to these problems.
    As we said in Committee, practical experience has already shown over many, many years, an increased appreciation of the fact that mere insistence on the demolition of unhealthy property is by itself not an adequate contribution to the housing problem. That was realised twenty years ago when the original 1935 proposals for redevelopment areas were introduced, which, although they included a measure of clearance, also recognised that to solve the other side of the problem, the constructive side, the building side, the net must be cast a good deal wider than merely destroying. That was realised, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, in a rather crude way perhaps, in the 1935 Housing Act. It was the beginning of an attempt to apply reconstruction to housing.
    6.0 p.m.
    In the Town and Country Development Acts of 1944 and 1947 there was a new emphasis on comprehensive development. That is no more than the working out of the appreciation which came to people trying to tackle the job as long ago as twenty years. In this policy of cutting out all assistance to the rehousing side of development the Government are putting the clock back twenty years and showing themselves to be out-of-date and old-fashioned on this question.
    The first weakness is that the Government are insisting on the very narrow and —if not out-of-date—inadequate definition of what is an unfit house. They are not looking sufficiently at the wider planning and social implications of bad housing. That is the first criticism I make, and it is very odd in some ways that the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill should have taken that line.
    2220
    The second criticism is on the question of redevelopment and rebuilding. Earlier, when speaking on an Amendment—he has done it in Committee stage before— he said a lot about the importance in tackling the problem of overspill of not merely taking people in large quantities and throwing them on to housing estates. He spoke of the need for comprehensive development of expanded towns, new towns and so on. The right hon. Gentleman has put his emphasis there. In his use of the subsidy he has put emphasis on comprehensive development, on developing not only housing estates and places for people to live, but also industries, shops and other services which a community requires. If it is right to do that when dealing with the question of putting people in a new area outside a town, it is equally right to do it when dealing with people in an existing town, where bad property is being demolished and the old town is being redeveloped.
    I should have thought this was not a point of party bickering, but something on which in these days people generally agreed. I apologise in advance to the devotees of the garden city who may not share my views. Most people will agree that if there is a choice between leaving a dead core in a town and overspilling people to another area and putting new life into the town by rebuilding a decent modern centre and using the old community loyalties—the church, parish organisations and the existing sense of community in the old areas—the second choice would be preferable. The right hon. Gentleman, in the process of thinking about what he was trying to do as a Minister would, I should have thought, have reached that stage in view of his insistence on the importance of comprehension in considering the overspill problems. If he comprehends the importance of comprehension in the case of overspill, why can he not comprehend it in the case of redevelopment of existing areas? That bewilders me about his attitude to this question.
    The purpose of this Amendment is simply to make it possible for the housing or town planning authority, when demolishing bad areas—I am using the term in a much wider sense than the Parliamentary Secretary was using it when he discussed the question in Committee before—to be given some

    2221
    measure of assistance in rehousing people displaced from those areas. The areas could then be redeveloped, with new roads—by which some problems of road safety could be tackled—with adequate recreational facilities, cinemas, pubs and the other central parts, if one may regard them as such, of modern living. There could be adequate provision of up-to-date schools, churches and other community buildings in the newly developed areas.
    Is there a case for a subsidy when undertaking that kind of redevelopment? I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary may say "I can accept all this. It is rather platitudinous. We all believe in tackling these problems and recognise their importance, but they are not the important problem and do not require the financial aid of a subsidy." Whatever views people have about subsidies in general, it would be agreed that where a subsidy is particularly required is where the nature of the operation makes it so unlikely that it could be done without serious loss, in other words, if it is not possible to provide new housing as a going concern and cover the cost by rents.
    It is generally recognised that overspill is a costly and difficult operation because it involves all these ancillary developments. Even more, redevelopment inside a town must always be a very costly thing to do. In overspill generally one is dealing with a virgin site and starting from scratch. It is a comparatively easy job compared with problems of redevelopment where one has to try to cope with the legacy of centuries of bad design, bad building and bad organisation. Obviously it must be much easier, in technical terms, to develop an outside area on new land and to provide for sewerage and necessary services than to redevelop an already built-up area with inadequate drainage, inadequate sewers and badly arranged roads. I think it most important to encourage local authorities not to flinch from the difficulties of this problem, but to regard it as one of the major contributions they have to make.
    The weakness of this Bill is that the financial emphasis is on two things—on demolition and on building estates outside the area of the authority on virgin land. Those are the twin assumptions upon which the Bill rests, slum clearance subsidy and overspill subsidy, missing out what I suggest is the thing which above
    2222
    all should be encouraged—the very difficult, frustrating job of having to tackle the areas which are left and doing something about them.
    That, I should have thought, was inherently far more costly, far more upsetting and far more likely to be shelved by an authority not alive to its responsibility than either of the other two objects. It is so easy to knock down rows and rows of houses and say, "What a wonderful job we have done! We have cleared so many slums" and then to leave derelict waste space as a blot on the town. That would turn some of our proudest and oldest industrial towns into derelict dumps and dust heaps. That is not the way to tackle the problem of slum clearance, but it will be the effect of this Bill.
    I am moving this Amendment in the hope that the Government will see the importance of rebuilding and will be prepared to offer a subsidy to housing activity which is linked with comprehensive development. They accept the principle of comprehensive development. There is no argument about whether that is good or bad. That is in the Town and Country Planning Act which the Coalition Government passed and in the Town and Country Planning Act which the last Government passed. It is something which has been commonly approved of in development plans submitted by the planning authorities, and something which has got beyond the stage of argument and is an essential of housing and planning activity. If it is recognised as such, and it is also agreed that it is a difficult job and a costly job, it is essentially one which the Central Government ought to be inspiring, stimulating and encouraging local authorities to tackle, as they were inspired, stimulated and encouraged to tackle it by the Labour Government. If that is to be a major part of the contribution of the present Government, then they ought to link it with financial assistance and with a subsidy.
    I know that there is a planning subsidy which local authorities can hope to get for the acquisition of land, but that is not meeting the major problem, which is the reconstructing of these areas so far as possible, the rehousing of people on sites in the places where their roots are deep in the soil of ancient communities from which their parents have been born and they were born. It is that kind of social

    2223
    planning which ought to be the proud boast of any authority trying to tackle the problem of urban living. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will see the essential reasonableness of this approach and be prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The proposals as regards redevelopment, which is a Housing Act phrase, and comprehensive development under town and country planning legislation were moved separately in Committee, and they meet with a slightly different response. Redevelopment, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends quite correctly pointed out, was now a somewhat old-fashioned notion not used very much, and was really replaced in practice by the subsequent provisions with regard to comprehensive development, The right hon. Gentleman got out of that argument nicely.
    As regards comprehensive development, the answer was substantially as follows: we have a very large number, let us say 1 million insanitary houses—to use a technical term—in the country. Let us deal with these first, and let us not encourage anyone to pull down a sound house until, generally speaking, all the unsound ones have been pulled down. That sounds all right. Let us see, first, what this language about "encouragement" amounts to. The right hon. Gentleman, by this Bill, is taking away existing subsidies. The only encouragement which he is giving to what he calls slum clearance is, in effect, not to take away existing subsidies from it so far as the Government subsidy is concerned. That is the form and limit of his encouragement.
    The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of someone who, watching a number of horses racing, decides that one particular horse will go faster if he cuts the legs off all the others. I can assure him that it does not in fact speed up one horse to take the subsidy away from a whole lot of others; and it does not do so in the present state of the finances of local authorities.
    6.15 p.m.
    The question that we have to consider today is not whether it is right to deal with one of these objectives before
    2224
    another in any and every case, but whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified, on a broad and far-sighted view of the future of this country, in removing an existing subsidy from rehousing in connection with development, redevelopment, or comprehensive development. On that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is some history attached to housing in this country.
    It grew up, in the industrial towns at any rate, around factories and other sources of work and employment to house an industrial population which was considered by some circles in Victorian times as providing useful units for industry, and little more. It was that point of view which led to the growth, the heaping up and the piling up of what we now call slums in our industrial centres. In a different way, much the same has happened over a longer period in the countryside, where dwellings have been provided grudgingly and according to the needs for work and the opportunities of employment for those who were going to win their living by working on the land.
    It was only within fairly recent times that we outgrew that conception of housing. We can date it from this kind of legislation. We were beginning to think about it in the 'thirties—I would not say very much earlier. It was only when we had a Labour Government after the war that we had real encouragement of what is, I believe, the proper attitude to housing—that we are not dealing with a number of industrial units housed in occupation units, but we are in fact dealing with the proper replanning and proper building of our cities and our country places as a whole.
    It is in that spirit that we have had the kind of venture that took place in Poplar on Lansbury, the kind of thing that was done, in rather different circumstances, in the middle of Birmingham, and the kind of thing which was carried one stage further by new town development. That is modern housing. There is nothing to be particularly proud of about it. It is a somewhat belated recognition of something that has occurred in many other countries. If the right hon. Gentleman goes, as he no doubt has done or will do on some occasion, round some of the more advanced countries of

    2225
    Europe, he will find that conception of housing perfectly obvious in, for instance, any Scandinavian country.
    What we are being asked to do in this Bill, by reason of the financial out which it imposes, is to give up that idea, to leave housing to the independent development of local authorities, to penalise them in so far as they are dealing with sound houses in a redevelopment area and to refrain from a substantial cut only in respect of the unfit and insanitary houses in these areas.
    The plea which we are making to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—or such of them as think it of sufficient public interest to listen to the debate—is simply not to go back on the modern conception of housing, on the conception of planning, on the conception of the duties of local authorities in this country, on the whole idea of ordered, beautiful— I do not hesitate to use the word—and proper growth. The Government should not go back on that and use the wicked financial instrument which they have made for themselves in this Bill in order to take one step further back in their journey of reaction and treat the population of this country once again as individual industrial units living inside houses that ought to be made just fit for them and no more.
    That is the spirit underlying the Bill, and the refusal of the Amendment is a refusal to accept the concept of a city as a city, an area as an area and a neighbourhood, to use the current term, as a neighbourhood. It is a refusal to accept the proposition that people are not merely living in individual houses, good or bad, but that they have to live as a community in a layout and under conditions that are appropriate for a community.
    That concept, won in this country only comparatively recently as these things go, is in danger. The point and need for it has arisen out of the complication of modern life and modern times. In the old small town, there was not this sharp distinction, but now, when dealing with these large towns, or conurbations as they are called, surely it is the very worst time to take away the stimulus to deal with them properly, to take away the right of the local authority, the elected body, to choose for itself, without being hampered by financial considerations,
    2226
    whether to deal with the matter in small or in rather larger units—indeed, whether it shall plan about it at all.
    Neither do I for one moment believe that the Government, by insisting to this unreasonable extent on demolition by units or by single dwellings, so far as their financial inducements go, or by means of the effect of what they are doing, will make any appreciable difference whatever to the progress of slum clearance if at the same time they omit to cut the subsidy as regards the sound houses in bad areas.
    I do not believe that local government and local planning works that way. I do not think that local authorities either can or will look at the question unit by unit. They will continue to look at the bad areas, and if they are allowed to deal with them as areas, if the Government omit to make this anti-social cut that they propose as regards comprehensive development, I believe that the progress of proper redevelopment proper comprehensive development and proper slum clearance will all go on just as rapidly as before and that all that will happen will be that the Government will have failed to prevent local authorities building houses quite to the extent that the Government intend them not to build houses according to the Bill.
    The object seems to me to be not merely to reduce Government subsidies but to cut and to restrict council building in favour of private house building. That is the plain object of it. I ask the Government to have a little heart and vision for a change, and in spite of that intention, wicked and reactionary as I believe it to be, none the less to let some planning and some dealing with comprehensive development go on without the discouragement that the Bill will otherwise give to it.
    Mr. Sparks: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in asking the Government to accept the Amendment. One of the greatest benefits that we have given to posterity is the series of planning Acts that have been placed upon the Statute Book since the Second World War, for it protects the young and growing towns from the evils now suffered by many of our older towns and cities.

    2227
    The planning Acts were designed to eradicate the evils of the past and to protect the generations of the future against the mistakes already made. Therefore, it has become the statutory duty of all local authorities to prepare for the Minister development plans showing precisely how those authorities intend to overcome the evils already existing in their localities and how, in the case of young and growing towns, they intend to plan their development over, perhaps, the next thirty, forty or fifty years.
    In the main, we are speaking this afternoon of the old towns and not the young towns, because they are not affected in the same way. We all know the condition of a large number—I would hesitate to say all, but undoubtedly the great majority—of our old towns and cities, with their narrow streets and bad layout and the conglomeration of factories, houses and all kinds of heraditaments of one kind and another mixed up together in an unholy mess.
    Very often it is much more healthy to live in a slum house on the moors than in a well-appointed flat in some of the old towns and cities. Upon the moorland, there is plenty of fresh air, but in some of the old towns and cities there is very little. One gets plenty of good sunlight living on the moors, but in many of the towns and cities one does not see the sun at all. The medical profession say that two of the most important elements in a healthy life are plenty of good fresh air and plenty of sunlight. We are speaking for those people who live in the old towns and cities which are deficient of sunlight, air and open space. Many of them, therefore, cannot solve their local problems merely by the Minister saying that subsidies on slum clearance schemes will be continued.
    Slum clearance is very important in its way, but this afternoon we are asking the Minister to extend the benefit of subsidies to redevelopment based upon development plans. My hon. and learned Friend was quite correct in saying that much of the redevelopment in the development plans is equivalent to new town development. Many redevelopment plans are precisely that, except that the operations are undertaken in the area of the local authority instead of the population being exported to a new town.
    2228
    6.30 p.m.
    It is quite true that the planning Acts provide financial assistance to local authorities for the acquisition of land to carry out their redevelopment plans. We are concerned in the main with the first stages of those plans. As a rule, plans are made to ensure redevelopment in stages. We are concerned with the first and second stages of redevelopment which may be carried out over a period of five years or ten years.
    The Minister should envisage the problem of a local authority in an old, badly regulated and badly planned town or city. If the local authority is to deal with the worst area of congestion, where houses and living conditions, factories and transport and all the other factors are mixed together in an unregulated mass, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that it must deal with a number of problems at the same time. This is not a simple issue of slum clearance, because slum clearance is based in the main on each individual house being unfit for habitation, and I have said that one could have an unfit house on the moors. This problem means for the local authority a juggling about, as it were, with various types of town needs.
    A local authority might have a congested area with narrow streets, badly laid out, and with houses, factories and workshops all mixed up together. It might have to consider part of that area and designate it as the site for factories and workshops, designate another part as the place where the people should live and designate a third part as an open space where the people could sit and enjoy some air and sunshine. The local authority cannot deal with an area on the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman said when we discussed this matter earlier. He said then that in that part of an area where there are individual unfit slum houses he is prepared to grant a subsidy, but he went on to say that in those cases where the houses were fit he was opposed to having them pulled down. If the Minister means that, he is saying that he is opposed to any redevelopment under the planning Acts.
    These houses may not be technically slums, but most of them will be very ancient indeed, and they may well be situated at a point on the plan which is designated for industry. The sites of these houses might therefore be required

    2229
    for the accommodation of factories and industries at present sited next door to people's houses. The local authority cannot hope to redevelop the area in accordance with the plan unless it can have access to the sites upon which the factories and houses are to be placed and designated open sites. The local authority, therefore, is compelled to take the area as a whole.
    The Amendment asks the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the special importance of this kind of redevelopment and to continue to give to the local authorities the benefits of the housing subsidies for all the dwellings which they have to pull down in order to redevelop an area as a whole in the way I have tried to outline. If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to do that, he will, first, make the financing of the burden so heavy, in addition to what the local authorities will shoulder under the town planning Acts, that for financial reasons the authority may find it impossible to proceed. Secondly, if the Minister says that no houses must be pulled down unless they are technically slums, it will mean that no further progress can be made with redevelopment in such an area.
    We, on this side of the House, think that that is a very bad and reactionary attitude, because some of these old towns and cities contain festering sores—relics of the old days when people could put up any building they liked without concern as to who lived next door. They could erect a factory and emit all the smoke they liked. They could bring in machinery and make a noise all day and night. They could use chemicals and other things which create smells, and they could arrange for transport to and from their factories and leave lorries parked outside private houses. There are places where people are living in deplorable conditions and suffering all kinds of nuisances and inconveniences because of the irregular way in which our towns and cities have grown up in the past.
    We appeal to the Minister to help forward the progressive job which the local authorities are trying to carry out under the planning Acts. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to extend the benefit of subsidy to these dwellings which must come down in order to reconstruct an area as a whole, he will be helping forward this work considerably. He need not think that he will be paying
    2230
    all the bills. He will not be paying them all by a long way, but it will be an incentive to local authorities to get on with this important work and make our towns and cities better places to live in, better regulated, better laid out, and with more sun and air, for the children in particular if for nobody else.
    It should be part of the responsibility of Government to make our towns beautiful as well as to get rid of slums. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could do that if they felt so disposed, and I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Denis Howell: We have heard many constituency speeches during the various stages of the Bill, and particularly in Committee. It is inconceivable that we should consider questions of comprehensive redevelopment without drawing upon the experience of my own city, Birmingham, which has played a pioneering part in that work since the war. It is because our experience in Birmingham has led us to the view which is embodied in the Amendment that I shall address the House for a few minutes.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke about the difficulties of selecting individual units. At one stage of our plans in Birmingham that is precisely what we did. Certain members of the city council advocated that each of the individual houses which we contemplated acquiring under the then Acts should be considered in isolation, not as a whole or as an area of development, and that a committee should examine each house and decide which it was proper to acquire.
    I am happy to say that after putting this to the test for a short time the system, which apparently is still in the mind of the Minister, was jettisoned by every member of the city council. So I can help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering by telling him that were that point pressed now, not a single member of the city council would put it forward as a feasible proposition. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will pay some regard to that fact.
    It is impossible to divorce the general question of slum clearance from that of comprehensive development. In Birmingham, we have taken over since the war

    2231
    about 40,000 slum houses, and we have spent almost £5 million in repairing them, in making them a little better for people to live in than was the case previously. We do this by three methods. First, upon acquisition, we render first-aid repairs to them; that is to say, we do all the things which a sanitary inspector would normally try to get the landlord to do, but which landlords do not do if they know that the local authority is about to acquire the houses.
    The next part of this work deals not with units but with complete blocks. The redevelopment areas are mapped out, and each is given a block number. By means of a block contract we make them wind and weather-proof. The effect of this work is that one can stand in parts of Birmingham and see whole streets where the roofs of houses have been ripped off and replaced, because it has been no use doing much else to the houses until the elements have been prevented from entering.
    The final stage in our three-tier system of dealing with slum houses is completely to renovate them according to the life put upon the houses by the city surveyor. If they are to stand for more than five years, we do a certain amount of work. If they are to stand for more than ten years we put in new floors and cupboards.
    Ultimately, of course, the houses will be demolished and the people will be rehoused, but in the situation in which Birmingham and many other local authorities find themselves it is impossible to suggest that we can demolish anything like 40,000 houses in a reasonable time. At the same time that we have been doing the work of which I have been speaking, we are demolishing houses in large areas, and we find that for every three houses which we demolish we have to rehouse five families. That is the average which our experience shows to be necessary, and it is a problem of general housing need which has to be met and which is dealt with elsewhere in this Bill.
    We are immediately up against the problem of rent structure because we find that it is impossible to move people, whose whole economy has been geared to paying a small rent, say 10s. a week, from a bad house into one miles away
    2232
    out of the city—as under the contemplated overspill proposals—the rent of which is 40s. a week. The complete contrast between living in a slum house with a low rent and a new house with a high rent is one of the greatest social difficulties in meeting the present housing situation in Birmingham.
    6.45 p.m.
    Therefore, what we have to do if we want to move people from slum areas is to move them back into other areas of comprehensive redevelopment. In other words, having dealt with the inner ring of slum houses, the city council is now preparing itself for the massive step of moving these people to the middle ring in the city. To do this we must acquire 25,000 more houses in order properly to resettle the people moved from the original slum areas.
    This may sound complicated but it is what our experience shows us must happen. Therefore we have to pay some regard to obtaining more houses when dealing with the social aspects of housing, and so the health committee of the city council is proceeding with the task of taking over another 25,000 houses. Houses in these new areas of comprehensive development must be regarded as slum houses, which is the point I mentioned earlier and about which I think the Parliamentary Secretary made a note. As a result, such areas must be regarded as areas of comprehensive re-development and must be acquired if we are to rehouse the people from the inner ring of slum houses.
    We cannot solve our problem in Birmingham by applying the answer which we have been getting from the Front Bench opposite during this debate, namely, that of pooling rents. The pooling of rents is not the answer, although it is a help in some ways and although we have a rebate system of which I am sure the Minister would approve. In our housing department records there are the names of thousands of people whom we must rehouse if we are to get on with slum clearance. We cannot do so, however, because even with the help of the rebate scheme those people would be unable to afford the rents of new houses. Those are the plain facts of the matter.
    I hope that regard will be had to the amount of money already spent by Birmingham in putting slum properties

    2233
    into a reasonable state; it has reached the astronomical figure of £5 million. Therefore the citizens of Birmingham are entitled to say to the Government, "The finances of our city have stood more than their fair share. In return we are entitled to ask you for the further areas of comprehensive re-development that we wish to acquire and for which we should have the full subsidy in order that there shall be complete equity between what the citizens of Birmingham have to bear and what ought to be provided by the Government."
    This is not hypothetical talk but describes what is actually happening. We must have comprehensive redevelopment to meet the social problems in the City of Birmingham arising out of slum clearance. We must pay regard to the rent structure, and that means that the Government ought to think again about this subsidy. I say this because the Government are saying, even to our progressive city, "You can get on with your job of comprehensive redevelopment, you can try to rehouse your slum dwellers, but we shall not give you much financial assistance."
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) complained that the arguments deployed on a previous occasion in answer to an Amendment substantially the same as this one were plausible, and that the policy for which we on this side of the House stand, namely, for a determined and concentrated slum clearance drive, is adopted because it is a popular one. An argument may often be plausible because it is sound and a policy may be popular because it is based on common sense. I believe that this one is based on common sense.
    It is true that the definition of an unfit house which qualifies it for clearance, for closure or demolition is narrower than many of us would like to see applied, but there can be no dispute that houses which statutorily qualify as unfit houses are by and large worse than houses that do not so qualify. I suggest to the House that it is common sense to deal first with the worst houses and to encourage local authorities to concentrate upon them.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has once again pointed out that in his view the retention
    2234
    of the subsidy for a particular purpose is not an encouragement to local authorities to concentrate upon the pursuit of that purpose, but, of course, that is inconsistent with asking that the subsidy should also be retained for some other purpose, in order that the pursuit of that other purpose may be encouraged.
    Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what is the effect of this encouragement, since with it local authorities will do less slum clearance than they were doing without it.
    Mr. Powell: If the hon. and learned Member does not think that retention of the existing subsidy for comprehensive redevelopment will be an encouragement to engage in comprehensive redevelopment, I fail to see the point of his or any argument put from the other side of the House.
    Let us take it that the retention of the subsidy for slum clearance—I shall come to the definition shortly—is, and is accepted by both sides of the House to be, an encouragement to slum clearance; that does not mean that we are preventing local authorities from proceeding by way of redevelopment areas or comprehensive development. But it does mean that we refuse to put a premium upon the demolition of fit houses. Whatever is accepted in the House, I am sure that out of doors that would be thought to be common sense in 1956, in the light of the present housing situation.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Member opposed to the principles of the Town and Country Planning Acts?
    Mr. Powell: No. I have explained that the Bill in no way prevents, debars or inhibits a local authority from proceeding by way of redevelopment areas under the principal Act, which is the Housing Act, 1936, or by comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts. What it does do is to decline to put a premium, in the year 1956, upon the demolition of areas of fit houses in preference to the demolition of areas of unfit houses.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member will remember that by definition neither a redevelopment area nor a comprehensive development area can be an area of fit houses.
    Mr. Powell: I believe that, in fact, an area of comprehensive development can substantially include no technically unfit houses.
    I now come to the definition of the houses which will attract the present rate of subsidy. The hon. Member for Widnes drew the definition much too tightly, and led the House to believe that that subsidy would apply only to individual unfit houses. The definition of a clearance area is in Section 25 of the principal Act. It says that a local authority must be satisfied
    "…that the houses in that area are by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation…"
    That is one ground of qualification. Another is:
    "…by reason of their bad arrangement, or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area.…"
    A clearance area may, therefore, include an area in which are houses which in themselves are fit, but which properly fall within the clearance area by reason of congestion. Replacements for all those houses will attract the continuing subsidy. It is therefore untrue to say that the Bill relates only to individual unfit houses.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean that houses which are dangerous or injurious to health are fit for habitation? Is that the considered view of the Tory Party?
    Mr. Powell: That is not how the Statute is drawn, and I am pointing out that the definition of a clearance area in the principal Act, which is applied for purposes of subsidy, is much wider than that of individual unfit houses.
    Mr. Sparks: This is a rather important point. The Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that the designation of a slum clearance area need not include houses that are unfit for human habitation. If that is so, it should be confirmed by the Minister, because what we are being told is that the Minister will regard as slums houses that are fit for human occupation.
    Mr. Powell: I am afraid that I am only telling the House what is already twenty years old, because I am only reminding the House of the provisions of Section 25 of the principal Act, I have been merely reading the terminology of
    2236
    the principal Act in order to remind the House of the type of house and the type of area which may be declared a clearance area and in which every house will attract the continuing subsidy.
    The hon. Member for Widnes said that by proceeding as we propose we shall leave a dead core—those were his words —of undeveloped areas in the centres of our towns which have not been rebuilt. There is no reason in the subsidy structure which the Bill creates why that should be so. There may be included in the clearance area, as the hon. Member well knows, houses which in the technical jargon are called "grey" or are, to quote Section 27 of the principal Act:
    "…reasonably necessary for the purpose of securing a cleared area of convenient shape and dimensions, and any adjoining land the acquisition of which"—
    these are the important words—
    "…is reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development or user of the cleared area."
    Of the houses involved, both those which are unfit, those which fall within the clearance area in the technical sense, and additional or "grey" houses, will attract the subsidy, so there is no deterrent to a local authority proceeding with a convenient area of re-development in which every house demolished will attract the continuing subsidy.
    Mr. MacColl: As my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) reminded us, it is the Minister, not the courts, who interprets the Act. It is, therefore, the Minister who will adjudicate on proposals for making a clearance order. Are we to understand that in interpreting the extent of the dimensions of the "grey" area he will interpret it on town planning considerations, looking at re-development from the town planning point of view, and in the modern sense of replanning, for example, streets and facilities for schools and open spaces, so that all that would be included in a clearance area under his interpretation?
    Mr. Powell: We are dealing with the terms of a Statute which in turn relate to the terms of the principal Act. I am reminding the House of the terms of the principal Act which are designed to make it possible, when unfit and congested houses are cleared, for the area to be redeveloped by the local authority. All

    2237
    the houses cleared in an area so redeveloped will attract the continuing subsidy.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is very important. May we take it that the reading of the definition which the hon. Member has just given is a considered Ministerial policy? It is of considerable practical importance.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: I say again that there is nothing new in what I am telling the House. The application of the principle —the declaration of clearance areas, the confirmation of compulsory purchase orders—has been going on continuously since 1936. There is no change in the process involved. I am reminding the House, because several hon. Members appeared to have overlooked it, that the subsidy under the Bill will not adhere to individual unfit houses. It will adhere to every house in an area which is required as, again I am quoting from the words of the Statute,
    "reasonably necessary for the satisfactory development…of the cleared area."
    Mr. MacColl: I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman but this is a very important point——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the Report stage and not the Committee stage of the Bill. We have had a number of interventions during the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that we may have fewer.
    Mr. Powell: I was about to come to the interesting speech of the hon. Member
    for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) with whom I share a certain amount of "Brummagem" patriotism. He spoke of the large operations of the City of Birmingham in the patching of unfit houses. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that operation is covered by the subsidy made available under the 1954 Act. When in the course of time these patched houses are demolished, they will still be unfit houses in the statutory sense of the term and will therefore qualify under the Bill for the continuing subsidy.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to the redevelopment necessary to make possible the rehousing of persons displaced from the slum areas in the inner ring. As those are housing operations for that purpose, they will attract subsidy in so far as—and this will be true of the majority of cases—they are for the rehousing of persons from areas as defined in Clause 11 of the Bill. Therefore the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the greater part of the operations which he described will attract the continuing subsidy under the Bill.
    But I must advise the House in general that it would be contrary to the underlying purpose of the Bill and it would be contrary to what, outside if not inside the House, would be regarded as common sense if, by making this Amendment, we were to attach to the demolition of fit houses in large numbers the same inducement that we desire to attach to the clearance of slums.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
    The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 252.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Royle, C.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Short, E. W.

    Hale, Leslie

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mahon, S.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Hannan, w.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mason, Roy

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Healey, Denis

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

    Messer, Sir F.

    Snow, J. W.

    Herbison, Miss M,

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Monslow, W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Steele, T.

    Holman, P.

    Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Houghton, Douglas

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

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Mort, D. L.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Moss, R.

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

    Hoy, J. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Orbach, M.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

    Oswald, T.

    Thornton, E.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Owen, W. J.

    Timmons, J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Janner, B.

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

    Viant, S. P.

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

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Weitzman, D.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Parker, J.

    West, D. G.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Paton, J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pearson, A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Peart, T. F.

    Willey, Frederick

    Kenyon, C.

    Popplewell, E.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

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

    Lawson, G. M.

    Probert, A. R.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Randall, H. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Lewis, Arthur

    Rankin, John

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Rhodes, H.

    Woof, R. E.

    Logan, D. G.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Zilliacus, K.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McGovern, J.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Ross, William

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES

    [7.2 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Albu, A. H.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Allen, Scholetield (Crewe)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Anderson, Frank

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Bartley, P.

    Carmichael, J.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

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

    Champion, A. J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Benson, G.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Fernyhough, E.

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

    Clunie, J.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Coldriok, W.

    Finch, H. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Boardman, H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Forman, J. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

    Bowles, F. G.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Brock way, A. F.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Daines, P.

    Grey, C. F.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

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

    Aitken, W. T.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

    Bryan, P.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Eden.Rt.Hn.SirA.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Amory,Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Ashton, H.

    Carr, Robert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fell, A.

    Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Channon, H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Balnlel, Lord

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Barber, Anthony

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Fort, R.

    Barter, John

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Calbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O.E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Crouch, R. F.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

    Glover, D.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Godber, J. B.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Gomme-Duncan, Co. A.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Body, R. F.

    Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

    Deedes, W. F.

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

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Green, A.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Redmayne, M.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Remnant, Hon. P,

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Robertson, Sir David

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Robson-Brown, W.

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

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hay, John

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Maddan, Martin

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hicks-Beach, MaJ. W. W.

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

    Shepherd, William

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Marples, A. E.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Marshall, Douglas

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Mathew, R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

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

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Stoddart-scott, Col. M.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Storey, S.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.<>

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Summers G. S (Aylesbury)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Sumner W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hutchison, Sir James

    Neave, Airey

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Tiley, A (Bradford, W.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Turner H. F. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith Sinjohn

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Keegan, D.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wade, D. W.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Walker-smith, D. C.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Partridge, E.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Plokthorn, K. W. M.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

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

    Pott, H. P.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfleld).

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Woollam, John Victor

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Ramadan, J. E.

    Mr. Studholme and

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Colonel J. H. Harrison.

    Mr. Herbert Butler: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (7) of this section)."
    I do not propose to detain the House for very long, because the principle of this matter has been discussed upon previous occasions. The debate this afternoon has made it more clear that the Bill is obviously designed for the purpose of stopping all housing except in respect of a certain amount of slum clearance. The Minister says that the giving of the same subsidy which now exists is an incentive. We say that the reduction in the subsidy is devised to retard housing development. We hope he will appreciate that the Act of Parliament of which
    2242
    he was the parent, forcing local authorities to derequisition requisitioned property, is creating a section of the community which is living in conditions as bad as those in slum areas.
    Statutorily, just as people who live in slum property have to be rehoused because the property is declared unfit for human habitation, so, with the assistance of the Minister, people who were inhabiting requisitioned property and are now to be forced on to the streets by an Act of Parliament have a call upon local authorities. Local authorities will have the responsibility of rehousing people who have to leave property when it is derequisitioned. As has been said before, the main problem in London is not one of slum clearance. In my own

    2243
    area over 3,000 families are living in requisitioned property. The main problems are to rehouse people from requisitioned properties and also to deal with overcrowding. In those circumstances we feel that the Minister, in addition to asking local authorities to speed up slum clearance, should have regard to the fact that, just as slum dwellers do not live in slums from choice, those who are living in requisitioned property, are, in the main, those who have suffered very severely from the effects of the last war.
    7.15 p.m.
    They are the people who were bombed out; the people who lost all their chattels and suffered under intolerable conditions. In many cases they were rehoused in properties which in no way compare with local authority property. The Amendment provides that the Minister— especially in areas which were severely bombed—should retain the existing subsidy for those derequisitioned properties in respect of which the local authority has to house the tenants. I submit that this is a reasonable proposition, which should commend itself to the Minister. It will not even interfere with the Minister's evil intentions.
    Mr. C. W. Key: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: When this matter was last under discussion during the Committee stage, the Minister held out a faint hope that he would go some way towards meeting the representations made by my hon. Friends in regard to the problem imposed upon local authorities by the existence of a large number of requisitioned properties, especially in the London area. On that occasion the Minister said:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1345.]
    In our submission, one of the means by which local authorities would tend to increase the number of such houses would be by way of giving subsidies in respect of families rehoused from requisitioned dwellings. The method most calculated to discourage local authorities in this matter is that proposed in the Bill,
    2244
    namely, to do nothing about giving subsidies in those circumstances.
    The Minister also said that he would read carefully what had been said in the debate. I hope that he did so and that that reading led him to a favourable conclusion. I confess that my hon. Friends were not impressed with the way in which he tended to brush aside the difficulties to which his earlier derequisitioned legislation gave rise.
    In our view, he dealt far too little with the problem of the local authorities, and I hope that the faint hope contained in the words he used at the end of our discussion on this matter during the Committee stage will be realised, and that he really will do something to help the local authorities in the London area to face this difficult problem.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I wish briefly to emphasise the importance of this Amendment from the point of view of families on the waiting list whose cases are admittedly very urgent.
    In London, the L.C.C. has a waiting list of very urgent cases of nearly 50,000, and all the boroughs have similar lists, though they are not so large. If the authorities are to be compelled to use these houses for re-housing people when the time comes for them to give up requisitioned houses, in so far as they do that, they will very considerably lessen the chances of those families on the urgent list. I am sure that there is something wrong in the situation.
    I find from the housing report issued by the Government that the number of requisitioned houses which have already been de-requisitioned up to 6th June last year was 37,859, and that between the 6th June last year and 31st December, no less than 5,465 additional houses had been de-requisitioned. I know that some of these have been de-requisitioned as the result of the landlords agreeing to accept the tenants as statutory tenants, but they are a very small number.
    Mr. John Hay: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? My information is exactly the contrary—that there has been a very large number indeed. The House would like to know if that is so.
    Mr. Gibson: As a matter of fact, in an earlier discussion on this Bill, I gave the House the figures for my own borough of

    2245
    Wandsworth which show—I forget the exact figures—that the council had approached some 1,000 landlords and had had no replies from any of them willing to accept the tenant as a statutory tenant. As far as I know, nothing has been done to try to ease that condition.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: By way of illustration, may I say that in West Ham 2,265 families are in requisitioned houses, and that in only 400 cases have the landlords agreed that the tenants should stay on.
    Mr. Gibson: The landlords there must be more accommodating than they are in Wandsworth, because nothing like 400 have agreed so far to accept statutory tenants.
    The point I am making is that the number of houses which have been derequisitioned and in which cases the landlords have not accepted the tenants as statutory tenants has involved the housing authority transferring those families into some other municipal accommodation. In the past six months, 5,465 of these cases have occurred. That means that 5,465 families on the waiting list and urgently waiting for accommodation have been denied the opportunity of getting it.
    It is quite obvious that the local authorities, with the pressure upon them caused by the raising of the interest rates and now the cutting of the subsidies, will have difficulties in any case in building enough houses to meet the demands which will come by 1960 as the result of getting rid of all the de-requisitioned houses. It is even worse than that, because the housing report for 31st December shows that the number of houses under construction at the end of December was 10,552 less than it was on 30th September, so that we have reduced the number of houses under construction by over 10,000 and we have the additional pressure on the local housing authorities to re-house people from requisitioned houses so that they may hand those houses back to the owners.
    Unless the housing authorities are given a substantial subsidy to encourage them—they will have difficulties enough in any case in finding sites for building—to build more houses, it will be quite impossible to solve this problem of the requisitioned houses and much more difficult to solve the problem of the tens of thousands of families now on the urgent waiting lists.
    2246
    I do not want to weary the House by giving illustrations, but I am quite sure that all of us hear week after week of really tragic cases of families which ought to be re-housed but which we are told the local authority cannot re-house because they have to provide so many additional houses for slum clearance and so many to meet the demands for the de-requisitioning of requisitioned houses, and that is a direct result of the policy which lies behind this Bill.
    Therefore, I most strongly urge the Minister to give a little more consideration than he gave during the earlier debates to this comparatively small section of the housing problem, and to give the local authorities a sufficient inducement by giving them the full subsidy to go on building much more quickly. If he does not do so, the housing situation, not only in London but, as far as I can see, all over the country, will seriously deteriorate in the next twelve months, and we might find ourselves up against really serious social discontent and trouble. I hope the Minister will give a much more sympathetic reply to this proposal than he did when we last discussed it.
    Mr. Sandys: I find it very difficult to give a different reply to the debate on this Amendment than on the last occasion. Precisely the same arguments have been put forward, and it is not unnatural that precisely the same arguments will be advanced in reply.
    I would remind hon. Members, because what was said on so many occasions previously does not seem to have been impressed on their minds, that the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, and the policy behind it, does not rest primarily, or even to a very large extent, upon the provision of new houses to re-accommodate persons now living in requisitioned property. From the very start, it was made perfectly clear that that was not the basis of the policy on that Bill. I said quite categorically that I was not expecting local authorities to make any large increases in the number of houses which they were already allocating for the re-housing of persons now living in requisitioned property.
    Mr. Key: Did not the Minister say, when dealing with this matter during the

    2247
    Committee stage, that it was his hope that they would provide—and I quote—
    "…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; col. 44.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: I think that is entirely consistent with what I said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is. The right hon. Gentleman has just read that I trusted they would continue to provide at least as many houses as they were already providing. He then went on to read a passage—which I accept as being correct —that I believed—I was not asking, but believed—that they would, in fact, increase that number.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Without subsidies?
    Mr. Sandys: They would increase that number. The point is not my belief in what local authorities will do. My point is that the policy behind the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act does not rest upon the assumption that a very large contribution to the problem will be made by the building of new houses. The Act relies upon quite other methods. I have made it quite clear before that if we were to rely upon the building of new houses in order to re-accommodate all those now Irving in requisitioned houses it would take twenty years or more to do the job. That was, therefore, clearly quite out of the question. And to what use would we put the houses which are now accommodating these people? If they were all empty, who would live in them?
    Mr. Sparks: What does the Minister rely on?
    Mr. Sandys: Really, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) made numerous and interminable speeches at that time and must recall the whole basis of the Act. The Act relies primarily on other methods. First of all, it relies upon the owners being willing, in return for compensation, to accept the existing licensees as statutory tenants. It is too early to judge exactly how well that is going, but the results so far are better than I expected.
    Mr. Sparks: Are they 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Sandys: If they were 25 per cent. I would throw my cap in the air with delight. I do not expect that they will be 25 per cent., but if they were I would feel it really was a triumph for that part of the Act.
    Mr. Sparks: It does not say much for the policy.
    Mr. Sandys: That is only one of the methods which the Act provides. Another method is that when a requisitioned property becomes vacant it is released unless there are exceptional circumstances. That is because that was thought to be one way of releasing property with the least hardship to everyone concerned.
    The Act provides, as a third method, financial assistance for local authorities in taking on the leases of these houses for a period of years, the period being of such length as the local authorities think will cover the time needed to provide additional houses. In some cases the leases may be for 10, 15 or 20 years. But we thought it right to place the occupancy of these houses upon a proper, peace-time, contractual basis rather than have it rest upon emergency war-time powers.
    Mr. Key: Will not the Minister agree that the Act says that local authorities will get assistance towards the leasing of houses only for a period of 10 years after the requisitioning comes to an end?
    Mr. Sandys: They will be taking on these leases before the end of the five years.
    Mr. Key: But I am dealing with the provision which says that the Minister will contribute 75 per cent. of the cost for 10 years or for the length of the lease, whichever is the shorter.
    Mr. Sandys: I will be quite frank with the right hon. Gentleman and say that I cannot, for the moment, recall exactly what the provision is. He may be right, but I am not quite sure that that is the fact—but I think that it is going quite a long way from the present Amendment.
    Mr. Key: If the Minister says that he does not believe me——
    Mr. Sandys: I did not say that.
    Mr. Key: Perhaps I may be allowed to read Section 11 (2) of the Requisitioned

    2249
    Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act dealing with this very matter. It says:
    "The contributions payable to a local authority under this section in respect of such a house shall be annual contribution for the following period, that is to say…in the case of a house taken on lease, the term of the lease or ten years beginning with the commencement of that term, whichever is the shorter."
    Mr. Sandys: I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct but only that my memory did not serve me perhaps as well as the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Act.
    The fourth method provided by the Act——
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, if not generally then in his own borough, how many landlords have accepted such leases? Neither of my hon. Friends who sit for Wandsworth constituencies knows of such a case.
    Mr. Sandys: I am not giving out figures. I am only saying that the information given to me the other day at a meeting which I had with representatives of the Joint Standing Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs and of the London County Council—who came to see me about other matters—was, I thought, most encouraging. That is all I would say. I am not giving out figures—and I do not know why the hon. Member for West Ham, North should be so amused by the fact that I have been encouraged.
    Mr. Lewis: I laughed because, as I say, neither of my hon. Friends whose constituency interests lie in Wandsworth can cite such a case, while the Minister, though knowing no facts or details at all, says that he is quite happy about the position.
    Mr. Sandys: I have many facts and details, but I do not believe in giving figures to the House of Commons unless I have them before me. One only makes mistakes, and then one has to make a statement apologising for misleading the House and so forth, and it would really be a very foolish thing to do.
    The fourth method—as I was saying when the hon. Member for West Ham, North interrupted me—is that of purchase. That is to say, if the houses are not released when they become vacant, if the licensee is not taken over as a statutory tenant and if the house is not leased
    2250
    then, in the last resort, the local authority can purchase the house either voluntarily or by compulsory powers.
    Those are the methods upon which the Act primarily relies. I know the difficulties experienced by local authorities in an area like London. Though there are small authorities with a few requisitioned houses where the position is different I speak now of the major problem in London. I have not asked, I have not pressed, I do not expect the London authorities to provide any substantially increased number of houses to re-accommodate persons now living in requisitioned property. If they do, I shall, of course, be very glad indeed.
    Mr. H. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman brought to the House an Act which told local authorities to derequisition property, but will he turn his attention to the fact that once the tenants of derequisitioned property are put on the streets the local authorities cannot escape the moral responsibility for rehousing them?
    Mr. Sandys: I wish we could get away from this talk of putting people on the streets. We heard that at the beginning of our discussion on the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, but I hoped that by now hon. Members understood that there was no question of putting people on the streets. To the best of my recollection, the only circumstances in which anybody can be evicted under that Act is where the owner can show to the satisfaction of the courts that his hardship would be as great as, or greater than, that of the licensee through not being allowed possession of his house.
    Mr. Butler: Or where there was incompatibility.
    Mr. Sandys: No.
    There are likely to be very few cases, and in order that no hardship should be caused I provided in that Act that, with the Minister's agreement, local authorities should be entitled to retain a pool of requisitioned houses which had become vacant, and not to release them, in order that they could be used for accommodating persons evicted by the courts under this provision. I believe that the number of cases will be very few, and as far as I am aware no difficulty has so far arisen.
    The Amendment is a request that the higher subsidy should be paid for houses

    2251
    built to accommodate people now living in requisitioned property. It is based on a different argument from that advanced for all the other Amendments which have been put forward. The other Amendments have been moved on the ground that it was very desirable to encourage the building of houses for old people or for miners, or to deal with overcrowding, for example, and it was argued that for that reason a higher subsidy should be given than for houses built for general need; in other words, that the higher subsidy should be given as an encouragement to local authorities to build houses for a certain purpose.
    This Amendment is advanced on the ground that it will assist local authorities financially. No one has suggested that it is desirable to stimulate local authorities to build an increased number of houses for reaccommodating people from requisitioned property. The Amendment is put forward entirely on financial grounds.
    I submit that the problem is a physical one—that of finding houses in which to accommodate those people. As I have indicated, by one means or another these families will in the main continue to live in these requisitioned houses for a great
    number of years. All we are doing, in the main, is to put their occupancy on to a normal peace-time contractual basis.
    Turning to the financial problem, the Act specifically provided a special grant to deal with cases where the local authority might have an exceptional financial burden to bear. That was fully debated and a formula was devised by agreement all round which has the effect of limiting the liability of any local authority to the product of a 3½d. rate. I think the precise figure of 3 ·6d. The product of a 3·6d. rate is the maximum that any local authority can be called upon to pay for this purpose.
    For a long time requisitioned houses have been treated as part of the general pool of houses of the local authority and I have no doubt that as long as they remain requisitioned they will continue to be treated in that way.
    For these reasons, I feel that there is no justification for giving a special subsidy for this purpose.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
    The House divided: Ayes 207. Noes 248.

    Division No. 107.]

    AYES

    [7.44 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. w.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davles, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Deer, G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Anderson, Frank

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Baird, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bartley, P.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Benson, G.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Fernyhough, E.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Blackburn, F.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Finch, H. J.

    Isaacs, Rt, Hon. G. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Fletcher, Erie

    Janner, B.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Forman, J. C.

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

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

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Gibson, C. W.

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

    Brockway, A. F.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Grey, C. F.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Burke, W. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Kenyon, C.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hale, Leslie

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Clunie, J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Coldrick, W.

    Healey, Denis

    Lewis, Arthur

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

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

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Holman, P.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    McGhee, H. G.

    Daines, P.

    McGovern, J.

    Parkin, B. T.

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

    McInnes, J.

    Paton, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Pearson, A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Peart, T. F.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western lsles)

    Popplewell, E.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mahon, S.

    Probert, A. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thornton, E.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Pryde, D. J.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mason, Roy

    Randall, H. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Rankin, John

    Warbey, W. N.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Rhodes, H.

    Weitzman, D.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Monslow, w.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    West, D. G.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mort, D. L.

    Ross, William

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Moss, R.

    Royle, C.

    Willey, Frederick

    Moyle, A.

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Oram, A. E.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Orbach, M.

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

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Oswald, T.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Owen, W. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Woof, R. E.

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

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Steele, T.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

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

    Parker, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hay, John

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Ashton, H.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Bafniel, Lord

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Barber, Anthony

    Duthie, W. S.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Barlow, Sir John

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Barter, John

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewlsham, N.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Fell, A.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hutchison, Sir James

    Body, R. F.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

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

    Freeth, D. K.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gammans, Sir David

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gamer-Evans, E. H.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Glover, D.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Aian

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Bryan, P.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Craham, Sir Fergus

    Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith SinJohn

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard

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

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

    Keegan, D.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Green, A.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Carr, Robert

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Channon, H.

    Gurden, Harold

    Kirk, P. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Lambert, Hon. C.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    2254

    2255

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col- M.

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

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

    Storey, S.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Page, R. G.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Pannell, N. A. (Kikdale)

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Partridge, E.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    MoKibbin, A. J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Pott, H. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Manningham-Buller Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Marples, A. E.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Wade, D. W.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Matthew, R.

    Ridsdale, J E.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

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

    Robertson, Sir David

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Soholefield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wills, C. (Bridgwater)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Scott-Miller, Cdr. R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Neave, Airey

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Shepherd, William

    Woollam, John Victor

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

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

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Godber

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move., in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(not being such a new dwelling as is mentioned in subsection (8) of this section)."
    I am doing so in order to try to obtain from the Government a rather different reply from the one which we had in Committee. I think that hon. Members who were present on that occasion will recall that the proposal contained in this Amendment had support from representatives of the Liberal Party and from representatives of the party opposite. We are therefore encouraged to believe—or to hope, because perhaps "believe" is rather too strong a term—that in the meantime the Government have had second thoughts and will be prepared to make a concession on this occasion.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to try to obtain an increase in the number of houses provided for aged persons, and to that end to try to get the existing Exchequer contribution made in respect of them. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, answering our case, said:
    "When one sets out to concentrate upon a particular purpose and establishes to that end one or, at most, two priorities, for every additional purpose one brings in and treats on the same footing, one weakens one's chance of achieving the primary aim and weakens the speed with which it will be arrived at. Every
    2256
    additional form of need which, under the Bill, is given a special subsidy reduces the emphasis upon the main purposes of the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1956; Vol. 54S, c. 270.]
    When he was asked what the main purposes of the Bill were he answered, "Overspill and slum clearance." We have therefore already had from the spokesman of the Government an admission that in certain instances it is necessary to provide additional subsidies in order to get certain priorities established, and the priorities in the mind of the Government are overspill and slum clearance.
    I am not going to repeat what has been said before, that the main purpose of the Bill, of course, is to reduce State expenditure on houses, to reduce the number of houses built by local authorities. I am also not going to repeat the established fact that if there had been no such Bill as many, and probably more, slum clearances would have been undertaken. Therefore, I am not accepting in that quotation the assumption that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with overspill and to produce more slum clearance.
    I accept the argument, however, that the Government have a conception of priorities, and that, having decided to

    2257
    reduce and subsequently to abolish State subsidies on houses, they have come to the conclusion that that generally must be modified in two respects—one overspill and the other slum clearance. I am asking the Government to modify it in a third respect, and I think a very important one indeed.
    I think very few people would deny— at least those who have spent any time studying the problem—that the difficulty of providing for aged persons is one of the central problems of civilisation.
    Sir Frederick Messer: Especially in this country.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: Especially in this country.
    Medical arts and sciences, thank goodness, are now able to prolong life; the average age of the population is rising; the number of people in the upper age groups increases. At the same time as that has been happening there has been a revolutionary change in the composition of the family. Whereas until quite recently the family would include grandfather, grandmother and grandchildren, all living under the same roof, today the family has completely changed.
    When we speak of providing houses for families today, we find that the whole meaning of the term has undergone such a change that, as it is used today, it would not have been recognised in the early days of the nineteenth century. Then "family" would embrace far more relatives than it does today. Today when we speak of "family" we speak only of father, mother and children. I am not criticising that, but merely recording it as a fact that in modern society the family unit is entirely different from what it was. Therefore, it has been accepted that the State steps in to perform many of the functions for the old people which formerly were performed by the children.
    Not only that, but the physical structure of the house has changed, and is nothing like it used to be. There is not as much room nowadays for all the various members of the family to live under one roof if grandfather, grandmother and grandchildren are taken in as well. In the Western world, particularly in this country, the care of old people has become a very special problem. As I said in Committee, and do not
    2258
    mind repeating now, it has been exacerbated by the emphasis the Government have laid on the provision of smaller houses, smaller not in the sense of fewer bedrooms, but of less cubic capacity and less superficial area.
    The Parliamentary Secretary taunted me in Committee with the argument that I seemed to be assuming that people would be living in the halls of houses. He does not seem to realise that if the superficial area of the house is reduced, less space is provided for things such as coal scuttles, brushes and perambulators, and they have to be taken into the rooms in which people live. More than 80 per cent. of the houses which are being built now have less superficial area than those built before. That adds to the problem quite considerably.
    There used to be an idea that the right thing to do with old people was to provide separate old people's colonies. I have spoken about this before, and I do not want to add very much to it now. We have replaced that idea by the notion that old people's houses must be provided as much as possible where all the other age-groups of the population live. I do not want to mention actual names, but the so-called philanthropic idea that little villages ought to be built in which old people could live out the end of then-days is in my opinion anti-social and cruel. It is absolutely essential that old people should be able to see around them the full kaleidoscope of social life.
    Therefore, local authorities were urged—I urged them on many occasions—to make provision on their housing estates for old people's houses. Quite often the same sort of house which old people would require and in which they would not have to climb many steps, would be the same sort of house as that occupied by paraplegics. One can go around the country and see where local authorities, in a considerable number of cases, have rounded off corners of streets and provided little places where one sees old people going in, where also ex-Service men who have been paralysed and also other paraplegics who, as a result of poliomyelitis and accidents in industry, can wheel themselves into bungalows or the ground floor of flats without any unnecessary exertion.
    There is a cross-section of the population which has first claim on a community

    2259
    which regards itself as civilised—old persons, invalids and paraplegics. I should have thought it ought to have been one of the principal aims of Government policy to try to induce local authorities to make as much provision as possible for persons in those classes. I therefore consider that in the order of priorities that sort of house should occupy a place equal to that of provision for slum clearance and overspill. In fact I would go as far as to say that in some respects it should be even ahead of slums because when we have full employment and better wages the slum is not so slummy as it was.
    The slum is very often a sign of underpayment and under-employment. I could take hon. Members to rural villages in Great Britain where cottages are being occupied which on any normal test before the war should have been pulled down: but, because they are occupied by persons of comfortable incomes, are habitable. We all know that many have been rescued from dereliction by persons who have taken them as weekend cottages. Some members of the farming industry make quite a considerable amount of money by reconditioning those cottages and selling them at high prices with vacant possession. If the ordinary farm worker occupied them they would be slums, but when people with comparatively good incomes occupy them they are all right.
    This is not a defence of the continuation of slums. I do not want to be taunted with that. I am merely pointing out that, in the case of slums, whereas before the war they would occupy the highest possible priority, that priority is modified by the fact that in conditions of full employment they are not so intolerable as they were. I would lift this category of old persons and paraplegics to a higher position, and say that if the Government are to advance public money in order to induce local authorities to build houses for certain purposes, old people should come very high on the list.
    I advance another argument, which I put forward in Committee. I do not apologise for doing so again. It is a very serious argument. The Government have just received a Report from the Guillebaud Committee. That Report recommends that a very large amount of additional money should be spent on
    2260
    hospitals. Everyone who knows this problem knows that a very considerable amount of money would be saved every year if some of the old hospitals were pulled down and modern hospitals put in their place. Large numbers of staff are employed in those old hospitals scrubbing stone floors and long corridors and doing all kinds of work which would be absolutely unnecessary in a hospital designed on modern lines.
    A large number of nurses and other staff are employed in looking after old people. It is a fact which is being established more and more that if old people could be kept active for as long as possible many hospital beds occupied by old people would be freed. I think that is absolutely undeniable.
    Many local authorities have made provision for old persons, but I know of many authorities which have made no provision at all. I could take the Parliamentary Secretary to the areas of many housing authorities in Great Britain which have not built a single house for old people. I think that is a grave dereliction of duty. I mention it here in order to give as much publicity as possible to the fact; but when local authorities are faced with long lists of applicants for houses they are always inclined to build the sort of houses which will give the greatest relief to the housing lists. The building of houses for old people does not in fact make the most impact upon the waiting lists.
    As I have said before, when we build a house for old people we provide accommodation for only one or two persons, whereas when we build a bigger house we provide accommodation for four, five or six. Therefore, a local authority is sometimes inclined to build houses which will give it the most relief from applicants for houses. It seems to me that on financial and humanitarian grounds there is a good case for arguing that if it is right that the Government should modify their programme in respect of overspill and slums, they should also modify it in respect of old people's houses.
    The Parliamentary Secretary tried to defend himself by saying, "If we give way here and make this additional modification, where do we stop?" The answer is, of course, that the hon. Member can stop where he likes. It is not really a

    2261
    good argument at all. It is within his power to stop. If he starts running, he does not need to go on running all the time. Because he makes one concession there is no reason why he should make more, unless he wants to do so. It is a weak argument to say, "If we agree in this case, others will come along and say: You have given this, why not give us the same?" Of course they will do so.
    Anyone with any experience of Government knows what to do about that. We say that the Government have stopped too early, and that, having made modifications about slums and overspill, they ought to have made similar modifications about old people's houses. One of the great advantages of providing old people's houses on modern housing estates is the fact that very often these houses are near the homes of their own children.
    As we all know, the home visiting service of a local authority is very expensive. Therefore, nothing is better from the social point of view, and nothing cheaper from a national point of view, than to have houses so near that the children can call and see their parents from time to time. That is the whole point. If we have them too far away, then we find that the old people cannot be visited by their children, and sick visitors have to be appointed to visit them. The difficulty is that when old people continue to live in overcrowded houses, there is a natural disposition on the part of their children to get the old people into hospital as soon as possible.
    Sir F. Messer: Or welfare homes.
    Mr. Bevan: In one of the emergency hospital exchanges I have listened to messages coming through, and I have heard over and over again conversations with a general practitioner in which it is said, "The daughter wants her mother to be taken to hospital". Quite often that happens because there is gross overcrowding. We know that there is nothing more miserable than having to nurse old people in the midst of overcrowded conditions, where the old people themselves are led to believe that they are not wanted. Acrimonious personal relationships are brought about, and a family life which ought to end in amity, mutual regard and kindness is sometimes destroyed by acrimony and bitterness.
    2262
    Therefore, I would say that here is a particular case in which a local authority should have every encouragement to establish the sort of houses which would give the most relief to this section of the community. If I had been the Minister this reduction in the housing subsidy would not have been made. This is the one single reduction which I should have resisted, because I know from my own experience, both as a Minister and otherwise, that this is one of the central problems in modern society which is most likely to be neglected, and is one to which the Government ought to give their attention.
    8.15 p.m.
    Sir F. Messer: Of all the Amendments which have appeared on the Order Paper this is perhaps the one with the deepest social implications. This is a question from which many consequences grow. I remember that some years ago a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Seebohm Rowntree to investigate the housing of old people. That committee came to the conclusion that the main single issue which affected not only old people but also their relatives was the housing of old people. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said is quite true, that there was a reception of the idea years ago that young people should care for the old people—that the grandfather and grandmother should stay usually with the eldest son who had the largest family. Experience has taught us that that is wrong for many reasons.
    One reason is that old and young psychology does not mix. Every one knows that it is a nice thing for grandparents to see their grandchildren. Indeed, when grandchildren visit their grandparents it is the happiest day in the grandparents' lives. The only thing that is happier is when they go home again. We can endure certain things for part of the time, but not for all the time. I remember presiding over a conference when the question was addressed to me, "Why is it that someone who in middle age was sweet and good tempered has developed such bitterness in old age living with their relatives?" It is not difficult to understand why. One who was at one time the senior authority in the home has been dispossessed. Now the decisions for the running of the home are on other

    2263
    shoulders. It is a good thing when there are just husband and wife and perhaps one child, but when many children are there it is a state of unhappiness. I will not argue that there are not exceptions to this.
    My point is that old people may very well be a reason for congestion in housing, and in that congestion we get a condition which has been described as a slum condition for no other reason than that it is congestion. If this Amendment were accepted and, as a consequence, it would be possible to rehouse old people, we should find two things happen. One is that the congestion would be reduced because there was less priority in that case for rehousing, and the other would be an economic consequence. Young people, alas, especially if both of them are working, find it impossible to give the attention that is required.
    Here is the difficulty. The old persons are not ill. They are not suffering from any specific disease, they are not hospital cases. Sometimes they get into hospital by a cute general practitioner describing a condition that appears or sounds alarming over the telephone but is really simply physical debilitation and mental weakness. There are many old people in hospital today who have been admitted into an observation ward and, once in that observation ward, have not gone back to their homes. They have remained in hospital although there is no real disease.
    The economic point is that in hospital it may cost up to £20 to keep a patient. It would be cheaper if these people were kept in an ordinary house. If they do not go to hospital, they might go to a welfare home, which again is very expensive. But apart altogether from expense, the truth is that old people have as much right to a normal life as anybody else.
    That normality of life is a most important thing, and old people can have it in their flatlet or two-roomed bungalow. They do not want too many rooms, for this implies work. They do not want too much work, nor do they want other people coming in to do it for them while they can do it themselves. If the Government discourage the building of special houses for old people, the old people will be forced to live an artificial life.
    2264
    We should not merely encourage length of life. The truth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale mentioned, is that as long as it is possible to retain activity, the longer one lives. The longer a person has an interest in life, the longer he or she lives. We have no right to deny these old people that degree of happiness that they can get out of life by living their own life, getting up late in the morning when they feel like it and going early to bed, not having to conform to the regulations of the house, the home or the hospital in which they may happen to be.
    From a human standpoint, there is no answer to the Amendment. I believe that from an economic standpoint there is no answer to it, for these old people must be kept. The only question is whether we will keep them decently and give them the chance to live their lives as they have the right to live them, or whether we will force them to live a life which costs us more in the long run and will not conduce either to the happiness of the old people themselves or of those with whom they live.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: The Minister ought, in fairness, not only to the party on this side of the House but to his own party, to reconsider his decision on this matter in Committee. On a number of occasions the question of old age and the treatment of the aged sick has been raised in the House. On a number of occasions Ministers on the Government benches have stated that they are prepared to do everything they possibly can to alleviate the position.
    The question of geriatrics has been raised time after time. Medical authorities and social workers have pointed out how difficult matters are at present in that the proper treatment is not available for aged persons and they are not enabled to return to their respective homes, where they would be much better off than in hospital, and when the hospitals would be saved considerable expense.
    As hon. Members know, every attempt is being made to fit the aged person so that he may be able to leave hospital and return home. It is no earthly use for this type of treatment to be available —and, indeed, to be successful—if eventually the patient does not have the home to go to. I cannot see the sense of Ministers assuring the House that they

    2265
    are prepared to give this kind of assistance if ultimately housing is not available for the person who leaves the hospital.
    We have heard this afternoon that the result will be the relief of overcrowding, but there is another issue. I do not know if the Minister, in the course of his wanderings around the country, has noticed that there is a large number of houses in which aged people occupy only a few rooms. If proper accommodation were available for the aged—if bungalows were built—those who live in these houses with a large number of rooms would not be compelled to do so. It might be said that they could let off the rest of the house or allow the landlord to do so. The truth is that old persons do not want other people hanging around their house; they do not find it easy to accommodate themselves to persons who occupy rooms in the same house. The answer might be made that that attitude is unreasonable in view of the fact that the aged persons should to some extent meet the present prevailing difficulties in general housing, but I do not think it is fair to a person who has lived in a house for many years to be asked to leave that house and obtain alternative accommodation in another house where there are people who might not be congenial.
    The only way in which these people can be dispossessed under the Rent Acts is when suitable accommodation is available and it is reasonable to make an order. Suitable alternative accommodation may be available to the older people in a house of that description, but I should like to find the judge who would say that it was reasonable in those circumstances to put other tenants into a house when a man and his wife who were well on in years would not be able to tolerate the other people in the house, It is done in some cases, but I do not think that it is a reasonable thing to do. Therefore, in my view, in addition to all the other arguments which have been adduced, it would be an advantage to the country for bungalows to be provided so that those houses in which aged people are living in these conditions should be available for letting to younger people who perhaps could tolerate each other much more easily.
    8.30 p.m.
    I should like to go back to the emotional side of this matter, for it has an emotional side. All of us who have
    2266
    seen the houses and bungalows in which aged people are accommodated by local authorities feel very happy indeed not only at the surroundings in which these people find themselves but at the fact that these old people are themselves happy. I do not think that my experience has been exceptional, but I have yet to come across a case in which an elderly person who has been housed in a bungalow has complained or has wanted to go back to previous conditions.
    On the contrary it is a pleasurable thing to meet the people who are accommodated in the bungalows. They have a new spirit. They feel that they are part and parcel of the neighbourhood in which they live. There is the old neighbourly feeling which they experienced in their younger days. They do not feel strange or as if they were not wanted. They know very well that their neighbours regard them as being in the same state as themselves and living in the same age and in the same circumstances. All this means that in their mellowing years these people are leading a tolerable and enjoyable life.
    This matter does not involve a considerable amount of money. Indeed, if it were weighed up in hard figures against the advantages of doing otherwise, I doubt whether there would not be a balance on the right side. If a long-term view were taken of the matter, I believe that the Minister would find that in terms of the health of old people and indeed of the country's finances the advantage would be on the side of providing these bungalows. If the Minister had a talk with his colleagues and tried to find out whether this provision cannot be made on a practical basis, I am sure that he would find it advantageous to the Exchequer and certainly to the local rates.
    I ask the Minister, for the sake of a little humanity, for the sake of making these people happy and of giving the younger people the opportunity of enjoying the companionship of their parents in their parents' own homes, and for the sake of the finances of the country, to reconsider his decision and to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: This brief debate has touched chords of experience and of sentiment which vibrate in all of us. As

    2267
    the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has said, this is a subject which cannot be discussed without emotion, since we all have personal associations which are bound up in it.
    I would not disagree with either the medical or social side of the analysis with which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) opened the debate. Indeed, I would accept his proposition that the appropriate housing of the old ought to share an equal priority with the two priorities already in the Bill to which he referred. But there are differences when we come to look at the application of these three priorities—and I now put them in a row as the three priorities. If the overspill subsidies were not available in the Bill then, because the authorities concerned have ex hypothesi not the means of pooling existing subsidies over the large numbers of anticipated houses, the work of de-congestion would be seriously imperilled.
    I pointed out to the House a few hours ago that the work of slum clearance is lagging seriously at present and that in the last twelve months only about one-tenth of the houses built by local authorities have gone to this first priority purpose—equal first, but still priority—so that a differential was called for there to point the way and to give emphasis to the purpose.
    When we come to the third priority the situation is different. There is already a strong financial advantage and incentive to a local authority to provide the type of house of which the old person's bungalow is representative, for while it attracts the same subsidy as any other type of house, its cost is less than two-thirds of the average normal local authority house. So that the more old people's bungalows a local authority builds, the more favourable is the relationship between its outgoings and its revenue in the housing revenue account.
    There is, therefore, in the nature of things a strong financial advantage. There is the financial incentive already there in the cost structure to provide these houses. When I say that, I am not ignoring the fact that on the whole the rents of these houses will require to be fixed below the average rents of the local authority's entire stock of houses. But even when allowance has been made for that, the fact remains that the greater the propor-
    2268
    tion of this type of house in the total stock belonging to the local authority, the more favourable will be the ratio between its revenue and its outgoings.
    Mr. Bevan: This is the argument which we had in Committee. I recognise it. If it be the case that local authorities can build more of these houses, does he think that local authorities have built as many as they could have built?
    Mr. Powell: I was just coming to that point. We have no statistics of houses specifically for old persons. One therefore has to use the rather blunt instrument of the one-bedroom house as a criterion of the kind of rate at which these houses are being provided since, although the one-bedroom house is by no means exclusively an old person's house, it will be within this group that the old persons' houses will be found. If that group is relatively increasing, it is a fair assumption, and the best we can make with the material available, that the proportion of old persons' houses is increasing.
    Mr. Bevan: This is an extremely blunt instrument, because a visit to London flats will show a large number of one-bedroom flats provided on the second, third and fourth floors for spinsters and bachelors. I agree that the hon. Gentleman has not got statistics, but when we know that the housing authorities have not built any houses for old people, we know that the inducements of which the hon. Gentleman speaks have not operated.
    Mr. Lindgren: Before replying, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind local authority experience that the normal cost to an authority of an old person's bungalow is two-thirds of that of the normal villa, but that the actual rent which the local authority can charge, because of the basis of income, is one-third of the rent of the normal villa? Therefore the local authority gets two-thirds of the actual cost and an income of only one-third of the rent of the normal villa. That is the problem.
    Mr. Powell: I would not accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman about rent without further investigation, and I will return to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of course it is true that at the best the statistics of one-bedroom

    2269
    houses can only be a guide, and a not very reliable one, to the production of old persons' houses, but I suggest that if one finds a sweeping increase in the proportion of one-bedroom dwellings being provided, it is a reasonable assumption, in default of any evidence to the contrary, that the provision of old persons' dwellings is trending upwards— I put it no more strongly than that.
    In fact, the upward trend in one-bedroom dwellings is very marked. Of the total number of houses built since the war, 7½per cent. have been one-bedroom dwellings. Recent tenders, which can show the picture of the trend for the immediate future, show that that figure has gone up to 11·3 per cent., so there is a very sharp increase in the total of one-bedroom dwellings and it is reasonable to suppose that that implies an appreciable increase in the provision of such dwellings which are being occupied by old persons. That, of course, will not be so where these dwellings are in blocks of flats, but where the authorities providing them are authorities which are not building blocks of flats, many of the one-bedroom dwellings will go to old persons.
    Mr. Sparks: When we talk about aged persons, the Parliamentary Secretary
    should realise that many local authorities are increasing the number of one-bedroom dwellings, bungalows or flats, for transferring from their existing house a man and his wife whose children have grown up and gone away. In some cases they will be elderly people, but in others they will not be that type of aged person about whom we are now talking.
    Mr. Powell: But it will still be a dwelling which in itself is suitable for the accommodation of an aged person or an aged couple. So, although I would agree with the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that this particular form of provision has a social importance equal to that of the other two priorities in the Bill, I would say that it does not require to be provided for in the same manner by differential subsidy, because there is a financial incentive in the nature of things to the provision of this need and because the evidence which we have is such as to indicate that by and large local authorities are not falling down on their obligations in this respect.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 245.

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES

    [8.42 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Daines, P.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Davies, Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Anderson, Frank

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Deer, G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Baird, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Bartley, P.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Blackburn, F.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Boardman, H.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Janner, B.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Finch, H. J.

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

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

    Fletcher, Eric

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Forman, J, C.

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

    Boyd, T. C.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Brockway, A. F.

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

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Grey, C. F.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Burke, W. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Kenyon, C.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hale, Leslie

    Lawson, G. M.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Champion, A. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Clunie, J.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Coldrick W.

    Healey, Denis

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Logan, D. G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hobson, C. R.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Holman, P.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Holmes, Horace

    McGovern, J.

    Culien, Mrs. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    McInnes, J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Paton, J,

    Swingler, S. T.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Peart, T. F.

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Popplewell, E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Mahon, S.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Probert, A. R.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thornton, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Pryde, D. J.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Randall, H. E,

    Viant, S. P.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Rankin, John

    Wade, D. W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Rhodes, H.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Monslow, W.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Moody, A. S.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    West, D. G.

    Mort, D. L.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, H.)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Moss, R.

    Ross, William

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Moyle, A.

    Royle, C.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Short, E. W.

    Willey, Frederick

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Oram, A. E.

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    Orbach, M.

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

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Oswald, T.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Owen, W. J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Padley W. E.

    Snow, J. W.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Paling, Rt. Hon. w. (Dearne Yalley)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Woof, R. E.

    Palmer, A. M, F.

    Steele, T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Parker, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parkin, B. T.

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

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. James Johnson

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

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

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Arbuthnot, John

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hornsby-Smlth, Miss M. P.

    Ashton, H.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Atkins, H. E.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Balniel, Lord

    Eden.Rt.Kn.SirA.fWarwIck&L'm'tn)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Barber, Anthony

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Barter, John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, s.)

    Fell, A.

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

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hutchison, Sir James

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bishop, F. P-

    Freeth, D. K.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Body, R. F.

    Gammans, Sir David

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Johnson, Eric (Blaokley)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Glover, D.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Bralthwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Aian

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Brooke, Rt Hon. Henry

    Cough, C. F. H.

    Joseph, Capt. Sir Keith Sinjohn

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lanoelot

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Keegan, D.

    Bryan, P.

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Green, A.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Kirk, P. M.

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

    Gurden, Harold

    Lagden, G. W.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Carr, Robert

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Channon, H.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hay, John

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

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Longden, Gilbert

    2272

    2273

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

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Lucas, p. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

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

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Page, R. G.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Storey, S.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Partridge, E.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

    Pitman, I. J.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Maddan, Martin

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

    Pott, H. P.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Powell, J. Enoch

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

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Marples, A. E.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Mathew, R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

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

    Ronton, D. L. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Mllligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Neave, Airey

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

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

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Sharples, R. C.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Shepherd, William

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Woollam, John Victor

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

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

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Studhoime and Mr. Godber.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
    "and where on approving any authorised arrangements made on or after the said third day of November, the Minister is satisfied that the substantial effect of those arrangements had been agreed between the parties before that day, those arrangements shall be deemed for the purposes of this subsection to have been made before that day."
    As the Clause is at present drafted, the material event which determines whether a house will attract the old or the new rate of subsidy is, in the case of a local authority house, the acceptance of a tender by a formal resolution of the local authority and, in the case of a house built by a development corporation or housing association, the making of arrangements with the local authority. The making of such arrangements is the last event in a long series, and is preceded by the giving of the Minister's approval. Before the Minister's approval is sought a tender has normally been obtained and approved. The effect of the Clause as at present worded, therefore, would be unfair to development corporations or housing associations, because it would exclude houses which are, so to speak, at a stage of incubation which would include them were they local authority houses. The Amendment puts that matter right.
    Mr. Mitchison: We agree that it is something to remark upon that the Government can make even this small concession to impersonal bodies. I only hope that the Chancellor will not unduly punish the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(POWER TO ABOLISHOR REDUCE SUBSIDIES.)
    Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after "order," to insert:
    "or such dwellings in any area so specified."
    As at present worded, the Clause does not seem to carry out the expressed intentions of the Minister. During the course of the Second Reading debate, and again in Committee, he said that the Clause needed Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to invest the Minister with very wide discretionary powers in regard to the time, the amount and the number of years, but his intention, as he expressed it during the Committee stage discussion of this Clause, is as follows:
    "I am sure that all hon. Members who wish to preserve a proper balance in this matter, and to ensure that local authorities shall receive subsidies where they are needed, recognise that only advantage can come from providing a measure of flexibility which will avoid the Minister being faced with the issue of reducing all subsidies or none."

    2275
    Using much the same words subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "I think that it would be undesirable to leave any part of the structure rigidly fixed by legislation and incapable of adjustment by Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 821 and 856.]
    Quite obviously, what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is that his discretion would be influenced by the economic resources or strength of the local authority, but when we look at the actual words in the Clause, we find that they are limited, so far as I can see, to a description of the dwelling and do not relate to the area covered by the local authority. In order to carry out the full intention which the Minister has already expressed, I think the words of my Amendment are very necessary, so that the Minister can exercise a discretion in the case of a local authority which is weak financially. This wording would help him to do so, whereas otherwise he would be limited merely to a description of the house.
    Mr. Powell: The Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) does correspond with the intention of the Bill and certainly clarifies it. I would therefore ask the House to accept it.
    Mr. Mitchison: The trouble with the Minister is that he is so very flexible that he only advances backwards, but nevertheless, we had better wait and see what he does with these powers. For the moment, we will leave it at that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after the second"to"to insert"or to the site of."
    This is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment, which brings the wording of subsection (2) into line with the wording of subsection (1), which refers to the same matter.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(RATE OF SUBSIDIES FORDWELLINGS.)
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out paragraph (c).
    The House may recollect that in Committee I moved an Amendment in the same sense as the one now on the Order Paper, and the Minister gave a partial
    2276
    reply to it. It was a reply which, in the opinion of myself and my hon. Friends, was wholly unsatisfactory, but we withdrew the Amendment in the hope that it might be moved again on Report, in the fuller House which I am happy to see now surrounds me. I have been fortunate enough to get the support of a number of my hon. Friends for this Amendment, and it shows that there is an increasing interest in the matter, at any rate on this side of the House.
    Since many hon. Members may not have been present during the Committee stage, I should like to make perfectly clear the purposes of this Amendment. They are to curtail or to remove from the Bill the special £24 per house subsidy given to those local authorities which are deemed to be receiving authorities for overspill, and the object of the Amendment is to raise the whole issue of the overspill policy and to seek to attract the House to the idea that this is a wrongful planning idea and one which ought to be brought to an end.
    9.0 p.m.
    During the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with two aspects of my Amendment. He first dealt with the object of this special subsidy, which is to carry out the principle underlying the Bill, and said that
    "… subsidies ought to be pooled over the whole range of houses belonging to a local housing authority …"
    He then explained as follows:
    "The corollary, however, is that in cases where no adequate pool of houses exists, so that there would be a sharp difference between the rents which have to be charged in the future as building development continued and the rents which have hitherto been charged, some special provision should be made; for we cannot accept the general principle of pooling and refuse to provide for instances where, by the nature of things, it cannot be applied."
    At the conclusion of his speech he returned to that theme by saying:
    "Special arrangements are contained in paragraph (c)"—
    that is the one which I am now seeking to remove from the Bill—
    "and if the paragraph were omitted a very strong sense of injustice would be felt by the authorities who are co-operating with their fellow authorities in this way, and the Committee would be acting in contradiction to the principles underlying the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 864–6.]

    2277
    That really begs the question, because the purpose of my Amendment is to prevent these local authorities from carrying out this policy of overspill, and whether or not they pool their housing subsidies is quite immaterial to my argument. The hon. Gentleman's use of this pooling argument does not deal with the situation which I have sought to describe. If pooling be a consideration, what about those small towns which are not selected for overspill? They are towns in which there is no pooling possible and, therefore, the argument about the necessity for carrying out the principle of pooling cannot possibly be applied to them. There are many local authorities which never attempt and do not want to be overspill authorities, and which will carry on their housing development with the subsidies as they will be provided after the passage of this Bill.
    I have here a memorandum, which no doubt all hon. Members have received, from the executive of the Town and Country Planning Association—a very powerful body, which seeks to influence everyone towards a general garden city view of housing development throughout the whole countryside. That executive is apparently incensed because, by raising interest rates and reducing subsidies, the Government are preventing the realisation of this overspill policy. Paragraph 1 of the memorandum states:
    "The Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association"——
    Mr. Edward Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Though the noble Lord may not set the Thames on fire, has he set the House on fire? There is smoke coming from an aperture.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is being seen to.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: As I was saying, paragraph 1 reads:
    "The Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association observes with regret that the progress of negotiations for expanding small towns and districts under the Town Development Act, 1952, hitherto too slow, appears to have been further checked by current financial conditions."
    I am absolutely delighted to find that that is the view of the Town and Country Planning Association. I am delighted that the Government are doing what they
    2278
    can to bring this process to an end. My object in moving the Amendment is to accelerate its end and to aid and abet the Government's designs in bringing the fantastic and Utopian designs of the Town and Country Planning Association to a swift conclusion.
    What sort of housing development do we want in this country? In Committee a few nights ago, the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) referred to my views on this subject as Elizabethan. I deny that absolutely. The hon. Member thought I wanted to see old-fashioned houses in which people lived in slum conditions, as they did in Victorian times. That was the atmosphere which he created. It was quite a ridiculous view. I want, as every hon. Member wants, to see housing development according to orderly planning. I want to see that everybody in this country has good, decent, enjoyable accommodation. But why does it have to be done, in this country of all countries, by this policy of overspill?
    If we go to the Continent and look at housing development in Hamburg and in Holland, we see what can be done. Holland is flooded with Indonesians, just as many of us in this country are experiencing an incursion of good Jamaicans. The latter are coming into London in large numbers and settling in accommodation of their choice. When Holland tackles its housing development it does so by the elevation of very fine flats, twelve, fifteen and twenty storeys high. That is also the policy in Germany. They do not spoliate their countryside as we do here.
    It does not matter whether or not we are faced with a large immigration of population; the question is how we carry out the design of our housing development. Why cannot we spend this subsidy, now devoted to overspill towns, on creating first-class flats in London in slum clearance areas? Why cannot we have the clearance of the slums, the temporary displacement of the population elsewhere at will—because they will go elsewhere at will in any case—and the creation on the site of fine blocks of flats in the same way as is done overseas? Why must we continue this policy of ruining the countryside and overdeveloping the small towns twenty, thirty and forty miles out of the great Metropolis, leading to vast masses of conurbations and excess industrialism?

    2279
    It is said that such a policy would cost very much more and that the £24 per house for overspill houses is cheap compared with the cost of flats in London. I maintain that this Government and any Government of this country which thought properly about planning projects would reach the conclusion that it would be better to give a subsidy of £60 or more for flats than have the persistence of this steady industrialism.
    What price the hikers so dear to the heart of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton)? What price his access to the open spaces under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act when London's industries and local authorities and all their messy apparatus conquer the whole of the Home Counties and East Anglia from a line from Portsmouth to the Wash? That is the prospect before us unless we take drastic action.
    My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in the same debate, dealt with another point, and on that occasion he let the cat out of the bag. Referring to paragraph (c), which I am trying to delete, he said:
    "Paragraph (c) is not a paragraph to deal with overspill as such. My noble Friend will have noted that it applies only where the houses axe provided in the area of the importing authority. It does not apply where the houses are provided by the exporting authority which ex hypothesi already has a large pool of existing houses. We are not providing this higher subsidy for overspill as overspill, but to meet the case of the importing authority which provides the houses itself for the assistance of another local authority at a distance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 865.]
    In other words, what my hon. Friend meant was this: take a town—it does not matter where it is—for example, in the Home Counties, with an ambitious local borough council, a council which is fed up with the idea that the town should any longer remain the old-fashioned and attractive place it was, but wants the town to be glamorised, with neon lights, its streets filled with a thronging population, wants to put up enormous new cinemas, to neglect the old tree in the middle of the market square, the old church and all the rest of it, and wishes to develop a new industrial concept. It would do that by providing an enormous ring of houses for 15,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people around the locality.
    2280
    Take such an ambitious council—and, goodness knows, we know of such. All they have got to do to get this subsidy of £24 per house is to make a little avenue of approach to the London County Council; have a few meetings, arrange a little luncheon for the Chairman of the London County Council. The London County Council then says, "We adopt this town. We wave a magic wand over it," and that is all that has to be done. Henceforward, under this Clause, the taxpayer provides £24 per house for that local authority. Is that defensible? Is that really what the country wants to see done?
    Mr. Sparks: Yes.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman thinks so.
    It may be that the social engineers and town planners want it, but I do not believe it is wanted on this side of the House; and I do not believe the Parliamentary Secretary wants it, as I said the other day. Is that the idea of the new age that the Prime Minister is trying to build? Is that a property-owning democracy? Has this Bill, and this Clause in particular, been vetted by the Prime Minister in respect of policy? Does it carry out the principles of a property-owning democracy? I think it does not. Nothing of the kind. If anything, it carries out the principles of a property-less tenants' bureaucracy; a bureaucracy presided over, not by the Prime Minister, not by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and not by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply to this debate. It is a bureacracy presided over by that supreme architect of social engineering and Utopian town planning, Mr. F. J. Osborn of the Town and Country Planning Association.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to second the Amendment.
    My reasons for supporting this Amendment are perhaps a little different from those my hon. Friend has put forward, but are no less strong.
    Mr. Gibson: More modern, I hope.
    Mr. Page: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary put forward, as my noble Friend has said, the reason for paragraph (c) as being that we must provide for those authorities who

    2281
    have not an adequate pool of houses to provide for the reduced subsidies on future building. If that principle were fully recognised throughout the Bill it would, of course, defeat the whole object of the Bill. There must be hundreds of local authorities whose future building programme is greater than their building programme over the past ten years. We do not see any provision in the Bill, in pursuance of that pooling policy, whereby local authorities can go to the Minister and say, "We have only a small pool of subsidies. We have a big housing programme in the future and ought to have the full subsidy and not a reduced subsidy."
    9.15 p.m.
    I cannot think that that is really the object or the principle of the Bill. Of course the main object and principle of the Bill is to encourage local authorities to concentrate their resources on slum clearance. That is set out in the first paragraph of this subsection. Paragraph (a) refers to a dwelling
    "provided by a local authority for the purposes of slum clearance or re-development;"
    Then the rate of subsidy will be paid. Paragraph (b) can be bracketed with that. That paragraph is about camps and temporary housing accommodation. Paragraph (d) provides for the necessities of industrial production and paragraphs (e) and (f) deal with the desirability of the development of new towns and work by the Development Corporations, but only in paragraph (c) do we find this principle of the small pool of subsidies and the necessity to pour more subsidies into that small pool.
    I submit that we ought to retain as the main object of this Bill that the full subsidy is justifiable only if the dwelling is providing alternative accommodation for slum dwellings which are being cleared. We can still encourage what I might call inter-authority slum clearance where one authority is housing the slum dwellers of another authority. There are all the powers under the Town Development Act and very substantial grants can be made to the importing authority under that Act to compensate it for taking the slum dwellers of its neighbours.
    Mr. Sparks: Why "slum dwellers"?
    Mr. Page: I am using the phrase used in the Bill, which refers to dwellings for the purpose of slum clearance.
    Mr. Sparks: Not in this paragraph.
    Mr. Page: In paragraph (a)of subsection 3. As the hon. Member has drawn my attention to that point, I will follow it a little further. Paragraph (c) is quite unnecessary for the importing local authority which wishes to take slum dwellers—if I may use the phrase again— from a neighbouring authority. That can be done under paragraph (a). If the borough of X wants to carry out some slum clearance and does not want to build residences on that area as it considers the area would be better devoted to industrial purposes and it has no other place in which to house people moved from a slum area, they can be taken by a distant authority under paragraph (a) and the full subsidy received.
    Under paragraph (a) the pooling need only be provided by a local authority for the purposes of slum clearance. It does not matter if it is in the area of the authority or in some other local authority area. Where there is slum clearance and rehousing of slum dwellers paragraph (a) if quite sufficient and paragraph (c) is unnecessary. In fact, paragraph (c) seems extremely dangerous because it would give local authorities power to get the full subsidy by arrangement between themselves. It is true that they would need the approval of the Minister, but it seems to be building an archway in the Bill through which one might drive a coach and four. We must realise that local authorities will be studying subsection (3) very carefully to see how to frame their requirements to bring them within the subsection so as to get the full subsidy. They can frame their requirements by arrangements between themselves for swopping their housing lists so that one local authority houses another authority's applicants. It is true that it needs the approval of the Minister, but it seems to me that the sort of arrangement between local authorities of, "I will scratch your back if you will scratch mine," plus an amenable Minister, might defeat the whole object of the Bill.
    I submit that paragraph (c) is not only unnecessary for the main purpose of the Bill, which is to concentrate on slum

    2283
    clearance, but it is even dangerous in that it may be used to defeat the whole purpose of the Bill.
    Dr. Horace King: I would only say with regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that I am sorry to find that while on road traffic he has shown himself so abreast of the times he should now be supporting so reactionary a proposal as this one.
    I am glad to have the opportunity of opposing this Amendment and of urging the Minister not to accept it. I am reminded of the old Punch cartoon of Mrs. Partington, who tried to push the sea back with a mop. Whenever I listen to the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on home affairs, I feel that I am listening not to an Elizabethan argument but almost to a feudal argument. I cannot reconcile his broad view of foreign affairs with the very narrow view he takes on domestic affairs. Quite simply, his case is this. He knows what he wants in this Amendment. He wants to destroy any attempt to deal with the overspill population. He is saying, "The population of Great Britain is going up; let it go anywhere except to South Dorset. London is expanding year by year and people are worried about the expansion of our great cities; let them build higher and higher anywhere except in the countryside."
    Whatever the problems with which London has to cope, the noble Lord this afternoon has managed, in one speech, to speak with almost equal contempt of Indonesians, Jamaicans and Londoners. We hold the view that Indonesians, Jamaicans and Londoners are equal human beings with any other human beings in any other part of the country. According to the noble Lord, London should deal with its own problem for ever. The simple fact is that London is building the flats which the hon. Member wants it to build. It is doing everything that it can inside London. The figures which he quoted in his earlier speech on this same topic show that the overspill and new town programmes which this country has adopted since the war have worked, and that whereas the rest of the great cities of England and the rest of the urban areas are expanding, we have
    2284
    at any rate checked the growth of London.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give some figures about that? There are no overspill schemes in active operation.
    Dr. King: The hon. Member does not know that in my own county of Hampshire, for instance, there is an overspill scheme actively in operation and working very successfully in Basingstoke. If he will turn to the figures which he quoted on the last occasion, he will find that the post-war policy of this country has succeeded in preventing a further expansion of London and, difficult as it has been, has kept it in check.
    The noble Lord's worry about the countryside is that if we take industries there we will interfere with the farmworkers who are tending to gravitate to industry. On that, one would only say that if farming wants to keep the farmworker away from industry, it must pay him such wages as will keep him from industry, and that when the little old town, of which the noble Lord spoke so delightfully—one shares his appreciation of the beauty of the little country towns —gets the expanded population and the existing housing accommodation and it becomes a larger unit, that unit can provide in the countryside the kind of schools that we longed to see in the countryside any time during the past fifty years. It can provide the sanitation and the water supply and it can provide the kind of unit that one wants to see in the countryside.
    It is a pity that the noble Lord should show as opposites the towns and the countryside of England. We want to blend the best qualities of both. The townsman going into the countryside can learn a lot from the countryman and by the same token the countryman can learn a lot from the townsfolk. The townsfolk coming from urban areas into the countryside are making demands, and it is the social demands of townsfolk in the countryside that make people like the noble Lord a little uncomfortable. I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment.
    Mr. John Hay: It is a pity that the rather waspish speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)

    2285
    has introduced an unnecessarily acrimonious note into the debate. The idea of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in putting down the Amendment, was to draw attention to the fact that we had had no proper opportunity of considering the Town Development Act since it was passed by this House. The implementation of that Act and the added impetus which paragraph (c) will give to it is a perfectly good reason why we should debate the important issues which that Act and the whole question of overspill raise.
    The hon. Member for Itchen, I think, did not understand that those of us who represent rural constituencies do not regard overspill as something evil in itself. It is not that we do not want people from the towns to know about the countryside. We say that it is not possible to get the expanded towns schemes in the countryside without raising grave economic and even social problems.
    Two economic problems at once come to mind. The first is the whole question of agricultural land. My noble Friend mentioned Holland and how, in Rotterdam and other towns and cities, the Dutch have not adopted any policy of this kind. They have chosen what we ought to give more consideration to doing in Britain, that is, to build upwards. Holland is equally short of land, possibly even more chronically short than we are in this country. As we all know, Holland is practically all land which has been recovered from the sea. That was what my noble Friend meant, and it was unkind of the hon. Member for Itchen, to use the mildest term I can think of, to say that my noble Friend had spoken in such slighting terms of Indonesians, Jamaicans and Londoners. That was not what he meant, and I am sure that the House shares my view.
    The question of agricultural land in relation to the Town Development Act and overspill schemes is of great importance. If we are to get the maximum agricultural production, it follows that a very steady balance must be held all the time between the competing claims of urbanisation on the outskirts of existing country towns and the claims of agricultural land. Therefore, this is no matter to be lightly shrugged off but is something we must think about. I hope that
    2286
    my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend the Minister are thinking about the long-term consequences of the Town Development Act.
    Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Member not agree that it is not a question of twelve or fourteen houses to the acre eating up agricultural land but rather his middle-class development of one, two, three or four houses to the acre that eats up agricultural land?
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that that sort of interruption is really helpful in relation to the point which I am trying to make. I am looking at this matter, not from the point of view of densities, but from that of the overall picture. I am not complaining that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has raised the question of private building. The problem is that we run annually the risk of a considerable loss of agricultural land to all forms of building, whether public or private. In this case we are discussing the public building which follows from the Town Development Act. I agree at once that private building comes into the picture, but it is to the overall problem that I wish to draw the attention of the House.
    Another economic aspect, and one which we frequently fail to remember, is the transport problem. The idea behind the building of new towns was that we should take the population into the countryside and build up an old, existing settlement or centre of population and provide industry for those who went there; but no such scheme exists in connection with the Town Development Act. Building under that Act is done without any provision for industry to provide employment. That adds greatly to the problems of transport, and it adds to the resistance of many people who are asked to move into the country.
    A great many things can be said about the social problem. It is worth remembering that when Stevenage was being established an old lady in Tottenham was asked whether she and her husband would like to go there to live. The answer was, "What! Me live at Stevenage when my old man has followed the Spurs for years?" It is not easy to cope with that kind of sentiment by Act

    2287
    of Parliament. People have a great attachment to their homes and to places in which they have lived for so long.
    We ought not to shrug off this problem. I do not suppose for a moment that my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South really intends to test the temper of the House and press this matter to a Division, but I know that the Parliamentary Secretary thought a great deal about this subject before entering the Government, and I hope that he will continue that process now that he is in office. I hope that he will be prepared to say that the Ministry is keeping constantly in mind some of the points which I have mentioned.
    Unless we are careful, we run the risk of urbanising our countryside, with grave consequences to our agricultural production and our social life. Therefore, we ought to consider very carefully whether or not we should not change some aspects of the Town Development Act.
    I have not yet made up my mind on these points, but I think that we passed the Act in 1952 in rather a hurry, without fully considering all the things which we ought to have considered. We passed it also without the knowledge which we now have of the experiments and developments in building upwards inside our' existing towns and cities, as in the case of High Paddington and the New Barbican scheme which, if fully carried out and given adequate assistance, not least by public opinion, might solve this great problem which is always present in such a small island as our own.
    Mr. Sparks: I can support much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Dr. King) said about the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), because it is quite obvious to those of us who represent intensely congested and over-populated areas that the noble Lord and his hon. Friends have not the vaguest notion of our problems. The noble Lord's speech has helped us on this side of the House considerably. It will strengthen the Labour Party in practically all the great towns and cities. If we use his speech in the forthcoming Election it will do us a great deal of good.
    The noble Lord would cover the entire area with 15-storey blocks of flats. Has he paused to consider what he has
    2288
    advocated? These flats would not be service flats. Does he think that a man could bring up his children 15 storeys above the ground, at the top of a huge block of flats? Where would be the open spaces for the children? An area covered with 15-storey blocks of flats would shut out the light and air and sun——
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There would be gardens underneath.
    Mr. Sparks: The noble Lord says there would be gardens underneath. Although he despises town and country planning legislation, he is asking, in effect, for its application, because what he suggests could not be done in our great towns and cities without the application of the principles of the Town and Country Planning Acts. Earlier tonight we argued with his right hon. Friend that he should continue the rate of subsidy to local authorities to enable them to carry out comprehensive redevelopment under those Acts in order to provide a better layout of our old towns and cities and so that in appropriate cases we can go upwards but, at the same time, provide open spaces as well as putting industry in the proper location.
    Today our towns and cities are completely built up and before we can talk about putting up 15-storey blocks of flats something has to be knocked down. What will be knocked down? [HON. MEMBERS: "Slums."] Technically, slums do not exist in many areas where there is serious overcrowding.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who seconded the Amendment, inferred that paragraph (c) was concerned only with moving slum dwellers from one area to another. That is not the case. The paragraph is designed to relieve over-population and congestion in the large towns and cities because it is physically impossible to provide people now living there in over-crowded conditions with a decent home. In any case, some local authorities are anxious to develop industry in many of these outside areas. They are not all of the pattern which the noble Lord seems to think they are. The noble Lord seems to think that they want to shut themselves in a small ring which they do not want anybody to penetrate. On the contrary, some authorities want to develop industry and they want populations to come to help man those industries.

    2289
    As for agriculture, it must not be forgotten that many agricultural workers leave the land largely because they have not got decent housing accommodation. The Town Development Act should help to bring back to agriculture much of the labour it is losing.
    Mr. Hay: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that people who are going from towns to live in expanded townships under the Town Development Act will go into agriculture?
    Mr. Sparks: It must be realised that as children grow up they look for employment and it is by no means unknown for industrial workers to want to work on the land. I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my knowledge of the railway industry that in the old days the railways used to recruit their labour largely from farm workers and agricultural labourers. The reverse is now the case and many railway-men are leaving the railways to go back to the land. Although there is that trend, nevertheless agriculture is losing an alarming proportion of its workers, and I submit that to some extent it is due to the poor housing in the rural areas.
    I am not suggesting that the Clause is mainly designed for that purpose. It is not meant to force an importing authority which does not want to operate it. However, where there is an authority willing to negotiate with the authority of a congested area, such as mine, and willing to take a certain number of our surplus people who are ready and willing to go into country districts, those people should not be denied that opportunity. Many of them would prefer to live in the country to being bottled up in a flat in a town. They are as good citizens as any found in the countryside. This idea that they are all down-at-heel slum people is incorrect. I can understand that attitude in Conservative-ridden areas where they do not want these people to come into their midst.
    Many people now living in overcrowded and congested areas want to live in the country and want their children to be brought up in the country, but the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South is closing the door to them.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: They will not go.
    Mr. Sparks: The noble Lord says that that they will not go. London is a case in point. At the end of the war, according to the Abercrombie Plan, London had an over-population of about three quarters of a million. Through the policy of over-spill, the London County Council and other local authorities have been able to attract out of London about 350,000 of these people. If the noble Lord had had his way, those people would have been penned in the density of the London area in 15-storey blocks of flats.
    Although it may embarrass him, on this occasion the Minister deserves our support. We have opposed him many times on many other things, but here is a matter where he should adhere to his view. This is of great importance to constituencies in London which want to do something to rehouse people who are now in very bad conditions and many of whom would like to live in the countryside.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I do not like to accuse any hon. Member of adopting a selfish attitude, but when the noble Lord was speaking I thought that I detected a large degree of selfishness.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke Viscount Hinchingbrooke indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: The noble Lord denies it. What would he do if the Minister accepted the Amendment? What would he do in mining areas where there is no spare land at all? I represent a division in which there are seven urban authorities, three of which have not one yard of land upon which to develop their housing schemes or build houses for slum clearance.
    9.45 p.m.
    The reason is that they have no land which is not subsiding or liable to subsidence. Where are they to go, other than to the countryside? Why should these people, who have been living in slums, and whose families have for generation after generation lived in slum property, not live in the countryside? Now the opportunity is to be presented to them to remedy this condition.
    Will the noble Lord try to visualise those districts? Not one local authority can find land upon which to build houses to implement the slum clearance proposals contained in the Bill. They have not an inch of land within their boun-

    2291
    daries. How would the noble Lord deal with the problem? Where would he go to build, except to the semi-rural and rural districts? I am with him all the way in a desire to preserve the countryside, but it is impossible to do that if we wish to carry out the great scheme of social reform embodied in the Bill.
    I ask the Government not to accept the Amendment. If they do, it will make it almost impossible for the division which I represent to carry out a scheme of rebuilding to relieve the slums.
    Mr. Page: The examples given by the hon. Member are confined to slum clearance. Cannot that be dealt with under paragraph (a)? Paragraph (c), which we are discussing, deals with the removal of people who are not slum dwellers.
    Mr, Brown: That is really overcrowding, is it not?
    Mr. Page: Yes.
    Mr. Brown: But there is no room at all. The local authorities are "cabined, cribbed, confined." They cannot move one inch either north, west, south or east within their boundaries, and therefore they must go to the countryside to build these houses.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman will argue that when the people living in the slums have been rehoused, the local authorities can build on the land after the slum properties have been demolished. But that is impossible. At the moment these houses are tumbling down. They are spragged up back and front. I ask the noble Lord to conceive the conditions prevailing in the mining areas, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: The speech of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) fell into two parts. In the first part he took the principle which I had described during the Committee stage as underlying this Bill and endeavoured to show that paragraph (c) was inconsistent with that principle. If I may once again state it, it is that the subsidies available to a local housing authority will in future be pooled over the whole range of the houses already owned by the authority, or those to be built in the future.
    2292
    I argued that it was a corollary that, where there is no adequate stock of existing houses and where a receiving local authority is likely to build on a large scale for overspill, extra assistance should be given to that authority, if it was not to be placed in a disadvantageous position. My noble Friend asked, "What about small towns not selected for overspill?" The answer is that they will not be expanding at the same rate as the local authorities covered by paragraph (c). They will be building only for their own internal requirements, and the ratio between their new houses and those they own at present will be a relatively great one.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The effect is that if an authority builds extensively it gets a subsidy; if not, it does not get one.
    Mr. Powell: I am coming to that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made a similar point when he said there were a large number of local authorities whose programmes in the next few years might be larger than their postwar building. If that be so, and if the result is that, after pooling the subsidies, they find themselves faced either with unreasonably high rents or unreasonably heavy rate burdens, they are covered by Clause 5 of the Bill. My noble Friend then says that that is a positive bribe to ambitious local authorities to expand under the Town Development Act. I do not think it is. It keeps the subsidy at virtually the same level for houses built in future by those authorities—because they are authorities which, in the nature of things, will be building a number of houses entirely out of proportion to their existing stock or their own needs.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to paragraph (a). I am afraid that that paragraph does not enable the importing authority to build for the slum clearance purposes of the exporting authority. If my hon. Friend will look at the definition in Clause 11 he will find that it has to be the same authority which clears and which builds, for the purposes of that paragraph.
    Finally, he suggested that paragraph (c) might lead to local authorities defeating the purpose of the Measure by swapping housing lists. That ignores the fact that the paragraph is governed by the Town

    2293
    Development Act. Unless the Minister authorises a scheme under that Act as being for the decongestion of an urban area, it does not qualify at all. The Bill therefore contains ample means for preventing the paragraph from being used for any nefarious purpose.
    In the second part of his speech, my noble Friend showed that he accepted the logic of this paragraph. He accepted that it was necessary to enable these authorities to build, because he disclosed that his real reason in moving the Amendment was, by the deletion of that paragraph, to prevent them from building for town development at all. My noble Friend therefore accepts the fact that paragraph (c) is logical and essential to the structure of the Bill. He has frankly admitted that he is using the Amendment as a stalking horse for an attack upon the Town Development Act, 1952, itself. In doing so I fancy that he was guilty of some little exaggeration. His picture of the area south and east of a line drawn from Portsmouth to the Wash being completely urbanised by this process was somewhat overdrawn; it is really quite a big area. I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) put the matter in a much better perspective.
    This is a Housing Subsidies Bill. The Town Development Act of 1952 is on the Statute Book and in use. The House could not rationally pass a Housing Subsidies Bill which took no account of the special position of local housing authorities who are fulfilling the provisions of the 1952 Act. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley that the progress of development under that Act is something which the House ought to watch and to debate from time to time; but we are here concerned with the narrow question of the way in which the subsidies should be adjusted in relation to towns with town development schemes. I submit that this debate has reinforced the logic of paragraph (c), and that the whole structure and implications of the Bill require that it should stand part of the Bill.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think I have the right of reply, and I think the House can congratulate itself——
    Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord has no right of reply, and he can only speak again by leave of the House.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With the leave of the House, may I say that I think that the House should congratulate itself on the fact that the debate has introduced some new thinking on this subject, and that, on the whole, hon. Members have imported rather less prejudice into the discussion than I thought was going to be the case. I am not, however, satisfied with my hon. Friend's reply, and I must beg leave to press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 9.—(POWER OF MINISTER TORECOVER CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    Mr. John Parker: I beg to move, in page 8, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "or, where the Minister is satisfied that that person was the tenant of a dwelling in that area belonging to another local authority, from that other local authority."
    This Amendment arises out of a point made during the Committee stage which mainly concerns my constituency, but which also concerns any other area in which there might happen to be local authority houses owned by a local authority other than that controlling the area. As the Bill is drafted, it means that a town like Dagenham would have to make a payment to the Government towards the cost of rehousing in a new town people now living in the area who happen to be tenants of the L.C.C. or some other local authority. I think that is very unfair, and during the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he thought a strong case had been made out on that point. I therefore hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: I am advised that this Amendment does cover satisfactorily what I may call the Becontree point made by the hon. Member during the Committee stage, and I would ask the House to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hebden Royd, [copy laid before the House, 8th February], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of March, [copy laid before the House, 8th February], approved.—[Mr. Deedes,]
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Spen-borough, [copy laid before the House, 8th February], approved.—[Mr. Deedes.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENSES) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable local authorities to defray certain expenses in connection with official and courtesy visits, and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.

FOOD HYGIENE
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 1906). dated 16th December, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be annulled.
It would probably meet the convenience of hon. Members if I say that I am in a benign and congratulatory mood, and that, as far as I know, none of my hon. Friends intend to divide the House on this Motion or either of the following ones. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) regrets that she is unable to be present owing to another engagement, but I am sure that, if she had been able to be here, she would have joined me in congratulating the Government on the present Regulations. Though we are sorry that there has been such a long delay in laying the Regulations, we realise that they are the result of the long battle we fought during the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Bill. However, I do not want to rake up old fires.
We would accept the Regulations as being a very real and successful attempt to put into the appropriate form the final draft Regulations which, in Committee, we indicated we found to be satisfactory. In fact, if I may say so, the present Regulations show some improvement upon the earlier draft ones. Perhaps I may just mention a few points. I think that the treatment of contamination is an improvement upon the draft Regulations. Another important matter which was discussed in Committee is the definition of space where food is supplied under Clause 2 (3). Again, I am sure that we are equally happy to see that the provision for keeping food 18 in. from the ground, which originally applied only to stores, is now to be generally applied.
We are delighted to see the provision about spitting. The hon. Lady will no doubt have read of the determined effort made by my right hon. and hon. Friends to persuade the Government to accept our Amendment on that subject. We also welcome the provision about smoking. We were not absolutely convinced at the time that it would be found

2297
possible to persuade the trade generally to accept this view, but, quite apart from food hygiene, I am sure that it is important to have had this provision accepted—as I assume it has been accepted—by the Advisory Council.
We welcome the provision for notices being put up about employees washing their hands. We are also glad that the provision relating to the temperatures at which certain food must be kept has been found capable of definition for Regulation purposes. That, too, is something about which we were not absolutely sure at the time. I have no hesitation in accepting chestnut and hot potato stalls as being outside the general provisions. It is a point which escaped us in Committee. All these items show, I think—and this is not a party matter, because opinions were expressed on both sides of the Committee —that it was a very good idea to set up the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can say that it has been helpful in the drafting of these Regulations.
I have one or two matters—I do not refer to them in any unduly critical way —to which I should like to call the hon. Lady's attention. I appreciate the difficulty of legislating for people who do not ordinarily carry meat, and I do not criticise the exception. At the present time I feel that it would be unrealistic to go further than to provide reasonably practicable precautions, but I wonder whether the hon. Lady will see that the Advisory Council considers whether notices would not be possible in those places where meat is handled on any appreciable scale. Here we are dealing with employees who, because they are handling goods generally, will not be conscious of the Regulations and their purpose. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible to provide for a notice drawing attention to the need for the cleanly handling of meat.
I may be wrong, but I do not think that in the present Regulations provision has been made for either draft Regulation 23 or 25. Regulation 23 provided that
"No person shall wrap any food in a domestic living room unless such food has been prepared at or is sold or intended for sale at the premises of which the living room forms part."
2298
There has recently been a good deal of publicity about this matter. I assume, of course, that it has been carefully considered by the Advisory Council and the hon. Lady's Department but, as far as I have been able to see, it is not incorporated in the Regulations now before the House. I should like the hon. Lady to deal with that.
Regulation 25 dealt with containers and laid down that they should be kept free from contamination. In this case I assume that the point is covered by the general provisions about contamination, but I ask the question so that I may be given an assurance about it.
Those are the only points which I want to raise on the Regulations, but I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the work done by the Food Hygiene Advisory Council and to stress the importance, which I am sure will be appreciated by the hon. Lady, of the Advisory Council maintaining a continuous review of the operation of these Regulations.
We regard this as a very satisfactory beginning, but we hope that the Regulations will be reviewed and we should like to hear from the hon. Lady about the code of practice. When we considered the draft Regulations we also had before us a draft code of practice and we should like to know what progress has been made with it. It is common ground that the essential need in food hygiene is education, and we regard the code of practice as part of the general education of people handling food in order to ensure the cleaner handling of food.
10.8 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Motion.
I welcome these Regulations, but I wish to make two complaints against the Government. The first is one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred—the long delay in making the Regulations. They are made under powers conferred on Ministers by the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which received Royal Assent on 22nd November, 1955. It may be thought that, as that Act came into force towards the end of November and these Regulations were made in the middle of December, the Government had acted speedily, but that is certainly not the

2299
case, because that Act was a consolidating Act, and one of the things which it did was to repeal the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954. Under the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, the Ministers were given these same powers to make these very Regulations.
The Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, received Royal Assent on 25th November, 1954, and ever since that date my right hon. and hon. Friends have been waiting with a growing impatience for the appearance of these Regulations. Indeed, on 14th March last year my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North asked when the Act would come into operation, because he wanted the Act in operation and he wanted these Regulations made. The answer which the Minister gave him was,
"… as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th March, 1955; Vol. 538, c. 950.]
I maintain that these Regulations have not been made as soon as possible. The Statutory Instrument which we are considering states that:
"The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Health, acting jointly, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by … hereby make the following regulations, after consultation with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations and reference to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. …"
I cannot see that the delay in making these Regulations has been due to time spent on consultation with such organisations
"as appear to them to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations,"
because the consultations with representatives of interests affected took place before and during the passage through this House of the 1954 Act. Indeed, at that time a number of organisations—I remember, for example, the National Caterers' Federation—were very helpful in suggesting Amendments, not only to that Act, but for these Regulations.
Nor can I see that the delay has been due to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council having to consider these Regulations. I know that the Government were slow in appointing that Council, but in answer to a Question of mine the Minister announced the membership of the Council on 2nd May, 1955, and I find it hard to believe that the Council has taken over
2300
seven months to express its views on these Regulations, which had already been drafted and discussed in this House at some considerable length when we were dealing with the 1954 Act. I do think that an explanation should be given as to why these Regulations have been so long in appearing.
My second complaint also concerns a point touched on by my hon. Friend. These Regulations are being laid under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, subsection (8) of which states:
"The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice in connection with matters which may be made the subject of regulations under this section, for the purpose of giving advice and guidance to persons responsible for compliance with such regulations."
I ask, as did my hon. Friend, where are the codes of practice for the purpose of giving advice and guidance to persons responsible for compliance with these Regulations? Does the Minister consider it quite fair to the catering industry that these Regulations should come into operation without there being a code of practice to give advice and guidance on them?
I am sure that the Regulations would be of much more value to the catering industry if a code of practice were to be published. May I just give one example? Regulation 9, which deals with personal cleanliness, says:
"A person who engages in the handling of food shall while so engaged—
(a) keep as clean as may be reasonably practicable all parts of his person which may be liable to come into contact with the food."
I entirely agree with that Regulation, and I cannot think that it could have been expressed in a better way; but I think it will be agreed by the Minister, by the House generally, and by all experts on the subject of hygiene, that the most important point for food handlers to bear in mind is the necessity to have clean hands. In my opinion that Regulation does not stress that point sufficiently. A code of practice, had it been published, could have enlarged upon the Regulation I have quoted, and have stressed the importance of food handlers keeping their hands scrupulously clean.
I ask the Minister how long we are to wait before the code of practice is published? A code of practice was discussed at the time when these Regulations were discussed, when the Bill was going

2301
through the House in the autumn of 1954. I cannot see what the excuse of the Government can be for this very long delay. There have been delays in making Regulations and a failure to publish a code of practice at the time when the Regulations were made. I think that the House should be given an explanation of those delays and failures.
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: These Regulations which follow the Food and Drugs Act are very wide-sweeping and cover an enormous number of institutions—food providing institutions. I would go so far as to say that they probably cover the Kitchens in this Palace.
Probably the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) does not realise the enormous number of interests which have had to be considered and consulted before the Regulations were made. An over-hasty or rapid publication of Regulations which were contrary to the practical nature of the trade would result in Regulations which would defeat their own interest. Therefore, the slight delay which has taken place while the Regulations were discussed with the trade is a delay which we should really welcome and not criticise.
As I have said, the extent of these Regulations is probably not realised. When one thinks of all the small cafes, big restaurants and small and large hotels covered by these Regulations, one realises that they affect an enormous number of establishments. For example, on page 2 of the Regulations we read:
"'local authority' means—
as respects the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple, the respective overseers thereof;"
I should be very much obliged if we could be told what is meant by the respective overseers of the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple.
Regulation 9, to which the hon. Member for Batley and Morley referred provides that:
"A person who engages in the handling of food shall while so engaged—
(a) keep as clean as may be reasonably practicable all parts of his person which may be liable to come into contact with the food;"
That probably is the best way of drafting such a Regulation. If a code of prac-
2302
tice were laid down we might limit the very wide terms of the Regulation. Codes of practice may be very good in other connections, but here we have clear words provided for those whose duty it is to enforce the Regulations. This Regulation does not mean that the person must have hands as clean as a surgeon performing an operation, but they must be kept as clean, "as may be reasonably practicable." That is sensible.
On the question of enforcement, I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary how many people will be required to enforce these very desirable Regulations and what the cost of such enforcement will be. Such Regulations are necessary in many food selling institutions, which may be very dirty. In a particular foreign country—whose name I shall not mention—where I was engaged during the last war, hotels and other establishments were taken over for the use of troops. No doubt before the war those places accommodated tourists, but they were in a filthy condition. They had to be cleaned up to put troops in in the course of the war, and the conditions were such as one would loath to find in this country.
Everyone welcomes the Regulations and hopes they will be enforced. I am certain that the better establishments, whether big or small, which take a pride in the quality of the food and the cleanliness of the food which they produce will welcome the Regulations as cutting out the dirtier establishments which serve food under any conditions, on dirty plates and with dirty servers behind and in front of the scenes.
I ask the Minister the two questions which I have put to him. I once again draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are approving Regulations tonight which will affect the well-being and the health of everyone who eats out at any time, and that must mean the whole population, and which will influence also a large number of our fellow citizens engaged in the catering industry, which is important both to the people of this country and to the very large number of people who come here in the summer and expect and are entitled to expect a very high standard of cleanliness in our food catering establishments. Therefore, I welcome the Regulations and hope that the House will pass them tonight.
10.22 p.m.
Mr. W. E. Padley: An analysis of the membership figures of the trade union of which I am president would probably reveal that rather more than 200,000 workers in that union will be affected by these Regulations. That union supported the Bill, which has become an Act, and the idea behind these Regulations, both in the House and outside, and it co-operated on the Advisory Council.
These Regulations are long overdue and very necessary. They will, of course, impose very formidable requirements on those of our workpeople who earn their livelihood in the food industry. There are, therefore, a number of points on which we should have answers before the Regulations are agreed to.
During the Committee stage of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, I moved an Amendment which sought to insert in the Bill the power to pay compensation to workers suffering from certain infectious diseases or who are germ carriers, and the reply I received was that the existing law covered that point. In Regulation 11 we see the provisions set out. I have no quarrel with them, but when I sought from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food a detailed explanation as to how compensation would be payable, I received a letter, part of which I intend to quote, as I think there is a moral in it. The letter, dated 5th November, 1954, reads as follows:
"Under the Fourth Schedule to the Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1953, the local authority at the instance of the medical officer of health can exclude from work a food handler who is in his opinion suffering from or is shown to be a carrier of certain listed infections and diseases—which include the conditions that in the light of present knowledge are liable to give rise to outbreaks of food poisoning and might require action of this kind. The excluded food handler may claim compensation for any damage so caused under Section 278 of the Public Health Act, 1936. The local authority can also require the employer of a food handler who he has reason to believe may be a carrier of one of the listed diseases to provide facilities for the medical examination of the food handler.
It is proposed to include in the food hygiene regulations to be made under Clause 6 (1) of the Foods and Drugs Amendment Bill a provision designed to bring to the notice of the employer and the medical officer of health cases of food handlers who are knowingly suffering from or carriers of the listed diseases so that the latter can decide whether exclusion from work is necessary. Such exclusion would.
2304
of course, bring into operation the compensation provisions of Section 278 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to provide for compensation under the Food and Drugs Act."
First, I should like the Minister to confirm that that is, in fact, the legal position, and I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will do so; but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the need to explain all this to the hundreds of thousands of workers in the trade so that they can readily understand it. It is not only important that infected persons or germ carriers should not handle food; it is also important that a worker on whom these Regulations place additional responsibility should know that if he is excluded, he will not be left destitute but will have a legal entitlement to compensation.
There is no reference to that in the Act of Parliament under which these Regulations are made. One finds a reference to the 1953 Regulations, the public Health Act, 1936, and so on. It is true that if such a case came to light, the trade union movement would provide expert legal advice, but unless we are to discourage such infected persons from coming forward the Minister should consider the need to produce a popular pamphlet setting out, not only the legal requirements of the Regulations, but also additional points such as the entitlement to compensation. This ties up with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), in moving and seconding the Motion. There is real need to convince the hundreds of thousands of persons who will operate under the Regulations, not only what the requirements are, but also that they are vital in the interests of public health.
Regulations 9 (b) and 30 deal with protective clothing. It may be within the recollection of hon. Members that of all the stages of the debate during the Committee stage of the Bill, possibly the most violent concerned this subject. It must be said that the mountain went into labour and brought forth a mouse. By Regulation 9,
"A person who engages in the handling of food shall while so engaged… keep as clean as may be reasonably practicable all parts of his clothing, overclothing or overalls which may be liable to come into contact with the food …"

2305
In Regulation 30, however, we find that
"Every person who in the course of a food business carries meat, being meat which is open food, otherwise than in the course of distribution by a retailer to his customers, shall while so engaged wear a clean and washable overall.…"
Here we have the position that when meat is handled in wholesale markets and similar places, it must, in the interests of public health, be carried by persons wearing satisfactory protective clothing. But when we come to the retail establishment, the point at which the public draws its supplies of meat, under the Regulations as they now stand there is no requirement on the part of the worker to wear protective clothing or on the employer to provide it.
If the Government should claim that there is a drafting difficulty, I would remind the House that the first draft of these Regulations which were sent to my union and to other interested organisations clearly laid down that clean overalls or other suitable protective clothing should be worn and should be capable of being, and should be, cleansed. In my view, Regulation 9 (b) is inadequate. It leads to the nonsensical position in the meat trades which I have described, and 1 would put it to the Minister that it is time that a regulation was introduced which would place fairly and squarely on employers in the food trades the duty of doing what the good employers already do, namely, provide adequate protective clothing.
I turn to Regulations 14 to 16. I welcome them. They deal with sanitary arrangements, sanitary conveniences and washing facilities. I read the Regulations relating to sanitary conveniences with great interest because there are still many food shops in Great Britain where there are no sanitary conveniences and the workers in them have to use public conveniences. I therefore ask the Minister whether she will make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to ensure that in the not distant future we get a Health (Welfare and Safety) Bill applying to the distributive trades.
My final point is to underline the appeal of my hon. Friends, that is, that if these Regulations are to achieve their purpose, we need more than penalties in the form of fines and possible imprisonment. Above all, we need to carry our people
2306
with us. There is an overwhelming case for the Ministries concerned to decide to publish an attractive popular booklet for wide circulation in the trades setting out in plain language not only the legal requirements of these Regulations but also the moral requirements of an up-to-date code of practice. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give satisfaction on some of the points which we have raised, and I hope that these Regulations will inaugurate a new era of clean food in the life of Britain.
10.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) for, as he phrased it, the benign manner in which he moved this Motion.
I feel sure that on both sides of the House these Regulations are generally accepted as a real step forward in improving the food hygiene of this country. They make very wide changes and introduce far more stringent regulations than have been hitherto applied to food premises and the handling of all foods. They cover a very wide field, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has said, and it has been necessary to take a considerable time and to consult with many bodies, more recently in particular with the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, in order to ensure that we have the best set of Regulations which could be devised, bearing in mind the enormous diversity of this problem, the range of undertakings with which we have to deal, from the vast commercial catering or food-manufacturing firm, with extremely high standards, to the tiny little shop in the village or the barrow in the market.
We had to try to devise a means by which the whole field could be covered by a set of acceptable Regulations. They not only cover requirements as to the construction and use of premises, the maintenance of food vehicles, stalls and food equipment, but also lay down very plainly the practices to be followed in the handling of food. The very important task of enforcing the Regulations falls upon the local authorities, who have for long carried out the task but with not so clearly defined and heavy obligations as will now be placed upon them.

2307
The hon. Member for Bailey and Morley (Dr. Broughton) accused us of delay, but it is fair to say that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council held six meetings. Its recommendations had then to be considered by my right hon. Friend. Quite frankly, we have had to compromise on some of the issues because of the great diversity of types of dealers and users for whom we had to provide Regulations. But they are Regulations and, therefore, are more easily amended than an Act of Parliament. We do not pretend that they are the final ideal in hygiene which we may one day be able to enforce, but we believe that in present circumstances they are an enormous advance on any provisions we have had hitherto and that they are a compromise between what is idealistically desirable and what is at present practicably possible.
We have had to take into consideration the many small businesses which would have been put out of operation altogether if we had taken the strict letter of some of the recommendations made by interested bodies, which perhaps had in mind large firms. The small shop in the village, which serves the community there and renders great service, simply could not have acquired the rigid standards which might be applicable to the large commercial undertaking. I say again that, because of the range and diversity of the problem, there has been some compromise, but there have resulted far stronger Regulations which should succeed if they are coupled with the education to which all hon. Members have paid tribute and of the necessity for which they have warned the House and the public outside.
The success of the Regulations will lie in the general education of the public and in public recognition that so much devolves upon the personal responsibility and, in many cases, the social and hygiene behaviour of the individual. Not least, it depends upon the public's not putting up with bad standards and on its ensuring that proper standards are maintained.
I will not suggest that the Regulations are not capable of improvement, but this is a large and complex problem. I assure hon. Members that the position will be kept constantly under review, not
2308
only by my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but also by the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. If experience shows that changes are necessary, amending Regulations will be made. It is plain—and the point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East—that the Regulations as now presented put a very heavy burden on many businesses, especially small businesses and those who have to contend with imperfect premises and a very great shortage of labour. These people may feel that if they dismiss a member of their staff they will be extraordinarily lucky if they can replace the dismissed member within a reasonable time. We have had to strike a fair balance. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we have indeed done so.
As I have said, the Food Hygiene Advisory Council had six meetings, and I would like to place on record our deep appreciation of its work and our gratitude for the advice given to us. There was a long list of provisions which we were able to accept, and there were amendments and improvements to the Regulations which we were happy to accept. Where it was not possible to adopt some of the suggestions, it was because my right hon. Friend felt that, with the diversity of the establishments with which we had to deal, it was not possible to go as far as those making representations would have desired.
In particular, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned the question of the living room in direct communication with a shop. It was originally suggested that such a room should not be used for any purpose directly connected with the preparation of food. There we had the difficulty of the small village shop with a parlour behind, where this suggestion would place a severe obligation on the owner if he were deprived of that parlour because, by reason of the room being adjacent to the shop, he could not provide home-made cakes or ice cream in the shop.
We have had to take into account such questions which affect many small establishments, and for that reason it was not possible to accept the over-riding principle which I am glad the hon. Gentleman did not press. However, I am sure he realises the difficulties we have had

2309
in dealing with the great diversity of shops and undertakings affected by these Regulations.
In a previous debate the hon. Gentleman raised the question of meat carrying. There again the suggestion was made that meat should not be transported in vehicles without duck boards or automatic loading gear. This would have put a tremendous obligation on the small trader with a van without duck boards or loading gear, or it might even have put him out of business. So, although we have had to compromise on some of these matters, we have done the best that is possible in the circumstances and at the present time.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley raised the point of delay, which I do not think has been unduly long in view of the great care we have taken to gather the views of interested bodies and to try, so far as we were able, to reconcile conflicting views.
His second point was about the codes of practice. I do not think it unreasonable that the Regulations should be laid and published now without the codes of practice being to hand. These will be considered and ultimately published by my right hon. Friend after consultation with the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, but it would be putting the cart before the horse to suggest that the codes of practice should come before the law.
These Regulations are full of "Thou shalt not" —that is the law, these are the Regulations. The codes of practice will go more into the sphere of education on items which cannot be clearly defined in Regulations. The real importance of all this legislation is that "Thou shalt not" is laid down firmly in these Regulations and they will confirm the basis for the codes of practice. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in them. In a previous debate he mentioned the excellent work done by the St. John Ambulance Association, which is continuing. I would emphasise again how vitally important it is that the public should become educated to the idea of food hygiene.
In a report from a Medical Officer of Health to the Ministry on a recent investigation into outbreaks of food poisoning, it was shown that it was not the fault of the establishment concerned nor of the equipment it had, nor of the facilities provided. It was due to one human being
2310
being careless and not conforming to the standards to which one would hope everyone should conform. That was something which no Regulation could define, since it depended entirely on the personal behaviour and common sense and standard of hygiene of the individual. I feel that in many cases that is responsible for some of the dangers which may arise in food handling, and I could not agree with hon. Members more that education is one of the most vital parts of the whole of this legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East asked me how the Inner and Middle Temples came into the Regulations. The overseers of the Inner and Middle Temples are, for the purposes of the Act, the local authority for the two Inns of Court and rank alongside the Metropolitan borough councils under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, as I am sure my hon. and learned Friend, with his legal knowledge, knew.
On the question of cost, the work will be carried out under the aegis of the sanitary inspectors who hitherto carried out the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. We do not think that it will entail any substantial increase in staff. The Regulations give greater power to the sanitary inspectors and their staffs, who are already vigilant. When they are visiting factories or catering establishments, they will be backed up by firmer legislation with teeth to enable them to enforce more rigidly the standards many of them have long wished to see.
I can confirm what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) said, that employees who may be suspended by the local authority through having certain infectious diseases or ailments may qualify to apply for compensation under the Public Health Act, 1936, and their cases will be dealt with under that machinery. I agree with him about the new standards about conveniences and wash basins which are laid down in the Regulations.
The great difficulty about protective clothing is again one of diversity. I agree that with the large undertakings, the best-known manufacturing firms, it is clearly practical, but it is extremely difficult to lay down a rigid interpretation of clothing to cover not only those large undertakings but the small shop, the single shopkeeper, or even, in some cases, the hawker in the

2311
street who may be providing or processing in some form or another some form of food stuff. The very diversity makes it extremely difficult to lay down a fixed formula which can apply to all types and kinds of people coming under the Regulations. It has not been felt suitable or practical at present to lay down such enforcement or description of a particular protective clothing. It may be possible, if codes of practice are laid down for any particular form of food production or catering industry, to cover them there.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the suggestions they have made. I can assure the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that these matters will be constantly under review by my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that we shall be constantly in touch with the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. I believe that this is a very important Measure. Members on both sides of the House have contributed to strengthening it and giving teeth to what has long been desired, namely, to improve the standards of hygiene and food handling in this country. I think this Bill goes a long way towards that end and that we are now entering a phase when we have to educate the public to make this Bill and the Regulations really work.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Willey: I am sure that the House would think me ungenerous if I did not thank the hon. Lady for her statement. I am also sure that I shall not be thought controversial if I say that she is a distinct improvement on the present Postmaster-General.
We do not complain about a compromise. We realise that a compromise is a good thing if it carries the good will of the trade, which is essential. We are assured that the Advisory Council will constantly keep this matter under review and, in that sense, this debate has been helpful and called attention to the points made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) who represents a number of distributive workers.
I can assure the hon. Lady that we shall do our utmost to support the Advisory Council and that we shall look
2312
forward with interest to any future statement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHEWING GUM (MINERAL OIL)
10.56 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying the Mineral Oil in Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1955 (S.I., 1955, No. 1901), dated 16th December, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be annulled.
The Parliamentary Secretary is, of course, aware that the original Order dates back to 1949, and that the Regulations then prohibited the inclusion of mineral oil in the composition or preparation of any article of food, with two exceptions. One was that the amount included in the food should not exceed one-fifth of 1 per cent. by weight. The second exception was that it should be used only for lubricating or greasing surfaces with which the food might of necessity come into contact.
One of the reasons in 1949 for that prohibition was that we had had some experience during the war, when there was a shortage of animal and vegetable fats, and housewives and the baking industry turned to mineral oils as substitutes. We found that that was dangerous, and that the danger was threefold. First, the ingestion or consumption of mineral oil tended to absorb some of the vitamins and thus rob our body tissues of certain vital necessities for health.
Secondly, we know that if large quantities of mineral oil are taken into the body by way of the mouth over a prolonged period there is a tendency—and in some cases it does happen—for liquid paraffin tumours to form in certain parts of the body. Once formed they are not easily, if ever, dissipated without surgical interference.
Thirdly—this is by no means certain though we did suspect it and still do—if paraffin oil, liquid paraffin, particularly when heated, is taken by the mouth constantly, it may—and I put it no further than that—be carcinogenic. That is a suspicion which we must always bear

2313
in mind, and I think it is a suspicion which is generally accepted.
In November, 1954, we had the last amending Order before the present Regulations, and that was to allow a thin coating of wax to be applied to citrus fruit imported into this country. We discovered that the Order was laid before the House so that wax might be applied to fruit, and that the application was only one part per thousand parts of the weight of the citrus fruit itself. That was very little indeed. It applied only to citrus fruit, and in some cases to dried fruit.
In the Regulations which we are considering tonight there are, on the face of them, an alarming change. I say "on the face of them", because that is why we pray against these Regulations, in order to obtain information from the Parliamentary Secretary. Here we are allowing into the composition, either as a coating or as an intimate mixing of chewing gum, 12½ parts by weight per 100 parts—that is 12½ per cent.—of a special type of wax called micro-crystalline wax, and we know that that has not been so before. It has been used, however, in industry for sealing tins, I believe, or in the manufacture of special kinds of wax paper.
There are, therefore, three points to note: that we started in 1949 by allowing only one-fifth of 1 per cent. of mineral oil to be mixed with our food; that in November, 1954, we spoke of 1/1000th part in citrus fruit, and that now we speak in terms of 12½ per cent. by weight in gum which is to be chewed, chewing gum. I therefore ask some questions, if I may. First of all, why is it inserted into the body of the substance called chewing gum? Is it to prevent the gum from becoming stale? I suspected, in part at least, that that might be the case, and on Thursday, 9th February, I asked the Minister whether that was so, because I asked what substances he was prescribing for the purpose of preventing the staling of chewing gum, and he said there were none. It may be he was perhaps mistaken, in part, at least.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls)indicated dissent.
Dr. Stross: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us further in his reply.
2314
There has also been a tendency in the trade to find something which will prevent chewing gum from becoming brittle and stale. At one time we were worried when we found that in another country— I think never in Great Britain—an artificial and chemical substance which had been used to prevent staling was later proved to be quite definitely carciono-genic, because it caused—experimentally —on animals tumours of the liver, and was therefore forbidden in the country to which I am referring. I do not think it was used here at all, and I am certain it would never be permitted to be used here.
There is another question. Why is such a high percentage of mycrocrystalline wax needed? Also, can the Parliamentary Secretary give us a complete assurance—and we should like to have it—that this substance, unlike liquid paraffin, this substance being a wax, and a fairly hard wax, is not absorbed through the gut, or, if it is, in only very tiny amounts, if at all? We should like to have an assurance that, so far as we know, it is not capable of absorption through the gut into the body tissues.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: As the hon. Gentleman knows so much about chewing gum, I wonder whether I could ask him what chewing gum is, and whether it is a food?
Dr. Stross: It is technically a food now, for this purpose, but, of course, it is not a food at all and has no food value in the sense that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.
I am not an expert on chewing gum. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), if she were here, could have told us something about chewing gum in an expert fashion, for she has advised me that when she was a schoolteacher she could smell it being chewed, as it has, apparently, a savour. She used to forbid it in school, and when she married the children from her school sent her a very large parcel of chewing gum, knowing how much she disliked it. I know very little about chewing gum myself, for I do not chew it, and I have not done so since I was about 11 years of age.
Almost my last question, therefore, is to ask whether there is no vegetable oil available that could be used. I have

2315
heard—it may not be true—that another well-known firm, and one that manufactures not in this country—I will not mention its name; it would be wrong to do so—vaunts or boasts that it uses a special and mysterious vegetable oil. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary knows of it.
If the purpose of these Regulations is only so that children can blow bubbles with their gum when they chew it, calling it bubble-gum—that it is delectable to add 12½ parts per hundred of this wax— I shall not object, for children seem to enjoy it. All that we are asking tonight is for assurances that it will not do them any harm.
11.1 p.m.
Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I seek from the Minister an assurance that the public will not suffer as a result of the Regulations. As my hon. Friend explained, there is strong medical evidence suggesting that mineral oils can have a very injurious effect in the human body. That knowledge has come about partly as a result of experiments and partly as the result of experience gained during the war, when, owing to a shortage of animal and vegetable fats, some housewives used mineral oils in the preparation of certain foodstuffs such as cakes and other forms of confectionery.
It is well known to the Minister that there is this possible danger from the ingestion of mineral oils, and it is because it is known to him and was known to his predecessors that the previous Regulations specified that these mineral substances could be used in food only in the smallest amounts. Now, we are considering Regulations which permit 12·5 parts of a wax of mineral origin to be used per hundred parts of chewing gum. As my hon. Friend said, this seems to be an astonishingly large amount to be permitted, and because it is such a large amount we want an assurance that it will not be harmful to people who enjoy chewing gum.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that this microcrystalline wax is not soluble in saliva. Although chewing gum is used for chewing, there are people who, perhaps by mistake, sometimes
2316
swallow it, and I should like an assurance that it is not soluble in gastric juice or in intestinal juice. In other words, I want the Minister to state quite clearly whether any of it can be absorbed into the human body.
If the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance, it is likely that this substance may be dangerous. On the other hand, if he can give an assurance that none of it is absorbed at all in any way, I cannot see that there is any harm in having this quantity of this particular wax of mineral origin in chewing gum.
11.5 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr, Harmar Nicholls): The outstanding question that both the mover and the seconder of this Motion, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) have put to me comes under the heading of "The dangers that could flow from human absorption of mineral oils from chewing gum." They have asked if I can give the assurance that these Regulations, which permit a higher degree of tolerance as far as chewing gum is concerned, do not involve a greater degree of danger than those which we have already agreed to in relation to citrus fruits and dried fruits.
At once I can assure the hon. Members that there is no such danger, because although the proportion of mineral oil permitted is higher, it is part of the actual base which is not intended to be, and rarely is, swallowed, whereas in relation to citrus fruits, the wax was round the edge, and was actually consumed, and there was a risk that that smaller amount could be absorbed. But that is not so with chewing gum compounds.
The mineral oil, which is a micro-crystalline wax, is not intended to be ingested or swallowed—that is not part of the exercise of chewing gum. I think we all know that the whole purpose of chewing gum is to discard the worn-out residue when one has finished one's chewing, and it is that residue which contains the wax to which reference has been made. I can assure the hon. Members that there is no danger at all from the actual process of chewing.
It is perhaps not generally known that this wax is, as I have said, not a coating, but an actual, integral part of the base

2317
itself. And as the melting point of this wax is, owing to its particular physical characteristics, which are known to both hon. Members who have spoken, considerably higher than the normal body temperature, the wax is not liable to absorption either as a result of mastication or if inadvertently it is swallowed and actually goes into the body.
Finally, the point which I should emphasise to satisfy the hon. Members is that the specification of purity which is embodied in these Regulations is very strict in respect of the purity of this particular wax and ensures complete freedom from unsaturated hydrocarbons. It has the effect that if, in chewing, a small particle should be separated from the base and swallowed, there would not be any risk to health. That is one of the assurances which the hon. Gentlemen wanted.
The hon. Members may like to know that reputable manufacturers, who for some years past have been using this wax in chewing compounds, have carried out tests, which show how very rarely these particles are separated from the base. I was told, for example, that one of these firms arranged for samples of their products to be chewed. I was personally very interested when I heard that, and I conjured up visions of groups of people queuing up to apply for the job of professional chewers. I saw them there, with the precision of the cows, really getting on with the job. But the firm went to some trouble to see whether people who really knew how to chew could break off these particles, and it was found that it very rarely happened.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central reminded us of the Question which he put to my right hon. Friend the other day. He appears to think that this wax is added to prevent the gum from going stale. My right hon. Friend was not giving an off-the-cuff Answer in saying that was not correct. He was completely correct. The wax is not included for that purpose at all. Its object is purely technical. It is to increase the plasticity and reduce the tackiness. It is not used to prevent staleness but to make the chewing gum a better chew than it would otherwise be. That is, I think, the best non-technical explanation I have been able to sort out of the long words that have been given to me. We understand that manufacturers in this
2318
country do not include any chemical preservative to keep chewing gum from going stale. Either it does not go stale or it just goes stale. That is the position.
It will be gathered from what I have said that the possibility of the dreadful consequences to which both hon. Gentlemen referred does not exist. I want again to stress that the Regulations embody this very strict specification of purity. The specification is very high in that respect. I know that the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken would be the first to recognise the excellent record that the United States of America and Canada have in protecting consumers against impurities and harmful substances in food. They have really gone to great lengths in those countries to achieve a very high standard indeed.
I learn that in the United States, with its very high standard, no objection has been raised to the incorporation of what are termed there harmless non-nutritive substances in chewing gum. The Americans do know something about chewing gum—it is one of their outstanding national characteristics—and in this respect they can be prayed in aid as experts. As I say, they find no difficulty in allowing this harmless non-nutritive substance which, in their case as in ours, is the microcrystalline wax.
Similarly, in Canada the law expressly exempts chewing compounds from the general legal provisions, and the legal provisions in Canada, as hon. Members will know, are that not more than 0·3 per cent, of mineral oil may be present in any food. The standards there are high in these matters, but in this instance we have gone even further.
In these Regulations we have limited the amount of wax which may be present in chewing compounds—and I hope that I have explained the difference between its forming a coating and being part of the base. When it is a coating, it may be swallowed, but when it is part of the base it almost never is. In addition to limiting the amount, we have insisted upon this very high specification of purity. In certain respects the standard which we have insisted upon here is perhaps stricter than that insisted upon in the British Pharmacopoeia for liquid paraffin for medical purposes, a fact which I am sure will strongly impress itself upon the two hon. Gentlemen, both of whom are members of the medical profession.

2319
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has again shown himself very keenly concerned about food purity, and I admire his tenacity in pursuing what he believes to be a righteous cause. I am glad that on this occasion I find myself in so much agreement with him. I recognise the importance of the points which he has raised, and hope that he will find my explanation sufficient to dispel the doubts that perhaps the wording of the Regulations has left with him.
Dr. Stross: In view of the assurance given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS)
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Agriculture) Order, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 87), dated 25th January, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be annulled.
I am not a chewer of gum, but I am very relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has thought it right, on hearing the explanation of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, to withdraw the previous Motion, which means that my constituents who are chewers of gum may be assured that they are not doing so with danger to themselves.
I am moving this Motion in order to seek an explanation of the purposes of this Order. It would appear on the face of it that there has been a part of the Ministry of Food still not absorbed into the combined Ministry. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, we opposed the original Transfer of Functions Order and we think that we were right in so doing, but we should not divide on this Order for that reason now. While we have to accept that Transfer of Functions Order and do not complain that apparently there is a part of the Ministry of Food still floating about, we think we are entitled to know how it comes about that a further Order should be laid before the House.
This rather confirms what we said at the time of the passing of the original
2320
Order; that it was prematurely thought out and rushed through the House so that at the time of the General Election the Conservative Party could claim that it had abolished the Ministry of Food. I wish to raise again two points which I raised in discussion of the original Order. Whilst we would not feel justified in dividing on this Order, I still feel, as I said at the time that the original Order was made, that it would be far better for producers if there were a producers' department directly and wholly responsible for producers.
The other point I raise again is very pertinent to this Order because at the time of the original Order I maintained—and it is still my view—that the producer would be in a better position in relation to the February Price Review if there were three-pointed negotiations and the three separate interests were represented at those negotiations. The producers with a producers' department would be in a far better position than now, confronted as they are by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, I am quite sure, unable to withstand pressure from the Chancellor on fiscal grounds. We should like to see how effective that has been when later we discuss the results of the present Price Review. I may be wrong about this, but I mention these points because the step which the Minister is now taking is consequent upon the Price Review negotiations. I say no more about those negotiations than that we shall await their result with interest.
It appears that the Order has been laid because of some doubt which has arisen on the construction of the Agriculture Act, 1947. It appears a little strange that so long after the amalgamation of the Departments a further Transfer of Functions Order should be laid before the House, and we think it right and proper to afford the Joint Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of explaining why this Order should be laid at this late stage.
Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to second the Motion.
11.19 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I sympathise with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) if he could not understand this Order at first sight; it

2321
certainly does appear to be a complex matter, but the explanation is, I think, simple.
The Order is not in fact laid arising out of the Annual Review negotiations, but out of the preparation of the Estimates, when a doubt arose as to whether existing powers under the 1947 Act— particularly in Section 8 (1)—covered operations over the past year in the case of one Order, and the past several years in the case of the other.
The particular point to which I refer is whether the Act which gave power for Ministers to act severally in the making of Orders, under Section 4 of the 1947 Act, could also be used by Ministers acting jointly. In this context the Ministers are the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Act empowers them to act severally, but we also require them, in the case of certain commodities, to act jointly, and it was because a doubt had arisen whether they could act jointly under the terms of the Act as it now stands that this Order is now made, in order to remove any possible doubt that might exist.
Article 2 (1) of the Order is a tidying-up amendment of Section 8 (1) of the 1947 Act, and by adding the words "or the Ministers" at the end it makes sure that they can act jointly as well as severally in order to remove any doubt from the Act.
Paragraph (2) proceeds to apply this same theory to the two Orders referred to and to the two commodities concerned —that is to say, potatoes and wool—by transferring the functions as now set out in those two Orders from the Ministers severally to the Ministers jointly, and thus making it possible for one Minister —that would be my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to carry the payments on his Vote for Scotland as well as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the Orders are now drafted, it would be necessary to differentiate between Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland in the Votes.
In the case of these two commodities, as to both of which the price guarantees are implemented by the operations of United Kingdom marketing boards, this
2322
would be a most difficult practical matter to carry out, and therefore it is obviously much more convenient to carry the moneys concerned on the Vote of a single Minister, as they have been in the past.
I should say that the wool Order has been hallowed by time. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will have noted, the original Order was made in the time of the last Labour Government, in 1951. Whatever doubt there was here is a slight one, and it is to remove it for ever that this Order is now before the House.
Paragraph (3) deals with a slightly different point—the question of the cereal payments in Northern Ireland. The point is that in the cereals Order the appropriate Minister was stated to be, for Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary. If that was left unchanged, it would introduce a new practice of the Home Secretary carrying on his Vote the moneys required for implementing the price guarantee for the cereal payments in Northern Ireland. In order to follow the practice that we have always followed in the past, of those moneys being carried on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote along with the England and Wales payments, this particular transfer is made. That will bring the matter back to the convenient form that we followed in the past, keeping together the Votes both for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland.
The effect, then, is entirely procedural, and I can assure the House that it does not go beyond the simple explanation which I have given.
Mr. Willey: I am sure that the House is obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He has removed my doubts and confirmed my suspicions, and on those grounds I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR OFFICE (MEMBER'S LETTER)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
11.25 p.m.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: In drawing the attention of the House to the very late reply which I received to a letter which I sent to the War Office, in which a constituent made complaints, I think that I had best read the correspondence so that the matter can be understood. I received a letter from a Private Green, who is stationed at Nether-law Camp, Scotland, which reads as follows:
"Dear Madam,
Being a member of your constituency I thought that I would write and ask you if you would look into the appalling conditions in which we members of the Army are living. I took it upon myself to go absent to bring to light this matter by refusing to accept the O.C.'s punishment and asking for a court martial, but I am afraid that we shall get little or no satisfaction. I have not been to Catterick, but from men stationed here I am given to understand that the accommodation here is much worse, the buildings being old stables with some of the rooms below ground level. Thus the walls are continually wet and this means the clothing is always damp, as the walls are our wardrobes, none being issued for the room in which seven others and I have to sleep.
I go to bed every night expecting my bed to collapse. Not only that, but four beds in our room were condemned three months ago. They are still being used, one having to be supported by a wooden box. The ceiling is ready to give in over another trooper's bed. I am a Regular soldier and can honestly say I've wasted all my time in the Army. I am unable to carry out heavy duties through illness, and they still won't find me something useful to do. I am fed up asking for a trade of some sort. I can give you a lot more details if needed. Hoping you will take this into your consideration."
When I received this letter I felt that it was very necessary that before any publicity was given to it the War Office should have an opportunity of looking into the matter. On many other occasions when I have received complaints I have taken steps to see that the matter was made public. I have done that deliberately because there have been so many complaints from men in the Forces about lack of consideration of their conditions that I thought the quickest way of dealing with them was to make the
2324
matter public. But on this occasion I felt that the War Office should be given an opportunity to see whether it was possible to investigate these complaints and let me know whether or not they were correct.
I therefore sent a letter immediately to the War Office, which it received on 20th December. I received an acknowledgment then, and on 2nd January I received a letter stating that the matter was still under investigation and that no details could be given to me but that I should be communicated with later. I waited for the information. On 7th February, that is on Tuesday of last week, I received a letter from the War Office about this matter. The date at the head of the letter, namely 6th February, is significant. If I read the letter which was sent to me by the War Office perhaps the significance of that date will become apparent.
"Dear Mrs. Braddock,
Thank you for your letter of 20th December with which you forwarded the enclosed correspondence from. … Pte. Green.… who complains of the living conditions at Netherlaw Camp.
I am sorry that Pte. Green should have felt it necessary to go absent to bring this matter to light. I understand that he was tried by District Court Martial at Kircudbright on 21st December for this offence, when he pleaded guilty, was found guilty and was sentenced to twenty-eight days detention. The finding and sentence of the Court was confirmed on 23rd December and promulgated on 28th December. Pte. Green now has until 6th February to exercise his rights of petition and appeal under the Courts Martial (Appeals) Act, 1951."
That is where I draw attention to the date of 6th February, because I did not receive this letter until 7th February, and the right of my constituent to appeal expired on the sixth.
I was very much concerned about that position, and so I rang the Private Secretary to the Minister and asked for an explanation. He could not give me one, and I thought it necessary to have some public explanation and some public apology both to myself and to my constituent. Had I received this letter in time to write to him, I might have been able to give Private Green some advice about appealing, because the further contents of the letter completely vindicate every one of the statements he made about the conditions at the camp. I do not believe that a man would go absent without having taken every other course

2325
open to him in order to draw attention to such conditions; and I should have been notified in plenty of time of the latest date on which he could appeal.
I will proceed with the letter in order that the House will know what the War Office had to say about the statements made by Private Green in his letter:
"I have, of course, made enquiries about the conditions of the camp. The Ministry of Supply, as tenants of the camp, are responsible for the barrack accommodation, which consists of converted farm buildings. These are in an unsatisfactory state and are scheduled for replacement; I understand that the building 01 new barracks is expected to start next year. The particular barrack room occupied by Pte. Green had been out of use for a year, but had to be taken into use again in July last year in order to cope with an increase in the number of living-in personnel. Efforts to combat the dampness, including the installation of new stoves, have however been made and I can assure you that the walls are not, as Pte. Green mentions, 'continuously wet.'
I am afraid that Pte. Green was not supplied with a proper locker as there has been a shortage of these at the camp and there has been some delay in obtaining them. They have, however, now arrived and have been issued to all personnel in the camp. Pte. Green's complaint that his bed was unserviceable is, I must confess, justified. It was found on investigation that some of the hooks fastening the wire mattress to the frame were missing; had he complained in the normal way, however, the bed would, I can assure you, have been changed."
Private Green said in his letter that these beds were condemned three months ago, but it was only when he went absent as a last resort that any notice was taken of the complaint.
The letter goes on to refer to the complaint about a trade. I am not concerned about that because it will be dealt with later. I am more concerned about what happens when a man makes a complaint. Obviously the terms of the letter from the War Office are sufficient to justify the complaints made by Private Green in his letter to me. I am put into a very difficult position if, when I send a letter to the War Office, especially in circumstances of this sort, I do not get a reply in time to communicate with my constituent.
As soon as I received this letter, I sent a copy to Private Green. I told him that I was not satisfied with the date on the letter and that I was sorry that I had not been able to communicate with him before, because of the lack of information, but that I intended, if I were
2326
selected to raise a subject for an Adjournment debate this week or next, to raise the matter in the House. I said that I hoped that if he had any objection, he would let me know.
I have received no reply from him. I do not know—perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell me—whether a man serving 28 days' detention, as he obviously is, can immediately receive a letter sent to him or whether that a decision about that is left to his commanding officer. Private Green would have had time to have replied. Perhaps he thought that I intended to raise the matter later.
I am concerned, when the facts in a letter are found to be almost identical with those in the War Office reply, that it is necessary for a man with a good character—and I have no reason to believe that this man has not a good Army character—to go through the whole procedure of court martial, with the right of appeal and the rest of it. Surely men who are in the Forces are entitled to some consideration if their conditions are bad, and if the War Office knows that they are bad. There should be some way of saying,"We disapprove of your going absent, but we will look into this matter."
The man said that he went absent as a last resort and to draw attention to the conditions. There should have been some other way of drawing attention to the matter. I have strong feelings about this, and I am wondering exactly how to express them. I have a feeling that this business of having a reply only the day after the opportunity for making an appeal has passed is a sort of premeditated low cunning. I am sorry to have to say that, but I feel that anybody who was typing that letter—and the Under-Secretary signed it —should have noticed the date. Did the Under-Secretary not notice the date? Did he not see some reason to call for an explanation?
If constituents write to an hon. Member and make a complaint that requires investigation, surely the hon. Member is entitled to have plenty of notice of what the situation is. This case was not in Malaya or Cyprus or Malta; it was in Scotland. If it takes from 20th December until 6th February to reply to an hon. Member's letter about conditions under which men in the Forces are serving, to

2327
what other conclusion can an hon. Member come but that there is some special reason why information has not been sent in time for further action to be taken?
I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure me that my suspicions are not founded. I can assure him that he will have to give me concrete evidence to disabuse my mind of the thought that the letter was deliberately withheld so that I could not advise my constituent whether he should appeal against the sentence of the court martial.
I hope that those at the War Office who are responsible for dealing with complaints of serving men, whether Regulars or National Service men, will ensure, when there are legitimate complaints, that men do not have to resort to writing to their Member of Parliament and that, if they do, the Member of Parliament will not be ignored right up to the date at which the man's right of appeal expires. I am using fairly strong language because I feel annoyed about the matter. If I have to send a letter again to the War Office I shall think twice about publishing it before I send it.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be honest about this. I have already had a word with him on the subject. In view of the fact that this man could not make his complaint in any other way than by going absent, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the possibility of reducing the sentence passed on him.
11.41 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) for raising this question and giving me the opportunity of clearing up the points which she has made. I hope to be able to clear the War Office of the charge of low cunning which she suggested motivated its actions.
Certainly no obstacle has been placed in the way of Private Green writing to his M.P. In fact he is back at his job at Netherlaw, but had he still been in detention there would have been no obstacle placed in his way. We make a point of seeing that no soldier is prevented from communicating with his M.P.
The hon. Lady said that she wrote on 20th December and received an acknowledgment, followed by an interim
2328
reply on 6th January and a detailed reply on 6th February. I agree that is a long time to wait for an answer and longer than we usually take to answer letters from Members of Parliament, but in this case there were reasons for the delay.
It was a complicated case involving several different aspects; the disciplinary aspect, and the fact that Private Green was about to be court-martialled; the question of accommodation; whether or not Private Green should be employed as a tradesman or a non-tradesman, and the question of Private Green's medical category. It concerned more than one Government Department. It concerned the Ministry of Supply who are responsible for accommodation and also for the administration of personnel. Therefore it was impossible for us to go ahead without consulting the Ministry of Supply at every step, which naturally held up matters. I can say that on the very day on which we received the hon. Lady's letter we started inquiries, and those inquiries were continued right up to the time of my writing to her.
The hon. Lady has suggested that the effect of this delay was to interfere with Private Green's right of appeal or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, to prevent her from advising him on that point. Here I must say that I really do not think that there was very much on that aspect of the case which the hon. Lady could have told Private Green which he did not know already. He did, as the hon. Lady knows, plead guilty at his court martial.
Before I go on with that point, I might just mention the court martial. The hon. Lady asked whether a court martial was necessary. As she said, I think at the beginning of her remarks, that issue was forced by Private Green himself; he refused to accept his commanding officer's summary punishment, and from then onwards the court martial became automatic. There was, therefore, no other course open to the authorities concerned. What is more, he pleaded guilty at the court martial, so it does not seem likely that it was his intention to appeal against the finding of the court. Under the Courts Martial (Appeals) Act, no appeal is admissible against the sentence in any case, and, as I have said already, it would be exceptional for a convicted person to appeal against the finding, having once pleaded guilty to the charge. But that does not mean that all redress against the sentence is closed to Private

2329
Green. It is still open to him to petition any reviewing authority against the sentence through the normal channels, under Queen's Regulations.
Mrs. Braddock: The War Office does not tell me that in the letter. Why tell me only one part of it and not all of it?
Mr. Maclean: Well, Private Green must have known that.
Mrs. Braddock: But I want to know it.
Mr. Maclean: I am telling the hon. Lady now.
It is open to him to petition against the sentence, if he so chooses. If, in spite of having pleaded guilty, he had wanted to appeal, he was well aware of his rights. In the first place, he was informed of his rights by this notice which I hold in my hand, which was posted on the door of his cell during the period of his detention, and which is large enough, in all conscience, for anybody to see. He could have obtained, as he is informed in this notice, a War Office pamphlet which would have made the whole position clear to him; and he could also have consulted his defending officer, who could have given all the information he desired, or his commanding officer. So that, although the letter was not answered as soon as I should have liked to do, that fact, and the fact that the hon. Lady was not informed of the situation until 6th February, did not in any way prejudice this soldier's interests.
I should, perhaps, deal with one or two other aspects of the case. The hon. Lady suggested that Private Green's motive in going absent was to draw attention to the adverse living conditions of himself and his fellow soldiers. That is not altogether borne out by the facts of the case, because in entering his plea of "Guilty" at his court martial, Private Green made the following statement:
"I was granted a 72-hour pass from after duty 1st December, 1955, until 1000 hours, 5th December, 1955. I went to my home in Liverpool with every intention of returning to camp on time. When I got home, I found the comparison of home comforts to those at Netherlaw Camp very hard to bear, and I could not force myself to return."
I can quite understand that; I have been on leave under similar circumstances myself, and I know what he means. But it does not look like a deliberate act in order to force an issue. It looks much more as though he had not felt like going back when the time came.
2330
On the question of accommodation, I have already told the hon. Lady, in my letter, that we do not regard the buildings and accommodation in this establishment as satisfactory, and neither does the Ministry of Supply. Ever since 1949, in fact, they have been scheduled for replacement. They have to compete for priority with numerous projects, but we hope that within a few weeks a contract will be placed and work to provide better accommodation will be started.
I have already said that I think Private Green's complaints of the conditions of the walls and the dampness are exaggerated. In any case, we have done everything we can, with this unpromising material, to improve matters. The same applies to lockers. We were short of lockers. The cupboards which were provided instead were unsatisfactory, but the soldiers in the unit in question, including Private Green, have now got lockers.
As to the beds, Private Green's bed was certainly in a bad state, but he did not request that it should be replaced, neither did the other soldiers whom he has mentioned. Had they asked for it, those beds could have been replaced. The hon. Lady suggested that these complaints have only been met because the matter has been raised by her publicly, but on the issue of the beds the whole matter could have been cleared up within a few hours if Private Green and his comrades had chosen to go through the normal channels, which is very often the case.
As Private Green himself complained, it has not been found possible to train him for a trade because of the state of his health. That is bound to be a disappointment for him, but we have no choice in the matter. He has, therefore, gone back to his job at Netherlaw as a general duties man. His health is a snag. He is in a category which barely comes within the standard of fitness required of Regular soldiers. In conclusion, I would say that in view of his dissatisfaction and in view of the marginal category in which he finds himself, if he were to make application for discharge from the Army it would be sympathetically considered.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Crane Makers (Steel Supplies)
  Crane Makers (Steel Supplies)
  Canned Salmon
  Canned Salmon
  Exports to China (Motor Cars)
  Exports to China (Motor Cars)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  De-rating
  De-rating
  Town and Country Planning Act (Claims)
  Town and Country Planning Act (Claims)
  Gypsies
  Gypsies
  Thames Pollution (Report)
  Thames Pollution (Report)
  Middlesex Development Plan
  Middlesex Development Plan
EMPLOYMENT
  Remploy Factory, Brighton
  Remploy Factory, Brighton
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
SCOTLAND
  Glenrothes
  Glenrothes
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Public Buildings and Monuments (floodlighting)
  Public Buildings and Monuments (floodlighting)
  Government Buildings (Smokeless Fuels)
  Government Buildings (Smokeless Fuels)
BRITISH ARMY
  Gordon Highlanders (Transit Accommodation)
  Gordon Highlanders (Transit Accommodation)
  Band Boys
  Band Boys
  Discharge Certificates (Personal Case)
  Discharge Certificates (Personal Case)
  New Barracks
  New Barracks
  MALAYAN RUBBER (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
  MALAYAN RUBBER (EXPORTS TO CHINA)
  KENYA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  KENYA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)
  GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS)
  GOLD COAST AND NIGERIA (EXPORTS AND IMPORTS)
  MALTA (REFERENDUM)
  MALTA (REFERENDUM)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (EDUCATION)
  NORTHERN RHODESIA (EDUCATION)
  INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON
  INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murders
  Murders
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  EXPORTS TO CHINA
  TRUCIAL STATES (ASSISTANCE)
  TRUCIAL STATES (ASSISTANCE)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service Inquiry (Cost)
  National Health Service Inquiry (Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Greyhound Racing
  Greyhound Racing
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Civil Service (Royal Commission's Report)
  Civil Service (Royal Commission's Report)

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

FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee, to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am taking the unusual course of saying a word or two on Bill before it goes to a Committee for full examination. I do not feel in a position to move its rejection here and to ask that it should be dismissed out of hand, but I want it to be widely known how great is the perturbation felt about the action that is proposed by this Bill to end the service of the Liverpool Overheat: Railway. The rail, way is at the present time, and has been for many years, a great convenience, and to do away with it is looked upon by those who know the position intimately—and I have been in touch with them—as a great calamity. The fact that this railway will pass cut of use will cause the traffic that is now carried on it to come down on to the level of the street, where the congestion is already serious The great hope of those who are interested in this Bill, and who realise the
882
difficulties that its passing would cause, is that the Bill may not be proceeded with to its logical conclusion but that the interests concerned will get together to make arrangements for the continuance of the railway in operation. That is my point with regard to the Bill, as a whole, and the proposal to take this overhead railway out of service.
The other point I wish to make I can put quite briefly. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for compensation for loss of office. The complaint that is made in that reward—and I am sure that those who have lodged Petitions against the Bill will see that this point is fully argued—is that the compensation provisions are quite inequitable and, to be quite blunt about it, unfair. For example, in the case of the general manager, who has twelve years' service with tie railway, the suggested figure of £7,500 compensation works out at £625 for each year of service; and for the assistant manager, who has thirty-eight years' service, the suggested figure of £7,000 represents £184 for each year of service. In contrast, the compensation proposed for the staff is two weeks' salary or wages for each year of service, which cannot compare favourably with the basis proposed for the two chief officers or, indeed, with that provided under the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1949. I draw attention to these compensation clauses as a flaw in the Bill. If it is sent to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House I feel sure that the points I have made will be given full and proper consideration.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the House will understand that the duty of the Chairman of Committees is to ask that the Bill be read a second time; he is not in a position to deal with points such as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has raised, and there is no one here on behalf of the Promoters to de so. The matters to which the noble Lord has referred, which are of great substance, are already, as he said, the subject of Petitions against the Bill, and they will be heard by the Select Committee in due course. I think it is desirable that they should be left to the Committee and not be debated now on the Floor of the House.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply. My purpose has been served, and I look

883
forward with interest to seeing what the Committee make of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

THE LATE LORD TRENCHARD
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I rise to give notice that it has been agreed that we pay our tributes to the late Lord Trenchard tomorrow, Wednesday, immediately after the Introductions.
CHARLES BEATTIE INDEMNITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, these three Sunday Entertainments Act Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper are in the usual form and of the usual content. There is nothing in them to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. I beg to move that the first Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the Borough of Spenborough be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Hebden Royd, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act. 1932, to the Urban District of March, be approved.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Copyright in literary, dramatic and musical works
(5) The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are—

(a) reproducing the work in any material form;

(b) publishing the work;

(c) performing the work in public;

(d) broadcasting the work;

(e) making any adaptation of the work;

(6) In this Act "adaptation" in relation to a literary or dramatic work,

(a) in the case of a non-dramatic work, means a dramatised version of the work, and

(b) in the case of a dramatic work, means the work converted into a non-dramatic form,

and (in either case) includes a translation of the work, and in relation to a musical work, means an arrangement or transcription of the work.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) A lecture shall be deemed to have been made immediately prior to the time when it is delivered, if it has not previously been reduced to writing."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is directed towards filling

885
what appears to be a gap in the provisions of this Bill. A lecture—that is what the Amendment is directed to—is presumably a literary work. But under Clause 2, a literary work is given copyright protection only in the cases where it is unpublished, or in the case where it is published subject to the conditions set out in subsection (2). Now it can easily happen that a lecture is not reduced to writing before it is delivered. In that case, it could not be said that it had already been made and, therefore, was entitled to the protection given to an unpublished work which has been made in this country. The delivery of a lecture is riot publication in the sense in which that word is used in the Bill, because, quite clearly, under the definitions which are found in a later part of the Bill, "publication" relates to publication in print and not to becoming known to the pubic or a section of the public, as a lecture would be if it were delivered in public. In the case of a lecture which has not been written out fully beforehand and, therefore, has not been made, it will have been delivered before publication can possibly take place and the author will be deprived of any copyright in it.
I can hardly think that that is intended. A lecture may well be a literary work of great merit which is as much entitled to protection as any ether form of creative art. I think it is a little doubtful whether or not the existing copyright Act gives protection to a lecture in these circumstances; the wording of the Act is ambiguous. But the present Bill, as it stands, is perfectly clear: it deprives a lecture which is given extempore from any protection whatsoever. I feel it is only fair that this gap should be closed and, therefore, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have, an Amendment a little later on which is directed to much the same point as that of my noble friend. It might be as well to have the discussion all at once instead of taking two bites at it. My own Amendment was put down to obtain an elucidation from the Government on the point which the noble Lord has just made, that lectures are apparently not dealt with in the part of the clause which
886
enumerates the acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is aware that lectures are, in fact, covered by Section 1 (2) of the 1911 Act. One would like to know whether it is now the view of the Government and of the learned draftsmen who are responsible for drawing up this Bill that the provision in the 1911 Act was quite unnecessary, or whether it has been left out by oversight.
As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has pointed out, lectures are often works of the greatest importance. One remembers the lectures given by the late Professor Alfred Dicey on the law of the Constitution, Lord Acton's lectures on liberty and many other famous courses of lectures which have been afterwards published as books but which may well have been "pirated." If the fears that we have are justified and such lectures are published by "pirates," then some distinguished men will be deprived of the copyright in their work. I should be interested to know what the view of the noble and learned Viscount is on this question, and whether it would not be safer to have something in the present Bill to cover the matter.
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this point. Perhaps I may first deal with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, with regard to the position under the present Act. I agree with him that some doubt exists. I am sure that he has had had in mind the fact that, under Section 1 (2) of that Act, copyright is defined as meaning the sole right, in the case of a lecture, to deliver the work in public. That is not conclusive on the point raised by the noble Lord because it is at least arguable, and has been widely assumed, that that refers to a lecture which has been already reduced to writing before it is published. The same is true of Article 2 of the Berne Convention which speaks of "lectures, addresses and sermons," but does not clarify this point. It is true that in the Bill as drafted we have made it clear that there is no intention to give protection to purely oral works. We have done this by providing in subsection

887
4 of Clause 43 that a work is "made" when it is
"first reduced to writing or some other material form."
The noble Lord will appreciate, that, if this Amendment were to be made, it would probably be more convenient to make it in the clause to which I have just referred, although I do not attach any importance to that fact in discussing the merits of the matter.
I would put it to the noble Lord that the protection of the spoken word gives rise to many difficulties. On the one hand, no one would want copyright protection for a number of the speeches that the Members of your Lordships' House make on numerous occasions: many of the speeches which most of us have to make we should be glad to see go into the kindly womb of time, without any permanent record having been made. That raises quite a serious point because it is difficult to draw the distinction. No one would want to give protection to the run of extempore homilies. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Lord that there is something to be said for protecting the carefully thought out lecture, given, it may be, on an historical occasion by someone who prefers not to have any writing in front of him and wishes to produce it extempore although he has thought it out before. I know that examples can be produced—I am sure many of your Lordships can think of some. Frankly, we found it difficult to decide where to draw the line.
I would ask your Lordships to give us a little further time in which to consider this matter. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Chorley, that we are considering and will continue to consider it, and if we can find some method of differentiation it will be dealt with in another place. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and probably the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, too, have in mind our Amendment No. 130, which deals with the delivery of a written lecture. That meets one of the matters which Lord Chorley had in mind. If the noble Lord had also in mind the question whether the delivery of a written lecture should constitute performance and hence be an infringement done without permission, then I can say that that is our intention as well. We have made clear
888
this intention by the Amendment to which I have just referred. Having met that one point and promised to consider the other, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on my undertaking, not to press his Amendment at this stage, but to withdraw it and give us a chance further to consider a difficult point.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am, of course, willing to accept the undertaking which the learned and noble Viscount has given. I appreciate that there may be some slight difficulties in this matter. Neither he nor I would seek to have copyright in the speeches which we make upon various occasions. I thought that the word "lecture" possibly differentiated those speeches from works for which I, at any rate, should desire to secure copyright. It may be that some other formula can be found. I throw out this suggestion: that the lecturer who desires to preserve copyright in his work should preface his lecture by an express statement to that effect. That may afford a solution in the further consideration which the noble and learned Viscount has promised. I say that there is a point of considerable importance here. I will exemplify that by this illustration. When I was a student, I had a professor who gave a series of lectures upon astronomy. The "bare bones" of the lectures were contained in a little book which he could slip into his pocket. He expanded and extemporised on this extremely complicated subject as he went along, and if any of us had had the intention to do so we might have taken his words down verbatim and turned that series of lectures into an extremely valuable book representing many years of original research. I think that illustrates the kind of case which ought to be protected, and I am grateful for the assurance which has been given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.1 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (5), after paragraph (d) to insert:
"(e) communicating to the public, whether over wires or not, the broadcasting of the work, when such communication is made by a body other than the original one;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not particularly wedded to this Amendment, and if I move it at all it is in

889
order to extract one small point of rather legalistic information from Her Majesty's Government. The Amendment is based on Article 11 bis, Section 1 (2) of the Brussels Convention. As I understand it, the British Government are committed to ratification of that Convention and I am wondering whether, without this Amendment or something like it, some kind of amending legislation will not be necessary. The effect of this Bill is to take the operation of a broadcast relay station out of the realm of either performance or broadcasting, and it seems to me that this will also have the effect of cutting out the author's rights which this Article of the Convention requires to be respected. I should be grateful if I could have an answer on this limited point. I do not press the Amendment generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, preface his remarks by saying that he was not particularly wedded to this Amendment, because if he had been wedded to it it would, I think, have been a singularly unhappy marriage. As he rightly says, the wording is a verbatim extract from Article 11 bis of the Brussels Convention, hut the words included in his Amendment "communicated to the public" have never actually appeared in our legislation, although they have appeared in earlier Conventions of the Berne Union. The words we use are "to perform in public" or "performing in public", and I think that the inclusion of a new term such as "communicated to the public" would raise doubts as to its precise meaning. I do not think there is any reason to assume that our term—namely, "performing in public"—does not meet our Convention obligations. At no time has it been suggested that it does not.
As to the substance of the Amendment, I think we must look for a moment at what the noble Lord is trying to do, because he is suggesting that we should include under this portion of the Bill the relay companies. These companies operate in the United Kingdom under a licence from the Postmaster General, and in so far as they take only programmes as broadcast from the B.B.C. they do nothing
890
more than act as a conduit pipe between the broadcasting authority and their own customers. They pick up the broadcast from the broadcasting station and transmit it by land lines to their individual customers. I think your Lordships will agree that just taking the B.B.C. programme could not, by the wildest stretch of words, come to be interpreted as a performance. That is one thing the relay companies certainly do not do. That. I think, the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has already appreciated, and that is why it would be singularly inappropriate for them to be brought under this particular clause. As the noble Lord does not press it very strongly, I will not develop that theme because I think we are at one. I can put his mind clearly at rest on the other point raised by him.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, there is one point which arises in regard to this matter. I do not know that there is anything whatsoever to prevent a broadcast relay company from disseminating things which do not emanate from the B.B.C. or from the I.T.A. It may disseminate matters which arise from some foreign broadcasting station. Certainly in other parts of the world there are broadcast relay stations which do that as a regular practice. If doing that does not constitute performance and, therefore, does not constitute an infringement of copyright, it would follow that an author's copyright in this country might be seriously interfered with and, upon the face of it, he would have no legal remedy whatsoever because, as the matter now stands, there would be no public performance.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Faringdon that this is a matter which we do not particularly want to press, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has entirely disposed of it by his reply. I do not think he would attach importance to the first part of his reply—the verbal dialectics; I think he bases his case on the substance. On that, I would ask the noble Lord to visualise the possibility, remote if you like, of an infringement by the B.B.C. and of a performance being relayed and therefore getting a wider audience. I would join issue with the noble Lord in his statement that a performance which is relayed is not a performance. I think it

891
remains a performance whether it is relayed or comes direct. But if it were a relay performance which was being given in infringement of a copyright, then I think it ought to be brought within the purview of the Bill.
I do not want to put it any higher than to suggest that this is a matter which ought to be looked at again. No doubt it will be, in any case, in another place. I feel that the manner in which this Amendment has been dismissed is rather lighthearted and that there is more to it than appears. If the noble Lord can give us an assurance that it will once more be looked at, I can hold out—shall I call it?—the bribe to him that that assurance will dispose of a number of other Amendments which follow.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, aright. this Amendment is purely a safeguard. I understand that the Performing Right Society ask for no fees at the moment from these relay companies because everything is being paid already by the B.B.C. But, as we see with the progress of broadcasting and various scientific methods, there is no possible guarantee that the B.B.C. will have to go on paying for its performing rights, and these relay companies and systems may develop greatly. It is merely to make it possible to claim these rights that this Amendment has been put down. Therefore, purely from the question of safeguarding the rights of composers or authors, I think it would be a good thing to adopt it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I have listened carefully to what has been said on this matter. I do not think there are grounds for apprehension in the situation. There is one point that I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said. He has dealt with the general position: that the services of these companies are really a conduit pipe by which people get a better reception, with atmospherics excluded, and similar benefits. I wanted to make it clear to your Lordships, because I think the Performing Right Society have referred to the matter, that where a service is provided in hotels in which there is a master set from which programmes are diffused, first to the public rooms, and, secondly, to the private rooms, that is a
892
simple case of the recipient of a broadcast programme giving a public performance, and that the Bill makes no change with regard to the existing law on that point. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that we shall give consideration to the point which he has raised. As my noble friend has pointed out, we do not think there is danger here, but I shall be pleased, of course, to look at the matter again. Perhaps on that assurance the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, will not press his Amendment further.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, it was not my intention in any case to press this Amendment further. I confess that I am still not quite satisfied that the Article in the Convention is, or will be, met under this Bill and that some alteration will not be necessary in order to comply before we ratify. With that reservation, and by leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (5):
"(g) in the case of a lecture delivering the work in public."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move this Amendment formally, for the sake of the Record, and also in order that I may thank the noble and learned Viscount for his answer to my observations on the earlier Amendment. I had both types of lecture in mind, and I should like to remind him that a course of lectures with which I have no doubt he is very familiar, the Maitland Lectures on the British Constitution, which were delivered at Cambridge without any form of notes, were put together from notes taken by students afterwards. Clearly, they would not be covered by copyright, and I am sure the noble Viscount will agree with me that that is altogether wrong. I am therefore very grateful when he says that he is looking very hard to find some method of covering the situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY: With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.12 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (6), to omit all words from "adaptation" down to the last word "in" and to insert instead:

"(a) in relation to a literary or dramatic work, means any of the following, that is to say,—

(i) in the case of a non-dramatic work, a version of the work (whether in its original language or a different language) in which it is converted into a dramatic work;

(ii) in the case of a dramatic work, a version of the work (whether in its original language or a different language) in which it is converted into a non-dramatic work;

(iii) a translation of the work;

(iv) a version of the work in which the story or action is conveyed wholly or mainly by means of pictures in a form suitable for reproduction in a book, or in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical; and

(b)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to amend the definition of "adaptation." It meets, I hope, most of the points made by Lord Lucas of Chilworth, Lord Jowitt and Lord Douglas of Barloch during the Committee stage. It resolves the previous ambiguity about translations, and I think it also meets the point of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, on the use of the words "means" and "includes" in the same subsection.
It also provides for another form of adaptation which. I understand, is becoming increasingly common. If your Lordships will look at sub-paragraph (iv) you will see that it makes it an infringement to reproduce a story in the form of a strip-cartoon without the consent of the author of the story. This practice is becoming increasingly common in perfectly reputable journals, particularly children's papers illustrating history, the Bible and so on. I think this particular paragraph of the Amendment meets this trouble. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have done what we possibly can to meet difficulties raised by noble Lords opposite in the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("adaptation") to second ("in") in line 34 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I gladly testify to the fact that in this case not only have the criticisms made of Clause 2 been met to the full, but the Government have gone beyond what they undertook
894
to do. They have, in fact, discovered further defects in the clause. That is one of the advantages of looking at a thing closely. In this instance, as a result of the Government's undertaking to look at the clause again, they not only discovered the defects we raised but also additional ones, and they have now had the opportunity of putting them right. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind in looking at other clauses to which we shall draw his attention later.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is quite sure that the Government are not going too far? I have heard that there are only 160 original plots in the history of the world.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is put down only for the purpose of clarification. It makes it clear that the generality of the words "reproducing the work in any material form" is not affected by the spelling out of the things which constitute "adaptation" of a work, and hence, in their own right, acts of infringement. Our intention is that the existing Case Law on "reproducing" of work shall remain unaffected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end insert ("so however that the mention of any matter in this definition shall not affect the generality of paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Copyright in artistic works
3.—
(4) Subject to the last preceding subsection, copyright subsisting in a work by virtue of this section shall continue so subsist until the end of the period of fifty years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died, and shall then expire:
Provided that—
(b) the copyright in a photograph shall expire at the end al the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which the photogniph was taken.
(5) The acts restricted by the copyright in an artistic work are—

(a) reproducing the work in any material form; and

(b) publishing the work.

LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, we pass now to quite a different matter. Under the Act of 1911, the term of copyright in photographs was fifty years from the making of the original negative. The Copyright Committee recommended that the term should be assimilated more nearly to the period of protection under the Registered Designs Act and the Patents Act. Accordingly, in our Bill the period of protection for photographs was reduced, as your Lordships will see, to twenty-five years from the date of the taking of the photograph. This reduction, however, seems to increase the risk that private photographs, particularly of public people, will be published in ways that will be a source of embarrassment to the subjects. The Amendment therefore provides that the term of protection shall run from the date of first publication, which, because of Clause 43 of the Bill, means publication with the consent of the copyright owner. Thus, unpublished photographs will now be protected permanently, in the same way as private letters and diaries, and published photographs will enjoy an earning life of twenty-five years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 31 and insert ("continue to subsist until the end of the period of twenty-five years from the end of the calendar year in which the photograph is first published, and shall then expire.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is only a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to meet a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and also to meet difficulties which were pointed out by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("and").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, for the sake of accuracy—and only for the sake of accuracy not to be pernickety—I ought to mention that this particular Amendment took up a great deal of your Lordships' time on the Committee stage. It was originally brought to your Lordships' attention by my noble and learned friend, Lord Jowitt, and it was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that the difficulty might be met in the terms of the present Amendment. That, I imagine,
896
resulted in this Amendment being put forward, so that it is only right to point out that the original matter was brought to the attention of the Government by my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, though the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, can claim the credit for the solution. Whatever the case may be, we agree with the Amendment, which meets exactly the point we have in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give effect to the acceptance in principle which I offered your Lordships of a similar Amendment put forward by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and indeed anybody else entitled to claim, to all of whom I am happy to record the benefit of this Amendment. The Amendment remedies an omission from the Bill under which it would not have been a breach of copyright to televise an artistic work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("(c) including the work in a television broadcast.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Ownership of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works
(2) In the case of—

(a) a work made by the author in the course of his employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

(b) a literary or dramatic work made by the author in pursuance of a contract with another person providing specifically for the making of that work for publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or

(c) an artistic work made by the author in pursuance of a contract with another person providing specifically for the making of that work,

that other person (hereafter in this section referred to as "the employer") shall, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, be entitled (subject to the provisions of this Act) to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(3) Where by virtue of the last preceding subsection the employer, or a person deriving title from the employer, is entitled to the copyright in a work, and the work was commissioned or ordered for a particular purpose, or was made for publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the employer shall be treated as having entered into a

897
covenant with the author, and with his personal representatives and assigns, that the work—

(a) shall not he used for a different purpose by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright, or (as the case may be)

(b) shall not he published by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical:

Provided that the operation of this subsection may be excluded by express provision in the contract between the employer and the author, and shall have effect subject to any provision in that contract relating thereto.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT had given notice of two Amendments, the first, in subsection (1), to leave out "Act" (where that word first occurs) and to insert "section", and the second to leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert five new subsections. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to an Amendment, which, together with Amendment No. 11, which goes with it, is of considerable importance. I think this matter will be familiar to your Lordships. During the debate on Committee stage I indicated to your Lordships what we had in mind with regard to first ownership of copyright. These Amendments give effect to what I then said. The new subsection (2) provides that, where a literary, dramatic or artistic work—not, you will note, musical work—is made for publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and is so made either by an employee of the newspaper or in pursuance of an express agreement that it should be made for that purpose, the copyright is split. The newspaper proprietor gets the newspaper arid magazine rights; but the author gets all other rights, such as the right to use his work in book form or as a script for a film. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is an improvement on the situation created by the clause as originally drafted, which had the effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, pointed out, of sterilising the "residual" copyright—that is, the book and film rights—so that neither author nor newspaper proprietor could make use of it without the concurrence of the other.
The next new subsection, subsection (3), deals with commissioned portraits, photographs and engravings and provides, as did the Act of 1911, that the commissioner shall have the copyright in those cases. The reason is, of course, that the photographer ought not to be in a position to put the portrait or photograph
898
to uses of which the commissioner may well disapprove—for example, using it in advertisements. It has been suggested to us that these provisions as to photographs should apply only to photographs of people and not to objects; but we feel that if a man commissions a photograph of his house or his dog, it is nearly as important for him to have the copyright as when the photograph is of his wife or himself.
The new subsection (4) deals with works made by employees in the course of their employment, other than those dealt with already in the two previous subsections. In this case, as under the Act of 1911, the copyright vests in the employer absolutely. Your Lordships will appreciate, of course, that it is not only professional writers and professional artists who create literary or artistic works within our definitions. The working drawings of an engineer are artistic works and his report to his firm on a project would be a literary work. Subsection (5) makes it clear that all the preceding provisions of this clause operate only in the absence of agreement to the contrary, and subsection (6) provides that the provisions of Part VI, notably those as to copyright of works not yet made, shall govern the provisions of this clause.
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that on this difficult and controversial point we have decided to revert more nearly to the position which obtained under the Act of 1911. But there are two important differences. The first is that a newspaper proprietor who commissions work for his newspaper, which he often does over the telephone and in a great hurry, now gets, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, the newspapers and magazine rights. But that is all he gets; the author retains all other rights. The second is that the position of the employee journalist is now much improved. Instead of having a right merely to be consulted as to how his work may be used otherwise than in the newspaper or magazine, he will now himself have all the rights other than newspaper and magazine rights.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, copyright in all commissioned artistic works vested in the commissioner for all purposes, though subject to the restrictive covenant procedure. This will no longer be the case, and, as in the Bill as drafted, copyright in musical works will always—

899
in the absence of course of agreement to the contrary—vest in the composer.
Although we have moved further in the direction of protecting the author rather than the employer than was recommended by the Copyright Committee, I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a move in the right direction. There is force in the argument that the commercial firm is in a better position by contract to look after its rights than is the author. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will feel that we have reached a reasonable compromise in this difficult matter between the various conflicting interests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is a number of Amendments to Amendment No. 11, which we have not reached. The noble Lord referred to Nos. 9 and 11 as rightly constituting one Amendment and I think it might be for the convenience of the House if we had a general discussion and then took the Amendments individually and very shortly, possibly dividing on a particular one. I want to concede at once that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the main criticism that was voiced, not only from this side of the House but also from the other, in regard to the position of the person who is commissioned to write an article in a newspaper. I think that people who work under contract, whatever the form of commission may be, are in a position to protect themselves. It is the position of the person who is perhaps inexperienced or perhaps telephoned on the spur of the moment and asked to write an article, which we feel is not adequately safeguarded even in this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put down—and I admit that it does go a good deal farther than the original provision.
The limited point which I raise is the question of the rights of the commissioner over an article which he has commissioned. In my view, these rights should extend merely over the actual article that he has commissioned and for the particular newspaper, magazine or other periodical for which he has commissioned it. I can see no justification for saying to a man, "Would you please write an article for the Daily Sun," and then the writer
900
finds that that article is being syndicated all over the Press, the original commissioner making a great profit on it and paying the author of the article the usual limited sum. If there were time and experience on the part of the author, he would bargain. He would have in mind the possibility of syndication and would demand a fee which took syndication into account.
Most of your Lordships have had the experience of being telephoned and asked to have an article ready on that same evening or the first thing tomorrow morning. In my own case they have sometimes sent a shorthand typist down to the country so that I could dictate the article on the spot. One does not then think of all the legal consequences; one does not even know them. One is paid a fee which one regards as reasonable for the actual article; one is normally not paid a fee for the syndication. I feel that in justice and in equity the copyright in the article should be in the person who writes it and for the particular purposes for which he writes. If it is the desire of the commissioner to syndicate the article he should say so, make it abundantly clear to the author, and pay a fee accordingly. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, the Government have not entirely met the criticisms which have been made and I hope that they will find it possible to go a little further.
I want to admit freely that I doubt whether any of the Amendments on the Paper will actually achieve the exact purpose I have in mind. That is a matter of drafting. The Government have indicated and proved that if they give an undertaking that they will accept a point in principle, they honour it and put down an Amendment which, in fact, meets the case. I should be quite prepared to accept such an undertaking in this case. I feel that this is a point we ought to press, both in the interests of the author and in the interests of equity and justice, and I do not think any great harm could come to the newspaper proprietors if the Government went just a little further and put the onus on the newspaper proprietors to say whether they were going to syndicate an article or not.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think the greatest need on this subject is that the law should be absolutely clear. The parties can come to their own agreement if this new Amendment is adopted,

901
but it is very desirable that the law shall be quite clear on what the legal position will be in the absence of such an agreement. On that point I think there will be agreement in every quarter of the House. What the law should provide in such a case is what would probably be intended by the parties in the absence of a particular agreement, and my own view is that the Government Amendment is successful. They are right in embodying in the law what would be the general intention of most parties except where they chose to come to a particular agreement.
I rise only because I wish to point out to the Government two points on which I think the drafting may require to be looked at again. I know how much consideration is given to these matters, and therefore I speak with great hesitation and real modesty in calling attention to what may be possible defects in the drafting as it stands. There are two points which occur to me. The first arises under subsection (3) of the Government's Amendment. The words are
"Subject to the last preceding subsection, where, for a consideration in money or money's worth, a person commissions the taking of a photograph.…"
I have little doubt that the position that the learned draftsman has in mind is that of the "money or money's worth" going to the photographer, but I doubt very much whether that is what the subsection says. It says:
"…where, for a consideration … a person commissions.…"
It is quite possible, it seems to me that the photographer might in certain cases (I think we can imagine them) offer money to a person to commission him to take the photograph. It does not say "the taking, for a consideration, of the photograph" it says "commissions for a consideration." I do not wish to labour the point but I think there may be a point that the draftsman would like to look at again.
My other point on the drafting relates to the proposed new subsection (6) which says:
"The preceding provisions of this section shall all have effect subject to the provisions of Part VI of this Act."
I have little doubt that that would be so whether subsection (6) were there or not. I wonder whether it is intended to put in something similar in other clauses.
902
Otherwise, I imagine, there might be some danger of its being held that the specific mention of Part VI in this particular clause would make its omission rather significant in those clauses where it was not specifically mentioned. Let me say at once that I can conceive that I may be completely wrong on this point—for this reason: that it may be that Part VI has such a peculiar relevance to this particular clause that there is a real point in mentioning it here, although there would not be any reason to mention it in other cases. Therefore, without making too much of either of my points of drafting, I think it might be worth while for the Government to look at their wording again.
3.37 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has certainly raised an extremely interesting point in his last remarks, because Part VI of this Bill provides that an assignment of copyright must be in writing. The clause with which we are dealing at present provides for an automatic assignment of copyright by the author to the publisher of a newspaper or magazine or other periodical. Does it then follow that, in order that the provisions of this clause shall take effect, the bargain would first have to be reduced into writing? I understood that one of the objects of this clause was to deal with those cases in which the bargain was concluded by word of mouth, without anything in writing, and that it was intended in such a case to convey the copyright front the author to the publisher. So far as I am concerned, I disagree in toto with that principle. I do not agree with the noble Lord that that is the kind of bargain which an author contemplates in those circumstances: I do not believe it for a moment.
Supposing that some person is rung up by the editor of the Much-Binding Advertiser and asked for an article of 250 words to be published in it at the price of a guinea, does he automatically envisage that he is thereby conveying to the proprietor of that journal the right to publish his article in any newspaper or periodical not only in this country but all over the world? I cannot believe for a moment that that is the kind of thing which the ordinary member of the public would imagine that he was doing. I know that in certain circumstances there is a

903
presumption of law that a British subject is supposed to know the whole of the law of England or Scotland, as the case may be, but even the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack would not say that he knew every provision of the law; he may know where to find the provisions of the law, but he certainly does not carry them all in his mind.
This is not the kind of provision which I think the ordinary person will know anything about at all. Therefore I say it is quite unfair to the untutored indivdual that he should have imposed upon him an obligation that the copyright in his literary work, so far as it relates to publication in newspapers and other periodical publications, shall be automatically conveyed to the person who commissions an article from him. After all, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, admitted when we discussed this matter on the Committee stage, the publishers and newspaper proprietors are much more likely to know what the law is and to be in a position to protect themselves if they want to do so, and it is open to them to stipulate, when they commission an article, that they are buying the copyright in it. Why should they not do so? Why should this be automatically written into the contract without the volition of the person who writes the article? If the publisher seeks more extensive rights to publish than only in the particular journal for which he has asked that the article be written, let him stipulate for it. Then it will be brought home clearly to the mind of the author what he is doing, and he will be able to consider whether or not he should do it.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are really dealing with a basic point here, and I do not offer any apology for adding some words to what has already been said by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Douglas of Barloch, although it may be that I shall repeat something of what they have said. There is here, in my submission, a fundamental breach of the whole theory of copyright. The basis of copyright is that the author owns his original work, and I think that that is accepted not only in this country, but all over the world. The fact that the work was commissioned is really neither here nor there in regard to this matter. Much of the finest original work that there has ever
904
been done has been commissioned work. Almost the whole of the work of Mozart was commissioned; and a great deal of the finest literary work produced by our great novelists, such as Dickens, has been commissioned work. It is true that the inroad which is made in this Bill is confined to a comparatively small area—that of newspapers and periodicals—but, even so, much of the most valuable literary work, particularly of modern times, has been commissioned for newspapers and periodicals. I need not refer to many cases, but a great deal of the work of Rudyard Kipling was commissioned in that way, and that of one of our finest living authors, Mr. Somerset Maugham. It is, I think, characteristic of modern times that more and more original work is commissioned for newspapers and periodicals. So here we are dealing with what is in some ways, perhaps, the most important matter raised in this Bill.
The basic proposition—and this is accepted all over the world—is that the author should have the copyright in the original work which he has done, unless he assigns it, or agrees to assign it, to somebody else. This basic and fundamental principle is broken by this clause, although it is not as bad as it was when it first came before your Lordships' House. But, in my submission, there is still a serious breach. I think it probably originated in an error made by the Copyright Committee of 1951 who, without having effective evidence before them, ran away with the idea that anybody who was writing for a newspaper or periodical knew quite well that his work would be syndicated in the way that has been described. But those who know much more about these things and who are in the thick of it say that that is altogether wrong; and this point has been forcibly and trenchantly put by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, with whose views I entirely agree.
It is for this reason that at a later stage I shall move to delete paragraph (b) altogether, which would then preserve the situation as it existed at Common Law, which, I submit, is the right position: that if the author's original right in his own work is to be removed, it must be removed by means of an express agreement with the person who is to get it. And it would not only preserve the Common Law position in this country, but would preserve the international

905
position as it is accepted all over the world. Here we are in danger of putting on to our own Statute Book a breach of international understanding. I recognise that the Government have conceded something in this new Amendment and that the actual difference between us at the present time is on this question of syndication, which, of course, is an important one. The principle is involved, and also the practical problem of syndication. If the Government refuse to give way on the matter of principle, as an alternative I have put down an Amendment which attempts to deal with the syndication matter.
Here I echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch: that the situation in connection with syndication is obviously tremendously weighted in favour of the newspaper proprietor or the proprietor of a periodical. If he has the right to syndicate—and this is a right which can be, and is, used all over the world—an article which is written for a local newspaper in England may well be produced in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and elsewhere, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, the wretched author may have received a sum like one guinea for being exploited in this way. If that is the situation, it should be expressly provided for in the terms of the contract which he signs, so that he realises what he is doing I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, admitted on the Committee stage that the whole advantage is with the newspaper proprietor, and in this connection the difference between contracting in and contracting out is obviously an important one from the practical point of view. We ought to see to it that the man is made to enter into an express contract, by means of which he gives up his rights, if that is what is intended. If the author is to give away his syndication rights, then I submit he should do so expressly. It is ridiculous to suppose that if the copyright passes by Statute—as it will if this clause of the Bill is passed into law—the author will, in effect, be getting more out of it. He will not. That is a theoretical supposition which I am sure everybody will agree will not be carried through in practice. Therefore, my Amendment No. 13 is designed to preserve the syndication rights of the author; and on that, if
906
the Government will not give way, I will ask your Lordships to divide.
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am again grateful to your Lordships for the most interesting discussion which we have had on this problem, and I do not deny that it has difficulties. We have tried to find the true balance in what is a difficult matter, and I would remind noble Lords who have spoken what my noble friend Lord Mancroft said when he introduced this Amendment: that our proposals which are now before your Lordships go further to help the authors than did the recommendations of the Copyright Committee. I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, would agree with that point. So we have taken steps in what those of your Lordships who have criticised this Amendment would say is the right direction. The question is, have we gone far enough? The main point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was with regard to syndication, and I suggest that that is the point to which your Lordships should address your minds.
I think we can put on one side the well-known writer who has reached a certain stage in his career, because he will undoubtedly make his arrangements through a literary agent and provide for the various points that may arise. I should think—I must say that I am speaking without knowledge on this point—.that that would meet most of the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, with regard to a short story writer like Kipling, the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or Mr. Somerset Maugham, who, I agree, did produce for periodicals in their early stages. But the time would very soon come when they would deal with it on a basis on which they were unlikely—and after all one must look at the balance of probabilities in this matter—to be victimised. A more difficult case, and one which I should like to put before your Lordships, is that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of the ordinary contributor to a paper who is rung up and asked for an article. I am somewhat biased in the matter, because practically every time that that has happened to me it has been a political article I have been asked for; and I always feel that the greater publicity any words of mine get, the better the purpose for

907
which I am writing is being served, whatever the value of the article. But I do not want to ride off on any subsidiary point.
The real point about the newspaper article, which is the gist of the matter before us, is that a newspaper commissions an article in order that the newspaper will have the exclusive rights in that article. On balance, I do not think that is an injustice. Broadly, one would expect that if one were asked for an article for a newspaper which was part of a chain, whichever chain it was, it might be used by the rest of the chain of that company. I base that, first of all, on the broad point that newspapers as a whole depend on the exclusive nature of their features, and I should have thought that that was a fair thing to take as your starting point because, of course, it can always be corrected by contract.
Take it the other way. Without the provision we have made it would be perfectly possible for a free-lance journalist—and I am completely sparing in the adjectives I apply, because it is a matter in which everyone will make his own judgment—to send an article to the Daily Telegraph, for example, and then send the same article, or practically the same, to the Scotsman, the Belfast News Letter or some other paper, and maybe, get away with it once or twice, and similarly do it with more widespread newspapers. As I say, one has to try and keep the balance in the matter. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that we have advanced a considerable way, because we have reserved to the author the full rights of book, play, film and broadcast, which are extremely important nowadays. That is the general position, and I ask your Lordships to see that when it is a matter of balance the result can never suit everyone. Each of us has his individual view and would probably want the balance tilted a little more the other way. But in this general problem we have attained an equitable solution.
May I say one word about the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford? He is well known to his friends as being not only a speaker of English undefiled himself, but, if I may say so, an ever refilling cistern of criticism of those who defile English. Therefore I listened with great respect to his criticism of the drafting and the language
908
of subsection (3) of the Amendment. I promise him that we shall consider that matter and see that we complete the linguistic purification that it deserves. He has Gilbertian support for the basis of his thesis. I seem to remember some lines in The Gondoliers:
"A sum in addition
They pay for permission
To say that they make for the Duchess."
Therefore, I will see that on that basis his point is looked into.
With regard to the noble Lord's other point, I am afraid we do think it necessary, in these special circumstances, to make the reference to Part VI. That point has been considered, but I will look at it again if the noble Lord wishes. I have put my point to your Lordships. I appreciate that this is a field where reasonable men can take different views and see that the perfection on balance should lie in a different way. What I do say to your Lordships is that we have tried hard to get a reasonable solution. I think our solution is right, and I hope that on reflection your Lordships will feel that it is fair and will not press the suggestion of altering it.
3.58 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am always impressed by everything the Lord Chancellor says, but it seemed to me that he based his argument on a false analogy, because he talked about a free-lance journalist who might send his article to the Daily Telegraph and to the Scotsman. The noble and learned Viscount must be aware that any free-lance journalist who was found to be distributing his articles in such a way that they appeared in several papers on the same day would be unlikely to receive many future orders from newspaper editors. It seemed to me that that was slightly beside the point. I say this with every possible hesitation and diffidence, but what we are talking about is not the free-lance journalist who sends his article to one paper—I am assuming it would be one paper; I do not know that he would send it to more than one—but a case where the article is commissioned. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that where the article is commissioned from Mr. Somerset Maugham or somebody of that standing, no doubt his interest will be looked after. He will have had a wealth of experience on which to base his business activities. But, when Mr. Somerset

909
Maugham was an unknown writer of short stories from whom an editor commissioned a story, he may well not have appreciated that, in writing a short story for one newspaper, he was giving all the rights in all newspapers and magazines in the future, arid, of course, his syndicated rights through the associated Press, to the editor who had ordered that article or short story.
Therefore, I suggest that here it may be difficult to find the correct words, though I do not think it is by any means impossible. But, in any case, the residuary right, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, talked on the Committee stage, should begin where the original publication for which the work is commissioned has taken place, and the commissioner has used the article or short story for the purpose for which he ordered or commissioned it. Thereafter, I would suggest that the copyright should revert to the author. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this point and draw the line a little more sharply in favour of the author, who is always in these matters the weaker protagonist.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, on a point of order, would your Lordships allow me to intervene for a moment? I have Amendments down to the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I wonder whether or not I should move them now.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I suggest that this would be a useful course. I think we have exhausted the arguments over the whole field and we know what it is we have to decide: do we have caveat auctor or not? We are now considering Amendments standing in my name, that we should approve Amendments Nos. 9 and 11. Then, if noble Lords opposite feel strongly on this point and wish to challenge it further, they could do it elsewhere—perhaps on Amendment No. 12 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—without any unnecessarily complicated discussion and continuation. Before that is done, I must, of course, ask the House to agree to my Amendments, Nos. 9 and 11, being put to the House.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think that is right. We think that Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are, to a certain extent, an improvement in the Bill. They ought to be
910
put to the House. I take it that they will then be subject to amendment on the basis of the Amendments put down.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to point out—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: If I may have leave to speak, may I say that it is proposed to exclude by Amendment No. 10—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD DOUGLAS OE BARLOCH: I think I have some rights. It would be much better, if I may respectfully suggest it, to deal with Amendment No. 9. I was then going to withdraw Amendment No. 10 in order to shorten the discussion; then we should come to Amendment No. 11
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is only one suggestion that I put to the Mouse. The Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, are Amendments to the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Therefore, before we decide finally on the form of Lord Mancroft's Amendment, I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, should have the right to put his Amendments. Perhaps this will meet what is in your Lordships' minds: that we pass Amendment No. 9, which is introductory. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has been good enough to say that he will withdraw Amendment No. 10. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will then move Amendment No. 11, and, on that, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will move one of his Amendments to that of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on which he has indicated that, as at present advised, he wants to divide the House. We will dispose of that and then pass to Amendment No. 11. I think that then our troubles on this part of the Bill are over. Would that meet with your Lordships' approval?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will put Amendment No. 9, because that is introductory. I gather that there is no opposition.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not move Amendment No. 10.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Will the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, formally move Amendment No. 11?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg formally to move Amendment No. 11. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, wishes to move his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert:
("(2) Where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, and is so made either—

(a) in the course of the author's employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

(b) in pursuance of a contract with another person providing specifically for the making of that work for the purpose of its being so published,

that other person shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in all other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(3) Subject to the last preceding subsection, where, for a consideration in money or money's worth, a person commissions the taking of a photograph, or the painting or drawing of a portrait, or the making of an engraving, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the person who so commissioned the work shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting therein by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(4) Where, in a case not falling within either of the two last preceding subsections, a work is made in the course of the author's employment by another person under a contract of service or apprenticeship, that other person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part of this Act.
(5) Each of the three last preceding subsections shall have effect subject, in any particular case, to any agreement excluding the operation thereof in that case.
(6) The preceding provisions of this section shall all have effect subject to the provisions of Part VI of this Act.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I want to say a few words about the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and which is, I agree, some improvement upon the clause as it was originally drafted; but I wish to disagree with the view which has been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that one is faced with a dilemma in this case
912
and that the Government have been endeavouring in the drafting of this clause to hold a balance. That seems to me entirely to ignore the fact that it is perfectly open to the proprietor of a newspaper to make an express stipulation to the person who writes an article that he, the newspaper proprietor, is to have all the newspaper and periodical rights which exist in it. Why should not this particular case be one in which the terms of a contract should be written out beforehand? It is perfectly true that the well-established author, who has by hard practice become well accustomed to this kind of business, probably employs a literary agent and gets the fullest protection for his literary efforts that the law is able to afford him. Undoubtedly, those people are well able to look after themselves. The point at issue here is not that. They will do so in any case, whatever is written into this Bill. It is those who are inexperienced in these matters who deserve to have protection as compared with the more experienced people who are in the habit of commissioning articles for newspapers or periodicals. That is the real point.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has made it perfectly clear that the Government will not accept Amendment No. 12, I do not propose to move it, but I will move Amendment No. 13. The substitution of the word "such" for the word "any" limits the right of the commissioner, the newspaper or the magazine proprietor, as the case may be, to publication in the particular journal, newspaper or magazine for which the work is commissioned and leaves the syndication rights with the author. That is the object of this Amendment. I think I have explained it sufficiently in my earlier speech; therefore I will content myself with moving it formally. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment, moved—
Line 14 of the amendment, leave out ("any") and insert ("such").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have nothing more to say and therefore I do not propose to say it. We have exhausted this argument completely; there are no further facts to lay before the House and no further arguments to be advanced. I suggest that since we are not able to agree on it we disagree in a different way.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is quite a different point but it is one which is only slightly less, if any less, in importance, than the one which we have just been discussing. The Amendment is to leave out the new subsection (4) which is taken from the old Bill but is put into a different place. It is quite true that this subsection comes from the Copyright Act, 1911, which altered the Common Law rule, under which, as has been indicated more than once in these discussions, the author has a copyright in the work which he has produced. No doubt this amendment of the Common Law rule was designed to protect a master who employed a servant to write or to compose for him under his personal supervision and direction. Limited in that sort of way it would be a perfectly reasonable qualification of the original legal position.
The words used—it is true, of course, that they come from the 1911 Act, and they have not, in fact, so far as I know, given rise to any litigation are:
Their Lordships divided—
Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Limerick, E.

Crook, L.

Mathers, L.

Listowel, E.

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morrison, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Quibell, L.

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sherwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Silkin, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Kershaw, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Aberdare, L.

Geddes, L.

Aldenham, L.

Gifford, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hampton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hawke, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Hayter, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Jessel, L.

Haddington, E.

Carrington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Cawley, L.

Leconfield. L.

St. Aldwvn, E.

Chesham, L.

Luke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinton, E.

Coleraine, L.

Melchett, L.

Conesford, L.

Palmer, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Rochdale, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Rockley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Derwent, I,.

Salter, L.

Goschen, V.

Digby, L.

Sandford, L.

Leathers, V.

Forbes, L.

Strang, L.

Soulbury, V.

Freyberg, L.

"in the course of the author's employment…"
Those words cover a much wider ground than the sort of ground I have indicated, and it is at any rate arguable, as I indicated at the Committee stage, that they cover the work produced by a university teacher in the course of his work at a university, or a schoolmaster—a history master, perhaps, employed at a school who produces a valuable textbook on history—a medical practitioner employed by the National Health Service, or a solicitor who is employed as a managing clerk in a firm of solicitors and who may have great experience of the Rent Restrictions Acts and produces a textbook on that difficult and complicated subject. If the provision goes as far as that, I submit it is all wrong.
I invited the Government at the Committee stage to look at this matter, as they had in fact given an undertaking to consider the whole of Clause 4 again, and to put it right. I have had no explanation whether they think the view I have put forward is, legally speaking, a completely impossible one. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that there was a good deal in it. As I said on the Committee stage, your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity has

915
on a number of occasions considered such an expression as "in the course of employment" and has given a pretty wide construction to it—certainly I think a good deal wider construction than that of "work produced under the personal supervision and direction of the master," which, I submit, is as far as we are entitled to go in cases of this kind. I have attempted to deal with this situation in the first of my two Amendments, Amendment 14, by moving for the complete deletion of subsection (4) in Lord Mancroft's Amendment. But, as I said a minute or two ago, I appreciate that there is a case for altering the Common Law rule, providing that it is done to a very limited extent. Therefore, in the case of Amendment 15 I have attempted to achieve my object in a different way—that is, by the limitation contained in the words "and as a specific duty under such contract." I am sorry that Amendment 15 is not put down as an Amendment to Lord Mancroft's Amendment: owing to a little unintelligence on my part, it has been put down as an Amendment to the clause as it originally stood. I hope your Lordships will allow me to regard it as an Amendment to subsection (4) of the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 23 of the Amendment, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, rightly says, these two Amendments, Nos. 14 and 15, are in a way linked, but I think we shall get into confusion if I try to deal with both together. I should like to address myself briefly to Amendment 14 first. I can assure Lord Chorley that we have looked carefully at the point which he made about this particular subject on the Committee stage. I am sorry we cannot see our way at all to meet him in the manner he wishes on this particular Amendment. Subsection (4) of this clause follows the existing law under the Act of 1911. It provides that in the ordinary case the copyright in works made by employees in the course of their employment vests in the employers. This case is not peculiar to copyright; in fact it follows the normal pattern of our general law. In the field of patents, for example, the relative rights of master and
916
servant are, generally speaking, the same as those in this subsection. That is as a result of the Common Law and not of Statute. But to repeal this statutory provision of the law of copyright would, having regard to the words of subsection (1), produce quite different results in these two fields. On the whole we feel that that would be thoroughly undesirable, and I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope for the noble Lord in regard to this particular Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "apprenticeship" to insert:
"and as a specific duty under such contract,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally. I regret that I cannot accept Lord Mancroft's explanation as to the Common Law position in regard to this matter: I should not have thought that it was as he stated. But even if it is, I do not agree with him that it is a reasonable one. I have put to him a number of cases in which I think the consensus of opinion of every right-thinking person would be to the effect that the author should be entitled to the copyright. It would be quite absurd to suggest that a solicitor's managing clerk who produced a textbook on the Rent Restrictions Acts should lose the copyright to his employers. If they wish to pre-empt the work of those they employ, they should bargain for it in the terms of the contract of employment. It is true that if, during the course of a man's work in a scientific establishment, he gets to know of secret processes which go on there he is, very properly, under a Common Law duty not to make use of those processes in the interests of anyone but the employer who employs him. This type of case, however, I suggest is as different from that as chalk from cheese, and if the matter goes forward in its present state a real injustice will have been done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Line 9 of the Amendment, after ("apprenticeship") insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded. Let us look at the position as he envisages it under Amendment 15. What he is seeking to do is to add after the words "contract of service or apprenticeship" the words "and as a specific duty under such contract." I must confess that I was a little uncertain, when I first saw the Amendment, what exactly the noble Lord intended to do. As the clause is drafted the employer gets the copyright only if the work was made by the employee "in the course of his employment." Those words are sufficient, I should have thought, to ensure that copyright in a work made by an employee in his spare time: on a matter unrelated to his employment shall go to the author, rather than to the employer. If we were to accept the Amendment it might mean that the copyright in a specific engineering drawing made by a man whose contract said simply that he was to he employed at a given salary as an "engineering draftsman" would vest in the man and not in his employer, on the grounds that the contract did not make specific mention of the drawing or type of drawing in question. I believe that the fears of noble. Lords are unfounded. The situation as we see it is perfectly satisfactory. I am sorry that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it strikes me that there is no difference of substance between the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and my noble friend Lord Chorley. As so often happens, an Amendment put down from this side which we think meets a specific difficulty turns out, on the analysis which the Government are able to give it, not quite to do the trick. I freely admit that my noble friend's Amendment may be criticised in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, criticised it, but we need to make certain that the case which both noble Lords have in mind—that an apprentice or servant who does a piece of work not related to his normal employment—should have the benefit of copyright; that it should not go, automatically to the employer. The words "in the course of his employment" have given considerable difficulty to the legal profession and have been a source of considerable remuneration to them in the past. Therefore, it is important, once we have agreed on what he have in mind, to make sure that the words used are
918
adequate. I am not so certain as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the words in the Bill are adequate. I should be content if the Government would look at these words again to see whether or not they are sufficient and, having heard this debate, I would accept their ruling.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will gladly do that. As Lord Silkin knows, in another connection I had considerable experience of argument arising out of the words "in the course of his employment", and I have no doubt about the words here, but if he or the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has any doubt, I will willingly look at them again; and if I find there is any doubt I will ask that consideration be given to this in another place. But that is the position in which I find myself to-day. I shall have a look at the point again with great pleasure, and in those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad to have that assurance from the noble and learned Viscount. I am greatly relieved to find that he does not seem to think there is any difficulty here and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Infringements by importation, sale and other dealings]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "of public entertainment" and insert "that is normally used for public gatherings." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the position of a person who permits his premises to be used for a performance in public of a work which is the subject of copyright. Clause 5 (5) provides that such a person has a responsibility for ensuring that no work produced on his premises is an infringement of copyright, but certain limitations are laid down. One limitation is that the premises have to be a place "of public entertainment"; another is that the person must be acting for profit. On Committee stage we sought to eliminate the second condition, though now, on reflection and just to show that we are reasonable, we are not pressing that point. We do, however, come back to the point of what is a place "of public

919
entertainment." We think that these words unduly limit the responsibility of the owners of premises.
There are places which are frequently used for the purpose of musical or dramatic performances but which cannot be classified as places of public entertainment. The common case is the kind of place I happened to be in last night: the Seymour Hall, in Marylebone. I should not call that a place of public entertainment: it is a hall which is used for varied purposes. It is used for public entertainments, but for other purposes as well, and I feel that the definition would not cover such a place. I see no reason why the owners of such a hall, and of many other municipal and public halls, where an infringement of copyright might take place and where they rent the hall at a profit, should not be equally responsible for an infringement as the owners of places commonly accepted as places of public entertainment.
Again I do not think that the difference between us is considerable. I believe all noble Lords will agree that where a person habitually uses a place for profit and for performances he should have the same responsibilities as a person who is using a place described as a place of public entertainment. I think that the words of my Amendment, "normally used for public gatherings," describe the kind of place I have in mind. If it is normally used for public gatherings and does not come within the proviso—that is, where no profit is made—it seems to me that the owner of such a place should be under the legal responsibility of ensuring that any performance that takes place in his premises where public gatherings are held does not constitute an infringement of copyright. With a view to getting the Government's reply on this point, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out ("of public entertainment") and insert ("that is normally used for public gatherings").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think there is anything between us in intention here. We all want to take out of the mischief of the subsection private premises of which the owner could not be expected to know about copyright infringements, but to leave within its scope the lessees of halls
920
available for commercial letting who may reasonably be expected to know about the liabilities, even though they do not set every day or even most days. I agree with the noble Lord that it is quite possible that the expression "a place of public entertainment" does not make that entirely clear. If I may be frank with him, I am not happy about the wording of his Amendment, because it is doubtful whether the words, "a place that is normally used for public gatherings," would cover theatres and cinemas, which clearly should be included, because the phrase "public gathering" suggests to my mind public meetings, assemblies, receptions and functions of that kind. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will accept my undertaking that we will continue to work diligently in this matter until we find the best phrase, and I will let him know as soon as we have found the phrase. I hope we shall be able, in another place, to make an Amendment that will satisfy him. It is rather difficult to get just the right nuance. I assure him that we are as anxious as he is to get the clause exactly right.
LORD SILKIN: I have great pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
General exceptions from protection of literary, dramatic and musical works.
(3) No fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for the purpose of conveying news of current events to the public in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or by means of broadcasting, or in a cinematograph film, and is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment.
(7) Where by virtue of an assignment or licence a person is authorised to broadcast a literary, dramatic or musical work, but (apart from this subsection) would not be entitled to make reproductions of it in the form of a record or of a cinematograph film, the copyright in the work is not infringed by his making such a reproduction of the work solely for the purpose of broadcasting the work:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if—

(a) the reproduction, is used for any purpose other than that of broadcasting in accordance with the assignment or licence, or

(b) the reproduction is not destroyed before the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which it Is made or such extended period (if any) as may be agreed between the person who

921
made the reproduction and the person who (in relation to the making of reproductions of the description in question) is the owner of the copyright.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to add to subsection (3):
"and consists merely of short extracts from the work."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 6. This provision is, I think something new in our copyright law and has been devised to deal with something which naturally was no: contemplated when the Copyright Act, 1911, was passed; because, at that time, there was no such thing as broadcasting and even cinematography was not n early so highly developed as it is at the present time. Nobody wants to prevent a reasonable use of copyright material from being made in broadcasts or cinematograph films which are disseminating news in the same way that a newspaper would disseminate news. But this case is very different indeed from the case which is dealt with in subsection (2), with which we are all very familiar and which permits fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work for the purpose of criticism or review. In that case it is very well known that in so doing it is not permissible to reproduce the whole or substantial portions of the work which is being reviewed or criticised.
Under subsection (3), however, it could easily happen that the news broadcast or the cinematograph film might contain the whole of the work which was the subject of copyright. For example, suppose it is a broadcast or cinematograph sound film which shows a military review, or something of that kind, in the course of which troops are marching to music, the whole of a piece of music might be broadcast incidentally as part of something which purported to be merely news. That is an illustration which shows that some restriction ought to be imposed upon the new right which this subsection is creating. Therefore I am suggesting, as a reasonable compromise, that the matter which is broadcast should consist merely of short extracts from the work which is the subject of copyright. With that explanation I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 6. at end insert the said words.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I appreciate the doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has had, but I am afraid that I cannot adept the noble Lord's Amendment. It is true that, as I understand it, the Amendment has pride of ancestry in that he has based himself on the wording of the Act of 1911, which, however, was appropriate only to newspaper summaries. Bu': as your Lordships appreciate, and as the noble Lord himself does, the present subsection is in accordance with the recommendations of paragraph 41 of the Report of the Copyright Committee and it covers also broadcasting and newsreels, and I therefore doubt whether the words that he proposes to insert would be appropriate.
I think the noble Lord would agree that it is impossible to produce a watertight statutory definition of what constitutes "fair dealing" or, for that matter, of what constitutes a "work"; but I agree—and I think this is a point we have to consider—that in conveying news of a current event, either by broadcasting or in a newsreel, it might be impossible to remove such background music as a full verse of a song. I would suggest to the noble Lord that any deliberate and excessive use of copyright material could scarcely be described as "fair dealing" within the meaning of this clause and that the copyright owner would probably find his remedy in subsection (1) of clause 43. As the noble Lord knows, an extract which is not a substantial part of a work does not infringe copyright. I would remind him of the position in a case with which I am sure a lawyer of his experience is familiar—what I may call the Colonel Bogey case, where the film showed the opening of school buildings and the band of the school O.T.C. played twenty bars of Colonel Bogey. That was held to be an infringement. I do not think we ought to encourage things of that sort, or to make it so difficult as to require people to get rid of backgrounds in order to avoid the fear of proceedings. 1 think the matter ought to be left fairly broadly, and I suggest that the words of the noble Lord, however well-intentioned, would not help in those circumstances. therefore I would ask him not to press his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I appreciate that this is a point of considerable difficulty and I feel considerably reassured with this provision as it stands. In view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, therefore, I am quite content to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.50 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to omit subsection (7). The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (7) deals with the making of a record of some work for the purpose of broadcasting it. In its origin I believe that the subsection is due to something which appears in the International Copyright Convention dealing with what were then called "ephemeral recordings." We all know that it is quite common and convenient for the British Broadcasting Corporation to make a record of something which is to be broadcast not at the time when it is made but at some later time. Nobody would want to prevent that from taking place and, in my opinion, no legislation would be needed in order to enable it to take place. But what is covered here is something which is considerably wider, because it enables a broadcasting authority, whoever it may be, to make a record of the work which is to be broadcast and at some future time to broadcast it, not once or twice but, for example, every day, or more than once a day, for twenty-eight days. If the broadcasting authority wish to do that they ought to make a contract to that effect.
Let the authority explain clearly to the owner of the copyright precisely what rights they want. Presumably, that is something which they can arrange quite easily. There is no reason why this provision in subsection (7) should be written into the copyright law of this country when it is perfectly open to the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., as the case may be, to make a contract with the author permitting them to make a recording and stipulating the number of occasions upon which that recording shall be used. This provision gives them the opportunity to make a recording and, as it stands, to re-record it within twenty-eight days, and to go on re-recording it for as long as they please. But, quite apart from whether or not the subsection does that, it seems to me that this is something
924
which should not be automatically written into every contract. If the broadcasting authority want the right to make a recording, as they frequently do, let them stipulate expressly with the owner of the copyright what is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that this is a necessary Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has pointed out, it is quite possible to make a recording from a recording and to go on doing so ad infinitum. In any case, who is going to make quite certain that the record has been destroyed; and by what means is he to make certain? Further, even if one has to leave it that it is destroyed, one knows that within twenty-eight days it is possible to give a good many performances of that record, and it seems to me that the composer of the work which is recorded should receive the reward for the number of performances given. I feel that to leave subsection (7) in will leave the composer defenceless against a number of performances for which he gets no reward whatsoever.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a matter which was discussed on the Committee stage, and I should like to deal with the points that have been raised against this subsection as I see them. The first, as it was put before, and is put to-day by both Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Somers, is that the copyright owners cannot check whether the broadcasting authorities have done the necessary destruction—in fact, I think it was suggested earlier that they might be able to build up a library of these recordings. Of course, that is possible. I have made inquiries, however, and I am told there has been no suggestion that the broadcasting authorities have failed to destroy the recordings in the past, and I see no reason why they should change and be less mindful of their responsibilities in the future. I am optimistic enough to think that we have grounds for believing that they will play the game and be mindful of their responsibilities. If I am taking an unduly optimistic view of human nature, and a more cynical one is appropriate, then I

925
would remind my noble friend Lord Somers that the only object of making a library of the recordings would be to play them again, and on that the default would become obvious and their wrong doing would be manifest to the world.
I would also remind noble Lords that it is only by recording a performance at a time convenient to them that the services of many eminent artistes and actors can be made available for broadcasting at all, and I do not think anyone in your Lordships' House would wish to deprive the public of their enjoyment in this way. I think my noble friend Lord Somers would agree that, were it not for this provision, it would be impossible for many artistes to perform for broadcasting, and the public would lose a great deal of enjoyment. There is this point, also, if I may go back to tin: fundamentals in the matter: that both the mechanical right and the performing right are originally vested in the author or composer, and without his consent there can be no broadcasting at all, whether of a live or a recorded broadcast. Therefore, he or his agent is in a position to stand out for what he considers to be proper remuneration. I do not think anyone is likely to be damnified by wrongful action on the part of the authorities—as I say, we have no evidence of it up to now—and as the system has obvious merits from the point of view of the ordinary viewer or listener, I would ask the noble Lord not to press an Amendment which might cause difficulties in a sphere of great importance to the enjoyment of the public.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I understand very well what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I have made no aspersion whatsoever upon the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. What I have said is on record, and can be read tomorrow. It is nevertheless true that laws are made not only for those who play the game, but also for those who do not. To say that there has been no difficulty with regard to this matter in the past is not at all to the point, because this provision has not existed in the law in the past; and if the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. have acquired from an owner of copyright the right to record and then to broadcast some work in which copyright exists, they have obtained it by means of an express contract. Indeed, this sub-section
926
with which we are dealing starts off by saying:
"Where by virtue of an assignment or licence a person is authorised to broadcast a literary, dramatic or musical work …"
If the person has an assignment to do so, it has got to be in writing. Why on earth should not the B.B.C. or the I.T.A., when they put part of the contract into writing, also put the rest of the contract into writing and state expressly and clearly what are the rights they wish to acquire?
The noble and learned Viscount referred also to the question of proper remuneration. But under this clause it is quite impossible for the owner of the copyright to know beforehand what is the proper remuneration, because he will not know upon how many occasions his work is going to be broadcast from the recording which is made. If the rights are conferred in an assignment, then no doubt there will be some express provision saying that it is intended to broadcast the work on one, two or whatever the number of occasions may be; and then the author of the copyright will have an opportunity of making a stipulation with regard to remuneration which will properly reward him for the right which he is assigning. These are serious considerations to owners of copyright, and although I will accede to the request which has been made to me to withdraw this Amendment, because I do not want in any way to be obstructive, at the same time I ask the sponsors of this Bill to look carefully at the position again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (7) (b), after "made" (where that word first occurs) to insert:
"or with the day on which the work is first broadcast in pursuance of the assignment or licence, whichever is the later."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment may be faintly familiar to your Lordships. It is, of course, on roughly the same subject that we have just been discussing. I put it down on the Committee stage of this Bill, and it came before your Lordships' House very late one evening. For some reason, which I cannot accurately remember, it was never moved, so I must now repair that omission. The subsection as drafted makes the broadcasting authority destroy the record or film within twenty-eight

927
days of its making. I understand that sometimes it is the practice, when an artiste in a series of broadcasts is going abroad, to record programmes some time before they are broadcast, in which case the clause, as drafted, would be of little or no help to the broadcasting authorities. This Amendment, therefore, provides instead that the time should start to run from either the date of making the record or the first time the work is broadcast in pursuance of the agreement to broadcast it, whichever is the later. I think your Lordships will appreciate that that is a reasonable insurance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, after ("made") insert the said words."—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. Subsection (5) (f) of Clause 2 makes it an infringement, for example, of a book to reproduce a play made from the book. By this Amendment it is made clear that fair dealing with the play will not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the book of which that play is an adaptation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, at end insert—
(" (8) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply to the doing of any act in relation to an adaptation of a work as they apply in relation to the doing of that act in relation to the work itself.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
"(8) Where a person is authorised to make a reproduction of a literary dramatic or musical work in the form of a cinematograph film by virtue of an assignment or licence made or granted before and subsisting at the date on which any other person is authorised to broadcast that work, and such other person (apart from the last preceding subsection) would not be entitled to make such a reproduction of it, no such reproduction of the work made by that other person for the purpose of broadcasting it shall be so broadcast on more than one occasion during any such period as is mention in paragraph (b) of the proviso to the last preceding subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Archibald, who is unfortunately ill and who has to-day entrusted me with the task. In this
928
Amendment we are covering much the same field as we have just been discussing. I do not want to go over the same ground again, but this Amendment is intended to cover the case where an author, on the one hand, gives broadcasting rights and, at the same time, rights by way of television, and, on the other, assigns the film rights.
Under the clause as it stands, broadcasters have a right to make a film for the purpose of broadcasting. It may well be that this film will conflict with the film rights which the author, quite legitimately, has granted to somebody else. The film right is, of course, associated only with the broadcast (I think that is quite understood), and is so stated in the subsection. But the author may suffer because of the so-called competition between the film which is used for the television and the film rights which he has given elsewhere. For instance, the public, having seen the film on television, may find it so unsatisfactory as to be deterred thereafter from going to see the film. There may well be a conflict between the two. The suggestion is that if it is necessary to make a film for the purpose of television, then it should be used once only; and that is the proposal in the Amendment which I am moving. We do not quarrel with the idea of a film being made, as provided for in subsection (7), purely for the purpose of television. If it is used once only, that at any rate minimises the damage which may be done subsequently in connection with the showing of the film.
It may be said that these are matters which can be provided for in a contract. Perhaps they can, but I would point out, first, that there are a large number of existing contracts which cannot be made retrospective and where the difficulties that I have suggested may well arise. Secondly, even for the future, I think it much better that the law should be perfectly clear and that only the one showing on television should be permitted in cases where there is a film and where the film rights have been licensed elsewhere. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, would have put the case much more forcibly and clearly than I have been able to do, but I hope that the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply appreciates the point of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
5.12 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that, although we are all sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, cannot be with us, the noble Lord should be pleased by the advocacy which has been put forth on behalf of his Amendment. It raises a point of some interest on which, again, I think there can be some differences of view. If I might put the position as I understand it (although I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has done that already) under subsection (7), where a person is authorised to broadcast a copyright work the authority is deemed to include also an authority to make a record or film of that work for the purpose of subsequent broadcasting, but the reproduction is required to be destroyed within twenty-eight days. No provision is made for the number of times the work may be broadcast within that period. That is really the question. The noble Lord does not object to the making of the film—he knows that that may well be a necessary step—but he wants the number of times limited, Let us take an example and try to visualise the circumstances. Suppose that a film-maker has acquired the right to make a film of, for example, a play, and that the B.B.C. subsequently obtain tine right to broadcast the play. If the B.B.C. made a telefilm then, under Lord Silkin's Amendment, they would be allowed to give only one performance of the telefilm. The point that we have to try to judge is the danger of a turn of a broadcast play made in the form of a telefilm being "plugged" so that it might have an effect on the film itself.
Applying only my own knowledge of life, I should have said that there was very little danger of a film being spoiled even if—which again is unlikely—there were many performances within the twenty-eight days. Your Lordships should remember that a telefilm in these circumstances is not a copy of the film that is shown in the cinema it is a film made by the B.B.C. team, with different actors, and, of course, with different treatment of the subject. I am sure that some of your Lordships have shared my disappointment, especially in my boyhood, at the treatment of favourite books when put into film form—often they are almost unrecognisable. The same applies even
930
to certain plays. The point here is that, the film having been treated in one way, its subsequent production for broadcasting—for television or for broadcasting, but in this case for television—as the noble Lord knows, requires an entirely different technique of production. I should not have thought there would be much danger of people who had seen the performance not going to see the spectacular Technicolor production of the film in the cinema. I should not like to go far along this line because things are so different, but certainly in light music, in song "hits", I am told that the "plugging" on the radio, especially in the United States, has generally been held to increase popularity rather than to decrease it, because it arouses an interest; but, as I say, the points are different and analogies are always dangerous.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with the frankness which we always expect from him, gave away at once the position with regard to future contracts. Obviously, in the case of a film company—they are certain to be well-advised as to their legal rights—the future position they can deal with by the terms of the contract. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also raised the point as to existing contracts. Again, the number of existing contracts which are likely to be coupled with the over-use of the play within the twenty-eight days, I think he will agree, is likely to be relatively small. Out of respect to the noble Lord's very moderate and reasonable advocacy of the point, I have tried to deal with it fully, but I hope that in the circumstances he will not feel that this is a matter where we need make this limitation, which might well be a difficult one for the B.B.C., or indeed for a programme company—it is immaterial which. I hope that he and the noble Lord, Lord arehibald, will feel on consideration that their apprehensions are not justified, and that he will not press the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I certainly shall not press the Amendment. I have heard the noble and learned Viscount. My noble friend Lord Archibald will no doubt read what he has said and if, when he feels better, he would like to carry the matter further, of course he is at liberty to do so. So far as I am concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7:
Special exceptions as respects libraries and archives
7.—(1) The copyright in an article contained in a periodical publication is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of the article, if the copy is made or supplied by or on behalf of the librarian of a library of a class prescribed by regulations made under this subsection by the Board of Trade, and the conditions prescribed by those regulations are complied with.
(2) In making any regulations for the purposes of the preceding subsection the Board of Trade shall make such provision as the Board may consider appropriate for securing—
(a) that the libraries to which the regulation apply are not established or conducted for profit;
(e) that persons to whom copies are supplied under the regulations are required to pay for them a sum not less than the cost (including an appropriate proportion of the general expenses of the library) attributable to their production,
and may impose such other requirements (if any) as may appear to the Board to be expedient.
(3) The copyright in a published literary, dramatic or musical work, other than an article contained in a periodical publication, is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of part of the work, if the copy is made or supplied by or on behalf of the librarian of a library of a class prescribed by regulations made under this subsection by the Board of Trade, and the conditions prescribed by those regulations are complied with:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if, at the time when the copy is made, the identity of the owner of the copyright in the work is known to the librarian or could by reasonable inquiry be ascertained by him.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (a) to insert:
"(b) that a library shall not be deemed to be established or conducted for profit solely because it is owned or operated by a profit-making body;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments to Clause 7, which is concerned with the provision of copies of copyrighted works in libraries, and I should like to make a few observations by way of preliminary consideration of the matters which are involved. The invention of photo-copying has been a very great boon to scholars and research workers, and over the last twenty years the libraries in which so much of the original work of scientists in particular has been placed have been taking advantage of the "fair dealing"
932
clause in the 1911 Act, which, as your Lordships remember, makes it no breach of copyright to make copies under fair dealing for purposes of research and private study.
There have been rather differing views taken by libraries as to how far they can go in regard to this matter, and evidently the framers of the present Bill felt that it would be useful to give a certain licence in support of the practice which has grown up over the last years in the libraries. The result is the present Clause 7. I am rather worried, however—and my worry is shared by the libraries, and by many scholars—whether, by making this matter explicit in Clause 7, something of the rights existing under the earlier law may not have been sacrificed. It is true that at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, gave me the assurance that in his view there was no derogation from the rights in regard to fair dealing established by the 1911 Act. I am glad to have that assurance; but, of course, a court of law may not necessarily take the same view as the noble Lord.
As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows very well, there is a well-known rule of construction, in that when something is dealt with specifically in a Statute the general rights which may be established by other Statutes, or in an earlier part of the same Statute, must give way. It seems to those in charge of the libraries that, as a result of Clause 7, they may well be left in a less satisfactory position than they were in before Clause 7 appeared. I am therefore attempting, by one of my Amendments, to have it made perfectly clear that fair dealing should be clearly extended to include the doing for a student by a library of all those things which are fair dealing if he does them for himself. That is the object of one of the Amendments which I regard as most important. In the second place, I am anxious that the circumstances in which the photo-copying which is permitted by the Bill to libraries should be defined rather more widely than it is under the clause as at present drafted.
The Amendment which we are discussing, in fact, concerns one of the latter cases, in which I am anxious to get a rather wider view taken of the circumstances in which photo-copying can be legitimately carried out. The right under the clause as it now stands is confined

933
to non-profit-making libraries, such as those of the universities, the British Museum and others of that kind. Of recent times in regard to scientific work some of the big industrial concerns (of which I think Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, is one that has been mentioned), have built up on specialised work what are from many points of view the finest libraries there are in this country. It is impossible for a scientific research worker, particularly a technologist, to carry out his work in a number of fields of scientific research without making use of the facilities which exist in the libraries of these great industrial concerns. While, no doubt, the concerns in question have formed these libraries for the purposes of their own business, the nation is under a real debt of gratitude to them for the work they have done. They employ librarians of the highest quality. The libraries are managed most efficiently, and have been put at the disposal of scientific research workers, and particularly of technologists, with great liberality.
At the present time we realise more and more that the whole industrial future of this country depends upon our technological progress, and I suggest to your Lordships that it is essential that the important, scientific libraries which are maintained by these industrial concerns should share in the privileges—if one can call them "privileges"—accorded by Clause 7. I say "if one can call them privileges" because the noble Lord, in answering me when I put forward this Amendment on the Committee stage, rather took the view that this was a privilege conferred on the library. But, of course, it is not that at all; the privilege is to the research worker, who is the one who benefits from being able to get this material from these libraries. Without the photo-copying method which he has been allowed to make use of during these last years, he would either have to go himself, possibly up to Cheshire, or send some qualified assistant up there to make a copy of the particular document or piece of research work which is in the library there. He would have to do that unless he could hive it photo-copied by the library, as they have done in the past.
My object is to offer a more simple method, to save the time and the trouble and money of the research worker, who may be working at the Imperial College in London, so that he himself does not
934
have to go all the way, possibly to Cheshire or to Durham, to the I.C.I. library, to obtain a copy for himself. This is a simple solution, and it is no more a real infringement of the copyright of the author than if one obtained a copy from the University Library in Manchester, Leeds or elsewhere. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, did not really appreciate the importance of this Amendment at the time when I moved it on the Committee stage. I hope, now that he has had an opportunity to consider how important it is from the point of view of the technological progress of the country, he will agree that this is an Amendment which the Government can accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8 tine 23, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that I do appreciate the importance of this Amendment and the other Amendments on the libraries clause; but I do not think I can appreciate it from the same point of view as he does. I am afraid that this afternoon we are not often going to be nearer together than we were during the Committee stage of this Bill. The question of these librarians and the libraries is a difficult one, and somewhere a compromise has to be reached. Both on this and the other Amendments which are somewhat similar to it, it is most important that we should get one or two principles firmly in mind. First of all, it has been an immemorial right of the student to go and copy what he will from the library. The second point is that modern inventions, micro-filming and so on, have produced great changes in the approach to the whole idea of copying in libraries. Thirdly, we all know that books, particularly students' books, the books which a student is likely to want to copy, tend to be expensive. The fourth matter we have to bear in mind is the point of view of the poor author, the man who writes these scientific and technical books and who is entitled to at least some consideration, just as the student is also entitled to his consideration.
What I complained about during the Committee stage was that the whole of the bias of Lord Chorley's arguments was against the author and whittled away she rights of the owner of the copyright in

935
what we regarded as an almost intolerable degree. I am afraid this Amendment is a very good example of trying to do something with the best possible intentions but with unsuccessful results. I am certain that the noble Lord's intention is only to benefit searchers after knowledge and truth, but the way he would do this would be very much to the detriment of the author of the works and additionally to the publisher. If this idea were carried so far, these people might well find that so much had been taken away from them by reason of the libraries setting themselves up almost in competition that there would, to use a popular term, be no future in writing scientific or technical books at all.
Just see what the noble Lord is seeking to do here. The Copyright Committee recommended that the new protection to be given should be restricted to "nonprofit making bodies," and indicated the libraries of universities, of Government Departments and of local authorities, as those they had in mind. They were unwilling to go further with additional prejudice to the income which a copyright owner has a right to expect. That is a point about which they felt very strongly. The place where most private students or individual industrialists would find the work they wanted to copy would be those public libraries. The proposed Amendment would make possible the approval of many other libraries not usually open to the public at large—for example, the libraries of the big industrial companies to which Lord Chorley has referred. When arguing his case last time, the noble Lord supported his Amendment by asserting that great industrial organisations freely place their libraries at the disposal of scholars, as he has reminded us again this afternoon. But the fact remains that access to them is a matter of grace and favour. They are not on all fours with the other libraries.
The great risk to the copyright owner is that under cover of this Amendment the industrial organisations could arrange for taking copies of such articles as they might think to be of use or of interest to sections of their staff, and for circulating them. I have a suspicion that one or two firms probably do that already and run the risk of actions for infringement. Therefore, if the Amendment
936
were approved, an industrial firm would have the right to take a periodical, photograph some drawing or diagram in it, take off some 500 copies and circulate these copies amongst their employees. That would be a very serious inroad into the rights of the author. To legalise a practice of this kind would be a grave injustice to author and publisher alike, since it could not fail to reduce the circulation of the papers or periodicals thus exploited and so reduce the incentive of the rightful fruits of labour to both author and publisher. It would be an unjustifiable invasion of copyright protection and an indefensible repudiation of our Convention obligations.
If it is argued that the noble Lord is of opinion that his Amendment is merely an enabling one, all I can say is that once on the Statute Book there would be pressure to make use of it in the way I have indicated. I am sorry that Lord Lucas of Chilworth is not in his place to-day. Time and again during the Committee stage he fought that which he regarded as erosion of the author's rights. I am afraid that the Amendments which Lord Chorley moved on the Committee stage, and which he is moving again to-day on the subject of libraries, are a very considerable erosion of the author's rights. I think we have taken adequate steps to safeguard the rights of the students and also to safeguard the rights of the libraries. Equally, I think we must take adequate steps to safeguard the rights of the author. I am certain that we should not be doing so if we approved the Amendments which Lord Chorley is putting forward. I am therefore sorry to say that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment.
5.36 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, so vigorously defend the rights of the author. But let me draw his attention to what it is that Clause 7 deals with. It deals with articles in periodical publications, and we have recently passed a clause which automatically confers copyright in those articles upon the publisher. The author no longer has any copyright left in them. So why should the noble Lord be so considerate at this particular juncture about infringement of the author's copyright? It is no longer the author's

937
copyright; it has become the publisher's copyright. And more than that. After all, the whole point of the provisions in this clause is, as everyone who has done research is well aware, that periodical publications go out of print very rapidly, and it becomes impossible to buy back numbers for the purpose of study. Therefore, recourse has to be had to libraries in which a file is kept of these periodical publications, and there one must make a copy or, alternatively, have a photostat copy made. It seems to me that where that is done the author can have little complaint, especially as he has automatically parted with his copyright in the vast majority of cases under the provisions which we have already agreed to incorporate into this Bill.
There is, however, I admit, a point of difficulty in the precise wording of the Amendment which my noble friend, Lord Chorley, has moved. When he says that this may extend to libraries owned or operated by a profit-making body, I have no doubt that he has in mind—as indeed he indicated very clearly in his speech—those cases in which libraries of research material are maintained as an incident in the conduct of some business, and not the case in which someone deliberately sets out to create a library for the purpose of making a profit out of supplying photostat copies under the provisions of this clause. That, indeed, would certainly be something quite reprehensible. But where a library is in existence, has been in existence for a long time, and may contain rare publications, that is a somewhat different matter. Though, personally, I should have thought that most matter which was copyright in this country was probably obtainable in public libraries, these specialised libraries of commercial firms would be more likely, I should have imagined, to have rare copies of foreign publications which were not readily available in this country. In that case, presumably, the question of copyright might not arise; but even in that case it might arise if the copyright was safeguarded by means of international convention. There is a point here in connection with the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, and it is certainly not entirely disposed of by the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put forward.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, but I suggest that if there is any difficulty about the wording, it can be, got over by the regulations which the clause provides to be made by the Board of Trade. I do not mind this matter being tightened up by means of regulations, provided that the use of the libraries of big industrial concerns can be secured, as is the case of university libraries. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has taken an unrealistic view of this problem. Nobody is keener on the rights of authors thin I am; but it is all very well to use that as a sort of shibboleth in dealing with the constructive proposition contained in this Amendment. The noble Lord talked about text-book writers having their rights nibbled away, but this Amendment is not concerned with text-books. There is no difficulty about getting at the text-books which are in all the university libraries.
What we are concerned with are special collections made by big industrial concerns. For example, on certain aspects of chemistry the library of periodical literature built up by a firm like Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, is better than any which the universities can build up, as it consists not only of all the periodical literature of this country, but of periodical literature from all over the world. For anybody working on a particular aspect of industrial chemistry, it may be vital, not merely for industrial progress but for defence work, upon which this country's life may depend, to have access to such a collection. It is not a question of protecting an author of a text-book or anything of that kind; it is a question of enabling research workers —at the Imperial College, say—to use the libraries of industrial concerns, just as they use their university libraries, the British Museum and other important public libraries. The noble Lord is conjuring up all sorts of piracies which have never taken place under the present system and which there is no real reason to suppose would take place in the future, for the purpose of preventing the use of these libraries in a way which I am certain is in the country's interest. I am sorry that the noble Lord is taking this view. I hope it may even now be possible to get this important matter put right in another place. In the meantime, I am

939
afraid I have no recourse but to ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out all words from "cost" down to "attributable." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has gone some small way towards meeting this Amendment. I imagine that he would not have put down his Amendment if that were not as far as he was prepared to go, and I think it would save your Lordships' time if I did not move my Amendment.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "an appropriate proportion of" and insert "a contribution to." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for not moving Amendment No. 24, and I hope he will realise that this is a small crumb I am able to give him: I am not in a very receptive mood this afternoon towards the noble Lord's suggestions. The Amendment is intended to meet a point raised on Committee stage on the wording of subsection (2) (e). I promised the noble Lord that I would look at it, particularly at the words requiring the librarian to include in his charge an "appropriate" proportion for general expenses of the library. The noble Lord was afraid that that might call for elaborate costing and bookkeeping. But, of course, it is not the intention of the clause to allow librarians to make copies at "give away" prices and to enter into competition with publishers. We have had representations on this matter from librarians and libraries, and I hope that we have now reached a reasonable compromise and have set at rest what doubts there may have been about this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("an appropriate proportion of") and insert ("a contribution to").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "literary, dramatic or musical." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment
940
because the words in the clause did not seem to cover the copyright of diagrams and plans. When I moved a similar Amendment on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, promised that he would look at it. When I first read the Amendment standing in his name, it did not seem to me that he had dealt with the point, but I now think that in an involved sort of way he has covered the point in one of his later Amendments. In the circumstances, I feel that this Amendment is not necessary and I shall not move it.
5.48 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to leave out "identity" and insert "identity and address." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and No. 28 go together. As the clause stands at present, it provides that if the identity of an author is known his leave must be obtained. It often happens that the identity of an author is known but that it is impossible to get in touch with him by ordinary means. In connection with pamphlets and theses deposited in university libraries it often happens that, ten or twenty years afterwards, an author has, in effect, disappeared, although his identity is known because his name appears in the publication. It is not for the librarian to find out where he is; it is for the man who wishes to have a copy made. At the present time some librarians are insisting that the author should be tracked down, but others have been taking what I might call a more realistic attitude: they send a request to the author, and if no reply is forthcoming within a reasonable time they assume that there is no objection to copying the work.
I am informed, and it seems obviously right, that to leave the matter purely on identity cuts down very greatly the value of the provisions of Clause 7 in regard to authors in an important field, particularly in connection with scientific works, because much of the really valuable research which is done appears in theses prepared for doctorates of universities. It may be that after a short time the author in question cannot be traced at all easily, though his identity is perfectly well known. I think that to add the words "and address" to "identity" is common sense and reasonable; and then

941
to go on to say (as I propose by my next Amendment)
"unless the owner of the copyright has failed to reply within a reasonable time to a request by the librarian or a person acting on his behalf for permission to make a copy."
dots the i's and crosses the t's and provides a reasonable solution for what is undoubtedly a practical problem of considerable difficulty. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("identity") and insert ("identity and address").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment, again, I am afraid, seems to me to put the accent entirely in the wrong place. The noble Lord is putting the onus upon the author to say why his work should not be used without his permission. I feel that the onus should be upon the student, the librarian or the copier to say why he has not succeeded in getting permission. These two Amendments, Nos. 27 and 28, are in identical terms to the two Amendments which the noble Lord moved on the Committee stage. They would result in the librarian being able to copy without infringement if he did not know, and could not readily ascertain, both the name and the address of the copyright owner and if the copyright owner did not reply to an inquiry within a reasonable time. I wonder whether your Lordships noticed in The Times a few days ago a letter on this subject containing this very significant remark:
"A librarian does not normally supply photographs of copyright material unless the consent of the copyright owner has been obtained by the applicant."
And very right and proper, too, my Lords. That seems to me the situation which ought to obtain.
Let us look at the effect of the noble Lord's Amendments. The effect of the first Amendment would be that if the librarian could claim that he did not know both the name and address of the copyright owner he could cheerfully copy his work without any infringement. He might know the author's name, his publisher's address, that the author was alive and was not prepared to give his consent to copying. Yet he would be free to copy if the author's actual address were not known. I am not sure whether the noble Lord would require disclosure of the actual number of the house and
942
the precise name of the street—perhaps that is carrying it too far. We have already received representations to the effect that the clause as now before the House already constitutes an invasion of the fundamental rights of the author, and I do not think this can possibly be denied. The author has the undoubted right not merely to be consulted before his work is reproduced but to authorise the reproduction. I do not think that this right should now be whittled away even by serving notice on the publisher, which I thought at one time might have been a possible way out of the noble Lord's difficulties.
As I said before, this clause is additional to, and does not derogate from, the fair dealing provision under which a student may himself copy for private study or research. But that is a very different thing from giving a librarian a prior right to invade the basic rights of copyright owners and to allow him to assume that those copyright owners authorise the reproduction of their works unless they themselves take active steps to protect themselves. That is the bit I do not like. A provision of this kind would, I think, strike at the root of the idea of the author's copyright, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the principle the noble Lord is seeking to establish.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, while I have a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Chorley, there is a fundamental difficulty about his Amendment, and it arises simply from the fact that an owner of copyright in this country has the copyright vested in him automatically if he is the owner of the work, and it can be transferred later to somebody else by an assignment. There is no such thing in this country as a Register of Copyright. There is no Public Register to which anybody can go in order to find out the name and address of the author, and it is obviously quite impracticable to expect authors to protect themselves by serving notice upon all public libraries of what is their present address. That is the fundamental difficulty which arises in this case and which I think makes the proposal quite impracticable. On the other hand, the dangers of a provision of this kind I think can easily be exaggerated. Let us assume that the cost of a photostatic copy is one shilling a page. In order to get the whole of a book of two hundred pages one

943
would have to shillings or £10. would be a great find either a new of the book than expend two hundred I should think that it deal cheaper to try to or a second-hand copy to go to that expense.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken this view. I do not feel that he really appreciates the needs of research workers, and certainly does not attach to them the value which I am sure they ought to have.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, I do.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not really disposed to thank him for his non possumus attitude in regard to this matter, and I am afraid that I cannot withdraw my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The copyright in any work is not infringed by the making or supplying of a copy of the work or any part thereof by or on behalf of the librarian of any library if the making of that copy by the person to whom it was supplied would not constitute an infringement of the copyright therein"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I referred during my preliminary observations in regard to this matter, in which I said that I was anxious that it should be made clear that fair dealing extended to the doing for a student by a library of all things which are fair dealing when he does them for himself. That is the effect of the proposed subsection (5).
At first sight, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out when I moved this Amendment at the Committee stage, it seems to go rather a long way, because it refers to "a copy of the work". That would cover the whole work; but the sort of work with which one is particularly concerned in this sort of case is very often a dissertation or pamphlet which is produced by a scholar and which is deposited in a university library, where parts of it, or indeed the whole of it, may be of the greatest value to a research worker, technologist, or other worker of that kind, working at a university, an industrial scientific department, or, indeed, in one of the great Government research laboratories which are now making such important contributions to scientific progress. It
944
is rather absurd that it should be necessary for the man who is doing this work to travel all the way to Edinburgh or Exeter, or some considerable distance like that, in order to make a copy of this pamphlet or thesis, whatever it may be, when he could have it done for him by the photo-copying process.
The Amendment really does not go beyond that, because if your Lordships will look at its final words you will see that they are:
"if it were done by the person to whom it was supplied would not constitute an infringement of the copyright therein."
The earlier words, which on their face look as though they are going rather a long way, are completely governed by those later words. Therefore this is really only a proposal to make available to the research worker the mechanical advantages of the modern photo-copying process, saving him a great deal of time, expenditure and trouble and possibly a journey to a library in a very distant part of the country. I should have thought it was so obviously right and sensible on the face of it that the noble Lord could hardly refuse to accept it; but, knowing him, I am afraid that my optimism is probably a little unjustified. It is therefore not with great expectations that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9 line 14 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
6.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, a moment or two ago, indicated that he thought I was unsympathetically disposed towards students and the research scholar. I can assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. I should also like to assure the noble Lord that I have some sympathy for the rights of the author in this case, and that is the line that I have taken consistently throughout our debates on these Amendments. I think the noble Lord has a most exaggerated view of the balance that must be struck between the rights of the two parties. He has really come down with so much bias on the side of the student as to throw the whole of his case out of proportion, and. I think, unnecessarily so.
This Amendment is in identical terms with the one that the noble Lord moved

945
on the Committed stage, and I feel I must adopt the same attitude as I did then, when I am afraid I spoke rather strongly about it. I will not repeat my words and waste your Lordships' time by reiterating the arguments. I have not much to add, save perhaps to say this. As your Lordships appreciate, there is no limit, except the purely physical one, to what a student may himself copy under the description of "fair dealing" without being under any necessity to secure the consent of the copyright owner. That is the point that the noble Lord keeps on unconsciously glossing over. It is very easy in most cases to obtain the consent of the copyright owner. It is done, day after day, by hundreds of people, without great trouble, and usually in the case of students and bona-fide scholars at little expense. What the Amendment would result in is this: it would enable a library to photo-copy a whole volume without seeking the authority of the copyright owner in any way. A provision of this kind would obviously be far beyond the present concept of "fair dealing" and far beyond the purposes of the clause; it would be most unfair dealing and would inevitably produce protests that we were going outside the Conventions. I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Amendment, any more than I could the one moved on the Committee stage.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord again takes a most unrealistic view of this problem. Can anybody in his right senses imagine a library that is going to copy out whole works at one shilling or two shillings a page, or whatever it may be—a work which can be bought easily in a bookshop for a pound or two? It seems to me that this is all part of the unrealistic attitude that the Government are taking up towards this problem. They do not seem to be able to adjust themselves to the conditions of modern life in regard to this matter. However, if the noble Lord is adamant, I suppose it is a waste of time my trying to make him understand what is needed. When it is realised that all the librarians who run these great university libraries, who are men of great responsibility, are satisfied that this type of provision is required, it seems a little absurd to suggest that reasonable people cannot be in favour of a proposal of this kind. However, as I say, I do not propose to
946
labour the matter further, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, are parallel with Nos. 27 and 28, which I have already moved and withdrawn; and I therefore do not propose to move these Amendments.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words that we propose to omit are unnecessary and might even be the cause of future trouble if they are retained, because subsection (3) of Clause 43 explicitly provides that no account is to be taken of any unauthorised publication in determining whether a work has been published or not. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 34, leave out from ("published") to ("and") in line 35.—(Lord Mancroft.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have not troubled your Lordships at all to-day on these matters. I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Chorley, and while I have not agreed with all of his arguments, I have been much in sympathy with him in support of the library case. I rise now because I may not have another opportunity to say what I want to say. The municipal as well as the outside libraries are concerned about the effect of this Bill upon them. I did not hear from the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, at any stage of the replies to the Amendments, an assurance that the libraries would not be in a worse or more restricted position with regard to this service to students, and the like, than they are at the present time. In fact (and on this I should like to have a clear understanding from the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill) they may well be worse off than they were before, because we are putting in a new protection against that service to students. Would the noble Lord answer that question quite definitely, because that is what we want to understand clearly before this Bill goes to another place?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I thought that I had already said that, but if I have not, I want to make it clear that there is no derogation from their present position. Having listened carefully to the arguments of noble Lords, I cannot see

947
how the libraries can possibly be put in a less advantageous and less fair position than they are in now. However, if the noble Viscount is worried, let me assure him of this. We have had amiable conversations on important matters before, and there is no reason why we should not have them again. If there is any important point which has not been covered and to which the noble Viscount thinks the libraries are giving anxious consideration, let him tell us all about it, and we will most certainly do what we can to help him and them. We have had some correspondence with the libraries, at all levels. I have had personal letters from the librarian of the Bodleian Library and other equally important libraries—if there is such a thing as an equally important library as the Bodleian Library—and I thought that we had met most, though not all, of their difficulties. We will look at this question again to make certain that nothing has gone wrong, and if the noble Viscount has any particular representations to make on behalf of municipal libraries we shall be happy to listen to them.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance, because some of us are in this embarrassing position: that when we look at each individual Amendment we do not feel so convinced about it that we want to take it to a Division; but on the other hand, the cumulative effect on the minds of many of us is that of uneasiness; that there is a considerable restriction on what a librarian may do or what a student may do, and it seems to us to go beyond the point of fair dealing. It is difficult to put one's finger on a particular point, but it strikes me, at any rate, that the effect of all this is to impose some hardship. Therefore I welcome the proposal of the noble Lord that we should have amiable conversations about this to see whether we cannot alleviate the position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, after subsection (7) to insert:
"(8) In relation to an article or other work which is accompanied by one or more artistic works provided for explaining or illustrating it (in this subsection referred to as illustrations'), the preceding provisions of this section shall apply as if—

(a) wherever they provide that the copyright in the article or work is not infringed,
948
the reference to that copyright included a reference to any copyright in any of the illustrations;

(b) in subsections (1) and (2), references to a copy of the article included references to a copy of the article together with a copy of the illustrations or any of them;

(c) in subsections (3) to (5), references to a copy of the work included references to a copy of work together with a copy of the illustrations or any of them, and references to a copy of part of the work included references to a copy of that part of the work together with a copy of any of the illustrations which were provided for explaining or illustrating that part; and

(d) in subsections (6) and (7), references to the doing of any act in relation to the work included references to the doing of that act in relation to the work together with any of the illustrations."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new subsection deals with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in Committee which I undertook to try to meet. The clause as drafted deals only with the copying of "literary, dramatic or musical" works; but as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out, it frequently happens that a scientific article contains diagrams, charts or plans (artistic works, by definition) which are illustrative of the letter press and may even be essential for understanding it.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was drafted to apply only to subsection (3)—that is, to copies of periodical literature. The point is a valid one and equally applicable to extracts from printed books. Accordingly, the new subsection has been drafted to apply over the whole content of Clause 7. The Amendment as drafted does not permit the copying of an artistic work as such, but it is not restricted to maps, charts or diagrams. It speaks, as your Lordships will see, of
"… an article or other work which is accompanied by one or more artistic works provided for explaining or illustrating it …"
which are described as "illustrations," and it is the copying of these illustrations as part and parcel of the article or extract which is made permissible. The copying of pictures as such should not be allowed —I hope your Lordships will agree with me on this point—as the reproduction of his work is often the most important factor in an artist's income. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and we can now leave this clause friends, because I have at least provided him with some-

949
thing for which he has asked. I only wish that I had been in a position to provide him with more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, as I said when not moving my Amendment No. 26, it seemed to me that the noble Lord had in fact carried out his undertaking to do his best with this particular matter. Although this is a rather complicated clause, I feel, having studied it carefully, that the noble Lord has succeeded in doing, no doubt more effectively, what I had attempted to do. I am grateful to him, and I am glad to support his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Special exception in respect of records of musical works
8.—(1) The copyright in a musical work is not infringed by a person (in this section referred to as "the manufacturer") who makes a record of the work or of an adaptation thereof, if—

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

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

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

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

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the royalty mentioned in paragraph (d) of the preceding subsection shall be of an amount equal to six and one-quarter per cent. of the ordinary retail selling price of the record, calculated in the prescribed manner:
Provided that, if the amount so calculated includes a fraction of a farthing, that fraction shall he reckoned as one farthing, and if, apart from this proviso, the amount of the royalty would be less than three-farthings, the amount thereof be three-farthings.
6.12 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to leave out Sub-section (1). The noble Lord said: My Lords. Clause 8 provides for the making of gramophone records by anybody who wishes to make them, once the making of a record of a musical work has been permitted. It is an extraordinary clause. It arises, I think, from a decision which was given in 1934, quite unexpectedly to most people, in favour of gramophone record manufacturers and which gave them a permission that certainly does not appear to have been contemplated under the original Act. In considering this clause, many of us would be in favour of removing entirely this automatic right of any gramophone record manufacturer to copy records which have already been made. My noble friend Lord Faringdon has an Amendment down to delete the whole clause, if such an Amendment is in order on the Report stage. At any rate, that is what we should like to do. My Amendment is merely to delete subsection (1), which deals with the offending question.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will remember that we had a long debate on this matter on the Committee stage. My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt, and others of my noble friends, took the view that if we could not have the whole clause eliminated, at any rate this automatic right in respect of serious works of music should he removed. We had a long discussion on whether it was possible or not by Act of Parliament to define what was a serious musical work. The argument which my noble and learned friend put forward was that, while there would be no particular objection, he thought, to the automatic right to reproduce gramophone records of popular works (he mentioned jazz and light music) because, presumably, the more these works were reproduced the more popular the music became, and the more the composer was remunerated, there might be an objection on artistic grounds in certain cases to a reproduction because the reproduction might not satisfy the artistic views of the composer. My noble and learned friend gave several instances. Whilst I personally favour the complete exclusion of this provision, I recognise that there are certain difficulties. Just to indicate that I have them in mind, I will mention one. This has been the law for more than twenty years, and manufacturers of

951
records have legally been permitted to do this kind of thing. It is a little difficult suddenly, by Act of Parliament, to take away that right, but we feel that the point of view of the composer of serious music ought somehow to be met.
Perhaps your Lordships will not mind my speaking on the wider question and covering a number of Amendments, for it will save time. This Amendment is part of a series which are all designed to meet this particular question. The way in which we try to meet it is by defining indirectly what serious music may be—we recognise that it is difficult to define it directly. It has been found by experience that the type of music which a composer will not mind being reproduced ad libitum is the music which can be played on a gramophone record in about three and a half minutes. I agree that that is somewhat empirical, but it is based upon actual experience. Therefore, the gramophone record which takes four minutes to play is almost certain to be the type of record to which the objection that I have outlined might be made. We say that the provisions of this clause, which provide for unlimited reproduction rights, should be confined to records the playing of which occupies not more than four minutes.
That is an attempt to get over the difficulty of definition. If the Government have any better definition, or if any noble Lord has a better way of differentiating between serious and light music, we shall be happy to consider an alternative form of words. But it is because we feel that this differentiation is necessary —and I think the House had a great deal of sympathy with the view put forward by my noble and learned friend—that we feel that the clause ought to be amended. As I say, on the whole we feel that, in spite of the difficulties, the best way would be to delete the clause altogether. But if the Government feel that they cannot go as far as that, then they ought at any rate to make a further attempt to meet the difficulty which we all accepted as being a real one. I think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, agreed that there was a point here for consideration. It is with a view to giving the Government an opportunity of meeting the point that I am moving Amendment No. 34.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 29, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Silkin.)
6.20 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I feel strongly about this question. As the noble Lord says, the best plan would be to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and leave out the entire clause; but, on the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says, that may not be possible. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has assured us that he has the interests of authors, and presumably composers also, very much at heart. I would ask him to consider this point in connection with the duplicating of records. As I pointed out before, it is easy to do that to-day: a record can be made from another with the greatest possible ease. Of course, the composer of the original record naturally gets the royalty from every record that is sold but, presumably, he will not get anything from the duplicated records sold, which will reduce considerably the sale of the original recording. It seems to me that this is scarcely in the interests of the composer.
I hardly agree with Lord Silkin that we can distinguish between serious and light music; and certainly the time factor does not cover it. I have been a composer of what may be called serious music for most of my life, but I would remind the noble Lord that there are a great many serious works that take a very short time to play. For instance, there are the Scarlatti sonatas, the Bach preludes and fugues, all of which could be played within three minutes. I do not want to draw a hard and fast line—there are so many cases on the borderline. I have often tried to define what could be called serious music and what could be called light music, and I have failed each time. So I think that, if this Amendment is to be accepted, it will have to be accepted for all music or none. I should like to stress the fact that the composer will lose considerably from his returns if these duplicated records are to be allowed without there being any infringement of copyright.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now, rather than at a later stage, when my own Amendment is

953
called. I am glad to have received so much support for my view that this is not a matter which affects one class of music rather than another. Of course, it affects the light music less than the serious music, because such music is ephemeral; and therefore, if it is recorded without the composer's permission, in many cases it is probably to his advantage. That is the difference. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that the two classes are clearly and absolutely indefinable. The principle is one on which I think we shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has assured us how enthusiastically and strongly he has, all through our debates, defended the rights of the author. On this occasion I should like to see him defending the rights of the composer.
This rule, which has nothing but forty disreputable years of existence to commend it, is an erosion of the composer's rights. It is more serious and more extensive than almost anything we have discussed since the original introduction of this Bill. Think what kind of reaction there would be if a similar rule were introduced into the literary world. Supposing the author who had sold his book to a publisher found that immediately after publication anybody else was allowed to produce an edition—think, incidentally, of the views of the original publisher—on paying a fixed royalty to the author. Obviously, such a situation would not be tolerated for a moment and none of your Lordships would suggest it. But, in fads, that is what is being suggested in this clause. This right of anybody to record, on payment of a standard royalty to the composer, a work which has been previously recorded is nothing less than the position which I have described in the case of authors.
Moreover, I am not profoundly impressed by the case made by Lord Silkin, based on the fact that this is now a long-established practice. That is true; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said, it has now become so much easier to manufacture records and make new recordings that an entirely new position has arisen. Up to now, the firms in the record-making and recording world have been limited in number and of very important standing. There is every possibility that from now on recordings will
954
be made almost by individuals—certainly by little "fly-by-night" companies. I think the composer not only is exposed thereby to recordings of his works of which he will profoundly disapprove artistically, but will also be put in a position where, in all probability, he will not be able to collect even the royalty which this clause gives him. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has spoken so manfully in defence of authors, will also come to the defence of composers.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the case so far put. We, of this side of the House, have been appreciative of the consideration we have received in the various discussions on the Bill up to date, but as regards the failure to find just the kind of solution which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was taking up arising out of the original suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I feel that we must come to a clinch upon it to make sure that the point is carried over. If the noble Lord is unable to make any suggestions to meet us on this matter, I feel that the case put by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend is so incontrovertible in principle that something must be done about it. It may well be that, when we have had the reply from the Government, we shall prefer (I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to decide) to move to leave out the whole clause so as to get this matter really dealt with. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will meet us as far as he possibly can, and will do something to ease the situation of the composers and authors which has been so clearly put to the House.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, we should like to be made aware of the exact position, because the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was not quite right when he said that these works could he copied for nothing. Surely, if other recordings are made of these works, they have to pay an agreed royalty. Do not let us get on to a false argument about the composer not receiving his money. What I may call the highbrow argument may appeal more to your Lordships—that is, that the composer only wants a record of his work as he likes it. There is a good deal to be said for that point of view. But I would submit that the

955
following things would happen. Suppose a record of the work was made which was greatly inferior to the first published work, made with the approval and consent of the composer, then one of two things would happen. On the one hand, few people would buy this record, which is only bought by connoisseurs—they are expensive records, and they are not going to be bought unless they are good; therefore, the composer's reputation would not suffer because the record would not be very much sold. On the other hand, if it was reasonably good and it sold in large quantities, he would get his royalties, and I think he would be well satisfied with that. I am afraid that is a rather mundane point of view, but there is no evidence that composers—we have had no names mentioned—really object to this, and I personally feel compelled to raise my voice in a different tone from that which we have heard up to now.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I understand that the organisations which represent the composers do, in fact, object to these provisions. Presumably they know something about it, and this provision giving a right to record is quite anomalous in the whole law of copyright. It applies in no other case in which copyright exists. Authors of books or artists are not obliged compulsorily to give licences to people to republish their books or their works of art; it applies only to composers of music. It is perfectly true that this provision has existed in our law for more than forty years, because it was introduced by the Copyright Act, 1911. I know no more than anybody else what was in the mind of Parliament when that provision was inserted in the Act of 1911. But it is perhaps significant that it is the second subsection of Section 19, which is the section which created copyright in records and similar mechanical contrivances. No copyright of that kind had hitherto existed, and this was creating a right, not for the benefit of composers but for the benefit of manufacturers. I know that there is an argument by which it can be defended—whether it should be extended to a period of twenty-five or fifty years, is, of course, quite another story. But there is an argument in favour of protecting a manufacturer from having his capital expenditure "pirated" by the action of somebody else in actually
956
reproducing, by a mechanical process, the record which he has created.
I suspect that Parliament, when it added on this further provision about compulsory licensing, really intended to mitigate the effect of the monopoly which it was creating in favour of manufacturers and was not so much thinking about the rights of composers. I may be wrong in this surmise, but it is, at any rate, a conceivable explanation for the creation of this anomalous right. But whatever the origin of it may be, it is distinctly unfair. It is all very well for the noble Lord on the other side to say, "Ah, but the composer will get his money." He gets it under a completely arbitrary arrangement; it is not a free bargain made between him and the producer of the record. He may get more or he may get less than he had a reasonable right to anticipate if he had been in a position to make a free contract.
Moreover, the fact that once a composer has permitted a record of his work to be made, and that that enables any other manufacturer to make records of the same work and pay to him a statutory fixed royalty, may very well have the effect of hampering him in his original negotiations with a manufacturer of records, who will say to the composer, "I cannot pay you more than 6½ per cent.," or whatever the fee is, "because immediately this record has been published all my competitors will be free to make it on paying the statutory royalty of 6½ per cent." Therefore, the rights of the composer are infringed in a way in which nobody would ever dream of allowing the rights of an author or an artist to be infringed. Although this provision has existed for many years, there is no reason whatsoever why it should be continued.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I just ask him not to listen to the siren song of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in trying to differentiate in any way between good and bad music. Every noble Lord who has spoken on this particular point has had something adverse to say about jazz.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: No.
LORD DERWENT: Most noble Lords —I am corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. To me, too, it is a frightful noise; but may I remind my noble friend that there are serious instrumentalists who are intensely interested in what they consider, probably rightly, to

957
be a new form of music. If he makes any attempt to differentiate between good and bad music, or serious and light music, it will lead to nothing but trouble.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has told me that he is not going to like what I say, even before I say it. That is not going to stop my saying it. Of course, this is a very difficult problem, as we are all well aware, but it is not quite as difficult as some noble Lords have made out, because it has nothing whatever to do with the Cawardine case. That is difficult enough in all conscience, but to put these two problems together and try to make the matter worse is not going to get us anywhere at all. It is not at all a case of black and white. It is not a case really of there being a vital principle at stake, and much of the accusation that has been levelled against this state of affairs has, I think, to be looked at from the broad point of view: that is, to see what the alternative will be if we take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and strike out the clause altogether.
Your Lordships will remember that during the Committee stage the case against compulsory licensing was argued particularly with reference to serious music, but the first of the Amendments that we are discussing, Amendment No, 34, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would apply to music of all kinds. The debate has ranged fairly far and wide over the whole of this clause, so I must ask your Lordships' pardon if I do not confine myself solely to his arguments but try to deal with some of the points that have been made, striking out further than Amendment No. 34.
It seems to me that the main considerations we must bear in mind are these: first, that the rights of the composer over recording were first recognised in the Berlin Convention of 1908. Up to that time, he had no rights whatsoever. Second, that in the United Kingdom, the Act of 1911, Section 19 of which includes the licence of right provision, has been operative over the whole period during which composers in this country have had the mechanical rights in their work. The third point is that over the forty-five years an industry has grown up on the basis of the Act of 1911 and the general public
958
have enjoyed records put out by competing companies, and the provision has rendered impossible the more harmful practices, such as tying up one composer to a particular recording company. The fourth consideration I should like your Lordships to bear in mind is that the clause, as drafted, makes provision for different rates to be fixed for different classes of music recorded. The licence of right has existed for a long lime now, and, so far as I know, the chief opposition to this state of affairs has come more from your Lordships' House than from the composers. There has been remarkably little opposition to this state of affair, as more than one noble Lord has pointed out, from the composers.
Lord Faringdon talked about the "mushroom companies" that are growing up. I expected him to make that point. The introduction of tape recording has resulted, perhaps it might be argued, in the establishment of a number of mushroom concerns who record for the benefit of individuals and clubs, and it might be thought that these concerns either ignore or wilfully avoid their obligations to pay royalties for so recording. This may or may not be true, but, in either event, it is not a situation that can be cured by copyright action. If a firm ignores its liability to pay the present statutory royalty for recording, there is no reason at all to assume that in the absence of a statutory royalty it would pay a negotiated royalty. In so far as this allegation is true, the people concerned are infringers, and they would be infringers irrespective of how the royalty is fixed, whether by Statute or as a result of negotiation and contract.
Let us now turn for a moment to Clause 8 as a whole and examine some of the difficulties lying there. Clause 8 as it stands contains generally the same principles as were contained in subsections (2) to (6) of Section 19 of the Act of 1911. There are slight modifications of procedure, but nothing which affects the main principles. The main principles were these; once a composer had agreed to allow his work to be recorded all other gramophone record manufacturers were similarly entitled to record it, and in such circumstances a royalty fixed under the terms of the Act was to be paid to the composer. I certainly will bear in mind as sympathetically as I can the pleas on behalf of the composer which

959
have been so eloquently voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to-day, just as much as I have tried to do in the case of the author—the more so, perhaps, in that, while I have never been an author, for the simple reason that I cannot write, I have myself been a composer. I composed a little work some years ago, and I received the princely sum of £3 17s. 6d. for it. Loking at that work again recently I came to the conclusion that I must have been overpaid.
It is quite impossible (and we have said this time and again) to distinguish between short and long—between under four minutes and over four minutes, between serious and non-serious. We tried hard when we were looking at this question after the Committee stage, but as Lord Somers has pointed out, one gets a perfect example in Chopin's Minute Waltz. You can get through that in just under three minutes. I can do it myself. That answers that side of the argument. But, as Lord Derwent and, I believe, other noble Lords have pointed out, there are certain things known as jazz classics. It is easy to make abusive remarks about jazz, but the lines between jazz, hot music, light music, serious light music, and so on, are very difficult to draw. If I may refer to one of the classics of jazz, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, I would say that that certainly is a work which could not be played in four minutes. I have taken these two extreme cases to show that this is an argument which cannot be carried any further. I do not think there is any means of trying to restrict —as Lord Faringdon may have been suggesting, when he wanted to knock out this clause—the compulsory powers in connection with short playing records.
It is also very difficult to argue about natural rights. The principle which it seems Lord Faringdon wishes to insist upon is, no doubt, that the composer's right over his music is an inherent one, as being a right over the product of his brains, and as such should be exercised by him unconditionally. It might be that if one was starting de novo, this right given to gramophone companies to make records of copyright works in certain conditions would not now be granted. I can see that point. If we were starting all over again we might possibly be advised not to put this into the law. That is a matter which can be argued either
960
way. But the fact remains that up to the date of the Berlin Convention of 1908, composers, within the terms of the Berne Union, had no rights whatsoever to authorise or to prevent the recording of their works, and it was not until the Act of 1911 that any mechanical rights were given to them at all.
Accordingly, the system provided for in Clause 8 is the only system under which composers have been entitled to receive earnings from the recording of their works, and it has been in force since 1911. During that time a large and progressive industry has been built up, and also during that time the public have had the advantage of free competition between record manufacturers in the recording of copyright music. Composers, for their part, have had the protection of rates fixed after public inquiry, and under the present clause it will be seen that powers are being taken to fix them generally or in relation to any one or more classes of records as may be considered just, and this can take care of long-playing records.
Finally, I think reference has been made to the argument based on the possibility that once the copyright owner had given his consent to recording by one particular company of his own choice all other companies, however indifferent their standards, are entitled to record, and that recordings of a low standard could he most detrimental to the composer's reputation. This argument has been stressed in the past mostly on behalf of eminent composers of major works, and I think it can be accepted that if really bad recordings of really bad performances of such works were to be put on the market they could be detrimental to a composer's reputation, although the more likely result would be that they would be regarded as detrimental to the reputation of the gramophone company marketing the records rather than to the composer. In so far as this argument is advanced in the case of, let us say, symphonies, no one can doubt that the market for such records is a limited and specialised one and that the buyers in that market—the price of records being what it is—are likely to be pretty discriminating. Also there is good reason to believe that in this part of the field it becomes most difficult to record without the co-operation of the music publisher who holds the orchestral parts. Accordingly, while in theory, at any rate, there is a potential

961
risk to the reputation of a composer from had recordings, the interests of the composer and the record manufacturer really go hand in hand, both being anxious to produce the best possible recording of the composer's works.
I repeat that I do not think this is an ideal situation, and if we were legislating all over again we might well think up something completely different. But it has a long and fairly respectable history behind it, and it has not caused very much trouble. I suggest that it should be perpetuated in the way which we now propose because—and this I must admit —we cannot think of anything better to put in its place.
6.49 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I intervene only because of the curious error made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving this Amendment, when he said that he understood the clause to be the result of a legal decision which surprised many people and which was made many years after the Act was passed. It was clear from what he said that he had in mind the Cawardine decision made in December, 1933. That decision, as he truly remarked, has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. I shall not say anything about that decision now, because I said what I wished to say in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. That was, however, a decision about subsection (1) of Section 19 of the 1911 Act. What we are now considering are the subsequent subsections of Section 19 of that Act, and they have been in force and observed, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft has said, without any dispute from 1911 until now. So, whatever we might do if we were legislating afresh, the provisions that we are now considering were deliberately inserted in the Act of 1911; they have been known to be there, and have been acted upon ever since that Act first came into force.
The reasons that influenced the Parliament of 1911 to put in these provisions may be a matter of speculation but, as my noble friend Lord Mancroft pointed out, these provisions for the first time gave a copyright in this matter to composers. It may well have been thought that these provisions were to some extent a protection against monopoly, but they have worked with tolerable clearness and without much complaint and the Copy-
962
right Committee have advised that these provisions, with modifications, should continue. I therefore support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and hope that the clause will not be deleted, as suggested. I should like to express my pleasure that the eminent musician who has spoken (I am not for the moment alluding to my noble friend Lord Mancroft) has ended for ever this rather snobbish suggestion that we should try to differentiate between different classes of music in this branch of the law. That seems to me to be as undesirable as it is impracticable I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed, and, if it is, that it will be defeated.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in withdrawing this Amendment, I do so not for the reasons on which I have just been invited to withdraw it, but because I think that the right course is to leave out the clause altogether. It is not snobbish to try to differentiate between good music and bad, but it looks as if it is impracticable. I accept, at any rate, that it cannot be done by differentiation based upon the time that recording takes. It may be done in some other way, but nobody has suggested any alternative and I have come to the conclusion that the right thing is to do away with this clause altogether. The noble Lord said that if we were legislating afresh, we probably should not have a clause of this kind. We are legislating afresh. We have an opportunity of remedying something that is wrong. Otherwise, there is no purpose in legislation. I would ask leave to withdraw this Amendment and I will not move Nos. 37 and 38, but if my noble friend Lord Faringdon decides to move No.:39, I will strongly support him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "sale" to insert "in the United Kingdom." The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this clause stands at present, the right to make a recording of a musical work depends on a record having been made previously with the consent of the owner of the copyright. Therefore it would appear that if a recording has been made, with the consent of the owner of a copyright anywhere in the world to which his copyright applies, it will be open to a manufacturer of records in this country to make a recording here. It is possible that

963
the ownership of a copyright may be vested in various persons in various countries. It will be extremely difficult for a composer to deal with his work advantageously if he is to be subjected to provisions which will enable a recording to be made under these compulsory provisions in this country merely because he has authorised a record to be made in Canada or the United States, or in Spain or some other country in which he happens to have a copyright in his music. The legislation of every country ought to stand on its own feet, and rights which exist with regard to copyright in music ought to be related only to the copyright in the country concerned. Admitting the principle of compulsory copyright, let it at any rate be confined to the case in which the author has already agreed with a manufacturer to produce a recording in this country, and let the resultant compulsory copyright extend only to this country and nowhere else. That is the purpose of this Amendment and also of the subsequent one which stands in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("sale") insert ("in the United Kingdom,").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the compulsory licensing provisions of this clause should operate only if records of the work had previously been made for retail sale in the United Kingdom with the licence of the owner of the copyright. The first point I should like your Lordships to note is that "the owner of the copyright" does not mean a person who owns the copyright in that work in a foreign country, since "copyright" in the Bill means the copyright conferred by the Bill. It is only when records have been made with the licence of the owner of the copyright under the Bill that the licence of right provisions apply. If, therefore, what is worrying the noble Lord is the case of person A owning the copyright in a foreign country or a self-governing Dominion, and person B owning it in the United Kingdom, his Amendment is not well-conceived.
I agree that, as the Bill is drafted, when one person owns the musical copyright both here and in, for example, the United States, if he gives permission to an
964
American gramophone company to record for the American market, the United Kingdom gramophone manufacturers can avail themselves of the compulsory licensing provisions. Your Lordships may think that this is an unfortunate result. But it is emphasised that there is no question of the compulsory licensing provisions operating without the owner of the copyright conferred by the Bill having any chance to stop them. If he is really anxious to stop recording here, he must not give permission for the recording in America.
Again, suppose that the copyright owner, who may well be a foreigner, agrees that a given foreign gramophone company shall have the exclusive right to record his work, possibly stipulating that one group of foreign artistes shall have a monopoly in the performance. If we alter the Bill in the way this Amendment appears to suggest, the foreign company would have exclusive rights in the United Kingdom market, which it might well be inclined to exploit by importing records, and the public here would be deprived of competing recordings by United Kingdom record makers, for which it is one of the purposes of this clause to provide. Another difficulty about this Amendment as it stands is that when a manufacturer makes records he does not necessarily do so with any particular market in mind. I wonder whether the noble Lord might not like to consider these points, which I am afraid are of a complicated nature, and whether, having done so, he would wish not to insist upon his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I have followed what the noble Lord has said, but I do not feel entirely convinced by his remarks. Apart from this provision for compulsory licensing of musical works, there is no other case that I know of in which copyright in each country does not stand upon its own feet, independent of the existence of copyright in other countries. I am not at all certain that the interpretation of this clause is as the noble Lord has said: that if the copyright is owned in another country by a different person from the person who owns it in this country, the making of a record in the other country will not enable a record to be made in this country. Even if he is correct about that, I rather think that

965
some subsequent parts of his argument, with regard to competition and so on, fall to the ground; certainly, they seem to be extremely dubious. I agree that the matter is far from simple, however, and I am willing to withdraw this Amendment so that the point can be considered further. And I will not move my subsequent Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think there is one matter on which all sides of the House will probably he agreed, and that is that we have argued this particular problem to and fro and have probably said everything there is to be said. I can only hope that the arguments put from this side have been more convincing than those I have heard from the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has my sympathy; he is
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient time at which to break off this Report stage.
so persuasive that it must have been very tiresome for him to be supplied with such poor ammunition. In any case, I remain unconvinced. I know that my friends remain unconvinced, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Cause 8.—(Lord Faringdon.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I do not want the noble Lord's sympathy—though I thank hint for it just the same; it is his vote that I want. I hope that I have convinced him by the force of my arguments that we have right on our side, but if I have not, we must settle the matter elsewhere.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Chorley, L.

Kershaw, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darwen, L.

Lawson, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Faringdon, L.

Morrison, L.

Greenhill, L.

Pakenham, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Silkh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Goschen, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Soul bury, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Luke, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Palmer, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Blackford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gosford, E.

Carrington, L.

Rochdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Conesford, L.

Salter, L.

Radnor, E.

Derwent, L.

Sandford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Digby, L.

Strang, L.

Selkirk, E.

Freyberg, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hacking, L.

Waleran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Wolverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Jessel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

DUNDEE CORPORATION BILL
Reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past seven o'clock.