Sitting of 31 January 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITION

  Licensed Premises, Wales (Sunday Closing)
  Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to ask leave to present a humble Petition, signed by 72,688 citizens of Northern Wales, who desire to express most emphatically and sincerely their opposition to any interference with the Welsh Sunday Closing Act and to call for the same control over registered clubs as already exists over public houses. The Petition concludes:
  "And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

  TRADE AND NAVIGATION
  Accounts ordered, relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1956.— [Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    British Embassy, Cairo
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Minister of Works what price has been asked from the Egyptian Government for the surrender of the Nile frontage of the British Embassy at Cairo to enable the embankment road to be built.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Patrick Buchan-Hepburn): The agreed compensation paid for the surrender of the land was £308,000.
    Mr. Brockway: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman?
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Upon what?
    Mr. Brockway: Is this not a rather large figure?
    Mr. Stokes: No.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the fact that nothing was paid for this land when the British Embassy took possession of it? Would it not be better to try to create good relations with the Egyptian Government, which might have an effect on wider matters, by being more just on this occasion?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The fact is that this was not considered too large a figure for compensation. After all, we must remember that the frontage is of value, and apart from that, very expensive buildings have been erected on the site. Only last year additional buildings were erected by the British Government costing nearly £200,000. The negotiations with the Egyptian Government have been entirely amicable, and that was the figure they offered.

    Government Offices (Fire Precautions)
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Works whether the cause of the fire at the Admiralty has now been investigated; and what improved precautions in Government offices have been put into effect.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Investigations have been carried out by the London Fire Brigade and my Department's fire officers.

    731
    The cause cannot be determined with certainty, but is likely to have been due to a match or a cigarette end.
    I believe that the existing precautions in occupied Government offices are adequate. Instructions have, however, now been given that buildings such as the Admiralty old building, which are empty and in which building work is being carried out, are to be patrolled at night in order to reduce the risk of accidental fire.
    Lieut-Colonel Upton: While welcoming the improved precautions now being adopted to ensure that no buildings in Whitehall are left unattended, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say why the member of the public who first reported this fire was detained for ten hours at Cannon Row Police Station? That does not seem to be very encouraging to members of the public who are trying to make up for the negligence of the Government in these matters.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: That is nothing to do with me. But I can say that the police are satisfied that the young man in question had nothing to do with the cause of the fire.

    Staff
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Works the new duties undertaken by his Department which at present require the employment of 13,100 civil servants compared with 6,300 in April, 1939; and if he will give the increased number employed under each category and the reduction he expects to make in the coming year.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The main increase is due to the increase in the amount of work undertaken by my Department. In 1939 my Department had 7,850 buildings to maintain: now it has 16,663, while the complexity of much of the design and construction work, for example on large Government research stations, is much greater. The number of staff has been reduced from just over 21,000 in 1947 to about 13,000 at present, and the possibility of a further reduction is constantly under review.
    Mr. Holt: Can the Minister say whether he has yet had time to examine this aspect of his Department in detail, and also whether we can expect any substantial reductions in personnel in the near future?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have said that this matter is constantly under review. That means that it is under my review.
    Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. In view of the very large number of people he employs, will he look into the matter of providing one more custodian for the ancient monument of Avebury?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The hon. Gentleman and I have been in correspondence upon that matter, and he knows that I am sympathetic towards the idea, if it can be done.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that in so far as the size of his Department is due to the need for ensuring a supply of essential building materials and in order to protect these monuments, in which this country is so rich, there will certainly be no public criticism?

    Government Buildings (Heating)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Works the annual consumption of coal, coke and similar solid fuels for heating in Government offices; and what steps are being taken to reduce it by changing over to oil.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The annual consumption of solid fuel in those Government buildings—including offices—where my Department is responsible for providing heating is approximately 410,000 tons. Oil burning equipment is being installed in most new buildings and in replacement of worn-out solid fuel burning equipment in existing buildings. Twenty-three conversions from solid fuel to oil have been carried out in the past year and five more are now in hand. I am considering whether it is practicable to extend this programme.
    Mr. Grimond: May I take it that it is the policy of the Ministry eventually to change over entirely to oil-burning equipment?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, I think that will be the case—certainly in the major buildings.

    Hyde Park (Road Entrances)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Works when the road entrances to Hyde Park are to be improved.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The experimental roundabout inside the Park near the Victoria Gate is now in operation, and traffic conditions there are being carefully observed. Proposals which affect other road entrances to Hyde Park are under detailed examination.

    Repeater Station, Halesworfh
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Works whether he will reconsider his decision not to release the Repeater Station, Bungay Road, Halesworth, for the purpose of providing factory accommodation in that town, in view of the fact that the place is only partly used and that alternative accommodation for the purposes of stockpiling is available in the vicinity.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have already explained to the hon. Member why I am not at present prepared to sell this building. If it should prove possible in the future to dispense with this store without having to build a replacement I shall certainly do so.
    Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extreme disappointment of residents and the local authority at his refusal to release this building, if only on lease? In view of the reported statement that the Government propose to do away with stockpiling, and the fact that the store is only one-third occupied, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, which is one of extreme local importance.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I quite understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feeling in this matter, but I cannot go further than what I said in the second part of my reply. If it proves possible in future to dispense with this store I shall certainly take steps to see that it is dispensed with.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Graduate Allowances and Senior Research Awards
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if, in the interests of improving technical education and research in this country, he will double
    734
    the number of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research students now being awarded, and will increase the number of senior research awards.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research awards about 400 new maintenance allowances each year to young graduates in science and technology. It is doubtful whether this figure could be substantially increased without lowering standards or aggravating the shortage of new graduates for industry and teaching. The average number of senior research awards is only about five and could be increased if suitable candidates applied.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that a very large number of suitable students are anxious to take up these awards? Does not he agree that unless they are encouraged to do so the Government will never be able to make progress in improving our technological education?
    Mr. Bevins: What the hon. Member says is perfectly true. There are about a thousand applicants for these awards every year, and nearly half the number are granted awards; but the hon. Member must bear in mind that, the greater the number of awards made, the greater is the reduction in the availability of science graduates for teaching and industry.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: When considering these technical improvements, will the Minister pay particular regard to the development of marine and fishery research, on the lines of the research which is carried on so excellently at the Torry Research Station, near Aberdeen, the work of which is extremely necessary in order to preserve the fishing in the North Sea?
    Mr. Bevins: I shall bring that suggestion to the notice of my noble Friend.

    Scientists and Engineers (Recruitment)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will call a conference of representatives of Her Majesty's Government, the

    735
    Advisory Council on Scientific Policy Committee on Scientific Manpower, the Manchester College of Technology, and representatives of the appropriate educational institutions within a forty miles radius of Manchester to consider what co-ordinated action shall be taken on the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the engineering industry, a copy of which is in his possession, and to consider recommendations to be made by the Principal of the Manchester College of Technology on the urgency of the need for action;
    (2) if he has yet considered the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the Engineering Industry prepared by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; if he will make a full statement on the Report; and what action it is intended to take;
    (3) what consultations he has had with the nationalised industries on the subject of the Report on the Recruitment of Scientists and Engineers by the Engineering Industry; what consideration he has given to the evidence submitted to the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy including the letters sent in on the problems raised in this Report; and what action it is intended to take.
    Mr. Bevins: My noble Friend has considered this important Report, and the Government are, of course, well aware of the urgent need for producing more highly qualified scientists and engineers. As the hon. Member knows, the Prime Minister recently announced that the Government hope to issue a White Paper very soon setting out their plans for the development of technical education, and I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper.
    Mr. Smith: That is all right to be going on with, but will the Minister inform his noble Friend of the statement made by one of the greatest authorities in the country today, namely, that the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many engineers per year as the whole of the Western world? In view of that and other statements, and the desire of industry itself to get a move on in order that we may keep in the forefront of world development, will the Minister endeavour to see that this matter is treated as one of great urgency?
    Mr. Bevins: It is being treated as a matter of great urgency. I have no doubt that my noble Friend is conversant with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Roads (Ice Removal)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Parliamen tary Secretary to the Ministry of Works,as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made by the Road Research Laboratory in its experiments designed to de-ice slippery roads; and what assistance is to be given to highway authorities in this connection.
    Mr. Bevins: The work of the Road Research Laboratory has confirmed that salt is generally the best means of remoing ice from roads. The Laboratory has issued a pamphlet to highway authorities on the subject.
    Mr. Dodds: Does that mean that after all this research we are back where we were before, and that highway authorities must use the old methods?
    Mr. Bevins: On the contrary; the Road Research Laboratory has not been idle in this matter. It has done a great deal of research in relation to the provision of electrical heating for difficult road surfaces, and already has a prototype machine for removing hard-packed snow from roads.
    Lieut-Colonel Lipton: In the meantime, can we have sufficient sand and gravel to deal with the situation?

    Non-flammable Material
    Mrs. Mannasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many samples of non flammable material have been submitted to the Joint Fire Research Organisation for testing; how many such samples con sisted of material suitable for children's lothing which meets with all the requirements laid down by the Inter-Departmental committee; and in what respects the other samples have failed to meet these requirements.
    Mr. Bevins: One sample has so far been submitted. This had a reasonably low flammability. No standards for children's clothing have been laid down by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Accidents in the Home, but research is in

    737
    progress to provide the basis for a standard of flammability.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I last asked this Question I was told that no samples which were really non-flammable had ever been received, and that the Department was working with the United States to arrive at a suitable formula. Since then many firms in this country have been experimenting and have evolved a suitable formula. Will the hon. Gentleman make public the fact that his Department is willing to test these samples?
    Mr. Bevins: I ought to add that a simple method of testing fabrics for flammability has been evolved by the Fire Research Organisation and will very soon be incorporated in a British standard. I think that will be helpful. It would also be helpful if the hon. Member would pay a visit to the Fire Research Station to see what is being done. I should be glad to arrange a visit.
    Mrs. Mann: Is it now necessary to enter into negotiations with the United States? Is that not a needless expense?
    Mr. Bevins: I understand that an American firm is working on this problem in this country and has produced results which are more or less parallel with those of the Fire Research Organisation.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Soldiers (Overseas Theatres)
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider stopping immediately the sending of National Service men to Cyprus, Kenya and Malaya.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for War how many recruits have been sent to Cyprus after only ten weeks' training; and how many it is intended to send in the near future.
    Mr. Benceasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that National Service men of the Highland Light Infantry are being sent to Cyprus after ten weeks' training; and if he will alter his regulations so as to prevent this.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): The rules governing the
    738
    eligibility of both Regulars and National Service men for posting to these theatres were introduced in 1947 and have continued unchanged except for Korea and the addition of acclimatisation training in Kenya and Malaya. Men must be not less than 18 years, 3 months, on embarkation and have completed not less than ten weeks' training, and a total of twelve weeks' service in this country. Most soldiers do more than this minimum. Long experience, and the record of the men themselves, have shown that these rules have worked.
    Without very great clerical effort I cannot say how many of all the men now in Cyprus or previously sent there had completed only the bare minimum of training and service. The proportion was not large.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not utterly immoral to send lads of 18, too young even to have a vote, to kill and to be killed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and, as in the case of Cyprus, not to defend their own country but to deny freedom to others? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does not the Minister appreciate the feelings of parents as their sons are drawn into this dirty mess created by our own Government?
    Mr. Head: Nobody wants the necessity for National Service or desires that people should have to serve at that age. It has been done very often in the past. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have served at that age in various wars. All I can say is that both sides of the House—I am not trying to shift the responsibility —have given this matter careful thought. I can assure the hon. Member that this is the only way of working it. I am satisfied from my experience that, though nobody wants to do it, it does work and it has worked and I believe that it is the best method.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of National Service men and their parents very much resent this idea that they are hot-house flowers who are not to go into danger like Regular soldiers, and that they wish to do their full tasks?
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the proportion of time used by these men in continuing their training after ten

    739
    weeks in this country and the proportion used for other matters which are not training?
    Mr. Head: That varies according to the country they are in. If they go to Kenya or Malaya they have a period of acclimatisation training. It depends upon what job they are in. By and large, I would say that the average unit spends quite a large proportion of its time in training, even in operational theatres.
    Mr. Bence: Will the Minister investigate certain charges that were made in a Glasgow newspaper that National Service men are being offered by their officers the alternatives of going to Cyprus or signing on as Regulars?
    Mr. Head: That is a very old question. It has come up before. I have stated, and I say again now, that any question of that form of what one might call blackmail recruiting is frowned upon by me. I am against it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter of sending young lads overseas after only ten weeks' basic training when they are expected to engage in active service? Would he not make a distinction between places where, as in Cyprus, men are expected to engage in active service and, say, Germany, which is regarded as a home command, or any other part of the Middle East?
    Mr. Head: The identical problem confronted the right hon. Gentleman himself in the Canal Zone, Kenya and Malaya, and he came to the same conclusion as we did, that if we extend beyond the minimum regulation that is necessary for those doing National Service we get into very great complications. This period of ten or twelve weeks' minimum service has worked in the past and is working today. I have not found any instance where difficulty is caused by lack of training.
    Mr. Nairn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many National Service men prefer to do their service overseas—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—are proud to serve their country in dangerous areas and are pleased to have the opportunity of seeing a great deal of what goes on outside this country and not to be confined all the time within the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Head: I think that is so. I should like to add that these young men with comparatively little training have done frightfully well wherever they have served.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1947 and during the period of the Labour Government men were not sent overseas after ten weeks' basic training unless it was clearly understood—this was stated in the House on several occasions—that a suitable time should elapse before they were acclimatised and that they were not expected to engage in active service in Malaya or anywhere else?
    Mr. Head: In fact the acclimatisation training rules in Malaya were brought in much later than that. It does not alter the fact that in the disturbances in the Middle East at the time when the Labour Government were in office the same rules obtained.

    Personal Cases
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if he will release from National Service a young Salford man, details about whom have been sent to him, who, having been discharged after nine months, on medical grounds, from the Regular Army, was then called up to do his National Service.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. This man was not up to the standard necessary to remain a Regular soldier but he was fit for National Service with base units. He is at present serving as an ammunition storeman near Carlisle, and I am advised that a specialist medical examination on 19th January showed him to be fit to remain in the Army.
    Mr. Allaun: Why is there this distinction between the requirements for the Regulars and those for National Service men when, a moment ago, the Minister was defending the right to send conscripts to theatres of war?
    Mr. Head: This is a very old question. Very briefly, I would say that the Regular who is going to make the Army his career must be prepared to serve anywhere overseas or at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the National Service man."] The National Service man, under the Regulations governing fitness, is called up if he is fit for base duties at home because

    741
    it is thought unfair that if he is able to serve he should be exempted when others are doing their National Service.
    Mr Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the medical testimony that 23199255 Sapper J. Meager is physically and psychologically unfit for military service of any kind, what it is proposed to do with this young man.
    Mr. Head: Sapper Meager has appeared before a medical board who recommended his discharge on medical grounds.
    Mr. Dodds: Why is it that month after month I have to demand in this House that men who should never be in the Forces at all should come out? This is the twentieth man I have got out of the Forces. Is it not time to look at the system that takes them in?
    Mr. Head: I have not noticed whether it is the twentieth time or not: I very much doubt it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member, when he said "twentieth," may have spoken figuratively. I say that I am extremely surprised if as many as twenty men have come into this category. Sapper Meager was passed fit by the Ministry of Labour and sent to the Army. He was a psychiatric case. These cases are difficult. It is not easy at once to be certain about them. The hon. Member will appreciate that we have to be careful in these psychiatric cases, and, to be sure of our ground, we have them studied by specialists.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Since the Minister cast doubt on the statement I made, may I ask whether he is aware that I am referring to men passed by the Ministry of Labour and taken into the Royal Air Force and the Army, and the number is now twenty?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the case of Private Harry Crutchley of Salford, whose blind mother was left without care for eighteen months, yet whose release from National Service, previously refused, was secured within three days of newspapers drawing attention to the matter, he will order an immediate re-investigation of all rejected appeals for release from National Service in the Army.
    Mr. Head: The hon. Member's facts are wrong.
    Private Crutchley made no application for deferment of call-up because of his mother's blindness, probably because she then lived with his grandmother. He did apply for release in August when this arrangement finished, but his application was refused because his sister said that she would look after her. Subsequently, this arrangement broke down and it was then that the soldier was released.
    We take particular trouble to give careful and sympathetic consideration to appeals for release on compassionate grounds, and I think that the hon. Member's Question is highly misleading.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that Private Crutchley went absent without leave six times in order to be with his mother, but that his release was still refused? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members must now agree that Private Crutchley was right. Is the Minister further aware that I am at present dealing with no fewer than eight similar cases—mostly of men whose mothers are widows with large numbers of small children? Does not that indicate that there must be a very large number of tragic cases which need re-examination?
    Mr. Head: I am particularly interested in the subject. The Army has to be careful, first, that genuine cases are dealt with promptly and sympathetically, and secondly, that bogus cases are resisted. It is most important that we should be scrupulously fair in these matters. We are helped by S.S.A.F.A. and many other organisations. I think that, on the whole, we have looked into such cases very carefully, but if the hon. Member has knowledge of other cases of a similar kind I hope that he will let me know.

    Full Dress
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War what facilities are given to units desirous of using full dress uniforms for special occasions.
    Mr. Head: The Household Brigade and the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery wear full dress on ceremonial occasions. For other troops it is now obsolete.
    Mr. Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing units to keep a small amount of full dress permanently in stock for use by their bands on special occasions?
    Mr. Head: All that has been gone into, and units are well aware of it. The reason why full dress is obsolete is the expense of maintaining it.

    Territorial Army (Bounty Payment)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War the conditions governing the payment of a bounty to men joining the Territorial Army; and what steps are taken to ensure that these conditions are fully understood.
    Mr. Head: Bounties are payable to members of the Territorial Army who carry out prescribed training. The full conditions are set out in Territorial Army Regulations which are available in all units.
    Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steps taken to make known the conditions of this bounty are in many cases not full and adequate, and give rise to a lot of unnecessary resentment? If he is not aware of it, could he look into the matter?
    Mr. Head: The conditions are laid down in Regulations. It is the duty of units to make this information known to the men concerned. If the hon. Member can give me specific examples, I will look into them.

    N.A.A.F.I. Prices, Cyprus
    Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction regarding the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' prices charged in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Head: Some items, notably chocolate and sweets, are dear in Cyprus because of freight charges and a 40 per cent. import duty. Service men stationed there receive a local overseas allowance to compensate for these higher prices.

    Troops, Cyprus
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men drafted to the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment,
    744
    1st Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment and the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment. to bring each battalion to full strength before proceeding to Cyprus.
    Mr. Head: None, Sir.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War the percentage of National Service men serving in the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Royal Warwickshire Regiment, 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment, and the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment when these battalions proceeded to Cyprus; and what was the percentage of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the 1st Battalion and 3rd Battalion of the Parachute Regiments qualified as jumpers.
    Mr. Head: The percentage of National Service men in these battalions was 46, 63, 60, 17 and 16 respectively. About 97 per cent. of the other ranks in each of the parachute battalions are qualified jumpers.
    Mr. Nicholson—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wigg—Question No. 29.
    Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nicholson.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that aspersions were cast the other day on the reputation of two of the regiments mentioned in this Question, and will he please take the first opportunity which presents itself to state that those aspersions are without foundation?
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that the rules of the House may have some semblance of fairness, may I point out that you had called Question No. 29?
    Mr. Speaker: I called Question No. 29 because I did not observe the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) rise to ask a supplementary question. When he did ask it, I did not hear him, so I will now call Question No. 29.
    Mr. Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you did call my name distinctly.
    Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member to ask his supplementary question, but I did not hear it. We had better pass on to Question No. 29.
    Mr. Head: I might say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that I think the reputation of these regiments will stand comparison—
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. [Interruption.]Hon. Gentlemen can shout as much as they like. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to keep to the rules of the House —you called Question No. 29.
    Captain Pilkington: Further to that point of order. Surely the Minister has the right to answer my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Speaker: I could not hear the supplementary question, so I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to answer it or not.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Farnham was asking a question about the reputation of one of the regiments concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Two."]—but as there is nothing in the Question relating to the reputation or character of title regiment, was not that supplementary question completely irrelevant?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not know. I did not hear enough of it to gather the point. Mr. Wigg—Question No. 29.
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War the periods the 1st Battalion Highland Light Infantry, 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment and the 1st and 3rd Battalions Parachute Regiment served in the United Kingdom before proceeding to Cyprus; and whether he will take a statement.
    Mr. Head: Fourteen months, two years and three months, 19 months and 18 months respectively.
    Mr. Nicholson: May I ask the same supplementary question as I previously asked, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Farnham please repeat his supplementary question?
    Mr. Nicholson: Is not the Minister aware that a few days ago aspersions were cast on the reputation of two of the regiments mentioned in this Question?
    746
    Will he please take the first opportunity that presents itself to state that these aspersions are without foundation?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not see how that supplementary question arises out of this Question. It is not right that aspersions should be made but, on the other hand, we must have some regard to the Question which is before the House.
    An Hon. Member: What is the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) afraid of?
    Mr. Wigg: I only want the House to keep to its own rules of order; that is all.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War his estimate of the weekly cost of keeping British soldiers in Cyprus.
    Mr. Head: About £200,000.
    Mr. Hughes: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is calling for economy, is not this an enormous expenditure of public money?
    Mr. Head: If the hon. Member's suggestions about our general policy were carried to their full consequence, I think that he would find he would have very little freedom in which to ask supplementary questions.

    Overseas Theatres (National Service Men)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men have been wounded and killed in Korea, Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus, respectively, from the beginning of hostilities or armed violence in those territories until the present.
    Mr. Head: The total numbers of killed and wounded are, respectively, Korea 280 and 1,056, Malaya (since November, 1949, when separate figures for National Service men were first kept) 103 and 184, Kenya 11 and 9 and Cyprus 3 and 30.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Would not the Minister replace these men with professional troops on two grounds: first, that militarily raw levies are not the proper units to perform such duties, which should be performed by highly-trained, seasoned troops; secondly, that as a matter of principle

    747
    it is an abuse of the power of the State over the individual to compel men to kill or be killed for politically-controversial purposes which have little or nothing to do with the defence of their country?
    Mr. Head: This matter has been gone into in great detail by the House in the past. I think that the National Service element of the Army would much resent being called raw levies because they are, in fact, trained soldiers.

    Strategic Reserve
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War what effect the transfer of troops to Cyprus has had on the strategic reserve in this country.
    Mr. Head: It has been reduced by the number of troops transferred to Cyprus.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the Minister tell the House of what the strategic reserve in this country now consists?
    Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it has never been the practice to give precise figures, which act as a most useful check-up for Intelligence services.
    Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman generally gives some information about the disposition of our troops in various commands. In his Estimates a couple of years ago he gave very detailed information. Can he not say what the strategic reserve in this country is or what he is aiming at?
    Mr. Head: In last year's Estimates I stated most plainly what we were aiming at, but to give precise details at present of what we have in this country would, I think, be of great interest to other people.

    National Service Men (Communications to Members)
    Mr. C. Howellasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a National Service man has been told that he is likely to encounter trouble if he communicates with his Member of Parliament without the permission of his commanding officer; and if he will explain what trouble this man is likely to encounter in such a case, and why.
    Mr. Head: No, Sir. None, Sir.
    Mr. Howell: Would the Minister agree that both in this House and outside there is considerable apprehension as to troops being used as nursemaids, housemaids, flunkeys and the like, and that it is only by members of Her Majesty's Forces writing to their Members of Parliament that these things come to light? Will he inform commanding officers and adjutants that these men have a right to approach their Members, just as has any other citizen?
    Mr. Head: That has already been done on a special occasion, and I have always stated in this House that I would never in any way put anything between a soldier and his right to write to an hon. Member. Judging from my correspondence, they make full use of that privilege.

    Cyprus (National Service Men)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many National Service men are now in Cyprus.
    Mr. Head: About 7,800.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister give an Estimate of how many of these National Service men would be in Cyprus if only volunteers were taken?
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the Highland Light Infantry ordered to Cyprus are National Service men with less than six months' service.
    Mr. Head: Seventy-four. None had less than eighteen weeks' service.
    Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister tell us what action he has taken to prevent officers in various Scottish regiments from exercising what he has called "blackmail" of soldiers—that is, for soldiers to be lined up and told that if they sign on as Regulars they will not go to Cyprus? Is he aware that I have here a Scottish newspaper from which I see that troops in three different regiments have been told this? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking either to give a directive to the officers or to court-martial those who are abusing their powers?
    Mr. Head: We have said in the past, I think twice since I have been in my present office, that that form of recruiting is wrong. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will look into them, because I am against such methods.
    Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any justification at all for the aspersions cast last week upon the regiments mentioned in the Question?
    Mr. Beswick: Can the Secretary of State for War say whether there was any justification, either, for telling those men that there was no more danger in any operations going on in Cyprus than in crossing the Great West Road?
    Mr. Head: I should like to say to the House that that remark was made in connection with non-operational boys, families and women. I see now that it could easily be interpreted as referring to soldiers, as indeed it has been interpreted by some. I think that if the hon. Member looks at HANSARD he will see my meaning, but in so far as it has been interpreted as referring to soldiers, which was neither meant nor said, I should like to emphasise that it would be far from me, sitting in the safety of Whitehall, to cast aspersions or to belittle the risks which the soldiers are taking.
    Mr. Gaitskell: May I say how much we appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and the withdrawal of at any rate an implication of his statement the other day which I think would have done a great deal of harm?
    Mr. Head: Although this is not normal in Question and Answer, may I say that I had not then read the HANSARD report of my remarks—that was not possible—and when I read it later I saw that there was the possibility of misinterpretation. I should also like to say that I think I was unduly heated with the right hon. Gentleman.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Indian and Pakistan Fairs (British Participation)
    Mr. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that British industry was adequately represented at the Indian Industries Fair and at the Pakistan International Fair; and whether he will review the existing policy with regard to such matters in the light of special conditions existing in Asia.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): We are now considering whether any special action should
    750
    be taken for future fairs in this area in view of the special conditions to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Smithers: I am much obliged.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that we have been urging this action upon him for some time? Will he not expedite the decision? Is he aware that British trade is suffering because of lack of policy on trade fairs generally?
    Mr. Low: It is a fact that my right hon. Friend and I have answered Questions on this subject frequently.

    Strawberry Pulp (Import Licences)
    Sir F. Medlicortasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the concern felt by fruit growers and merchants in this country resulting from the issue of import licences to the value of £98,000 for strawberry pulp from Poland at a time when merchants in this country have on hand considerable stocks of home-produced pulp; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Low: Yes, Sir. Licences for these imports were issued to avoid a possible shortage of pulp for jam making. Home supplies of strawberries for jam, most of which were sold to manufacturers some time ago, were good in 1955 but imports of strawberry pulp, on which we have always relied to supplement home production, are likely this season to be less than average. Home supplies of other soft fruit were short.
    Sir F. Medlicort: Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficiently close and continuous consultation between his Department and the representatives of the merchants and fruit growers in this country to avoid these misunderstandings?
    Mr. Low: We are, of course, closely in touch with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Danish Bacon (Imports)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the President of the Board of Trade whether ho will make a statement on the recent negotiations of representatives of Her Majesty's Government with regard to future supplies of Danish bacon to this country.
    Mr. Low: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the House, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he much preferred subsidies to tariffs as a way of helping the farmers, and since this proposed tariff would add about £6 million to the cost of living, does he not realise that it will be a direct incitement to the trade unions to go on pressing their wage claims?
    Mr. Low: I still have nothing to add to the answer which I gave yesterday.
    Mr. Wade: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the interests of the consumer while these negotiations are in progress? May we have an assurance that supplies of Danish bacon will not be limited merely on the ground that bacon can be produced more economically in Denmark?
    Mr. Low: We always keep in mind the interests of all people concerned in these matters.
    Mr. Jay: Is this tariff proposal the beginning of a new policy of putting taxes on food?
    Mr. Low: I still have nothing to add to the statement I made yesterday.

    North-East Lancashire
    41 and 42. Mr. Burkeasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what conclusions have been reached regarding the need for further diversification of industry in the North-East Lancashire Development Area as a result of the visit of his Parliamentary Secretary to that area;
    (2) if he is aware of the continuous drift of population away from north-east Lancashire; and what steps he is taking to prevent this in addition to the one factory which has been established in the Clitheroe division.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I am aware that there has been some migration from north-east Lancashire, though I understand that in the two years after the area was scheduled in 1953 the estimated population remained almost unchanged.
    752
    The Board of Trade has built in this Development Area the largest factory which it has ever built in a Development Area. It has also brought the attractions of the area to the attention of industrialists, a number of whom have received Industrial Development Certificates for factory building. The Board of Trade is continuing its efforts.
    Some further diversification is, in our view, desirable.
    Mr. Burke: Does the Minister realise that in the three years 1952–55 the insured population of Burnley alone fell by 3,500, 8 per cent. of the insured population? Does he not regard that as very serious and as demanding something more than one factory, which is not in production after three years?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The Question related to the North-East Lancashire Development Area as a whole. In respect of that area, as I indicated in my Answer, the fall in population was almost arrested from 1953 to 1955.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While action, or lack of action, in this area has been particularly disappointing, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, following his visit to a number of Development Areas since his appointment, give an assurance that the Board of Trades does not contemplate any change in the general policy towards Development Areas?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I must dissociate myself from the implication in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, because there has been considerable progress in this Development Area since it was scheduled in 1953. I assume that in the second part of the supplementary question the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which is naturally being studied in the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Fort: In order to remove the misapprehensions of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), will my hon. and learned Friend give the House lists of the factories in Padiham and elsewhere to which Development Certificates have been issued under the Development Order?
    Mr. Burke: Will the House realise that only one factory has been brought there by Government initiative?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The factory referred to in the question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) is the large Mullard factory. To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), 16 industrial building schemes of over 5,000 square feet have been approved since the scheduling of the area, totalling 1,400,000 square feet of factory space.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House, in regard to Development Certificates in respect of other factories than Mullard's, what proportion of them is in respect of non-textile factories? Will he confirm that the only Government money which has been spent in this area since the Order was made is in the single factory to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) referred?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The only Government-financed factory is the Mullard factory, which, as I have said, is the largest Government factor)' built in any Development Area. Replying to the first part of the supplementary question, I could not give a precise figure without notice, but my impression is that the whole or virtually the whole of the figure which I gave in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe is for non-textile factories.
    Mr. H. Wilson: While the figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman are a great tribute to the local authorities in the area and not to the Board of Trade, would the hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) by pointing out to him that the certificates in question are not granted under the Industrial Development Order, but under Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that Industrial Development Certificates are granted under Section 14 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, but they are certificates of the Board of Trade and therefore are not solely the action of the local authorities. Many of these factories were steered to that area by the Board of Trade.

    Spanish Goods (Exports to Gibraltar)
    Mr. Peytonasked the President of the Board of Trade what mention was made of Gibraltar during the recent Anglo-Spanish trade talks.
    Mr. Low: The attention of the Spanish delegation was drawn during the talks to the question of permits for the export of Spanish fruit to Gibraltar. They stated that no such permits had been refused or delayed in 1955 and that their authorities would continue to facilitate the export of Spanish goods to all dependent overseas territories of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Peyton: Does my hon. Friend realise that the information given by the Spanish officials does not coincide with the information reaching this country from Gibraltar? Does he realise that there is increasing disappointment and discontent in Gibraltar at the continued obstinacy of the Spanish Government in restricting quite unreasonably trade and travel? Does he not think the time has come when the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards Spanish trade should be modified, in view of the attitude of the Spanish Government?
    Mr. Low: On the question of fruit, if my hon. Friend has any information contrary to what I have said, I hope he will give it to me. I had made inquiries prior to my statement. Questions of travel have been taken up in the past and are best taken up through diplomatic channels, and that is a matter for the Foreign Secretary.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax (Pottery)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the light of the harmful effects already experienced in the pottery industry, he will now remove the Purchase Tax on pottery.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Whilst appreciating that the Chancellor has had very little time to study many new problems, may I ask him if he is aware that when he does study the results of this ruinous tax he will find that there have been no extra exports but merely short-time working in

    755
    the pottery industry? Will he give an assurance that when he discovers the errors of the ways of his predecessor he will have no hesitation in coming to the House to see that this tax shall be speedily removed?
    Mr. Macmillan: My predecessor wrote to the Pottery Manufacturers' Federation —I think he sent a copy of his letter to the hon. Member—saying that he would watch developments in that industry, but I must be frank and say that I think nothing could do more harm than to leave doubt in this matter.

    Sterling (Exchange Value)
    Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make about his intentions regarding the maintenance of the exchange value of sterling.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on Thursday, 26th January, 1956.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of financial journals and financial opinion generally have been waiting for him to repeat from his own lips the statement made by his predecessor at Istanbul on 12th September last? Is he further aware that whatever differences there may be in the House about steps necessary to achieve that object—and there are very big differences —all parties in the House are determined that necessary steps shall be taken to keep sterling strong?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me a further opportunity. It may perhaps be useful to repeat the actual words of my right hon. Friend. He said that it
    "has been and will continue to be the maintenance of exchange parity of 2·80 dollars to the £ either in existing circumstances or when sterling is convertible."
    He added:
    "In the long run this must depend on our efforts and nothing else can replace these."

    Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the receipts from entertainments tax on cinemas in each of the first three quarters of the current financial year; and how these figures
    756
    compare with the amounts for the same quarters of 1954–55, showing the percentage rise or fall in each case.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the Chancellor for that reply, -may I ask if he will say if in his opinion those figures indicate a strong case for the reduction of taxation on the most heavily taxed form of entertainment, particularly in view of the increasing number of bankruptcies of small cinema proprietors?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member and others will draw their conclusions'from the figures when they read the table. As they are running at somewhere about 95 per cent. or 96 per cent, of those of the previous year, I should have thought that the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member was rather too sweeping.
    Following are the figures:

    Quarter

    Entertainments duty receipts from cinemas in the financial year

    Receipts in 1955-56 as percentage of 1954-55

    1954–55

    1955–56

    £ million

    £ million

    1st April-30th June.

    9·36*

    8·77

    94

    1st July-30th Sept.

    9·01

    8·40

    93

    1st October-31st Dec.

    8·44

    8·07

    96

    * Rates of duty on cinema admissions were reduced on 30th May, 1954. Most of the duty received in this quarter was at the higher rates in force before that date.

    United States Films (Dollar Expenditure)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much dollar expenditure has been incurred on the import of United States films for use on television in the last six months.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that the figures are not available.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Chancellor aware that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are showing many rubbishy American films, and that it is a complete waste of money? Will he make it his business to find how

    757
    many dollars are being spent in this way when obviously we need them for more important purposes?.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am sorry to say that I have not got the figures, but if and when I can obtain them I will see that they are communicated to the hon. Member and to the House.

    Inflation
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his plans for dealing with inflation.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of his plan to reduce the cost of living generally; and whether he will arrange to have this plan published in HANSARD.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer both hon. Members to the reply on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 24th January.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the reported statement, attributed to him on taking over his new office, that "There ain't going to be no inflation"?
    Mr. Macmillan: I read all the newspapers very carefully, and I did observe this humorous statement which was put into my mouth. I am grateful to the hon. Member for recalling it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Does not inflation bear directly upon the cost of living, and has not the cost of living risen far less in the last three years than it did the last single year of office of the Socialist Government, when the concrete-skulled Lobby fodder opposite were in power and brought this country to the verge of national bankruptcy?
    Mr. Macmillan: As usual, my hon. and gallant Friend's statistics are perfectly correct.
    Mr. Wilson: While we all hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more factual, objective and accurate in his pronouncements from the Box than he has just been with that Answer, will he tell us whether he has now studied the effects of his predecessor's efforts—or failure—to deal with inflation over the last four years, and in particular the inflationary effect of the supplementary
    758
    Budget? Has the Chancellor no further proposals to put before us than a continuation of the disastrous policy followed by his predecessor?
    Mr. Macmillan: I must not anticipate my Budget statement.

    NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the nationalised industries are owned by the nation, he will take steps to alter the present practice so as to enable Members of Parliament to ask Questions about these industries in the same way that they can about non-nationalised industries.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is aware of the desire of hon. Members to have full information about the nationalised industries. How this might best be achieved is now under fresh consideration by the Government, following the recent Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
    Captain Pilkington: In view of the fact that these industries—some of the most important, such as coal and transport—are doing extremely badly under nationalisation, will my right hon. Friend undertake that this reconsideration will be pressed forward with all speed?
    Mr. Butler: This was, perhaps naturally, one of the first subjects to which I gave my attention on assuming my present responsibilities. It is a matter which interests the House of Commons as a whole, and when I have had time to form a conclusion—with the aid, perhaps, of hon. Members interested in this matter —I hope that we shall find a solution that is satisfactory to the House as a whole.
    Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how we are to put down Questions in this House on the non-nationalised industries, and to which Ministers such Questions should be addressed?
    Mr. Butler: The Questions of the right hon. Member, as I learned to discover during four happy years of opposition to him, are full of tortuous ideas. In general, the private sector is within the field of

    759
    responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade, but the specific answer to the right hon. Member is that there is no exact parallel between the private interests to which he referred and nationalised industries which are under consideration.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Leader of the House has made a most important pronouncement. Are we to understand that from now onwards we may address Questions to the President of the Board of Trade about I.C.I., Unilever and any other private firms in which hon. Members happen to be interested?
    Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Member had listened to the concluding portion of my reply he would have heard me say that there was no parallel between the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and nationalised industries, to which hon. Members are drawing my attention in this Question.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, would it not be much better if the right hon. Gentleman would say that of course Ministers cannot and do not answer Questions about non-nationalised industries?
    Mr. Butler: No, because it would be a great pity for the Leader of the House ot to answer the first part of the question by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, namely, that if there is a field in which private industries lie it falls within the general purview of the
    760
    Board of Trade. I then answered specifically the point of the question about private industry.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Reverting to the nationalised industries, and pending the fresh consideration to be given the subject, of which I am sure all parties in the House will approve, would my right hon. Friend agree that as a result of the last Report of the Select Committee, and particularly of the evidence incorporated in it, there is abundant proof that nearly all the subjects upon which hon. Members would normally desire to ask Questions are in fact—as shown by the Select Committee—subjects over which Ministers have full power of investigation and inquiry? That being the case, does that not automatically give admissibility to these Questions?
    Mr. Butler: I have in my hand the Report of the Select Committee. Certainly there are some very imposing tables in it which were submitted in evidence, but I think it would be an over-simplification to take the definition given by the noble Lord on this occasion. It would be very much better if we took a little more time before coming to a conclusion.
    Captain Pilkington: On a point of order. In view of the question whether or not it is in order to ask Questions about private enterprise, would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the previous Question, No. 44, which was about articles produced by private enterprise?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th January]
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

    Clause 1.—(INTRODUCTION OF NEW HOUSING SUBSIDIES.)
    3.33 p.m.
    Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "(other than the new dwellings mentioned in subsection (15) of this section)"
    The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in line 8, and the second and third Amendments in page 1155 of the Notice Paper.
    Mr. MacColl: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee to follow your advice, Sir Charles, and to discuss the Amendments together, but I propose to confine my attention to the Amendment I have moved and the first of the two Amendments in page 2, line 20, in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself, which gives a detailed account of what the Amendment is about. The other group of Amendments deals with the closely associated problem of areas of extensive war damage. The point with which I want to deal is the more general one of what is commonly known as blighted areas.
    The Amendment, although rather technical, is of great importance. In fact, it goes right to the root of the intentions of the Bill. So far, we have been discussing various ways in which we think the scope of the Bill ought to have been widened. It ought to have included houses provided for old people, houses provided for agricultural workers, and so on. The Amendment accepts the assumption behind the Bill that it is concerned broadly with slum clearance and with the attempt to get rid of bad areas of property. It endeavours to persuade the Government to widen the definition of "slum" to be more in line with modern ideas of what is required when getting rid of obsolete property.
    762
    When I read the Bill and saw the Government's definition of "slum" in Clause 11, I thought I understood what had happened. I imagined the Minister, with his advisers, trying to compile the Bill and reaching the decision that what they were trying to do was to give a subsidy for slum clearance as defined in the Housing Acts. Then, I imagined the right hon. Gentleman's advisers saying to him, "What do you want to do about town and country planning?" One could understand the reaction of the right hon. Gentleman as being something like saying, "Oh, you mean Silkin and all that. We do not want to have anything to do with it. We do not want anything of that sort." I hope to address my argument to the Minister on that basis.
    I have noticed, however, that since the Bill was published the Minister has tabled an official Amendment to Clause 11, which I should not be in order in discussing at this stage, which, so far from extending the definition of "slum," narrows it and puts back the clock 20 years. My arguments, therefore, might have been irrelevant to the right hon. Gentleman's state of mind. He is apparently now so narrow in argument and so lacks any appreciation of what slum clearance is all about that he is actually going in the wrong direction instead of being led gently along in the direction in which I hope to lead him. I should, therefore, like to detain the Committee for a moment or two to indicate the development of the practice of clearing away obsolete areas.
    The definition of "slum" in the normal use of the word for an unfit house in a clearance area, which is to be found in the Housing Acts, goes back at least to the Torrens Act of 1868 and is based wholly on the danger or injury to health. The test which has been applied is the very narrow test of whether a medical officer of health can represent a house or group of houses as being dangerous or injurious to health. That test, which is a purely physical test, was found to be inadequate for the purpose as long ago as 1935, and in the Housing Bill, 1935, the definition was extended to cover what was then known as a development area—that is to say, an area of property which was not simply injurious to health but which was overcrowded and which

    763
    because of its general arrangement required to be demolished and rebuilt. In the Bill that is the existing definition of a slum.
    In the 1944 Town and Country Planning Act, however, which was passed not by the Labour Government but by the Coalition Government, a new conception was introduced. Again, it extended the definition of unfit property, and there became known generally what were termed blighted areas: that is, areas which were not simply dangerous to health or overcrowded, but which, in the words of Section 9 (1) of the 1944 Act, because of
    "conditions of bad lay-out and obsolete development…should be laid out afresh and re-developed as a whole."
    That is the clue to the whole argument.
    If we are to tackle the problem of bad housing and bad properties generally, an essential part of the procedure is to lay out an area as a whole and to re-develop it. That conception, which was introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944 and continued in the Labour Government's Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has been widely adopted by local authorities and has been accepted as part of development plans by planning authorities. It is that which we are seeking to introduce in the Bill.
    We do it with considerable support from hon. Members opposite, because there is a further Amendment on the Notice Paper, to Clause 11, page 8, line 32, in the names of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), all members of the party opposite. That Amendment is very much on the lines of ours. I certainly hope that later in the debate we shall have their support. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I would hazard a guess that they are so ashamed that they are not proposing to put in an appearance in these discussions. On the whole, next to a formal act of suicide, the most reasonable thing that they can do is to keep out of the Chamber altogether while this really shocking Bill is being carried through.
    764
    The people have accepted from the Government the idea that the Bill is to advance slum clearance but, of course, that is a very misleading statement unless we are told what is meant by a slum. When the public talk about slum clearance they do not think of it in terms of any narrow, medical definition but in terms of getting rid of bad property. I found two definitions of slums in the dictionary. The first was:
    "A street alley court etc. situated in a crowded district of a town or city and inhabited by people of a low class or by the very poor; a number of these streets or courts forming a thickly populated neighbourhood or district of a squalid and wretched character."
    In other words, the emphasis is on overcrowding, thick population and on the squalid and wretched character of the whole area. Another definition seems to be more strictly associated with the Government. It is:
    "Nonsensical talk or writing; gammon, blarney."
    However, I do not think that that is probably the one the Government had in mind when they made these proposals.
    I can imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who, presumably, will be offered as a lamb to the slaughter, as usual, to make a lame reply to the Amendment, will say that, of course, there is nothing to stop local authorities who want to redevelop and rebuild the whole area from doing so. He will probably say that there is nothing in the Bill to forbid it. That is typical of the kind of arguments which we have had recently from the Parliamentary Secretary.
    I have had feelings of considerable sympathy for the hon. Gentleman since he reached the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman used to make many contributions to our discussions about housing. They were speeches which were hardly impregnated with uncontrolled gaiety but they had a cold, ruthless if rather superficial logic about them. But nobody can accuse the hon. Gentleman of logic since he reached the Front Bench. He has used three quite inconsistent arguments in defence of the Bill.
    When anybody says that the trouble about the Bill is that it will cut out any housing activity except his definition of slum clearance, the hon. Gentleman says, "No, because the loss of these subsidies

    765
    will not matter at all. It will be spread over pooled rents and the local authorities will hardly notice any change. It will be just what they did before. There is no reason for agricultural workers and old people to get worried at all. "When the hon. Gentleman is called upon to make a great defence of slum clearance he says that the "concentrated object" is slum clearance and that everything else must be thrown aside in order to concentrate. If the Bill works better than has the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, obviously the effect must be to cut down any form of building except slum clearance.
    3.45 p.m.
    When the hon. Gentleman finds that he is in a corner and neither of these two completely conflicting arguments will meet the case, he prays in aid the discretionary powers of the Minister and says, "You need not worry about the contents of the Bill. The Minister will be able to dole out subsidies at his absolute discretion and it does not matter what is in the Bill." I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to employ any of those arguments in meeting the Amendment.
    Authorities faced with the problem of redeveloping their towns will be able to act only in the narrow field of unfit property within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1936. They will not be able to take a wider view and carry out decent planning and rebuilding of their areas on a scale which will make a notable improvement in the sphere of their responsibilities. This problem has arisen already in the case of a number of authorities. I would quote two only as an illustration, because they concern two different types of authorities.
    One is the case of the East Kilburn development scheme, in Willesden, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) on Second Reading. In that case the specific question was put to the Minister, "Will this kind of work which Willesden Council has been doing in redeveloping rank for subsidy? Will houses provided for rehousing people in that area rank for subsidy?" The Minister made a perfectly categorical and plain statement that it would not rank for subsidy, in so far as he said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West that the
    766
    authority must deal with the houses under the Housing Act,
    "…either as a redevelopment area or as a piece of slum clearance."
    But from what I gather of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, if his Amendment is to be taken seriously, that letter is misleading, because he is to cut out redevelopment from subsidy and contribute it only to slum clearance. That is an illustration of a particular practical problem of a certain local authority.
    There is another case in the City of Coventry, where there are two schemes. In the one case the area is primarily a housing scheme mainly consisting of overcrowded and unfit property. In that case, as the Bill stands, it is possible to clear the people from the area and collect a subsidy. In the other case it will not be possible, because the other area is one which will be treated under the Town and Country Planning Acts and not under the Housing Acts. I am not sure whether even in the first case, if the Minister has his way, when the Bill is passed it will be possible to secure a subsidy.
    This is not vague, frothy talk. These are actual cases where local authorities, faced with the problem of a terrible inheritance of bad, obsolete property, want to rebuild the area as a whole—?because the whole emphasis of redevelopment in terms of town and country planning is comprehensive development of the area as a whole. In other words, it is not piecemeal development where one knocks down a few houses and rebuilds them. It is a case of taking the whole area and planning and rebulding it.
    Quite recently there was a very interesting illustration of this in a newspaper dealing with New York where a whole area is being taken over, bad property is being demolished and a university campus is being built. An opera house is to be built together with housing development. That kind of comprehensive, balanced development, which people who take a pride in their city want to do, is to be completely killed by this Bill. The emphasis all the time is to be on little isolated blocks of unfit property, knocking that down, rehousing the people on the periphery and leaving the area because there will not be sufficient financial support for redevelopment.

    767
    Contradictory things can and do happen. In London, where the land is extremely expensive, people are not anxious to leave sites, however small and undeveloped. We see all over London, in areas too small to be workable units, a few houses which have been knocked down and replaced by blocks of flats to rehouse the people so that the land may be used in thoroughly bad places, often sandwiched between the main road and the railway, and the people rehoused find themselves even in new flats in areas which are not really suitable for housing development.
    In places where land is fairly cheap we gat the opposite. There we get failure to use the land at all because the area is so small that it is not worth building upon. I imagine that the unhappy story of what happens is within the experience of hon. Members as it is within my experience in my own constituency. The local authority, with the best will in the world, will order the demolition of two or three unfit houses. That is all it can do because the rest of the area does not come within the powers of the medical officer. These houses are knocked down and there is a ghastly mess of brick and rubble lying about, creating a resting place for dead cats and tin cans, while a long argument goes on between the council and the owner about the clearing away of the rubble. Sometimes there are threats of legal proceedings, which go on for several months. What is left is a vacant site. Houses which are rapidly deteriorating are often a potential source of trouble and financial wastage.
    These are two evils which can and should be avoided if there is proper redevelopment. The Minister ought to bring pressure on the local authorities so that when they look at an area they always have in mind the thought of what is to happen if they demolish houses and what is to be created in their place.
    Housing and town planning are creative, not things purely of demolition. The whole point is that we are trying to build better-looking cities, and the emphasis of the Government in this Bill is to encourage the local authorities to tackle only sites where they are to get subsidies to rehouse the people. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look at this problem, not just from the point of view of saving a little money, but from the
    768
    point of view of encouraging a really creative attitude towards the housing sites and the overcrowded, derelict and badly-planned urban centres of many of our towns.
    I should have thought that one could have expected the Government to be sympathetic to that sort of thing. I am quite prepared to believe that they are not likely to be very sympathetic to the appeals made for the old people. They are not likely to be sympathetic to the appeals made for agricultural workers. But even the Fascists believed in planning their cities and I should have thought that one could have at least expected the Government to take some pride in wanting to see new towns and new centres of our towns grow up.
    I cannot understand the motive behind this proposal. It will not make a tremendous difference in terms of cost. It will leave with the local authorities the difficulty of deciding which of the Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book they should use—not new Acts of Parliament. The powers are there. They have grown up in the course of history, starting with the demolition of the single house, the clearance area and the development area. Stage by stage these powers have developed because the practical experience of the people doing the job was that they were necessary. Why now try to put the clock back?
    The hon. Member for Dulwich has wide experience of local government. I know of his practical acquaintanceship with this problem and of his connection with a very powerful local authority association. From all those points of view I am convinced that he meant business when he tabled the Amendment standing in his name, the effect of which is precisely the same as mine, except that mine is probably in order and I very much doubt whether his is in order. There is some virtue in making one's protest effective, and not merely impressive on paper. Therefore, I am claiming a little credit for the Amendment standing in my name, and in being able to bring this matter before the Committee.
    I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that a moral obligation lies on him to make an approach to all local authorities which have imagination and ideas of how to recreate their cities. People who really care for a creative approach to redevelopment

    769
    want to see areas developed as a whole and not piecemeal. It is that kind of spirit, whether Conservative or Socialist, that we want. The Government in their unimaginative, cheeseparing, narrow attitude, are breaking people's hearts, disillusioning them and making them feel that there is no future in the work which they are trying to do.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: Although I rise to support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I do so with the most forlorn hope. What we are asking this afternoon is that the Minister will allow a little imaginative improvement to what is a thoroughly bad Bill. I cannot share any hope, judging the right hon. Gentleman by his previous form in debates on this disgraceful piece of legislation, that we can expect anything useful or helpful from him.
    It may be that he is right. It may be that this is such a bad piece of legislation that there is nothing to be done with it but to hurry it through as quickly as possible. I think that his hon. Friends must agree with him. There are just about eleven hon. Members opposite of whom six are in some way or another connected with the Government. That leaves five passionately interested in the problem of the housing of the people of this country. I think that is a measure of the contempt in which not only hon. Members opposite but many people in this country hold this Bill.
    We have put down this Amendment for two reasons. There are two main categories of housing which we feel are particularly badly treated by the Bill. I want for a moment to concentrate on the blitzed areas to which the Minister seems so strangely unsympathetic at the present time. Frankly, I cannot understand his lack of sympathy, particularly towards areas in London and other big cities which took the full blast of the war. Accordingly, I should have thought it would not have been beyond the sympathies of the right hon. Gentleman to try to help in the rebuilding of those areas which have suffered so much from the vicissitudes of the war. Yet I cannot find anywhere in the Bill, or in anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said, any intention on the part of the Government to try to help local authorities
    770
    which are still burdened by the problem of making good the damage from bombardment.
    4.0 p.m.
    I know it is tedious constantly to use local examples, and so, for example, I will give the figures for only one district of London, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the problem seriously. When we know that in a small borough such as Holborn 650 homes were completely destroyed in the blitz, that since the war ended only 300 have been rebuilt, and that as a result of this Bill subsequent building to catch up with that war damage will not qualify for the highest rate of subsidy, we are entitled to ask from what source a local authority in the position of that of Holborn is to make up the money it will lose on that subsidy.
    The right hon. Gentleman may dismiss the entire problem quickly by saying that this is a subject for the rates. In that case he is saying that the local authority which has already suffered most from the war must now, out of the pockets of its own ratepayers, make good what was a national disaster. Yet it was no fault of the people in one district that more of their homes were destroyed than the homes of other people anywhere else. I should have thought that would have been a reason for the Government to have poured help into such a district. I have looked carefully through the Bill, as have my hon. Friends, and I can conclude only that the Minister is completely unmoved and unconcerned, and is tossing back to the local authority the responsibility for clearing up the havoc and damage of the bombardment of the war years.
    I should have thought that one of the few Amendments which might have been acceptable even to the Minister would have been one to allow the full rate of subsidy up to the number of homes that were destroyed in the blitz. It is very little to ask that a local authority should continue to receive the full rale of subsidy until it has at least overtaken its war damage. In the case of authorities which have been able to get on quickly, no doubt the previous procedure is all right, but for local authorities which have not been able as yet to complete a programme equivalent to the number of houses destroyed, it is a small thing to ask. I am not making a party point This is a

    771
    national concern, for which there should have been a sympathetic response from the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that at least he will consider this Amendment favourably.
    The other main category which we find is being neglected, and which we feel sure will cause much hardship, has been referred to as that of the "blighted areas," the near-slums which all of us in the big cities know so well. Under the present definition of a slum the qualifications which have to be fulfilled before a property can be formally represented as a slum are so strict, so narrow, that there are large numbers of dwellings which do not so qualify, although in human terminology they are slums and should be written off as slums.
    Every local authority, particularly in the big cities, has a large number of such properties, which were not slums originally. Many of them were not bad buildings once upon a time, but because of multiple occupation, and the lack in them of facilities for the many families now living in them, many, perhaps, in a single building, they have been reduced to slums. I submit seriously to the right hon. Gentleman that the definition of a slum should not be narrowed to the material and architectural faults of a dwelling. What are the things that make a slum? There are all sorts of circumstances which so impinge on the lives of the human beings in such houses that they make a slum of their lives, whatever the medical officer of health says about the building in which they live.
    I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have often been into the kind of houses of which I am speaking? In them a family lives in one room, washing drying above the heads of the family as they try to eat their supper, coal in a box next to the table off which they are eating, children having to move their homework off the only table because their mother wants to do the ironing. A woman living in such circumstances has to take her children out for a walk on a snowy day like today so that the husband who is on night duty can get some quiet in order to sleep. Then there is the misery of shared lavatories, of the shared tap on the landing, the shared sink, the one gas cooker in the house which many women must share. These
    772
    are the everyday realities of life which build up a slum existence for families who live in those overcrowded conditions, whatever the officials of the Minister describe as a slum.
    That is the biggest problem now for local authorities. What can we do for these people, many of whom come to us sick, disabled? They bring their hopeless, pathetic medical certificates which we can only pass on. Many of them are ex-Service men who are often the most bitter of all. People living in basements with rising damp come to us with their complaints. We can take their addresses, contact the medical officer of health but, time after time, we find that these dwellings are not represented as slums.
    For instance, in Holborn only 36 dwellings have been represented as slums to the Minister within the present definition. I have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman and with our medical officer of health about tenement blocks where there are living conditions which would have been a disgrace to this country 100 years ago. Yet I find that for some technicality they are just outside the definition, and for our next five year programme we can get only thirty-six dwellings considered within the terms of this Bill. Unless the Minister is prepared to be helpful on this Amendment, any other building which this councils wants to undertake to assist people living in what to any fair-minded person are disgraceful and slum conditions, will become a burden entirely for the rates—a matter which does not interest the right hon. Gentleman.
    If we look a little further afield we find that the London County Council, with 165,000 families on its waiting list, of whom 50,000 are in the highest category of urgency, has a slum clearance programme for the next five years of only 18,500. What about the rest? The 50,000 families in the A category of urgency are not there on frivolous grounds. Anyone who deals day by day with these cases knows that to get into category A with the L.C.C. there has to be such a total combination of circumstances of misery that one often wonders how people can exist.
    Of the 50,000 London families in A category, 18,000 will, we hope, be helped by the slum clearance proposals, but for

    773
    the rest, apart from any possible consideration of the Amendment, the Minister seems to be shrugging his shoulders and throwing the problem back to the local authorities. That is very unfair not only to the thousands of families which have to live in miserable and disgraceful conditions but to the local authorities. The local authorities which comprise a majority of people who are interested in these things and have some social conscience will spend the most money and make the greatest effort.
    However, for the local authority whose main preoccupation is to keep down the rates and who does not show great interest in the welfare of its people, the Minister is providing a wonderful alibi. We have already read reports in the Press about local authorities who have said that they will not continue council house building. If the financing of council house building is to be left entirely to local authorities, the Minister will be putting such irresponsible authorities in a position where they can justifiably take that stand.
    By the terms of the Bill, the local authority which wants to take a broad and hopeful view of its responsibilities, which will want to clear not only the tiny proportion of slums which passes through the very fine sieve of the present definition, but will want to clear its near-slums and build worthy homes for people living in difficult and overcrowded conditions, will get no help from the Minister.
    It is because we feel that there are local authorities, in areas where there was a great deal of war-damage, which, out of considerations of ordinary humanity and decency, want in their rebuilding programmes to go further than deal merely with the actual slums, that my hon. Friends and I have put forward our Amendment. It is all too little to ask, but it provides at least some small opportunity in the midst of a thoroughly bad Bill to encourage local authorities to do a little towards the re-housing of people in their areas in a worthy and dignified way.
    Without the Amendment, the Bill is a naked example of the Tory attitude towards the housing of our people. I cannot think why my hon. Friends and I are trying to help hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for the sake of the people who will be suffering as a result of the Bill, we felt that our Amendment should receive the serious consideration of the
    774
    Minister and his hon. Friends. I very much hope that such consideration will be given to the Amendment, for it provides an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is not completely indifferent to the fate of people whose homes were bombed and who are living in circumstances which are a disgrace to the country.
    4.15 p.m.
    Dr. Horace King: I support the plea that the Minister should maintain subsidies in respect of blitzed towns. While the Opposition is fundamentally opposed to the Bill, I would appeal to the Minister in a non-party way and plead the case of the blitzed towns as, incidentally, I did in my maiden speech in the House six years ago, for I believe their special case to be unanswerable and irresistible.
    Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), I am a little encouraged by the sympathy which the Minister showed late last year when he promised to look into the question of prefabricated houses. If I speak particularly about Southampton today, all that I have to say goes for Plymouth, Coventry, Liverpool, Hull, West Ham, many other London boroughs, and, indeed, the City of London itself.
    Our general case is simply that on every aspect of post-war development the blitzed city starts not from scratch, but under a handicap. Because of lost rates due to the destruction of factories and houses, and the damage done to local economic life, the blitzed towns are behind the rest of the country in dealing with their problems. It is double burden of the rate finance of a blitzed city and the housing programme of a blitzed city which the Amendment seeks to alleviate.
    I will illustrate this with reference to Southampton's figures. Southampton thinks itself to be a good housing authority. It built 4,700 council houses before the war, but in the blitz it lost 4,795 houses totally destroyed. Nearly every other house in Southampton was damaged and thousands of them were so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) will remember, Southampton's first job was to do first-aid work to the seriously damaged uninhabitable houses.

    775
    For Southampton, the blitz wiped out more than twenty years of housing achievements in the inter-war years. It is true that it was not actually the council houses which were blitzed, for they are usually on the perimeter of a town; it was the houses in the centre of the town which were damaged and destroyed. We lost nearly 5,000 houses, and we lost their rateable value, just as we lost the rateable value of shops and factories to the tune of more than £100,000 per year.
    Our first job after the war was to fill the gap in houses which had been caused by the enemy. We think that we have done a good job of post-war re-construction in our blitzed city. First, with the help of the Government, we built 1,750 prefabs, and subsequently we have built 6,568 houses and flats, being council dwellings and private enterprise dwellings. This achievement would make Southampton compare favourably with other authorities in the post-war housing of its citizens if it had not been for the blitz. But the first 4,700 houses which were erected in Southampton merely filled the holes that Hitler had made.
    Instead of today being about 8,000 housing units—I dislike that expression—better off than in 1945, we are about 4,000 units better off, and of that number 1,700 are "prefabs" and "prefabs" have a short life. Incidentally, the prefabricated dwellings have done much better than anybody in the country anticipated. They have stood up to wear and tear beyond our dreams. However, in the long run, and possibly not so many years ahead of us, every blitzed city with prefabricated houses will find their replacement a liability. Actually, Southampton is only about 2,000 permanent houses better off after ten years of keen and gigantic effort. That has meant a persistence of the grave housing shortage in Southampton.
    During our various debates, many hon. Members have commented upon the number of people in housing trouble still approaching them. If that is true of normal constituencies, it is even more true of a blitzed city. My own experience —that of every hon. Member representing every blitzed city—has been that three out of four people who come to my "surgery" every week are people in housing difficulties. I hope that the day
    776
    will come when the person who comes to "surgery" with a housing problem is coming merely because of discomfort, merely because of minor hardship. But the kind of case with which I have to grapple week-end after week-end is that of people living in a couple of rooms, or people who, for years and years, have lived with their in-laws. A young married couple in Southampton have practically no hope of getting a council house and I wish sometimes that the country would realise the tragedy of any two families having to live under one roof. Many of the people who come to me week-end after week-end have been on the waiting list in Southampton for years. The official figures for Southampton are that we have an active waiting list of 4,500 and what is called a deferred waiting list of about 3,250—and all this apart from our proposed slum clearance of 3,760 houses.
    No blitzed city can let its housing programme dry up. If the general purpose of the Bill, as I have no doubt it is, is a disincentive to local authorities to go on with house building, no blitzed city dare dry up on its council house building programme with all the cases of human need to satisfy. But the Bill without the Amendment will make the cost of future large programmes crippling, if not prohibitive, and, therefore, seriously jeopardise the future housing prospects for blitzed towns.
    All the houses Southampton built up to 1952, excluding "prefabs," merely replaced blitzed houses. We did not really start on a level with other cities until six or eight years after the war. It is worth reminding the Committee that at the same time a blitzed city has had its shopping centres and factories to replace. A quarter of Southampton's docks were destroyed in the war and many of its offices, shops and schools damaged or destroyed. Those are burdens which a blitzed city has also to bear, whilst coping with housing.
    In the Amendment we are asking the Minister to look at the problem of blitzed cities in something of the spirit that I took him to promise that he would have in looking into the question of new towns and "prefabs." The blitzed city carries an inequitable rate burden. For instance, Southampton gets no relief from Exchequer equalisation grants, not even the latest proposals. I reckon that the blitz

    777
    cost Southampton about £1 million in rates since the war, after knocking off the trickle of relief which we got from Governments after the war, after accounting for all that Britain did for Southampton in post-war relief. That was borne in extra rate burden by the citizens of Southampton. That was an unjust burden.
    Southampton citizens do not mind what they bear in common with other British citizens because of the war, but they have a right to feel aggrieved if on top of the national burden they carry an additional burden merely because Southampton was a valuable port in the war and Hitler tried to destroy it. If the Minister will accept the Amendment and retain the subsidy for houses built by blitzed cities in years ahead, he will be doing no more than an act of justice to the towns which bore the brunt of Hitler's attack during the war.
    I need hardly remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of those war days when His late Majesty, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewis-ham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) wandered through the smoking ruins of cities whose damage hurt Britain, but hurt even more intensely the people whose homes and shops and offices were being destroyed. What promises were made in those days of justice for the blitzed cities! Blitzed towns have grumbled a lot, but they have never whined. They have always borne their scars proudly. They have tackled the excessive burdens which Britain has compelled them to shoulder, but they feel that they have certain moral claims on the nation.
    I am certain that this afternoon I am expressing the views of citizens of both political parties in Southampton, and of both sides of the Southampton Borough Council. I believe that this demand for maintaining the subsidies will have the support of Labour and Conservative local authorities in all of the blitzed towns and I therefore ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: I should like to support the Amendment. I feel sure that if the Minister will only consider the factors which are responsible for the creation of slum areas he will find that precisely the same factors apply to areas of comprehensive development
    778
    under the Town and Country Planning Acts. There are slum areas in our towns and cities because of unregulated development, lack of control by any authority, because of our allowing the law of the jungle to operate, allowing people to build houses without damp courses and back-to-back houses without the necessary modern standards of sanitation and convenience. As the result of decades of development without any form of control, we have slum areas throughout our towns and cities. Very largely on that account, too, the slum areas are being increased year by year to the extent of about 200,000 houses a year.
    The definition of an area of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts is, as it were, the twin brother of the designation slum clearance. There is merely a slightly different aspect of the same problem. The Town and Country Planning Acts were designed to put an end to slum areas by regulating development and by preventing the further development of dwellings and factories of the type built during the generations of unregulated development. Those Acts were designed not only to prevent a recurrence of slums, but properly to designate the parts in an area which were to be residential, and which industrial, and which were to be of parks and open spaces.
    Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide what are known as development plans. They have been instructed by the Minister to prepare development plans to show precisely what they intend to do with slum areas and with areas which are near-slums and which are known as areas of comprehensive development in which there are small houses amid factories, warehouses, workshops and laundries, and where one finds even private houses adapted for use by small industrial undertakings.
    4.30 p.m.
    People living in the areas of comprehensive development can produce a catalogue of complaints, not only about the conditions of their own dwellings, but about noise, nuisance, smell, dust and filth which are often the accompaniments of these small factories and workshops. In the southern part of my constituency there is an area of comprehensive development where the local authority is engaged in rebuilding in accordance with

    779
    modern planning standards. There for generations my constituents and their families have had to live amid factories, laundries and workshops, and to put up with the noise and dust and other evils, and the local authority has been powerless to do anything about it.
    The planning Acts, which have placed an obligation on local authorities, require them to submit to the Minister plans of their proposals to get rid of these social evils. Many plans are in the possession of the Minister, and perhaps he will tell us what he proposes to do about them. I know that he has had the plan for Middlesex for a long time, but, so far as I can see, he is doing nothing about it. Local authorities have the right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman will approve any general proposals in a development plan. It is his duty and responsibility to give effect to the planning Acts, and as quickly as possible to approve the development plans in his possession.
    The first of these Amendments asks the right hon. Gentleman to continue the general rate of subsidy for dwellings erected in an area of comprehensive development. In effect, that means that the Minister shall continue to permit the rate of housing subsidy on newly erected housing where a local authority carries out the provisions of its development plan, and undertakes to clear an area of bad housing, so that there will be a residential part as distinct from an industrial part, with provision for parks and open spaces. There is little difference between this kind of work and slum clearance. Most dwellings in such an area are near-slums. If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to support a progressive housing policy, and carry out his functions as the Minister responsible for town and country planning as well as for housing, I cannot see how he can refuse to permit the continuance of subsidies on dwellings provided in areas of comprehensive development.
    Suppose that he does not. I imagine that will be his answer, that he will try to minimise the problem which I have attempted to outline, and that he will say that it is merely part of the general housing scheme for which he intends to make no provision for subsidies after a year or so. If that be the case, the right hon.
    780
    Gentleman will completely destroy the development plans of local authorities and the spirit and intention of the Town and Country Planning Acts. It is impossible for local authorities to undertake redevelopment under those Acts without some sort of subsidy for rehousing. We shall have the anomalous situation in which local authorities may be permitted to clear an area, to knock down old houses and ramshackle factories and workshops and to clear the site, but in which there will be no financial assistance for them, and so they will be unable to undertake any rebuilding.
    What is such a local authority to do for the people whose houses have been knocked down? Many of those people are not on the housing lists of local authorities. Are we to have the anomalous position—
    Mr. Victor Collins: On a point of order. You will observe, Sir Norman, that on the Government benches there is one Junior Minister, one Government Whip and a Parliamentary Private Secretary. May I appeal to you to arrange for my hon. Friend to have the attention of at least the Parliamentary Private Secretary?
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): That is not a point of order.
    Mr. G. Lindgren: Can we not be shown some respect from the Government side of the Committee? Cannot you request that at least there should be some interest taken by the Government in the proceedings? May I put it to you, Sir Norman, that if hon. Members on this side of the Committee walk out, the Committee will cease to function?
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a point of order. I am not responsible for asking members of the Government to attend.
    Mr. Sparks: I was saying that local authorities will find themselves—[Interruption.]Now that the Minister has come into the Chamber I hope that his hon. Friend will be able to tell him what I have said. I do not wish to detain the Committee by repeating what I have said. I appeal to the Minister to say that this is a matter of first-class importance to local authorities and to people who live in the areas which I have described. If

    781
    he is not prepared to permit the continuance of subsidies for the erection of dwellings in areas of comprehensive development, in effect he will bring to an end the purpose and intent of the development plans already produced under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Local authorities would find it impossible to proceed with their work in areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts if they were to have no financial assistance by way of subsidy for redevelopment on those clearance areas. The whole object of planning and the creation of better layouts in our towns and cities would be brought completely to a standstill.
    Once again I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give his favourable consideration to this point, and I remind him—I first mentioned this when he was not present —that he is responsible for town and country planning as well as housing. He has responsibility for the good development of our towns and cities, to see that the old evils of the past, such as unregulated development, which have created the slums, are banished for ever, and to see that we do not, in the present generation, lay the foundations for future slum areas in the next fifty or sixty years. The Town and Country Planning Acts are designed to prevent a recurrence of slum areas, and areas of blight and bad development. For that reason the Minister would be well advised to extend the subsidies to areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts. If he does that the Bill will be less objectionable than it appears at present.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Several hon. Members have pointed out how narrow is the dividing line between an unfit house, represented by a medical officer of health, and a house which he decides, perhaps reluctantly, not so to represent. Nevertheless, according to returns made by local authorities, there are very nearly 1 million unfit houses—unfit in the narrower sense of the term—in this country today.
    That is a fact which the Committee should bear clearly in mind in considering this and other Amendments. It ought not to go out from this Committee that we want to see the removal of those unfit
    782
    houses placed upon an exactly even footing with the replacement of other houses which, however undesirable in some respects, are somewhat better. I do not believe that our people want any obstacles placed in the way of the removal of the worst houses first.
    Mr. Albert Evans: The two go together.
    Mr. Powell: As the hon. Member has just interjected, the unfit houses are very often found in areas which require redevelopment as a whole. That is the thought which underlies the Amendment.
    Under the Bill as it stands, in such areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts, the houses which are unfit will attract the slum clearance subsidy, and the Amendment to Clause 11, to which the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) drew attention in passing, will have the effect of ensuring that fit houses now qualifying in an area of redevelopment will not be eligible for a slum clearance subsidy. Beyond those houses, the remainder of the area will attract a planning subsidy, relating to comprehensive redevelopment, towards the cost of acquiring the site of the whole area. Beyond that, again, it is the function of the local housing authority, as part of its general housing programme, to deal with houses in the area which are not unfit.
    4.45 p.m.
    I do not believe that that will mean that local authorities will simply deal with the unfit houses in those areas, and that we shall see the sort of situation which the hon. Member for Widnes described, in which technically unfit houses are, so to speak, picked out, and aching voids in an area of comprehensive redevelopment are left behind. What we can reasonably expect to see is that local authorities will select for earliest attention areas of comprehensive redevelopment which include the largest number of unfit houses, and will phase their operations in dealing with these areas in such a way that those parts where unfit houses are in the greatest majority will be dealt with first.
    Mr. Sparks: Surely the hon. Member is aware that his right hon. Friend already has in his Department the development plans of the area. When those plans were provided they were based not merely

    783
    upon how many unfit houses existed in the area, but also upon questions of industry and open spaces.
    Mr. Powell: I appreciate that, and I also appreciate that those development plans cannot be carried out all at once. Those areas cannot be comprehensively redeveloped except over a period of years, and one of the things which we want to secure by the Bill is that the literally unfit houses—the worst houses in the country —are dealt with upon a massive scale at the earliest possible time.
    Mr. MacColl: The Minister has all the powers he needs—by way of control of loan sanction and all the rest—for phasing development. If his Bill means anything it can only mean that he wishes to forbid development which is not based upon the removal of unfit houses. Otherwise, there is no need for the Bill; he could do it all administratively through his financial control.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Member is now asking that local authorities should not be left discretion as to the way in which they proceed with their areas, but should be ruled and governed in that respect by the Ministry. He is under a misapprehension as to the effect and intention of the Bill. Because one wishes to emphasise a certain purpose and induce local authorities to give preference to a certain purpose, that does not mean that they are expected to neglect all other operations, or that all other operations must stop; in fact, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and not least hon. Members opposite—recognise that the general housing operations of local authorities will continue, but that within those operations the intention is that, as far as possible, preference and priority should be given to the clearance of unfit houses and to dealing with comprehensive development areas in such a way that the unfit houses get the earliest attention.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The hon. Member puts an extremely plausible case. As I understand, he suggests that the worst slums should be dealt with first, and that redevelopment should be carried out later. He said that redevelopment would take some years. In fact, he is suggesting that the worst cases will be dealt with last. I can tell him why. On
    784
    his own argument, an unfit house in a bad area will be left to the very last, because the local authority will not pick out a house here and there and leave jagged holes about. Those houses will, therefore, be left. They will not only be slums; they will be made worse by virtue of the fact that they will be in slum areas.
    Mr. Powell: No one can escape from the fact that redevelopment of these areas will take place in phases. It cannot all happen at once. Therefore, some priority has to be determined according to which of these areas will be dealt with. I am saying that the priority will be guided by the Bill so that the areas in which there are the most unfit houses calling for attention will be dealt with earliest instead of in some other way. It is the intention of the Government and the desire of the people generally that everything should now be done to ensure that the very first priority is the removal of unfit houses.
    Connected with this case is the case put forward on behalf of the blitzed cities. The blitzed cities have one characteristic in common, at any rate from the point of view from which we are dealing with them this afternoon. They have suffered a loss of rateable value out of proportion to the reduction in the burdens which they had to meet with the rateable value. Their resources were reduced more quickly and severely than were the demands upon those resources. Therefore, measures have been taken both under the previous Administration and under the present one to meet that disparity of means and needs.
    Of course, the equalisation grant under the 1948 Local Government Act equalised the rateable value per head up to the national average and many, though not all, of the blitzed cities have qualified for equalisation grant. I understand that, after revaluation, not all will qualify. The Government paid to authorities which acquired large blitzed areas for redevelopment a much higher rate of subsidy than the normal planning subsidy in the initial period, when their rateable value resources might be expected to be lower. In addition, there have been special war distress grants, of which the last has actually not quite run out. Measures to meet the rateable value conditions and problems of the blitzed cities have continually been taken since the end of the war.

    785
    The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out that these towns may also have special housing needs by virtue of their war history. That will be true undoubtedly of some of them though naturally to an extent which lessens as the war years recede into the past. It will not be true of all. In so far as, in 1956 and the years following, the rateable value problems of a blitzed city in relation to its housing needs are so acute that they produce an undue burden upon the rates, or would, as an alternative, involve the charging of unreasonable rents, the city, upon the facts of the case, would qualify for consideration under Clause 5. This Clause is designed precisely as a net to catch the cases where it proves, upon actual experience in the event, that the circumstances of the local authority, in regard to its rateable value and its housing need, place it at a disadvantage compared with local authorities generally.
    The blitzed cities are not asking for any special preference but only that when their peculiar circumstances and their history result in a position in which, to meet their housing needs, they are faced with an undue rate burden, account shall be taken of it. That is the request. The machinery for meeting the request, on the basis of the facts as they are elicited, exists in Clause 5 of the Bill. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to resist the temptation to make any general provision in advance for a whole new class of case, and so to weaken the force and intention of the Bill, which are to concentrate local authorities upon the two main tasks of slum clearance and overspill.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that Odysseus, unwilling to be tempted by the voice of the Sirens, filled his ears with cotton wool. I think that is right.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. That is what his companions did. He himself, desiring to hear the voice of the Sirens—as I have myself most attentively listened to the voice of the Sirens opposite—lashed him-selft to the mast.
    Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is perfectly right. He, too, of course, is lashed to the mast at the moment. I desired to observe that his hon. Friends had taken the far simpler course. They had neither lashed themselves to the mast
    786
    nor filled their ears with cotton wool. They had simply gone away. On this occasion, on this somewhat important proposal, the Tory benches present an appearance of emptiness which testifies to the attitude which the Tory Party adopts towards housing difficulties which its members do not themselves experience.
    Let us see what we are trying to do. There is no doubt that the Bill allows for the continuance of subsidies on what are commonly called insanitary houses, that is to say houses that are not fit to live in and cannot be made fit at any reasonable cost. That is just about all that the Bill does in this respect. When we look at the clearance area and the redevelopment area provisions, as they are proposed to be modified, we find that the Minister has taken every care to limit them in that sense.
    The question raised by these Amendments is this. Is it the right way of dealing with slums and—I will quote from the Town and Country Planning Act—
    "with areas which have been extensively war damaged or which have conditions of bad layout or obsolete development"
    simply to pull down the bad houses in those areas and to leave the other houses, as at one point the hon. Member appeared to suggest might be done as the result of the Bill? I cannot believe that that suggestion, if indeed it was made, was seriously intended.
    What are dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Act as areas of comprehensive development are areas which will, no doubt, include some bad houses but will include other houses. The kind of thing which was commonly known as a slum in Birmingham was dealt with by the Birmingham Council when the Labour Government were in power in such a way that its scheme paid very largely for the clearance of the slums. It took a bad area or, to use the more formal phrase, an area of comprehensive development, even though it was not proceeding under that Act, and redeveloped it as a whole. It pulled down the houses that were bad, patched others up, and took over at the same time the good property and dealt with the area as a whole.
    Assume that we have a bad area in London or another large city. Surely the right and reasonable thing to do is to deal with the whole area at the same time. The difficulty about the Bill is that,

    787
    because it is a housing Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has shut his eyes to what actually has happened and to what is required by good and sensible planning, and has refused to deal with areas; he has refused to deal with overcrowding, and is dealing with the position house by house.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I did not mean to intervene, but I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). No one has suggested—and certainly not my hon. Friend—that we wish to encourage local authorities to pick odd houses here and there out of an area which is calling for redevelopment. Our only reason for not proposing the higher rate of subsidy for all houses whether fit or unfit in redevelopment areas is that we do not believe it desirable, in a period of housing shortage, to give an additional stimulus to accelerating the rate at which houses at present fit are pulled down. Local authorities will, no doubt, continue their plans for the redevelopment of areas, but we do not wish to give additional stimulus to the pulling down of fit houses at this time.
    Mr. Mitchison: I may say that the right hon. Gentleman's additional stimulus is no additional stimulus at all. It is simply a question of whether or not he is to cut the existing subsidy in certain respects. That is the first point.
    The next is that he disclaims any intention of not having areas of comprehensive development—slums—dealt with as areas. He wants them to be dealt with as areas. He wants local authorities to do as any sensible authority would, which is to take an area, pull down the bad houses, leave the good houses—if that is possible, though it is more probable that some of them will have to be dealt with at the same time—and rehouse the people elsewhere. That is the whole idea underlying the new towns and the overspills, with which we shall deal later.
    What will be the effect of what he is doing? He will discourage local authorities from doing exactly what he thinks they should do. He will encourage them to deal piecemeal with house after house instead of dealing with areas. In the case of the blitzed towns he proposes to cut the subsidy where that subsidy has been
    788
    rendered necessary not merely by "bad layout or obsolete development" but by enemy action. Let us make no bones about it—that is what he is doing if he refuses this Amendment or one like it.
    What are we suggesting? We merely say that in exceptionally bad areas, bad whether as a result of enemy action or as a result of the sins and omissions of the past, a wholesale plan of redevelopment, of laying out—whatever the term— has necessarily to be adopted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as we, and to attempt anything else is foolish and short-sighted to a degree. Nevertheless, the financial steps which the right hon. Gentleman is taking are such as to encourage local authorities to be as shortsighted as they possibly can be, to go picking and choosing, and never to deal with an area as a whole but always to look at it house by house.
    The suggestion made by this Amendment is simply this: "You are being ruthless in the Bill. Be a little less ruthless when dealing with areas which are as bad as areas of comprehensive redevelopment must be." We hear stories about encouragement, about the timing of this, that and the other, the phasing of this thing and that, but the question is, "Do you insist so far as this financial Measure goes, on the local authorities' treating these very bad areas house by house, or are you willing, as you should be in view of previous legislation on the subject and the whole policy put forward by this party when it was in office, to give proper encouragement to local authorities to treat the city as a city, a part as a whole part and an area as an area, and to refuse to be bound any longer by the single house point of view so dear to people in the days when single houses nearly always had a single owner?"
    It is for those sorts of reasons that I trust the Minister will consider what is proposed in this Amendment and confine his cuts, if he can, to cases where there is at any rate some ground for saying that local authorities might be asked to carry the additional burden. This is not that sort of case. It is a question of proper planning of our cities, and if that planning is to be given the kind of financial blow threatened by the Bill then, if the Minister's ghost ever haunts those places, it will find them in a much nastier mess than they would have been had this Bill not been passed.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: The Parliamentary Secretary's reply has been miserably unsatisfactory. It is all very well to pay lip-service to the needs of the blitzed areas. That was done in moving terms during the war. The Prime Minister and other Ministers used to come to my constituency and say that they would regard it as a personal duty to make good the losses suffered, but the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the problem is one, I fear, of cynicism.
    Does he really mean Clause 5 to be considered as a net, as he called it? Is he seriously encouraging blitzed areas to pin their faith in that Clause? During an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill some of us on this side sought to secure from the Government some idea of the amount they had in mind to make available for the purposes of Clause 5. A figure would give us some idea of how seriously the Clause is intended to fulfil the purpose of a net. Not a word of information has been forthcoming. Can we have it now? If there were an indication that f X million was potentially available we might perhaps be willing to take the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of his Minister more seriously.
    We have had this kind of provision in earlier legislation. It might not be entirely in order for me now to go into the details of Clause 5—we will argue them in due course—but its conditions are highly restricted. In view of the terms which must be fulfilled before a payment becomes available, I doubt very much whether it will help the constituency, for instance, of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King).
    Dr. King: It certainly will not.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: There is a faint hope that in West Ham, with one quarter of the houses blitzed, something may be done.
    Mr. Mitchison: And it has no rates from the outfall sewer.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I wish that my hon. and learned Friend's "King Charles's head" would not keep cropping up with such relentless regularity—especially when I am speaking.
    This is a very serious matter for the blitzed areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen see med rather to dissociate
    790
    himself from us in his attitude to this debate. He thought that an attitude of polite, earnest, sincere, friendly persuasion of the Minister would work. Does he really think that that works with this Tory Government? There was a very good opportunity for the Minister to divide the ranks on this by showing that the sweet reasonableness of my hon. Friend was the right way of getting something out of the Tory Front Bench. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech has been thoroughly reactionary, thoroughly unsatisfactory and, I fear, will prove to have been thoroughly cynical.
    Mr. Bevan: I warned the Committee on several occasions that we should hear about Clause 5 over and over again, because when the Minister gets into difficulties in Committee, instead of answering the debate he says, "That will be dealt with under Clause 5."Clause 5 is to be the universal umbrella under which all those who fear that they will be caught in the downpour are asked to take shelter. We shall, of course, discuss Clause 5 when we come to it, but I must say that it is a bit of a temptation to anticipate the meaning of Clause 5 when every time the Government are in trouble the Clause is invoked. We have the invocation of a Clause without the explanation of it.
    There is one aspect of the matter upon which I sympathise very much with what the Parliamentary Secretary said, because I have given the same answer on many occasions. That is, when a blitzed city comes forward to the Government for help it has, quite properly, to show, as the hon. Member said, that its resources are inadequate to meet its needs, having regard to the same resources and needs of other local authorities. I think that that is a perfectly proper answer. No local authority is entitled to have any additional assistance from the State unless it can show that, because of circumstances over which it has no control, the provision of the same local authority functions costs the local ratepayers a substantially higher rate than other ratepayers have to pay for the same functions elsewhere.
    That is a perfectly proper answer, but unfortunately it has not very much to do with this debate. The point which my hon. Friends are making is a different one: that although we might not be able to show in any objective sense that a blitzed city has to carry a higher rate as

    791
    a consequence of having been blitzed, nevertheless that blitzed city will have to live with the scars of war much longer than it would have had to live with them were it not for the Bill.
    In other words, what this Bill does, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has pointed out, is discourage local authorities from comprehensive redevelopment schemes. The blitzed cities are to be victimised, not so much financially as aesthetically; not so much because the local ratepayers will necessarily have to carry a heavier financial burden, but because they will have to live with ugliness longer. That is the way they will be victimised. That will happen in London and in Plymouth—rather less in Plymouth, perhaps, but certainly in Hull and areas like that. The charge we are making against the right hon. Gentleman is that in reducing, or almost wiping out, the subsidy for general housing needs he is making it more difficult for those areas and those cities to have decent planning and decent redevelopment.
    I thought that was what the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) had in mind, and I was hoping we would receive some help from that side of the Committee. After all, the provision of gracious surroundings and proper town planning has received some enthusiastic support from hon. Members opposite in many areas where they are members of local authorities. How can they divorce what they require to have done, and what many passionately want to have done, in the local town hall from what they are now doing in Parliament? Do they not realise that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is putting statutory inhibitions on proper development in their towns and cities?
    5.15 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the point I made. What the Minister has done is to make a sort of academic distinction in his Department between general housing need and slum clearance. He has said, "I want to encourage slum clearance; I can do that only at the expense of meeting general housing needs. Therefore, I will make it more profitable for local authorities to pull down slums than to add to their
    792
    general accommodation." This is the Minister's argument.
    Academically and abstractly, it is possible to see the antithesis between them. It is possible to see, if one lives in Whitehall and does not go down the streets at all, an administrative quarrel between the claims of general housing needs and the claims of slum clearance. When the distinction is made in Parliament, therefore, it looks logical and plausible and it sounds nice on a public platform, but when one looks at the situation in practice and on the ground, one sees that slums exist in certain places. They do not exist on the drawing boards of Whitehall; they are in certain places on the ground.
    What the hon. Gentleman has said—and this is the point to which I have not had a reply—is,"If the slum houses are in an area scheduled for redevelopment, they will be dealt with last." He has said that to use the resources for redevelopment is to use resources which might otherwise be devoted to clearing slums; so that, on his own showing, the worst will be dealt with last. People living in slum houses which are in an area scheduled for redevelopment will have to put up with slums as well as bad surroundings.
    The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered the question. He started by saying, "Of course, we want those in the greatest need to be dealt with first." That was the argument for dealing with slums ahead of meeting general housing needs. We end with an admission that those whose circumstances are worst are to be dealt with last. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He has already said that it is undesirable—and no local authority would do it—to pick out houses in isolation, leaving gaps. The only alternative to doing that is to redevelop the area as well.
    Hon. Members: Or leave it where it is.
    Mr. Sandys: I should like to clear up this point. The effect of this Amendment would be to encourage local authorities to give priority to the pulling down of fit houses in these redevelopment areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If the redevelopment area is composed solely of unfit houses this issue does not arise. Then it becomes a slum clearance area and attracts the higher subsidy. This Amendment would not be necessary. If this

    793
    Amendment were adopted it would have the effect of encouraging local authorities to pull down fit houses in redevelopment areas. I am not saying that those areas do not require to be redeveloped; but it would encourage them to give priority to pulling them down in preference to building new houses somewhere else for general needs. That is the only possible effect of this Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: There must be something wrong with me, because I do not seem to have conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman the sense of what the Parliamentary Secretary said, although the Minister has to some extent underlined it. The slums about which we are talking are in an area scheduled for redevelopment. Let us start there. That is a simple proposition, is it not? It is the area for redevelopment as a general rule because under the Town and Country Planning Act the area is badly planned. It is a bad area. Is that agreed? So there are slum houses in a bad area. There may be slum houses in a good area. That happens quite frequently. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would listen to me, because he may understand this time. He has said that if he encouraged redevelopment schemes good houses might be pulled down for redevelopment which would divert resources from slum clearance.
    Mr. Sandys: From general needs.
    Mr. Bevan: And from slum clearance.
    Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He said on Second Reading, and has said all the time since, that the whole purpose of the Bill was to lay the greatest emphasis on slum clearance and that that is being done by making it financially more advantageous to clear slums than to meet general housing needs. I am pointing out that if it is desirable, as it obviously is, when slums are pulled down in a redevelopment area to proceed with redevelopment of the whole area, and if it is being discouraged by the Bill, on that logic alone those in the worst position will be dealt with last. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
    Mr. Sandys: Why does the right hon. Member assume that the unfit houses in a redevelopment area are necessarily the
    794
    worst houses? Why are they worse than slum houses in a slum area? He has talked about a redevelopment area being a bad area, but the very fact that it is a redevelopment area and not a slum clearance area implies that the houses in the main are not slum houses. A slum clearance area invariably contains a certain number of houses which are fit and have to be pulled down, but a redevelopment area is an area not primarily a slum area but which no doubt contains a proportion of slum houses. Therefore, by the very definition it is not such a bad area as a slum clearance area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course it is not; otherwise, it would be a clum clearance area.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman is once more airing this and point of view, which does not take into consideration the actual facts as they are. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) should really open his eyes when he goes about the country. Quite often the area is scheduled as a redevelopment area not only because it has a great number of bad houses in it but because those slums are in close juxtaposition to industry of various kinds and of high density. The actual houses may be all right, but it quite often happens that they are in close proximity to a very high density of industrial and other buildings. What I am pointing out to the Committee is that slum houses and slum dwellers existing in circumstances of that sort by definition will be dealt with last.
    What my hon. and learned Friend said which is also important was that local authorities will be financially discouraged from developing their cities properly. We regard that as most serious. The planners are beginning to be alarmed by the circumstances—
    Mr. Raymond Gower: As the right hon. Member has referred to me, perhaps I may interrupt to say that I do not think we are at issue on this. My right hon. Friend would agree to some extent with what the right hon. Member has said, but what he has said in addition is that there are even worse areas than the areas referred to by the right hon. Member.
    Mr. Bevan: Do not talk about a worse area but talk about individual men and women. When talking about areas we are always forgetting the individual men

    795
    and women living there. We should think of the individual slum dwellers living in an area which is scheduled for redevelopment for reasons we have already mentioned in quoting the Act.
    When the Parliamentary Secretary said that the local authority would not take down houses and leave gaps here and there he was actually saying that people in those areas can expect to have success from slums after everybody else has been dealt with.
    Mr. Collins: I want to raise one question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a matter of importance, I have been sitting here through the whole debate and I want to ask a question of the Minister which has an immediate bearing on what has been discussed.
    The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I wrote to him about a problem in my constituency. It concerned a clearance area under Part V of the 936 Act. The local authority was anxious to know whether flats built on that site would qualify for the slum subsidy despite the fact that it was a Part V area. The proposal was subsequently to build flats there and to rehouse in them people from the slum clearance area. The Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me on 10th January saying:
    "The answer in general terms is that whether or not the higher rate of subsidy is given for any particular houses or flats that are built does not depend on whether the site was acquired under Part III or Part V of the Housing Act, 1936. What matters is that the houses or flats should need to be provided as a result of the council's slum clearance proposal's.
    That tacitly says that, other things being equal, approval will be given to a scheme for building on a re-development area, not a slum clearance area, flats in which people now living in slums will be housed and, since they will be needed in connection with the slum clearance proposals of the council, the flats will qualify under Part V for the slum clearance subsidy. If that is so, it implies that despite this Bill the Minister will be prepared to approve a scheme from a local authority which
    envisages comprehensive development—the acquisition of a site under Part V and rehousing on that site of people from slum properties—and give the local authority the full slum clearance subsidy.
    I should like to know whether that is correct because, if so, in part it relieves what has been said on this side of the Committee. Secondly, if it is correct, why cannot the Minister accept this Amendment? The Parliamentary Secretary said:
    "The Minister will…be sending out later a circular to local authorities explaining the arrangements in detail."
    If that can be done by circular, why cannot it be done by this Amendment?
    Mr. Sandys: I believe the Committee wishes to bring this debate to a close, but I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins). One always hesitates to say that an hon. Member is quite correct when that might be given an interpretation which might be used in evidence against one afterwards, but, broadly speaking, what the hon. Member said is correct. That is to say, the higher subsidy of £22 will be available—in the case of flats it will be correspondingly higher—in respect of every family that is rehoused from a slum dwelling. It does not matter where they are housed.
    5.30 p.m.
    There is all the difference in the world between that and the purpose of the Amendment. The Amendment would enable the higher subsidy to be payable not only in respect of the families out of the redevelopment area who are living in unfit houses and are rehoused there or elsewhere, but it would also make the higher subsidy payable in respect of all other families whose houses were demolished in the course of redeveloping the area. That is something altogether wider.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 271.

    Division No. 91.]

    AYES

    [5.31 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Awbery, S. S.

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

    Allaun, F. (Salford, E.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Balfour, A.

    Benson, G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bartley, P.

    Beswick, F.

    Anderson, Frank

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Parkin, B. T.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Paton, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pearson, A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Popplewell, E.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Probert, A. R.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Rankin, John

    Burke, W. A.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Reeves, J.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reid, William

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Janner, B.

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Carmichael, J.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Ross, William

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Royle, C.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Short, E. W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lawson, G. M.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Cove, W. G.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick

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

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Daines, P.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Logan, D. G.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Steele, T.

    Deer, G.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    McGhee, H. G.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Dodds, N. N.

    McInnes, J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dye, S.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. c.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mahon, S.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Timmons, J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mason, Roy

    Usborne, H. C.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Finch, H. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mikardo, Ian

    West, D. G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

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

    Monslow, W.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moody A. S

    white, Mrs.Eirene(E.Fllnt)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mort, D. L.

    Wigg, George

    Grey, C. F.

    Moss, R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

    Hale, Leslie

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

    Oliver, G. H

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Hannan, W.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Harrlson, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Orbach, M.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Oswald, T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Owen, W. J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Healey, Denis

    Padiey, W. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Holman, P.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Mr. J. Taylor and

    Holmes, Horace

    Parker, J.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. p. G.

    Banks, Col. C.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Barber, Anthony

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Barter, John

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Bishop, F. P.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Beamish, MaJ. Tufton

    Black, C. W.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Body, R. F.

    Ashton, H.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

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

    798

    799

    Braithwalte, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Nugent, C. R. H.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Bryan, P.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Holt, A. F.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hope, Lord John

    Osborne, C.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Page, R. G.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Peyton, J. W. w.

    Carr, Robert

    Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

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

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pott, H. P.

    Conant, Maj, Sir Roger

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Coi. J. K.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Profumo, J. D.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Crouch, R. F.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Redmayne, M.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Currle, C. B. H.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemp town)

    Ronton, D. L. M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L, W.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kaberry, D.

    Davies, Rt.Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Keegan, D.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    D'Avigdor-ColdsmId, Sir Henry

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Deedes, W. F

    Kerr, H. W.

    Rob nson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lagden, G. W

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

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

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Shepherd, William

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

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

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

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (petersfield)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Errington, Sir Erie

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Speir, R. M.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

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

    Fell, A.

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Storey, S.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Fort, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    McKlbbin, A. J.

    Teeling, W.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Glover, D.

    Maciay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Cough, C. F. H.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Tlley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Gower, H, R.

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

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Maddan, Martin

    Turner, H.F.L.

    Green, A.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Grimond, J.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Marples, A. E.

    Wade, D. W.

    Gurden, Harold

    Marshall, Douglas

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mathew, R.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maiden)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

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

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

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Neave, Airey

    Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hay, John

    Nlcholls, Harmar

    Woollam, John Victor

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Famham)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

    Heath, Edward

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Godber.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

    Mr. Mitchison: This is the main Clause of the Bill and we have on several occasions expressed our strong objections to it with such conviction, with such sincerity and with such eloquence that
    we do not feel that we can improve on that now.
    Question put: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 269, Noes 221.

    Division No. 92.]

    AYES

    [5.41 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. C.

    Fell, A.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Finlay, Graeme

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

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fort, R.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Anstruther-Cray, Major W. J.

    Freeth, D. K.

    Llnstead, Sir H. N.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. O.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)

    Ashton, H.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

    Atkins, H. E.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Glover, D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Banks, Col. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chlswick)

    Barber, Anthony

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gower, H. R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Barter, John

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

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

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Green, A.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Grimond, J.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Gurden, Harold

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

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Black, C. W.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Body, R. F.

    Harrison, A, B. C. (Maldon)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardlgan)

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

    Marlowe, A. A. H,

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

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marples, A. E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Harvey, John (Walthanutow, E.)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mathew, R.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hay, John

    Mawby, R. L.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craighton)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

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

    Bryan, P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

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

    Heath, Edward

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Naim, D. L. S.

    Carr, Robert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Neave, Airey

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Holt, A. F.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hernsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Cole, Norman

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Howard, John (Teat)

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hudson Sir Austin (Lewitham, N.)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

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

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Narthwood)

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Osborne, C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Page, R. G.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Davidson, viscountess

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pllkington, Capt. R. A.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Pott, H. P.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kaberry, D.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Keegan, D.

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Kirk, P. M.

    Redmayne, M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Storey, S.

    Wade, D. W.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Russell, R. S.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Teeling, W.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Shepherd, William

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

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

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Speir, R. M.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Woollam, John Victor

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

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Viekers, Miss J. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Godber.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mason, Roy

    Anderson, Frank

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Balfour, A.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bartley, P.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hale, Leslie

    Monslow, W.

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

    Hall, Rt. Hn.Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

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

    Hamiton, W. W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)

    Benson, G.

    Hannan, W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Beswick, F.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Moss, R.

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

    Hastings, S.

    Moyle, A.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Healey, Denis

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Boardman, H.

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

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Oliver, G. H.

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

    Holman, P.

    Oram, A. E.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Holmes, Horace

    Orbach, M.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oswald, T.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Owen, W. J.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Padley, W. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hughes, Ctedwyn (Anglesey)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parker, J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Paton, J.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pearson, A.

    Carmichael, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Popplewell, E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. C. A.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Janner, B.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

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

    Probert, A. R.

    Clunie, J.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Pryde, D. J.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rankin, John

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Reeves, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Reid, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Rhodes, H.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Daines, P.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    de Freitas, Ceoffrey

    Ledger, R. J.

    Ross, William

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Royle, C.

    Dye, S.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Logan, D. G.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    McGhee, H. G.

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

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Sparks, J. A.

    Fienburgh, W.

    MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Steele, T.

    Finch, H. J.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fletcher, Erio

    Mahon, S.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    804

    805

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Warbey, W. N.

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

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Weitzman, D.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    West, D. G.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Thornton, E.

    Wigg, George

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Timmons, J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Sbort and Mr. Deer.

    Clause 2.—(POWER TO ABOLISH OR REDUCE SUBSIDIES.)
    Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after "may" to insert:
    "at any time after the expiry of a period of two years beginning on the passing of this Act and thereafter."
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to consider the Amendment in page 2, line 21, after "may" to insert:
    "at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six and thereafter."
    Mr. Lindgren: That suggestion is quite acceptable to us, Sir Rhys. The Minister has said repeatedly during the discussions on Clause 1 that he has no desire to stop, prevent or hinder the procedure of housing for general needs. The effect of this Amendment is to prevent the Minister from altering the subsidy allowed in the Bill for a period of at least two years.
    We all know that the hindering of development for housing needs is dependent very largely on whether or not local authorities have confidence in their being able to arrange programmes, even if they believe that, with the subsidy as it is in the Bill, they can proceed with such schemes. The most likely thing to hinder local authorities in proceeding with schemes is the inability to programme ahead with any degree of certainty.
    We have had subsidies in regard to housing under various Bills for many years, and it has been understood by local authority associations that there should be discussions, generally yearly, as to the intentions of the Government, which in days gone by provided two-thirds of the subsidy, as to whether or not the subsidy was to continue in the form then provided. In that way local authorities have known with a degree of certainty when they started to make plans that they had a reasonable right to expect that when they come to fruition the local
    806
    authorities would receive the subsidy under the conditions in which they conceived their plans.
    In housing subsidies, as in many other matters in local government and in industry and in all things associated with Parliament, under the Labour Government there was the greatest degree of stability that local authorities have ever known. During the whole of the time that local authorities were building houses at the request of the Labour Government the subsidy stood at the same figure from 1945 to 1951—the lifetime of the Labour Government. It stood then at the figure of £16 10s. from the central fund and £5 10s. from the local authority's rate fund, making a total subsidy of £22. Of course, when the Tory Government came in there was an immediate pay-off to the financiers, their friends, an increase in the interest rates and the raising of the subsidy because of the increased interest rates to £26 14s. from the central authority and £8 18s. from the local authority to the total of £35 12s. That was varied in April, 1955, to a subsidy of £22 Is. from the central authority and £7 7s. from the local authority, a total of £29 8s. That subsidy has been altered by the Bill in November, 1955, to £10.
    The local authorities have said in no uncertain terms to the Minister that they require a greater degree of stability and the knowledge that they are likely to be able to prepare their plans with greater certainty for the future. The Minister has said that, although the Bill gives him the right to end the £10 subsidy at any time, he intends to carry it on for a year or two. We do not think that a casual phrase by the Minister—if I am being unkind in calling it a casual phrase, I will say a phrase used by the Minister in his Second Reading speech—is good enough, particularly in relation to this Government, for a local authority to take it as a guarantee that the subsidy is likely to remain at that figure for the length of

    807
    time that has been mentioned. Therefore, we desire by this Amendment to make it explicit that for at least two years, even at the miserable subsidy of £10, local authorities, looking at the plans for general housing need, will know at the time they set out to acquire sites, offer tenders and accept tenders that they will at least have that subsidy to assist them in their general housing accounts and their apportionment of the figure for rent.
    Mr. A. Evans: I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of the Amendment. He is taking the power completely to abolish the housing subsidy for general need. The Clause will enable him to reduce the subsidy, abolish it, or even to reduce the period for which the reduced subsidy shall be paid.
    I think that everyone in the Committee and in local government generally will agree that the power which the Minister seeks to take in this Clause is considerable. It gives him power forthwith to cease the payment of subsidy on houses for general need. All that he has to do is to bring in an Order and lay it on the Table. From the date of that Order, the subsidy for general housing need will cease to operate. It is not necessary for him to give any warning to the local authorities. He can precipitately and suddenly cut off the subsidy entirely for general housing need.
    Mr. Powell Mr. Powell indicated dissent
    Mr. Evans: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I know that in the Clause there is a provision that the Minister shall consult such local authority organisations as he thinks should be consulted. That is the only limitation upon the Minister's arbitrary power to abolish the housing subsidy for general need—the requirement that he shall consult with such local government associations as he deems suitable.
    The Minister knows very well that when he last consulted the local authority associations his consultation was rather in the form of telling them what he intended to do. He said, "This is what I am going to do and you must accept it." No attempt was made to arrive at a reasonable arrangement with the local authorities. It was merely a question of the Minister meeting them and telling them
    808
    that he proposed to carry out certain things and, whether they liked them or not, they would have to accept them.
    6.0 p.m.
    After that experience the local authorities do not value greatly the consultation which the Minister must have with them before he decides to abolish or reduce the housing subsidy for general need. The right hon. Gentleman should give them as much warning as possible of his intention to reduce or abolish the subsidy, if only for the sake of the smooth running of house building. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman desires to help the local authorities as much as possible within the terms of this Bill, because any Minister of Housing would wish to do so.
    It would not be difficult for the Minister to give the local authorities such a warning because he will know in advance that the time will arrive when he will think it suitable to reduce or abolish the subsidy. His advisers will tell him and he will lay the Order upon the Table. Why will not the Minister give the local authorities the benefit of as much advance warning as possible? That is a reasonable request for us to make.
    My hon. Friend has adduced all the arguments why the local authorities should not have their programmes suddenly interfered with and their plans disrupted by sudden changes in subsidy rates. I urge the Minister to do all he can to give as much notice as possible to the local authorities who have the difficult task of planning and building houses. If the right hon. Gentleman will only follow that sensible course, the local authorities will be grateful and slum clearance and building for general need will go forward.
    Although the Amendment specifies two years, I am sure that my hon. Friends are not wedded to that period, but we ask the Minister to see what he can do to give the local authorities as much notice as possible.
    Mr. Sparks: I support this Amendment, which is fair, but very moderate, because the minimum period should have been at least five years Indeed, the Clause should have been rejected because it aims a major blow at the housing programmes of local authorities. Despite the belief of the right hon. Gentleman that housing for general purposes will continue, he may find that it may not after

    809
    a year or two. The net result will be that housing for general purposes will be considerably less, if it is not completely extinguished. Therefore, this Amendment is a moderate one in proposing a period of only two years in which the right hon. Gentleman should not vary any further the rates of subsidies and should not carry out his threat to abolish all subsidies on housing for general purposes.
    The Minister should realise that his announcement last November placed local authorities in great difficulty because they did not anticipate this fatal blow. When it came, it left in great difficulty a number of local authorities which had spent large sums of money on acquiring land and which had not at that date produced tenders for the Minister to approve. As a consequence they found themselves saddled with land upon which they expected to receive a full rate of subsidy. They now find that the reduced rate of subsidy applies and that, if they do not develop that land within twelve months, they run the risk of having no subsidies. So I feel that the; right hon. Gentleman should not rush this matter as he is. It is not the way to treat our great local authorities which are carrying out a responsible job for the State and doing a fine job of work for the people in providing housing accommodation.
    The Amendment is intended to provide for a period of at least two years during which the local authorities can consolidate what they have already undertaken. If it is accepted, they can do this knowing that during the period of stability they can properly assess their financial commitments, and that any land which they have acquired can be developed within the two years to receive the benefit of what subsidy there is. The Amendment would also give them a period in which to make up their minds whether they can undertake further schemes for general housing, or to what extent they will have to run these down to meet the new circumstances.
    In view of the modesty of this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman should accept it as evidence of good faith towards the local authorities. It is desirable to give them this period in which to consolidate their plans in the knowledge that the subsidies will not be varied during that time.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Bill as drafted empowers the Minister to make an order under this Clause at a date prior to the date upon which the local authorities become relieved of their obligation to make contributions out of the general rate fund. The purpose of my Amendment, in page 2, line 21, is to draw attention to the fact that when the Bill was first published it was not known what would be the timetable of its progress. Yet the fact that the Minister was empowered to make an order reducing the subsidy before the local authorities were relieved of their obligation under Clause 8 is an illustration of the precipitate fashion in which the Minister proposes to proceed. Because his process is precipitate, I support the submissions on this point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren).
    Mr. Michael Stewart: My hon. Friends who have spoken in support of this Amendment have made a powerful general case for it. I wish to reinforce what they have said by drawing attention to a recent event in my own constituency which brings out forcibly the reason why it is extremely undesirable at present to do anything which may discourage local authorities from the provision of housing for general need. The Clause, as it now stands, would have that effect; the Amendment would at least mitigate the evil.
    There is in my constituency a block of flats known as the Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions, intended for, and used by, the families of men disabled in the service of their country in both world wars. It happens with all such foundations that from time to time a tenant dies leaving a widow who is normally expected to find accommodation elsewhere so that the flat can be made available to other ex-Service men. The number of men requiring, and who might profit by, such accommodation is always considerable.
    The position of the widow presents the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation with a problem of some delicacy. On the one hand, it does not wish to appear in the position of someone trying to evict the widow from what had been her home. On the other hand, it does not wish a flat intended for the use of a disabled ex-Service man and his family not to be so used for a long period.

    811
    During recent years the problem has been dealt with to some extent by the fact that the two local authorities concerned, the Fulham Borough Council and the London County Council, could cooperate in helping such widows to find accommodation. The size and severity of the problem facing the Foundation is thus in part determined by the extent to which the local authorities can provide housing for general need.
    The situation recently has been that both local authorities have found it harder to make room for even a single extra case. The borough council is faced with the very severe problem of the rehousing of families from clearance areas. The L.C.C., proportionate to its resources, is faced with the same problem in almost the same degree. Both authorities are being obliged to say that it is extremely difficult for them to offer accommodation to anyone except families coming from clearance areas.
    The borough council has been put almost entirely in that position and recent acts of Government policy on housing have not made it any easier for it to overcome its difficulties, and its apprehension is that if the Measure passes in its present form the difficulties of the local authority will become even greater. That means that the problem facing such a body as the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation will become all the more acute because the possibility of widows finding accommodation elsewhere is being gradually reduced to nothing. If the Clause passes in its present form, that will represent another blow at such a prospect.
    What has happened as a result of all this? The Foundation has recently sent a letter to all the widows, of whom there are nine, now living in Foundation flats, pointing out, with justification, that it has sought in the past to treat the problem sympathetically and not ungenerously by not exerting undue pressure on the widow to leave her flat and by foregoing any payment of rent during the first three months of widowhood. The Foundation now says that, while preserving that provision and not taking any rent during the first three months of widowhood, it will, after the period of widowhood has lasted twelve months, require that the standard rent for the flat, which is 14s. 6d. per
    812
    week, to be raised by 5s. per week, and after another three months by another 5s., and so on, until it finally reaches the alarming figure of 39s. 6d. per week.
    That is the kind of situation which is being created because of the difficulty of local authorities in providing sufficient accommodation to meet general needs. It is a situation which will be rendered more acute if the Clause is passed in its present form. It is a situation which would be in some degree—I would not overstress it—mitigated if the Amendment, or something like it, were accepted. The purpose and effect of the Amendment would be to make it at any rate a little easier for local authorities to provide housing to meet general needs and would remove at least one of the discouragements to them in that process which now exists in the Bill.
    I instance this as an individual example which brings home the need not to do anything discouraging the provision of housing for general needs. The Foundation's gesture in increasing the rent from 14s. 6d. to 39s. 6d. pec week cannot solve its problem.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is carrying his illustration a little too far.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sorry, Sir Rhys. I did not wish to do that. However. I submit that it is important when we are discussing a Bill of this kind, containing so much legal and administrative matter, that occasionally we should remind ourselves that behind that matter there lie a number of very personal and burning human problems. I hoped not to delay the Committee unduly in drawing attention to the one to which I have referred.
    The Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation is making a gesture which cannot really solve its difficulties, because it cannot bring accommodation into existence by the device of raising the rent. The Minister might be able to help if he would not only look favourably at the Amendment but also reconsider much that is in the Bill. The action of the Foundation is really a gesture of despair, the kind of despair which is being created among local authorities and others responsible for providing housing by the policy of which the Bill and the Clause are part.

    813
    When this kind of problem is being created—I do not say that it is more than one of many examples which could be quoted—this is not the time to approve of a Clause which will add immediately to the insecurity and uncertainties of local authorities and make it ever harder for them to provide housing accommodation to meet general needs.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I support the Amendment and beg the Minister to accept it, not only for the reasons which have been given but because it seems to me that the Bill and, particularly, the Clause, which enable the Minister to abolish even the slum clearance subsidy, are not only making difficulties for local authorities but are in direct contradiction to the advice which the Minister's Department has been giving to local authorities.
    One thing essential in connection with any kind of housing is that the local authority shall look two or three years ahead. It is impossible to imagine local authorities being able to deal with slums under this Measure without taking the-trouble to look several years ahead in the planning and programming of their work. In any case, it takes up to two years to complete the procedure under the slum clearance legislation. The Clause which we wish to amend gives the Minister power to abolish or reduce any housing subsidy for a house or a site even though the local authority may have been planning carefully for the last four or five years to do the work.
    Reading through the Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for 1950–51 to 1954, I discovered that the policy of the Department—and a good policy it is—is to advise local authorities to look at least three years ahead. That means that local authorities are advised to commit themselves to heavy capital expenditure for at least three years ahead.
    I should like to read to the Committee the advice given in page 6 of this very interesting Report. It says:
    "A steady supply of sites for both local authority and private building is essential for continuity of house building. In the choice of a site, regard must be had not only to its physical suitability for building, and the availability of services; but also to the general proposals for the planning of the area and the settled Government policy of avoiding, so far as possible, encroachment on food-
    814
    producing land. In consequence, the selection of sites has sometimes been a long and difficult task, and local authorities were advised, as mentioned above, to plan their land purchase at least three years ahead."
    If we are to tell local authorities that they must plan their purchases of land at least three years ahead—they will have to buy it if only for slum clearance—it is unfair of the Minister to take powers to abolish or reduce the subsidy merely by bringing an Order to the House.
    Local authorities are up in arms, as was evidenced by discussions a few days ago at a conference of urban district councils, when there was passed a resolution condemning the Bill. Local authorities are very worried and, if the Clause is unamended, it will mean that the Government are saying one thing in the Bill and another as administrators of the country's housing. That is inconsistent and I therefore urge the Committee to accept this very reasonable Amendment.
    Mr. Denis Howell: I want to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), because the Clause puts local authorities, especially those of any size, in an administratively impossible position. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will clarify his early remark—I think his actual words were "about a year or so"—and let us know precisely what is the Government's intention about taking advantage of the Clause and ending the housing subsidy, as, unfortunately, they intend to do.
    Any large authority is already in considerable difficulties in planning ahead. Certainly, that applies to my authority, Birmingham Corporation. In consideration of the complexities of housing allocation and housing rents for priority cases and similar difficulties, one can see at once that the position is growing more acute. The uncertainty to which the Clause gives rise adds to those considerable difficulties.
    From time to time we have difficulties caused through eviction. At no time can a local authority possibly be aware of the number of people to be evicted at one stroke of the pen in a county court and thereby added to the authority's housing register. It is a growing evil and bordering on the scandalous that each year thousands of families—hundreds in Birmingham—are added to the housing lists

    815
    of local authorities after a hearing of a minute or two in a county court, if the defendant has not been sufficiently fortunate to afford legal representation.
    If local authorities could be told that they would have two years from today, or, even better, two years' notice from the time the Government decide, that would help the position. Local authorities have to consider not only the evicitions, but other priority cases which any local authority wants to house in accordance with its rebate scheme—particularly as all the time the Government are urging local authorities to adopt rebate schemes or something similar.
    It so happens that in Birmingham we have a pool subsidies plan and we have more than 180 different rents for our municipal houses. It can be seen that unless we have adequate notice as to the Government's precise intentions about subsidies, municipal tenants in Birmingham will not be acquainted with their future rent position. Birmingham Corporation will not have an adequate opportunity to consider the new situation which the complete abolition of subsidies will create. The same, of course, applies up and down the country and especially to other large towns.
    This is an extremely modest proposal. Its very moderation should commend it to the Minister, but it is absolutely essential on the grounds of logic, good planning and what is mechanically feasible in local government that the Amendment should be accepted and that local authorities should have two years' notice of the Government's intention to abolish the £10 subsidy.
    I hope that for good local government and to ensure a good relationship between the central government and local authorities the Amendment will be carried—although we do not like the provisions of the Clause and, in fact, bitterly object to them. We should then at least give local authorities reasonable time to weigh the effect of the Clause upon subsidies and housing rents generally and to meet the situation in a sane and orderly manner.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: We have been discussing two Amendments. The first, which was moved by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), asks that no
    816
    reduction or abolition of subsidies shall take place for two years after the passing of the Bill. In support of that, the hon. Member for Wellingborough went over the history of the Labour Government's administration of housing subsidies. He prided himself on the fact that under the Labour Government there was the greatest degree of stability. He went on to say that subsidies stood at the same level during the six years of the Labour Government. That, of course, is quite true, but it is a most misleading statement.
    Mr. Sparks: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that truth is misleading in that case?
    Mr. Sandys: It very often is. It is a completely correct statement, but it is most misleading when advanced in support of the suggestion that the value of the subsidies provided throughout the period of the Labour Government was maintained. As we all know, the nominal value of the subsidies remained at the same level, but their real value progressively declined as the value of money declined with the galloping inflation that took place.
    Mr. Sparks: It is going on now.
    Mr. Sandys: I am saying that it is impossible to claim that the value of the subsidies was maintained. It was being progressively cut by the fall in the value of money. I am merely suggesting that this claim of the hon. Gentleman is an empty one.
    The hon. Member for Islington, Southwest (Mr. A. Evans) and the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) both complained—I think this was the most important argument advanced—that under this Clause local authorities would receive no advance warning of any reduction in subsidy, and that that was not fair. Local authorities will get much more warning than was provided by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, which has been held up to us on different occasions as a model in these matters. I hope that in fairness the Committee will give due weight to the fact that, under this Bill, any reduction in the subsidies will apply only to houses for which tenders are approved after the date specified in the Order. That is to say, that

    817
    any cut in the subsidy, any future reduction will affect only houses which were not started at the date when the cut was made.
    Mr. A. Evans: Will not the Minister agree that it would be impossible for him to apply a cut to houses for which tenders have been approved?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman has greatly helped me, because in the 1946 Act the Minister is enabled to cut the subsidy without warning in respect of any house completed the day after the Order is made.
    Mr. Sparks: But did he?
    Mr. Sandys: We are talking about the provisions of this Bill. We can discuss what happened afterwards on another occasion, but at the moment we are discussing the powers to be given to the Minister.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to accept the precedent that he has told us about, and follow it in the next year or two?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. [Laughter.] I am sorry, but I think this is pertinent. Hon. Members opposite complain that this Bill provides powers to cut the housing subsidies without proper warning—
    Mr. Sparks: Yes.
    Mr. Sandys: —but they are the very people who introduced the 1946 Housing Act which, as I have already said, provides powers for the Minister to cut the subsidies with immediate effect. The Order has to be affirmed by this House within 40 days and then takes effect immediately. Therefore, under the 1946 Act it was quite possible for a local authority to plan a house; obtain a tender, get it approved and go ahead with the building of the house on the assumption that it would receive a subsidy at a certain rate. Then, perhaps within a few days of the completion of the house, the authority might find that the subsidy had been reduced.
    Those are the powers provided by the 1946 Act, in which it is stated:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may from time to time by order provide in relation to new houses completed after such date…"
    818
    That is the point. It applied to the date of the completion of the house, whereas this Bill is much more reasonable and applies to the date when tenders are approved. Apart from the question of land, no authority can, under the provisions of this Bill, enter into a financial commitment in respect of the building of a house without knowing in advance what subsidy they will get. That was not possible under the 1946 Act.
    Mr. David Weitzinan: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted as a precedent something which was done by the Labour Government which he describes as wrong. Why should that be a justification for the right hon. Gentleman doing something wrong now?
    Mr. Sandys: It is a justification for our putting it right. That is what we are doing. We are not repeating that wrong in this Bill; we are not providing that the Minister shall have power to change the subsidy in respect of houses completed after the date of the Order. We are providing that any change in the subsidy shall apply only to houses in respect of which a tender has not been approved before the Order is made.
    Mr. Weitzman: It is wrong.
    Mr. Sandys: I think I have made myself clear on that point and that I need not go over the matter again. There is no doubt that this Bill gives far more warning than was provided under the 1946 Act.
    Mr. W. G. Cove: It is a long way back to 1946.
    Mr. Sandys: The provisions of that Act have been operated up to now, and are still operated. Our action is a vast improvement so far as local authorities are concerned.
    Mr. A. Evans: Surely the Minister should address himself to the argument. He quotes the 1946 Act, but he will know that conditions then were different from conditions today. He will realise that in this Clause he is taking power to abolish the subsidies entirely, which is an unprecedented step. All we ask is that he should give fair warning. Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the question of the lack of warning? Will he answer the point that, under the terms of

    819
    this Clause, local authorities are faced with the cessation or abolition of the subsidies?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a point to which I was addressing myself. The last time he interrupted me the hon. Gentleman was very helpful. He gave me my cue and he must not complain if I dealt with the 1946 Act at length. He provoked me into doing so
    Mr. Sparks: It is a very weak point.
    Mr. Sandys: I think it is an absolutely overwhelming point and knocks the ground from under the feet of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why they wish to get on to some other issue. The attitude of the party opposite today is very different from their attitude when they were in office, and approved the Clause to which I have referred. That was their own provision in the 1946 Act. They did not then want to postpone any reduction of subsidy for a period of two years, as is now proposed.
    It is no use saying that this Bill provides that the subsidies can be abolished, and that the 1946 Act provided only that they could be reduced. It is possible to reduce a subsidy to a point where, so far as local authorities are concerned, it would make little difference whether it was reduced or abolished. There is no material difference between the powers provided under this Clause and those provided in the 1946 Act, except that the powers provided in this Clause give a much greater degree of flexibility. In other words, it is possible to reduce the subsidy in respect of certain categories of houses—and not necessarily the precise categories which appear in the Bill—without having to reduce the subsidies in respect of other categories.
    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. That tended to be the position, in certain respects, under the 1946 Act. In that case he could reduce only the precise categories defined in the Act—and the whole category or nothing
    820
    at all. That is the main difference between that Act and this Bill.
    I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the 1946 Act, besides providing power to reduce the subsidy with the little warning to which I have already referred, also imposed upon the Minister the duty of reviewing the position and reporting to Parliament whether a reduction was desirable. The first such review had to take place in December, 1946, namely, in the same year as that in which the Act was passed. That all showed a fairly good intention on the part of the Government to make quite sure that if any reductions were justified the opportunity would not be missed. [Interruption,] I am talking about the powers provided by the Bill. If the Committee stage is not concerned with a discussion of the terms of the Bill I do not know why we are meeting here. I know that it is uncomfortable for hon. Members opposite to have it pointed out to them how very much more reasonable are the provisions of the Bill than those of the 1946 Act—which is now in force—in the amount of warning given to local authorities.
    Mr. Sparks: This Government is the only one which has used those provisions. Nobody else has.
    Mr. Sandys: We have certainly not used the Bill, because it is not yet an Act of Parliament. Unlike the 1946 Act the Bill does not lay down any time limit within which the Minister must consider reducing the subsidy.
    I have been asked about our intentions. The Committee knows that they are to abolish the £10 subsidy for general needs within a year or so.
    Mr. Sparks: What does "within a year or so" mean?
    Mr. Sandys: The English language is reasonably plain. I can say "within a year or more," if the hon. Member likes that better. Our intention is not to be too precise.
    Mr. Sparks: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not, in fact, intend to reduce the subsidy at all?
    Mr. Sandys: That was not the meaning which I intended to convey. Our intention is to abolish the £10 subsidy

    821
    for general needs within a year or so, and the purpose of the Amendment is to make that impossible in less than two years. We believe that a certain amount of flexibility in all these matters is desirable. We want to see how things go. I am encouraged by the reactions of local authorities so far. I was very much encouraged by the reactions of the Labour Party Conference in St. Pancras a few days ago. It all gives me reasonable confidence that houses which are needed will go on being built quite satisfactorily with the reduced subsidy.
    Since the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) would make it impossible for us to abolish or reduce the subsidies—I am speaking particularly of the £10 subsidy for general needs—within the two-year period mentioned in the Amendment, it would deprive us of the flexibility which we believe to be desirable, and for that reason I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    A second Amendment, which will be voted upon after this one but which we have debated with it, would have the effect of preventing the Minister from making an Order to reduce or abolish any of the subsidies until after 31st March, 1956. As the Committee has seen, I have been literally leaning over backwards to meet the wishes of the party opposite. I have not put any wax in my ears, like Ulysses. I am prepared to listen to the siren songs of hon. Members opposite. As further evidence of my extreme reasonableness, I propose to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment which is to be moved by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
    Mr. Mitchison: I congratulate the Minister upon accepting any Amendment, considering what he has been doing previously. It shows the beginnings of a repentance which I hope will develop. He will be the first to agree that that step he concurs in is a singularly small one. I am rather tired of this game of"1066 and all that"—or "1946 and all that." Whenever the Government have to justify some provision they get someone to hunt through the Statute Book to try to find another as like it as possible. I shall have very great pleasure in showing the Minister the quite clear distinction not between the language of the 1946 Act
    822
    and this Bill but between the circumstances in 1946 and those which obtain today.
    In 1946 we had a Labour Government, pledged to build many houses, and obviously and seriously intending to do so.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: But they did not.
    Mr. Mitchison: They were in fact embarking, not very long after the end of the war, upon the most comprehensive housing programme that any Government had undertaken. In conjunction with that, they were granting subsidies upon a scale which no previous Government had ever allowed. That was the position in 1946. When everybody knows what is meant, and when everybody knows that the Government are going to carry out what they propose, surely there is some wisdom in taking power to withdraw a little if circumstances subsequently require it?
    What is the position now? The Minister has told us—he told us again today and he has said it many times—that he proposes to cut the fundamental, general needs subsidy to nothing at the end of a year or so. That is what the Clause is about, and how it can be said that these provisions are being put forward in circumstances similar to those in 1946 passes my understanding. The Minister's intentions, as explained by him, are strictly dishonourable in this matter. As at present advised, he intends to diminish housing subsidies as far as he can. He is standing there, holding an axe over the heads of the local authorities.
    All we are asking of him is that he should give them a little more time. He talks about "a year or so," yet his own Ministry has said that at least three years are required to make the plans. The Minister is refusing to give the local authorities two years' peace before starting to cut again. That is what the Amendment is about. It is not a question of a nice comparison of language between one Act and another, but of whether it is fair and reasonable to local authorities to hold this sort of threat over their heads, and not to give them time to settle down even with the greatly reduced subsidies proposed by the Bill.
    Local authorities, big and small, have not the foggiest idea of their financial

    823
    situation. They have just had their rateable values completely altered. That is one of the disturbing factors in the position. All their housing programmes have been knocked over and their plans for local development thrown into confusion. If we want to watch a body of men who do not know where they are, let us look at the borough treasurers. There is no borough treasurer who knows the financial position of his authority, or has the faintest idea how to raise the money that it will require, or what the interest position may be in six months or a year. He is deprived of the stability that he has always had hitherto and is flung into a world of uncertainty where he does not know how to get his money, how much he wants, or how much he will get from the Government or for how long.
    Recognising that local authorities have to plan ahead for a good deal more than six months, we ask the Minister at least to give them two years' peace to discover their financial position and what they can do in housing. No more reasonable request was ever made to a Minister. Not only do local authorities not know where they are; that is true also of the Government. Do the Government know their financial position? Have they the foggiest idea what their financial position will be in a year? They have told us that they will cut these subsidies to nothing in a year or two. What will the monetary position then be?
    These matters have to be reckoned in money; we cannot make them reckonable in terms of beefsteak and bread. The element of money and of average earnings is always used in reckoning housing subsidies. Is it right for the Government to commit themselves and to say, "We shall do this in a year or so," and rush the local authorities, when the Government do not know what the rate of interest will be in a year, what money they will be able to give to the subsidy and, above all, what the needs of the local authorities will be in that respect? What will happen if the Minister finds that the costs of building go up steeply? He will wish he had not introduced the Bill, let alone reduced the subsidy.
    He has committed himself already to reduction. We ask him "Take time. Take a moment to breathe. Let the local authorities have a reasonable period to get their
    824
    plans and finances in order." From that point of view, are two years too much? All of us who have read the Ministry's Report with the care that was devoted to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) think we should ask for three years and not two. Two years are not too much.
    Mrs. Harriet Slater: My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be very pleased to know that he has now been changed into a siren, and a successful one. It is evident that the Minister has decided to harden his heart against the Amendment which we are asking him to accept. He has said he is surprised at the willingness of local authorities to accept his proposals, but I have a letter from my local authority asking me carefully to watch this Clause and particularly this Amendment.
    There is no doubt about the difference between the Bill and Act of 1946, which the Minister has cleverly brought into the debate. They show a difference of approach between the Government and ourselves towards subsidies. We have been told repeatedly by the Tory Party that it is against subsidies when they affect working-class people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] We have only to see what the party did in relation to the cost of living to know whether that is rubbish or not.
    The houses of working-class people will be prevented from being built, under the Bill. That is the intention of the Government. There is no doubt that local authority housing is already being slowed down as a result of the threat of the Bill. The last six months have seen a general slowing down because local authorities do not know where they stand. Housing for the general needs will be particularly affected.
    My hon. Friend's have pointed out that local authorities cannot estimate what their general needs are likely to be. There are special cases, such as of eviction and tuberculosis, which come into general housing needs. I can think of special houses which are needed in areas like my own to relieve people whose houses are affected by mining subsidence. These people have to be put into a council house while the National Coal Board puts their houses into decent repair.

    825
    When a local authority seeks to employ architects, sanitary inspectors to deal with slum clearance, inspectors under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, or people for the medical department or the technical colleges, it usually has to offer them housing accommodation. How can a local authority provide houses for these technicians or for cases of tuberculosis or eviction when they are confronted with uncertainty about the subsidy they will receive? When the Labour Government tried to build up their housing programme they were faced with high prices and shortage of labour and materials. In 1946 they endeavoured to make the building of schools and factories go alongside housing development.
    7.0 p.m.
    Inflation today is not galloping; its speed is supersonic. Local authorities are uncertain about their development
    programmes and how long the subsidy will remain or how far it will go. As the Minister has said, the proposal may mean that it will remain for two years or more, but some of us fear that it will remain for only a very short time. Local authorities are also faced with a great financial problem, and the Government's policy of increasing the interest rate has not helped them to decide what to do about houses.
    I hope that the Minister will consider once more our request that for two years local authorities should know where they stand, and that for that period he will offer them some certainty and security, so that they can go ahead with their programmes.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 252.

    Division No. 93.]

    AYES

    [7.1 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Albu, A. H.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Anderson, Frank

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Balfour, A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Bartley, P.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

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

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lindgren, G. S.

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

    Forman, J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

    Benson, G.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Beswick, F.

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

    MacColl, J. E.

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

    Gibson, C. W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Blackburn, F.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mclnnes, J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Boardman, H.

    Grey, C. F.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Buttomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mahon, S.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

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

    Brock way, A. F.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hannan, W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mason, Roy

    Burke, W. A.

    Hastings, S.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

    Messer, Sir F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Carmichael, J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mltchison, G. R.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Holman, P.

    Moody, A. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Mort, D. L.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Moyle, A.

    Clunie, J.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oram, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Orbach, M.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, T.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Owen, W. J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Daines, P.

    Janner, B.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Dye, S.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, J.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Paton, J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Pearson, A.

    Sheffington, A. M.

    Weitzman, D.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Probert, A. R.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    West, D. G.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Rankin, John

    Steele, T.

    Wigg, George

    Reeves, J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Reid, William

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

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Rhodes, H.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tilery)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Ross, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thornton, E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Short, E. W.

    Timmons, J.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Usborne, H. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Aitken, W. T.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Alport, C. J. M.

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

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Ashton, H.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Balniel, Lord

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Johnson, Erlc (Blackley)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fell, A.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Barber, Anthony

    Finlay, Graeme

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kaberry, D.

    Barter, John

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Keegan, D.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fort, R.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Glover, D.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Body, R. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

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

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

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

    Green, A.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswlck)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Grimond, J.

    Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Bryan, P.

    Gurtien, Harold

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

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

    Carr, Robert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn, Harold (Bromley)

    Cary, Sir Robert

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

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Cole, Norman

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Heath, Edward

    Marples, A. E.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hilt, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mathew, R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

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

    Crowder, Peter (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Cunningham, Knox

    Holt, A. F.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P,

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Howard, John (Test)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewlsham, N.)

    Neave, Airey

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Franham)

    828

    829

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

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Russell, R. S.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Osborne, C.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Page, R. G.

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Shepherd, William

    Wade, D. W.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M,

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Speir, R. M.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Watklnson, H. A.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Pott, H. P.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Price, David (Eastlelgh)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Storey, S.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Redmayne, M.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Teeling, W.

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Godber.

    Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, after "may" insert:
    "at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six and thereafter."—[Mr. A. J. Irvine.]
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out "or of the site of."
    It will have been noticed that the Minister has shown some consideration for authorities who have already embarked upon housing projects to the extent of getting plans submitted and tenders accepted. It is regrettable that he has shown no consideration for those authorities which are in difficulties, usually because of the particular circumstances of their area, over the acquisition of sites. This is a process which takes a very long time and which needs consistency of policy and continuity of support from the Minister if the local authorities are to do their job.
    The Committee has discussed, and this side of the Committee has put forward, a series of Amendments asking the Minister to make concessions to delay the operation of the Bill. We on this side have heard with sorrow that he has rejected one concession after another. In this Amendment we are touching on a subject on which he may feel inclined to make a concession, because the operation of his policy in this case works extremely unfairly between one type of local authority and another.
    His general national policy is to slow down the building of council houses and the provision of housing accommodation for general need. In this case, either by
    830
    accident—at least, I hope it is by accident —or by design he has inflicted a particularly onerous burden on those local authorities whose areas are small and overcrowded and who need to acquire sites which are rare and extremely costly. It is on these two grounds that I am asking for this concession: first, there is the difficulty of finding sites in a borough as small and crowded, for instance, as the borough of Paddington, part of which i represent. Sites become available very rarely, and if they are available a most careful examination has to be made to find out, even if they appear to be suitable for house building or flat building, whether they will be satisfactory for schools and other amenities provided in the neighbourhood. Finding a housing site in a borough is a very different matter from selecting an area of land hitherto undeveloped which can be taken over in a rural area.
    The second point I wish to make concerns the appalling cost of sites in areas of this kind. When a local authority has to pay from £50,000 to £75,000 an acre for land, it needs a long time to think it over and needs to be assured of the cooperation of the Ministry, just as the Ministry needs to be assured that it is a right and proper use of that land.
    7.15 p.m.
    These preliminary processes which are the most important in the housing projects of boroughs like Paddington, are those which take the longest time and which need the most careful preparation. If we are to maintain any semblance of fairness between one type of local authority and another, boroughs like Paddington must

    831
    be assured that they will have the support of the Minister and the country as a whole in acquiring the sites, and acquiring them at a proper subsidised rate. After all, it is not entirely the fault of these boroughs that they are called upon to supply a service to the great cities. I have rarely failed, in debates on this Bill or any others connected with housing, to mention, in the hope of getting a reply from the Minister, the subject of the need for high building in Paddington. Of course, this is not only a Paddington problem; it is a national problem. We have to face the fact that great cities require the regular services of a large number of lower paid people to keep them going day and night, and it is nonsense, as a piece of social policy, to assume that we can go on building at a distance and transport these people back and forth every morning and night so that in the winter they never see the daylight and the fresh air in the country districts which they are supposed to be inhabiting.
    Sooner or later this Government or the next, or this generation or the next, will have to face the need for new technological and architectural developments in the great cities to house the people who have to do the work of those cities. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to make something of a name for himself in backing these developments.
    Technological progress now makes it possible to achieve a new style of high building which has been studied at great length. We have many such experts available who offer their services. Indeed, Paddington enjoys the services of an expert who has been sent all over Europe to study these developments; yet, under the operation of this Minister's policy, this expert is likely to become little more than a slum rent collector in the next few years, unless he is given the opportunity to use the knowledge which he has acquired. These developments cannot take place unless the Minister is prepared to offer help in acquiring the sites, unless he can give a guarantee of continuity and unless he accepts the community's responsibility for providing sites on reasonably equal terms between one housing authority and another. On these grounds, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove from the Bill the power of the Minister to reduce or
    832
    to terminate subsidies payable under Clause 6 in respect of expensive sites. I apologise for continuing the lessons on the 1946 Housing Act, which have just been given by my right hon. Friend, but I must draw attention to the fact that in the 1946 Act—which is the current Housing Act—the power equally exists to reduce not only the general standard rate of subsidy but also the rate of subsidy applicable to expensive sites. So, in that respect there is no innovation in the Bill.
    It is quite true that the time at which it might be desirable to consider a reduction or abolition of the subsidy in regard to expensive sites will not necessarily be the same as that in regard to other subsidies in the Bill. The Committee will have seen that as Clause 2 is drafted the reduction or abolition can take place in respect of any or any selection of the subsidies provided by the Bill. Nevertheless, it is desirable that the power should be in the Bill.
    The subsidy in respect of expensive sites includes an element related to the cost of the development of the site, including the foundation works. If there is a reduction in building costs generally those costs also, presumably, will be affected. But the main reason I put before the Committee is this: this is a Bill of which the two main objects are to achieve slum clearance and the expediting of overspill. If it succeeds in the second of those objects and if over the next few years we have real progress in decongestion of our great cities the necessity for encouraging building upon expensive sites on the scale provided for in this Bill may diminish.
    Mr. Sparks: Not in Paddington.
    Mr. Powell: If we are setting before ourselves an aim we must envisage the consequences of achieving or making progress towards that aim. If there is substantial progress towards decongestion not only in London but in great cities generally it may well follow that the necessity for this degree of encouragement to build on expensive sites may decline and it would be convenient to have the power to take action to that effect.
    May I make a further point. This emphasises again that as Clause 2 is drawn the Minister has great flexibility in his use of the power to reduce and abolish and could do so in any combination of

    833
    circumstances, whether locally or in point of time. So the circumstances of areas which the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) has particularly in mind would not be ruled out of account in considering whether to make an Order under Clause 2.
    Mr. Parkin: I was very anxious that the Minister's statement should not be interpreted as a policy of his Ministry showing a bias for overspill outwards and a complete rejection of overspill upwards. Would this not be a convenient moment for him to say that he is accepting the fact that overspill outwards is not the complete solution and that he recognises we have to build upwards? I hope that he will at the same time encourage both processes. The words he used rather gave the impression that he was rejecting high building and concentrating on spilling over to the countryside.
    Mr. Mitchison: I found that about the most unconvincing Ministerial answer I have every heard. The hon. Gentleman must invent a new Government misstatement of policy. He goes on saying that this is a Bill to encourage slum clearance and overspill. It is nothing of the sort. It is a Bill to cut subsidies and all he has done is. in certain respects, to omit to cut them, with the final result that the total amount of slum clearance will be rather less than it was before but undoubtedly not the complete disappearance of slum clearance, as would be the case if he had treated it as he is treating general needs.
    Having answered that one, not for the first time, and trusting that the hon. Gentleman will think of a new one next time, I will not repeat what has already been said about the 1946 Act. The circumstances were entirely different and the point now is that the Minister has told the country that he intends to cut the general needs subsidy in a year or so. But he has not said a word about cutting the subsidy on expensive sites. In the interests of Paddington and other places similarly situated in the middle of big towns, may I ask: does he really intend to do so? The answer so far was the usual Ministerial answer, "Well, it might be necessary to do it, so we will take the power."
    I shall have something to say later about the whole of this Clause from that
    834
    point of view. If Parliament is asked for a power of this sort the Minister ought to be able to say more than, "I may need to do it if circumstances change sufficiently." Surely the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend ought either to be able to say, "We do need this power because we can see that we shall have to cut the expensive site subsidy"—I earnestly hope the Minister will not say that, he certainly has not said it so far —or,"Having thought the matter over we will confine ourselves to the powers we really need instead of taking a lot which we may or may not need."
    It seems to me that the essential point about this expensive site subsidy is that it necessarily requires a lot more previous consideration, planning and negotiation than in the case of any ordinary site. In the nature of the case one is dealing with highly valuable land. One is dealing with land in the middle of big towns where, usually, there is not one but many interests to deal with. One has to consider not merely what is to be done on that particular site but the effect of what one is going to do on the housing, on the industry and on the general layout of the area for which one is responsible.
    For all those reasons I should have thought that an expensive site subsidy was essentially one which required more than the stability that is given to the dwellings site. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman either to accept the Amendment or at least to say to us, "We had not really considered the particular problems of Paddington and such places before. We will think over this matter and see whether we really need the power we are taking here. If we find we do not really need it but only if something improbable happens—like the return of another Tory Government—we might use it." They could then come to Parliament again if and when they find this power is necessary.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "the order" and to insert "this Act."
    I think it would be convenient to consider at the same time my Amendments in lines 28, 30 and 41.
    The Chairman: That is so.
    Mr. Irvine: This is in the nature of a drafting point and, as such, it is not without importance. As the Bill is worded, the Minister may make an order
    "in respect of…dwellings of any description specified in the order."
    This has the result that, on a strict view, it is open to the Minister to put all kinds of arbitrary descriptions in the order. I am sure that that is not his intention and is not likely to be the intention of any Minister for a long time to come, but as reference has been made to the desirability of getting the terms of the Bill correct and properly conveying the intentions of Parliament, it seems desirable that this loose wording and this opportunity of arbitrariness on the part of the Minister should be avoided.
    As the Bill is drafted, it is open to the Minister to make an order reducing the subsidies for houses of any description specified in the order—it might be, for example, houses lived in by redheads or houses dwelt in by ex-Cabinet Ministers. He can make any kind of arbitrary and senseless description. I hope that the Government will desire to avoid this. It is a sloppy piece of draftsmanship.
    I have no doubt that what is intended is that there shall be set out in the order the descriptive words describing particular categories of dwelling which are referred to elsewhere in the Bill. My Amendment? suggests that the best way of overcoming this difficulty is to provide that in the order the Minister should refer only to a specific class of dwelling in categories which are referred to and described elsewhere in the Bill and there appear. There may be other ways round the difficulty, but the difficulty is a real one.
    I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the point. There are more important matters to be determined, and I raise the question because I have every hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to consider the proposal and its merits. If I could be sure that they will do this, I would not desire to press the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: I suggest that the Clause is not drawn sloppily but is convenient for certain practical purposes. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) indicated, it enables the Minister, in the order which reduces or abolishes subsidy, to subdivide the categories specifically mentioned in the Act and to
    836
    reduce or abolish the subsidy in respect of part only of any of the descriptions specified in the Act.
    I can say at once that the wording would not permit the Minister, as the hon. Member perhaps jocularly suggested, to discriminate against any class of tenant, because the words of the Clause are
    "dwellings of any description specified in the order."
    Circumstances can readily be conceived in which power to subdivide descriptions would be useful. For example, the overspill subsidy may lose its relevance and utility in some parts of the country long before it does in other parts. It may, therefore, be convenient to narrow its operation to the areas where there is still a congestion problem.
    To take the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), we can look forward to progress in building techniques which will alter the cost factors in high buildings and thus alter the considerations upon which the expensive site subsidy in Clause 6 is constructed. Account could not be taken of those technical changes and of that technological progress unless there were the power to subdivide the description in Clause 6 in the making of an order reducing the subsidy.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not quite follow. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain further? He says that an order might be made de-limiting an area, but an overspill scheme has to be classified as such before it can attract subsidy. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's purposes would be met merely by refusing to consider a certain scheme as an overspill scheme. There is no need to limit the order to a particular part of the country to achieve that result.
    Mr. Powell: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that administratively the operation of the relevant paragraphs of Clause 3 (3) could be limited. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there can be circumstances, of which I have given other examples, in which a subdivision of the category could be useful. As the House has, after all, to approve the order affirmatively, we can rely upon any future House of Commons to restrain a Minister from using this power in a discriminatory or unreasonable manner. I suggest, therefore, that

    837
    the Committee should not deprive itself of a potentially convenient form of drafting.
    Mr. Irvine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Mitchison: My next two Amendments, in page 2, lines 24 and 28, are intended to limit the Minister's powers under the Clause, in the one case by depriving him of the power to eliminate subsidies altogether, and in the other case by setting a time and quantity limit to the stages of reduction. The substantial point has already been put in the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause and, in view of the Minister's declared attitude on that, I see no purpose in moving these Amendments.
    Mrs. Freda Corbet: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that no order shall be made by the Minister under this section in respect of dwellings provided by a local authority in the exercise of their powers to provide housing accommodation (or by a development corporation or housing association in pursuance of authorised arrangements with that local authority) and for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced in order to abate overcrowding.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to endeavour to put into the Bill some restraint upon the Minister, who may at some time or other decide to abolish the general subsidy in respect of a category of housing which is important in many areas of the country. I refer to the provision of housing for the purpose of mitigating overcrowding.
    I know that an attempt has been made to retain the higher rate of subsidy for housing built for that purpose, but it has not been successful. My colleagues and I, therefore, are asking for much less. We are prepared to accept the lower rate of general housing subsidy for this essential purpose, and we are asking that the Minister shall at no time do away with that general subsidy for this purpose.
    I plead my cause with some seriousness. Before the war, there were two categories of housing for which subsidies were payable. One was for slum clearance which the Minister, of course, is now treating with due respect. The other was for the relief of overcrowding. I regret to say that the same respect is not being
    838
    accorded to that part of the general housing problem of local authorities. It would be fair to say that in certain parts of the country the slum clearance problem is more serious than the problem of overcrowding, but London, for example, has perhaps a much smaller problem of slum clearance than is the case in some parts of the Provinces, yet nevertheless has an extraordinarily big problem of overcrowding.
    We have been anxious to combat overcrowding since long before the war. It was not possible even in those days to-have a standard applied to overcrowding which would meet the requirements of the people, but during and since the war the whole matter has had to go by the board. The local authorities simply cannot insist upon their own and other landlords' properties being relieved of overcrowding.
    I hope that the Minister, having seen the Amendment and realised its humble nature, will be prepared to give further consideration to it, if he has not already come to a decision, and will do something to reassure local authorities. The problem must be before the Ministry as before the local authorities, but the local authorities are afraid that at a convenient moment the subsidy will not be available when they want to get on with tackling the problem.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) has reminded the Committee that from 1935 until the outbreak of the war there were two types of subsidy running, as it were, in parallel—the subsidy directed to assist slum clearance and the subsidy directed to combat overcrowding. In this Bill, while a preferential position is accorded to the rehousing of persons from unfit houses, overcrowding falls to be dealt with as part of the general operations of local authorities for meeting general housing needs. The hon. Lady asks what is the reason for the difference of treatment.
    In the first place, the scale of the two problems has altered very greatly since the 1935 Act first introduced a specific subsidy to assist in the relief of overcrowding. The survey which was carried out, following that Act, in 1936 showed that 340,000 dwellings were at that time overcrowded within the statutory definition. So far as can be adduced from the 1 per cent. sample of the 1951 Census,

    839
    the number of families then overcrowded in approximately the same degree—and I am advised that the degree is probably slightly less than the statutory definition of overcrowding—has fallen to 218,000.
    Since then, of course, a further 1½million dwellings have been provided, so that it is reasonable to presume that the numbers of overcrowded families are now substantially lower than they were in 1951. Therefore, there is that first difference between the position as it stood 20 years ago and as it stands today—that the scale of overcrowding, its proportion in the general housing problem, is much less and that the figures afford reasonable hope that it is diminishing.
    7.45 p.m.
    The second reason relates to the manner by which local housing authorities proceed in meeting the needs of their local areas. Most local authorities, in fact, take overcrowding heavily into account in the allocation of tenancies, and all have the power to do so. Therefore, local authorities, in allocating their houses today as they come off the production line, are directing their attention specifically to the diminution of overcrowding and, as long as they have priority lists and points of allocation, most of them will continue to do so.
    On the other hand, they have not the same facilities for concentrating through the general housing waiting list upon the slum problem because, as hon. Members know, very often a family in a slum house will rank very low, even if it appears at all, on a local housing authority's list of priorities. Therefore, there is that logical justification for regarding the combating of overcrowding as part of the provision of the general housing needs while concentrating specifically upon the removal of unfit houses.
    I ask the Committee also to take this point into account. While local authorities can voluntarily and usually do take overcrowding heavily into account in allocating their tenancies, if Parliament legislates on overcrowding and attaches subsidies and obligations to the relief of overcrowding it must do as it did in 1935, and make overcrowding a statutory offence. It is doubtful whether at the present time it would be practicable, or whether it would be helpful for local housing authorities, to do so.
    840
    Therefore, as the two hang together—the proceeding against overcrowding as an offence and the specifying of the relief of overcrowding as an object in a housing Bill—I feel that the Committee would be well advised to leave overcrowding to be dealt with, as it is being not unsuccessfully dealt with at present, by local authorities in the operation of their general housing powers while concentrating, as the Bill does, on the removal of unfit houses.
    Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment is designed to deal with the question whether or not subsidies in aid of the relief of overcrowding should be reduced or eliminated. Very good reasons were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) for that not being done. On the other hand, we had a full debate on the question of overcrowding on an Amendment to Clause 1, upon which the Parliamentary Secretary could very properly have made the speech which he has just made. It was quite in order for him to make it now as it would have been quite in order for him to have made it then. We won such a signal victory in the debate on overcrowding, though it failed to result in the Minister accepting the Amendment, that I should think it somewhat tedious to repeat the reasons which we gave then for giving a special place to subsidies for overcrowding.
    Mrs. Corbet: I do not like to pursue this matter much further, because I appreciate that the Committee has spent some time on the subject. I appreciate the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given and I can understand how they have been arrived at. Nevertheless, I am well aware that there is now a great deal more overcrowding in certain respects. The census in taking account of the number of rooms in a house omits the other information, namely, that a family of four or five which has only one room is really overcrowded, although the house may not appear to be so as far as all the occupants in it are concerned.
    The local authorities, if they are to deal with that problem, have to provide general housing. They may have to do it in the future without any subsidy at all. I assure the Minister that the picture is not nearly as rosy as the census makes it appear to be. I think that what we were anxious to do before the war,

    841
    namely, to make overcrowding an offence, should again be one of our objectives. I know that we want to get rid of unfit buildings, but we also want to get rid of overcrowded lettings both by public and private owners.
    I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that before he does anything about abolishing the subsidy he will consult the local authorities on this point, so that he may obtain their views and see how he might possibly be able to assist them. If the Minister can give me that assurance I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Sandys: I can, of course, give the hon. Lady the assurance, because consultation with the local authority associations is provided for in this Clause.
    Mrs. Corbet: With some sympathy, I hope, to the points which I have been making.
    Mr. Sandys: Always with sympathy.
    Mrs. Corbet: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I do not intend, Sir Charles, to move the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 28, because it again raises the merits of the Bill, which we discussed at length on Clause 1. I do not think that I would be warranted in taking up the time of the Committee and, therefore, I desire not to move the Amendment.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    "or to any site, which is purchased or agreed to be purchased or in respect of which a compulsory purchase order is confirmed on or after that date."
    We have already had a fairly full discussion on the wider issue of including in this Clause the power to cancel or alter the site subsidy as opposed to the dwelling subsidy. Therefore, I am sure that it would be out of order to go over that ground again. The point which I want to make is much more a point of procedure. It is a very much narrower and perhaps more technical point than the more general issue of policy which the Committee has already decided.
    I am still not really clear in my mind why we have the words:
    "…or of the site of,…"
    842
    in line 22, which are not in the 1946 Act and which are a notable departure from that Act. But on the assumption that there is some good reason for keeping them in and that there is to be some action taken in regard to the site subsidies, apart from action in regard to the total subsidy on the dwellings, what I am pleading for, more or less, is further notice to the authorities of the Minister's intention.
    Whatever may be the argument for saying that the change in the subsidy on the dwelling should take place on the acceptance of the tender or on the approval or the application for loan sanction or whatever may be the particular stage, all these stages in a housing operation are usually very much closer together than the acquisition of the site. The acquisition of the site takes place some considerable time before the final decisions are taken about construction and building, and before there can be any question of preparing specifications and going out to tender on the building.
    I am suggesting that if the Minister intends suddenly to intervene and upset the Bill or alter in any material way the basis of the subsidy it is very hard on the more prudent authorities. Apparently, the Minister has never heard of the wise and the foolish virgins, or if he has heard of them he has by unilateral action decided to express his approval of the foolish virgins rather than of the wise. The wise authority plans many years ahead its housing porgramme and thinks, "In five years' time I shall want to develop this site. I had better start acquiring it, prepare a plan, get the sewers laid down, and so on."
    In other words, the authority which does not live from hand to mouth, but tries to plan its capital expenditure and housing programme in a farsighted way will be far more badly caught by a change of policy on the part of the Minister under this Clause than the foolish council which goes about things in a slapdash way and suddenly decides, "Next year we must do something where we can," grabs a convenient piece of land which is very often not the best land available for quick development.
    Therefore, any decision which the Minister makes to alter unilaterally the basis of agreement between the Minister and the local authority about the financial assistance which is to be given should

    843
    only apply in the case of land which is acquired after the date of that action being taken. That would seem to be an eminently reasonable point of view, and one that will encourage the wise and prudent authority, which I am sure is what the Minister wants to do. I hope it will be possible for him to accept an Amendment on this or on comparable, lines, which I am sure will work for the smoothness of the planning of housing. Even if the Minister is determined to do a great deal of damage to municipal housing, I am sure that within the field that is left he wants it to go as smoothy and efficiently as possible.
    Mr. Powell: I do not wish, any more than the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), to go back over our lengthy debates of the King Charles's head of Section 16 of the 1946 Housing Act. I think that the Committee by now realises that a reduction of subsidy under that Section being attached to the completion of houses bit at a much later stage in the incubation of local authority houses than does the reduction under Clause 2, which is attached to the acceptance of a tender or estimate. So that although the much earlier date still, which the hon. Member has in mind, namely the acquisition of the site or even the preparation to acquire the site, is not covered by Clause 2, all the less was it covered by Section 16 of the 1946 Act which is the law at the moment.
    The hon. Member has himself pointed out that the prudent local authority acquires land three years or more in advance of actually beginning building operations. To accept this Amendment would, therefore, mean that no alteration in the subsidies could become effective for at least three and possibly more years after the making of the Order.
    Mr. MacColl: On the site.
    Mr. Powell: Yes. The houses would not be built on the site for three or four or even more years after the making of the Order, the operation of which would be delayed by that amount of time, which is clearly quite out of keeping with my right hon. Friend's policy and with the intention underlying the Bill. But there is no need for local housing authorities to be anxious.
    844
    8.0 p.m.
    Supposing the local housing authority has bought a site in advance of requirements and then decides, after reduction or abolition of the subsidy and, in view of the general housing situation in its area, that it does not want to use this for housing, the possession of that site is no burden on the ratepayers of that area because the site can be disposed of again. And as it has been bought, at most, at market value, it can presumably be disposed of again at market value. So there is no reason to think that authorities which acquire sites in good time can conceivably be exposed to risk by the fact that the subsidies are reduced or abolished after acquisition of those sites.
    Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject an Amendment which, in effect, largely frustrates the intention of the Clause.
    Mr. Mitchison: I must be getting unduly critical of the hon. Gentleman, but I find his replies more and more unconvincing. In this Clause the Minister has recognised the principle that, when the preparations for the building of the dwelling have reached a certain stage, he ought not to go back on what the local authorities, relying on the existing subsidies, have done. We can argue about whether the time limit is long enough; we can argue, of course, about the merits of the Clause; but there can be no dispute that something of the kind is necessary now for dwellings.
    I am not going back to King Charles's head, but the 1946 Housing Act was introduced in entirely different circumstances. The Clause in question was very little used, and I find it the worst argument for a Measure which is proposed now in wholly different circumstances, and for a wholly different purpose, that there is a parallel in the Act of 1946. It seems to me to be proving that rabbits have four legs by saying that elephants have them. They are both animals but there are differences. Equally there are differences between the position in 1946 and the intentions of the Government at that time and the position now and the intentions of the Government today.
    Mr. Sandys: Rabbits do have four legs.
    Mr. Mitchison: Of course they have, except those with myxomatosis, and I do not know what happens to them. If such a limit is necessary for dwellings, why is it not necessary for expensive sites? I do

    845
    not necessarily want to press the Minister to take the exact limit proposed in this Amendment, though it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable in the case of expensive sites, which is what we are talking about. However, I press him to think again before refusing to put in some limit on the expensive site subsidy. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will put the local authorities in an impossible position when they are negotiating about sites, when they may even have bought them or agreed to buy them.
    I cannot resist the impression, not necessarily that someone has forgotten to put in a time limit about expensive sites, but that the point has not received careful consideration. This is not a very contentious matter, but it may make a great difference to some local authorities. So I ask the Minister whether he will not give the Committee an undertaking to reconsider the question of some time limit on the expensive sites in order to make it easier for local authorities to carry out their work. If legislation is to be introduced we are all anxious that this should be done with the minimum of unnecessary friction between the central government and local authorities.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am disappointed with the course taken by the discussion and the statements of the Minister on this Clause. I realise that the Clause raises the entire principle of the Bill, that in effect it is the second step, or the preparations for the second step, in what the Minister proposes to do. Therefore, to some extent, anything one says about it is repetition of the criticisms that were made on Second Reading.
    On the other hand, the Minister is seeking comprehensive powers. The right hon. Gentleman may say that they were sought in 1946, but I have already given the answer that both the circumstances of the time, one year after the war, and the intentions of the Government were entirely different in those days. The Minister tells us he wants this Clause to enable him to reduce the general need subsidy to nothing in a year or so. From the refusal of our Amendments we have gathered he also wants it in order to make
    846
    certain other changes by way of reducing or eliminating other subsidies.
    We have been told nothing definite about those further intentions. The Minister may be able to tell us tonight, but I regard it as constitutionally unsatisfactory if, when such a statement has been made, the Minister in charge of the Bill does not face the need for having a second Bill when the occasion arises, instead of taking general powers of this kind. The Minister could have done much of what is proposed in the Bill by administrative action. It would be out of place to go into details, but the right hon. Gentleman has recognised clearly the necessity for a Bill for making the present reductions in subsidies, and this constitutes a sweeping change not only as regards local authorities but as regards housing the people in this country who need houses, whether it is a general need or a particular one in connection with slum clearance, overcrowding, or whatever the ill may be.
    The Minister has recognised that, and I should have thought that instead of taking these powers the right thing to do would be to come forward again, if and when the occasion arises, with a Bill either to reduce or, dare we hope, to restore the subsidies which will have been removed by this Bill. It would be unusual for the Minister to take power for the restoration of subsidies in this Bill, but in any case he has shut the door on that course. He has left open only the possibility of a reduction or elimination, and with a cynical attitude, in view of some of the protestations of the Government, he has refused even to contemplate the possibility that the country may be able to afford an increase in these subsidies in the future.
    The Minister has said to the local authorities, "Whatever happens to the cost of building, however far inflation may go"—the existence of which everybody recognises and, certainly, the Tory Government—"I will not in any circumstances meet the real needs of local authorities by restoring the subsidies." A short time ago the Minister was taunting the Labour Government with maintaining housing subsidies at a given monetary figure in spite of the rise in prices. The rise in prices is here today. The rise in building costs is here today. The rise in prices is at least as acute as it was immediately after the war, and without the

    847
    good excuse for it then, that it was just after the war. The only reason for the present rise appears to be the persistent policy of the Tory Government.
    Yet in spite of that rise in prices, in spite of that rise in building costs, the only thing that the Minister proposes to do is to cut still further the housing subsidies, to add to the cut already made by the increasing fall in the value of money the monetary cut which he proposes to put into effect in a year's time. We have been told singularly little about it. If the Minister is going to do any more than he has threatened to do, which is to eliminate the general needs subsidy—that is bad enough—he ought to tell us what sort of use he proposes to make of the Clause and when he proposes to make that use of it.
    I am sorely disappointed that he has refused to leave the local authorities at peace and, that the Sword of Damocles will hang over their heads from the end of March. I am equally disappointed at the Minister's refusal to accept our Amendment which would have afforded some protection in the buying of expensive sites. The only Amendment which has been accepted has been a minor one, though the intention of all of them was to make the work of local authorities easier.
    If that is the attitude in which the right hon. Gentleman persists, he must not be surprised if the definite hostility which the local authority associations have shown towards the Bill hitherto is maintained and even aggravated. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that, in spite of having rejected the Amendments placed before him, he will at a later stage consider the questions of principle which have been raised and bring forward an Amendment on Report to meet those points. Failing that, we regard this as a very serious matter indeed. However, let us hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. Sparks: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in his opposition to the Clause, first of all, because it is a most reactionary Clause, and, secondly, because it sounds the death knell of housing for general needs by local authorities.
    If we ask ourselves why the principle of subsidies was ever introduced into the building by local authorities of housing
    848
    accommodation for their people, the answer is that it was because private enterprise was unable to provide what was required. Private enterprise kept our people in slums, in insanitary dwellings and in hovels, and the housing problem of the country got worse and worse until even a Tory Government had to recognise that, if it wanted to stave off what might well have been a revolutionary situation aimed against the social conditions of the people, something had to be done to provide better housing accommodation.
    Consequently, the Government were compelled to encourage local authorities to take over the work which private enterprise had completely failed to do for the simple reason that there was not enough money in it. If private enterprise cannot make a profit, it is not interested in supplying people with anything. Though people might be badly housed, private enterprise considered it of no concern unless it could make money out of it.
    8.15 p.m.
    That situation applies today. I and other hon. Members representing constituencies in the Greater London area, and also in other large cities, know that private enterprise is completely unable to provide the necessary housing accommodation for our lower income groups. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to wages and salaries being higher than they were, but he very conveniently forgot to mention that the cost of living has also gone up considerably and is galloping forward every day as a result of the Government's policy. Despite the fact that wages have risen, we still have low income groups, and when we consider the purchasing power which even high wages provide, we can appreciate that the question of rent is a very important one. The purpose of paying a subsidy is to make it possible for people in the lower income groups to live in decent accommodation at rents which they can afford.
    Earlier the Opposition moved an Amendment, which was rejected by the Minister, in an endeavour to continue the subsidies in areas of comprehensive development under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The answer of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary clearly showed that they did not understand the problem in the slightest degree. I believe that the passing of Clauses 1

    849
    and 2 will very largely sound the death-knell of good planning throughout the country. I believe that the position of most local authorities will be as follows. If they are expected to carry out the provisions of their development plan and they have people to be re-housed, the hon. Gentleman has said that it will be all right for them to re-house people who are in unfit slum houses, for which they will receive a subsidy, although they will not receive a subsidy for any other housing. That does not solve the problem. The problem is that as a rule in an area of comprehensive development the houses are old ones; they may not be slums technically, but they are not far from it. They may be low-rented old houses.
    My constituency is carrying out part of its redevelopment plan and redeveloping an area of bad lay-out, there being poor housing mixed up with small industries. Many houses will be pulled down. People are paying 15s., £1, and in some cases 25s. per week for these houses. We hope to re-house these people somewhere else in the borough if we can find the land. If the subsidy goes, the economic rent of a three-roomed house will be £3 15s. per week. Thus these people will be expected to pay £2 per week more than their present rent. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that the £2 per week can be spread over all the other tenants living in the area. There is a limit beyond which one cannot go. The hon. Gentleman said that he was opposed to the pulling down of houses unless they really were slums. Apart from the technicalities, a local authority has to face the problem from the human point of view. How can it proceed to carry out its development plan knowing full well that a number of people will be displaced from homes for which they are paying perhaps 25s. per week and will be forced into a council flat at £3 15s. per week? As a consequence it will be found that the Bill will be a death blow to redevelopment under the development plans of the planning authorities.
    I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause for those reasons and because it will throw into absolute chaos the housing schemes of local authorities. I do not for a moment accept the Minister's argument that because in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions)
    850
    Act, 1946, provision was made for the subsidies to be terminated without adequate notice that it can be included in this Act. That provision was never exercised. I do not know whether the Minister regarded it as a good thing or as a bad thing. He did not say. He evidently thinks that it is a good thing, because he has taken these powers. If it was a good thing, why is he trying to argue that it was bad?
    In any case in 1946 the position was totally different from what it is now. We were not proposing to abolish housing subsidies. After the war when we were again starting our housing construction subsidies were very important, and I can easily understand the Government in those earlier years laying down such a provision because of the uncertainties that then existed. In 1946 there was no intention to reduce or abolish subsidies. Today the Minister is using that power to extinguish subsidies on housing for general purposes.
    Whether or not the provision appeared in the 1946 Act, it is right and honourable to give local authorities at least a minimum period in which to think out their plans in the light of the provisions of the Bill and to arrange their finances to avoid a state of chaos in their housing programmes as a result of the uncertainty which must arise. I certainly did not see the point of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). It was a pretty weak argument to say that if a local authority bought a piece of land and found that it could not use it because it did not have the subsidy that it could sell the land.
    A local authority cannot acquire land unless the right hon. Gentleman gives his approval and approves not only the purchase, but the purpose for which the land is acquired. He therefore has a moral responsibility when a local authority purchases land. He gives permission and sanctions the use of the land. In many cases in built-up areas it is anti-social to suggest that a local authority, having acquired a piece of land, should dispose of it for purposes other than housing.
    In areas where there is plenty of land and where it can be bought without difficulty and where the price is reasonably low, this difficulty does not arise. But in

    851
    built-up areas where land values are very high and where there is a shortage of land it is most anti-social to suggest that local authorities should dispose of a valuable piece of land to anybody who likes to come along, instead of using it to meet housing needs. For that and other reasons which I have advanced, I hope that the Committee will reject the Clause. It is reactionary and certainly sounds the death knell of housing schemes for general purposes by the local authorities.
    Mr. A. Evans: This is a dangerous Clause and I am sure that Her Majesty's Opposition will do its duty in going into the Lobby against it. If the House of Commons were to do its duty tonight it would refuse the wide powers which the Clause gives to the Minister. During our discussions on the Clause I have learned that the Minister proposes entirely to abolish the general subsidy in a period of "a year or so," to use his own words. At least, local authorities are now warned that the Minister proposes entirely to abolish the general housing subsidy within, say, 18 months. That local authorities should have received that warning is one gain from our discussions.
    The Minister also mentioned that he did not propose to use the powers of abolition to abolish the subsidy on slum clearance and dwellings to replace slums. That was a rather significant submission, for it implied that the Clause gives him the power to abolish even the subsidy upon slum clearance and the provision of houses to take the place of slums cleared away. There is no doubt about that. The Minister even admitted that he was taking power to abolish the subsidy for slum clearance. Those powers are far too sweeping for any Minister to take, particularly the present Minister. With all respect, I do not believe that he really understands the fundamentals of our housing conditions and problems in this country.
    Despite all the discouragement which the Bill will give to local authorities, I believe that those with Socialist majorities will, at any rate, continue to build as many houses as they can for the people who need them. In following their duty, councils will do all they can to build despite the handicaps, the reduction of
    852
    subsidies and their final abolition. Inevitably, under these financial conditions and with the increased price of money, rents of these dwellings, even with differential rent schemes, must rise.
    In due course, before the normal term of the Government is concluded, the Government will find that the consequences of their action will come home to them, because higher rents will awaken the people to the mercenary attitude which the Government have adopted towards the rehousing of the people. I shall have very great pleasure in voting against the Clause.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: Since I understand from hon. Members opposite that they have already made up their minds to vote against this Clause, I do not think that I need waste very much time in attempting to convince them or to change their opinions. I was interested in a remark of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) which was absolutely true but which has not been mentioned by any other hon. Member opposite. He said he supposed, that, despite the reductions in subsidy, local authorities would go on building all the houses they needed for their people—
    Mr. A. Evans: All the houses they can.
    Mr. Sandys: All the houses they can, and there is nothing to prevent them from building the houses they need—
    Mr. Gibson: Yes there is—5¼ per cent.
    Mr. Sandys: It depends whether they consider the need to be serious.
    Mr. Sparks: And whether the rents can be paid.
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) both covered much the same ground in their speeches—I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was somewhat more concise than his hon. Friend. They complained that this Bill provides the Minister with powers which are too extensive in order to reduce or abolish the subsidies. This Bill must be looked at against the background of the Government's policy regarding subsidies. It is part of that policy that the subsidy for general needs shall be abolished within a fairly short time.
    Mr. Sparks: It is a bad policy.
    Mr. Sandys: We believe that after a comparatively short transitional period, in which local authorities will have the opportunity to adjust themselves to the new conditions, it should be possible for the subsidy for general needs—now being reduced from £22 to £10—to be abolished altogether. It is against that policy that the provisions of the Bill must be viewed, and it is absurd to suggest that the Bill should not provide the powers needed to carry out this policy. Obviously, one of these powers is that of reducing and abolishing the subsidies.
    I know hon. Members have made a distinction between the power to abolish the subsidy for general housing needs and the power to abolish subsidies for other purposes, such as slum clearance, overspill, new towns and so forth. At present the Government have no plans to reduce the subsidies for those purposes. But we cannot say that circumstances will no: justify some reduction at a future date, and in bringing in this new comprehensive Bill to replace the existing legislation on the subject, we feel it right to provide flexibility. The powers provided are subject to affirmative Resolution by the House of Commons, and so it is clear that Parliament retains control.
    The 1946 Act did not provide any of the limitations asked for in the debates on the proposed Amendments to this Clause, and I see no good reason for introducing them here.
    Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to tell the Committee that the Government have at present no plans for reducing any other subsidies than the general needs subsidy. If they have no such plans, is he sure that they ought to take the powers which they are taking to reduce those other subsidies, including the site subsidy, which we have been particularly discussing, and the subsidies for over-spill, new towns and others which he mentioned?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not suppose that the hon. Members who have been taking
    part in these debates would desire to have housing subsidy Bills introduced very frequently. As this legislation is being introduced, it seems desirable that it should provide for all circumstances which might arise. I cannot say that it will not be necessary or desirable to make changes in other subsidies at some future date. All I am saying is that we have no plans at present to do so. I think that it would be undesirable to leave any part of the structure rigidly fixed by legislation and incapable of adjustment by Order, subject to a Resolution and debate in the House, as has been the practice in regard to housing subsidies under previous legislation.
    Mr. G. A. Pargiter: When the Minister says "changes," I take it he means reductions.
    Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because I was criticised earlier, by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering when he said that the only thing which is provided for here is the power to reduce or to abolish. As hon. Members know well, legislation of this kind never provides the power to increase a charge. That is why the question of an increase just does not arise.
    Mr. Mitchison: I recognise the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, but I deplore the taking of powers to this extent in these circumstances. If more is proposed, we ought at least to be told what it is, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and, of course, I accept it—the Government have no present plans to reduce any other subsidies, they are asking altogether too much by taking these powers to do so in their present form. I am not impressed with the parallel that is sought to be drawn to the 1946 Act. For those reasons we propose to divide against the Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 205.

    Division No. 94.]

    AYES

    [8.36 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Barter, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Ashton, H.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Blggs-Davison, J. A.

    Heath, Edward

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Hlnohingbrooke, Viscount

    Orr, Capt. L. P. 8.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Osborne, C.

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

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Page, R. G.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Panned, N. A. (Klrkdale)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hope, Lord John

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Brocman-White, R. C.

    Homsby-Smith, Mist M. P.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Bryan, P.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pitman, 1. J.

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

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander C. E.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pott, H. P.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

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

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Carr, Robert

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

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (pcrtsmth, W.)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Redmayne, M.

    Cole, Norman,

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cunningham, Knox

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Russell, R. S.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Kaberry, D.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Keegan, D.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Shepherd, William

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kirk, P. M.

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

    Deedes, w. F.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Dlgby, Simon Wingfield

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Speir, R. M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Legge-Bourke, Ma]. E. A. H.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

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

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, 8.)

    Duthie, W. S

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Storey, S,

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)

    Errlngton, Sir Eric

    Lloyd-George, Ma], Rt. Hon. G.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Teeling, W.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Fisher, Nigel

    McAdden, S. J.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Maodonald, Sir Peter

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Fort, R.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Mackle, J. H. (Calloway)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Gammans, L. D.

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Maomillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Glover, D.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maddan, Martin

    Vosper, D. F.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Wade, D. W.

    Gower, H. R,

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

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

    Marples, A. E.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Green, A.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mathew, R.

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

    Grimond, J.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, s.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Gurden, Harold

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Woollam, John Victor

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Harris, Frederio (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Neave, Airey

    Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    856

    857

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hale, Leslie

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Albu, A. H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, W.

    Parker, J.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Parkin B. T.

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Hastings, S.

    Paton, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Healey, Denis

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Balfour, A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bartley, P.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Probert, A. R.

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

    Holman, P.

    Proctor, W. T.

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

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pryde, D. J.

    Benson, G.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Rankin, John

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

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Reid, William

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Rhodes, H.

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Irving, S. (Dartford)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Ross, William

    Brockway, A. F.

    Janner, B.

    Royie, C.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Short, E. W.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Sorensen, R, W.

    Champion, A. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Steele, T.

    Clunie, J.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Coldrick, W.

    Lee, Frederiok (Newton)

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

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Logan, D. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. D.

    Sylvester, G. 0.

    Cronin, J. D.

    MaoColl, J. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Daines, P.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thornton, E.

    Deer, G.

    MoLeavy, Frank

    Timmons, J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Dodds, N. N.

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Usborne, H, C.

    Dye, S.

    Mahon, S.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Weitzman, D.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mason, Roy

    West, D. G.

    Edwards, w. J. (Stepney)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Mikardo, Ian

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mitohison, G. R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Flenburgh, W.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Finch, H. J.

    Mort, D. L.

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

    Fletcher, Erlc

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Orbach, M.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Oswald, T.

    rates, V. (Ladywood)

    Grey, C. F,

    Owen, W. J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Padley, W. E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes

    Clause 3.—(RATE OF SUBSIDIES FOR DWELLINGS.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out paragraph (c).
    858
    The purpose of the Amendment is to cut out that subsection which provides for increased subsidies for overspill schemes. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen will recall, but on Second Reading I moved a reasoned Amendment

    859
    for the rejection of this Bill based almost exclusively on those increases, although I also mentioned the parallel question of compensation for those whose houses in the slums are to be knocked down and for those whose property is to be acquired for these overspill schemes. On the latter point I think my right hon. Friend now leans towards a more propitious compensation scheme, particularly for those whose houses are being taken from them for demolition. I think we can leave the matter there; in any case it is not strictly relevant.
    On this occasion, unless other hon. Members insist, I do not wish to run this Amendment as a major hare, but rather to revert to it on Report if that will then be in order. The reason is that some of my hon. Friends who are associated with me in tabling this Amendment cannot be present this evening—one, in particular, for very acute personal reasons.
    It seems to me little short of amazing that the Government, while making necessary and satisfactory reductions in the housing subsidies for general purposes, should artificially and deliberately stimulate the subsidy in connection with these overspill arrangements. One has to ask oneself who precisely—except possibly the planners and the social engineers—benefits from these arrangements.
    First of all, let us take the exporting end. At the exporting end we have the owner-occupier, perhaps occupying premises in an area which is to be acquired. On policy he will do a little better than previously, but on Government pronouncements so far and decisions of the House, his house is to be taken from him with very inadequate compensation. I question very much whether the person whose house is taken and demolished will be willing to be decanted, to use this marvellous, social engineering phrase, and sent to live in a small town fifty, sixty to eighty miles from the metropolis or the great conurbation and put into a house specially built for him at a subsidised rate. We have had replies from my right hon. Friend at Question Time which seem to indicate that there is no guarantee at all that such a man will move that distance and occupy that house.
    860
    What will happen is that the local authority at the receiving end by a tie-up with, it may be, the London County Council, will receive this specially enhanced subsidy, build the houses, and all sorts of people who are not in the least bit associated with slum clearance will fill them. I should like to ask my hon. Friend what guarantee there is that when this house has been built, with this special subsidy, it will be occupied by a slum dweller who has been moved. I am sure no guarantee is possible. On the contrary, the tax-payer is being called upon to pay an enhanced subsidy for the provision of a house which merely swells the size of some small town, or it may be some large village, in the countryside, which does not itself want to be converted into any sort of conurbation.
    What will be the effect at the receiving end on agriculture? Already farmers are losing farm workers to a very large extent, due to industrialisation in their locality. How much worse will it be in the future if we select ten, fifteen or twenty small towns in the countryside, develop them, call for labour from the countryside in the building of them, and call for people from the countryside to occupy them?
    I cannot see the purpose of it, and I do not believe the House, if it really thought about the problem, would want it. We are getting sick and tired of the remorseless urbanisation of our countryside, and it is no answer to this question to say that if we do not have this overspill policy we shall have the continuance of a remorseless urbanisation. We have town and country planning regulations and the philosophy on that whole subject is quite adequate to prevent ribbon development, if we insist. I think this whole process has gone by default and has not been thought out. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has taken counsel with many of us on these benches on the matter.
    Mr. Herbert Butler: Shame.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: During the summer months he was working hard in his Department, and no doubt he was infected by the philosophies of his Department and the attitude of the town and country planners, social engineers, and the like. I know that right hon. and hon.

    861
    Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this policy and always have been, but we on these benches, as far as we have thought about it—and some of us have thought about it fairly deeply—are against it. We were opposed to the Town Development Act, 1952, a Measure which was prepared by the work of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. They skedaddled from office in the crisis of 1951, leaving this Bill on the stocks, and it was produced by the Civil Service in January or February, 1952.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The argument of the noble Lord is a little remote from the Amendment.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Do I gather, Sir Rhys, that I am out of order?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The noble Lord is getting a little remote from the Amendment.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This policy of overspill has been quietly developing since then. During the previous Parliament that Act was not applied. It was allowed to become a moribund Act, and no special money was spent in overspill development. Now we get the Minister going to the Department during the summer months when I think he could have had a good holiday and done very much better than discovering this interesting Act and concluding that this is the time to set off on the policy of special payment for overspill development.
    It is one thing to develop the policy and philosophy of the new towns; they are at least comprehensive measures. If they are not so good as Welwyn Garden City, they are at least an attempt to do something in the modern world to provide centres of amenity, culture, churches, schools and playgrounds and, one hopes, all the appurtenances of modern civilised society. I make no complaint about that, and I am not trying to take out the provisions for increased subsidy for the completion of new towns. But this policy of overspill is adding hundreds and hundreds of houses without schools or other appurtenances and without necessarily getting the drainage and water system into action. It is a completely unplanned and un-thought-out piece of enterprise. It will mean in the end that in many cases charming old towns and villages will be added to by an aggregation of houses resulting in the most hideous develop-
    862
    ment the United Kingdom has seen throughout her history. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite wish to rebut that, what definite knowledge have they of plans selected for these towns and villages? I do not believe there are any, because no thinking has gone into this problem.
    Because no thinking has gone into it and because of the need to conserve Government expenditure and reduce the incidence of taxation, I am seeking to move this Amendment and to secure justification for it. I do not believe my hon. Friend can stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he has the assent of the party behind him for this particular feature of the Bill. I know he cannot, and I challenge him to do it. I fundamentally and completely object on the grounds I have adduced to the passage of this part of the Bill, the rest of which carries the warm assent of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. Powell: I think my noble Friend the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will teadily understand if I do not deal with the large questions of building up or building out or the basis of compensation which he touched upon in the course of his speech. My object is to endeavour to show that the presence of this paragraph in this subsection is implicit in the grounds on which he approves the Bill and in the grounds on which it has been accepted by the House of Commons.
    9.0 p.m.
    The reduction and abolition of the general needs subsidy is based on the presumption that most local housing authorities will be able to provide for the general housing needs of their areas, without either charging unreasonably high rents or incurring an undue burden on the rates, if they use the subsidies which they receive on existing and future houses as a pool to be available in aid of the rents of the whole stock of houses belonging to them now and in the future.
    The principle of pooling of subsidies, by whatever rent policy it is accompanied, is implicit in the principle of the Bill. I understand that the reduction and abolition of the general needs subsidy and this underlying principle that subsidies ought to be pooled over the whole range of houses belonging to a local housing authority is accepted by my noble Friend.

    863
    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. Paragraph (c) provides for one such case, namely, where a large addition to the stock of houses of a local authority is made within its boundaries for the purpose not of dealing with its own local housing need, but of helping congested towns and cities at a distance to do that which they cannot do for themselves.
    Clearly, that process of decongestion can happen in one of many ways, but no hon Member, surely, would say that it is always preferable that the houses should be built by the exporting authority. Many would feel that it is desirable that the authority which provides the houses should be, to continue using the jargon, the importing authority. That is the case that we are dealing with under paragraph (c), where the importing authority, to assist in the decongestion of a great urban area at some distance, greatly adds to its stock of houses to such an extent that with any rent policy the pooling of subsidies on existing houses would still leave a very sharp difference between the old and the new rent structure. We cannot, therefore, decline to meet the case of these importing authorities who are co-operating—voluntarily, I may say—with their sister authorities in the cities and towns in meeting these special difficulties which they face.
    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 are 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.
    Nor has this measure any necessary connection with slum clearance. My
    864
    noble Friend asked how we could be sure that the tenants of these houses would be persons displaced from demolished unfit houses. That is not the intention of operations under the Town Development Act. These are directed much more at the decongestion of the urban areas, which is necessary if tolerable living densities are to be arrived at in the great towns and cities.
    I would, therefore, ask my noble Friend and the Committee to recognise that the basis which underlies the Bill, the principle that, in general, local authorities will be able to meet their general housing needs by pooling the subsidies on their stock of houses, demands as a corollary that in cases where no adequate stock exists we should make special arrangements. Special arrangements are contained in paragraph (c) 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.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not intend to withdraw. I have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary and much affection for him and I congratulate him on his appointment, but I did not understand a single word of his explanation. It was so deliberately shrouded in metaphysical planning language that I believe that he has no sympathy with the policy pursued and shares my view that it is a profound mistake.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the co-operation of the small receiving authorities. We, of course, often find that four or five officials of the borough council and county council get worked up and excited about the prospect of receiving large masses of fresh population. They can have larger offices, bigger salaries and generally greater grandeur.
    One often also finds a small number of tradespeople who think of the profits which their businesses will accrue because of the surrounding population coming into their thoroughfares and who do not realise that the traffic congestion in their tiny streets and roadways will be so great that they will have rather less custom than before.

    865
    As to the decongestion of population about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke, what evidence is there that London will be decongested by having 20 or 30 small towns, 60 or 80 miles away, and planting on them 10,000 or 15,000 people? Is London to be frozen as an immigration centre? The population of London has remained, except for the war years and the period of very heavy bombing, fairly static in the last twenty years. I cannot see an appreciable reduction of, say, a million people sufficient to satisfy this idea of decongesting the population being achieved in a comparable time.
    Who is to stop people coming from Jamaica to throng the congested areas of London at their will? Who is to stop people creating new flats in mews and crowding Soho and living where they please. [An HON. MEMBER: "Jack Spot."] If there were a complete ban on enterprise, which nothing but a Communist State could sufficiently ruthlessly organise, I could understand this policy of decentralisation of overspill. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lind-gren), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, is singularly silent in this debate. I challenge him to say whether when the party opposite returns to office it will carry out the policy of decentralisation and resettlement of population which will ensure that London is not congested, is not overstocked with natural immigration.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am not going to satisfy the noble Lord's curiosity, but I assure him that we are sitting back and enjoying the scrap on the other side of the Committee.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is a very poor intervention. There is a point of principle and interest here, which I think the Committee should consider. If we are not disposed to do so tonight for various tactical reasons can we not return to it on the Report stage?
    I think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would perhaps like to make speeches on this subject. It is a comprehensive affair and it incorporates much that is very interesting in town and country planning legislation. The steady urbanisation of our countryside is one of the most vicious of the evils of the industrial era. No one who has read the
    866
    book Subtopia,produced by the Architectural Review, which describes a journey from Southampton to Carlisle, and records by sketches, photographs and descriptions all the grotesque and ridiculous sights to be observed from the roadway under modern conditions, can fail to take a profound interest in this subject.
    I shall be only too pleased tonight if, as a result of my venturing to embark upon this topic, though not necessarily with the purpose of carrying it to a Division, we can return to it at a further stage in the Bill. I am quite certain that unless we rake serious thought about it we shall do a real industrial evil to our beautiful country just for the sake of playing about with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people.
    The whole question must be thought out afresh. I am not satisfied with my hon. Friend's reply, but in the circumstances, and owing to the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "Minister," to insert "wholly or partly."
    The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the Amendment in page 4, line 13, leave out "in the area of that authority," are considered together.
    Mr. Powell: I think that I should say that the purpose of the two Amendments, which, I understand, for technical reasons it is necessary to take together, is quite different. The Amendment which I am moving to insert the words "wholly or partly" after "Minister" in line 13 is scarcely more than a drafting Amendment. The point behind it is this. A situation may arise in which a scheme of town development overstrides the borders of the local authority which is promoting it, so that part of the houses are built within and part outside its own boundary.
    As the Clause is drafted, the result would be that it could only get the higher subsidy on the houses which happened to be inside its own borders, and in order that all the houses in the town development scheme should qualify it would be necessary for the neighbouring authority to build the houses within its boundaries so that the two pieced together, so to

    867
    speak, made up the whole scheme. That is clearly a result which the Committee would not desire, so, by inserting the words "wholly or partly," we can ensure that a local authority can proceed to a town development scheme partly inside and partly just outside its borders and receive the full subsidy on all the houses falling under the scheme.
    Mr. Gibson: I say straight away that I agree that the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved widens the effect of the substantive payment a very little in so far as a local authority has to build houses outside its own area to deal with its overspill population. But it does not by any means meet the difficulties of all our large towns.
    9.15 p.m.
    I am sorry that "Overlord" has gone, because I should like to discuss with him his Elizabethan philosophy. He may like to go back to the days when London had plagues, and so on, but in these modern days, when a town grows too big, we should by communal action transfer the people into more comfortable and liveable quarters elsewhere. All the large towns have this problem, and certainly we in London have it.
    Some months ago it was agreed that to meet the large overspill problem in London, and in view of the shortage of sites which has arisen in this area, the London County Council should be permitted to build at Edenbridge. Unfortunately, no agreement has yet been reached with the local authority in that area. I want to ask the Minister whether this Clause would enable either the receiving authority or the exporting authority in such a case to receive the special subsidy. In principle it is the same as a new town development, but I am afraid that if neither the importing authority nor the exporting authority in that case gets the subsidy, nothing will be done.
    Indeed, that is what I fear most of all about general housing as a result of this Bill. There is a limit beyond which no local authorities, including the large and wealthy ones, can spend their capital and I do not think the Government have made it any easier for them by the continual raising of the rate of interest which has to be paid on loans. That in itself will create sufficient difficulties. If, in addition, an authority which is admitted by
    868
    the Minister to have a large overspill problem, such as Manchester or Birmingham as well as London, cannot solve it without going well outside its own area, the Bill ought to provide that it is given assistance towards the capital cost of the work. If the authority does not get it, I am afraid that this necessary piece of social work and modern planning will not be done and there will be a piling up of population in London, Birmingham and Manchester, a growth of overcrowding, a worsening of the slum position and, in the end, a public uproar which will compel the Government in office to take drastic steps to solve the problem.
    As I read this subsection, even with the words moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, it will not enable the subsidy to be paid either to the importing authority or the exporting authority, except perhaps if an agreement had been reached, and in the case to which I have referred no such agreement has been reached with the importing authority.
    I do not want to press this point unduly, which is more exploratory than anything, but I would like to know the Ministerial attitude towards this problem.
    Mr. Eric Johnson: Would my hon. Friend clear up a similar point? The Minister will be aware that under paragraph (c), if a local authority such as Manchester carried out a scheme of town development as defined under the 1952 Act, it would receive a subsidy of £24 for houses built in its own area. If an exporting authority, like Manchester, carried out a similar scheme in a receiving authority's area it would receive only £22 in the case of a slum clearance family rehoused and only £10 for an ordinary family rehoused.
    I wonder whether the words "wholly or partly" put this right. Does the provision mean that if Manchester expands outside its own boundary, as it must do, almost adjacent to Manchester, it would receive the full subsidy, or does it not? It seems to me that if the same houses are to be built by the receiving authority or the exporting authority, and if they are to be provided for the same people, they ought to receive the same subsidy. I hope the words "wholly or partly" mean that they do.
    Mr. Powell: I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for

    869
    Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that, as the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said, the effect of the insertion of "wholly or partly" is a very narrow one. It still leaves the subsidy restricted to houses provided by an importing authority, but enables it to be paid when those houses are provided by the importing authority only partly within its own frontiers.
    On the main point in the minds of both hon. Members, I must ask the Committee to revert to the point of principle which was under discussion in connection with the last Amendment. It is the underlying assumption of the Bill, and of the reduction and abolition of housing subsidy for general needs, that local authorities who possess a large stock of houses built partly before and partly since the war will be able, by pooling the subsidies payable on those houses, to continue to build for general needs without an undue burden on the rates or the charging of unreasonable rents.
    If that be so, it is equally valid whether or not the authority with the large stock of houses builds the additional houses inside or outside its own borders. It is still an addition one way or the other to its stock of houses to which it can apply, according to its own policy, the subsidies which are available to it. Therefore, there is an essential distinction between houses for the reduction of congestion according to whether the houses are provided by the exporting authority or by the importing authority.
    I would, therefore, tell the Committee that it would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill if the words
    "…wholly or partly in the area of that authority…"
    were omitted from the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out from "the" to "or" in line 21 and to insert:
    "local authority's area in which the dwelling is situated."
    The Amendment has the effect of completely nullifying the Minister's intention in subsection (3, d). I move the Amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee what he means by the provision. Hon. Members will see from sub-paragraph (d) that the Minister can pay the old subsidy for houses
    870
    "…provided by a local authority for the accommodation of persons coming from outside the area of that authority in order to meet the urgent needs of industry, where the dwelling has been so provided in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister as being desirable by reason of special circumstances and so long as any conditions laid down by the Minister on the giving of his approval are complied with…"
    This is the escape Clause that the Minister has pleaded before in dealing with special housing needs, as he continually pleaded Clause 5 for another reason. Both are escape Clauses.
    I shall not argue the matter at this stage, because I want first to know from the Minister what he means by the words. What are the circumstances in which he would provide the ordinary subsidy for the houses? What would be the urgent needs of industry? How would he define them? It is necessary that we should know what is in his mind, because, as I explained on a previous occasion, it is extremely undesirable that legislation should put too wide a discretion in the hands of the Minister.
    The other day the Parliamentary Secretary appeared to imagine that the wider the discretion the better the Clause. That is an extraordinary point of view to put before the House of Commons. We usually like to think that when we have passed a Bill we know precisely what authority we have given to the Executive. If the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view were held good, all we would need would be one Clause saying that the Minister should have power to do what he likes in a particular field and then we could sit down and go home.
    I hope that the Minister will make the reply. We want to know what are the circumstances in which he would act in order that we might have an intelligent discussion on subsection (3, d). I shall argue the case no further at this point. I shall want to take it further after we have heard what the Minister has to say. I suppose that this will carry over until tomorrow. I should like to know from the Minister how he interprets these powers.
    The Minister has not risen. I should like to hear from him at this stage, because the words themselves carry no interpretation and I should like to know what he means by them. We know that there are other circumstances. We know that

    871
    he has powers in dealing with overspill and new and extended towns. This provision obviously does not apply to them, because provision for them has already been made. We want to know what these additional powers are and how he proposes to apply them.
    Mr. Sandys: For the convenience of the Committee, I will intervene at this stage. I understand that the amendment is not intended as a textual one, but is intended to provide a debate on the scope of Clause 3 (3, d) dealing with a point discussed at considerable length at an earlier stage in our debate.
    I thought I had made it clear on an earlier occasion that in making the provision in this Clause we particularly had in mind industries of national importance like the mining industry. Of course, the mining industry is only an example of the type of industry which we regard as being of exceptional national importance. We do not intend that every industry which considers itself in urgent need of more labour should, merely by asking the local authority for houses to meet its need, enable those houses to qualify for the higher rate of subsidy under the Clause.
    Incidentally, I am not addressing myself to the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which, I think he will agree, does not really make sense as it stands. It would, in effect, give a higher housing subsidy over the heads of local people, to any family which came into the area from outside.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: The language of my Amendment makes sense, but it is not the sense which the right hon. Gentleman wants. I am not at the moment arguing the merits of the Amendment, I am only seeking elucidation of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, but my intentions about this Clause are so far removed from the terms of this Amendment that I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to say that I thought that the Amendment, as it stood, would be quite unacceptable. My short answer is that the Amendment removes the reference to industry altogether and gives a special subsidy to any family which goes into the district of another local authority. That might create the ridiculous position
    872
    that to get accommodation a family would have to move over to the next local authority in order that the local authority would be encouraged to house them because it would get the higher subsidy. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman desires me to pursue that, but it does give me the opportunity of explaining our general attitude towards the problem.
    I would like to make clear where we stand on this matter, so that there shall be no misunderstanding. By industries of national importance we are thinking of industries whose development is vital to the national economy. We are also thinking of circumstances in which these industries cannot get the labour they need unless local authorities make an exceptional effort to build additional houses. Coal mining in areas where the National Coal Board is trying to accelerate production is the obvious and outstanding example. Other cases may be those of new generating stations or atomic energy plant which, for one reason or another, have to be sited in remote areas. There may also be other industrial projects where expansion might be sufficiently important and exceptional to make them eligible for consideration under these provisions of the Bill.
    The kind of case I had in mind is where the need for more houses arises from a major new development which is essential in the national interest and which must be carried out in an area where the local authority has only a small pool of existing houses or, for other reasons, could not reasonably be expected to build a large number of additional houses without the benefit of this higher subsidy. Those are the sort of special circumstances which I should look for and about which I should need to be satisfied in order to consider that a housing scheme would qualify for the higher subsidy under Clause 3 (3, d). I hope that I have said enough to give the right hon. Gentleman a broad indication of our approach to this paragraph and its scope.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has been quite clear so far as he has gone, but this subsection is a perfect illustration of the difficulty which he is bound to encounter when he has to administer the Measure. Where there is an unusual influx of people into a locality

    873
    because of certain industrial needs, he sees the necessity for co-operation between the central Government and the local authority by way of an additional financial inducement. In other words, he is trying to put back, in some circumstances, what the Bill takes away.
    At the moment local authorities are in partnership with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—a healthy partnership which has been established by virtue of the fact that, ever since the end of the war, the Government have agreed to share the cost of housing with local authorities. The Government now intend to dissolve that partnership. In the case of most of the houses that will be built subsequently to those now in tender, they intend to pay no subsidy at all, so ending the co-operation established in 1945, which recognised explicitly that public housing was an operation in which the central Government were interested equally with local government. Local authorities are to do what they like in regard to the provision of housing for general needs and, indeed, of other housing.
    Having made that general decision, the Minister and his Department are bound to recognise that the matter cannot end at that point, because at certain times a national interest might arise in certain localities. In such cases the central Government must resume the partnership that the Bill violates and re-establish the subsidy in order to persuade the local authorities to build the houses. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House of Commons to arm him with powers of capricious decision in order to repair the ravages of his own Measure and try to make good the mischief which it does.
    These provisions would be unnecessary if the Minister had maintained the partnership which formerly existed. He could then easily persuade local authorities to do what he wants them to do. I had to do that over and over again. For example, in rural areas, where, as a result of the policies pursued for so many years, it was found that there was a deficiency of building labour, I had to encourage the creation of a special type of house to supplement local building resources. We built about 21,000 of those houses. I am not speaking now of the temporary house or the B.I.S.F. house; I am speaking of the concrete house. We found that we
    874
    had to devise a type of building material which could be used by the small builder, who could not lay his hands upon enough skilled building labour in the deep rural areas. Those houses may be seen in various parts of the country today.
    It was not very difficult to do this because, owing to the financial partnership between the central Government and local authorities, we were able to persuade them to build those houses in supplementation of the traditional houses being built up to the capacity of the building resources of rural builders. A few days ago I mentioned a similar case in regard to additional unconventional houses in the coal areas. We had to hand exactly what we wanted. That was a continuing partnership by which we could adjust the activities of local authorities to the national general needs.
    The Minister now says, having got rid of that financial inducement, "I must try to put it back in certain cases." He is now compelled to say that only where there is an influx of additional people, creating an exceptional local problem, will he re-establish the financial partnership. That is what he said. He is not able to deal at all with a continuing normal need, say on the part of agriculture. The creation of agricultural houses is declining very rapidly. Anyone who understands the problem of rural housing knows that one of the most serious difficulties facing the agricultural industry is the finding of skilled labour, because there is no accommodation for it.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman say that to cut down our import of foodstuffs is not a national need? Yet he is depriving himself of the opportunity of the agency of the instrument for inducing the local authorities in rural areas to build enough houses. I should have thought that if the housing policy of the Government had any organic relationship to the national needs the continuing provision of additional rural houses would stand almost in front of mining.
    We are told almost every day by a spokesman of the Government that the gravest possible crisis facing the country arises from the balance of payments situation. That situation is directly attributable to the fact that we are spending a very large proportion of our finances in buying food and animal foodstuffs from

    875
    abroad. We would have thought, therefore, that the stimulation of domestic agricultural production would occupy a foremost position in Government policy. Instead of that, at the same time as the Prime Minister makes these speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is scratching his head trying to find better solutions than those of his predecessor found, and every public-spirited person in Great Britain is anxiously concerned about our balance of payments position, Government supporters march like sheep through the Lobby supporting a Government who are doing their utmost to hamstring agricultural production.
    That is an astonishing situation. If hon. Members do not believe it, let them look at the figures or consult their own experience. I know, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, that in the deep rural areas agricultural labour is extremely difficult to get. That is almost directly due to the absence of rural amenities and of enough houses. I have pleaded with the Government, and I warn hon. Members opposite that they will pay a very high price indeed for the Bill. I warned them before about the other Bill that became an Act. "Operation Rescue" it was called. It has not rescued anybody. It certainly did not rescue the Minister, because he left office very soon.
    Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to what he is addressing himself? I should like to know.
    Mr. Bevan: Agricultural needs.
    Mr. Sandys: Is he complaining that the Bill does not provide an additional subsidy for a large influx of agricultural workers into an area, or that we are not providing the higher subsidy for the agricultural population already resident in the area?
    Mr. Bevan: I am merely pointing out that if the right hon. Gentleman is arming himself with power to deal with the urgent needs of industry, no industry has a more urgent need for additional housing than agriculture.
    Mr. Sandys: For the existing population?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
    Mr. Sandys: That is my point. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to that it has no relation to this paragraph at all.
    Mr. Bevan: I have been trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what he has done by the provisions of the Bill is to rupture the financial relationship between the local authorities and the State and is now having to put back some part of the machinery in order to deal with certain instances. I am trying to point out that there are certain instances, such as agriculture, where it would be essential for the housing policy of the Government to have some relationship to national needs. That is what I am trying to point out to him.
    Mr. Sandys: In support of this Amendment, which asks for a £24 subsidy for persons coming into the district, I cannot see the relationship to that.
    Mr. Bevan: The Minister is unable to see any relationship of any argument put by this side at all. He can only see his own relationship. I say that before very long hon. Members opposite will see the consequences of his policy, and what I am striving to do is to persuade him to change that policy as soon as possible or he will be making a very considerable contribution towards the embarrassment of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would therefore urge that he reconsiders that aspect.
    A further point is the absence of precision in what the right hon. Gentleman is to consider when deciding whether or not to give the additional subsidy. He cites industries of national importance and has mentioned coal and atomic energy. Must they be industries in that sense of the word? A firm may establish in an area a factory which demands a very considerable influx of people into that area—it may be in North Wales or in a very rural area. If that firm's industrial operations resulted in an exceptional housing need there, does the Minister consider that the local authority concerned would be able to obtain the additional subsidy?
    It may be that the industry could not itself be regarded at the national level as of high priority, but that would not make the situation of the local authority any easier. The industry would create an exceptional industrial need in the area and a consequent large influx of people. Does

    877
    the right hon. Gentleman consider that that might attract from him a higher subsidy? We should like to know, because, if he is going to itemise them, it would appear that the only sort of circumstance in which the higher subsidy could be attracted would be where the industry concerned was a nationalised industry—the atomic industry, the railways or the Coal Boad.
    This is a very interesting speculation. It means that the only industries which can qualify as industries of high priority in the national need are the nationalised industries. Is that what we are to understand?
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am informed that the copper mines at Amlwch in North Wales may be reopened, and that a small shipbuilding industry may be established there in a few months, in which event a hundred new council houses would be needed in that area. I think that it is relevant to ask the Minister whether that would attract the higher subsidy.
    Mr. Bevan: That is what I am asking, because the only illustrations we have had so far are that the right hon. Gentleman does not find it difficult to define exceptional industrial needs where the industry is nationalised. His embarrassments would, therefore, be reduced if we nationalised more industries, because we should then know exactly how to adjust the priorities. Unfortunately, the problem of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) will not be met, and for a very good and simple reason, that if a particular industrialist, in competition with others in the same industry, established a works in a particular area and was able to obtain staff for his works as against his competitors in another part of the country, then the right hon. Gentleman would be exercising his powers in a manner nearing nepotism. He would then be using public finances to favour one industrialist against his rivals.
    Hon. Members opposite do not mean that, do they? They do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman is arming himself with powers in order to make it possible for one industrialist to staff his works as against another—otherwise we should be back to the time of Lord North. Is that what is meant? I should not imagine that it is.
    878
    We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is so; whether there are to be any backstair methods, whether he is to be nobbled, or whether he is to have undue influence. I know sufficient about the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he has not that in mind at all. I am quite certain that he is sufficiently public-spirited and sufficiently scrupulous and desirous of maintaining the highest possible standards that he would not use public money merely in order to favour one business rival against another.
    If that be the case, we are driven to the conclusion that the only circumstance in which he can use these powers at all is where the industry is nationalised. That is a tribute to nationalisation which we never thought possible. The only circumstance in which the right hon. Gentleman can be virtuous is where we have pioneered, because otherwise he is in a very great difficulty: he either has to be nepotistic or he has to assist nationalisation. What an awful dilemma for a Conservative Minister. We have there an encouragement on our part to nationalise more industries, and then the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have a sensible housing policy. Until industries are nationalised, we cannot go any further. Take steel, for example. Hon. Members opposite are dismantling the industry [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."] Yes; they are dismantling public ownership.
    Mr. Sandys: Output is higher than ever.
    Mr. Bevan: The Minister says that output is higher than ever. It is not yet all in private hands, and already the steel owners are warning us that they might be producing too much steel. The right hon. Gentleman must learn his facts. In 1945 we were producing less than 12 million tons of steel, and under public direction and public ownership this was raised to nearly 20 million tons. Even now we are spending far more dollars on imported steel than we should be spending.
    In the case of steel, if the industry had remained in public hands, and there arose an exceptional need for houses for steel workers, the power would exist, for the right hon. Gentleman could do the same for steel as he says he can do for atomic energy, coal and railways. Those industries, being nationalised, he would not have to discriminate, but as soon as

    879
    steel is handed back to private enterprise he cannot do this without favouring one steel firm against another. Or does he intend to do it? If Lancashire steel competes with South Wales steel, is he to provide it with cheap houses as against its rivals? Will he do it? We should like to know.
    As I tried to explain earlier, it would not be easy to do that, and it would not be easily defended because other people in the industry would soon complain. They would say, as the Tories say over and over again, "Why should my tax be greater in order to make my rivals better off?" The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in this situation; the more industry is taken into public ownership the more sensible and intelligent his housing policy becomes, and the more extensive private enterprise is the more nonsensical is his housing policy and the less is he able to adjust his policy to the national needs. It seems to me that he has completely exposed the futility of his policy and revealed to hon. Members opposite that his housing policy has not been conceived to fit in at all with the requirements of the nation as a whole.
    Mr. MacColl: I feel that we ought not to part with this Amendment without a little further probing of the real meaning of the paragraph we are seeking to remove. The right hon. Gentleman rather poked fun at the Amendment by suggesting that it was vague and indeterminate in its meaning, that it left too wide the discretion for local authorities and implied that the words he has introduced into the Bill are models of accuracy and precision. I think a certain amount of obligation rests on the Government, who introduced this paragraph, to be accurate and precise in the words they use.
    This has to be discussed in housing committees all over the country. The
    880
    advisers of local authorities have to make reports to housing committees precisely defining the circumstances in which they will receive this subsidy from the Government. Surely it places an impossible task on anyone who has to try to interpret this paragraph and make precise recommendations or advise local authorities.
    There is an Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), in line 16, to leave out from "industry" to "or" in line 21. That Amendment seeks to probe this matter. If we are to decide whether or not the Amendment my right hon. Friend has moved is looser than the original words, surely we need to know what precisely is the meaning of the discretion which rests with the Minister. How are we to judge whether or not arrangements are likely to receive the approval of the Minister? How is a local authority, trying to develop its housing programme and which has been discussing the possibilities of exporting people or receiving people from another area, to decide whether this kind of proposal is likely to receive the approval of the Minister?
    How can that local authority make up its mind whether the Minister is likely to think its proposals are desirable by reason of special circumstances? What kind of circumstances is the Minister going to regard as special? If this were a straightforward case that wherever there was an urgent housing need, a need to bring in industrial workers and provide them with housing the kind of case which my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) mentioned—
    It being Ten o'clock,The CHAIRMAN Left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

FLAX MILLS (CLOSURE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield]
10.1 p.m.
Mr. George Jeger: I rise to voice my protest against the Government's decision to close the flax processing mills at present operating in this country. These mills were established early in the war because it was necessary to have a home flax industry, otherwise we should have been deprived of all the flax we needed. This provided home-produced flax in place of the imported flax on which we had previously relied.
Flax is valuable for all sorts of purposes. It was useful to us during the war for all the Armed Forces and Civil Defence. It is the basis of canvas, sail cloth, tarpaulins, tents, fire hose, sacking and scores of purposes that have been outlined in the technical journals. It is the source of a valuable industry. In 1954, £9 million worth was produced in cloth, yarn and twine, of which over £2 million worth was exported, apart from the export of made-up goods, which makes a valuable contribution to our export trade and earns foreign currency.
These mills were set up to meet an emergency. Is it to be contended that the emergency is now over? If so, it will be difficult to justify the closing of these mills, set up for that emergency purpose, at a time when we are building up emergency strategic stocks of all kinds of materials, particularly food, some of which involve us in heavy losses from time to time. I contend that we need these flax mills as an insurance against any emergency that might arise again and which might prevent us from importing the flax that we need.
We have built up skill, machinery, mills and technical research in a special department. All these things are making a valuable contribution to British industry. If we close the mills, as the Government have started doing and propose to continue to do, we shall dissipate a team of skilled workers, we shall lose the accumulated benefits of the research work they have already done and we shall leave the market in Britain clear for foreign flax to be imported, which will cost foreign
882
currency and might even, in the absence of competition from home-produced flax, cause prices to rise. We shall lose a valuable export trade in flax seed. I understand that Ireland depends almost entirely upon English seed for its own flax industry. It has been said that Ireland can get similar flax seed from Canada, but that involves the spending of dollars and nobody within the sterling area today looks forward to any proposal for spending more dollars.
The one point which has been advanced by the President of the Board of Trade in defence of his policy is that it would save money which is being spent because of the loss on home-produced flax. I understand that the loss is at present running at the rate of about £250,000 a year. If that amount is correct—it may well be more or less—it is a considerable sum of money, but the saving on it might well be offset if farmers no longer grew flax but in its place turned to another crop, such as wheat, which has a guaranteed price, which would carry with it a payment from the Government and which might well mean that the estimated £250,000 which would be saved would be cut by at least two-thirds if farmers were to turn to a wheat crop rather than a flax crop.
I have yet to learn who supports the Board of Trade and which organisation or body of people connected with this industry supports the Board in its proposal. I have learned of a great deal of opposition to it. I understand that the organised workers in the factories are against the proposal. They would be, of course, because it means that the skill which they have put into the industry, in many cases for 20 years, will be lost. They will have to seek alternative employment elsewhere, sometimes in rather remote rural areas, and if they are getting on in years the prospect of alternative work is not very rosy.
The research technicians who are organised through an association have intimated that they are against the proposal. The spinners who use the flax have intimated in no uncertain terms, in a very well-produced booklet circulated to hon. Members, that they are against it. The farmers who grow the flax are definitely against the suggestion. One of the mills in question is situated at

883
Howden, about 100 yards outside my constituency. About 120 workers are employed there, of whom about 100 come into the mill to work from my constituency. I understand that the mill is provided with flax grown by about 120 small farmers, with an average acreage of 12 per farm.
The farmers like this flax. It is a cash crop. It is good as an eliminator of eel worm and it helps to create a healthy soil. It is a very good rotation crop and the farmers like to get the chaff from the mill afterwards. The chaff is valuable feeding stuff and saves the import of feeding stuff from abroad. That is the picture locally, and I understand that there is exactly the same picture in other parts of the country. I understand on good authority from the National Farmers' Union that farmers generally who are concerned with flax crops share the views of the 120 in my locality in Yorkshire. Furthermore, the N.F.U. states, perhaps with a certain amount of embarrassment, that it has not been consulted by the Board of Trade on this move which affects its members.
The N.F.U. states that some time ago it offered consultations on a technical level with representatives of the Board of Trade, but the offer was not taken up. It says that it has experts who could put forward to the Board of Trade various ways of continuing this industry at lower cost and cutting the losses to which the Board of Trade objects. I would put forward some practical suggestions for the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who is to reply to the debate.
First, it is necessary on strategic grounds and moral grounds and from the point of view of agriculture to keep this industry alive. I concede that it is perhaps not necessary to keep all the mills which are at present open running in the way in which they are running today. It may be necessary to concentrate on a few mills only, equipping them with more up-to-date machinery and cutting the total loss on the industry to the Treasury. As a result of the activities of the research team which has been working for the last two years on flax production, there is confidence in the industry that with some up-to-date machinery the loss can be cut by a great deal, because the present yield of fibre from flax can be doubled if the
884
wartime machinery now used were scrapped and more up-to-date machinery were obtained.
When I first raised this matter in response to requests from my constituents, 10 mills were open and working. There are now only nine. Therefore, the matter is becoming very urgent. There is still time to reconsider the whole question. The technical knowledge of experts is available. The National Farmers' Union has specialists and research workers who are prepared to discuss with the nominees of the Board of Trade the question of the reorganisation of the industry on sound lines and perhaps with fewer mills. I hope that the Board of Trade will reconsider its decision. I hope that it will take a new look at the industry and decide to keep open the existing nine mills—a decision which would be both popular and right.
10.10 p.m.
Commander R. Scott-Miller: I should like to refer to what the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) has said and ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he would look at this matter again. I know that this flax scheme costs the taxpayer about £500,000 a year, and I am the last person to ask for the spending of public money if it can be avoided. Nevertheless I understand from the National Farmers' Union that it is firmly of the opinion that the flax industry could be run on a limited scale and on a sound economic basis, with small cost to the taxpayer.
This scheme was started by private enterprise in 1931. I should like to underline the farmers' point of view in this matter. About 16,000 acres of our farm land is down to flax and 2,000 acres of that is in the County of Norfolk. It is quite right to say that it is a good rotation crop, and one which is very helpful and popular among our farmers.
I have a particular interest in this matter, because I have one of these mills in my constituency on the Royal Estate, at Sandringham. This mill is agreed by everyone to be the most efficient in the country. Over the last six years it has produced the best fibre extraction rate throughout the whole scheme. It would be a bad thing to close that mill if it could be kept going, because not only would about 200 industrial workers in that factory be deprived of their jobs, but

885
it would mean that the splendid work done by the small research team at that factory would be thrown to the winds.
It takes ten years to grow the right type of flax, and I feel most strongly that we should at least keep one mill to provide the nucleus of the crop. I therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this matter in that light.
10.13 p.m.
Mr. Sidney Dye: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) for raising this matter which, as he said, affects his constituency. It is also a matter in which farmers over a great part of the country are interested. We were shocked to learn that it is apparently the intention of the Government to bring to an end the growing of flax in this country and the manufacture of it for industrial and other purposes.
This would indeed be a blow to those farmers who have been growing flax as one of their crops in rotation. It would mean, as my hon. Friend pointed out, finding another crop to take its place in the rotation—one which has the same purpose, namely, of providing a complete change in the plant food taken from the soil which would enable it in that year to kill some of the pests which prey upon the other crops in the rotation. Therefore, it has a value greater than its own inherent value as a crop.
If, therefore, we are now to reach the position when we shall no longer be able to depend on a certain proportion of home-grown flax, but shall be dependent upon imported flax, then we shall lose in knowledge and experience. And we shall be giving up this crop at a time when we must be spending an enormous amount on rearmament, on providing against the possibility of having to face a situation similar to that which we faced in 1939 to 1945.
It does not seem that we should do this, and if it is said that £500,000 a year is an excessive sum to spend for this purpose on a crop which has so many uses in industry and commerce, as well as being vital in time of war, we should ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this matter, rather than to reach a position which may upset the farming community and deprive us of an article which was vital to our needs during the last war and which may be so again. Therefore,
886
I hope that in replying to the debate, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have something better to say than what he may be considering saying at the moment.
10.16 p.m.
Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I support the plea made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger). He referred to a pamphlet produced by the Flax Manufacturers' Association. That pamphlet was inspired from my constituency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that on strategic, on trade, and on other grounds it is of interest to the flax trade, quite apart from the farming community, that a certain amount of flax should continue to be grown in this country. This would then be available if ever again we were at war.
My constituency used to clothe the Navy in sail and it is making sail for the model "Mayflower" which will cross the Atlantic shortly. With that great tradition I think we should not part with this crop because, if we do so, and rely entirely on foreign flax, we may find ourselves short of flax when we really need it.
10.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The House is indebted to the hon. Members for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) and to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) and South Angus (Captain Duncan) for the lucid, temperate and persuasive way in which they have put their case on this matter. I do not say that there is no substance in the points which they have made, but it is the duty of the Government to look at this matter as a whole and to see whether the sum total of these considerations outweighs the plain and disagreeable economic facts of this case. Those facts are that this scheme has always been run at a loss, that the loss was increasing and that it was thereby involving an increasingly heavy subsidisation by the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Goole said that the Board of Trade has no supporters in this matter. That may not be a matter for great surprise because, where economy is involved, it is well known that, although all subscribe to it as a general principle,

887
specific acts of economy are generally friendless. In this case, however, the Government have been driven to the inescapable conclusion that these considerations do not justify a continuance of the scheme and a consequential increasing burden on the public purse.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to a loss of about £250,000 a year. Of course, as subsequent hon. Members have made clear.the loss is in fact a good deal more than that. It was however not only the size of the loss but the trend of the loss which was showing a marked increase.
If I may give the House the figures for the year ending July, 1952, there was a loss of £89,000, whereas two years later, for the year ending July, 1954, the loss had grown to £547,000. There was at the time the Government decided to discontinue the scheme, in August, 1954, a loss running at about £500,000 a year.
Though there had been increases in wages and other costs, the main reasons for the increased loss were the higher costs that had to be paid to the farmers for growing the crop, together with the lower level of prices at which the flax and some of the by-products had to be sold. Therefore, we had the position that, whereas the price to be paid to the farmer was going up, the price received for the sale of the processed product was going down. Thus, for the 1951 crop the farmer's price was 10 guineas per ton. For the 1954 crop it had risen to 14 guineas per ton.
Looking at the other side of the equation, in the year ending July, 1952, the world price for flax was £300 per ton, but in the period immediately preceding August, 1954, the date of the decision, the price had gone down to a little over £200 a ton. The trend since the date of the decision to discontinue has fully confirmed the unwelcome wisdom of this decision. It is true that the price to the farmer for the 1955 crop showed a slight decline to £14 per ton, but the world price of flax fell to £180 per ton. The cost of producing a ton of flax was £500 and the world price of flax only £180, showing a net loss of £320 per ton.
It is right that the House should have the matter in perspective and to record that the annual output of the ten flax factories—now only nine, as the hon.
888
Member said—was running at a rate of something less than 2,000 tons, and that figure had to be set against a total United Kingdom consumption in the neighbourhood of 45,000 tons, which means that that production represented only about 5 per cent. of our total consumption.
The hon. Member for Goole referred to the position of Northern Ireland. Before the Government reached their decision in August, 1954, they consulted the Government of Northern Ireland and received the assurance that it would be possible for Northern Ireland to build up an alternative source of seed supplies by the time supplies from this country were no longer available.
With regard to the Scottish position, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus has referred, only 10–15 per cent. of the raw material of the Scottish flax spinning and weaving industry was obtained from these mills. The actual figure for 1954 was 1,571 tons out of the 14,000 tons actually used in Scotland during that year.
Both the mills to which specific reference has been made, the Howden Mill in the constituency of the hon. Member for Goole and the West Newton Mill in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn, will remain in operation until the end of processing the 1955 flax crop. That is to say, they will not be disposed of until some time in the course of 1957.
That will give a very reasonable time, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has pointed out in the House, for the workers to obtain alternative employment. He pointed out, in answer to the hon. Member for Goole on 23rd November, 1954, that the Ministry of Labour would do its best to help them to find other employment. In point of fact the total number of people employed at these mills is only 721, and no mill, except the mills in Norfolk and Lincoln, employs more than 100 people.
In general, as the House is aware, there is no shortage of jobs, and it is to be hoped that the workers who leave the flax factories will be able to obtain jobs either in agriculture or in light industry in the neighbourhood. The hon. Member for Goole referred to the special position of elderly workers. I should tell him that this is not in fact an industry with an

889
elderly age structure. More than half of the people employed are under 40.
So far as the older people are concerned, if it is found towards the end of a particular operation at a mill that it is likely to prove extremely difficult for reasons of age or infirmity for a few workers to find alternative employment, the Directorate of Home Flax Production will do the best it can to find other work in the mill to keep them on pay as long as possible. It may not always be possible as suitable work may not be available, but it will do what it can.
The hon. Member for Goole said that the benefit of research would be lost. It is true that the closing down of the scheme also involves the closing down of the research development, but I am happy to say that it does not mean that the benefit of the research work will be lost, because the history of this flax scheme, together with all supporting records, is being prepared and will be preserved against any possible future need of the kind to which the hon. Member for Goole and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus referred.
Hon. Members referred to the possibilities of economies. It is of course true that economies are always possible, but we are convinced with knowledge of many years of operation and research that nothing could be done which would more than touch the fringe of this problem, unless considerable sums are to be spent on plant and new machinery. As I think the hon. Member appreciates, the machinery in these mills was installed in wartime and was designed to deal with green flax. The method now used is to
890
ret the flax and then scutch it, which requires different machinery.
Even if we were to incur the expense of this re-equipment, we are satisfied that the use of this more modern machinery would not make a large enough reduction in the loss to justify continuing the scheme. I should say that, of course, if there is this confidence in the scheme, there is nothing to stop private interests from cultivating and processing flax if they so wish. Should the flax industry in Scotland or any other body think it worth while to make an offer to buy one or more of the Government-owned factories with a view to their subsequent operation as private undertakings, the offer will be very carefully considered along with others that may be made.
I have done my best within the limitations of time to answer the points made. I must conclude as I began that, although the Government recognise that a decision of this kind must result in some difficulties of various kinds to the interests affected, we do not consider that the sum total of the arguments justifies continuance of the expenditure of half a million pounds a year from public funds to maintain this small scheme covering only about 16,000 acres of land. Therefore, it is an unwelcome necessity that these mills be closed down.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Embassies and Legations (Furniture)
  Embassies and Legations (Furniture)
  Parliament Square (Alterations)
  Parliament Square (Alterations)
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  National Physical Laboratory (Directorship)
  National Physical Laboratory (Directorship)
  Geological Survey (Field Staff)
  Geological Survey (Field Staff)
  Ship-testing Tank, Feltham
  Ship-testing Tank, Feltham
  Fuel Research Station, Stevenage
  Fuel Research Station, Stevenage
BRITISH ARMY
  Rules of Warfare (Pamphlet)
  Rules of Warfare (Pamphlet)
  Home Guard (Adjutants)
  Home Guard (Adjutants)
  Intelligence Corps (Regimental March)
  Intelligence Corps (Regimental March)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  New Buildings (Garage Space)
  New Buildings (Garage Space)
  Hillend Cottages, Roberton
  Hillend Cottages, Roberton
  Welbeck College
  Welbeck College
  Private Street Works
  Private Street Works
  Street Lighting, Eton
  Street Lighting, Eton
  Requisitioned Houses (Grants)
  Requisitioned Houses (Grants)
  Housing (One-Bedroom Dwellings)
  Housing (One-Bedroom Dwellings)
  Financial Review
  Financial Review
COST OF LIVING
  Wages and Employment
  Wages and Employment
  Coke Delivery Charges
  Coke Delivery Charges
SCOTLAND
  Councillors (Rent Questions)
  Councillors (Rent Questions)
  Temporary Bungalows
  Temporary Bungalows
  Housing (Glass Supplies)
  Housing (Glass Supplies)
  Convicted Persons (Pardons)
  Convicted Persons (Pardons)
  Electricity Reorganisation Act (Regulations)
  Electricity Reorganisation Act (Regulations)
  Agricultural Produce (Guaranteed Prices)
  Agricultural Produce (Guaranteed Prices)
  White Fish Authority (Deputy Chairman)
  White Fish Authority (Deputy Chairman)
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Shale Deposits, West Lothian
  Shale Deposits, West Lothian
ELECTRICITY
  Atomic Power Stations
  Atomic Power Stations
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Alcohol (Publication)
  Alcohol (Publication)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Statistical Unit
  Statistical Unit
  Hospitals, Kent (Clerical Staff)
  Hospitals, Kent (Clerical Staff)
  Diphtheria, West Ham
  Diphtheria, West Ham
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fruit Sales (Merchandise Marks)
  Fruit Sales (Merchandise Marks)
  Infestation Department, Tolworth
  Infestation Department, Tolworth
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Aden Airfield
  Aden Airfield
  JAMAICA (SUGAR AND FRUIT INDUSTRIES)
  JAMAICA (SUGAR AND FRUIT INDUSTRIES)
  GIBRALTAR (TOURIST INDUSTRY)
  GIBRALTAR (TOURIST INDUSTRY)
  BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION CONFERENCE
  BRITISH CARIBBEAN FEDERATION CONFERENCE
EDUCATION
  Television (Experimental Service)
  Television (Experimental Service)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Pensioners
  Police Pensioners
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  East Kilbride
  East Kilbride
CIVIL AVIATION
  Commonwealth Communications (Aden)
  Commonwealth Communications (Aden)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

LORD COLYTON
The Right Honourable Henry Lennox d'Aubigné Hopkinson, C.M.G., having been created Baron Colyton, of Farway in the County of Devon and of Taunton in the County of Somerset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD EVERSHED
The Right Honourable Sir Francis Raymond Evershed, Knight, having been created Baron Evershed, of Stapenhill in the County of Derby—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Schuster—Took the Oath.
The Lord Percy of Newcastle—Took the Oath.

BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SAINT STEPHEN WALBROOK (SAINT ANTHOLIN'S CHURCHYARD) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a

THE LEGAL AID SCHEME
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in a case under the Legal Aid Scheme in the
634
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Mr. Justice Roxburgh, in his judgment on costs on 13th January, 1956, said inter alia,

(1) "In olden days, before the Legal Aid Scheme, if you suspected a man of stealing something, you had to prove it. You were not able to put him to the expense of proving that he did not steal it";

(2)"The plaintiff abandons his action so the position that results is that … the defendants … do not get the formal vindication from the Judge which they may at least have hoped for seeing that their chances of recovering anything in this action from this plaintiff … are nil";

(3)"The question of public interest is posed …: is it right that the State should wholly maintain [a plaintiff] in making a charge which in substance is a charge of dishonesty against some people and then wait until they have vindicated their honour —not being proved to be guilty, but vindicated their honesty—and then, when at great expense they have vindicated their honesty, turn round and say: 'Well, true enough we maintained this action, paid the whole costs with no contribution at all upon the plaintiff, but so far as the defendants are concerned you can whistle for the costs in vindicating your honesty.' That is the question that I pose. It is not for me to answer it ";

(4) "I think it was a most unreasonable action, indeed, a shocking action";

and having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Judge and the possibility that defendants in the future may find themselves subjected to similar unfair results, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of introducing into the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme such changes as will preclude cases of the foregoing nature being brought before the courts.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will acquit me—and here I believe I am speaking for my predecessors as well as for myself—from labouring under any sense of complacency about the operation of the Legal Aid Scheme. I am of opinion that it is a great and beneficent Scheme which has resulted, and is resulting, in a large number of men and women obtaining justice. But, as I stated in a recent address which I made at The Law Society, I am constantly on the lookout for ways and means to improve the working of the Scheme and I am ever ready to accept criticism offered in an attempt to improve it. I took that opportunity of urging upon the legal profession, which is responsible for

635
the operation of the Scheme, constant care and watchfulness against abuses of it, and I am satisfied that those barristers and solicitors who devote a large part of their professional time to administering the Scheme are as zealous for its good reputation as I am.
I have made a very careful examination of the case to which the noble Viscount refers. I am quite satisfied as to three matters. First, that the plaintiff genuinely believed in his case, as indeed Mr. Justice Roxburgh found, and that it was not an attempt to use the Legal Aid Scheme as a vehicle for blackmail. Secondly, I am satisfied that the committee set up by The Law Society who investigated the applications of the plaintiff for legal aid acted with the fullest sense of their responsibilities. Thirdly, I am satisfied that the leading counsel of great experience in this particular type of action, who was very properly brought in to advise at an early stage and whose opinion must have carried great weight with the committee, acted throughout in accordance both with the letter and spirit of the Legal Aid Scheme and with the high principles of our profession. In the result the plaintiff was proved to be quite mistaken, and as soon as that was apparent he very properly abandoned his case.
It does not seem to me to be possible to guard against occurrences of this kind. No one with any experience of the law would ever guarantee the outcome of a case. All lawyers have experience of the most cast-iron case failing and the most unlikely succeeding. All that can be done in a Scheme of this kind is to attempt to ensure that no case is brought or continued unreasonably, and to bear in mind the consequences of a grant of legal aid on all the parties to the litigation. I think those principles were in the minds of those concerned in this case.
One consequence of a grant of legal aid is that the person to whom it is granted does not automatically have to pay the costs of his opponent if he loses, and in this case the plaintiff was ordered to be under no liability for the costs of the successful defendants, who have thus been put to considerable expense. This provision of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, was a specific recommendation of the Committee on Legal Aid and Advice, which was accepted by the Government
636
of the time and, with the consent of all Parties, incorporated by Parliament into the Act. Without a provision of that nature poor persons would be unable to risk litigation for fear of the consequences if they lost. During the passage of the Act and since, various suggestions have been made to alleviate the position of defendants in the circumstances in which the defendants to this case find themselves. None has commended itself to me or to my predecessors, but I will continue to give this aspect of the Legal Aid Scheme continuous and most anxious study.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for his comprehensive and sympathetic answer to my Question. May I ask him this supplementary question? In an action of this character, where the costs of the plaintiff are paid by the State and the plaintiff gets off scot-free, would it not be fair and equitable that the State should pay the costs of the defendant? I would also ask him this further question: whether Her Majesty's Government will now consider the advisability, if necessary by an alteration of the law, of allowing Judges in these legal aid cases to use their discretion in ordering that the costs of defendants be borne by the State?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I understand it, the first suggestion of the noble Viscount is one that was put forward during the Committee stage of the Bill in 1949 and was rejected by another place. I have considered this proposal. At the moment I do not feel that, on balance, taking a purview of the whole operation of the Scheme, it would be right to put this additional burden on the State; but as I told the noble Viscount, I am closely considering the working of the Scheme and I shall consider his advocacy of the suggestion with the other relevant material matters.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, while associating myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has said as regards the possibility that the fund might bear the costs of the other litigant in suitable cases, and subject of course to the discretion of the judge who tries the case, I should like my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to bear in mind in the meantime, that it is within his power, without new legislation, to

637
apply that part of the Scheme which relates to legal advice and to ensure that every case of any difficulty receives the careful opinion of counsel, in addition to the support of the Committee, who, after all, give it only a general consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the question of the noble and learned Viscount, I think it is some measure of the difficulty of the proposal that he was himself the advocate of this suggestion in another place, and even then it failed to get a majority of the House of Commons. On the second point, the noble and learned Viscount will remember that Her Majesty's Government are under pledge to introduce the Legal Advice Scheme during this Parliament. He knows that at the moment there are various difficulties, but he may be sure that I have his suggestion most sympathetically in mind.

FUTURE BUSINESS
3.0 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make an announcement with regard to future Business for this week. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has at the last moment been compelled by his duties as Lord Lieutenant of the County of Durham to postpone his Motion on the Report of the United Kingdom delegates to the International Labour Conference, which stands on the Order Paper for next Thursday afternoon. He is postponing it until the following Thursday, February 9. The only other Business for Thursday this week was a Starred Question in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and this has been postponed owing to the temporary illness of my noble friend Lord Reading. There is therefore no Public Business left on the Order Paper for Thursday, and we do not propose to ask your Lordships to meet on that day. I am sorry that it was impossible for me to give earlier notice of this change, but if the weather continues as it is, perhaps this decision will not be unwelcome.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DENTISTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LEEWARD ISLANDS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD COHEN: My Lords, I count myself fortunate that, on the first occasion that it falls to my lot to address your Lordships on something other than a Report of the Appellate Committee, it should be on a Bill which I hope is uncontroversial and the clauses of which are, I think, apt to accomplish its purpose. I am privileged to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The principal Act was passed in 1932. Since then, there have been eight or nine amending Acts, and your Lordships may consider that it is perhaps unfortunate that anyone who wants to get a clear picture of the law governing the solicitors' profession should have to look at so many Acts in order to get a complete picture. The Law Society share that view and it is their intention, if Parliament should pass the Bill now before it, that a consolidating Bill should be introduced at the earliest possible moment for your Lordships' consideration. I hope, however, that your Lordships will not consider it necessary to postpone the coming into force of the Bill now before you until after the passing of the Consolidation Bill to which I have referred.
Clause 1 is perhaps the most important clause in the Bill—certainly it is the most urgent. The Solicitors Act, 1941, contained provisions setting up a Compensation Fund to enable the Law Society to compensate and relieve any person suffering in consequence of the dishonesty of what I may call, colloquially, a defaulting solicitor. The fund has been built up by requiring from solicitors an annual contribution of £5, payable on taking out the practising certificate. With certain exceptions, to which I will refer in due course, that contribution is payable by every

639
solicitor. When the 1941 Act was introduced it was thought that the maximum sum of £5 would be amply sufficient to cover the object in view; and, in fact, so far the fund has met all the claims upon it. But it has been impossible to build up any reserve, and I am told that unless something is done there is a grave danger that, by the end of the present year, the fund will be in deficit. For this reason, it is proposed to increase the maximum annual contribution to the sum of £10.
I remember reading in The Times last autumn, when the proposal was first before the public, some correspondence critical of what was proposed, but it has received the support of all the provincial law societies. The proposal has been within the knowledge of the profession since the annual meeting of the Law Society last July, and the Society have received only ten letters dealing with the proposal, of which only eight were critical. When the 1941 Act was passed, the principle on which the foundation of the fund was based—that it is right that the profession should recognise an obligation to protect the public from the defalcations of its very few black sheep—was approved by an overwhelming majority of the profession, and I cannot doubt but that it will commend itself to your Lordships. It would be disastrous if the fund were to prove inadequate to carry out its object, but I can assure your Lordships that the Council of the Law Society will watch the position most closely and will not continue to enforce the maximum contribution longer than is necessary to ensure that the fund remains adequate.
It has been suggested that the burden of this increase will fall most heavily on the members of the profession with small practices, and that large firms will benefit most from it. The first part of this suggestion has, of course, a substratum of truth; but it must not be exaggerated. In the first place, no contribution is payable on the taking out of the first three practising certificates, and the full contribution is not exacted until six practising certificates have been taken out. Moreover, for once we may pleasantly remember the incidence of income tax, and the contribution is a legitimate expense for the purpose of calculating liability to tax. The result, if my mathematics are correct, is that the real burden on the solicitor is not an extra £5, but an extra £2 17s. 6d. The
640
second part of the comment is based on a fallacy, for experience has shown that the larger the firm, the larger its business, the less the risk.
The next most important provision of the Bill is Clause 2. Part II of the principal Act regulates admission to the solicitors' profession in considerable detail, dealing in particular with the articles of clerkship, into which every candidate for entrance has to enter, and with the examinations which he has to pass in order to qualify. In the result, an Act of Parliament is required to make an alteration in respect of a number of matters, some of which are of trifling importance. Thus in 1936 it required an Act of Parliament to increase from 5s. to 20s. the fee payable on the registration of the articles. Again, in 1941 it was found necessary to include in the amending Bill a power enabling the Council of the Law Society to decide for itself how often in each year the preliminary examinations should be held. I know of no other comparable profession which is subjected to anything like that measure of Parliamentary control. I am happy to say that at any rate the other branch of the profession is not, and I would add that the chartered accountants are governed by a Royal Charter of 1948, which gives wide powers to the Institute to regulate by by-law all these detailed matters. The by-laws require not Parliamentary sanction but only the sanction of the Privy Council.
Clauses 2 and 18 of the Bill are intended to relieve Parliament of the necessity of dealing with this kind of matter in future. Clause 18 is the repealing clause. Clause 2 (1) provides as follows:
"No person shall be admitted as a solicitor unless he has satisfied the Society that he has complied with such requirements as the Society may by regulations, made with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls, prescribe with respect to—

(a) service under articles of clerkship;

(b) attendance at a course of legal education; and

(c) the passing of examinations,

and unless the Society are also satisfied as to that person's moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court."
I venture to think that the requirement of the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls ensures that the regulations to be adopted will set up a

641
standard at least as high as that in force by the existing provisions and will ensure that the public are adequately served by a competent solicitors' profession. Since I have mentioned the Master of the Rolls, I might remind your Lordships that his office has many responsibilities in connection with the solicitors' profession. He has been consulted on the provisions of the Bill and I am sure your Lordships will be glad to know that his support of it will be indicated not merely by his presence here to-day, which we all welcome, but by observations which he will in due course make.
I should perhaps add that the clause contains provisos preserving certain statutory protections, the first intended to assist clerks, innocent themselves, of solicitors who have been suspended from practice, and the second facilitating admission to the profession of certain colonial solicitors and of persons who have served as assistants to justices' clerks. Unlike the other provisions of the Bill, the clause will become operative only when regulations under it have been duly approved. The majority of the other clauses of the Bill are of minor importance. Clause 3 imposes on the Law Society direct duties which it has hitherto performed on behalf of the Registrar. The Law Society has, for all practical purposes, been the Registrar, This Bill, if passed, will clarify the position. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 enables the Master of the Rolls to delegate to any High Court Judge certain of his functions relating to the admission of solicitors. The object of this clause is to ensure that the admission of any newly qualified solicitors shall not be delayed if the Master of the Rolls is abroad for any reason or (we, hope this will not occur) is incapacitated for any length of time. Subsection (2) of the same clause enables a solicitor of certain overseas courts who has served for not less than three years as clerk to a solicitor in England, subject to complying with certain conditions, to obtain admission on similar conditions to those which would be applicable if he had practised for three years as a solicitor overseas.
Clause 5 deals with practising certificates and the procedure for issuing them. The changes are mainly a matter of simplification. I will not waste your Lordships' time by going into details. Clause 6 contains drafting Amendments defining in plain terms the duration of a practising
642
certificate. Subsection (1) of Clause 7 provides that, if a solicitor is suspended from practice for a period which expires before the expiry of his current practising certificate, the suspension shall remain in force unless it is revoked either by the Law Society or, on appeal, by the Master of the Rolls. Subsections (2) and (3) contain consequential Amendments.
Clause 8 makes certain modifications in procedure intended to facilitate the working of the Disciplinary Committee. I need refer only to the provisos to subsection (2) and to subsection (5). The first of those provisions enables two members of the Committee, or of a division of the Committee, to form a quorum if the parties to the application or the complaint agree to that course. At present the quorum is three. The other provision increases the period within which proceedings may be commenced against a solicitor who offends or commits the offence of what is called pretending to be a solicitor. At present, proceedings must be commenced within six months. It is proposed that that period shall be extended to two years, thus bringing the provision as regards this offence into line with analogous offences which are dealt with in Sections 47 and 49 of the principal Act.
Clause 9 is of more importance. It gives the Law Society power, where a solicitor is removed from or struck off the roll or is suspended from practice, to make certain orders as to the property under the control of such solicitor. The object of this provision is, of course, the protection of the client. It has been found in practice that considerable inconvenience, if not actual hardship and pecuniary loss, has been occasioned to clients by reason of their inability promptly to obtain possession of papers and money held by a solicitor on their behalf, in cases not covered by the Act of 1941. The First Schedule to that Act conferred the necessary powers where the Council had reasonable grounds for believing that the solicitor had been guilty of such dishonesty as had been mentioned in Section 2 of that Act. This clause will enable the same powers to be exercised in other cases where in practice it is thought likely to be necessary. Turning to Clause 10 I would say that subsections (1) and (2) are intended to clear up doubts as to the procedure on

643
an application to the Disciplinary Committee to remove from or strike off the roll the name of a solicitor, or to replace a name on the roll. Subsection (3) will enable the Council to require a fee in all cases of replacement on the roll and not in the limited class of cases in which they can at present do it—namely, under Section 51 of the principal Act.
Clause 11 is of more importance. It amends Section 16 of the Act of 1941. Subsection (1) (a) enables proceedings to be taken before the Disciplinary Committee in respect of a solicitor's clerk who is not himself a solicitor but who has been guilty of certain criminal offences in respect of money or property. Under the existing law that can be done only where the money or property belongs to or is held or controlled by his employer on behalf of a client of that employer. The Law Society feel, and I think rightly, that the power should be widened and that, even if the offence is committed against somebody else's property, none the less the committing of it may render it unsuitable that that person should be employed in a position of trust in a solicitor's office. The amending clause will give the necessary power. It will ensure that the clerk shall not escape the consequences of the section—and this is an important provision—merely because, although convicted of the offence, he has been given the benefit of the First Offenders Act, has been placed on probation and has not been subjected to a penalty. It may be right that the clerk should have the benefit of the First Offenders Act provision but the offence may be of such a character still as to render him unsuitable for the particular employment of a clerk in a solicitor's office. Your Lordships will appreciate that it does not necessarily follow, because the Law Society have that power, that it will be enforced in every case.
Clause 12 enables the Law Society to discharge articles of clerkship in five classes of cases, four of them where the articles have been entered into in contravention of a statutory condition and the fifth where the Council of the Law Society is satisfied after inquiry that the articled clerk is morally unfit to be an officer of the Supreme Court. Clause 13 amends the existing law as to the remuneration of solicitors. Subsection (1)
644
deals with disbursements. Under the existing law no disbursements not actually made before the delivery of the bill of costs are allowed unless the bill states that they have not been made and sets them out under a separate heading, in which case they can be allowed if actually made before the commencement of the proceedings in which the taxation takes place and if they were made in discharge of an antecedent liability of the solicitor, properly incurred on the client's behalf.
It sometimes involves hardship on the solicitor, if he has paid the disbursements, the disbursements being of a kind which are allowable, and the only fault has been, for instance, that it has not been put under a separate heading. It is thought that the client would be amply protected by the amending clause, which contains the following safeguards: first, the liability must have been properly incurred on behalf of a client; secondly, the costs in question must be described in the bill as not then paid; thirdly, if the bill is ordered to be taxed, the costs shall not be allowed unless they are paid before the completion of the taxation. Subsection (2) authorises the delivery of gross sum bills of costs in contentious matters, just as they have been allowed for some time, at any rate since 1919, in non-contentious matters not governed by a special scale. This subsection is based on the recommendation of the Committee over which the Master of the Rolls presided. I will leave it to him to expound the reasons for that change, only saying that I respectfully agree with the recommendation of his Committee.
I turn to subsection (3). Under the existing law, on the taxation of a bill as between solicitor and client, if one-sixth of the bill is taxed off the solicitor has to pay the client's cost of the taxation as well as his own. It is proposed that if, in the case of non-contentious business, no less than one-half of the bill before taxation consists of costs for which no scale is provided, that penalty shall be imposed on the solicitor only if one-fifth is taxed off instead of one-sixth. The remuneration Order now in force is the Order of 1953. It introduced a new method of computing costs and laid down certain factors which were to guide the taxing masters in allowing costs in cases for which no scale was fixed. Solicitors have felt that a greater margin of error should be allowed in the

645
computation of the effect of those factors than is given by the sixth rule, and this view was shared by the Statutory Committee appointed ender Section 56 of the principal Act to deal with solicitors' remuneration in non-contentious matters. That Committee consisted of the Lord Chancellor, the Lard Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Law Society, a provincial solicitor and, in certain matters, the Chief Land Registrar. It was advised, however, that, despite its views, it could not give effect to them because the one-sixth fraction was fixed by Section 56 (5). My Lords, I do not weary your Lordships with argument for I feel that the recommendation of so powerful a Committee does not reed any further words of mine to commend it to you.
Subsection (4) clarifies the definition of contentious and non-contentious business. Clause 14 varies Section 72 of the principal Act. That Act enabled solicitors who had formerly been barristers to count as part of the qualifying time for holding certain offices the period during which they had been barristers. The Law Society feel, I think rightly, that while this provision in principle is correct, they should not he allowed to count time during which, though barristers, they were not in practice; and it is therefore proposed to limit the privilege to the time actually spent in practice in Chambers. I understand that the Bar Council think that, as drafted, tie clause may impose some hardship on those who practise in the Colonies but not in this country. I can assure the Bar Council that in Committee the Law Society would welcome any Amendments which would protect such barristers, provided that the principle on which the Amendment is based, as I have stated it to your Lordships, is maintained. Clause 15 enlarges the powers of the Council of the Law Society to co-opt on to its committees solicitors who are not actually members of the Council. My Lords, I do not think I need mention any other detailed provisions of the Bill. I have already detained your Lordships far too long, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cohen.)
3.26 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen,
646
on having made his maiden speech in this House. It is a matter for argument as to whether indeed it is a maiden speech, because the noble and learned Lord has quite often spoken in this House, though not necessarily in the sort of capacity in which he has spoken to-day. It is therefore not surprising that he should have made his speech with the confidence, clarity and definiteness that he did. The last time I had the privilege of congratulating a noble Lord on having made his maiden speech was on the occasion when the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack made his maiden speech. On that occasion, he was introduced and at once moved the Second Reading of the Housing Bill in a somewhat necessarily long, clear and concise speech. That was, of course, an important Bill, which was of interest to the whole community. I am sure that the noble aid learned Lord, Lord Cohen, will not suggest that this Bill is of equal interest in so wide a field, but it is nevertheless of interest to an important section of the community on whose activities I believe the commercial interests of the country and the interests of justice depend. It is therefore right that a Bill of this kind should receive the close scrutiny of Parliament. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not mind if I subject this Bill to a certain amount of scrutiny.
On the whole, I think that the Bill is right, and I do not propose to criticise the general principles on which it has been drawn. I was glad to hear that it is the intention of the Law Society that in due course a consolidation measure shall be introduced. The various Solicitors Acts go back many years. To-day, it is exceedingly difficult, without a great deal of research, to ascertain whether any particular Bill or any particular portion of it is still in force, and it would be a great convenience, both to the profession and even more to the general public, to have the whole of the legislation relating to solicitors incorporated in one measure.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, quite rightly said that the most important provision in the Bill is Clause 1, relating to the Compensation Fund. I certainly accept the need for a Compensation Fund, and do not in any way desire to discuss the principle. Nor do I wish to quarrel with the suggestion which he made, that the payment which was originally laid down in the 1941 Act, and which

647
was of necessity a guess in the dark, has been found to-day to be inadequate and in need of an increase. Last of all, I should not challenge the fact, even though I happen to be a member of that profession that there are a number of "black sheep" in the solicitors' profession. I believe I can truthfully say that in relation to the total the number of "black sheep" is no higher among solicitors, although they are very much more publicised, than in many other professions which I shall not name.
My criticism on this part of the Bill is of the way in which it is proposed to levy this Compensation Fund. With certain exceptions outlined by the noble and learned Lord—young solicitors or persons who have been in practice only a short time—a uniform rate of £5 a year is proposed. Nobody would wish to make heavy weather of a contribution of £5 a year, even though one might have thought it inequitable that a flat rate should be levied on all solicitors. It is proposed to take powers to increase the amount to £10 a year, and there is no reason to assume that it will not be increased to that figure. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the additional £5 would inflict no particular hardship on anybody, particularly if the taxation factor is taken into account. It would be more correct, however, to take account of the total figure of £10. I will not pretend that even £10 a year, payable by a solicitor to this Compensation Fund, is ruinous, for it would be ridiculous to do so; but solicitors have to pay other fees, also. There is the annual certificate costing in the neighbourhood of £8 a year. Here another £10 a year is proposed. There must be very few professions (I am not sure whether or not the noble and learned Lord's own profession is one of them) where any annual contribution is required as a condition of being able to practise.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the suggestion that a levy might have been put on the profession on the basis of annual turnover. I thought he was rather sweeping in suggesting that firms with a large annual turnover are less likely to make default in payment than those with small annual turnover. After all, if a firm receiving large sums of money on behalf of its clients makes default, the consequences are likely to be much more serious and to impose a much
648
heavier burden on the Fund than would arise from the default of a smaller man. Without necessarily going to the length of pleading hardship on the small man, it appears grossly unfair to require the same fee of £10 a year from a man who may receive no money at all from his clients in the course of his work. It may not be necessary for him to receive clients' money. He may be a clerk engaged in work where clients' money is not involved; or he may be a man with a very small turnover. It seems unfair to demand from such a person the same amount as is demanded from a firm of solicitors with a turnover running into hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds—when I say "turnover," I mean, of course, money received on behalf of clients.
I view this matter from the ground of equity, of which the noble and learned Lord knows more than I do. It seems to me that it would be much more equitable that people entrusted with larger sums of money should make a greater contribution to this fund than people who are entrusted with small sums. If the matter were dealt with on that basis it would be unnecessary to make the assumption, which I think the noble and learned Lord has made without conclusive evidence, that people entrusted with larger sums of money are necessarily more honest and reliable than those entrusted with small sums.
I would at once admit that in the interests of simplicity of administration, the present scheme is far better than any other that could be devised. It is much simpler to say to a solicitor, "You pay £10 a year, whoever and whatever you are," than to attempt to assess his contribution in accordance with any kind of principle, but I see no great difficulty in assessing the contribution that a solicitor is required to make in accordance with the amount of money entrusted to him. After all, it is the law that every solicitor receiving money on behalf of clients must pay it into a separate account. He must not keep in that account any money which is not strictly clients' money. It would be quite simple, therefore, to get from the bank a certificate of the amount of money paid into the clients' account in the course of the year and to assess the solicitor's

649
amount. That would be perfectly equitable. It would get over the difficulty in regard to the contributions of young solicitors, for the assessment would be on the firm and the firm would have to pay.
I suggest to your Lordships that this method is one deserving of further consideration. I would not seek to reject the Bill on this ground, even though it is the most important provision in it, but I believe the Law Society have been too ready to take the easy line, administratively, without taking the question of equity fully into account. I hope the point will receive further consideration. Perhaps I should say that I am not unduly impressed by the fact that only eight solicitors have written letters. Solicitors are very keen on writing letters when they get paid for them, but I do not know whether a solicitor would feel it worth the postage to write a letter to the Law Society once that Society has appeared to have made up its mind. I do not want to enter into controversial internal questions. I will say only that the Society's machinery for informing itself of the views of members of the profession is not always as comprehensive as it might be.
I would turn now to one or two other clauses which could, perhaps, be dealt with by way of Amendment on Committee stage; but I am rather anxious not to have to put down Amendments to the Bill if that can be avoided. In so far as I do not refer to any particular clause I am in complete agreement with it. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 2 provides for the replacement of statutory provisions: by regulations. While none of us really likes regulations, all of us who have had any experience of administration are forced to resort to them. In opposition we make violent speeches, eloquent or otherwise, against them, but we employ them fairly freely when we come to introduce our own legislation. In the present instance, I agree that there is a case for repealing the meticulous restrictions upon solicitors, and for enabling the more elastic provision of regulations to be substituted, but I do not feel at all happy about the machinery for getting approval of these regulations.
In connection with the regulations with which we in this House are familiar, there is, first of all, a Statute which enables
650
regulations to be made and, as we have recently discovered in the ease of heroin, Ministers cannot go beyond the powers comprised in the Act. If they seek to make regulations beyond that, they may find the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, standing up and raising a question. 'That is one safeguard. The other safeguard is that either these regulations have to he approved by Parliament by Affirmative Resolution, or Parliament can disapprove of them by means of the Negative Resolution procedure. At any rate, it is possible for these regulations to come before Parliament and to be fully ventilated and discussed.
What is proposed here in Clause 2, however, is something quite different. It is proposed that all statutory provisions should go and that in their place regulations should be made. Those regulations need not be approved by anyone other than the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Far be it from me to say that those three eminent jurists do not constitute a reasonable protection against manifestly unjust regulations—and, of course, there is the further safeguard that they have to be unanimous. What happens if they are not unanimous I do not know: I imagine that the regulations will not be passed. But I am concerned with the members of the public. These regulations will affect the public and affect the profession. None of these three eminent jurists is a member of the solicitors' profession, and the three of them will be faced with the draft regulations prepared by the Law Society with which they will be asked to concur. And there will be no voice critical of those regulations, no opportunity for anyone even to know of their existence. And once the regulations are approved, once they are concurred in by the three eminent jurists, there will be no opportunity for anyone to ask that they should be reconsidered.
Nor will there be any opportunity for anyone to make representations to the three noble and learned Lords before they concur. That is a travesty of the machinery which exists in this House for making regulations, yet that is what we are asked to substitute for the provisions that already exist in an Act of Parliament. I recognise the great convenience to the Law Society of having the flexibility and elasticity of regulations. I do not wish

651
anything I say to be regarded as opposition, but I feel that something more ought to go into the Bill by way of protection to the public, something designed to afford the public and the solicitors a full opportunity of making their views known before the regulations actually come into operation.
The next clause I want to refer to is Clause 13, which deals with remuneration of solicitors, and provides for the delivery of lump sum bills of costs even in contentious matters, in which at present that is not possible. I think that is all to the good. I believe that the ordinary member of the public does not understand the principles upon which a bill of costs is made up and he is inclined to jeer at the idea of paying 3s. 6d. for a letter, 6s. 8d. for an interview (I think those charges have now been increased by 50 per cent.), so much per seventy-two words for perusing a document, and so on. It is rather an archaic way of assessing the value of one's services, and I welcome any method designed to enable delivery of comprehensive bills—lump sum bills. The clause itself, however, is somewhat obscure, I feel. It is certainly not clear to me what are the rights of a person to whom such a bill is delivered.
In the first place, he has a month in which to say that he would like a detailed bill, but apparently he has another chance if, at the end of three months, an action is brought in respect of the bill. He can again say that he wants a detailed bill within a month, and that he wants the bill taxed; and the judge in such a case is to order that the bill shall be taxed. It seems to me that that matter is not very clear. I imagine that it would be difficult for a taxation officer to tax a bill unless he were given details. All I ask is that this particular provision in Clause 13 should be looked at again to see that it really is clear and that any obscurities which there may be in it are removed at the next stage of the Bill. I do not want to weary the House by going into details, but to me, as one who has been a practitioner for many years, both this clause and the rights of the client seem somewhat obscure. My own view of what this provision should be is that when delivery of a lump sum bill is made the client should be informed in terms that he has the right within a certain period (I do not mind what the
652
period is) to ask for a detailed bill, and that at the expiration of that period he should have no further right to demand it again if proceedings are taken. At present he appears to have the opportunity of two "bites." I suggest that, as a condition of giving him one "bite," it ought to be made clear to him what his rights are at the time when the bill is delivered.
Lastly—and this is only a small matter —I have a point on Clause 15, which concerns committees of the Council. Since the Law Society have thought it necessary to ask for a change in the law on this point, I should like to know why this provision has been found to be necessary. Clause 15 (1) (aa) states that
"if more than one-third of the members of any committee are not members of the Council, no resolution of that committee shall be duly passed unless a majority of the members of the Council present shall have voted in favour of it."
People who are not members of the Council of the Law Society are asked to serve on these committees. Possibly a large number may be asked to go on a committee because there are not sufficient numbers of the Council to man such a committee. Yet the Bill says here that, whatever their views may be, their votes will not count; that there must be a majority on the committee of members of the Council. That is rather humiliating to those who have been asked to serve on the committee. I do not know whether there are any precedents for it; I cannot think of any, and I should have thought it wholly unnecessary. If the Law Society really are timid about the voices of those whom they ask to serve on a committee, the remedy is to see that not more than one-third of the committee are co-opted members. These are the only points I wish to raise on the Bill. I hope that it will not be inferred from my comments that I am opposed to its general principle, but I thought it right, as one who has had some experience in these matters, to voice these criticisms, which I am sure will be considered before the next stage of the Bill.
3.52 p.m.
LORD EVERSHED: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous of me to address the House so soon after my introduction. Your Lordships will allow me, I know, on this occasion a strong feeling of diffidence, but there is a special connection between the

653
profession of solicitors and the Master of the Rolls—a connection not, indeed, attributable to the roll of solicitors, to which alone the Master of the Rolls has the right and duty to admit, but to the Rolls which form part of his official title. It is a statutory connection first established, I think, by Parliament in the year 1843. I should like to say to your Lordships that my own association with the Council of the Law Society during nearly six years as Master of the Rolls has given me a high respect for the zealous care with which the Society seeks to maintain the honour and to uphold and improve the standards of the profession, and also for the keen sense of responsibility towards the general public whom the profession serves. I think it right, too, that I should acknowledge, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, told your Lordships, that in the ordinary course of my duties I was informed it advance of the proposed provisions of this Bill and expressed my personal approval of them, so far as they relate to my office.
These general observations, I think, are not irrelevant to this Bill. Hitherto, Parliament has thought it right to keep in its hands a rigid control of the exact requirements for admission as a solicitor. The solicitors' profession, like other institutions perhaps, has acquired gravity and responsibility with the 112 years that have elapsed since 1843; and it is my submission that the time has now come when these detailed matters concerning admission to the roll of solicitors, and in like manner the matters of detail concerning the applications for, and the forms of, practising certificates, ought properly to be left to the governance of a responsible profession. If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will allow me to say so, I am a little surprised that he, as a solicitor, has apparently so little confidence in the counsels of his own profession in this matter. As your Lordships have been told, the necessary regulations—and may I observe that in these days of National Service there is often the requirement of a certain flexibility in matters of articles and such like—have to be approved by what I may call the august triumvirate which has been referred to and which, as your Lordships see, has a kind of censorship concerning many aspects of the solicitor's profession and also a certain amount of experience of such matters. From personal knowledge I can say that the approval of the
654
three of us is not to be regarded as a "rubber-stamping" activity.
May I turn now to Clause 1 of the Bill, clearly the most significant of all the clauses. The clause, I apprehend, really involves two distinct questions: first, whether it is right that there should be a Compensation Fund at all, and, second, if so, how should the incidence of it be borne. The first question, I submit, admits of only one answer; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is of the same opinion. If we as a nation pride ourselves upon our administration of the law, it is essential that the public generally should have confidence in the security as well as in the Integrity of the professions which administer the law. In this respect, after all, we are doing no other than has been done in the case of the comparable societies in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and indeed Scotland, as well as in many other countries. I should like to assure your Lordships that the reason for introducing this clause is not that those who have been called by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, the "black sheep" of the profession have increased or are increasing; indeed, I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that the tendency is the other way. In a profession which numbers some 17,500 persons, the "black sheep" together constitute not more than a fraction of one-tenth of 1 per cent., although, perhaps due to the fall in the value of money, it is a fact that the amount of the depredations of these few bad men is apt to be large. In fact it has now been realised that the sums are too large to make the fund actuarily solvent in certainty at the present rate of compensation. Therefore, if the principle of a Compensation Fund is accepted, I suggest that it must be obvious arid right that the fund should be capable of performing the function for which it has been created.
There remains, however, the second question, which is perhaps more difficult: how should the obligation be spread? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, ideally at any rate, there is a justice—indeed, an equity, if I may say so—in relating in some way the contributions to the ability of members of the profession to pay, so that those who make most out of the profession should contribute most to secure its

655
honour. But there are, I suggest, powerful, nay, compelling, arguments the other way. Of these so-called "black sheep" it is the fact that a high proportion are men who carry on business on their own—what are sometimes called sole partners; and it is also a fact that of the sole partners a high proportion are what one might call small men. It follows from that general proposition that there is at least a justice in relating the contribution to what is shown to be the greater risk. But the generalisation I have made, like other generalizations, is not, of course, universally true. I can myself think of men of my acquaintance, sole partners, who could not by any sensible use of language be called small men; and I can think also of two or more members of a firm to all of whom the appellation of small men might without injustice be applied.
If, therefore, the just rule is to relate the contributions to capacity, it will, so far as I can see, be necessary to have a full, close investigation of the earnings of every firm of solicitors in the country—and not on one occasion only, for earnings vary quite largely from one year to another. Now, my Lords, solicitors, like other members of the community, do not as a rule particularly like investigations into their earnings, and I am not quite sure that a proposal to relate the contributions to capacity would not also involve a consideration of outside private means. But unless the result were not to produce more injustices than it avoided, it would be necessary that the investigations should be of the closest and most thorough character; and the result would be, inevitably, an administrative task of such magnitude that the cost of the investigation itself would almost at once require an increase in the amount of contributions. A solicitor who was saved a few shillings as the result of such an investigation would find that his savings were offset by an increase in the contributions he was called upon to make. I therefore submit to your Lordships that, so long, at any rate, as the scale of contribution cannot exceed £10 per annum, less tax, and is payable only by solicitors with practising certificates who have already held six earlier practising certificates, administrative simplicity produces not only the most economical but also the most sensible and the most just result.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble and learned Lord will not mind me interrupting him in a maiden speech, but this is rather an unusual type of maiden speech, and I do not think he has quite grasped the proposal I made. I was not proposing a payment based on ability to pay, nor on earnings, but on the actual amount of clients' money received each year. The solicitor would be required to make a simple statement, certified by the bank, as to how much clients' money he had paid into his account in the course of the year, regardless of his profit.
LORD EVERSHED: I am sorry if I did not fully apprehend what was in the noble Lord's mind. I can see that an investigation limited to the amount of clients' money received might be simpler, but I would again observe that the amounts would be liable to vary considerably from one year to another; and in any case, an investigation of such a matter is necessarily expensive, to some extent. However, I will not pursue the matter further, having at any rate put to your Lordships some grounds which will, I hope, commend the measure to your Lordships as it stands.
I will detain your Lordships by reference to only one more clause—namely Clause 13, subsection (2) of which is designed, as your Lordships know, to enable a solicitor in contentious matters, as he was allowed to do twenty years ago in non-contentious matters, to deliver to his own client a lump sum bill for the costs of the work or services he has performed. I refer to this subsection partly because the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned it and partly because, in introducing this matter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen mentioned my name in connection with it, though in my capacity not as Master of Rolls but as Chairman of the Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure. It is a fact that that Committee of twenty-four members—not all of them lawyers, and including among their number a Member of your Lordships' House, not a lawyer, but as wise as a lawyer—unanimously recommended this proposed change as just, both to the solicitor and to the client alike.
I would observe to your Lordships that the so-called Appendix M to the Rules of the Supreme Court contains in some

657
204 small detailed items a list of the charges which a solicitor can properly make to his own client in litigation. But I would observe also that in an ordinary law suit the amount of the costs covered by Appendix M would not in any case be greater than about 15 per cent. of the whole bill, the remainder being made up of disbursements and what is called the solicitor's instructions for brief, a discretionary item altogether outside the scope of Appendix M. It was the view of my Committee that the proposed change was just to the solicitor, because it relieved him of the somewhat derogatory task in every case of contriving—and I use the language of the Report—
"by reference to a number of mechanical jobs to fit his Bill into the straitjacket of Appendix M";
and it was just to the client because it encouraged the solicitor to turn his attention much more to the quality of the services which he rendered than to the quantity of small jobs for which he might justifiably charge.
The proposal in the Bill, as I understand it, is that in the case of delivery of a lump sum bill the client shall have two distinct and successive rights. He may require, at any time within three months, provided that the writ or summons for payment has not earlier been issued, a detailed bill; and in that event the gross sum bill has no effect. But even after the three months have passed, if the solicitor sues for the lump sum, then within a month thereafter the court may, if it thinks that the client should be thus protected, require that the bill delivered should be taxed, though taxed as a gross sum. Perhaps I might add this comment. Upon this matter of solicitors' costs my Committee considered that we were not able to accept the view that an altogether different standard of charging might take the place of the present—for example, by reference to the time spent, as in the chartered accountants' profession, by principals or clerks on the clients' behalf. As your Lordships know, litigation has to follow defined steps prescribed by rules of court, and to such a proceeding it was the view of my Committee that methods of charging appropriate to chartered accountants or other professions would not be appropriate. I beg to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is my first pleasant duty, and I am sure that I exorcise it on behalf of all your Lordships, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, on the speech with which he has first addressed your Lordships. If your Lordships will forgive a brief personal intension, I may say that it is a particular pleasure to myself. Some years ago the noble Lord and I were undergraduates at the same college at the same time, and I hope your Lordships will think it is not unsuitable that I should convey your Lordships' congratulations this afternoon. I would also add that we do not merely congratulate the noble and learned Lord, but hope that the House will often have the advantage of hearing him again on, the variety of subjects upon which, with his experience and knowledge, he is so clearly entitled to speak.
I hope your Lordships will think it right that I should say a short word giving the views of Her Majesty's Government towards the Bill. We welcome the Bill as making useful amendments to the law relating to solicitors and, in particular, for the fact that when, as I hope it will, this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it will be much easier to consolidate the various Acts of Parliament relating to solicitors, which I think everyone will agree are now in a tangled state. I hesitate to come too closely into the discussion of Clause 1 with which the two noble Lords who preceded me have engaged themselves. As I understand it, there is no dispute at all upon two points: first, that the Compensation Fund should exist; and secondly, that at the present moment, by some method, it: should be increased so that there is no doubt that it will meet those very rare cases—I repeat with strength, very rare cases— when it is necessary to deal with solicitors who have fallen by the wayside. I am sure that we shall listen with interest to the development by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, of the ideas which he has adumbrated this afternoon.
I want to say a word on the general legislative problem that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised with regard to the regulation-making powers under Clause 2. I agree with his general pronouncement that the question of subsidiary legislation is one that usually concerns an Opposition more closely than a Government. I think

659
that is a thrust which is perfectly justified. But I should put this to him on, I think, the broad and most serious aspect of this problem. Everyone agrees that it would be impossible to run a modern community and to provide for the various matters which have to be the subject of legislation if powers of regulation were not used. One has to grade the kinds of regulations and use the Parliamentary procedure which is appropriate to each one of them. What I should suggest to the noble Lord for his consideration—I put it no higher than that at the moment—is that in this field it would be useful to differentiate between regulations which really and fundamentally are concerned with domestic matters. I know the noble Lord knows the difficulty of drawing a line in every case, but as the general criterion, if they are really domestic matters, then, with all diffidence, I suggest that the judgment and criticism of the noble and learned Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and myself, would be a sufficient protection. But I would say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that that does not mean that I am not prepared to look at the Solicitors Act. 1932, and consider whether there are certain regulating powers which have a wider purview. It might well be that for them the procedure of making a statutory instrument with the appropriate Parliamentary protection was well worthy of our consideration.
As I have said already, it is hoped that there will be a Consolidation Bill with the improvements that modern Consolidation Bills contain. I think this is a subject we might look into with profit, as we are considering the framing of that Bill and I do not rule out any case where there is that wider outlook in the regulations from requiring the consideration which the noble Lord suggested. I say equally, on the other side, that it would be again endangering the Parliamentary machine by overwork if one related Parliamentary procedures to purely domestic matters.
I am not going to follow noble Lords who have already spoken in dealing with Clause 13 and the question of the lump sum bill, but to say only that, broadly, I approve of the proposals which the clause puts forward. I reserve for consideration at Committee stage the definition of "contentious matters." I
660
am not sure that it quite covers the various forms of arbitration which exist to-day. As I say, I should like to have another look at that matter, and we can consider it, if necessary, at a later stage in the Bill. Broadly, I should like to congratulate the Law Society on the good sense of the proposals that they have put forward. It is an unusual pleasure in one's speech to congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Cohen on the maiden speech with which he introduced the Bill, and to say how fortunate the Law Society were in securing an advocate to put it forward so attractively to the House. There is only one other matter. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, may be speaking. I hope that he will not think it discourteous on the part of one who has known him for many years if I do not hear the whole of his speech. It is only public duty that will call me away. I shall read it most carefully and consider every point that he has to make.
4.20 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships long, but there are one or two things I should like to say about this Bill. First of all, the Law Society are to be congratulated upon having such eminent sponsors of it. The Master of the Rolls appears to be a sponsor as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, and I might almost put the Lord Chancellor in that category also. Strange to say, they are not members of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession. Perhaps their commendation carries all the more weight upon that account. On the other hand, barristers do not always understand the intricacies of the other side of this profession. For example, I think the Master of the Rolls did not quite appreciate the point which my noble friend Lord Silkin was making. Whether it be agreed with or disagreed with, it was, in fact, a very simple proposition, for the reason that every solicitor is obliged by law to have his clients' account audited by a chartered accountant: therefore the facts, if it were necessary to certify them, could be certified automatically. However, I do not want to pursue that point, which is more of a Committee point.
I should like to emphasise that this Bill deals only with a small fraction and a

661
small aspect of the solicitors' profession. Unfortunately, it is calculated to give the impression that neglect of duty or misappropriation of clients' monies is quite a common event. That subject has occupied the major part of the discussion this afternoon. But that is to put matters in an entirely wrong perspective. I venture to say that the standard of honesty in the profession is at least as high as that in any other. Our standing is steadily rising every year because of an improving standard of qualification, of training, of education and of the whole environment in which a solicitor conducts his business.
The other qualification which I should like to make is that it is not fair to suggest that members of the public are ill-advised to consult firms of solicitors in which there is only a small number of partners or which are carried on by one solicitor aim e. There are a large number of such firms of solicitors in this country, and the number who have been guilty of defalcation is a small proportion of them. To suggest that the public, when they want to seek legal advice, should go to firms which are carrying on a large business with a large number of partners is unfair to those who are conducting respectable businesses, in many cases with a high degree of skill and professional attainment, although they do not happen to be members of large firms. Those points deserve to be stressed in order that the public should not get a wrong impression with regard to this matter or an exaggerated idea that they run greater risks in consulting a member of this profession than they do in consulting members of other professions.
More than that: there are very few professions in this country which have taken up the public-spirited, indeed the almost quixotic, view which this profession has of establishing a fund for the purpose of compensating those who by misfortune may have suffered. Very few professions indeed adopt that standard of conduct. It speaks highly for the public spirit of the Law Society and the members of the profession that they should undertake this burden entirely gratuitously, because, although it is statutory, it was introduced at the instigation of the Law Society and not of anybody else. 'They deserve credit for that and for the way in which this business has generally been handled.
4.27 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I say how much I agree with almost all that my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said. In particular, I hope I may be permitted to say—I believe I am the only member of the Council of the Law Society in either House—how much indebted the Society and the profession are to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, for introducing this Bill, and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, for supporting, it to-day on this rather notable occasion of his Introduction. I hope that, without impertinence, I may be permitted to pay another tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Evershed, and to thank him, on behalf of both the profession and the public, for the great care and consideration with which he has carried out his many important duties affecting the profession of a solicitor. I know that the Law Society in particular have at all times had the advantage of and have appreciated his great wisdom and advice and have very willingly accepted his decisions, with the full knowledge that they are in the public interest and have been arrived at only after mature consideration.
My Lords, I need not keep your Lordships long, but there are one or two points to which I should like to refer. All those who have spoken, with the possible exception of my noble fiend Lord Silkin, are in favour of the Bill. Perhaps I may say a word or two in reply to my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made one or two statements which were not strictly accurate. He said that the Council of the Law Society had taken this matter too easily, or something of that sort, implying that the profession had not been consulted. On the point which he pressed more particularly—the basis on which the proposed increased fee should be levied—I can assure him that that very point was considered at great length by the Council of the Law Society. After consultation—in which, I may say, the whole of the profession, or at any rate almost the whole, took part or had the opportunity of taking part—the original proposal was approved by, I think, the largest meeting that the profession ever held; and the proposal to adjust the amount to be paid to the Compensation Fund was considered with great care.

663
For a number of the reasons which have been advanced by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cohen and Lord Evershed, and other reasons, it was decided that the flat rate (if it can be called a flat rate) was far and away the better approach. Obviously, there is no relation between the amount of money going through a solicitor's clients' account and the possibility, shall we say, of defalcation. It may well be that a one-man business or quite a small business may at one time or in one place have a much larger sum going through the clients' account than has a large firm. There is no relation between the two factors, and it would be quite impracticable in my view, notwithstanding the point made by my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch, to base the contribution to the Compensation Fund on the amount going through a solicitor's clients' account. I have served on various committees of the Law Society Council and there have been cases where monies have not been paid by solicitors or their clerks or servants through the clients' account, and therefore the amount going through the clients' account might not be at all an appropriate criterion on which to fix the contribution to the fund.
Then, my noble friend seemed to think that on that and other points the machinery of the Law Society was not, I think he said, comprehensive enough to enable the profession to be fully consulted. I am sure that on consideration my noble friend will agree that that is not really the case. There are full opportunities for consultation, and of course every area in the country is represented on the Council of the Law Society. Meetings of that Council are held every fortnight; there are frequent meetings of the provincial law societies with the Law Society Council and the President and officials there is an annual conference, and so on. My noble friend is quite in error in supposing that there are not ample opportunities for representation and there is really no substance in the suggestion.
In the view of the Council, having taken into account all the factors which have been mentioned and which I need not repeat to your Lordships, it is necessary to have this increased contribution, mainly because it is most desirable to
664
have a reserve. The fund has no reserve at present. Supposing that one or two large claims came along, a difficult situation would arise. The fund is not administered merely as an insurance; it is administered with a view to upholding the honour and reputation of the profession, and those who administer it look at it from that point of view. I hope, therefore, that I may have disposed of the one or two points which were raised by my noble friend Lord Silkin in connection with Clause 1.
Then, with regard to the regulations clause, Clause 2, again I was a little surprised that my noble friend should raise that point, because, from my experience in another place when he was the Minister of Town and Country Planning I imagine that no man made more regulations than he did, although I think he would have been happier had more of them not had to be submitted for the approval of Parliament. But here we are dealing with quite a different position. These regulations deal with articles of clerkship and with attendances at courses on legal education, which include examinations and so forth, and the only proposal here is that those regulations, or regulations affecting those matters only, in the main, should be made after submission to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. That triumvirate at present has duties of that nature to carry out under the existing legislation; but there the general rule is that when there is any difference of opinion, the view of two out of the three prevails. This Bill provides that the concurrence of all three is necessary, and therefore there is a much greater safeguard. If my noble friend will think a moment, those regulations do not really affect the public; they all affect the domestic apparatus of the Law Society and its members and those who are aspiring to be solicitors. For all those reasons I hope the House will eventually approve that provision.
Thirdly, my noble friend spoke about the rights of a client in connection with what solicitors call a lump sum bill. The Bill at present before your Lordships gives additional protection to a client. At present, it is quite true that if I deliver a lump sum bill I cannot sue on it, until I have delivered a detailed bill; but then the client has only one month, except in special circumstances, to object and to

665
tax. The provisions contained in Clause 13 of this Bill provide for three months during which a client may object to such a bill and require it to be detailed. Furthermore, if a solicitor sues on that bill, as my noble friend pointed out, the client has an additional bite, in that he his a further month's time—two bites in all, whereas at present he has only one bite. Therefore, the advantage is clearly with the client.
On the fourth and last point which my noble friend raised, your Lordships will remember that he complained that when gentlemen are co-opted on to a committee, this Bill provides not, as he said, that the votes of these co-opted members should not be counted, but that
"if more than one-third of the members of any committee are not members of the Council, no resolution of that committee shall be duly passed until a majority of the members of the Council present shall have voted in favour of it."
That seems to me a most reasonable provision. It would be absurd if co-opted members on a committee of the Law Society who were co-opted because of their special knowledge, perhaps in some special branch of the law, were able to carry decisions against the votes of members of the Council. Clearly, the decision should in the last resort remain with the elected members of the Council. My Lords, I hope that I have dealt, though I am afraid rather shortly and inadequately, with a number of points which have been raised, and that your Lordships will feel it right to give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
4.38 p.m.
LORD COHEN: My Lords, the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have been dealt with so adequately by the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Milner of Leeds, that I do not think it would be right if I were to delay the House by a further exposition of the subject at this stage. I would only say that the various suggestions that have been made will be carefully considered, but I cannot pledge myself that they will necessarily be adopted.
I would add only one word. Lord Douglas of Barloch attributed—I do not know whether it was to me; I think it was to my noble and learned friend Lord Evershed—the remark that we had recommended that people should consult
666
large firms rather than sole solicitors. I am quite sure that nothing could have been further from our intention than to interfere in any way between the client and the solicitor of his choice. Our sole object was to point out that, in considering the suggestion that Lord Silkin had made as to the method of calculating the actual contribution, it was perhaps worth bearing in mind where in fact the few—as he said, the very few—cases of defaulting solicitors had mostly been found. We quite recognise that in many cases the client will prefer the sole solicitor who can conduct his work on his own and with whom the client is intimate, rather than the large firm where there is not the same aspect of intimacy. My Lords, with those few words, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments retorted (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Safety of pupils going to and from school]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I would remind your Lordships that this clause enables education authorities to repair private roads which are used by pupils going to and from school. This is purely a drafting Amendment and is intended to clarify the definition of a private road. It concerns a point which was raised on Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and which I undertook to consider. I hope that the Amendment meets his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("a ford and bridges") and insert ("any ford or bridge"). —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, an education authority or its committee or sub-committee may postpone for a period not exceeding one month a decision

667
to prosecute a parent whose child does not regularly attend school. This Amendment extends that period to six weeks, which will be more convenient for members of the education committee and meets representations made by the Association of County Councils. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert ("and for the words 'one month' there shall be substituted the words six weeks'").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, Part V of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, deals with the registration of independent schools and provides for the keeping of a register of such schools to be open to the public for inspection. This Part of the Act will not come into operation until September 30, 1957, but the preliminary work has been done and has brought to light a minor difficulty. Under Section 109 (1) of the Act, under regulations made by the Secretary of State, all particulars furnished by the proprietor of a private school will have to be included in the register. Some of this information, however, may not be suitable for inclusion in a public register, and this Amendment therefore provides that only such particulars as the Secretary of State may direct need be entered in the register. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 48, at end insert—
("In section one hundred and nine, in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

'(a) where the proprietor of an independent school makes application for the purpose and furnishes the information required by regulations made under this section, such of the particulars prescribed by regulations so made as the Secretary of State may direct, and'.")—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

TRAINING OF PERFORMING ANIMALS
4.43 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to call attention to the cruelty involved in the training and use of performing animals for exhibition and entertainment purposes; to the general undesirability of such performances; and to their bad effect on children's education; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands in my name I should like to say at the outset that this is not a Party matter. I felt that it would be useful to have a debate in your Lordships' House on the question of performing animals, however, since this subject has not come before your Lordships for more than twenty years. The last occasion was in 1933 when the late Lord Danesfort presented his Bill to forbid the training and exhibition of wild animals for entertainment purposes. That Bill was defeated by only one vote. The Select Committee appointed by the Government, which sat during 1921 and 1922, stated quite definitely in their Report that they were satisfied that certain charges of cruelty had been established. There is little reason to suppose that the situation has changed since then. I am not at all opposed to the circus per se. In the past I have derived a great deal of pleasure from watching acts by clowns, acrobats and other human beings; but I am strongly opposed to performances by animals, for reasons which I shall hope to bring to the attention of the House.
My first reason for being opposed to performing animals is that it is strongly believed by those most in position to know that methods of training them are either definitely cruel or, at any rate, for the most part undesirable. It is very difficult to get evidence on this matter, as most of these animals are trained on the Continent and when they come to this country they are already conditioned. I want particularly to stress that point, and also the fact that often they are shown by people other than those who have trained them. It is very important to remember that, particularly in view of a letter which I believe has been sent to all your Lordships and to myself by the proprietor of a well-known London circus, in which he invites noble Lords to visit what he calls his "training

669
quarters" at any time, day or night. It may be of interest that the programme of this particular circus frequently has against animal acts the words, "First time in this country" so that one wonders how much actual training is done in those quarters and how much is merely a refresher course or rehearsal.
On the other hand, there is a certain amount of evidence about this training abroad. Some of it has been disclosed fortuitously, and I should like to quote one or two illustrations. In 1954 there was published in this country by the well-known French trainer, Alfred Court, a book called Wild Circus Animals. In this book, Court describes his training methods very frankly; and after reading the book one can have no doubt that they are most brutal and cruel. In one part the author says that Dr. Goebbels (of all people) was so shocked by his methods that he said to the manager of the Berlin Wintergarten "I agree, it's a sensational act, but what I have against Court is that he's too brutal with his animals." I will read to your Lordships some short extracts from this book.
On page 61 the author says:
"The stick and the whip are as necessary as the reward of meat, the soft voice and the caresses."
A little later he writes:
"All the spectators knew that one of these tigers had killed a man that very morning. It was my turn to be brutal, terribly brutal, and brutal I was. All the clubs I had left in the cage were broken one by one on Bengali's head; lashes came down like an avalanche, each cutting deep into the tiger's shining coat."
On page 144 the author writes as follows:
"I seized a heavy training stool, made of wood and steel, weighing a good eighty pounds. Raising it above my head I flung it at Artis, catching him on the hindquarters. The animal gave a terrible roar, a cry of pain rather than the roar of attack and turned to spring at me. But the poor beast did not get far. The iron stool had hit him harder than I had intended, snapping his leg."
It may interest your Lordships to know that Alfred Court appeared at Blackpool in the summer of 1939. I am not contending for one moment that all trainers are like Court. On the other hand, lest anyone may think he is unique, may I remind your Lordships of the successful prosecution in the United States against Clyde Beatty, the well-known animal trainer and film star. Beatty was prosecuted for cruelty in 1936, the charge
670
being that he had fired gunpowder into the lions' faces and struck the beasts with iron rods. I have here an extract from the Evening News of June 17. 1936, which I can show to any of your Lordships who may care to see it.
The other piece of evidence I should like to quote conies from an entirely independent source—the well-known Swedish illustrated magazine, Vecko-Revyn, dated April 10, 1953, which contains an article describing a visit to one of the training centres in Denmark. I have a copy of the magazine here, and I have taken the liberty of having the whole of the article translated. I should like to read one or two short extracts from it. This is the first:
"The following day we arrived at a moment when the attendant was not expecting us; and we were destined to witness an incident that made us definitely lose faith in the 'gentler' kind of circus training—one which convinced us that cruelty to animals is a factor in circus life. In a small shed that had very tiny windows—so dark that one could hardly see across the floor—were rows of cages piled one on top of another. The cages were so small that it would he heartless to keep even animals the size of a rabbit in them. Locked up in this cramping narrowness, in this dismal semidarkness—were dogs! Boxers and other large dogs. The public performance of these dogs consists, by the way, in their acting as a 'football team'—each dog being dressed up in an idiotic 'football suit. Thus attired, they have to push the ball towards one of the two goals. With the exception of the 'training'—this we were not admitted to, either—dogs are taken out of their hutches for a short while only each day, and then their 'freedom' consists in their being closely chained, each to its post and their 'sphere of activity' is limited to one metre at most in each direction. For the rest of their miserable life—or rather existence—they are pent up in the rabbit hutches."
The second extract is as follows:
"When approaching the dogs' shed on a second occasion we were once more greeted with intense barking. But through the din a shrill howling, full of horror, came to our ears. We peeped through one of the tiny windows. There we saw the trainer in the act of chastising a beautiful boxer with a leather whip—and using all his strength. The dog was grovelling at his feet howling piteously. Blow upon blow descended upon the back of the unfortunate animal. Like a pistol shot the lash cracked at, every sweeping blow aimed by the man. What harm had the dog done? For what reason was it being punished so cruelly? … The trainer caught sight of us. He instantly stopped the ill-treatment and stuffed the whimpering dog back into its hutch."
The authors go on to say:
"We both witnessed this, and we are both willing to testify to the truth of it."
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask him a question? Does what he is now reading relate to something that happened in some foreign country? If so, does it really concern us, and any action we may take?
LORD STRABOLGI: I assure the noble Lord that I do not in the least mind being interrupted. If he will bear with me for one moment I will go on to explain why I am quoting these extracts. The quotation which I was reading continues with these words:
"When we asked the trainer about the beating he muttered something about the dog making a … fuss and not obeying orders. That finished us for the circus once and for all."
I think one can say that the gentlemen of the Press are always unbiased, and indeed one can always expect them to be particularly objective in their approach to controversial matters. But there is no doubt that this incident moved the writer of the article very deeply—indeed, to anyone who has kept boxers and has found them to be, as they are, the most delightful of all dogs. I think that an incident like that is particularly harrowing. Certainly it has continued to haunt me ever since I read of it. I should like to say that performing animal turns from this particular camp in Denmark, which seems to be a kind of animals' Belsen, have appeared in London in recent years, and there is one on at the moment. During the Second Reading of the Performing Animals (Regulation) Amendment Bill, which Lord Danesfort introduced in 1930 (this was the earlier Bill) the late Lord Auckland told your Lordships—here I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of March 13, 1930, col. 908:
"I have listened to trainers boasting of the brutalities which they find it necessary to inflict on the animals which they train."
Lest it may be thought, however, that cruelty ceases when the animal has been trained and after it has arrived in this country, I should like to recount two further incidents which have been brought to my notice by eye-witnesses. An old friend of my family, herself the widow of a Member of another place, told me that just before the war she went with her husband to a circus in the London area. They went to the evening performance, and after the show they left with the rest of the audience and went to find their car. When they got to
672
the car, my friend's husband could not find his ignition key. He searched through all his pockets without success. Then his wife said to him: "Perhaps you have left it at your seat in the circus: let us go back and try to find it." So they went back, and found the night watchman who let them in. After a great deal of difficulty, they eventually found their seats, and underneath one of them was the missing key. The auditorium was at the time in semi-darkness but the ring was fully lit. They saw that lions had been driven back there and the trainer was there with a man standing beside him with a revolver. The trainer was lashing the animals as hard as he could go with a whip: The lady said to her husband: "If you want to object do not shout now, because if you attract their attention the beasts may seize the chance to spring on the man." This incident horrified the lady. She has told me about it herself—I would rather her name was not disclosed, but she is a personal friend of my family.
Just before Christmas, the B.B.C. had a programme called "Any Answers?" which arose out of the previous programme called "Any Questions?" During this latter programme it was announced that the B.B.C. had received a great many letters from listeners and that the overwhelming majority of these expressed strong disapproval of acts featuring performing animals. Among them were several bearing witness to acts of cruelty. I should like to read one of these, which was from a listener in the West Country. This was read out on the B.B.C. this Christmas:
"I have made most things in my time, so when a length of steel tubing and a three-inch spike, together with a large fish-hook, were delivered to my workshop door, I got on to the job and did as the customer required. I fastened the spike in one end of the tube and the hook barb on the other. After the job was called for I inquired what … it was all about. I was told that my customer was an elephant trainer, and by poking the animal about the ears with the spike end, the beast would roll its head from side to side and swing its trunk around like an Indian club. By catching the hook barb under its foot, the animal would lift its leg and wave it around. I saw this turn later, and as the trainer bowed his way off after the applause, he waved the goad I had made. There were ribbons flying from its spike and it all looked charming."
In the face of all this evidence, the circus authorities still maintain that animals are trained by kindness. If that is

673
the case, why do they use the whip in the ring? In the circuses I myself visited this winter the whip cracked like a pistol shot the whole time. I cannot understand why this is used if it is not intended as a reminder of what the animal has undergone and of what it is likely to undergo if it fails in its turn. I cannot understand also why, if animals are trained by humane methods, the animal protection societies are not allowed to visit the training centres. The Select Committee of 1922 recommended this, but unfortunately it was not incorporated in the Act of 1925, which gave permission instead only to an officer of the local authority or a police officer, but neither of these officers may go behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals.
Quite apart from training methods, to which a strong suspicion attaches that they are cruel, there is great difficulty in keeping an animal up to the mark. There are many people who contend that because one can teach a dog to do a trick in the home by kindness, there is no cruelty involved in the training of performing animals. On the other hand, a dog in the home is quite free to reuse to do a trick if he does not feel inclined, but the performing animal is not allowed this latitude. It must be up to the mark for two, and sometimes three, performances a day. In this connection, I should like to quote a short extract from the evidence given by the late Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell, who was Secretary of the Zoological Society, to the Select Committee of 1922. He said:
"… if at a quarter past eight in the evening, when the bell rings and the curtain goes up, you have to get your animals on the stage and do the trick at once, lest the manager and the public be discontented, then in my experience there is the gravest possible risk that there has been cruelty, not only in training the animal, but continuous cruelty in keeping the animal up to the mark for these—what may be called time performances. I could, I think, give some detailed examples of that, but I would rather not make examples which involve what I may call personal charges against individual trainers, but I do know of some things, which to my mind were so serious that I told one particular trainer that if he came back to London with his animal, I would have him prosecuted for gross cruelty."
Those were the words of Sir Peter Chalmers Mitchell.
The honorary director of the National Dog Owners' Association wrote me a week or two ago as follows:
674
"There have been complaints of cruelty to dogs in obedience competitions, particularly where dogs are continually and regularly in obedience tests: get stale; and are punished by a disappointed owner… This seems to me to be one of the points against performing animals. The best of well-trained dogs in the hands of experienced handlers very often have a stale patch, or an off-day. Yet the performing dog must be absolutely on top-line twice nightly. It seems a bit much to ask."
There have been cases of recalcitrant animals in the ring who have been treated with cruelty when they have refused to do a particular trick. The Daily Mail of December 24 last (I have a cutting here if any of your Lordships wishes to see it) described how 2,000 children at a circus in Manchester saw a tussle between a terrified Russian bear and five men. For three minutes the men grappled with the bear, who refused to perform a cycling trick and tried to escape, and the act had to be brought to an end as the majority of the audience cried "Shame!" Another incident which took place at another provincial circus this Christmas was witnessed by one of the inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A. I have his report here and I should like to quote a short extract from it. He says:
"Act 21 involves seven lionesses and one lion. Six of these animals, though obviously performing with the utmost reluctance, are in apparent good condition. The seventh, a lioness… is obviously terrified. The first act of this animal on entering the cage and taking its place was to pass a motion, and then made frantic attempts to squeeze a way between the bars of the cage, and had to be threatened with the trainer's stick and struck once to force it to perform the trick. The sight of a magnificent animal such as this being in terror of a human being is, to put it mildly, pitiful. On the completion of the 'act' the animals made a mad rush to get out through the exit.… "
If animals are treated like this in full view of the audience, one shudders to think of what they have to undergo when they are out of sight.
Quite apart from the questions of cruelty in training these animals and keeping them up to the mark, I think that animal performances are highly undesirable, as they are, in my view, an insult to nature. This is becoming increasingly so, as all types of animals are made to perform much more difficult and sensational acts. which are entirely alien to their nature. I have myself this Christmas seen a horse made to lie down while an elephant stepped over it. As

675
your Lordships know, there is not much space between the front and back legs of an elephant, and the great beast got its feet over that wretched horse only with the greatest difficulty. I thought that the horse was absolutely terrified. I was glad to see that the act was later abandoned, because I think they had trouble with the elephant, but I thought a comment made in the Manchester Guardian this morning was very apt when it said:
"Critics of the existing legislation on cruelty to animals will want to know in to-days debate why a matter like this was allowed to go as far as it did."
Then I have seen, also in a London circus, an elephant sitting in a jeep wearing an ostrich feather hat. It seems to me an odd way to amuse people by making a noble animal like this look ridiculous. One wonders what some future historian will think of the kind of civilisation which finds amusement in making bears ride motor-cycles, or bicycles 10 feet high—difficult enough for a human being—or the sight of a bear standing on a high stool wearing a frill round its neck and a dunce's hat on its head. In all these degrading acts noble animals are made to look foolish, and I have here photographs of all these acts, if any of your Lordships wishes to see them. I think this was the impression gained also by the circus critic of the Manchester Guardian, whose report in the issue of December 28 last on a well-known London circus read:
"The poor sad elephants, sitting on little red stools, and dancing grotesquely with frightened-looking girls, are obviously highly embarrassed by it all."
These acts are degrading, but even more objectionable are those which are not only degrading but cruel as well—I refer particularly to the act where a lion or tiger is made to jump through a flaming hoop. As your Lordships know, animals are terrified of fire, and it must be a great ordeal for a lion or tiger to have to do this every night. I have here reports by the inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A. describing details of such acts which took place last summer in two provincial circuses, and I have, also, a programme of another provincial circus which contains a photograph of this particular act. It seems to me a most repugnant way to treat a noble animal, particularly one such as the lion, which is the symbol of
676
our great country. I understand that under the present law the R.S.P.C.A. are unable to prosecute. There is also the question of travelling conditions, which I am sure cause a great deal of indirect cruelty. Large carnivora, such as lions I and tigers, are kept in cages in which it is hardly possible for them to turn round. While on tour they are kept there for weeks, and sometimes months, at a time, and are let out only when they are in the ring. I myself have seen them in the menagerie of a well-known London circus, sometimes two lions in one cage little more than 6 feet long. The 1911 Act lays down no measurements, and hence it is difficult to prove cruelty, although in my view it is often apparent.
Dogs come in for particularly cruel conditions, because many of them are still in quarantine when they perform in this country. The law lays down that dogs in quarantine are permitted to perform provided that they do not leave the premises where the show takes place, except when they go, in travelling boxes, to the next place where they are to appear. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that animals such as dogs should go through their quarantine period first, before being allowed to perform, as at present they cannot be properly exercised and the only freedom they get is in the ring—a fact which is perfectly obvious from their happy demeanour when they perform. If a dog is kept for twenty-three hours in a cage, and let out only for a short time in the ring, it is bound to run around and wag its tail and give the impression of being extremely happy; and this suits the trainer down to the ground. Quite apart from the effect on the animals, I submit that these circus performances are bad for children and for their education. The present trend in education is to teach the child to appreciate and understand an animal in its surroundings, and this aim is vitiated by circus performances where an animal is made to do unnatural and degrading acts such as I have described. The incident of the bear in Manchester, which I described earlier to your Lordships, took place before 2,000 children. The National Association of Head Teachers are, I know, concerned about this matter, and one of their branches passed a resolution about it in 1943.
In view of what I have said, I consider that acts by performing animals should

677
be forbidden in this country and an embargo placed on the importation of foreign-trained acts of this kind. I should be glad to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government how the Act of 1925 is working; what the Government are prepared to do to extend legislation, and whether they would be prepared to view with sympathy a Private Member's Bill. Many people in this country are becoming increasingly concerned about this highly undesirable traffic in these unfortunate dumb creatures, and I feel that the time has come for Great Britain to take a moral lead in this matter so that this blot on our civilisation may be removed. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the training and use of performing animals for exhibition and entertainment purposes.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
5.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I wish to ask your Lordships' leave to introduce an Amendment to the Motion just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The Amendment is as follows: To leave out the words after "That" in the original Motion, and to insert the following words:
"this House recognises the high standard of humane treatment of performing animals maintained by exhibitors, but is nevertheless of the opinion that there should be an inquiry into the training and exhibition of such animals and into the present statutory provisions and administrative arrangements for their protection."
I must first apologise to the House, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who will reply for the Government, for not giving your Lordships advance notice of this Amendment. The reason is this. As your Lordships are aware, it is sometimes difficult to collect a number of noble Lords to discuss Parliamentary Business, because they always have other occupations, and it is difficult to find one time which suits a number of them. My noble friends on these Benches were only able to meet this morning to discuss the Business for the current week, and therefore I was not in a position earlier to put down my Amendment. I am sorry that noble Lords have not had an opportunity to consider it in advance before this debate started.
678
As your Lordships will see, the object of my Amendment is to ask the Government for an inquiry into the matter that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I am sure we are all glad that the noble Lord is carrying on his family tradition of concern for performing animals, and that he has given us this opportunity of discussing a subject of considerable public interest and importance. The noble Lord based his case largely on evidence of cruelty at home and abroad. For my part, I shall not try either to challenge or to confirm that evidence. But I do think the allegations he made were serious, and unless they can be refuted by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his reply, it seems to me that it is in the interests equally of the entertainment industry and of the British public that the truth should be known and that these allegations should either be substantiated or be refuted. That, in itself, I think, is a good reason for an impartial inquiry into the whole matter.
On the basis of my own limited experience in London, my inquiries have shown that in recent years the condition of performing animals—animals that have been shown at circuses and so on in London—seems to have been fairly satisfactory. There has been only one prosecution by the London County Council, which is the responsible authority in London, and that was an unsuccessful prosecution in the case of a lion which was used in what is called a "Wall of death" act. That is in itself convincing evidence that, in London at least, there has been little to complain of in the condition of these animals—and, of course, their mental and physical condition is the evidence of their treatment, I understand, during training as well as on show. I suppose it is for all of us to express our own personal views on a matter of this kind, and that if there is an inquiry, the merits of these different views will fall to be considered.
I would suggest to your Lordships that cruelty is not the only criterion that should be used to decide whether animals should be allowed to perform in public. I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has suggested, by implication at least, that there were other criteria. I should like to mention one of these other criteria. It seems to me that it would be undesirable to allow animals to perform in public if we are in fact forcing them to

679
do something which is contrary to their nature. If this criterion is accepted, then a line might be drawn between domestic and other animals that are docile and easily taught, and wild animals that are by nature strong-willed and hostile to man. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, did not, I think, suggest that such a line should be drawn. He wanted to ban all performing animals. If this were done, I cannot help thinking—although he did not desire this result—that very few circuses would be able to carry on.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but was that not used as an argument by those who were in favour of retaining the slave trade?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not discussing the merits of the noble Lord's argument; I am discussing the social consequences. I was going on to say what I thought would be the attitude of public opinion, because, after all, in these matters public opinion is even more important than our own personal opinions. I do not know that I am the right person to assess public opinion—I think noble Lords opposite are in a far better position than I am—but I would venture to suggest that the public would like to have circuses but that they would not like to have circuses which involved cruelty to animals or even undue harshness, if the undue harshness were known about but was something rather less than cruelty as defined in an Act of Parliament. What I am suggesting is something which I think might be done without having a fatal effect on circuses—namely, that the use of certain animals, domestic animals, monkeys and wild animals that are easily trainable, should continue to be allowed, while the use of, say, lions, tigers and leopards, the wild members of the cat family, should be prohibited.
I do not know whether it is unwise to generalise on the domestic cat. I am not a zoologist, and therefore I speak subject to correction and certainly with all due deference. We all know the characteristics of the domestic cat and how different it is from the dog. I think we should describe the domestic cat as an obstinate, independent animal which easily reverts to the wild state. From "Selima, demurest of the tabby kind" who ended up, your Lordships will remember, in
680
a bowl of goldfish, to "Tiger, tiger, burning bright" and "The cat that walked by itself," the wilfulness of the cat family has been often described by those who understand its nature. I doubt whether we can train these large wild cats, which are obviously opposed to our desires, without de-naturing them, without depriving them of their natural characteristics. In this way, they lose what is probably the most attractive quality about a wild animal—namely, the quality of being itself. Another point in this connection which certainly strikes any observer who has no inside knowledge, is that it must be difficult, if not impossible, to train these large wild animals of the cat family without a certain degree of harshness and severity—I would not, of course, say cruelty, by any means, but a degree of harshness and severity which must be undesirable both for the animal and the trainer. I think the methods that are used in training this type of animal should perhaps be examined particularly carefully, and ought to form part of an inquiry.
May I now pass on to the other part of my Amendment, which deals with an inquiry into the existing law relating to the protection of performing animals and its administration. Your Lordships will remember that the Act to control the training and exhibition of performing animals was passed as long ago as 1925. What I am suggesting is—and here I feel I am on fairly firm ground—that its operation should be reviewed by the Government, with, of course, the advice and assistance of the local authorities who administer it. This would enable the Government to decide what legislation and administrative changes are needed, if any, to bring the Act up to date and to make it really effective in carrying out the purpose for which it was designed by Parliament.
I should like to give one or two examples to show why the 1925 Act is either out of date or much less effective than it should be in detecting or preventing cruelty to performing animals. My first point is this. The definition of "exhibition" in Section 5 (1) of the Act is:
"an entertainment to which the public are admitted."
The owners of animals that are not "exhibited" in this technical sense do not have to register with the local authority, and are therefore not subject to inspection

681
and supervision as is the ordinary circus owner. In the 1920's, when this Act was passed, the film industry was in its infancy, and television, of course, did not even exist. Now, we have an adult film industry and two television programmes, the B.B.C. programme and a commercial programme—of course, we may have more in time to come. It is obviously just as necessary for local authorities to have the power to inspect performing animals when they are filmed or televised as when they do their turns before me public in a circus; but the making of a film or a television picture in a studio is not an entertainment within the meaning of the Act, because it is not an event to which the public are usually admitted. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he does not agree that this loophole in the Act should be stopped.
My next point relates to the administration of the 1925 Act. As your Lordships know, the Act is administered by local authorities. While circuses are performed in the towns, their training establishments are usually in the country—for example, there is no training of performing animals in London. It is, therefore, the rural authorities, the county councils, which are responsible for supervising the training of these animals, and it is during the training, as a rule, that the alleged harshness or cruelty occurs. We are all aware that many of the county councils are too poor to afford a large and highly specialised staff. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply is satisfied that the county councils are, in fact, exercising. their powers, and are employing officers with the right qualifications. Much as I respect the police, I do not consider that a police officer has the right qualifications for this purpose. If the noble Lord opposite is not certain that these powers are being satisfactorily exercised at the moment, surely this is a matter for inquiry. That is another reason for asking that an inquiry should be undertaken.
There is a further point in relation to administration and this power of inspection. Inspectors from the local authorities are allowed to visit training establishments of performing animals, and to see circus animals at a circus during the hours that no performance is being given; but during a public performance, officers
682
of local authorities are expressly forbidden, by the terms of the Act, not only to go on to the stage or into the ring (that seems reasonable enough, because, obviously, if they did they would interfere with the performance) but also to go behind the stage where they could see the animals waiting to go on. I am told by certain inspectors whom I have consulted that they consider essential, if they are to do their job properly, that they should be able to go behind the scenes and see the animals before they are brought into the ring or on to the stage. I understand that they usually do this by agreement with the management, and the circus management, as a rule, is perfectly willing to allow them to go in when they ask to do so. But if a circus manager wanted to avoid inspection during a show he would he entirely within his rights in refusing the inspector access, although it would be in circumstances of that kind that inspection would be particularly desirable. There again there is something which shows that the Act is not working quite so satisfactorily as was expected.
My last point in this connection relates to the size of travelling cages, a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. These circuses tour the country with their animals, going from town to town, and the animals have to make long journeys by road or rail. It is obvious that their cages must necessarily be fairly small, as otherwise they could not be carried on a lorry by road, or in a railway van. In the case of the larger animals, travelling for long distances in these conditions, there is real danger that the cages may be too small to allow the normal movements of the limbs and body. I heard of one case in London in which a lion was unable to stand up in its cage. Whilst I realise that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prescribe the minimum size for these travelling cages, because they vary according to the size of the animal, I think they should at least be large enough to allow the animal or animals which they contain to stand upright. I would suggest to the noble Lord opposite that, in consultation with advisers, he might find some ingenious formula which would meet that point.
Those are a few matters, which are bound to concern us all, which I have been able to add to the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, thought

683
should be considered. I agree with what I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will say—namely, that public opinion is all-important in this field; but surely the difficulty of public opinion at the moment is that people do not know the facts. We need to establish the facts. On the one hand, there are the sentimentalists (if I may so call them) who are apt to exaggerate everything in favour of the animals; on the other, there are the entertainment interests which naturally wish us to be satisfied with things as they are at the present time. Surely the exaggerations that take place on both sides can be removed only by an impartial inquiry which will ascertain facts and enable the public to form a really well-informed judgment about the methods used in training animals and showing them to the public.
All I am asking the noble Lord opposite to do is to accept the principle of an inquiry. An inquiry may take many forms, and I am not asking the noble Lord to commit himself at the moment to any particular form—it might be a departmental inquiry, it might be a Select Committee of Parliament, or it might be a Royal Commission. I remember serving on a Parliamentary Select Committee inquiring into cruelty to wild birds. That is one method that has been used in the past. I should not like even to recommend any particular method at the moment. All I ask is that the noble Lord will consider—I hope favourably—the desirability of having an impartial, objective, unprejudiced inquiry, which would enable both us and the public to form a really valid judgment about the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, this afternoon. I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved,
Leave out all words after "That" and insert: "this House recognises the high standard of humane treatment of performing animals maintained by exhibitors, but is nevertheless of the opinion that there should be an inquiry into the training and exhibition of such animals and into the present statutory provisions and administrative arrangements for their protection."—(The Earl of Listowel.)
5.40 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I will do my best to follow the excellent tradition of your Lordships' House by treating the
684
matter in hand in a detached and impersonal way, though I must confess I am not going to find it easy. We as a nation are not lovers of cruelty; nor, I think, have we any sadistic tendencies. But we do suffer a great deal from one characteristic which is a great barrier to any advance in humanitarianism, and that is indifference. There is a far too widespread tendency to refuse to believe in facts if they are unpalatable or if they are going to make things difficult for one. A typical example of this was shown to me when I spoke to a friend of mine, an eminent man in his own way, apropos of the shipping of horses from Ireland and the conditions in which they travel. His attitude was, obviously, that I was only one of those nonsensical people who make a lot of fuss about nothing, and who are always imagining cruelty where there is none. I asked him whether he would believe me if I were to show him a photograph, and his answer was "Of course not: a photograph can be easily faked." I have no doubt that if I had offered to take him to the scene and show it to him for himself, he would have discovered some reason why no suffering was involved. It is that mentality that is our chief obstacle. One can only go on raising the question until our constant drops of water have worn away this stone of indifference.
I would remind your Lordships of the difference which exists between the system of law in this country and that in France. Under our law, a man is innocent until he is proved guilty; under the French law, he is guilty until he is proved innocent. No doubt ours is the better way; but in cases which involve cruelty and suffering there is a good deal to be said for the other—for there is no doubt in my mind that no circus trainer would be able to prove his innocence. I should like to say quite firmly, before I go any further, that I am not a sentimentalist; I am under no delusion that the feelings of animals are akin to ours. Fond though I may be of my dog, I suffer from no conviction that he understands every word I say to him. But I hold most strongly that animals have feelings, and anybody who has studied them at all will realise that they are capable of feeling three sensations—fear, pain and hunger. These are the three chief weapons in the hands of so-called animal trainers.

685
A great deal has been said about the training of performing animals—that they can be trained only by kindness; that cruelty would never make a wild animal fond of his trainer; that they are obviously fond of their trainers; that they apparently enjoy their performance and so on. My Lords, I do not believe one word of this; and nor would anyone who has gone into the question thoroughly. In fact, an experienced circus trainer has admitted that fear is the only method by which a man can train a wild animal. He said that that is why animals born in captivity are useless for this purpose: because they are used to men, they do not fear them. Surely the mere keeping of wild creatures in narrow cages, where they can scarcely move, and where they are in a perpetual state of terror, is enough. But this is by no means all. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi has quoted the evidence of the two representatives of the Swedish magazine. I too have read that article, and I confess that I read it with horror. If such methods as those which he quoted are used for dogs, what must be the ones employed for wilder and mere savage animals? It makes one start thinking when one reads from a report mace in another place that a lion was kept for five days without food or drink during training with trident and whip.
Hunger, fear and pain are, as I said, the three most important weapons in the hands of trainers. I have read an account by an actual eye witness of the training of wild elephants. I confess that I had to force myself to read it to the end, it was so revolting. One must remember, of course, that nine-tenths of the so-called training of elephants takes place in the jungle, where no-one sees it. This man did, and recounted in full what he saw. No doubt many people will ask me whether I believe everything that I read. I assure them that I do not. But there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this account; it was given by a man who had himself previously hunted elephants. He was no sentimentalist, and he described every detail with meticulous care. The process of so-called training which he described was so appalling that it made him feel that he could never visit a circus again.
We who are interested in humanitarian affairs are used to having our words dismissed with contempt—it has been so all
686
through the centuries. I have no doubt that those who advocated the abolition of bear-baiting and cock fighting were treated in a similar manner, and regarded by the vast majority as "cranks" and sentimentalists. The same probably applied to the use of children in the mines: I have no doubt that there was a large school of thought which held firmly to the view that the child enjoyed it. Yet, little by little, public opinion has become more enlightened. Let us hope that it will eventually conic to see the horror which is involved in the training of performing animals—and I include performing animals of all sorts, not merely wild ones, since, as Lord Strabolgi pointed out, performing animals in a circus have to perform to the minute and can therefore be trained, not as a domestic animal is trained, to do a little trick, but only by the most strict and often painful discipline. There is an increasing campaign in this country against injustice. Surely this is one of the grossest forms of it.
I should like just to put one point to those noble Lords who do not agree with what I am saying. I think that they will all agree that one of the most despicable of human characters is the bully. How shall we define a bully? Surely he is one who, by his own strength, for his own objects, subjects others who are weaker than himself. Any animal, however physically powerful, is always weaker than a man because of its lesser powers. We have long looked upon warfare as something to be avoided, but that at least is man fighting his equal; and horrible though it may be, it often brings out the noblest traits of man. But the torture—and from the evidence I have seen I can assure your Lordships that it is nothing less—of defenceless animals to provide us with amusement has, in my opinion, no quality that should not be met with the heartiest condemnation. Finally, do not let us be misled by circulars such as the one which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi has mentioned, which I believe has been circulated this morning, inviting inspection. One must remember that circuses in this country largely use imported animals that have been trained abroad, sometimes in the heart of the jungle, where no one can find them, and it seems to me that the only way to prevent cruelty to performing animals in this country is to make illegal the import of performing animals of any kind.
5.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, as in this Motion great moral principles are clearly involved, it seems right that somebody from this section of the House should say something, although I do not find my task easy. I find myself in large measure in agreement with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the earlier part of his speech, but I profoundly disagree with the conclusion he reached. I felt myself much in sympathy with part of the Resolution as originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but not really in favour of the arguments he adduced for it. Several different issues are involved. First, there is the question of cruelty. Every one of us agrees that cruelty of any kind is revolting to any decent-minded person; and when cruelty is shown to animals it becomes more contemptible and utterly beastly. The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is, however, an issue of fact: does the performance and exhibition of performing animals necessarily include cruelty? On that issue it seems that the only answer we can give is that we do not know. Obviously, animal trainers are of different kinds, and I have not the least doubt that there have been animal trainers who have used brutal and cruel training methods. But that does not prove that cruelty is a necessary part of such training. As most of these animals are trained abroad it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to know the actual facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, quoted a book recently written by an animal trainer. The reminiscences of an animal trainer would surely be incredibly dull if they did not include certain stories of danger and hairbreadth escapes. I do not say that the account he gives of his methods is untrue; I only say that I do not know. What little knowledge we have of the training of animals—the training of sporting dogs and the schooling of horses—suggests that though cruelty may be involved, one is much more likely to get results by kindness and affection than by any form of cruelty. That may not be true with wild beasts. It is along those lines that I largely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. No doubt when one is trying to train a really wild animal there must be a stick and a whip for one's protection, which means that, at least on occasions, they will be used
688
when a desperate moment comes. Does the use of these things at a desperate moment constitute cruelty? The answer given behind me is, "Yes." I do not know, but I am not sure that it would be so classed. I very well recollect being photographed by the Press with my hand resting on the head of a circus lion and I cannot imagine that that amazingly docile creature had ever been subjected to cruelty.
On the other hand, I am sure that quite apart from acts of cruelty, the conditions in which circus animals live amount to something that can rightly be called cruelty, although of quite a different kind. I am sure that what the noble Lord said about travelling cages in menageries going round the country is quite true, and that animals cooped up in too narrow boxes, without proper protection from changes of weather, must suffer in a way in which none of us would wish them to suffer.
I think it is quite revolting that wild animals should be taken from their right abode and kept in captivity in order to be exhibited and made to do unnatural things for the entertainment of men and women; and when one adds the entertainment of children, one makes the whole practice more horrible and more entirely unjustified. The exhibition they give, if it is to have any force, must be terrifying, certainly to children; and surely, in any case, it is degrading to those who look at it. I would that a distinction might be drawn between wild and domesticated animals, because I recollect seeing performances by dogs which seemed to revel in what they were doing and to enjoy their whole performance. Some of your Lordships, like myself, are old enough to remember performing pigs. With what joy they set about doing their counting and their playing of cards! I do not know whether they were trained by cruelty but I hardly think so. I think it is possible they preferred that kind of life to being turned into sausages. But no doubt it is true that cruelty might be employed against dogs and horses and, therefore, I do not know whether a dividing line can be drawn.
I should like to rouse the whole conscience of the country to a conviction that this subjection of wild animals to unnatural performances should be

689
stopped, as being contrary to all that is most decent in us. I should like, if I could, to encourage the training of more domestic animals, for their joy and ours. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in introducing his Motion, had restricted himself to that aspect of the matter. I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there is a case for a public inquiry. I find it very difficult to believe that any inquiring body set up would get the truth. It is a difficult matter to inquire into. I should rather we seized the thistle and said: "No more shall this kind of thing be allowed by the laws of England."
6.0 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I count myself fortunate in following the right reverend Prelate, and I am particularly grateful to him for what he has said about the wild animals, because they will be the burden of the few words I address to your Lordships this evening. I find myself in a little difficulty over this Amendment which has suddenly been thrown at our heads. I quite accept what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says, that he had not the time to inform those of us who were interested of his Amendment; but we have not even a copy of the Amendment in front of us—I am not very good, I am afraid, at listening to the spoken word. What I am sure about is that I am opposed to the idea of an inquiry. Inquiries take time—not months, but very often years. I think this is a time for acting with regard to this particular subject.
I would suggest that in the case of wild animals, the cruelty starts at a much earlier stage than that which we have, in the main, been discussing—though it has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and by the right reverend Prelate. The cruelty starts, first, in the circumstances of their capture and, secondly, in their incarceration and subsequent transport from their native haunts to the scene of their training and exhibition. With regard to their capture, many of your Lordships will have read at different times of the methods employed. It is unedifying reading. Great suffering is inflicted, generally by natives with little imagination, and perhaps less sympathy. A professional trapper once told me of the number of lives which sometimes have to be sacrificed in achieving the capture
690
of one desired specimen. And then that one desired specimen, obtained with the expenditure of much heartbreaking blood and suffering, might die en route, and the whole foul performance has to be gone through again.
I have no wish or intention of harrowing your Lordships with details of the horrors which are perpetrated. Anyone interested can find them all in a book—I daresay in a great many books—a book called Catching Wild Animals Alive, by Joseph Delmont. After their capture comes their confinement and, following their confinement, their transport. And then what? A few years ago, when travelling in Malaya, I was taken to see three six-months-old tigers recently caught, each incarcerated in a box measuring some six feet by four feet. The month was February. They were riot due to be moved until April. In those boxes they were destined to live and eventually to travel to England. About mid-May at earliest they might, if they survived, be released from their appallingly cramped quarters and be placed in a cage for the rest of their lives. And these are God's creatures, my Lords. In the event—for I followed up this case—one of these unfortunate animals died on the voyage, a second died on arrival in this country, and the third survived. So much for the capture and transport of jungle beasts.
There may be arguments in favour of the retention of zoos, although I personally repudiate them. But what can be said in justification of what I call those "diabolical institutions," the travelling menageries? Kept in the closest confinement, the wretched animals are let out once or twice a day, not to have fun and health-giving exercise but for the performance of some unnatural trick or absurd antic in the ring, to pander to the crude appetites and emotionalism of a thrill-seeking crowd. Surely such exhibitions should no longer be tolerated and should be prohibited by law.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has spoken of the indignity of noble animals being subjected to the buffoonery of the circus and the menagerie. How profoundly I agree with him! If humans wish to act as clowns, and risk their necks and limbs in the exhibition of their skill and daring on trapeze and tightrope, well, good luck to them! They do it of their

691
own free will and, no doubt, they get very well paid for it—at least I hope they do. But for pity's sake! eliminate animals, and particularly the wild animals that I have been referring to, from these spectacles.
There will always be those diehards and such like who will come along trotting out all the old clichés and arguments about spoilsports; descanting on the educational value to the young of seeing in the flesh animals from the wilds—and "Don't interfere with the children's fun." The retort to them is a simple one. The great advance in photography and the really remarkable nature films which can now be seen at the cinema provide for all the needs of education in the matter of wild life. No doubt many of your Lordships have seen such entrancing pictures as The Vanishing Prairie, The Living Desert, and an equally well-known one about seals—called, I think, Seal Island. There is another one showing beavers—all these films are by Walt Disney. Incidentally, and slightly irrelevantly perhaps, if your Lordships will forgive me, it is remarkable to what extent the camera has to-day replaced the rifle, and how many erstwhile hunters prefer to watch and photograph wild game to securing trophies of the chase.
As to the "Don't interfere with the children's fun" brigade, the circus can provide all the fun of the fair, with its clowns and gymnasts and artistes of all sorts, without the nauseating participation of wild animals, which ought never to have been removed from their natural habitats. Study the attitude in the ring of these big cats and other animals of the jungle. There is nothing but loathing and contempt, and, worst of all, a glowering fear of their human tormentors. Surely, my Lords, it all boils down to this: what right have we humans to deprive animals of their freedom? Are they not just as much entitled to their liberty as we are? We are all God's creatures, all entitled to a dignified and free existence. Less than 200 years ago, people used to go and gape at the lunatics at Bedlam Hospital, as entertainment—I seem to remember a Hogarth picture depicting the scene. We have grown out of, and progressed beyond, that squalid form of inhuman entertainment. Has not the time come for us to acknowledge the rights of the
692
animal kingdom and cease to exploit it for man's amusement? Above all, I plead for the wild animals in captivity, and particularly for those sentenced, through no fault of their own, to imprisonment in the cages and boxes of a travelling circus, condemned to exist in darkness or artificial light, deprived of fresh air, sunshine and exercise—relegated, miserably, to a living death.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I want to support briefly the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who initiated this Motion. It has always seemed to me strange that this country which on the whole is so concerned with animal welfare—outstandingly so among the countries of Europe—should be relatively indifferent to the question of performing animals in circuses. I think the reason is that people do not know much about it, as has already been suggested this afternoon. When people see a lion being perfectly docile, as when the right reverend Prelate put his hand on its head, in the story he told us, they say, "How nice!", without realising what has gone on behind the scenes first. Though I do not speak from expert knowledge, but merely from what I have been told by people whom I have asked about it. I have absolutely no doubt that there must be cruelty in the training of wild animals. I do not think that there is so much cruelty in this country, where the big circuses probably make great efforts to try to keep their animals in good condition. Where the trouble lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Som̃ers, said, is in the capturing of these animals and in their initial training. I have been told by an animal trainer that in order to train satisfactorily a savage animal, such as a tiger or an elephant, its spirit must be broken completely. Until its spirit is absolutely broken, you cannot do a thing with it. The breaking of an animal's spirit may take weeks, and the only way of doing it is through fear and pain, hunger and thirst—and all these are used.
I have here a copy of an old book by Jack London, who spent some years of his life in circus training, describing the training of a tiger. It is called Michael, Brother of Jerry. It is an old book, but I do not think conditions have changed very much since the days in which that book was written. It describes what we

693
are up against. If, in this country, we tolerate and encourage performing animals and circuses, we at the same time tolerate and encourage the demand for these animals to be trained and brought from abroad. I am afraid that the only possible way of slopping the demand is to prohibit completely performing animals in this country.
I disagree with those noble Lords who think there is less cruelty in training domestic animals than in training wild ones. In some cases there is more cruelty, because, for instance, a dog, which is a very tractable animal to handle, is very intelligent and possibly feels the treatment given to him far more than the elephant or tiger. If any noble Lords have tried to train their own dogs they will find it easy to train a dog to do the things he is used to doing. You can easily train a retriever to retrieve or, with a little patience and care, any dog to sit up and beg for a lump of sugar, but try and train a dog to walk about on his front paws and you will soon learn that no degree of kindness can do it. Only a very cruel method will do that—by tying up an animal's hind legs until it is so painful that aai support is welcomed and there is gradually inculcated into the animal the willingness to do this absurd antic. Dogs are often kept in deplorable conditions in little kennels, almost like rabbit-hutches, so chat when people go a performance and see the dogs rushing out wagging their tails and apparently delighted, they do not realise that what the dogs are delighted about is that for a brief interval they have escaped out of the narrow hutches and are delighted to be free, even if to do a trick, for which they might get a bit of food.
I do not want to go on harrowing your Lordships with terrible stories of cruelty to animals. But there is one fact of interest which was brought to my notice a few days ago. There is an institution called The Performing Animals Defence League which for a long time has offered £1,000 to any person who under their supervision succeeds in training without cruelty any untrained animal, whether dog, lion, seal, et cetera, to perform on demand any circus or music hall trick. That offer has never been taken up. Even in these days £1,000 is a large sum of money to have, and the winning of it would have the advantage to the circus community that they could say that the
694
offer had been accepted and won; that they had trained the tiger to do tricks by kindness. But apparently no one has ever dared to take on this offer. I think that is an indication of the difficulty, or rather impossibility, of teaching tricks without cruelty. I should like to reinforce what has been said about the conditions in which performing animals are kept, not so much in the big circuses but in the little travelling circuses and menageries, in which at times conditions are appalling.
Now I think we have to consider the objections to the banning of animal performances. Of course there is a big vested interest behind these performances. There are a great many people who make their living by therm—trainers of animals, the owners, the advertisers and the owners of I halls and circus grounds, all of whom are naturally anxious that animal performances should continue. To alleviate hardship to these people if prohibition were enforced, I suggest that a term of years, perhaps five, could be laid down in which performances would be allowed to continue, but at the end of this time future performances would be banned. I would also suggest that it would be fair to arrange to give compensation to registered owners of performing animals who were registered at the date of any such enactment and were willing, voluntarily to give up their animals. Relatively the amount of compensation would not be wry great and it would help to prevent what might otherwise be an injustice and a hardship. But whatever the hardship is, I do not think the immense amount of suffering created by this animal teaching and training could for one moment justify allowing what is now going on.
I should like to deal shortly with the Amendment, although it is difficult to study an Amendment so unexpectedly moved. However, I took a note of it, and I hope I have taken it down accurately. My disagreement with it is that it says,
"that this House recognises the high standard of humane treatment of performing animals maintained by exhibitors …
Surely, it is pre-judging an inquiry for the House to pass such a Motion. It may well be that some maintain high standards and some do not. I think it would be better if the noble Earl would omit that sentence, as it would be pre-judging an inquiry. In any event, however, if I had to choose, I should prefer to see the noble

695
Lord who introduced this Motion introducing a Bill, because I think an inquiry would take a long time and would postpone the whole issue for so long that this terrible cruelty that is going on would not be remedied for years. If the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government could indicate some sympathy on their part, I earnestly hope that a Private Member's Bill will be introduced, and in that case I feel sure that many noble Lords will support it.
6.22 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I feel it only right that before I begin my speech I should declare some slight interest in this matter, in that I am a director of a company which sells seats for circuses during the Christmas period. Having declared that interest, I want to declare a very real, and I hope knowledgeable, interest in the circus, and one which I have had for many years. When I go to the circus I do not just go straight home; I go round behind and I meet my friends who train the animals. My wife and I ask where a certain horse is this year, and why it is not in the act we ask who is training the elephants this year, and why. We know these animals; we know the men who train them, and they are our friends, We are not the only people who do this; many hundreds, and indeed thousands, of others do it, both in London and on tour. There is no restriction whatever on any of us who love the circus going round and seeing what is happening. It is because I have some first-hand knowledge of the circus that I am speaking to-day, and I hope to be able to refute some of the things that have been said by previous speakers, because some of them—I must speak bluntly—are arrant nonsense.
There has been a lot of talk about these animals being broken abroad and then coming here to be properly trained, so that cruelty here is unnecessary. But that simply is not true. Every single animal in the three largest circuses in this country that has been trained in this country (there are, of course, imported acts, and I will deal with those in a moment) was either born in captivity or brought here as a cub. Even the elephants are brought here at about five or six years of age, which for an elephant is very young. So it is not true to say that these animals have been
696
broken and subjected to cruelty abroad. They have come here as youngsters, and from the word "Go" have been trained in this country. In my opinion, it is impossible that cruelty could have been used, because there would have been prosecutions under the admirable legislation, the Performing Animals (Registration) Act, 1925, which is on the Statute Book to deal with that kind of thing. There is no unreasonable restriction on inspection at circuses and in training quarters. The R.S.P.C.A. inspectors in London have season tickets, and so have the London County Council control officers.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but will he say whether the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors have tickets to visit the training quarters, as opposed to the circus?
LORD GIFFORD: I am coming to training quarters, but at the moment I am dealing with the circus itself. These animals that are trained from the word "Go" in this country include chimpanzees, elephants, lions, tigers and large numbers of horses. It has been suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there should be an inquiry. I venture to ask: what is the inquiry to be about? There have been hardly any cases of prosecution for cruelty under the perfectly adequate existing law. Most of the incidents that have been quoted to-day go back over many years, and I suppose that anybody, if he wanted to go back fifty years or so, could collect large numbers of incidents of cruelty in different parts of the world. The society concerned have been at pains to collect these incidents, and the fact that they are twenty or thirty years old is not at first sight obvious.
It seems to me that one of the main facts on which these allegations are made is that all this cruelty takes place behind locked doors. Well, the training camps of all the circuses in this country are well known, and anybody can find out their locations, because they are published in the trade papers. Noble Lords have already received an invitation to visit one of these camps, and I am sure they will be welcome at any time. The appropriate local authorities have power under the existing legislation to visit these training camps and to see for themselves. When a circus is on tour, there cannot be any

697
locked doors, because the camp is in an open field. In addition, there are many hundreds of people connected with the circus besides animal trainers—girls in the box office, porters, mechanics, truck drivers and so on, and I am certain that none of those would stand for cases of gross cruelty if any took place.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me about the training camps. I have been to one of these training camps on many occasions. It is extremely well conducted; it is spotlessly clean, and the animals are obviously in the best of condition. I have been given opportunities of photographing the lions—they were posed specially for me. I have taken down all the boys from my son's "prep." school to spend a day at this training camp, because, in spite of what the noble Lord has said, I think it is good education for these boys to see this training going on.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I interrupt the noble Lord again? I was not referring to the noble Lord's visit to the training camp, but to whether the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors are given permission to visit these training camps. The noble Lord mentioned that they were given permission to visit the circus, but it is about the training camps that I was asking him in connection with the R.S.P.C.A.
LORD GIFFORD: I am certain they would be given permission if they asked for it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am informed by the R.S.P.C.A. that they have not been given permission, although they have repeatedly applied.
LORD GIFFORD: My information is different from that of the noble Lord.
The other main criticism which has been made is that animal acts are brought over from abroad having been trained under conditions in which cruelty is used, but that when they come here the cruelty ceases because we would not stand for it, and the act goes on. Much play has been made with regard to a training camp in Denmark, where gross cruelty has been alleged. I am informed that the Danish circus owner who runs this training camp brought an action in the Danish courts against the writer of the article to which the noble Lord has referred and received substantial damages
698
from the writer. It does not look as though the article was particularly accurate. As I have said, your Lordships have received an invitation from a certain circus to visit their training camp. I hope you will accept it. I believe that you will have an interesting and a profitable time, and I believe that you will come away convinced, if indeed you then need convincing, that the charges made, mainly, I think, under the auspices of the Animal Defence League, are completely baseless and unfounded.
6.33 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening for a few moments at this stage of the debate. I wanted to do so particularly because, in my view, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion deserves the thanks of the community for the public-spirited action which he has shown in doing so. In saying that, I admit that this matter is controversial—of course it is. But there is no harm, surely, in these centroversial subjects, which are, after all, day-to-day topics, being discussed by your Lordships' House. Therefore I should like to say that he deserves credit for introducing it, whether we agree with him or not. I, for one, agree with him very strongly, and I cordially support the Motion which he has introduced. I have considered whether I ought to support also the Amendment which was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It seems to me, as one other speaker has pointed out, that the defect in the Amendment is that while it asks for a full and impartial inquiry into the whole matter it pre-judges the issue in the first few words. If the noble Earl would leave out the first few words, I am sure the House would be much more amicably disposed towards the remainder of the Amendment, although I am not saying I should necessarily support it, because I am not sure what would be gained by a further inquiry.
If I may say so with the utmost respect to the right reverend Prelate, I was particularly struck by his speech. It seemed to me to be a most statesmanlike approach to this problem, and I would agree with him that, whatever we think about this matter, there may be a striking difference between the training of wild animals and the training of domestic animals. The right reverend Prelate drew a sharp distinction between those two, and

699
I venture to think that that is a profitable way of looking at this problem. While it may well be possible to train domestic animals without cruelty—I do not know—I am satisfied that a great deal of cruelty goes on in the training of wild animals. Even if that were not so, which I do not admit, then it still seems to me to be nothing less than barbarous to bring really wild animals from their native haunts overseas, many of them from tropical climates, to this country, put them in cages, many of which are far too small, and parade them round the country to take part in circuses. That seems to me to be an utterly barbarous practice, and I am convinced that in generations to come it will be looked back upon in much the same way as we look back upon certain Roman spectacles that we read of in history.
Much has been said about an invitation which your Lordships have received to go, I think, to Ascot, to see how animals are trained. When I receive my copy, as I hope to do shortly, I am tempted to ask whether they would agree to inpectors of the R.S.P.C.A. going there to see it, because those inspectors are reasonable people who can be trusted not to report mendaciously but, on the other hand, do know what to look for in this matter, whereas, if I may say so, with respect, some of your Lordships may not. If those inspectors are admitted, well and good. If not, why not?
There is one more point I should like to deal with, and that is the interruption which I heard by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, during the first speech in the debate. It was a short one, but I noticed it because it seemed to suggest that your Lordships' House should have nothing to do with, and need not concern itself about, the training of these animals, if it takes place overseas. If that was the noble Lord's intention, I really cannot follow him at all. If the idea is that training overseas has nothing to do with us, surely that is something which cannot stand. If training overseas is cruel—though we may not be able to stop it—then the remedy is not to go and see animals which have been trained overseas. That is a line which people in this country can take. If the noble Lord intended what appeared to me to be intended—I was not quite sure whether
700
he did—surely that will not hold water. This question of training overseas is one of the more important factors of this controversy. It is said that many animals, even wild animals, are trained without cruelty—so it is said. But it remains, I believe, a fact—though I am not prepared to prove it; I doubt whether anybody can—that a great deal of cruelty goes on in training performing animals overseas. Why are these animals trained overseas for performance in this country? If there is some reason which is harmless, I hope we shall be told of it. If not, why is it? Of course, it is open to suspicion: it is open to the suspicion that the reason why they are trained overseas is to escape the vigilance of inspectors and others in this country. If there is some other more harmless reason, let us be told of it. I strongly support this Motion, and I hope and think it will do much good.
6.39 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to take up only a short amount of your Lordships' time, but first I should like to say that I strongly support the Motion which has been moved so well by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I would rather support the Motion that he has moved than the Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, produced, because I do not think we shall get much further by more inquiries. We have had many inquiries in the past, and I do not think we shall get any further by having another one.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments which have already been used, but I do support as strongly as I can the ones which have given evidence of cruelty. I should like to emphasise two points, one of which is the cruelty performed in transporting these animals from place to place —I do not mean necessarily in the case of the big circuses, where I think much of that is done as kindly as possible; but one sees little travelling circuses and menageries going round the country, and the animals seem to me, at any rate, to be tied up in uncomfortable quarters where there is hardly enough room for them to move or take exercise. Passing from that, I would point out that when they come to perform, not necessarily in a circus tent but in a theatre or possibly in a music hall, the accommodation provided can be very sketchy. It may be very

701
bad indeed. One knows that the accommodation for the actors themselves in some of the not-so-well-known theatres is not very good, and one can imagine, therefore, what the accommodation for the animals is like. They may be kept there for, I believe, more than one night, if there are performances lasting a week or so. Those are the two points regarding cruelty that I want to emphasise.
A third point is that people have said, not in your Lordships' debate but elsewhere, that a certain amount of hardship would be caused if performing animal shows were stopped, because that would lead to a considerable amount of unemployment among people involved in training them, who might, possibly justifiably, require to be compensated. I do not think that is a very big point, because the greater proportion of people who show animals in this country are foreigners who come over on short visits. The number of people involved in this trade who are British subjects could be absorbed by the entertainment trade in general with no particular difficulty. I do not want anyone to think that, in supporting this Motion, I wish to cause widespread unemployment among people who are taking part in a rather unfortunate profession.
6.43 p.m.
LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, in supporting this Motion, I am reminded of the dictum of a wise judge who once said that if there were no "fences" there would be no thieves. If there were no circus proprietors who imported animals, there would be no animals to import. That is rather away from what I meant to start with. I do not propose to go over any of the ground covered by noble Lords who have so amply dealt with most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. There is, however, one aspect of the matter that has not been alluded to: namely, the frequency of attacks on their trainers, and even on members of the public, by these so-called tame animals. The R.S.P.C.A. have kept records over the past twelve years of all well-authenticated eases of such attacks, or where circus animals have caused danger to the public, of which I propose to quote only three. My first example occurred at Washington where a gorilla and a full-grown panther fought for more than two hours. The
702
battle began when the panther broke down the door separating the two cages. It ended when the panther tore off the right arm of the gorilla, and the gorilla was shot. That is just a bald account of what happened.
The next case, which is much nearer home, occurred at Evesham. Here, an Indian lion tamer was mauled by lions. One lion dragged him into a box where there were two lionesses, and a violent struggle ensued before the man was got out. The whole of this performance took place before the audience, which contained many children. The tamer died in hospital—a truly edifying performance for the children in the audience! My last example is a small one. It occurred at Bertram Mills's Circus in 1955. The keeper of five tigers was clawed by what he called his tamest tiger. It was lucky for him that the tiger only got him with one claw; otherwise, if it had got him with two claws, it might have killed him or chewed his arm off. That just shows that these animals are not tamed by kindness.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, while taking part in this interesting debate, I do not agree with a good many of the speakers. In my view, this is one of those matters of discussion which ought to be referred at the present time to an outside authority for a careful examination, as suggested in the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, so that we may get the whole matter up to date. It is a long time since there has been an inquiry of that—what I may call—senior status. That ought to be done now. My chief acquaintance with wild animals is with horses. I do not think that some of the treatment given by people who ride horses would outrage a good many people in this country, especially as now the riding of horses is not so frequent as it used to be. As a matter of fact, a certain amount of brusque treatment of horses is not something which can be described as cruelty, and I hope that it will not be so described in the future. I believe that we should do well to have an inquiry on the lines suggested by the noble Earl, because that would give us an opportunity of looking over the situation, which it is not easy to survey as a whole.
I do not suppose anybody here would be prepared to say that people of the

703
status of Bertram Mills and so forth are sadistic and cruel; I am sure they are not; and there are not many other circus proprietors and entertainers who use large numbers of animals. I do not suppose they are cruel. They are carrying on the traditions which have been laid down in the past. But, for my own part, it would be desirable to know now, at this time in this year, or in about a year's time from now, the condition of this particular industry, before we come to a definite decision on what to do about abolishing it, permitting it or limiting it, as the case may be. This House might exercise a valuable function in considering that aspect. It is not a matter which concerns active politics in the ordinary sense, but it is a matter of great importance, from the national point of view, that we should behave properly towards the animal creation. I believe that the appointment of a Commission, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would be the best method of dealing with this problem.
6.49 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, it is not my purpose to repeat the details of the case for the circus animals which has been so clearly and cogently put before your Lordships by the originator of the debate and by the noble Lords who have followed him, but it is my wish to draw attention to some little known or little considered aspects of the subject now under debate. We English people pride ourselves upon being a nation of animal lovers, and we tend to be righteously critical of the lower standards of other nations. In point of fact, as a nation we are not animal lovers: we are sentimentalists about our animals. It is true that we cherish our domestic pets and that we have qualms about the condition of old and worn-out horses; but where the interests of animals run counter to our sports, our amusements or our pockets, the animals receive scant consideration at our hands.
I may instance, as examples of the general callousness of the nation towards animals' suffering, the hunting field, the coursing ground, the slaughterhouse, the vivisection laboratory, the drug factory, the hen battery, the gin-trap, and the circus, which is the subject of this debate. For this state of affairs I think that our religious training is largely responsible.
704
Cruelties are perpetrated on animals without official protest from the various religious authorities—cruelties which would evoke the sternest condemnations if they were perpetrated on human beings. Animals have not souls, is the teaching; animals do not survive death. Of course a considerable section of the nation does not believe that human beings survive death, at any rate in a conscious condition, and it would be a hard task to convince such people that animals survive death, that there is but one life and that all life is eternal. Life cannot be annihilated, it can only be made to change its form.
It seems strange to me to think that 5,000 years ago the ancient mysteries were withheld from the people and were confined to the priests and Pharaohs, whereas now, when they are available to all who make the effort to seek them, almost none is interested. The ancient wisdom teaches that there is but one life which, in one form or another, suffuses all created things; but the life chain passes from the mineral through the vegetable and the animal to the human, and thence through the angelic back to the ultimate source from which it originated. The evidence for the conscious survival of physical death by animals is quite as good in quality, if not so great in quantity, as that for human survival. I speak of what I know. The higher animals who are quite close to the human stage in cosmic time are brought into contact with human beings before making the change, and it is our duty to help them up the ladder of evolution by wise and kindly treatment. If, by some magical process, it could be made clear to the leaders of nations how many of the disasters, calamities and diseases which afflict mankind are directly due to man's cruel and selfish exploitation of the animal kingdom, man would, in his own interest, take immediate steps to put a stop to these practices and to recognise his obligations to his younger brothers and sisters.
Passing from the general to the particular subject of this debate, I think we should not be discouraged if at this stage we fail to persuade Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation restricting the acts at present performed by circus animals. I think our true objective should I be so to influence public opinion that

705
decent-minded people will not visit performances involving cruelty to animals, still less take their children. A falling off in "gate" money is the most potent argument to a circus proprietor. It must also be remembered that debates in your Lordships' House have a powerful effect outside, even though they may seem to have fallen quite flat at the time. Just over three years ago I raised the subject of vivisection in this House, and I found myself in a minority of one. Since then, I have had letters from many parts of the world, and only this month I received a letter from Vienna saying that my speech had been translated into German and was being circulated through Germany and Austria. So the ripples in the pool spread, and whilst I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Motion to-day, yet, if they do not, there is no need to lose heart—dropping water wears away a stone.
6.57 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for having raised this extremely interesting and unusual subject, and for giving us one of the most useful debates to which we have listened for some time. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that it is nearly twenty years since we discussed this matter. Of course, it has recently come to the public eye, through questions in the newspapers and through one or two items on the wireless. It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should be the one to introduce this Motion this afternoon, because we all remember the distinguished and vigorous part which his father played in the campaign which went into the making of the 1925 Act.
I think this has been a notably moderate debate, particularly in view of the fact that much of the propaganda to which we have been subjected, both recently and over the years, has been a little unwise and almost hysterical in its violence, thereby, of course, detracting from the force which it would have carried had it been put in a more moderate or, may I say, a more scrupulous way, There have been twelve speakers to-day and, listening to the entire debate, as I have, there is no doubt whatever which way the opinion of your Lordships has
706
gone. It has been almost unanimous in one direction. It has evoked certainly strong condemnation of cruelty in any shape or form, and the debate has reinforced our national feeling on this subject. Whatever the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, may feel about it, I think it is something about which we in this country feel that we are in the forefront—the pioneers in the campaign against cruelty to animals. The problem now is how to put it all into practice.
It seems to me that the question must be considered at two quite different levels. First, there is the question of the active and deliberate acts of cruelty against animals during training. Such acts everybody condemns. I think I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that there has been some considerable improvement in past years. I believe that a little of the evidence brought forward by the noble Lard who moved this Motion may now be slightly out of date. There are certain safeguards against cruelty. The machinery exists, and the two Acts to which I shall refer are, I believe, working tolerably well. It will be my task in a moment to try to justify that statement, and I wish to make clear that that is my task. I am not here to defend, or to be the advocate of, circus proprietors; nor on the other hand to attack them. I will try to tell your Lordships my view on whether or not existing legislation works properly and carries out the task set it. It is the second level, the implication in the actual terms of the Motion, which your Lordships have discussed in some detail—namely, is the mere fact of requiring animals to perform in public itself inherently cruel? That is a question of opinion and taste. There is nothing more difficult to discuss, or to legislate for, than such questions of taste as this. Some people dislike all zoos except, perhaps, conceivably, the Whipsnade open type of zoo. We have had their point of view forcibly put forward this afternoon—that it is inherently wrong to capture animals, however kindly you seek to do so, transport them and imprison them in a cage.
Although I am responding here for Her Majesty's Government it would be hypocritical of me if I were to try to disguise my own feelings, and it would be no service either to your Lordships or to myself. I must honestly confess that I find myself thinking very much along the

707
lines suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich. Some pepole go further and dislike even the sight of acrobats risking their necks for our amusement. I am not certain that I do not agree with that point of view, too. In the course of preparing the remarks I am now addressing to your Lordships, I spent an interesting and profitable time during the Christmas Recess watching a considerable number of circus acts in training to see whether I could pick up information for myself, for this is a very personal matter—in many cases it is even a question of conscience. The view to which I came was that it was perfectly possible to train practically all wild animals by kindness, whether they were born in the jungle or in captivity. In a large number of cases that is done. I am prepared to reiterate and stand by that view, for I am certain of it. I believe the evidence of my own own eyes, and I do not think that over the considerable examination which I gave the matter I was being deceived. Equally, I am certain that some circus acts do involve varying degrees of cruelty. There is no doubt of that, and the most reputable circus proprietors will agree that there are acts, which can be enumerated, in which cruelty undoubtedly has occurred. It is no use denying that fact either, and reputable circus proprietors deplore it as much as anybody. They say there are "black sheep" in every family.
One or two noble Lords appeared to be under some misapprehension in thinking that domestically bred wild animals cannot be trained. A lion born in captivity can be trained perfectly. It is only when in-breeding reaches an extreme stage that that becomes impossible. It is difficult, therefore, to discriminate. It would be easy to go the whole way and to ban all circus acts, but so many of your Lordships want to go halfway. Some noble Lords say that we should except carnivora, and perhaps chimpanzees, and leave domestic and quieter animals alone. If it were my task I could produce evidence to prove that, alas! it is perfectly possible to be cruel in training domestic animals like horses and dogs while you can, perhaps, find no cruelty in the training of lions. It is quite clear to me that some animals enjoy performing. Some people may call it undignified, but it is a matter of personal opinion.
708
Chimpanzees obviously enjoy performing, as any amateur who is watching them can see. Sea-lions obviously enjoy their performance. As an old Wykehamist I myself, when watching this training, found that a certain quiet pleasure was to be derived from watching four sea-lions learning to play the Eton Boating Song on motor horns.
These are all matters of conscience for public opinion, rather than for a Government, for it is difficult to legislate on matters of taste where opinions are so varied. Her Majesty's Government have this afternoon been asked to legislate but about ten conflicting opinions have been put forward as to how far we should go in that legislation. I emphasise that aspect to show your Lordships that the matter is not as straightforward or easy as might appear. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked for an inquiry. There is nothing to hide here, and if we felt convinced that an inquiry would do any good, or would serve any purpose in clarifying the public mind, we should agree. But I believe that it would find nothing not already well known and readily available. There is already a great deal of information about performing animals. The working of the Act is known over a wide circle, and certainly all the information sought or touched upon this afternoon can readily be found without the delay of an inquiry. If the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, wants information on any specific point I will readily obtain it for him. If public opinion is not yet sufficiently aware of the facts, perhaps this debate in your Lordships' House may have served a most useful purpose in acquainting people of the facts and the difficulties.
May I turn now to my task of justifying the claim I made earlier, that the law is working tolerably well. The legal position has a very complicated history, with which I will not weary your Lordships. Two main Acts are involved. First, there is the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which makes it an offence to beat or terrify any animal or to cause it unnecessary suffering. Then there is the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, to which several noble Lords have referred this afternoon, which requires every trainer or exhibitor of performing animals to be registered with a local authority. Registrations have to be reported to the Home Office and must be available for inspection. Records show

709
that since the Act came into force 1,191 persons, including 488 aliens, have registered under the Act—a fact which serves to emphasise one, of the difficulties, namely, the international aspect of circus life. The circus is one of the greatest international free masonries in the world.
That brings in a difficulty touched upon by several noble Lords—that there are different standards of humanity in different countries. There is bull-fighting in Spain, but if one tried to introduce bull-fighting into Wembley Stadium, there would be complete uproar straight away. Yet I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has an element of justice in his claim, as I suspect that if one succeeded in introducing bull-fighting into Wembley Stadium there would be a queue half way round Middlesex to see it. There is, however, no reason to think that standards of humanity in foreign circuses are necessarily lower than those in our own. The standards applicable to big circuses abroad are very high. I do not stand here to defend them; but I believe that in justice one must not automatically assume that any circus act coming to this country comes with a much lower standard of humanity behind it than our own. I mention that point only to emphasise the difficulty of distinguishing between acts trained abroad, and half-trained abroad and finished here, and acts wholly trained here.
Section 3 of the 1925 Act empowers duly authorised officers of local authorities and the police to enter premises. It has been frequently asked this afternoon: why do not the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have the right to enter training premises and inspect them?—they have, of course, the right to attend circuses. The reason given by circus proprietors is that the law already gives certain classes of people the right to entertraining premises, and they say that that is sufficient. They say that once the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has that right, one must, of necessity, give it to every other animal protection organisation, not all of whom have the reputation and high position of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and the circus proprietors have no grudge against the R.S.P.C.A. and work happily in consultation with them
Moreover, when Parliament was doing this—I have looked up the debates which
710
we had in your Lordships' House a few years ago—that was a point which was made by several noble Lords. Once you let people go in in a quasi-police capacity, there would be no end to it. You might have representatives of the Lord's Day Observance Society, for example, exercising semi-police powers. I suggest that if you give the right to officers of the local authorities, who are responsible to the electors, and to the police, you will be right to confine it to those people.
LORD DOWDING: May I ask whether it is not a fact that R.S.P.C.A. inspectors have the right to enter slaughterhouses, and that that right has been refused to the representatives of all other societies concerned with the welfare of animals?
LORD MANCROFT: That I do not know. I am only telling the House the reason which, at the time of the 1925 legislation, led to the restriction of these powers to police and local authority officers. I was not aware of the fact which the noble Lord has just given us. The court, on proof being given to it that the training or exhibiting of any animal is accompanied by cruelty, can prohibit or impose conditions on training or exhibition. Conviction of an offence under this Act or under the 1911 Act may result in the cancellation of registration. Orders made by the court have to be reported to the Home Office. It is an interesting fact that no such orders have ever been reported. To my mind, that suggests that the value of the Act lies in preventive power rather than in punishments awarded. I cannot give your Lordships any figures relating to cruelty to animals, because the statistics which we have do not distinguish between domestic and performing animals; but I can reassure your Lordships that the number is very small indeed. Before the debate, I took the precaution of getting in touch with the chief constables of the areas in which the permanent training headquarters of the various circuses in this country are situated. There are, I think, about a dozen circuses in this country, of varying sizes, varying qualities and varying standards of behaviour. I asked the chief constables to carry out a special inquiry under the terms of the Act, with this Motion in view, and to tell me what they have found. They said that in their view there was very little indeed to complain

711
about. The animals, they stated, seemed well cared-for and the training was carried out humanely. Their opinion was that the Act was being scrupulously observed. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was a little worried about the training of animals for films. I think, however, that he may have overlooked the provision of a special Act—the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act, 1937—which, I think, specifically provides for the point he raised.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. That disposes of the point about films. I do not know if it also disposes of the point about television.
LORD MANCROFT: The point about television, I think is probably this. Most of the animal films to which the noble Earl referred are a visual broadcast of actual circus performances at which there is a live audience, and those performances will be covered by the 1925 Act. I think that that applies to most of the cases which the noble Earl has in mind.
I hope it is clear that I am not trying to whitewash anyone or to justify the conduct of any particular class of people. I am merely trying to convince your Lordships that the relevant legislation is working well within the limits imposed upon it by Parliament. Of course, as we have realised, the law does not go very far in relation to the cases of which your Lordships have been talking this afternoon. It does not deal with the inherent objection of those who do not like any performing animal acts in circuses at all. So I must answer the Motion by saying that I think the existing law adequate, always bearing in mind the over-riding proviso concerning any inherent dislike—for which I have much sympathy—to performing by animals anywhere at all. The alternative which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, no doubt has in mind—if he will allow me to say so—is to go the whole hog and introduce legislation prohibiting any performances whatever by animals. We do not feel that we should go so far as that. We must recognise that there are large numbers of people who enjoy circuses, believing the animals to be well cared-for and to enjoy their own performances. If one is worried about the idea that children may be debased by what they see in circuses,
712
there is a very simple way out: do not take the children to the circuses. The law of supply and demand works in the circuses as it does in nearly every other place, and if the circus proprietors find that people are staying away in hundreds and thousands they will take the hint and realise, in due course, that the public taste is changing.
I want to emphasise that I am not pretending for one moment that cruelty does not exist. I am convinced in my own mind that it does. As we all know, there are black sheep in every family. But it is very hard luck on people of repute that they should be condemned because of the undoubted cruelty of a man like Alfred Court, whose book I have here, and extracts from which have been read to the House by Lord Strabolgi. There are one or two circus owners in this country who have never employed Alfred Court for this reason they do not like his methods. That, I think, is a vindication of them. We all received to-day a circular letter from Mr. Bertram and Mr. Cyril Mills. I do not stand here to support them, but I must say that the letter did not strike me as being a letter written by men with a guilty conscience about anything. Whatever view you may hold on this matter, I do hope that one or two of your Lordships will take advantage of their offer and will go and see what is going on. I must say that when I spent some time recently visiting circuses and talking to trainers, as I did at some length and in detail, I was very much struck by the sense of responsibility which they showed. Clearly, it seemed to me, they are men who realise how much of a burden of humanity rests upon their shoulders. I was impressed by the eagerness of those to whom I spoke to earn the respect of your Lordships. One or two of them cross-examined me in a way which I think would meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Dowding. I was asked, for example, whether I had ever eaten eggs laid by hens which had been kept in a battery, or had drunk milk from a cow which had been deprived of her calf after two days. I was asked whether I liked paté de foie gras, and the question was further put to me whether I had ever won a shilling or two on a race when a horse had been pushed pretty hard past the post to win by a short nose. These are matters of opinion and conscience, and that is what

713
your Lordships have really been discussing.
The law is working adequately for its limited purpose. I hope that this debate will have served to show what its provisions are and will have made its terms and safeguards more widely known. I do not think that there is any reason for an inquiry. It is not that there is anything to hide, but that the facts are already well known. The Home Office is as anxious as anyone to see that the law is observed, and will continue to keep the most careful eye on the working of this Act. But neither the Home Office nor any other Government Department can compel investigations or prosecutions. We welcome greater use of the law rather than some of the vague generalisations and some of the rather unsubstantiated attacks that have been made to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, apparently wants a big extension of the law. I wish that in the case about which he told us—that of his friends who had lost the ignition key of their car—those friends of his had called the police and had initiated a prosecution. That is the way in which the law can best be brought into use. But the extensions of the law which Lord Strabolgi wants are very different and a much more difficult matter. There has been a great deal of unsuccessful Parliamentary activity, both before and after the passing of the 1925 Act, and that activity was directed towards expanding prohibitions on the lines suggested by Lord Strabolgi. I do not know whether the views expressed by your Lordships to-day reflect public opinion or not. It has been noticeable to-day how marked has been the opinion on one side. I have sympathy with a good deal of the views which have been expressed.
If the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would like to copy the example of his noble father and try his hand at private legislation, we shall all wish him good luck. But I think he would be well advised, first of all, to find out how widely reflected the views which have been expressed in the House to-day are in the public mind and the public conscience. He would do well, I think, to ascertain whether there is, in fact, as strong a feeling among the general public as has been shown in the House this afternoon in favour of the abolition of all animal acts
714
in circuses or in favour of abolition to a certain degree. I think it would be wrong for me to offer him encouragement. Entirely in his own interest, I have pointed out one or two difficulties that would arise—they may have occurred to him already—if he tried to get a measure through the House. Clearly, the right place to try it is in your Lordships' House, which has always been sympathetic to legislation of this nature, but I warn him of the difficulty of trying to legislate for morality and taste, which is really what he is trying to do.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am not trying to legislate for morality and taste, but against cruelty. Morality and taste are quite different matters.
LORD MANCROFT: If the noble Lord legislates against cruelty and goes to the logical conclusion, he will have to say, like the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, and his right reverend prelate the Lord Bishop of Norwich, that the mere putting of an animal in a cage, however well it is treated, is in itself cruelty. That is the problem which the noble Lord has to overcome and I should add that I have considerable sympathy with that point of view.
I can only give the House an assurance that we shall look carefully at the suggestions which have been made for improving the working of the Act. I think that it is working pretty well, within its strict limitations. We shall certainly keep in mind the opinions expressed to-day, but I should be doing a disservice to the House if I promised Government legislation or gave any very great encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in urging him to put forward private legislation. That I cannot and will not do. But I would ask him to take a further sounding of public opinion. I think he can take comfort in that. We have to be grateful to him for an extremely moderate and well-informed debate.
7.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, while we are all grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, for his reply and for his personal research into this matter, I must confess that I regard his reply as one of the most disappointing I have ever heard at the end of a debate in your Lordships' House, and I have been here

715
for quite a long time. His reply disappointed me for this reason: out of twelve non-Government speakers (the noble Lord was the only one to speak in this debate on behalf of the Government) only one was satisfied with Government policy. Yet the Government do not appear to have given one inch by way of concession to what is obviously the overwhelming opinion of those who are present in the House this afternoon. The noble Lord admitted that there were certain cases of cruelty in the training of wild animals. Surely those cases are exactly the cases we want to know about. They are the cases public opinion must know about, if it is to be in a position to judge whether these acts in circuses are to be allowed or not.
At this late hour I do not want to reply in detail to the noble Lord. He refused me an inquiry, which was what I asked for, and he refused the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, a favourable consideration of a Private Member's Bill, which was what he asked for; and he did not suggest any concession to the views that have been expressed by your Lordships. I regard it as a constitutional principle of really first-rate importance that the Executive should pay some attention to the views that are expressed by a majority in both Houses of Parliament, and so long as we have a Second Chamber our views, as well as those of another place, are entitled to consideration by the Government. In view of that, although I shall ask the House for leave to withdraw my Amendment, as the via media I offer is not acceptable to most noble Lords, I shall certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, if, in protest against this ignoring of the opinion of the House, he decides to press his Motion to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.26 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it falls to me to wind up the debate and I will not detain your Lordships long. I should
like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly those who have supported my Motion. I think the many people who are concerned about this traffic in performing animals will be most heartened by the fact that the great majority of your Lordships are in sympathy. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for his full reply. I know that he has gone into this matter with his usual care, but I must say that I am somewhat disappointed with his reply. I should like to make clear that I am not satisfied with the present law, because, although it may work fairly well in this country—and I stress the word "fairly"—it has no control over imported animals, and a great many of these animal turns come from overseas.
The other point which the noble Lord mentioned was the visits by R.S.P.C.A. inspectors. I agree with him that probably it is not desirable to allow representatives of a private society to go into private training quarters; I agree that that is setting up a bad principle. But surely that is only an additional reason why these performing animal turns should be prohibited. I have noted well the noble Lord's advice that I should sound public opinion. I also note that he has suggested that in due course I might bring in a Private Member's Bill. I am disappointed that the Government will not view it with any particular sympathy, though I think the noble Lord gave me the impression that they would not be opposed to it. On the other hand, I think that the Government will probably go just so far as public opinion requires them to go, and that the first step is to sound public opinion. With this in mind, and knowing how representative your Lordships' views are of those of the country, I propose to ask your Lordships to be good enough to divide on my Motion.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS

Cholmondeley, M.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Listowel, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Silkin, L.

Dowding, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Gosford, E.

Conesford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Home, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Freyberg, L.

Strathclyde, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hawke, L.

Teynham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.