Sitting of 26 March 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Guided Missiles Range, Western Isles
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the demand for a public local inquiry into the proposal to establish a guided missiles range in the Western Isles; and when he intends to arrange for the inquiry.
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will hold a public inquiry in South Uist into the proposed Royal Air Force rocket range.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): As already stated, Her Majesty's Government, before deciding in November last that the range should go ahead, did everything possible to consult the public bodies concerned and also individual crofters, and to explain to them what exactly was involved. In view of the absence of objections after detailed plans had been circulated, no need was seen for a public inquiry. Applications for authority for the resumption of crofting land for the range are now before the Land Court which will, it is understood, hold a hearing in Benbecula on 8th April.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that provision is made under the 1947 White Paper for responsible persons to ask for an inquiry, quite apart from the local authorities; that 168 hon. Members have signed a Motion which is on the
    940
    Order Paper asking for such an inquiry; that a meeting of local, representative people has also asked for it, and that nobody has objected to its being held? In the circumstances, even from the Government's own point of view, does not the Minister think that it might be worth while to have an inquiry?
    Mr. Browne: While there was no stated time limit, my right hon. Friend did wait from June to November before taking the action he did. He considers, and I am sure the House will consider, that he waited a reasonable time. With that point in view, my right hon. Friend did not feel that a Motion signed by 168 Members would constitute an objection of substance within the time limit.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister suggesting that nearly 170 signatures of hon. Members of this House, of at least two of the parties. does not constitute pressure from a body of responsible persons? That is really what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware that local people, and many others who have had some opportunity of considering this matter, did not at first realise the impact and meaning of it until very recently and until fuller facts were disclosed? There is still a strong suspicion that the full facts are not known. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that, from the Government's own point of view, it would be well to have an inquiry and to allow people to know the full facts as soon as possible?
    Mr. Browne: I was answering the Question which the hon. Gentleman put to me. In regard to the other point, I do not think it would be wise for me to add to the reply I have given, as the matter is before the Land Court.
    Mr. Rankin: If the Minister is convinced that the Government have a good case, why will they not submit it to a public inquiry?
    Mr. Browne: I have made no pronouncement on that point at all. I have said that the matter is before the Land Court, and I do not think that I should add to what I have already said.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment.

    Resident Dentist, Western Isles
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that people in the islands of Barra, Benbecula, North and South Uist, requiring dental treatment, have not been provided for under the National Health Service owing to the lack of a resident dentist for over a year, have to travel to and from the mainland at their own expense, and pay board and lodgings while absent from home and work; and what steps are being taken to provide local dental treatment.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend is aware that these areas are at present without a resident dentist. The county council and the executive council are continuing their joint efforts to replace the dentist who left early in 1956. To attract applicants, my right hon. Friend has authorised the executive council to guarantee a minimum annual income and the county council will provide the tenancy of a house and the use of a fully equipped mobile dental unit. He is writing to the hon. Member about the temporary arrangements which have been made to minimise the need for patients to travel for dental treatment.
    Mr. MacMillan: Can the Minister indicate what the financial incentive is? On the last occasion it was obviously not sufficient to keep the man we had.
    Mr. Browne: The financial incentive is a starting salary of £1,250 instead of £1.000. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be right or in the patients' interests to obtain dentists by financial inducements alone.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that the financial welfare of the patients is far from being looked after, when they are having to do without dental treatment or pay their fares to Oban, Glasgow and Inverness, and then pay for board and lodging while having dental treatment which it is the statutory duty of the Minister to supply?
    Mr. Browne: Everything possible is being done. The hon. Gentleman's Question will have helped to give publicity to the post. Under the arrangements now made this is quite an attractive post for anybody who likes living in the Islands.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is it not certain that there will be a great extension in the health and community services in the Islands if the proposals for a guided missiles range materialise?
    Mr. Browne: Any dentist interested in the post will no doubt bear that point in mind.

    Crofters' Houses (Deposits)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that some crofters are being required to deposit about £300 before being allowed to build new houses with grant and loan aid from his Department; that this is discouraging some of those most in need of new homes; and whether he will reduce by half the amount required to be deposited.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): Each application is dealt with on its merits, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot lay down any general rule in this matter. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that no unnecessary difficulties are placed in the way of the crofters.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the Minister aware that it is an unnecessary difficulty to place in a man's way if he cannot afford to produce £300 for the deposit and is therefore unable to build his house, which everyone wants him to build? It is a question of the replacement of houses which are no longer fit for habitation. Is the Minister aware that a man can get 90 per cent. of the deposit from a private building society? In those circumstances, why does his Department hold out for £300 in the case of a house which probably costs about £1,000 to £1,700?
    Lord John Hope: It is seldom that as much as £300 is asked, although it sometimes is. There is no evidence that this practice of asking for a deposit, which was forced upon the Department by experience, has, in fact, discouraged crofters from seeking these facilities.

    Scientific Education
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the facilities in Scottish schools for scientific education.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): Much has already been done to improve facilities. Provision is being made in the 1957–58 and 1958–59 building programmes for the improvement of substandard laboratories.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. Member aware that a great many non-Scottish Members are very conscious of the great contributions made by Scotland to education in the past and are hoping that Scotland will make a major contribution towards meeting the challenge that lies before us, of vastly increasing our numbers of scientists and technologists in the near future?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his tribute to Scotland's past contribution. I can assure him that it will be our endeavour to maintain that contribution in future, particularly upon the scientific and technological side.

    Hospitals (Cloistering-Emolument System)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will inquire into the prevalence of the cloistering-emolument system of service which exists in State hospitals in Scotland today, and indicate what steps he proposes to take to bring about its termination.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: My right hon. Friend assumes that the hon. Member is referring to the fact that some doctors are required to live in hospital premises where it is necessary that doctors should always be available. He has no evidence of dissatisfaction with this practice.
    Mr. Rankin: I assumed that the Minister had evidence that it existed so widely amongst the institutional section of the staff that when they became organised in trade unions it was promptly stopped, and now remains only amongst the medical section. Does he agree with the principle that employers have the right to claim emoluments from cloistered staff who are cloistered for the purpose of carrying out their duties?
    Mr. Browne: That is really a different question. No responsible group in the hospital service has objected to the present practice. I shall be glad to look into any case which the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. If the hon. Member reads the Scotsman of 22nd February——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

    Justices of the Peace, Lanarkshire
    Mr. Timmonsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider taking steps to change the machinery for the appointing of justices of the peace for Lanarkshire.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any reason for such a change.
    Mr. Timmons: Will the hon. Member again consult his right hon. Friend in this matter? There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Lanarkshire about the method of selecting justices of the peace. Is he further aware that advisory committees are made up of members of two political parties? Irrespective of a person's character and integrity, if he has no political associations there is absolutely no hope of his getting on to a justices of the peace list. Will the Minister have another look at the matter and again consult his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Macpherson: I shall be glad to ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again, but I can assure the hon. Member that it is not the case that the justices of the peace lately appointed came from only two political parties. The political opinions of some of them were unknown.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that districts of very considerable size in Lanarkshire appear to be without justices of the peace? Will he see that those districts have their needs met in that connection?
    Mr. Macpherson: This is a matter for the appropriate advisory committee, and I shall be glad to refer the matter to it.
    Mr. Timmons: On a point of order. In view of that most unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Fishing Boats (Grants)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that shore owners can obtain a grant for a new engine for a new boat but not for a new engine for an old boat although working owners can obtain a grant for both new and old boats; and whether he will reconsider this anomalous situation.
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend is aware of the distinction referred to. The position was carefully reviewed before the introduction of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, passed by this House last week, but the conclusion was reached that there was no evidence that the absence of re-engining grants for shore owners seriously interfered with fishing operations.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: In view of the fact that it is desirable to have the maximum number of boats reconditioned, is it not a pity that the withholding of this grant should interfere with a single case of an old boat requiring to be reconditioned with a new engine?
    Lord John Hope: I do not think one can assume that there has been such interference. This distinction is not a new one, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows. It maintains one which has been already decided upon, and I think that it is probably wise to retain it.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this is only one of many outstanding problems which have not been dealt with by the Government in recent legislation relating to the fishing industry? Will he consult the industry with a view to having those problems efficiently dealt with in a comprehensive Bill?
    Lord John Hope: The whole point is that the problem has been dealt with, and that is exactly why my hon. and gallant Friend put down the Question.
    Mr. Duthie: Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that this is a major problem in the fishing industry? Will he undertake to look at the matter again, together with the respective fishermen's associations, which. I can assure him, feel very strongly in this matter?
    Lord John Hope: The strong feeling has been known. It was in view of that
    946
    and all the other circumstances that this decision was taken, although it was bound not to be universally popular.

    Coal Industry, Glenrothes (Housing)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement concerning the further housing requirements of the National Coal Board in Glenrothes.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The current estimate of requirements as communicated by the Board to my Department is that 850 houses will be required during the four years from 1957 to 1960. The Board has also indicated that, subject to later review, a further 1,500 to 2,000 houses will be required in the five years from 1961 to 1965.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the accelerated demand for housing by the National Coal Board, does not the hon. Gentleman think it incumbent upon the Department to undertake urgent talks with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to the introduction of new light industries into the town? If it is not planned now, the stage will be reached when miners will simply not come in because there is no employment for their wives and families.
    Mr. Browne: I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the Board of Trade upon this very important matter.

    Derating
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the annual value of the derating concession allowed in Scotland to industry and agriculture, respectively, in each of the last eight years.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: As the Answer is long and contains figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Member indicate whether it will be possible to give figures for separate industries in this connection? Would not he consider it right and proper, in view of the current financial difficulties of local authorities—and would it not be a measure of justice—that industry should be asked to pay its full rates?
    Mr. Browne: Upon the first point, I should not like to commit myself without notice. The second point is another question.
    Mr. Willis: It is a very important point.
    Following is the answer:
    It is estimated that had there been no derating of either industrial and freight transport or agricultural subjects under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, those subjects would have paid additional rates of the approximate amounts shown below:

    Amount

    Year

    Industrial and Freight Transport Subjects

    Agricultural Subjects

    £m.

    £m.

    1949–50

    …

    2· 8

    1· 1

    1950–51

    …

    2· 9

    1· 2

    1951–52

    …

    3· 5

    1· 4

    1952–53

    …

    4· 2

    1· 6

    1953–54

    …

    4· 6

    1· 7

    1954–55

    …

    4· 6

    1· 7

    1955–56

    …

    5· 1

    1· 9

    1956–57

    …

    5· 9

    2· 1

    Land Acquisition, West Kilbride (Public inquiry)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the purpose of the recent inquiry relating to the acquisition of land near West Kilbride; and what opportunity was given to objectors to state their case.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the public inquiry held at Largs into the application by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for my right hon. Friend's consent to the erection of a nuclear power station at Hunterston. Notice was given in the Press and otherwise that objections could be sent to him, and objectors were given the opportunity to state their case at the public inquiry.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that there is an extraordinary contrast between the way in which the wealthy property owners of West Kilbride were treated and the way in which the crofters of South Uist were treated? Will he state why this inquiry was advertised in the local Press for the benefit of the Tory proprietors of West Kilbride, whereas no opportunity was given
    948
    in the local Press to the crofters to state their case?
    Mr. Macpherson: Since the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has given notice that this matter is to be raised on the Adjournment, I am not certain that it would be appropriate for me to deal with the second part of the question.

    Housing (Tenders)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many houses tenders have been accepted since August, 1956; and how many of these have been completed.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Since 1st August, 1956, my right hon. Friend has approved tenders for 13,856 houses, of which 3,462 were covered by proposals received before, and 10,394 by proposals received on or after that date. Six houses in the latter group have been completed.
    Mrs. Mann: If there are six or 600 will they be subject to the reduction in the subsidy provided for in a Bill which has not yet become an Act?
    Mr. Browne: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of new houses for which tenders were approved in February last; and if he will give the same information for February, 1956 and 1955.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: In February, 1957, my right hon. Friend approved tenders for 2,947 houses. The corresponding figures for February, 1956, and February, 1955, are 2,414 and 998, respectively.

    Home Safety (Grants)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities are getting direct grants for home safety work in Scotland.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Expenditure by local health authorities on home safety work attracts National Health Service grant at the rate of 50 per cent. This grant is payable to all of the 55 local health authorities.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are only four home safety committees in Scotland? Are not the committees of the 55 authorities to

    949
    which he referred accident prevention committees, which are mainly concerned with road accident prevention?
    Mr. Browne: No specific grant is payable for home safety work as such, but normal advice and help is given by health visitors and other domiciliary services, and that automatically ranks for grant. Apart from that, my right hon. Friend has in the past approved for grant special expenditure on such items as special propaganda and provision of fire guards. I think that if the local authority concerned applied to my right hon. Friend he would look sympathetically at any proposition put forward.
    Captain Duncan: Will my hon. Friend say under which Section of which Act grants are available so that local authorities, if they wish to have home safety weeks propaganda, or other functions to promote home safety, can know under what Act they can receive grants?
    Mr. Browne: Under the National Health Service Act.
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again on the Adjournment.

    Slum Clearance, Leith
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is made in the new development plan for Edinburgh for dealing with slum clearance and the provision of new houses in Leith.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The plan allocates a total area of about 11 acres for new housing in Leith. In addition, the corporation is now preparing detailed proposals for comprehensive development areas for the Kirkgate and Citadel districts, and proposes to build houses on the site of Leith Fort.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a continuous decline in the population of Leith in the last few years, which is due entirely to the very bad housing conditions, and that the slow rate of progress in the building of new houses is making conditions much more difficult? Will he take steps to expedite slum clearance and building, in this ancient burgh?
    Mr. Browne: I agree with the hon. Member that slum clearance was held up, but, now that we have the sites in Leith, I think the position will be better, although no specific proposals for redevelopment have been submitted for Leith.
    Mr. Hoy: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps with the corporation to expedite house building on the sites it has got? It certainly has a particularly good site at Leith Fort. I do not know that any excuse could be made for delay, because the site has already been turned over to the corporation.

    Local Authorities (Block Grants)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish as a White Paper a summary of his discussions with the local authorities on the new method of calculating block grants before he announces the decisions of Her Majesty's Government on this subject.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: It is the intention to present a White Paper as soon as the discussions with the local authority associations have been concluded. My right hon. Friend hopes that this will be before the Summer Recess.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many projects which were included, respectively, in the 1955-56 and 1956-57 school building programme have not yet been started; and if he will list the local authorities concerned and the value of the projects.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: All the projects which my right hon. Friend expected to start in 1955–56 have now started. Until returns are received from education authorities after 31st March my right hon. Friend cannot say how many of the projects expected to start in 1956–57 will not have started.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the Minister tell me quite definitely that the figure of £13·2 million which his hon. Friend gave me last week as the figure for the Scottish school building programme for 1957–58 does not include any of the projects included in the previous school building programmes, but not yet started?
    Mr. Macpherson: I should need notice of that question.
    Mr. D. Johnston: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that Edinburgh Corporation has postponed the building of a secondary school in Edinburgh during the relevant years because of its inability to raise the necessary capital sum of £ 10 million?
    Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir, the reason for that has not been drawn to my attention, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that the principal reason for delay is the continued shortage of architects and quantity surveyors.

    Secondary Schools (Teachers)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that at the beginning of the school term this year there will be a substantial increase in the number of pupils entering secondary schools, and that in the following years this number will increase further, and since there is a diminishing number of secondary school teachers, what steps he proposes to take to overcome this problem.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The intake of pupils into secondary schools will probably be less this year than in 1956 although it will increase in 1958 and 1959. The number of secondary school teachers is increasing steadily, but not fast enough to meet the growing demand. The Advisory Council is considering the problem and my right hon. Friend hopes to receive a report from them in the early summer.
    Mr. Hannan: Does not that reply confirm the fears expressed in the Question? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the City of Glasgow even now requires 500 teachers and that action should have been taken at least three or four years ago by the Government——
    Sir T. Moore: Ten years ago.
    Mr. Hannan: —to avoid the emergency which is now upon us? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to do one of three things? Will he seek the release of teachers from the Forces, or approach industry for the release of qualified men, or enter into arrangements for primary teachers to go into senior school work?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has set as the first task of the Advisory Council to consider measures to meet the increasing demand for teachers for secondary education. As I say, we hope to have its report early in the summer.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the shortage of teachers with the requisite qualifications and training in junior secondary and senior secondary schools in Scotland; and which areas have the greatest shortage.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Separate figures for different types of secondary schools are not available. In October, 1956, education authorities estimated that they required 1,129 additional teachers qualified to teach in secondary schools. According to the authorities' own estimates the shortage of these teachers was proportionately most severe in Ross and Cromarty, Stirlingshire, Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, Renfrewshire and West Lothian.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that his Answers to Questions Nos. 22, 23 and 24 and to previous Questions must cause great concern to all those interested in education? Will he not give some further consideration to matters which might attract a greater number of teachers? In particular, will he give the greatest consideration to the introduction of a proper pensions scheme for widows and dependants, since that might do something to attract the number of people we need in this profession?
    Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Lady knows that all these matters are under consideration at the present time.

    Emigrants
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of Scottish emigrants during each of the past three years.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: It is estimated that the net migration from Scotland in the year ending on 30th June, 1956, which is the latest period for which figures are available, was 24,710. The figures for the years ending on 30th June, 1954, and 30th June, 1955, were 25,398

    953
    and 23,150 respectively. These totals include a net migration to other parts of the United Kingdom of about 13,000.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that I am asking for the gross figure, not the net figure? Is he also aware that a person going into Scotland is not necessarily equivalent to a person coming out of Scotland? Unless we are going to be guessing as to what is actually happening, it is high time we got the gross figures of the total number of Scottish-born people leaving Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman try to get those figures for us?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, I shall see if they can be obtained.

    Women's Hospitals, Edinburgh
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received urging the preservation of the character of the Bruntsfield Hospital for Women and Children and the Elsie Inglis Memorial Maternity Hospital, Edinburgh, as institutions where women and children may be cared for by legally qualified medical women.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Representations have been received from hon. Members, from the board of management concerned, from a number of bodies, mainly societies representing women, and from a large number of private persons.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side of the House—and, I presume, hon. Members opposite—are receiving representations on this question by every post? Although my constituency is some distance away, I have received at least twenty communications from constituents concerned with this question. Is not one of the jobs of the Secretary of State to protect the users of hospitals from unnecessary bureaucracy? Is not that what is happening? Are we not being treated with unnecessary bureaucracy?
    Mr. Browne: We had an Adjournment debate about this last night. I can once more assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend, in refraining from intervention, has taken all relevant factors into account.

    Fishing Industry (Fuel Oil Costs)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish fishing industry regarding the proposed increase in the cost of fuel oil; if he is aware that this will result in the laying up of a considerable number of vessels, with consequent unemployment; and what action he proposes to take.
    Lord John Hope: The Scottish and English Trawler Owners and the Scottish Inshore Fishermen asked for increased subsidy when the price of oil rose in January. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State have told them that we shall take account of oil costs and other relevant factors in considering the subsidy rates to apply after 1st August next. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend is not aware that any Scottish ships have been laid up, or are to be laid up.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister not aware that the Scottish fishing industry, in common with the fishing industry of the rest of Britain, has just received another notice saying that there is to be a further increase in the price of these oils and for the Scottish fishing industry the extra cost will be £¼ million a year? Has he nothing to say to the industry with a view to giving it some assistance to carry it over this extremely difficult period for which it cannot be held responsible?
    Lord John Hope: The answer to that is contained in my substantive reply.

    School Classes (Size)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many classes are above the number laid down in the code in primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools in Scotland.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The latest available figures of oversize classes in the whole of Scotland relate to January, 1956. At that date there were 1,286 oversize classes in primary departments, 725 in the first three years of secondary departments and 83 in the fourth and subsequent years.
    Miss Herbison: Does the Minister tell us that the latest figures are for January, 1956? Since this is a most serious matter,

    955
    surely the Secretary of State ought to see that figures much more relevant than those of over a year ago are provided for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: It is difficult to get in figures from all parts of the country, but I take note of what the hon. Lady said.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many classes are above the number laid down in the code in Lanarkshire and Glasgow, giving separate figures for primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The latest available figures of oversize classes in primary departments, in the first three years of secondary departments and in the fourth and subsequent years of secondary departments relate to the middle of January, 1957, for Lanarkshire and to the beginning of session 1956–57 for Glasgow. The figures for Lanarkshire are 266, 159 and six and for Glasgow, 415, 146 and thirty-eight.
    Miss Herbison: Since the Minister is able to give later figures for these two places, it seems to me that he could have obtained later figures in answer to Question No. 22. Do not these figures suggest that steps should be taken by the Secretary of State to ensure that these numbers are decreased?
    Mr. Macpherson: As I have said, we have asked the Advisory Council to advise on the secondary side of the problem. We are taking all possible steps to reduce the number of oversize classes.

    Overspill, Glasgow
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities have declared their willingness to consider accommodating overspill population from Glasgow; and what numbers have been mentioned in each case.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Authorities which have indicated an interest in catering for Glasgow overspill include the Town Councils of Kilmarnock, Kirkintilloch and Milngavie, and the County Council of Dunbarton. The authorities have, of course, not committed themselves as to numbers or detailed proposals, pending the legislative decisions of Parliament and
    956
    discussions with Glasgow Corporation which the corporation has already initiated.
    Mr. Ross: Indicating "an interest" does not mean that in any way they are committed to carrying out any such arrangements as envisaged under the overspill agreement. Has any authority in Scotland shown more than interest and given a definite promise that it will carry out such an agreement?
    Mr. Browne: I think I have indicated in my reply exactly what the position is.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the decision of these authorities to consider accommodating overspill from Glasgow linked with the provision of industry in the receiving areas?
    Mr. Browne: That is all covered in the Bill now before the Committee.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Stonehenge
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works what recent action has been taken to re-erect fallen stones at Stonehenge.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): Preparatory studies and arrangements are in progress, and I hope the trilithon and two Outer Circle stones will be re-erected next year.
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 28.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is not an hon. Member permitted to ask a supplementary question on this important matter?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not see the hon. Member rise, but he may ask his supplementary question.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a school of archaeological thought which is most suspicious of what the Minister is proposing? Will he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Molson: There is profound suspicion amongst all archaeologists about what all other archaeologists say or do.

    Employment Exchange, Accrington
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Works when the new employment exchange for Accrington will be built.
    Mr. Molson: A new employment exchange at Accrington is included amongst those to be built in the future, but it cannot be undertaken for some years.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that this is a serious matter, that this exchange is very badly situated, inside an arcade, and that the buildings and rooms reflect no credit on his Department?
    Mr. Molson: I know that the present premises are unsatisfactory. My Department has acquired another site which will be used for the new exchange to replace the present exchange.
    Mr. Osborne: Is there any use for an employment exchange there, since there is no unemployment in Accrington?

    St. Vigeans Church, Arbroath
    Captain Duncanasked the Minister of Works whether he is in a position to make a statement about the future preservation of the pre-Norman sculptured stones at St. Vigeans Church, Arbroath.
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. I have agreed to the request of the Kirk Session to assume the guardianship of these stones and I welcome this opportunity of paying tribute to the generosity of the Kirk Treasurer, Mr. G. W. Dunn, in presenting free of consideration a cottage in which the Stones can be suitably housed and displayed.
    Captain Duncan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will add to the pleasure of all archaeologists—all archaeologists, whether they quarrel or not—by producing, when the cottage is erected, pamphlets or illustrated booklets at a price of not more than 2s., which tourists can buy, in order that the true history of these stones may be revealed? May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the first documentary reference to this church is by a Bishop Hugh?
    Mr. Molson: I was not aware of the interesting historical fact which my hon. and gallant Friend has conveyed to me. I will consider the possibility of producing something on the lines he suggests.

    Ancient Monuments
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works what steps his Department takes to make known the ancient monuments under his care to visitors to this country from overseas.
    Mr. Molson: Ancient monuments figure in much of the publicity directed towards tourists. Leaflets and posters about ancient monuments are distributed through the British Travel and Holidays Association and by travel agencies and shipping and air transport companies. Photographs and particulars of many monuments are widely used abroad by the British Travel and Holidays Association and by travel agencies.
    Mr. Fletcher: Does that reply mean that the Minister is aware that if these monuments are adequately publicised there is a very good opportunity of increasing the dollar revenue of this country because of the interest which foreign visitors take in these subjects?
    Mr. Molson: Undoubtedly our very interesting past is one of the attractions of these islands, and we try to bring it to the attention of people who are considering visiting us. At the same time, I am bound to say that ancient monuments, although a tourist attraction, are not in themselves a great source of income from tourists.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister aware that although the material contained in these leaflets prepared by the Inspector of Ancient Monuments is admirable, there is, nevertheless, a feeling that the way in which it is presented could be greatly improved. Would he consider discussing with the Central Office of Information and the Stationery Office possible methods of improving the publications which are issued?
    Mr. Molson: I know that a large number of our publications arc of a somewhat scholarly flavour, but we do all we can to encourage the British Travel and Holidays Association, which is less scholarly in its outlook, to give a more popular presentation of our monuments.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend do his best to avoid the dangers of over-restoration? If he is to put everything back to where it was before, he will find himself in an awful mess.
    Mr. Molson: I think that was a supplementary question to Question No. 27 and not to the Question which I am answering.

    Brick-making Experiments (Fly-ash)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Works what conclusions have been reached regarding the technical and economic problems raised by the large-scale application of the results of the experiments at the Building Research Station, Garston, Hertfordshire, in making bricks from a mixture of fly-ash from power stations and clay; and what quantity of bricks was produced by this method in 1956.
    Mr. Molson: The application to large-scale production of the techniques referred to is a matter for individual firms, of whom there are some 700 engaged in brick production, and I have no information on the matter. The economic value of fly-ash depends on the proximity of a brick works with a supply of suitable clay to a power station producing suitable ash. I understand from the Central Electricity Authority that in 1956 some 25,000 tons of ash was so used, and the amount appears to be increasing.
    Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that suitable ash and suitable clay have been brought together in Leicester and Glasgow? As it is desirable to make use of this waste material, is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or some other Department, trying to encourage some suitable firms to use this suitable fly-ash?
    Mr. Molson: In view of the information that the hon. Member appears to have on the subject, it hardly seems necessary for him to ask me the Question.

  BRITISH ARMY

    War Office (Senior Officers)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War how the number of generals, lieutenant-generals and major-generals, respectively, now employed at the War Office compares with the number of those ranks employed there on 1st March, 1939.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): Two generals, seven lieutenant-generals and nineteen major-generals on 1st March. 1939, compared
    960
    with three generals, five lieutenant-generals and thirty-two major-generals at present.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Can my right hon. Friend explain the reason for that increase? Even if it is merely that there are far too many generals on the Active List, are there no bowler hats amongst those surplus stores of which we read?
    Mr. Hare: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, the Army, of course, is now almost double its 1939 size. As to the second part of his supplementary, I have already given the House, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others an assurance that I have every intention of getting down these appointments to the minimum necessary.
    Mr. Shinwell: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the War Office is cluttered up with a super abundance of generals, what does he intend to do about it? He has given the House an assurance that he intends to do something about it, but how long will it take? Is he going to jettison some of these unwanted generals?
    Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman gets very hot and cold over this. There is one general more than in his day. I have every intention of doing what I can to reduce the number.

    Warcop Hall, Westmorland (Purchase)
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary of State for War on what date the purchase of Warcop Hall, Westmorland, was completed; what was the purchase price; for what purpose it has been used since it was purchased; and what are the future intentions of his Department as to its use.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): The purchase of the Warcop Hall estate was completed on 1st June, 1955. It would be contrary to Government practice to disclose the price paid. The estate was needed as part of a firing range.
    Mr. Short: How much longer does the Under-Secretary of State intend to keep on repeating this silly reply? This House is in the middle of a large and populous village. How on earth can he say that it is part of a range? Will the Minister

    961
    say to what use the hall is being put, and why was it necessary for his Department to purchase this manor house, which is one of the most beautiful manor houses in this part of the country? Why does not the War Office either sell it or find a tenant for it? And why all the secrecy about the purchase price? Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what some of his hon. Friends would say if the Coal Board or the Central Electricity Authority had been concerned?
    Mr. Amery: The hall was bought as part of a package deal, and arrangements have now been made to sell it to a private purchaser.

    Medical Reports
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for War what is the normal length of time for which the medical records of units are kept.
    Mr. John Hare: Some unit medical reports are destroyed after three months, but personal medical records are kept for many years.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that claims arising from illness or disability caused or aggravated by service in the Army are often very hard to support because of lack of adequate records? Could he get a little more uniformity into the system, and see that the records are kept rather longer than is the case at present?
    Mr. Hare: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. If he has any particular case, perhaps he will bring it to my attention, but I can assure him that our aim is not to destroy medical records until we are sure that the individual's position in any pension claim will not be affected by destruction.

    Don Barracks, Aberdeen (Soldiers' Families)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what progress he has made towards finding accommodation for the wives and children of those married soldiers in Don Barracks, Aberdeen, for whose families there is no room in the barracks.
    Mr. J. Amery: Five families have been accommodated since I answered a related Question by the hon. and learned Member on 19th February. The waiting list
    962
    at this barracks is, however, the same length as before, because further families have become eligible for quarters. I regret that progress cannot be more rapid because we have to accommodate extra families of the Gordon Highlanders Band at Bridge of Don until quarters become available for them at Dover, where the battalion is stationed. These families are due to move out by the end of next month when the waiting list for quarters will be much reduced.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the little bit of progress he has made, may I ask him if he realises that it is unworthy of a great Power like Britain to keep married soldiers separated from their wives and families for long periods, as in this instance, and will he take urgent steps to see that those families are reunited?
    Mr. Amery: I will certainly bear the hon. and learned Member's point in mind.

    Pay Offices, Edinburgh
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the "civilianisation" of the two Army pay offices in Edinburgh.
    Mr. J. Amery: These two pay offices have a total staff of about 250, of whom 68 are civilians and 41 members of the Women's Royal Army Corps. The future composition of pay offices is at present under review and will depend upon a number of considerations. As already stated by my right hon. Friend, it is our policy to replace soldiers by civilians wherever possible.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one does not civilianise an Army pay office by recruiting civilian clerks, instead of soldiers, to work under Army officers with no knowledge of modern accounting methods and machinery? Does he realise that he will have to civilianise the management and methods as well as the clerks if he wants to civilianise properly?
    Mr. Amery: As my right hon. Friend made clear in the Vote on Account debate, it is our intention to introduce electronic computing methods as soon as possible.

    Maryhill Barracks
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the obsolete and out-moded accommodation for Service men at Maryhill Barracks; and if he will, in reviewing the Army's future needs, permit the resumption of building of new accommodation at Cardross.
    Mr. J. Amery: A good deal of work has been done at different times to modernise Maryhill Barracks, but to proceed further with this programme now that we are uncertain how long we shall need the barracks would not be in the interest of public economy. As to Cardross, I regret that I cannot go beyond my Written Answer of 5th March to a similar Question by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the Under-Secretary say whether a decision in this matter is likely to be come to very soon?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot say how soon it will be arrived at. It is not our intention to remain in the barracks indefinitely.
    Mr. Strachey: But cannot the hon. Gentleman give us rather more hope of progress in this matter of barracks? After all, his colleague the Secretary of State for Air is now reported to he moving at more than supersonic speed. Cannot the hon. Gentleman at any rate move at some speed in this matter of barracks accommodation, which is, perhaps, the most important single factor in recruiting a voluntary Army?
    Mr. Amery: I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State to the War Office should try to break through the sound barrier.
    Mr. Ross: May I, as one with experience of Maryhill barracks, ask the Under-Secretary if it is not about time that they were designated as an ancient monument and handed over to the care of the Minister of Works?

    Royal Norfolk Regiment
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for War what representations have been made to him concerning the future of the Royal Norfolk Regiment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: I have received no representations about the future of this
    964
    regiment, nor am I aware of any through official channels.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as it goes, that statement will give a great deal of reassurance in the county? Would he bear in mind that the Army could ill afford to be without this great regiment, which has served Britain with such efficiency, cheerfulness and courage in all parts of the world?
    Mr. Hare: I hope that my hon. Friend does not misunderstand what I say. The question whether cuts will have to be applied to the infantry as a whole has not been decided. Therefore, the future of individual units cannot be considered at this stage.

    Civilianisation
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue an instruction to his Department that the word "civilianisation" be not used.
    Mr. John Hare: If my hon. Friend or anybody else can suggest a shorter, more elegant single word to replace this ugly but time-saving term. I will gladly consider it.
    Mr. Peyton: Surely, that will not do? May I ask my right hon. Friend when it was that he conceived this sudden respect for the single word, and does he not think that it would be altogether more fitting if he lent his support to a campaign for the dejargonisation of the language?
    Mr. Hare: I would go even further. If my hon. Friend can suggest two words to replace this word, I will consider his suggestion.
    Mr. Shinwell: When was the term "civilianisation" added to the vocabulary at the War Office? Was it in use in my time?
    Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman was not, I think, quite as progressive as we are in these days.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it might be possible to use the word "civilising"?
    Mr. Hare: I always listen very carefully to any suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Minister consider substituting the word "liquidation"?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think that would be a very helpful suggestion.

    Surplus Razor Blades (Sale)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War how many safety razor blades have been declared surplus by his Department since 1st January, 1955, and offered for sale at public auctions.
    Mr. Hare: 8,595,100 razor blades have been declared surplus, of which 7,513,580 have already been sold at public auctions.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, were these razor blades offered to the other two Services, and. second, why were these razor blades, which were sold at the rate of eight a penny, not sold to the troops? Is it that the troops are not now using razor blades?
    Mr. Hare: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is that the disposal of surplus stores is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. The second part of his supplementary is really another matter, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman has another Question down on the Order Paper for next Tuesday——
    Mr. Dodds: Why not answer it now?
    Mr. Hare: —and, therefore, I would hesitate to prejudge my answer next Tuesday.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Minister tell the House by what extraordinary and brilliant processes the War Office managed to accumulate 8 million-odd razor blades? How was it done?
    Mr. Hare: The vast majority of these razor blades were accumulated because we were fighting a great war; in other words, they were largely accumulated during the time when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Coalition Government.

    Forces, Cyprus (Medical Grades)
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for War how many men of medical Grade II have been sent to Cyprus; and whether he will consider, during the present crisis in that island, not sending
    966
    men with less than 100 per cent. fitness to serve there.
    Mr. J. Amery: Statistics showing the medical categories of men serving in Cyprus are not readily available, and the information requested by the hon. Member in the first part of his Question could not be provided without undue expenditure of effort. I would point out that many Grade II men are fit to perform suitable military duties in Cyprus, and I do not consider that it is either justifiable or practicable to limit service there to men of a higher standard of fitness.
    Mr. Gibson: Does the Minister really suggest that a man, such as one of my constituents who has had only one eye all his life, out of which he can hardly see, is fit to be in the Army and, more than that, fit to be sent to Cyprus where, according to what my soldier friends tell me, a man needs four eyes in order to see what is happening all round him? Can it really be fair that a man of that physical capacity should be in the Army, let alone be sent to Cyprus, and will he look into the case if I send him the papers?
    Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman will send me the details of the case, I will certainly look into it. He will, of course, realise that there are clerical and other duties to be performed in Cyprus for which no high degree of fitness is relevant.

    Forces, East Africa
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the official proposals now being made to transfer control of the Armed Forces in East Africa from his Department to the East African Governments and what arrangements are proposed for servicing the Forces to the East Africa High Commission.
    Mr. John Hare: It is proposed that control of the Armed Forces in Kenya. Tanganyika and Uganda should pass to the Governors of these territories on 1st July, thereby reverting to pre-war practice. The Governors will control the operational use of the Forces raised and stationed in their own territories, but the centralised military command for East Africa as a whole will be retained. As to the second part of the Question, detailed arrangements are still under discussion.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman very seriously consider the implications of this decision? Is he not aware that there has been the most vigorous opposition in the Legislature of Uganda, including that of the European representatives, and is it not undesirable that the control of the Armed Forces should be handed over to these Governments before democracy is established in these territories?
    Mr. Hare: Those considerations are considerations which really ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

    MEMBERS' SALARIES
    Mr. Lewisasked the Prime Minister what conditions are necessary before Her Majesty's Government will consider implementing the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries; and whether, as the Government have agreed to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses, he will now state when he expects to take the necessary action to carry into effect these proposals.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which the hon. Gentleman received from his predecessor on 15th November.
    Mr. Lewis: But that was not a reply at all. May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will ask the Prime Minister to try to deal with this matter as decently and generously as the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) tried to do when he was Prime Minister some five or six years ago, and not be afraid on this occasion of any revolt by the 1922 Committee?
    Mr. Butler: I remember assisting my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on the previous occasion, and I have no doubt that my successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer will help my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this occasion; but I cannot give any indication of what the date is likely to be.

    COAL, GAS AND OIL (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Prime Minister in view of the complexities of our coal and atomic energy programme, involving more than £2,000 million, and of the expanding use of oil for industrial purposes, if he will appoint a Minister from the House of Commons to be responsible for coal, gas, and oil.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is the Minister answerable to this House for all matters within the responsibility of my noble Friend the Minister of Power.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically the whole economy of this country is in the hands of one Minister, and is he further aware that this sum of money of £2,000 million is voted from this House? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Members of this House should have the right to question a responsible Minister?
    Mr. Butler: I think it would be hard to find a Minister more competent than my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General to answer for these subjects. Her Majesty's Government have absolute confidence in him as the Minister representing the Minister of Power in this House.

    NUCLEAR TESTS
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance, in view of the widespread concern in Japan at the prospect of hydrogen bombs being exploded in the Pacific, that, after the first explosion, no further hydrogen bombs will be exploded pending the outcome of the present United Nations disarmament discussions.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
    I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply told the right hon. and learned Member on 18th March.
    Mr. Henderson: Why is it that the Government are now opposed as

    969
    announced in the Bermuda communiqué, to any limitation on nuclear tests? Why will not one hydrogen bomb explosion give the Government the basis of parity which they desire with the United States and Russian Governments?
    Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister has made it quite clear, as he did on 19th March, the day following the Answer to which I referred, that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to abandon tests in advance of a comprehensive disarmament agreement which affords proper safeguards and effective controls.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement goes back on an earlier statement made by Sir Anthony Eden, who promised that the Government would be prepared to try and seek agreement on hydrogen bomb tests independently of any general disarmament agreement? Can he explain the reason for the change?
    Mr. Butler: There is an Answer to be given to Question No. 50 which brings into line the agreement reached at Bermuda and which deals with the problem of world radiation and the effects of tests on that.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not more than eighteen months since the Government began to tell us that they were ready for some limitation of tests? When will they make some practical proposal to this end?
    Mr. Butler: We have just had some very successful and, I think, important conversations with the leaders of the United States Government in this matter. We realise that the security of the free world must continue to depend to a marked degree upon the nuclear deterrent. To maintain this effectively, nuclear testing must continue, certainly for the present.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is widespread agreement that the least satisfactory part of the Bermuda communiqué was that relating to H-bomb tests? Why do the Government continue to refrain from putting forward proposals for a conference designed to end H-bomb tests altogether?
    Mr. Butler: For the reasons I have given, that there are national interests at stake which we are not prepared to abandon.

SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (DISPUTES)
Mr. Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the disputes in the shipbuilding and engineering industries.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): Direct negotiations began yesterday between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on the Confederation's wages claim, but broke down late in the afternoon. Representatives of both sides were then invited to the Ministry for further discussions with my officers. It became clear that no progress was possible by way of conciliation and I decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the dispute. In view of this decision the unions were asked to call off the strike. The unions have not given their answer to that request, but both they and the employers have indicated their readiness to co-operate fully with the Court. The union representatives have had meetings with me and my officers today and further discussions with both sides, which will relate to both the shipbuilding and to the engineering disputes, are due to take place later in the day.
Mr. Robens: The whole House will share the disappointment which the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, feels that the high note of optimism which was struck yesterday was not borne out by reality. Does the Court of Inquiry depend upon the stoppage of the dispute so that it can meet, or does the right hon. Gentleman propose to hold the Court of Inquiry whether or not the dispute continues? May I say to the Minister that we hope that the further discussions that are taking place today with both sides might result in agreement despite the present little setback?
Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is quite true that I had high hopes yesterday, and so had everybody closely concerned with the dispute, but the direct discussions broke down and it seemed to me that we must try, as I did,

971
another approach at once. It is important that both sides have agreed to cooperate with the Court of Inquiry. What we are now endeavouring to do—and talks are going on now—is to find a formula by which the strike may end. Whether those discussions succeed or riot, I intend to go ahead with the Court of Inquiry, having received the undertaking that both sides will co-operate with it.
Mr. Lee: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's purpose that the Court of Inquiry should discuss the dispute as it now is and as we all know it, or will it discuss the background against which the dispute arose? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that hp said earlier that there was not a lot of purpose in having a Court of Inquiry because the issues were clear.
Mr. Macleod: The purpose of the Court of Inquiry would be to examine the dispute, and that largely is the position as it is now. The two main elements in that are, no doubt, the agreement, which has not yet been made public, which was tentatively come to between the two sides and the gap between the offer and the claim on which talks broke down yesterday.
Mr. Eden: Can my right hon. Friend clarify this point? Is the Court of Inquiry related only to the shipbuilding industry or to the whole of the shipbuilding and engineering industries? Further, will it investigate the restrictive practices in the shipbuilding industry?
Mr. Macleod: It is not possible to give an exact answer. I intended last night, when I set up the Court of Inquiry, that it should be confined, in the first place, at least, to the shipbuilding industry, but certain proposals have been put to me by the unions which are now being discussed with the employers and on the outcome of those talks will depend whether we have one Court of Inquiry, two Courts of Inquiry or, perhaps, two Courts of Inquiry composed of the same people taking place simultaneously.
As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is, of course, true that some of those matters are referred to in the document which was the basis of agreement on which wage negotiations were reopened yesterday.
Mr. Ellis Smith: In considering the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry, has the Minister made up his mind about the advisability of allowing the principle of mutuality to operate, so as to get the best results from both sides? Before the right hon. Gentleman finally decides, will he consider doing it by consultation with both sides?
Mr. Macleod: I have not yet made up my mind on the terms of reference for the Court of Inquiry. They depend very much on the talks that are going on and will go on for the rest of the day.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Robert William Elliott, esquire, for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RENT BILL
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  RENT BILL

    New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON REQUIR ING PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF RENT UNDER DECONTROLLED TENANCIES.)
    (1) Where a tenancy is granted, continued or renewed in circumstances in which section twelve of this Act applies, any requirement that rent shall be payable—

    (a) before the beginning of the rental period in respect of which it is payable, or

    (b) earlier than six months before the end of the rental period in respect of which it is payable, if that period is more than six months long,

    shall be void, whether the requirement is imposed as a condition of the grant, renewal or continuance of the tenancy or under the terms thereof; and rent for any rental period to which a requirement avoided by this section relates shall be irrecoverable from the tenant.
    (2) A person who purports to impose any requirement avoided by the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order any amount of rent paid in compliance with the requirement to be repaid to the person by whom it was paid.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.37 p.m.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause is designed to tighten up the provision, which was made in Standing Committee, against the demanding of premiums by a landlord. The point is that one needs to cover the case where rent is demanded so definitely in advance that it is in the nature of a premium rather than a normal rent. The matter arises in connection with Clause 12 and the prohibition on the charging of premiums for the tenancies of houses decontrolled under Clause 10 (1) which are granted within three years of decontrol or tenancies decontrolled under Clause 10 (2) and granted within three years after the commencement of the Act.
    I said in Committee that it was my desire to ensure that the provisions forbidding premiums were made as foolproof
    974
    as possible. That is why I am bringing forward this Clause, which provides that if any rent under a tenancy which is subject to the premium provisions in Clause 12 is demanded further in advance than the beginning of the rental period to which it relates—it may be a week, a month or longer—that that sum will be treated as a premium and will be irrecoverable from the tenant. This means that if the tenant has not paid it he cannot be made to do so and the landlord will lose it. I think that that will seldom happen because, if the House agrees to the new Clause, the landlord will be careful not to behave in this way.
    There is a further prohibition in the now Clause against a demand of rent more than six months in advance of the end of the rental period. That is designed to close a further loophole which might otherwise exist. To take a purely hypothetical example, the landlord might let a house on a lease of fourteen years and demand the whole of the rent for all those fourteen years at the beginning. That would clearly be more, in the nature of a premium than a rent.
    Therefore, we are providing in the Clause against the sum being demanded longer in advance than six months before the end of the rental period. The House will see that the new Clause will be effective in closing two possible loopholes. It imposes a maximum fine of £100 for an infringement and empowers the court to order the repayment of any amount wrongfully demanded and paid.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: This is a point which I raised in Committee and I am very glad indeed that the Minister has proposed the new Clause to meet it. I have had nothing very much to say by way of congratulation to the Government on the Bill, but this is an opportunity of saying that I agree with the Minister's action if only because it will solve a rather serious problem that has cropped up in my part of London on more than one occasion. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Clause.
    Mr. John Hay: I entirely approve of the outline of what the Clause does and I am sure that the whole House will be at one with the Minister in saying that the intention is one which ought to be incorporated in the Bill. Undoubtedly, a number of rackets have been

    975
    going on in connection with new tenancies where premiums have been disguised in the form of payments of rent long in advance. But I am anxious about the effect of this provision in connection with new tenancies under Clause 10 (2), which enables a tenancy to be created free of the Rent Restrictions Acts altogether after the coming into force of the Bill.
    May not the new Clause be a little too wide in its terms? I am sure that the whole House would not want to stop the perfectly normal and sensible arrangement for payment of rent, weekly, monthly or perhaps quarterly, in advance. That is often a prudent thing for a landlord to demand, because if he runs the risk of taking as tenant someone of whom he knows little he may find himself with arrears of rent owing. If the Clause is inserted in the Bill, I think that any kind of payment in advance would be covered. Therefore, it would be a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of £100, if the landlord were to ask a tenant, on giving him a new tenancy, to pay rent regularly weekly, monthly, or quarterly in advance.
    I hope that the use in the new Clause of the words
    " before the beginning of the rental period…"
    may cover my point and that, if a landlord asks for payment of a week's, month's or quarter's rent in advance at the beginning of the rental period and not before the beginning of the period, that perfectly normal and customary commercial arrangement will be allowed to continue. I hope that that is so, because I do not think that the House wants to strike at that sort of transaction.
    I believe that what my right hon. Friend and all of us want to strike at is the payment of large sums of money as rent in advance which really are premiums. I did not give my right hon. Friend notice earlier of this point, but I think that it is one which he might like to look at again, particularly when the Bill is being debated in another place.
    3.45 p.m.
    We do not want to stop prudent transactions to minimise the risk of arrears of rent, but we do want to stop this racket. If my right hon. Friend feels that my interpretation of the words
    "before the beginning of the rental period …"
    976
    covers the point I shall be quite happy, but if it does not I should be grateful if he would look into the matter and consider whether something can be done in another place to put the situation right.
    Mr. Graham Page: I support the Clause. I joined with the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in Committee in saying that this provision was necessary to support the Clause in the Bill which relates to premiums. Undoubtedly, there was an opportunity of getting round the premium Clause unless a new Clause such as this was provided, but I have one or two questions to ask on the new Clause because I think it is doubtful whether it will be effective as it is drawn at present. I ask the questions not necessarily to obtain answers today, but in the hope that the points will go on the record and will be dealt with at a later stage in another place.
    First, a tenancy, of course, can provide for a variable rent. The rent Clause as drawn does not prevent rent being demanded in advance. Therefore, if there were a tenancy—to take an exaggerated example—for 12 months, of which the rent was £300 for the first six months and £3 for the next six months, it does not seem to me that that tenancy would be caught by the Clause, because the first £300 would be for rental, as the Clause allows. Can my right hon. Friend stop up that loophole with some provision for spreading the rent in such cases over the whole period?
    My second point is on the word "requirement". I wonder whether it is sufficient in the circumstances. Let us suppose that the landlord merely says to a prospective or sitting tenant, "Mr. X has offered me two years' rent in advance. I do not require you to pay two years' rent in advance, but what are you going to do about it?" There is nothing in the Clause to prevent the landlord accepting the advanced rent. The Clause is only against his requiring it. If there were in the Clause not only a requirement but a prohibition of acceptance of rent in advance the Clause would certainly be strengthened.
    My third point is that, by reference to the premium Clause, this Clause applies to a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by subsections (1) and (2) of what is now Clause 10, that

    977
    is to say, a dwelling-house of a certain rateable value on a certain date, namely, 7th November, 1956, or a dwelling-house let after that date.
    Suppose that there is a tenant, in controlled premises, of part of a house who wishes to take another room or rooms in the same house. A tenancy to that tenant of the existing rooms which he already occupies, plus something extra, does not cause the property to become decontrolled. It is caught by the proviso to subsection (2). Therefore, in these circumstances, a landlord could demand rent in advance. He could not demand a premium, because he would be prevented by the existing Rent Acts from demanding a premium on controlled property, but he would not be caught under this Clause because he could demand rent in advance. Perhaps that is a point which my right hon. Friend would look into.
    The fourth point is whether, under this Clause, the rent overpaid is recoverable in the county court as a debt as well as if the landlord is prosecuted to conviction. Under subsection (2) of the new Clause, the court may return this overpaid rent if the landlord is prosecuted; that is, the police court may return it. But people do not like to go to the police court, and if this can be recoverable in the county court I think that the Clause will be far more effective. What I would ask is whether this is recoverable only if the landlord is prosecuted to conviction or whether it can be the subject of a civil claim.
    The fifth point is that I notice that the court "may" order the return of the amount. Why this discretion in the hands of the court? If we are, in fact, prohibiting the overpayment of rent, why is it left to the court's discretion whether it should be returned, if the landlord is convicted for having acquired it, having been paid that overpayment of rent in advance?
    The sixth point—and I have about eight—is this. If the rent is returned, does that relieve the tenant altogether of the payment of the rent for that particular period? Suppose the landlord has demanded rent for 12 months in advance and he is prosecuted for that, and the court orders the return to the tenant of the rent for six months of that period.
    978
    Is the tenant, under this Clause, relieved altogether of the payment of rent for that six months? It would seem so, according to the latter part of subsection (1), which says that
    "rent for any rental period to which a requirement avoided by this section relates shall be irrecoverable from the tenant."
    If that is so, I can see two possible rackets by unscrupulous tenants.
    One would come about in this way. The Clause requires the rent overpaid in this way to be repaid to the person by whom it was paid. Those words come in the last line of the new Clause. Suppose that the tenant, who has paid his rent for a long period in advance in this way, in the meantime assigns his tenancy, and that he has obtained from the assignee an apportionment of the rent which he has paid in advance. The assignee cannot recover that from the landlord who received it, because he does not come within what this Clause calls the "person by whom it was paid." The assignor, that is, the original tenant, can recover it from the landlord and can also recover it from the person to whom he has assigned his lease. Unless we have a little tidying up of the wording, I am afraid that it may be that the original tenant will get his money twice over.
    Lastly, and this is the second possible racket by unscrupulous tenants, again assuming that the tenant has paid excessive rent in advance in this way, and again taking the example of a person who has paid it for a year and claims back six months' rent, he could he rent-free, apparently, for the second six month of the 12 months for which he overpaid. Then, he could sublet and get his rent twice over, because he could get it again from the sub-tenant, while being free from rent to the landlord. This, I believe, would be quite permissible under the wording of the new Clause, and that is why I raise the point. I believe that the wording requires tidying up, and I therefore ask my right hon. Friend whether he will look at these points.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I was rather disturbed by the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and particularly by the emphasis which he laid on the ingenuity of the tenant, which, in his experience, no doubt, as well as in mine, has not been so obvious in the last

    979
    forty years. What has been obvious is something which I hope the Minister will consider between now and the further stages of the Bill in another place.
    There is a device practised which, I think, needs to be very carefully watched concerning this question of premiums. It is that a landlord purports to sell his house to the tenant, takes a fairly large sum, which is, in effect, a premium, and gives a mortgage to the tenant. The tenant still has to pay rent, and if he fails to pay the rent the mortgage is called in. The result is that this purported sale turns out to be a tenancy in which a premium has been taken, and in which the tenant continues to pay his rent, which purports to be a mortgage repayment, until such time as he can no longer pay it.
    That trick, which has been very extensively practised, should be watched very carefully. The Minister should not be so concerned about possible trickery so far as tenants are concerned, but should direct his attention towards some of the subterfuges adopted by landlords who have obtained large premiums without the practice being revealed until the tenant was compelled to leave.
    Mr. H. Brooke: This short debate has of itself shown how close and intricate is the knowledge possessed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on these complicated matters with which the Bill deals. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) for saying that he would not demand an immediate answer to the question he put. It was a somewhat abstruse one, and I will certainly undertake that the Government will examine it before the Bill is considered in Committee in another place.
    In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I can assure him that the words "before the beginning" in para. (a) of subsection (1) of the new Clause do not exclude "at the beginning." Therefore, a payment in advance that is made at the beginning of any tenancy is not hit by the new Clause. By a payment in advance, he and I mean in this context the ordinary payment of rent at the outset of a rental period.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) asked me a series of seven or eight questions without notice. I certainly do not blame him
    980
    for that, but he will excuse me if I cannot give him a complete answer at short notice. He asked whether it would be possible for a landlord to demand a high rent for an initial rental period and then a much lower rent for the second period. I am not quite sure what he would gain by that, because there would be no chance whatever of his establishing that the high first payment was not a receipt by way of income, and, therefore, taxable, and one of the dangers in the whole premium affair is that the landlord may succeed in establishing, though he will have to be very clever to establish it against the scrupulous attention of the Inland Revenue, that a lump payment is a receipt by way of capital and not by way of income.
    4.0 p.m.
    My hon. Friend called attention to the words "requirement ". I think he will find that this is the regular word used in previous Acts of Parliament dealing with matters of this kind, and it is the best word that can be used. He also asked whether the rent would be recoverable through the county court. No, that is not the case in this instance. The landlord would need to be prosecuted and convicted and then the court, if it convicts him, can direct the return of the premium. He questioned the word "may" in subsection (2). I think he will find that in all previous legislation relating to premiums it has always been a permissive power that has been given to the court to order the return of the premium.
    As regards the cases of unscrupulous tenants, to which my hon. Friend also referred, it seems to me that any trouble which arose here would have to start by arising from an unscrupulous landlord. Therefore, the landlord could hardly complain if the tenant tried to play back the same game against him. As the proposed Clause stands, it means that the sum which is paid in advance, and, therefore, treated as a premium under this Clause, will be irrecoverable from the tenant, who cannot be made subsequently by the landlord to pay it.
    I am sorry if I am not able completely to satisfy my hon. Friend on all his points. I realise the difficulty which the House is in over examining a proposed Clause which it first sees on the Report stage. However, no Amendments were put down, the Clause has

    981
    had a general welcome, and with the assurance that the Government will have it examined further I hope that the House will now agree to add the Clause to the Bill.
    Sir Patrick Spens: I want to refer to one point in the reply of my right hon. Friend. That is the fact that a premium paid contrary to both the existing law and, in the future, contrary to this proposed Clause, is not recoverable in the county court, but only by first bringing a criminal prosecution and then hoping to get the whole or part of the premium returned if the judge so thinks fit.
    I want to press most strongly for a real change in that law. It is important that a premium paid contrary to the law shall be repayable on demand and recoverable at once in the county court. Otherwise, I am certain that there will be a large number of premiums paid and that people will hesitate to prosecute their landlords before the magistrate. I am sure that the only effective remedy is to alter the law in this respect. The existing law has proved to be useless in stopping premiums, and I am sure that the only certain way of stopping this practice is to make the illegal payment recoverable at once on demand in the county court.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this point carefully, and will introduce the necessary changes in the Bill in another place to make it effective.
    Sir Ian Horobin: I intervene to add my voice to what has just been said from my own small experience as a social worker. There is no doubt that the ordinary person does not like to be mixed up in the courts. Sometimes, indeed, people seem to have the odd idea that it does not matter whether they are in the dock or in the witness box they do not want to be there at all. Ordinary working folk also, although they do not mind going to the county court if necessary, are not too keen about it. However, they are used to going to the county court for all kinds of things, sometimes treating it almost as a kind of conciliation officer. From the practical point of view of making the Bill work, which is what we all want, I hope that before it finally passes through
    982
    Parliament the Minister will consider whether something can be done on this point.
    I will add one rather different type of argument, but, nevertheless, a strong one. There are some suggestions on the Notice Paper which raise the same point in quite a different and rather unacceptable way. I hope that my right hon. Friend will object to them strongly, as many of us on this side of the House object to them strongly. My right hon. Friend might be well advised to try to meet the general feeling that this should be a civil matter and not a criminal matter in a way which would recommend itself to every hon. Member on this side of the House, lest he adds weight to suggestions which are, if we reach them, to be put forward for dealing with this matter in a way which certainly would divide his followers deeply.
    For that reason, apart from any other, my right hon. Friend would be well advised to consider whether he cannot introduce civil procedure into this generally acceptable question of forbidding premiums and advance payments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(MINIMUM LENGTH OF NOTICE TO QUIT.)
    No notice to quit any premises let (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) as a dwelling shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This proposed Clause, which, in a different form, has had an outing already in Standing Committee, applies both to Scotland and to England and Wales, and it seeks to extend the minimum period of notice to quit from one week to a minimum of four weeks. This constitutes quite an important change in the relations of landlords and tenants. It recognises, as I think the House will, that a period of only one week is uncivilised and inappropriate to the times in which we live.

    983
    This proposal may apply to all lettings which are determinable by notice to quit. It applies both to furnished and to unfurnished lettings, and not only to private lettings but also to lettings by local authorities. It would not apply, of course, to lettings which had been agreed for a fixed term of so many weeks or months, and which expired in the ordinary way by the effluxion of time without the need for any notice to quit. Such things as holiday lettings, therefore, would not be covered by this provision.
    In the early stages this reform would apply to houses which are to become decontrolled under Clause 10 (1), or on the letting or reletting of houses when the Act comes into operation. I think that the House will see that as the lower rated houses become free from control, as we believe they will do in the course of time, then this provision will have increasing application and be a considerable benefit to many people.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The Opposition welcomes the new Clause in this Guillotine Bill. We differ from the Parliamentary Secretary in thinking that it will make extraordinarily little difference. It certainly will not in the case of council houses. I do not think that it would at present in the case of ordinary tenanted houses. It is, however, possible that the Bill as a whole will cause such chaos and difficulty in ordinary relations between landlord and tenant that the Government are wise to provide this slight mitigation in favour of the tenant.
    Sir I. Horobin: As it was I who introduced the original provision in Committee, I should like to say how pleased I am that it received the support of the Government immediately and has now been introduced in a slightly different form.
    It is typical of the approach of hon. Members opposite to housing matters that as soon as an important and practical housing reform is introduced they are so angry that they did not think of it that they immediately try to crab it. It was noticeable that their first effort upstairs was desperately to try to think that they could hope that it would not apply to council houses at all. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee with me, but I will not weary the House by quoting from it. The Opposition's
    984
    approach was, first, that it did not matter, and, secondly, that it must be possible for a local authority to turn somebody out on to the street with the shortest possible notice if that was desired.
    Mr. Mitchison: That is quite untrue.
    Hon. Members: Read what was said.
    Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said:
    " Before the hon. Gentleman rises to withdraw, if he is going to do so…."
    That was myself, in response to the Government's decision.
    " … may I just ask him one question? We are quite clear, are we not, that though a tenant of a council house has a tenancy and had a tenancy terminable by notice, this new Clause is not intended to apply to that type of case?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th March, 1957; c. 1149.)
    The point is that today it should be impossible for a landlord to give such a short notice as one week, whether the landlord is a council or a private person, whether the landlord is in England or Scotland, whether the landlord is a housing association or anything else. It is no longer consonant with our social sense that ordinary people should live at the risk of a week's notice.
    As more and more houses will be decontrolled as time goes on, the abolition of the weekly tenancy is a thoroughly good and long-overdue reform. I am sure that when a great deal of the pother about the Bill has passed into limbo, more and more people will have reason to be grateful that the Government have accepted a suggestion which has the support of many people of all parties outside the House and made it part of our law.
    Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I would remind the House that the courts have consistently condemned the way in which previous Rent Acts have been drawn. I should like to know whether the effect of the Clause is to convert weekly tenancies into four-weekly tenancies. If the provision is to apply to the landlord, am I right in assuming that it would apply to the tenant? The tenant will want to know his position, especially at a time when, if the Government are right, more houses and flats will be available. The tenant will want to know whether he is bound, as the landlord is, to give four weeks' notice.

    985
    Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether my interpretation of the Clause is correct.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Page: I have two more questions for my right hon. Friend, and I apologise for not having given him notice of them. Both questions arise out of "let" in the Clause. The phrase is:
    " No notice to quit any premises let…as a dwelling…."
    That would, of course, include service tenancies. I wonder whether that is intended.
    As to my second point, I take it that it would not include licences granted to occupiers of requisitioned dwellings. It is the practice of local authorities to let requisitioned dwellings not by means of an ordinary tenancy but by licence. Consequently, the occupier is not a tenant but a licensee. It has been held again and again that such property is not let to the occupier; the occupier is not paying rent, and the Rent Acts do not apply.
    If local authorities are to be bound by the Clause in relation to their ordinary letting of council houses, I should have thought it would be reasonable to bind them to the Clause in respect of the licences of requisitioned houses. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will look into the possibility of altering "let" or adding words to cover the licensing of an occupier.
    Mr. Hay: There is a point arising from what was said by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) which, I hope, my right hon. Friend will examine carefully. I hope it will be made clear beyond a peradventure that the alteration in the law which is being made applies on both sides, that it will not be just the landlord's notice to quit which is affected but also the tenant's notice.
    I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw say that a great deal of new accommodation would come on the market. He is right. When that accommodation comes forward the Clause will prove its value.
    I would point out, however, that the Clause will not affect statutory tenancies which have already commenced to run. I refer here to statutory tenancies under
    986
    the Rent Acts which have followed contractual tenancies, weekly, monthly or for a period of years, which have been determined by a notice to quit some time in the past. Although the Clause has some retrospective effect, I do not think that it operates to affect notices given in the past, which have had the effect of converting contractual or, as they are called under the Bill, controlled tenancies into statutory tenancies.
    Mr. Julius Silverman: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, surely the Clause will affect only council houses.
    Mr. Hay: Council houses are not affected by the Rent Acts. I am talking about statutory tenancies only. The effect of the Clause will be to deal only with new tenancies created after the commencement of operation of the Measure. There will be no effect upon statutory tenancies which have arisen consequent upon notice to quit given in the past.
    This is a very desirable alteration in the law. My right hon. Friend was right to say that nowadays we are a little more civilised than we were in the past and that there should be a month's notice to quit. It is wrong that people should be turned out at a week's notice. The Clause will cause some problems for landlords, but I think that, in conjunction with the point that I made on the last Clause about rent being paid in advance as part of a normal commercial transaction, most landlords should be able to safeguard themselves against arrears under this Clause by granting tenancies with rent payable in advance but payable only at the begining of the tenancy.
    Mr. Bevins: I think that we may be able to dispose of one or two of these question quite quickly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked whether this provision imposed an obligation upon the tenant as well as upon the landlord. The answer to that is quite clear: this provision operates both ways. The responsibility is upon the tenant as well as upon the landlord.
    The question was also asked whether this provision applied to service tenancies, and the answer is that it does. As regards requisitioned houses, which was a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member

    987
    for Crosby (Mr. Page), as these are matters of licences rather than of letting it does not apply to that particular form of licensing.
    On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, I think that the position is that where a weekly tenancy is current at the commencement of the Act there is just room for argument on lines familiar to my hon. Friend as to whether, without the words
    "… (whether before or after the commencement of this Act)…,
    this Amendment would not interfere with such tenancies. The insertion of these words is designed to remove all doubt that all existing tenancies are covered. I do not think that there is any doubt about that particular point.
    I would ask the House to bear in mind that as regards houses which will presently be coming out of decontrol, under Clause 10 notice to quit, as the House well knows, is not a matter of one week or of four weeks, but, of course, of six months.
    Mr. Hay: I do not think that my hon. Friend quite understood what I was driving at and I am not surprised, because I put it very badly. I want to be sure that the retrospective effect of the words which he has read out:
    "… (whether before or after the commencement of this Act)…"
    will not affect the position of statutory tenancies which have been created perhaps years ago by a week's notice to quit given at that time.
    The general position is that if one has an ordinary contractual tenancy for a week or a month one can convert it under the present Rent Acts, by giving a week or a month's notice to quit, into a statutory tenancy. I want to be sure that this does not operate retrospectively to reconvert these statutory tenancies back into contractual tenancies thereby requiring fresh notice to quit to be served throughout the country. That is the point. I know that it is a difficult one to answer straight away, but I should be glad if my hon. Friend would look into it.
    Mr. Bevins: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider that point.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause. —(CONCURRENCE OF SUPERIOR LANDLORDS TO AGREE MENTS AS TO 1956 GROSS VALUE AND RATEABLE VALUE.)
    Where the landlord is himself a tenant, then unless he is tenant under a tenancy having a term with more than seven years to run an agreement between him and his tenant relating to the amount of the 1956 gross value or of the rateable value of the dwelling-house shall not have effect for the purposes of this Act except with the concurrence in writing of his immediate landlord.—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Perhaps I may say at the start that this Clause also applies to Scotland. The Clause deals with the case of a dwelling let by a superior landlord to a mesne tenant who, in turn, sub-lets part of the dwelling to a sub-tenant. The Clause provides that the mesne tenant can come to an agreement with the sub-tenant to apportion the rateable value of his part of the dwelling, either the gross rateable value or the net rateable value or both, only with the consent in writing of the superior landlord.
    Perhaps I might illustrate very briefly what this Clause means and how it will work, if one supposes the case of a mesne tenant who is a statutory or a contractual tenant and who is also affected by the decontrol provisions of Clause 10. Suppose, in a case such as that, the rateable value of the dwelling is, let us say, £90. Suppose that particular mesne tenant knows that, for some reason or another, at the end of the 15 months' standstill period he will have to vacate the premises, in such a case, if the subtenant occupies half of the house, in the ordinary course of events the apportionment of rateable value would be about £45, which would be in respect of the sub-tenant's accommodation. But it is conceivable, if the mesne tenant were not going to have any further interest in his own tenancy, that he might, out of pique against the superior landlord, agree to an apportionment of rateable value with the subtenant which would be prejudicial and unfair to the superior landlord.
    He might, for example, say, "I will agree to an apportionment of rateable value of £25 gross and £20 net" and in that way the sub-tenant, who, in the ordinary case, might perhaps become decontrolled on becoming the tenant of

    989
    the superior landlord, would remain controlled and would in future pay a lower rent to the superior landlord than he ought to do. That is briefly the objective of the Clause. It seeks to prevent that sort of practice by the mesne tenant who might feel aggrieved by his superior landlord and I hope that the House will be willing to accept it.
    Mr. Mitchison: In this guillotined Bill we on this side of the House see no objection to the Clause and good reason for it.
    Sir P. Spens: The only point I want to raise is this. As the Bill is drafted, there is an alternative to an agreement between the landlord and the tenant as regards apportionment, namely, that it can, if necessary, be determined by the county court.
    This new Clause, I assume, does not in any way prevent, if the superior landlord refuses to agree or if the immediate landlord refuses to agree, the tenant going to the county court to get the gross rateable value properly apportioned.
    Mr. Bevins: I think that the short answer to that is that this new Clause does not in any way affect the provisions which are already in the Bill, but deals with a particular case which is not covered by the existing provisions.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(LIMITATION ON EXCESSIVE RENTS.)
    1. As respects grant renewal continuance or assignment during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this Act a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by the provisions of this Act shall be treated as one to which the following provisions apply.
    2.Where a landlord requires as a condition of the grant renewal continuance or assignment of a tenancy during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this Act a rental in excess of the amount prescribed in section one of this Act save and except that the multiple contained therein shall be for the purposes of this section two and a half times the 1956 gross value of the dwelling-house instead of twice the 1956 gross value as prescribed in section one, such requirement shall be unlawful and such increase as is required by the landlord shall be irrecoverable.
    3.In the event of such requirement a tenant shall be entitled to retain possession of the
    990
    dwelling-house in like manner and subject to the like terms and conditions as if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to the dwelling-house for a period not to exceed three years.
    4. In pursuance of the provisions contained in this section either party may apply to the County Court to determine whether any requirement by the landlord infringes the provisions of this section and for an order of the County Court accordingly.—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause, in the name of myself and some of my hon. Friends, provides a limitation against excessive rents. We on this side of the House believe in the aims and principles of the Bill, but many of us view with deep concern the ill-effects which the Bill may have unless further safeguards are included to ensure that owners cannot obtain unjust enrichment at the expense of tenants.
    I would remind the House of the words which the Prime Minister wrote in his book, "The Middle Way." in 1938. It was an admirable hook and it expressed fears at that time for the feelings of the middle classes of this country. He said:
    " Insecurity has an adverse effect on health almost equal to the actual endurance of poverty."
    These are profound words. Many of us in this country are at present concerned with fears of tenants, whether those tenants are right or wrong in the expression of those fears.
    No one, I believe, would say that his judgment about the future of the Bill would necessarily be right. I stand here profoundly hoping that what I say will prove to be wrong, but it is because I have a very great conviction that I may be right that I believe that something along the lines of this new Clause, which provides a ceiling rental for a period of three years only, should be included in the Bill.
    4.30 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said:
    "… decontrol cannot be sudden or immediate. It must allow for necessary readjustments, and the transition must be smoothed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1765.]

    991
    In all quarters of the House, hon. Members will agree with the sentiments expressed by those words. Since the Second Reading a good deal has been done to provide further safeguards. Whether we think they go far enough or not, it would be idle to deny that the Government have introduced substantial further safeguards for security of tenure. Premiums have been outlawed and I hope and trust that, following the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), measures will be taken at a later stage to prevent premiums being obtained.
    If we are to deal with premiums, which prevent one type of unjust enrichment, it is only logical to prevent what is an excessive rent, which is another form of unjust enrichment. If one is satisfied that too high a rent will be payable in an open market, it is certainly not against Tory philosophy that we should have control, when it is in the interests of the country that there should be such control. As Tories we set our faces against control only where we regard it as unnecessary. If they are proved to be necessary, then it is vital that we should have safeguards.
    There is a fundamental difference of judgment about what the outcome of the level of rents throughout the country will be. The purpose of the new Clause is to prevent rents from rising above a level which all hon Members, even those who do not share the views I am expressing, will none the less regard as not unreasonable.
    The gross value of a property is its 1939 pre-letting value. Since 1939, the cost of living has risen two and a half times and to get an equivalent to the pre-war rent we arrive at two and a half times the pre-war value. There was not an acute housing shortage in London in 1939, nor was there a shortage in other cities. It is, therefore, fair that the rent should be allowed to rise to a level of up to two and a half times the gross value, the level that rents would normally find on supply and demand, but that that element should be removed in areas where there is an acute housing shortage. It is my belief, and the belief of those who are associated with me in this new Clause, that rents should not be permitted to rise substantially above such a level, should not be permitted to rise, for example, to
    992
    three and a half to four times the gross value.
    I shall show in a moment that in some cases rents will no doubt rise to three and a half to four times the gross rateable value and it is undeniable that in the London area the overall level of rents may well rise to three times the gross value. Although it may be legitimate as applied to new property, where there are new conversions, that would be too high a level in other cases.
    It would be quite useless for an hon. Member to express his own opinion on a matter of this kind. The House would not listen to that and I therefore propose to give the House four questions and answers by men whom I shall not name, because they are professional men in business, but whom I will indicate sufficiently to show at least the subject matter which leads them to their conclusions.
    The first and most important question is, "What, in your view, is likely to be the level of rents in London in 18 months' time?" I have chosen London as one of the cities where there is still a housing shortage. I say straight away that the level of rents in the country generally will not exceed two and a half times the gross value. That view is based on the reports of surveyors and estate agents all over the country. In my own constituency, leading men have told me that, beyond doubt, there will not be such rises. I shall, therefore, try to speak objectively in this matter, as one whose own constituency is not affected, whatever people may say on the matter.
    The answer to the question is given by one of the leading insurance companies and societies dealing in suburban properties. It said:
    "We deal in the suburban properties mainly, extensively in such areas as Sutton. In these areas in 18 months' time the level will be 3 times G.V. and slightly above for modern, slightly below for old. In a block of Sutton flats G.V. £52 p.a., present rent is £50 8s. 6d. exclusive. We obtain £150 p.a. for the future."
    That is just over double the present rents, about two and a quarter times the existing amount and is almost exactly three times the gross value of the property.
    The second question was, "What would you regard as a fair proposal as a landlord if the rent limit is to be applied?"

    993
    That was, assuming that there was to be such a rent limit, what would be a fair one? The answer was:
    "We have no hesitation in saying that 2½ times gross value is a fair proposal for landlords as an investment return for a temporary period. Three years would be a fair period."
    The Clause refers to a period of three years and it is also the unanimous view of surveyors, leading landlords and others, including three of the most famous names among property surveyors in London, that there will be a pool in three years throughout the country, apart from central London. It is important to make that point, because those who suggest that there will never be a pool are flying in the face of evidence from every corner of the country. I say that as emphatically as I suggest that there should be some limit upon the rents.
    The third question was, "Do you object to a temporary rent limit for a period of 3 years being a limit not to exceed 2½ times gross value?" The answer was:
    "Agreeable."
    The fourth question was, "Are there any objections to 3 above particularly on the ground that the maximum in some areas, e.g., London, might become the minimum in the country?"
    The answer to that was:
    "We manage properties outside London as well and do not think that a ceiling rent will raise the level of rents elsewhere."
    They will find their level in a few months.
    In addition to those replies, I will quote another from a firm which is certainly regarded as one of the top five of those who manage property in and around the London area. This firm said:
    "The level of rents is rising in the London area, they will be for old property at least 3 times G.V., for modern 3½. in the past year they were rising fast. Two examples:
    Coram Street, W.C.2. Bloomsbury, 3 rooms, kitchen and bathroom, £350–400 exclusive. Strutton Ground, Westminster, 12 flats, £60 G.V., rents £325–350 exclusive, over 4 times G.V."
    In the firm's view, in the short-term rents will rise still further. The firm goes on to say that two and a half times the gross value——
    "…would be a fair proposal for a temporary period of three years. Pool will be created in 3 years not before."
    Mr. Bellenger: Do those rents include services?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: They include services, but the basic rental would be about four times the gross value. The firm went on to say that the best proposal would be a rent of not more than two and a half times the gross value for all property, except where it is new property, where three times the gross value would not be excessive. It went on to say that it would be a reasonable return to have two and half times the gross value as the ceiling rent and it was emphatic in saying that that would cause no difference in the valuation of the country generally, because within a few months country districts would find their own levels.
    If that be so, and those be the views expressed—no doubt there are contrary views which might be expressed by other surveyors and landlords—we are left with the need to decide what is the best position and the lesser of the two evils. If we take the solution of a free market and that turns out to be wrong, unhappiness may follow. If we apply this solution—I do not suggest for a moment that it is perfect—but if we accept a limited transition period of only three years—it is the same period as the Minister has prescribed with regard to premiums—we shall be going further and saying that it is not only premiums which are wrong, but that the logical outcome of stopping premiums is that we stop excessive rents, too, for a similar period.
    I believe that this would enable us to get over the transition period and do it with a longer period of security of tenure. That is to say, the 18-month period of the standstill will lead to an incentive to the landlord to agree to some agreement if he can get his extra rent. If, in fact, he can do that, but he cannot do it at a rent which is not excessive, I believe that we shall get these agreements, and shall get over this short period.
    May I say two things, in conclusion? First, I want to deal with why I suggest that this three-year period is so important. There are here four factors integrating one on the other. The first is the 4,500,000 properties coming out of control. The owners will take time to do their conversions and let off their kitchens. Mother will have to make up her mind about what she will do; or it may be a question of moving out grandma, or whatever else

    995
    it may happen to be. At the end of that time we shall get a great deal more accommodation in the city suburbs out of the existing accommodation, because where there are spare rooms it will pay the owners to make use of them.
    My second point relates to the construction of new buildings, particularly blocks of flats, which have not been built anywhere in the big cities since the war, because it has not been worth while for property developers to build them. Now they will do so. They will have laid their plans and this will be the timetable. It takes four months to get through the negotiations with the local authorities and the town planning authorities concerned. It takes three months to deal with the lawyers, as many of us well know. It takes three months to deal with the quantity surveyors, and about three months to negotiate with the architects. It takes nine to 12 months for the building.
    Therefore, it takes about two years to develop a block of flats, or other expensive factory or estate development. There is also the question of requisitioned property, and conversions of empty houses, such as in the Seven Sisters Road and other parts of London, and in the major cities. These properties are standing empty because it is not worth while for the owners to let them.
    These factors will operate. There will be requisition, conversion, new houses, and the development of the houses which are old and owner-occupied and are coming on to the market. We must also bear in mind that the Ministry has said—I think rightly—that in 12 months it reckons that it will have increased the further output of houses. All the surveyors to whom I, at any rate, have spoken—they number about 30 throughout the London area and elsewhere—have one factor in common, and I challenge anyone to dispute this fact: that the optimum for the United Kingdom will be in the year 1960, three years from now. That will be when supply and demand will take effect.
    If that be so—let me say straight away that perhaps I am wrong—a five-year security period is not necessary. It is only three years. But if I am wrong—and it is wise sometimes to be wrong in these matters—clearly, I am not wrong
    996
    in saying that some safeguard is needed to cover that period. Eighteen months is covered, but it is the other 18 months interregnum which is the difficulty. I believe that this Clause will meet that difficulty. I believe that it does not affect the principles of the Bill as I understand them, which are decontrol and the creation of a flexible market. Provided it is only excessive rents we are preventing, we shall not stop the free play of a reasonable market. It is because I believe this profoundly that I am moving this Motion.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to second the Motion.
    I think it fair to say that all of my hon. Friends who support this new Clause support the Bill as presented by the Government in its entirety. One of the questions I wish to put to the Minister is whether it is necessary for the total abolition of the controls on property of a rate-able value of over £40 a year in Greater London and £30 a year in the country should take place at the same time.
    In the Bill there are other properties which are to be decontrolled, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). There are over 4½d million owner-occupied properties which, from the passing of this Bill, will be decontrolled. Secondly, after the passing of the Bill there will, in fact, be other empty property which exists today, and empty property in the future will become decontrolled in the matter of the rate-able value it has. Therefore, throughout the next few years there will come forward a large number of new house units or hereditaments which, over the years, will provide a pool.
    The question arises whether in fifteen months there will be a sufficiently large pool in this country, particularly in the built-up areas and outskirts of London and in other large cities. The Minister definitely maintains that there will. On the best advice at his disposal, and on his own judgment, he affirms that there will be this pool. If the Minister be right, in those circumstances the rises in rents are not likely to be more than, say, two-and-a-half times. That is what the Minister has said in the past. Therefore, in order

    997
    to protect people who are frightened at present, and if the Minister really believes—I know he does—that in fifteen months the increase will not be more than about two-and-a-half times, is there any reason why we should not ensure that it will not be by accepting this new Clause?
    From the evidence which I have been able to obtain since the Committee stage, when it will be remembered that I said that I was prepared to vote for the 15-month period, I have reason to suppose that fifteen months will not be sufficient time to create a pool and keep rents down to a reasonable figure as the Minister genuinely believes and hopes will be the fact. I wish to reiterate what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I cannot believe that the owners of unoccupied property will, in a period of fifteen months, have time to produce more than a trickle of new hereditaments to come into the market. I think the period must be longer than that.
    There are large numbers of property-owners who will embark on the process of turning old houses into a number of flats now that they can get more or less any rent they like. Therefore, it will take at least the time that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet mentioned for all the gyrations to be gone through with local authorities, architects, quantity surveyors and the like. It will be a very considerable time before that trickle becomes a flood or a spate. I therefore submit to the Minister that fifteen months is too short a time.
    I am satisfied, having had the privilege of talking to the Minister on one or two occasions, that he really knows where he is going. I believe he is doing absolutely the right thing in bringing forward the Bill, but I am asking him whether at this last moment, the Report stage, he is quite sure about the advice that he has received on the timing. It must be on the advice that he receives that my right hon. Friend makes up his mind. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors sent out a memorandum in which it said that the minimum time for this Bill to operate would be sixteen months, while the Institution of Auctioneers sent out a memorandum in which it said that the very minimum time would be twelve months.
    998
    I am informed that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has not been in touch with either of those bodies for consultation purposes or with any other professional body which will be responsible for working this Bill and for advising landlords what action to take. I shall be glad if that statement can be corrected. My information is the same with regard to the principal societies engaged in property management. In the same way as the Minister of Labour and National Service would consult the T.U.C. on labour problems, so, in a major operation of this kind affecting about 860,000 families, consultation might have gone on with the professional bodies to get advice other than that given in their memoranda.
    Completely supporting the Bill, as my hon. Friends and I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We believe that the Bill is a bold and courageous move to take, especially with the modifications that have already been made and a further modification on the line we think should be taken now. Since 1945 many Housing Acts have been passed. That of 1949 has been, in respect of some of its Sections, inoperative or a failure. Some of the Sections of other Housing Acts, such as the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, have been ineffective. In no case where Sections were ineffective did anybody suffer, and certainly not the tenants, who were no worse off than they were before.
    In the event of the timing being wrong in the present case and of excessive rents being charged in built-up areas like London and the big cities, grave hardship and damage may ensue. Principally for that reason my hon. Friends and I have put down the proposed new Clause. If my right hon. Friend could have taken powers under Clause 10 (3) not only to increase the number of properties to be decontrolled but to deal with such chaos as might ensue after fifteen months—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—my hon. Friends and myself would not, I am certain, have put down the proposed new Clause.
    Because I do not think the Minister can take that action, and believing that there is a strong possibility of hardship ensuing to scores, if not hundreds, of thousands of nice, pleasant families in fifteen months, I suggest that a stopper of two-and-a-half

    999
    times the gross value as the top limit of rent would be fair to the landlord and would be just to the tenant.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I rise now because I feel sure that the House would wish to have views of the Government on the proposed new Clause before coming to a decision upon it.
    Mr. Mitchison: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that on a guillotined Bill the House might conceivably like to hear the views of the Opposition. too.
    Mr. Brooke: If I am not interrupted, I hope to sit down in order that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) may rise before the Guillotine falls.
    I take a less pessimistic view than does my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) of the way in which the market will work over the coming months and years. I would assure the House that I have informed myself as fully as I am able to do of the views of those who are expert in these matters. So far as I am aware, all the professional organisations and institutions which have any interest in the subject-matter of the Bill have communicated whatever views they may hold to me or my predecessor. We have made our own confidential inquiries where they seemed necessary. We also have at our disposal the whole corpus of knowledge which is in the possession of the Valuation Office, which consists of people who are very well trained to form their own first-hand judgments of the situation in different parts of the country and are well placed to acquaint themselves with the views that are being taken in the professions concerned.
    Mr. John Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to ask a question at this juncture? Was this invaluable information which is at the disposal of the Department used in connection with the 1954 Bill?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Brooke: I have fifteen minutes at my disposal, in which I should like to address myself to this Bill. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet has said, I must point out that his new Clause would make a funda-
    1000
    mental change in the concept of the Bill. As he knows, a number of Amendments were made in Committee which, I think he will agree, go far in the direction he has in mind. We have abolished premiums; we have extended the six months' standstill period to one of fifteen months, and—I attach the greatest importance to this—we have provided that if a landlord and his tenant can reach a mutual agreement within that period of fifteen months for a fresh tenancy lasting for at least three years, the new rent payable under the agreement can come into operation forthwith and the landlord will not have to wait until the end of the period to gain the benefit of the increased rent.
    My hon. Friend wishes to go further than this and to enact that for the period of three years ahead a house or flat which comes out of control shall have its rent limited to an amount not more than two-and-a-half times the gross value. I presume that my hon. Friend realises that his Clause would render illegal even mutual agreements reached within the period of fifteen months, if those agreements provided for a rent in excess of two-and-a-half times the gross value. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In my view it should be the purpose of the House to encourage and stimulate those mutual agreements rather than make them more difficult.
    I have only a few minutes in which to speak, and I think that I can help the House best by defining what would be the practical effects of the new Clause. First, we should not do what the Government aim to do by Clause 10 (1), namely, to secure a free market. A free market carries with it all the known advantages in bringing more accommodation into the market. What we want to do above all is to stop this constant drain from the market of accommodation to let. The availability of this accommodation is shrinking all the time. We want to halt that process and reverse it, and the only effective way of doing so is to recreate a free market.
    Clause 10 is largely directed at the large amount of under-occupied accommodation which exists—a far larger feature in the housing situation than the House or most of the commentators on the Bill have realised. It needs a free market to bring into full availability all

    1001
    the under-occupied accommodation which is known to exist within the relevant range of rateable value.
    I want to be perfectly fair to my hon. Friend's argument. He says that my conception is good in the long run but will not operate sufficiently quickly, and that not enough will have happened within a period of fifteen months to make it safe to decontrol without a rent limit. I disagree with hint. His argument seemed to rest largely upon the expectation that in order to bring the additional accommodation into the field of availability it would be necessary in all cases to carry out full-scale conversions requiring architects' plans, planning permission, extended building operations, and so forth. I agree that a major conversion of a large property might well take a considerable time, but I am certain that an enormous amount of property which is at present under-occupied will be let almost as soon as the market is freed.
    Secondly, I would say that I have paid special attention to what my hon. Friend said about the advice he has received. With great respect to his advisers, I do not agree that there will be no risk of a maximum rent limit becoming a minimum limit. I have considered the position over the country as a whole and, in my judgment, there are large areas where the market level of rents for this decontrolled property will quickly settle below a figure of two-and-a-half times the gross value. If we write into the Bill a maximum limit of two-and-a-half times the gross value, it will give everybody the idea that that is a reasonable figure—a figure which the landlord should ask and which the tenant ought to pay. In fact, in seeking to protect a certain number of tenants in the most populous parts of the country from having to pay high rents—as I fully recognise my hon. Friend is doing—he may be penalising a very much greater number of tenants in the rest of the country who, as a result of the new Clause, may have to pay higher rents.
    Thirdly, in connection with the agreements which we all want to be reached between landlords and tenants, it will be much less likely that such agreements will be reached if a limit of two-and-a-half times the gross value is laid down in the Bill. It is at the landlord's discretion whether to enter into such an agreement or whether to sacrifice the benefit of the
    1002
    increased rents which he might obtain and allow the tenancy to run out at the end of fifteen months, after which he can do what he likes with the property. If he judges that a limit of two-and-a-half times the gross value will be restrictive, he will not enter into any such agreement; he will decide to wait and see what happens when he is in a position to gain vacant possession of the property.
    He may then decide to sell the property with vacant possession, or do what so many landlords have been doing under the iniquitous system of rent control, namely, at such time as he eventually gains vacant possession—especially in the case of flats—to put some furniture into the property and let it furnished. It should be the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to remove the incentive to excessive furnished lettings and unnecessary sales and, on the contrary, to try to bring back into the letting market as much unfurnished accommodation as possible.
    My hon. Friend quoted cases of rents which would rise to four times the gross value. I am quite sure that in the choicest parts of the country—within the immediate vicinity of this House and in other spots where the mere locality of a dwelling gives it a luxury flavour—dwellings may be so sought after that rents will rise considerably, but I do not think for one moment that they will rise to anything like that magnitude, taking the whole country or even the whole of London.
    The real protection against excessive rents is provided by the existence of competition in a free market. All the information that I have been able to gather proves to my satisfaction—and I hope that the House will accept my judgment in this matter—that a free market will be the strongest safeguard against tenants being asked to pay excessive rents.
    Mr. Mitchison: It is just like a Tory Government to guillotine a Bill and then to imitate the little rivulet in Tennyson's poem that went babbling on forever so that the views of the Opposition on a matter of this sort could not be heard. I appreciate the difficulties of the Government. They have had to deal with a musical comedy mob of mutineers whose conduct has been very remarkable.
    We on this side of the House do not regard this Clause as enough: we do not

    1003
    regard it as perfect, but we do regard it as far better in practice and in principle than the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, and we propose accordingly to divide on it. We expect the Margate mutineers to stalk, carrying their Jolly Roger, into the Lobby with us. They made enough comedy; they might for a change do something serious.
    On the merits of the matter, what the right hon. Gentleman called a free market his hon. Friends described a minute or two before as chaos. It is perfectly possible in certain circumstances to have chaos in a free market. The sooner the right hon. Gentleman learns that the better. I will tell him some of the circumstances. One is a grave shortage of a commodity for which at the moment the Government are asking a free market. A large number of people whose lives are dependent on having that commodity—in this case a house—need a home to live in.
    Those are people who, as everyone admits, are worried and perplexed, whose security has been destroyed by this Rent Bill. They do not know if they are going to have a house, or at what price, on what terms, or where, when the Government and their supporters have finished this precious piece of legislation. Those are the sort of conditions which turn a free market into chaos. To suppose for a moment that the real difficulties of this Bill are going to be met merely by extending fifteen months to three years and merely by the limited protection given by that is to hope for much too much.
    This does at any rate indicate some sense of repentance among hon. Members of the Tory Party, with whose feelings I sympathise, particularly with their feelings when they happen to occupy marginal seats in or around London. That, of course, is the reason for this new Clause and the reason for the whole of the Margate mutiny staged with all this noise and so frequently unsuccessfully. I do not know whether we shall see them coming into the Lobby with us or not. It is going to be very amusing. I hope they will.
    1004
    Even the slightest sign of repentance on the benches opposite we take note of with pleasure. We do not think it is anything more than that, but at any rate it indicates, and should indicate to the right hon. Gentleman, that his former supporters up and down the country are fed up with the legislation he now proposes. They are fed up with the anxieties which have been worrying them month after month, fed up with the prospects which this Government are inviting them to face, prospects of leaving homes which over the years they have come to consider as their own. They are fed up with the prospect of making a bargain with a landlord—the one thing which the right hon. Gentleman holds out to them—a bargain in which the landlord has the whip hand all the time and in which they cannot make any fair or equitable arrangements because, if they fail, they are going to be kicked out into the street.
    That is the position into which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are putting people all over the country. Why are they doing it? What is the real reason for it? It is not to facilitate exchanges. I do not believe it is to do what the Bill certainly will do—to transfer a very large sum of money from one group of people to another group, from the tenants to the landlords. I believe they are so stupid and so benighted that they honestly think in this year of grace that the solution of every difficulty is to be found in the free market, the free haggling between one person and another, irrespective of the advantages there may be on one side and irrespective of the hardship that might be caused on the other. I believe this ideological race downhill will end in their destruction as a party and their failure, their acknowledged failure, as a Government.
    It being a quarter past Five o'clock,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put,That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided:Ayes 242, Noes 267.

    Division No. 81]

    AYES

    [5.14 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Healey, Denis

    Pearson, A,

    Albu, A. H.

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

    Peart, T. F.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pentland, N.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworh)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hobson, C. R. (KeighJey)

    Popplewell, E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holman, P.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Holmes, Horace

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

    Baird, J.

    Holt, A. F.

    Probert, A. R.

    Balfour, A.

    Houghton, Dougals

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pryde, D. J.

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

    Howell, Dents (All Saints)

    Randall, H. E.

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

    Hoy, J. H.

    Rankin, John

    Benson, G.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Beswick, Frank

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reid, William

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boardman, H.

    Hynd, H, (Accrington)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Hynd, J. B.(Attercliffe)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Ross, William

    Bowles, F. G.

    Irvine Sydney (Dartford)

    Royle, C.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Janner, B.

    Short, E. W.

    Brockway, A. F.

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

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

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

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Carmichael, J.

    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.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Coldrick, W

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Stonehouse, J. T.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch&Finsbury)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lewis, Arthur

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. Geore (Vauxhall)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Summerskill, Rt, Hon. E.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Swingler, S. T.

    Cronin, J. D.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    McGovern, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Dalton Rt. Hon. H.

    McInnes, J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Dnavies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Davies. Harold (Leek)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Thornton, E.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Timmons, J.

    Deer, G.

    Mahon, Simon

    Tomney, F.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mainwarlng, W. H.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wade, D. W.

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

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Dye, S.

    Mason, Roy

    Watkins, T. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Weitzman, D.

    Edelman, M.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    West, D. G.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Monslow, W.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Morris. Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wigg, George

    Fienburgh, W.

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

    Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.

    Finch, H. J.

    Moss, R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Moyle, A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Forman, J. C.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, David (Neath)

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

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Oliver, G. H.

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oswald, T.

    Williams W. T. (Barons Court)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Owen, W. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Padley, W. E.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Paget, R. T.

    Woof, R. E.

    Grimond, J.

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

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hannan, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Parker, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hastings, S.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Mr. John Taylor and

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paton, John

    Mr, G. H. R. Rogers.

    1006

    1007

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Godber, J. B.

    Maddan, Martin

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

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

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)

    Goodhart, P. C.

    Maitiand, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gower, H. R.

    Mathew, R.

    Armstrong, C, W,

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maude, Angus

    Ashton, H.

    Green A.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Gurden, Harold

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Balniel, Lord

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Barber, Anthony

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Barter, John

    Harmon, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

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

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Neave, Airey

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hay, John

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

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

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

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Black, C. W.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Body, R. F.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hlnchingbrooke, Viscount

    Osborne, C.

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

    Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck & Leam'gtn)

    Page, R. G.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Braine, B. R.

    Hope, Lord John

    Partridge, E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

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

    Horntsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Pilkington, Capt R. A.

    Browne, J Nixon (Craigton)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ivel)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admlral J.

    Pott, H. P.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

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

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Campbell, Sir David

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Carr, Robert

    Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Chlchester-Clark, R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmayne, M.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Cooke, Robert

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lanceiot

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)

    Keegan, D.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Cunningham, Knox

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Currle, G. B. H.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Russell, R. S.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Kimball, M.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Kirk, P. M.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Shepherd, William

    Drayson, G. B.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

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

    Leburn, W. G.

    Soames, Christopher

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Speir, R. M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

    Elliott, R. W.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.)

    Emmet, Hon Mrs. Evelyn

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Erroll, F. J.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Fell, A.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chlswick)

    Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife,E.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Storey, S.

    Fort, R.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Freeth, Denzil

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Temple, J. M.

    1008

    1009

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

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

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Mr Wills and Mr. Legh.

    Clause 1.—(RENT LIMIT OF CONTROLLED HOUSES.)
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave cut "or shared accommodation".
    This is a very simple Amendment which I can put briefly to the House. As the Clause was originally drafted, the rent of a controlled dwelling might be the equivalent of twice the gross value, or whatever the appropriate multiplier might be, together with an addition for the value of shared accommodation—that is, accommodation shared either with the landlord or with another tenant. When the Bill was first produced, it was not clear whether the hypothetical rent of such a tenancy, on which the gross value is based, would reflect the value of the shared accommodation, but it has now been clearly established from the Inland Revenue that the value of shared accommodation would he reflected in the gross value for rating purposes. This Amendment will protect tenants in circumstances such as I have described from, in effect, having to pay for shared accommodation twice over.
    Mr. Mitchison: That seems reasonable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, to leave out "mentioned in the forgoing subsection" and to insert:
    " on the rent recoverable under a controlled tenancy for any rental period."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Amendment and the two Amendments in line 13 should be taken together. I shall not call the second Amendment for a Division.
    Mr. Bevins: This Amendment is also a reasonable proposition, although, perhaps, less simple than that which I last moved. Subsection (3) of the Clause says, in substance, that where the present rent exceeds the rent limit fixed under subsection (1), then the rent shall be the rent current at the commencement of the Act as distinct from the rent limit provided for in subsection (1). To read that
    1010
    as meaning the rent limit set out in subsection (1) would render subsection (3) meaningless. I am advised that no court of law would construe it in that way. It is the case that there has been a good deal of heart-searching on both sides of the House as to exactly what was meant by this provision and whether it was expressed in the right way. My right hon. Friend has two Amendments on the Order Paper—this and an Amendment in line 13—which remove all possible ambiguities.
    The end of subsection (3) will read, allowing for these Amendments,
    " the rent limit shall be the rent recoverable as aforesaid subject however to the provisions of the foregoing subsection."
    The words "as aforesaid" clearly refer to what goes before in subsection (3); that is to say, to
    "…the rent recoverable for the basic rental period…"
    The word "foregoing" clearly refers back to subsection (2). I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), and perhaps one or two other hon. Members, are not entirely happy with the wording as it was—or even, maybe, as it is now proposed—but my right hon. Friend has been into this on more than one occasion—indeed, during the last twelve hours—and I am assured that the wording as now presented does convey what we mean to say.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hay: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It is perfectly true that subsection (3) contains a tremendous ambiguity and that even at this late stage something has to be done to try to put it right. My difficulty is that I cannot altogether see that the two Amendments in his name do that. As I read it, the first one would only alter the statement that the rent limit is to be subjected to adjustment from time to time under Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill. The ambiguity arises in subsection (3), where it says that where under a controlled tenancy which is current at the

    1011
    commencement of the Act the present rent recoverable is greater than what would be the rent limit if one ascertained it under the new provisions of subsection (1),
    "…the rent limit shall be the rent recoverable as aforesaid, …"
    It has been pointed out in a number of quarters, that "as aforesaid" might refer back either to the words in line 10—
    "…the rent recoverable for the basic rental period…."
    or to line 11—
    "…the rent limit for that period if ascertained under subsection (1) …."
    I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) shaking his head, but I put this forward because I think there is that ambiguity and that it should be cleared up. I do not think there could be any more simple way of clearing it up than by accepting this Amendment to leave out the words "as aforesaid", and to insert
    "for the basic rental period."
    It would then read:
    Where under a controlled tenancy current at the commencement of this Act the rent recoverable for the basic rental period exceeds what would be the rent limit for that period if ascertained under subsection (1) of this section, the rent limit shall be the rent recoverable for the basic rental period, but subject to adjustment and reduction…"
    and so on.
    I think that that would clear it up beyond a peradventure, but I am a tyro in these matters, and my right hon. Friend is advised by those who know all about drafting, as we have often learned to our cost here in the past. Therefore, although I do not press my Amendment, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter very closely in order to make sure that no one will be misled or, more particularly, forced to go to court and incur the expense of litigation. I hope that, unless he is quite satisfied on that point, he will take steps to clear it up.
    Mr. Mitchison: We objected to this subsection at some length in Committee. We divided on it. We still object to it, but these seem to be drafting Amendments intended to make the meaning of the Government clearer. We do not feel it appropriate or, indeed, in order to enter into a discussion on the merits of the subsection in our discussion of these Amendments. Honestly, as between the
    1012
    various draftsmen, we would rather they fought it out behind the scenes than to take time when there is a Guillotine.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:In page 2, line 13, leave out from "aforesaid" to "the" in line 14 and insert:
    " subject however to the provisions of ".—[Mr. Bevins.]
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end to insert:
    (5) This section shall not apply to any dwelling-house in relation to which an application under section one of the Act of 1949 either—

    (a)has been made since the Housing Rents and Repairs Act, 1954, came into force and before this Act comes into force, or

    (b)can be made on or after the date on which this Act comes into force.

    (6) The rent recoverable in respect of such a dwelling-house as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection for the rental period comprising the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding the repeals effected by this Act, remain the rent recoverable in respect of that dwelling-house for any rental period for which it is neither increased nor reduced by the determination of a Tribunal under the Act of 1949.
    (7) The proviso to section one of the Act of 1949 (which provides that an application to determine a reasonable rent for a dwelling-house shall not be made if a previous such application has been made in respect of that dwelling-house) shall no longer have effect and references in the Act of 1949 to a standard rent shall be construed as references to the standard rent on the day before the commencement of this Act.
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, at the same time, we were to take four consequential Amendments. Those consequential Amendments are: in page 14, line 44, after "1939", to insert "The Act of 1949"; in page 16, line 8, at the end to insert:
    "Tribunal" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section one of the Act of 1949,
    in page 31, line 47, at the end to insert:
    25. Sections five and six of the Act of 1949 (which relate respectively to registers of determinations and to tribunals for the purposes of section one of that Act) shall apply for the purposes of this Act as they apply for the purposes of section one of that Act,
    and in page 38, line 17, to leave out "Sections one, four, five and six".
    This Amendment has a rather strange history. The matter was raised in Committee, and although in Committee we

    1013
    were subjected to the Guillotine during the major part of the proceedings, we were, at this time, subject only to the trickery of the Government. It was the predecessors of the present Minister and the present Parliamentary Secretary who so organised business as to deny any reply on this at that time.
    What happened was that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) was in the midst of one of his, if I may say so, more brilliant sentences, when he was interrupted by the closure of one sitting. When the Committee again met in order to hear the completion of that sentence, to our surprise neither was the hon. Member allowed to complete his sentence—as I am sure he was eager to do—nor did the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary rise to make any comment. In fact, they took a snap Division, thus denying the Committee any sort of consideration of this proposal at all. That, of course, is why we are. considering the matter again today.
    The Bill has the effect of sweeping away a large part of the rent tribunal procedure, and this Amendment seeks to restore, to some extent, that procedure, which has been found to be of such great value to the large mass of tenants up and down the country. It is true that this Amendment refers only to the rent tribunal procedure provided in Section 1 of the 1949 Act, but that is a very considerable amount. I was looking at the last available report of the Ministry, which shows the large volume of work which is being done under Section 1 of the 1949 Act by the tribunals. Unless this Amendment is passed, that will be swept away.
    For example, I noticed that during 1955 there was a sharp increase in the tribunals' work—very naturally, because the party opposite extended their field of operation by the 1954 Act. That Act enabled approaches to be made by both parties. That, indeed, was the case before, but what was new was that it enabled the rent tribunals to agree an increase of rent as well as a reduction where they thought it suitable. Very naturally, that resulted in a large number of further applications being made to them by landlords in addition, of course, to the still very considerable number of applications by tenants.
    1014
    I notice that the right hon. Gentleman who treated us so scurvily in Committee is now sitting on the Front Bench. I am very grateful to him for coming to consider this matter and, perhaps, even to let us have his views of this question which, as I was explaining to the House, he refused to let us have when we were dealing with the matter in Committee. It will be very interesting to hear the views of the Minister of Defence in addition to the views of the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded him as Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    There was in 1955 a rapid increase in the number of cases under the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949. In fact, the number of cases received during the year was over 4,000 for 1955, compared with 2,500 the year before. There is no doubt that these rent tribunals are being used to a very large extent and are proving of great importance. But, of course, that does not concern the Minister. He wishes to sweep them away, and by these provisions we are now considering he has swept away a good half of the work of the rent tribunals. That is a very serious matter indeed.
    Why cannot the Minister accept the very modest proposals which are made in this Amendment? It proposes, in effect, that in the case of all new lettings since 1939, the date provided for in the 1949 Act, the question of rental should go before the rent tribunal if either tenant or landlord so wishes. I would stress that, under the present law, it is possible for the rent to be either increased or reduced. There can be no suggestion of unfairness here. It is the responsibility of the rent tribunals to settle what they regard as the reasonable rent, and it has, moreover, been the common view up and down the country that these tribunals have done an exceedingly good and useful job.
    In what I might almost call excessive fairness, we make the further proposal that the proviso in the 1949 Act which said that a second application could not be made to a rent tribunal should, in effect, be deleted. This means that second applications can be made. One would have thought that that would have been an advantage, even in some cases to landlords as well as to tenants. It is making the position open to take account of changing circumstances. It seems to me

    1015
    that it is a perfectly valid, fair and reasonable proposal to advance, that tenants, instead of being denied their rights of independent arbitration by a rent tribunal, should have those rights preserved really as they are at present.
    When this matter came before the Committee—I put it in that way, since we were denied any opportunity to discuss it—my hon. and learned Friend rightly urged upon the Committee that here was the case where tribunals are required to determine a reasonable rent, yet the Government were saying that any such determination of reasonable rent is to be set aside. That, in effect, is the situation. I must confess that I am no clearer in mind after the Parliamentary Secretary tries to explain it than I am before he starts, but, as I read the Bill, I understand the position to be this. Where, in advance of the Bill coming into operation, a rental has been determined which is higher than the rent limit set by the Bill, then that higher rent has to operate. If, on the other hand, a rental is determined, either by a tribunal or by agreement, which is below the rent limit fixed by the Bill, then the rent limit fixed by the Bill shall operate. The result is that the landlord is to have it either way, which is surely quite the most outrageous travesty of justice.
    5.45 p.m.
    I can well understand the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary making out a case that, where determinations have been made long years ago, some alteration has to take place. But, after all, we are here discussing determinations made by rent tribunals in some cases as recently as a few months ago, or just a few years ago—anyhow, since the war and the development of this procedure. No one can possibly say that those determinations are out of date. Even if they were, there is procedure under our Amendment enabling them to be reconsidered by the tribunal.
    All of us are surely agreed that the procedure of the tribunal is a simple one which does give to the average tenant a feeling of justice which he certainly does not expect to get in any other way. As all my hon. and right hon. Friends have made clear, the average tenant does not like being taken or taking anybody else to the courts. He is not in the habit of
    1016
    doing that. He is frightened of the procedure. Whereas, on the whole, the procedure of the rent tribunals is informal, simple, and, therefore, highly desirable.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, East will, I am sure, give us his support, because he has said, in relation to an earlier Amendment about which he was speaking to the House a moment or two ago, that he very much preferred civil procedure, by which I understood him to mean that he liked to see cases of this kind dealt with in this more informal manner rather than by trying to take them through the courts. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that he will support us, and all the more, because he was so brutally stopped from speaking what was on his mind when the matter was considered in Committee. I feel sure that we have the welcome support of Members opposite.
    Irrespective of the views of the hon. Member for Oldham, East, I would say that if this Amendment be not accepted by the Government, then a quite impossible situation will be created; the Government will be denying to people in the country the assurance of, by definition, a reasonable rent determined by an independent body, namely, the tribunals which have had the approval of people of all political persuasions up and down the country. We fear that there is in the mind of the Government an intention to destroy this kind of procedure, but any such act on their part will merely serve to drive deeper into the minds of people in the country the feeling that what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are after is not any kind of fair play for tenants but merely a determination to ride roughshod over their views and ensure the supremacy of the landlords' claim for a higher rent, whether it be just or not.
    Mr. Janner: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It is a matter about which both sides of the House must surely agree that there can be no reasonable answer. The case is perfectly clear. When we were discussing the 1949 Act, it was plain that there was a flaw in it in respect of rentals charged for the first time after the war. It is not always that the House comes to a right conclusion, but there is not the slightest doubt that on that occasion it came to the only conclusion which

    1017
    can be considered reasonable, namely, that a body of independent people should make up its mind, taking everything into consideration, whether a rent is a reasonable one or not.
    The procedure, which is known to sonic—probably all—of us, is that the tribunal sends out a notice, asks for particulars of the property concerned. gets every single detail, makes an appointment in most cases to see the property, knows the locality, knows what the rentals ought to be and judges from every angle, taking all the facts into consideration, not what the rent should be, but what the reasonable rent should be.
    I cannot believe that the Minister will say that he wants to ask for an unreasonable rent. That would be absurd. He is trying to convince us that the Bill is reasonable and that the rentals which subsequently will become payable will be reasonable. He says that the law of supply and demand and of everything else will operate and everything will be fine, but the fact is that he is not certain yet.
    The Minister is taking a tremendous risk. As some of his hon. Friends have said, it is not a certainty by any means. The Ridley Committee, for example, said that properties should not be decontrolled until we were sure that there was a reasonable possibility of other accommodation being available. That is the kind of circumstance which would be taken into consideration by the tribunal. Consequently, when the tribunals come to the conclusion that a rental is reasonable, there is no question of anyone curbing them within certain limits. All that they have to do is to decide whether the rent in all the circumstances is reasonable.
    Can the Minister honestly say that there is not a sinister motive behind the whole of the Bill if he is not prepared to accept a proposal to allow the functioning of these independent tribunals, comprising people who are not curbed in any way and who deal with these matters without any question of party? Hon. Members know that the tribunals, from their own knowledge, judge what is a reasonable rent and what is not, and not what is to be the standard rent or the recoverable rent according to rules which have been laid down by people who may not understand all the circumstances.
    If the Minister refuses our request, the country will realise the truth of what we
    1018
    have been saying, that the Bill is nothing but a racket to try to obtain, when accommodation is not available, exorbitant, unreasonable rentals at the expense of tenants who can ill afford to pay them and who will be placed in such desperate plight that they will pay whatever rent is demanded of them, reasonable or unreasonable, and mainly unreasonable.
    I ask the Minister to take these points into consideration and not to allow himself, in spite of pressure that might come from behind him, to do something which is unreasonable, as he would be doing if he did not insist upon the payment of a reasonable rent but allowed unreasonable rentals to be demanded.
    Mr. Albert Evans: I am sure that the Minister, at least in his moments of reflection, would he relieved if he could know that the rents of properties would in future be fixed upon a reasonable basis. Some of the nightmares that he must now he enduring from the possibility of unreasonable rents being demanded when the Bill is in operation would be avoided if he could so arrange his Bill that rents were fixed upon a reasonable basis.
    Our Amendment suggests a way by which the rent of the type of property that we are considering should be fixed upon a reasonable basis by an impartial tribunal of specialists. One would have thought that the Minister would be ready to accept it if only to cover this small category of properties. The Amendment applies only to those houses which have been let for the first time since the operation of the 1954 Act. It goes hack no further than that. Therefore, the rents which have been fixed for those properties for the first time were fixed impartially by the tribunals, which had power to raise or lower the rents as they thought reasonable.
    The Amendment applies also to houses which are let for the first time in the future. There will be difficulties about houses of that type when they become empty and pass out of control and are let for the first time under the new basis. One would have thought that the Minister would be happy that the rents of those houses could be determined by an impartial tribunal, and I hope that he will see the sense of the Amendment.
    I suppose that some 8,000 or 9,000 houses have already been dealt with in

    1019
    this manner since the 1954 Act came into operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of some 4,000 of them in 1955, and it is a fair assumption that another 4,000 or so were dealt with in 1956. We are dealing, therefore, with roughly 8,000 houses, the rents of which have been fixed by the tribunals over those two years, and we are dealing with the houses which will be let for the first time in the future. In dealing with this small category of houses, the Minister has the opportunity——
    Mr. Mitchison: May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Amendment relates to any house which has been first let after the outbreak of war? That is to say, it will cover much more than he has in mind, although it will, of course, include those he has mentioned.
    Mr. Evans: The Amendment relates to an application which has been made to the tribunal
    "since the Housing Rents and Repairs Act, 1954, came into force…"
    Mr. Mitchison: Will my hon. Friend read the next paragraph?
    Mr. Evans: It seems to me to apply to first lettings in the future. It is fair to say that the Amendment would not extend back to those houses which were let at the time when the tribunals could only reduce rents and not increase them. I should have thought it would be fair if it were restricted to houses let after the operation of the 1954 Act, because prior to that time the tribunals could not increase rents but could only lower them, and could not assess upon a fair basis.
    However that may be, I hope that the Minister will avail himself of the Amendment and so allow the rents of this comparatively small category of houses to be assessed on a fair basis. I hope he will consider the matter in that light and will agree that the Amendment provides a method of getting the rents of these houses fixed on a reasonable basis by an informal tribunal.
    Mr. Mitchison: The Amendment relates to a very large body of houses the standard rent of which, for the purposes of the Rent Acts, was fixed by a letting after the outbreak of war. It therefore relates to all houses which were first let as the result of moves during the war—
    1020
    and there were a great many such moves —when owner-occupiers, for reasons of work or service, let their houses for the first time. It also relates to all houses built during—there were not many—or since the war. It therefore covers a very large body of houses indeed.
    6.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, when asked how many houses were covered, replied that he did not know. We must take it, therefore, that the Ministry, as occasionally happens, does not know how many houses it is talking about or what proportion they form of the whole. I am sure it would be agreed at once that it is a considerable proportion. The object of the Amendment is to take the machinery started by Section 1 of the 1949 Act for determining a reasonable rent, and determining it before a tribunal, and using that machinery for determining the reasonable rent of these houses.
    It is quite true that the machinery was started by the 1949 Act, but it was limited at that time to fixing a reasonable rent lower than the standard rent. And it was the Tory Government and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor who, by the 1954 Act, gave the tribunals power to fix a rent higher than a reasonable rent if they so wished. The consequence is that at the moment, in relation to this large body of houses, the tribunals have the right to fix a reasonable rent, and, though there is some guidance in the Act as to what is a reasonable rent, there is even more guidance to be extracted from the rules, which the tribunals have evolved in dealing with a large number of cases, and which occur to some extent in reported cases concerning these determinations. I will not trouble the House about that, but it can be taken that "reasonable rent" is not entirely a hit-and-miss matter. There are some rules about it.
    The House can also take it that a reasonable rent does not necessarily mean a free market rent because, as has been said about these cases, the object of giving this power to fix a reasonable rent was to avoid the unreasonableness of free market conditions. What is a reasonable rent will no doubt differ in different cases, having regard, among other things, to the position of the landlord. I say that to reassure hon. Members opposite. These tribunals are not

    1021
    bodies just for fixing what they think is right for the tenant to pay. They are concerned with both sides of the question, and, naturally, they will fix a reasonable rent having regard to these matters. It will be a different rent in different parts of the country. It may be a different rent in different parts of London and it may be different in the provinces, and so on.
    The Bill fixes a rent by reference to gross rateable value. That is in one sense a pretty rigid test, because, if it is assumed that the gross rateable value is rightly assessed, then in each case the rent limit would be in relation to that rigid figure. It will be a multiple, according to the position about repairs, of the gross rateable value of the house. The tribunal goes beyond that.
    I put it to the House with real earnestness—and I hope that it will be considered fairly and with due regard to the fact that we are dealing with human beings—that that limit cannot always be right. Indeed, it will be an accident of it fits in with the personal circumstances of different cases. By means of the Amendment we are asking why the Government should abolish the machinery which the Tory Government themselves in 1954 invited and empowered to deal with the whole question of reasonable rents. This is machinery which has been used again and again, and, broadly speaking, to an increasing extent during recent years, though there have been fluctuations between one year and another.
    The answer sometimes made to this, and to similar questions about county courts, is, "We should give them too much to do." In this instance the remedy lies in the Minister's own hands. He has power to appoint more tribunals if it is necessary to do so, and although many people complain if they do not have a high-powered judge sitting every time on a tribunal, why should we, in a matter of this sort, compel people to travel in the Rolls Royce of judicial decisions when they would much prefer to go along in the old "tin Lizzie" of tribunals, if, with respect to tribunals, I can use that analogy. What is wanted is not consistency, but the human element, which tribunals have tried successfully to introduce, and regard to the all-important fact that people, and tenants in particular, are
    1022
    frightened to go to courts, but are not, on the whole, frightened of tribunals.
    If we look for a logical reason, and it is not wholly a logical affair. the answer is that the tribunals are much less formal and that they cost much less, though my feeling about legal costs always is that, whatever we may say about them, the apprehensions about them are very often worse than the costs themselves. Surely, in a matter of this sort we do not want to debar people from using this tribunal machinery. We do not want to tie them down to the rigid rule of an Act of Parliament.
    We have heard singularly little from the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor about the reason why they are abolishing this rent tribunal jurisdiction. We are driven to the conclusion, against our own wishes, that when it is a question of looking after the landlords' rights in property the Government on the whole prefer the unreasonable to the reasonable, provided that it is better for the landlord. We do not want to think that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us by leaving the tribunals to do their job and by leaving the question of a reasonable rent for this large body of houses to be determined by those who have done the job pretty well in the past and. I repeat, have done it at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman's own Government.
    Mr. Brooke: I had not the honour of being a Member of Standing Committee A on 18th December, more than three months ago, when the Committee reached a decision on a similar Amendment. Therefore, I am not in a position to say why it was that no Opposition spokesman other than the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) spoke to the Amendment in order to force a reply from the Government before the Division was taken. It may have been, of course, that the Opposition was anxious to avoid what happened today, that is, duplicate and differing interpretations from different hon. Members of what their own Amendment means. As against the hon. Member for Islington, South-East (Mr. A. Evans), I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering about the meaning of the Opposition Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, but I want

    1023
    to reassure him about our motives. We passionately wanted to hear the. end of the sentence which the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) had begun in Standing Committee. We have not heard it yet.
    Sir Ian Horobin: The hon. and learned Member would be surprised.
    Mr. Brooke: Clearly Parliament has lost a gem.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) was saying:
    "…whilst honestly applying their minds to these matters, they do come to the most—".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, Standing Committee A,13th December, 1956; c. 144.]
    On that word "most" the hon. Member stopped. Perhaps he will tell the House later what he was about to say.
    Mr. Brooke: If I do not pursue that, I assure the House that it is because I must have regard to the. Guillotine and must assist the Opposition by not spending further time on this interesting speculation.
    The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and I have agreed that the Amendment is designed to prevent dwellings let for the first time since 1949 from becoming subject to the rent provisions of the Bill, unless they have been the subject of application to a rent tribunal before the commencement of the 1954 Act.
    The case, as I understand it, which has been outlined to the House, is that rent tribunals fix reasonable rents, and, therefore, if we legislate to depart from that, the new rents will, on that evidence, be unreasonable. Let us go back over the history of this matter. In those days, after the end of the war, there was a feeling, and it was widely shared, that there were certain cases in which extortionate rents had been demanded and obtained, and that some machinery was desirable for mitigating that. The Labour Government of the time, which had a special love for the rent tribunal idea, decided that the rent tribunal would be an appropriate machine or device for deciding what a reasonable rent should be. In the first instance, until 1954, rent tribunals only had power to reduce rents.
    1024
    Of course, under this Bill, a quite new situation arises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] A much more logical and sensible situation arises. Up till now, there has not been any general and systematic method of adjusting rents over the whole field in the light of economic circumstances. The rent tribunal applied to certain classes of houses, and there was nothing else. Now, under this Bill, we are using—and I think there is common consent that it is a sensible idea—the new valuations as a basis for a formula for fixing maximum controlled rents. That is to say, the situation for which the rent tribunal was devised has been overtaken by the new system which we are establishing by Clause 1 of this Bill.
    That is the reason why I could not advise the House to accept this Amendment, for everybody is agreed that there has been a chaotic system in the rent field. If we can now get the arrangement under Clause I established as the generally prevailing system, we shall iron out much the greater part of the anomalies that have hitherto existed. If we were to accept the Amendment we should be opening the door to other fresh anomalies that would not be in line with what we are doing for all other kinds of rents.
    Mr. Janner: I am rather interested in the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman is giving, because he is saying precisely the opposite to what was being said in 1949. This is the very point which we are raising, and it was raised in 1949. Although there were controlled rents then, there was also an opportunity for people to put a reasonable case for a reduction of that rent in spite of the fact that there were such controlled rents. That is what we are asking for.
    Mr. Brooke: It is now 1957, we have got these new 1956 valuations, and we are seeking to fix maximum controlled rents according to those new valuations.
    Hon. Members have suggested that the rents fixed by the tribunals are reasonable, and that, therefore, anything else is unreasonable. I understand that they have made a further point that rents fixed by the tribunal might be either above or below the rent limits fixed by Clause 1 of this Bill, and feel that it was unfair to the tenant and unduly favourable to the landlord that, if the rent

    1025
    fixed by the tribunal was higher than the rent limit, it should stay, but if it was lower, it might be raised to the rent limit.
    6.15 p.m.
    Of course, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the argument is that every rent fixed by a rent tribunal is reasonable, hon. Members must be arguing that in those cases where the rent fixed was above the rent limit set by the Bill, then what the Government are doing is to set the maximum unreasonably low. The Opposition must choose between these two arguments. They cannot possibly use both simultaneously. If they do, they destroy themselves.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman is surely making a mountain out of a mole hill. What we are clearly saying here is that we are perfectly prepared to accept the tribunal's ruling about a reasonable rent. Whatever figure the tribunal decides upon we are prepared to accept.t, and we say it is reasonable. We are even allowing the tribunal to have second thoughts if the matter is referred to it for the second time. What the Minister is saying is that if the tribunal sets a rent limit higher than that in the Bill, the higher limit would stand, but if below, then the higher rent limit is to stand. The Minister wants to have the higher figure for the landlord, whichever way it goes, and we say that we will accept whatever figure the tribunal decides upon.
    Mr. Brooke: I am not trying to make mountain out of a molehill. What I am trying to make is a piece of smooth-running machinery out of an old "tin Lizzie." It is because I believe that the system established by Clause 1 will be fairer and will do more to iron out anomalies that I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Tom Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this question, I want to put to him a point of view which 1 hope will receive his sympathetic consideration, because the Bill now before the House seeks to abolish rent tribunals and the Amendment now under discussion seeks to continue them.
    The point of view that I hold, after an examination of rent tribunals, is that they
    1026
    have performed a very useful purpose, and that, while in 1949 and again in 1954, the people used to go into this business with great trepidation, having regard to the results of the consideration given to applications, the rent tribunals have now to a very large degree satisfied the people who have made application to them. We find that approximately 90 per cent. of the applications resulted in the rents being reduced; the other 10 per cent. of applicants had their rents increased, and that has happened in the last few years.
    I am not concerned about that and am not finding fault with the decisions given by the rent tribunals. What I am concerned with at the moment—and there are other hon. Members on this side of the House who come from mining areas—is that the people living in the mining areas are suffering to a very large extent from damage to their property caused by mining subsidence, and they are reluctantly compelled to go to the rent tribunal to get a reasonable rent fixed. If in this Bill the Minister is to take away from them their right to go to the rent tribunal, these people will be placed at a great disadvantage in comparison with people living in normal property.
    Therefore, I think the Minister ought to have regard to the unfortunate position in which these people are placed. It is quite true that they may be able to go to the local authority and get a certificate of disrepair, but, unfortunately, if they do, the landlord cannot repair the property because of the shocking state it is in, and the tenants are compelled to go elsewhere. They have no recourse to any tribunal. They may be able to go to the county court, but imagine a tenant living in a house—of which there are many in my division—where he can neither open the windows nor shut the doors, and has to go to bed without locking up because the condition of the property is so bad that he cannot do so.
    Therefore, the Minister should have regard to the conditions under which some of our people are living. Instead, he is attempting to take away something which—I was about to say that people have enjoyed, but they have not enjoyed it—has afforded to them a great deal of protection, namely, the protection hitherto afforded to them of making application to the rent tribunals. I will not repeat the argument advanced by my

    1027
    hon. and right hon. Friends, but I make a special plea to the right hon. Gentleman, to his Parliamentary Secretary and to his Department to give sympathetic consideration to this point before finally rejecting the Amendment.
    Mr. John McKay: We are dealing here with something of vital importance to the ordinary citizen. In my study of political philosophy I have always understood that law is the outcome of civilisation, and that law is made for the definite purpose of giving freedom to the better types of men and also to penalise the evildoer.
    There is a critical situation in this country about the housing of our people, and in dealing with that we are dealing with one of the fundamental necessities of the family and of human welfare. Men and women and their families have to tighten their belts on occasion and take less rations than they ought to receive. To some extent, they can meet economic difficulties, hut a house is a fundamental need of the family.
    We know that law is expected to give greater freedom for the best activities of mankind, but the political philosophy of the Government is to give greater freedom in the charging of rent. Even if that philosophy of freedom can be extended to this subject, the question arises whether, on a mater which affects every household in the country, it is right to allow landlords absolute freedom to charge what rents they wish.
    That is the great weakness of this Bill. There may have been a need to revise rent legislation, but it does not follow that in the process of giving more freedom the Government should throw away their responsibilities to their fellow men, particularly the poorer sections of the community. Surely the responsibility of the Government is to ensure that in giving greater freedom in charging rent there should be some protection given to the masses of the people from the evildoers? Yet, unless a similar Amendment to this one is made in the Bill, it will give practically wholesale freedom on a question of fundamental importance to the people.
    Therefore, on the general ground alone that there should be substantial protection for tenants and a definite restriction placed upon those who would take
    1028
    advantage of such a situation, I urge the Government to accept the Amendment. As the Bill stands, it allows any landlord who has no concern for humanity or morality to take advantage of the circumstances under which people are living.
    The Minister has said that he believes in freedom and that rents should be governed by supply and demand, but has the tenant who is given notice to quit or notice to pay an increased rent any real freedom? Of course he has not. He may be confined to a given district because of his work, or there may be other important factors which make it necessary for him to retain the house, even if an extortionate rent is demanded. I believe, therefore, that this Amendment, which gives some protection to the ordinary people who may have been exploited, is an important one.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: I do not understand the arguments put forward by the Minister for rejecting this Amendment. They seem to me to be as unreal as the arguments we used to get from the first Parliamentary Secretary when this Bill was introduced. It may be the fruits of keeping bad company, but we expect more humanity in the minds of those who are handling this question, especially from one who lives near the Vale of Health, as does the right hon. Gentleman.
    The Minister suggested that the Bill was an attempt to bring order out of chaos. All I can say is that he has not been to many meetings at which people have been asking questions about the Measure. They will be in a dreadful muddle when it becomes operative because, as the Minister knows and as we have heard again this afternoon, there is still no agreement amongst the lawyers as to what certain parts of it mean.
    We are asking that there should be some machinery not only to guarantee the landlord a fair rent, but to give the tenant a sense of justice and fair play. That is precisely what the rent tribunals have done. During the Committee stage, some of us gave the number of cases heard by the tribunals. In some cases the tribunals raised the rent; in many more they reduced the rent after careful and expert consideration of all the facts. It seems to me that there could hardly

    1029
    be anything fairer than the way in which the rent tribunals have performed their work.
    Of course, this Amendment would mean that many landlords would not get double the gross rateable value as the rent for their houses because their houses would not be worth it. The House ought to know that during the Committee stage it was admitted from the Government side that even the landlord of a house which is unfit to live in, which is known to be unlit to live in, but which has not yet reached the stage where it becomes part of an order for slum clearance, can charge double the gross rateable value, and, if he says that he will carry out all the repairs, he can charge 2¼ times the gross rateable value.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Brooke: The landlord cannot get any increased rent at all until that house is in proper repair.
    Mr. Gibson: Of course he can. This only illustrates how difficult it is to deal with the Minister. The tenant must get the certificate of disrepair—and the tenant who understands the Bill and can handle all the prescribed forms in it will be a first-class lawyer who could get a good job in the courts anywhere. Even the professional organisations do not understand it. To say that the landlord cannot get an increase in rent because the house is not in repair is nonsense on the reading of the Bill. Unless a certificate of disrepair is given—and even then he can
    take months over it —the landlord can get the maximum rent lain clown in the Bill. Does the Minister deny that?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member was speaking of a house which had been declared unfit by the local authority.
    Mr. Gibson: The Minister must not do that sort of thing in the House of Commons. I did not say that. I said it was a house known to be unfit, but which had not yet reached the stage of being in an order for clearance under a slum-clearance scheme.
    The Minister knows that local authorities have returned to him a list of 800,000 houses which are unfit to live in and which ought to be pulled down, but that, so far, only about 350,000 of them have reached the stage where they are in orders for slum clearance, for pulling down and rebuilding. The remaining 450,000 are unfit, but the landlord might charge a rent of double the gross rateable value. That is according to the Bill.
    No rent tribunal such as we are suggesting would think of allowing the landlord of such a house to charge the rent which the Bill will give him. The Amendment is a fair and reasonable proposition and I am amazed that the Minister should have trotted out the arguments which he has used in an attempt to have it rejected. I hope the House will agree to it.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 276.

    Division No. 82.]

    AYES

    [6.33 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Albu, A. H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Carmichael, J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Champion, A. J.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Baird, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Finch, H. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Fletcher, Eric

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

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Forman, J. C.

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

    Corbet, Mrs, Freda

    Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Benson, G.

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Beswick, Frank

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Blackburn, F.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. G.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Blyton, W. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Grey, C. F.

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

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Bowles, F. G.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hannan, W.

    Brookway, A. F.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

    Hastings, S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Dye, S.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Healey, Denis

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Edelman, M.

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

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Messer, Sir F.

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

    Holman, P.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Holmes, Horace

    Monslow, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Moody, A. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hoy, J. H.

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

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Mort, D. L.

    Steele, T.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Moss, R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moyle, R.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Stonehouse, J. T.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Orbach, M.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Oswald, T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Owen, W. J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Padley, W. E.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Janner, B.

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

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

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhonda, W.)

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Thornton, E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Timmons, J.

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

    Parker, J.

    Tomney, F.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Paton, John

    Usborne, H. C.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pearson, A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Peart, T. F.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Pentland, N.

    Watkins, T. E.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Weitzman, D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    West, D. G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

    Probert, A. R.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Proctor, W. T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Pryde D. J.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Randall, H. E.

    Wigg, George

    Lipton, Marcus

    Rankin, John

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Reeves, J.

    Willey, Frederick

    McGhee, H. G.

    Reid, William

    Williams, David (Neath)

    McGovern, J.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Mahon, Simon

    Ross, William

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mainwaring, W. H,

    Royle, C.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Woof, R. E.

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

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Mason, Roy

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Body, R. F.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

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

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Alport, C. J. M.

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

    Cunningham, Knox

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Braine, B. R.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Ashton, H.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Bryan, P.

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

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Balniel, Lord

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Barber, Anthony

    Campbell, Sir David

    Elliott, R. W.

    Barter, John

    Carr, Robert

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Fell, A.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Clarke, Brig. Terenoe (Portsmth, W.)

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Fletcher-Coolie, C.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Cooke, Robert

    Fort, R.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Black, C. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    1032

    1033

    Godber, J- B.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Goodhart, P. C.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Gower, H. R.

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

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Green, A.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Ridsdate, J. E.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Grimond, J.

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

    Robertson, Sir David

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Gurden, Harold

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Russell, R. S.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Maodonald, Sir Peter

    Schofield, Lt-Col. W.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Shepherd, William

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

    MaoLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Soames, Christopher

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Speir, R. M.

    Hay, John

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

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

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Mathew, R.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Maude, Angus

    Stewart, Sir J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Maulding, Rt. Hon. R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck&Leam'gtn)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Temple, John M.

    Holt, A. F.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Homsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nabarro, G. D, N.

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

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Neave, Airey

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nichols, Harmar

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Howard, John (Test)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Wade, D. W.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Iremonger, T, L.

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Osborne, C.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Page, R. G.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Watkinson, R. Hon. Harold

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Partridge, E.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

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

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Keegan, D.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pott, H.P.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Kimball, M.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lagden, G. W.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Legh.

    Clause 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR INCREASING RENTS.)
    Mr. C. W. Key: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33 to leave out "three" and to insert "nine".
    I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in line 36, leave out "nine" and insert "fifteen".
    Mr. Speaker: By all means.
    Mr. Key:I find that the more people who learn what the Bill will do for them when it becomes law, the greater is their fear of the effect it will have upon them and their families. They feel that there is much that they will have to do in order to adapt themselves to the conditions which the Bill will create for them.

    1035
    6.45 p.m.
    For many of those whom I have met the increase in rent will be very considerable indeed, and what I am claiming, in moving the Amendment, is that they should have more time to think out their problems and devise ways and means of meeting the difficulties with which they will be faced and of adapting themselves to the new conditions that will come. Many of them, the sick, the aged, the unemployed and the partially unemployed, will have a very difficult job indeed. They are already suffering from increased prices, increased cost of transport, payments for prescriptions, and things of that kind, and they will now be faced with a very serious increase in rent.
    I know that in certain parts of the country the effect of the Bill will be different from that in other parts. I am now speaking mainly on behalf of my own constituents and what the Bill will mean to people in my own area. Three months after the Bill becomes operative, they will have to face an increase in rent of 7s. 6d. a week. After they have paid that increase for six months many of them will have to pay an additional 5s. or 10s. a week. This latter change will come into operation twelve months or a little more from now. I claim that is much too short a period for them to face up to their problems, and I am proposing to increase the period in each case from three to nine months and from nine to fifteen months.
    I was talking last week to a man with a wife and five children whose wage averages rather less than £7 a week. His house has a net rateable value of £27 and a gross value of £39 and he is at present paying a net rent of 16s. 7d, a week and 8s. 6d. a week for rates. Therefore, his inclusive weekly payment for the house is 25s. 1d. per week. When the Bill comes into operation the rent will rise ultimately to twice the gross value and will be 30s. a week. If the landlord goes into that house and sees the condition in which the tenant has kept it by painting, whitewashing and doing other jobs himself, the landlord will very likely elect in future to be responsible for the internal repairs and the net rent can then go up to 35s. a week.
    Because of the operations of the Minister in other directions, by reducing
    1036
    the rateable value of shops, public-houses, banks and cinemas, the local rates will rise again, and this man's local rate will rise by 3s. in the £, or about 1s. 6d. a week, so that the total rent, including rates, which he will have to pay practically twelve months from today will be 45s. a week, an increase of over £1. It will be impossible for him to adapt himself to these conditions. It is no use saying that he must go into smaller accommodation and pay a smaller rent. He cannot do that because there is no vacant accommodation in his area. It is no use saying that he should live elsewhere, because, if he did that and got a house at a lower rent, he would have to pay increased fares to take him back to his job in the area where he now is. In that case, he and his family have to adapt themselves to very serious conditions. I see no hope, except for his wife to go out to work to earn a little at the expense of leaving her family. He has a boy who is nearing the legal school-leaving age and who is regarded as one of the brilliant boys at his school. The boy should go on to further education, as he is now qualified to do, but he must abandon that and leave school to earn money to help to pay an inordinate increase in rent. We should give such people more time to adapt themselves to these things.
    In Committee upstairs, when he had opposition and pressure from his own side, the Minister said that he was prepared to extend the period from nine months to fifteen months for properties which were to become decontrolled. The tenants of such properties will not only have security of tenure for fifteen months, but will pay the same rent for that time, while the poorer people about whom I have been speaking will have no such advantage. Upstairs the Minister said that he was doing that to ease and smooth the period of decontrol. I am asking him to ease and smooth the period for these people who are faced with great increases in rent.
    Mr. J. A. Sparks: Time is going on and the Guillotine falls at seven o'clock, but I should like briefly to support the Amendment for two reasons. The first is that the period during which the notice of increase takes effect, three months, is not long enough to give a tenant an opportunity, if he so thinks fit,

    1037
    of pursuing the course laid down in the Bill and obtaining a certificate of disrepair.
    There will be a good deal of argument between tenants and landlords about who is responsible for which repairs. We know that after serving notice on the landlord with a list of the repairs necessary, the tenant can do nothing for six weeks, so that the landlord may have a chance to get the repairs done. Even then, if nothing is done and an application is made to the local authority, the local authority cannot issue a certificate of disrepair until three more weeks have elapsed, a total of twelve weeks out of the three months allowed before the notice of increase becomes effective.
    Having in mind the fact that when the landlord serves a notice of increase the tenant will not be ready the next day to put in a list of repairs, and will probably indulge in argument with the landlord about repairs for a few weeks, the time is excessively short. It may well be that the landlord will verbally undertake to do some repairs, perhaps with no intention of doing them. That will cause a further delay either in the tenant submitting a list of repairs to the landlord, or applying to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.
    The period of three months will quickly elapse and the tenant will be called upon to pay an increased rent, not having had time to get a certificate of disrepair from the local authority. That state of affairs may drag on for the ensuing six months for which time, if he had been able to get a certificate of disrepair and if the repairs had not been done by the landlord, the tenant would get a refund of the excess rent paid.
    This initial period of three months is far too short. The right hon. Gentleman has constantly stressed that landlords cannot get an increase unless they do the repairs. In a great many cases that is absolute nonsense because the procedure is very complicated and large numbers of tenants will not understand it, so that the three months will elapse and the following six months will elapse and tenants wit find themselves paying the rent increases, the repairs not having been done.
    My second reason is that in London and in many other towns and cities the increases will be very considerable for
    1038
    many people. There are many cases in my constituency where the increase will be 30s., and in more cases it will be about £1 a week. It is a blow to a family to be faced with a rent increase of as much as 30s. As the Bill stands, tenants will have to pay the first 7s. 6d. in the first nine months after the service of a notice of increase and after that nine months the balance between 7s. 6d. and 30s., namely, 22s. 6d. That is far too much to expect people to pay, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to our proposals which extend the period of time and give people an opportunity to try to find the money which landlords will demand of them.
    Mr. Bevins: The two Amendments contain the perfectly simple proposition that the three months' notice of increase in rent should be extended to a period of nine months and that in the following six months the increase in rent should be limited to 7s. 6d., as it now is. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) to argue that the total period suggested in the two Amendments, namely, fifteen months, would be the same as the standstill of fifteen months in Clause 10. The right hon. Gentleman devoted most of his speech to arguing the case that there were many families who would not be able to afford an increase in rent when the increases became payable.
    However, the Amendments have no connection with rent increases prescribed in the Bill and merely refer to the waiting period before rent increases can be made, an entirely separate proposition. The Bill was published towards the end of last year and will probably become law about June or July of this year, and a period of three months must elapse after the Bill becomes law and the actual application of rent increases takes effect. That takes us to about October, so that those tenants who have been following the progress of the Bill from the start—I have no doubt that a great many constituents of hon. Gentlemen opposite have informed——
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: The argument is whether we should increase the period or not. It is well known that over recent years many property-owning companies have bought property, but the Government are

    1039
    helping property owners because they are supposed to be so poor. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Birmingham yesterday one of these poor property owners spent £10,000 on his daughter's wedding and had a special train to go to Birmingham? These poor property owners are to be helped while people starve as a result.
    Mr. Bevins: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman informed all his constituents of the evils of the Bill many months ago.
    Mr. Shurmer: And I shall continue to do so and get them to strike if I can.
    Mr. Bevins: But even——
    Mr. Shurmer: I shall get them to refuse to pay the rent increase, if I can.
    Mr. Bevins: —if the tenants are not, perhaps, so well-informed as the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, not well-informed in all respects, which from the hon. Gentleman's——
    It being Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, That "three" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 233.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES

    [7.0 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Crowder, Petre (Rulstip—Northwood)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck & Leam'gtn)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Holt, A. F.

    Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William

    Dighy, Simon Wingfield

    Hornby, R. P.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Ashton, H.

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

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Elliott, R. W.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Barber, Anthony

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

    Barter, John

    Fell, A.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, G.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Fort, R.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdaie)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptewn)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Godber, J. B.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Black, C. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Body, R. F.

    Goodhart, P. C.

    Kaberry, D.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Keegan, D.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Gower, H. R.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

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

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Kerr, H. W.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Green, A.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Braine, B. R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Kimball, M.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Grimond, J.

    Kirk P. M.

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    1Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Gurden, Harold

    Leavey, J. A.

    Bryan, P.

    Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfisld)

    Campbell Sir David

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon N.)

    Carr, Robert

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Channon, Sir Henry

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

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

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Ian (Hisrrow, E.)

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

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Cooke, Robert

    Hay, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    McAdden, S. J.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Henderson, John (Cathoart)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Maddan, Martin

    Pott, H. P.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Temple, J. M.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Rawlinson, Peter

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

    Mathew, R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Maude, Angus

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Maulding, Rt. Hon. R.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Turner, H. F. L.

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

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Nabarro, C. D. N.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Russell, R. S.

    Wade, D. W.

    Neave, Airey

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

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

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

    Smitliers, Peter (Winchester)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

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

    Speir, R. M.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

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

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

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Osborne, C.

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

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Page, R. G.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Partridge, E.

    Steward, Harold (Stookport, S.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. E. Wakefield.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    de Freitas, Ceoffrey

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Albu, A. H.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Cugdate, Rt. Hn. John (W Brmwch)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Dye, S.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Balfour, A.

    Edelman, M.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

    Edwards, RE. Hon. John (Grighouse)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Janner, B.

    Beswick, Frank

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fernyhough. E.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Boardman, H.

    Fienburgh, W.

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

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

    Finch, H. J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Forttisn, J. C.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

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

    Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

    Brockway, A. F.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Gooch, E, G.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Carmichael, J.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hannan, W.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Coldrick, W.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    McGovern, J.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hastings, S.

    McInnes, J.

    Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hayman, F. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Healey, Denis

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Cove, W. G.

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

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Mahon, Simon

    Cronin, J. D.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Holman, P.

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Howell, Denis (Ail Saints)

    Mason, Roy

    Deer, G.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    1042

    1043

    Mellish, R. J.

    Rankin, John

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Reeves, J.

    Thornton, E.

    Monslow, W.

    Reid, William

    Timmons, J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Tomney, F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Moss, R.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Moyle, A.

    Ross, William

    Watkins, T. E.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Royle, C.

    Weitzman, D.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    O'Brien, Sir Thomas

    Short, E. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    West, D. G.

    Oswald, T.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Owen, W. J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Padley, W. E.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Paget, R. T.

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

    Wigg, George

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

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Wilcock, Group Capt, C. A. B.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willey, Frederick

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Parker, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Paton, John

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

    Pearson, A.

    Stonehouse, J. T.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Peart, T. F.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Pentland, N.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Popplewell, E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Probert, A. R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Prootor, W. T.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Randall, H. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Seven o'clock.
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 29, at end insert:
    (3) Where the landlord is a body corporate incorporated outside the United Kingdom, the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of Part III of the First Schedule to this Act.—[Mr. Brooke.]

    Clause 4.—(ADJUSTMENT AS RESPECTS SERVICES, FURNITURE AND SHARED ACCOMMODATION.)
    Amendments made: In page 4, line 7, after "use", insert "of furniture".
    In page 4, leave out line 8.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause 7.—(INCREASE OF CONTROLLED RENTS.)
    Mr. James McInnes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 10, after "fulfilled", to insert:
    "and the maintenance of the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair is not attributable to the discharge by the tenant of any responsibility incumbent on the landlord".
    The Clause provides that where the landlord is responsible for repairs he is entitled to recover an increase of rent of
    1044
    25 per cent. from the tenant provided that the conditions set out in Section 16 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, are fulfilled. The conditions laid down in Section 16 of that Act are that the dwelling-house must be in good and tenantable repair and not in any other respect unfit for human habitation. But there is a paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of that Section which says:
    "if in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act the landlord has produced satisfactory evidence that work to the value specified in the Schedule has been carried out upon the dwelling-house during the period so specified…"
    and so on. That paragraph, which has been omitted from the Bill, lays down that the landlord must provide evidence or proof of expenditure incurred in carrying out the repairs. It is very significant that that paragraph has been omitted. We are now giving the landlord a 25 per cent. increase in rent without asking him to produce any evidence or proof of repairs.
    In Scotland there are about 700,000 houses to which the 1954 Act applies. That Act was described by our present Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, as "Operation Rescue". Let us see what or whom it rescued. Of the 700.000

    1045
    houses to which the Act applies I find that a little over 2 per cent. had repairs carried out to them. The landlords of those houses received the 40 per cent. increase.
    7.15 p.m.
    In the light of that fact we are entitled to ask ourselves what reasons prevented the factors and property owners from carrying out more extensive repairs than they have done. I submit that the first reason is that the vast majority of those houses are beyond repair. No amount of money would ever render them fit to he described as in good and tenantable repair. I reckon that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 such houses in Scotland. Indeed, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have a knowledge of the vast numbers of these tenemental properties in Scotland—these festering slums and blots upon the landscapes of our great cities. These properties are held together by six or seven layers of wallpaper. In fact, if the tenants did rock 'n' roll "the buildings would join them. That is the only way in which I can describe these houses.
    The second reason is that the houses which were repairable have been repaired by the tenants themselves. It is common knowledge that tens of thousands of Scots people take great care of and pride in their homes. They have carried out repairs to windows and window sashes; they have carried out plumbing work, or have paid for it to be done; they have installed modern fireplaces, carried out interior decoration and installed electric light—all at their own expense. It was because tenants carried out these repairs themselves that landlords were unable to give any evidence or proof of the expenditure of money upon their houses and were thus unable to qualify for the 40 per cent. increase provided for in the Act.
    How have the Government expressed their gratitude to those citizens for taking care of their own homes? They have said, "As your reward we shall give a gift to the landlords of a 25 per cent. increase in rent." Indeed, in Committee the Joint Under-Secretary said that one thing this provision would do would be to stiffen the resistance of citizens and prevent them from repairing their own houses. He made that observation in reply to a point made by my hon. Friend
    1046
    the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
    The Amendment provides that a landlord would not be allowed this increase where it could be established that his tenant had been entirely responsible for rendering the house in good and tenantable repair. There is nothing unreasonable in the Amendment: it is both reasonable and fair, and I sincerely hope that, upon reflection, the Government will feel disposed to accept it and to recognise that those citizens who take care of and pride in their own homes should be encouraged to do so, and that there should be no reward for the landlords in that respect.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The proposition that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) on this Amendment is quite a simple one. If we take the case of two landlords with comparable properties side by side and neither of whom has done anything to the property, but the tenant of one property has kept it in a good state of repair, his landlord will get a 25 per cent. increase whilst the other landlord will get no increase. Reduced to those terms, it seems quite wrong that one landlord is to benefit as a result of what has been done by the good tenant.
    This applies to thousands of houses. The majority of landlords have not kept their houses in a good state of repair. I want to give again the figures for Edinburgh. I gave them during the Committee stage, but they bear repetition. Out of a total of 145,000 houses in Edinburgh roughly 30,000 are owned by local authorities. After deducting those owned by owner-occupiers we have something between 70,000 and 80,000, and of those houses 6,700 are to be demolished. According to Cmd. 9685 there are another 39.000 or 40,000 unfit houses. That means that altogether there must be something like 60 per cent. of the houses recognised by the corporation as unfit.
    As I said in the Committee stage, many of those houses will receive the 25 per cent. increase. There are not very many left which were able to qualify for the increase under the 1954 Act. In a great number of cases the landlords were not able to qualify because they had not

    1047
    kept their houses in that state of repair which would qualify for the 40 per cent. increase, and had not spent the necessary sums in maintaining the houses during the previous two years.
    Of those which do not qualify, quite a large number have been kept up by private tenants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central said, some have been beautifully kept by tenants. Tenants have done all the outside paint-work, the plumbing and interior repairs. Many have added considerably to the value of the property by installing fireplaces. I know of dozens of small homes in my constituency where, out of pride in his own home, a tenant has installed new fireplaces or had electric fittings put in, and, as a result, the value of the house has increased. If the landlord obtains control of such a house as a result of a change of tenancy, as he is entitled to do under Clause 10, he can sell the house for probably £200 or £300 more than he could in the first place.
    That is simply as a result of the work done by the tenant. Not satisfied with the increased capital value of the landlord's property, we now say that the landlord is to get 25 per cent, increase if the tenant has done this work. Surely that is quite unfair, quite wrong and unjust. I cannot see how the Joint Under-Secretary can justify it. He could not justify it in Committee. We raised the question in a number of different forms in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman looks at his speeches, he will find that he did not answer this at all. All we are suggesting is that, whatever the merits of the other parts of the Bill, we ought at least in this case to try to treat the tenant fairly.
    It is all right to say, "Look at the poor landlord. He has not been getting an increase in rent for a great number of years." That is always the story we get. I addressed a meeting the other night on the Bill. Someone in the meeting said that if we took the case of two men who in 1937 each had £600 and one put £600 into National Savings, that would now be worth about £200, but that if the other built a house and let it, instead of his house being worth £600, today it would be worth £1,800. His house would have been paid for during the intervening period.
    How is the landlord so ill-done by? The man who has put his money into
    1048
    National Savings has been patriotic. He has done what the Government are bribing people to do. The Government are giving special concessions to people to invest in National Savings as opposed to co-operative societies. The man who did that twenty years ago finds that his money is worth only a third of what it was then, but the landlord still has his capital asset. If the tenant has done anything to improve it, the tenant has added to its value. Why should the landlord be entitled to increase the rent?
    I sincerely trust that when he replies the Joint Under-Secretary will not content himself, as so often he does, with reading.a brief prepared by civil servants and not answering the questions which have been raised in the debate. It is a favourite dodge of the hon. Gentleman to come here with a brief and never to attempt to answer the arguments put forward. We want some answers to these arguments tonight. I see that the hon. Gentleman is smiling. I hope he is in a good humour, and that he is going to think kindly of the thousands of tenants in Scotland who will suffer as a result of this provision. I hope he will say, "This is a small concession to make. We think it is fair and are prepared to give it to you."
    Mr. George Lawson: The Joint Under-Secretary, when a similar point to this was raised in Committee, made an attempt to reply. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in saying that the hon. Gentleman did not reply. He made an attempt to reply, but I think I am fair in saying that his attempt to reply was in saying that the Bill
    " is framed on the basis of the respective legal liability for repairs of landlords and tenants, and to depart from the principle in relation to this Measure would create many difficulties in practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1957; c. 548.]
    We are arguing that the landlord in this case has not fulfilled his legal liabilities, but is to benefit from the efforts of the tenant. It seems that the position which the Bill proposes to make law is that where landlords for many years have defied the law they are to be permitted to benefit from that defiance. A principle on which we in this House should work is that, if possible, no one who defies the law should get away with it. Yet that is

    1049
    exactly what the Bill as at present drafted allows. The Bill is so drafted that so long as the house is in good and tenantable repair, irrespective of who has maintained it in such repair, the 25 per cent. increase can be claimed.
    7.30 p.m.
    We have quoted cases. I received information about a party who rented a house in the 1930's. The rent when he took over was £31 and it was immediately raised to £50. Since that time, according to him—I have his name and address—he has paid no less than £300 in repairs. The landlord's attitude was that there would be no repairs. The property, which carries a £50 rent, will be decontrolled, and if it is let to some one else the landlord will be able to obtain a substantially higher rent than would have been the case if the present tenant had allowed the house to fall into disrepair, if the present landlord sells the property, bearing in mind that he will have the right to evict the tenant, he will do so at the enhanced value which the tenant has created.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: I think proceedings should be taken against such a landlord. The valuation forms which are sent out contain a clause under which he has to return the rental and it asks whether anything has to be added by way of gratiam or repairs done by the tenant not disclosed in the above particulars. For withholding any payments such as gratiam or withholding the fact that there is an underhand arrangement with the tenant to do the repairs, or for giving false information, that landlord is liable to be proceeded against, and I should have no hesitation in setting the wheels in motion.
    Mr. Lawson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
    That brings me to the second and only other argument used by the Joint Under-Secretary of State when we were seeking to deal with the matter. We were trying to bring about the position which we are seeking to bring about by this Amendment. The hon. Member said it would be impracticable and would produce so many difficulties that it could not be worked.
    He knows that there are provisions in the Bill for tenants who have entered into
    1050
    a legal obligation to undertke a proportion or the whole of the repairs. It seems that where this is known there is no impracticability; it can be done. It seems to me that if it were made an obligation that the landlord should state what he spent on repairs, or give some approximate idea of it, and that the tenant should also state it, then it would become practicable to bring out to what extent, in fact, the landlord had fulfilled his obligations.
    The landlords will benefit in very many and probably most of the houses with which we are concerned here. If the landlord can get the 25 per cent. increase he will get it. If he can claim that the house is in good repair, then probably in most cases that will be due to the efforts of the tenant. My hon. Friend pointed out how very few were the landlords who could qualify under the 1954 Act. I think the figure given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State himself was 27,000 houses out of a total of 700.000, which indicates how very few have been the Scottish landlords who have fulfilled their legal obligations to maintain these houses in a state of repair.
    The Minister argued on the previous occasion, and will probably argue now, that the tenant is protected by the certificate of disrepair and that if the house is not in a state of repair the rent increase will not be payable. According to the Government, the principal purpose of the Bill is to prevent the decay of houses and to maintain our stock of houses in a proper state of repair. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is one of the chief purposes of the Bill. Yet he himself said previously, and I believe he will say it again, that the tenant's protection is the certificate of disrepair.
    In other words, before the Bill becomes operative at all and before any sanction can be applied to the landlord, the purpose of the Bill must be defeated and the house must fall into a state of disrepair. It seems fantastic and illogical that while we are told that the purpose of the Bill is to maintain our stock of houses in a state of repair, in fact the only sanction which the Bill carries in this connection becomes operative only when the house is in disrepair.
    The whole logic of this is to induce the tenant to allow the house to fall into

    1051
    disrepair, that being the only circumstance in which he can bring any pressure to bear on the landlord. That is fantastic, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give us much more reasonable arguments than those when he replies to our Amendment.
    Mr. William Ross: I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to accept the Amendment, because I cannot for the life of me think of any Amendment which could be more reasonable and more in keeping with the spirit of the Clause. As it stands, the Clause gives landlords of rent-restricted property in Scotland the right to raise the rent by 25 per cent. provided certain conditions arc met. One of them is that the conditions justifying a rent increase under the 1954 Act are applicable—that the house is in good and tenatable repair.
    If the fact that the house is in good and tenantable repair is due to moneys spent not by the person responsible in law, the landlord, but by the person who occupies the house. surely in all fairness a rent increase which would benefit the landlord who had neglected his duty is unjustified. By the Amendment we are giving the Government a chance to get out of a very difficult situation. This is not only a case of rewarding neglect but also a penalty on the tenants who have preserved a property in the pursuit of a decent life. We have pride in our homes.
    I remind the Joint Under-Secretary of State that many of the Scottish Members on this side of the House were born and brought up in this kind of property. I was, at any rate. We practically all were, and we know what we are talking about in this matter. The property in which I was born was the property in which my mother was born, and probably the family had occupied it long before then. These houses are 80 and even over 100 years old.
    The actual fact of the matter is simply that the landlords are not here asked to prove that they have spent any money on repairs. That is a good job, because the people who are living in the houses know that the landlords have not spent it. That was argued in Committee and was turned down, so we put forward this even more reasonable suggestion, that where it can be shown that the tenants themselves have
    1052
    spent the money that brings the house up to the qualifying conditions, no rent increase should apply.
    I saw recently—I think following a recent broadcast or television programme which showed conditions in the Gorbals—two photographs in a Scottish paper of the outside surrounding appearance of houses in the Gorbals. No one ever saw anything more damning of private ownership of property. Then the inside of one of those houses was shown. One might have thought it was a flat in one of the better parts of Glasgow. But that was not due to any expenditure of a single penny by the landlord. It was due to this pride in home that the Scots people have, to make the best of what they have, and to do the repairs that the landlords have not been doing.
    If one goes into any of these Scottish homes today, in most cases one will find that they have electric light. That was not provided by the landlord but by the tenant. They have modern grates—not provided by the landlord but by the tenant. The same applies to plumbing. The other day I spoke to a lad in Kilmarnock who is just moving into a new house. In the light of what he will be faced with when this Bill goes through, the changes he was making were really fantastic. The old set-in bed—the hole in-the-wall—has in many cases become a little kitchen or scullery, with a gas cooker—the gas cooker also provided at the expense of the tenant.
    In the face of such things, here are the Government actually coming with a Clause like this, asking for no proof that money has been spent in repairs, giving no guarantee that rent increases will depend on repairs, and saying to the tenant who has spent this money to keep the house in good and tenantable condition, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant. You have done so well in spending your own money on this house belonging to someone else that we will allow that someone else to raise your rent by 25 per cent."
    Can that be justified at all? We worded this Amendment as reasonably as possible so that even a Tory would be able to understand it and agree with it. It does not go nearly as far as we should like, and if the Joint Under-Secretary, representing the Craigtown Division of Glasgow, can stand at that Box and turn

    1053
    down this Amendment—well, we know that he will be defeated at the next Election, and he will be just making doubly sure that he will no longer occupy a place in this assembly after that Election.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: I am glad to see that the Lord Advocate is here to reinforce the Minister because, as we all know, the Lord Advocate has a long experience of the law relating to landlord and tenant, the law of contract, and the law relating to eviction, which has caused so many agonies to tenants and, perhaps, gratification to landlords. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bring that long experience to bear upon the consideration of this Amendment.
    The Amendment is designed to supply that which is missing from this Clause, to rectify it, arid to ensure what, I am sure, the Lord Advocate would desire—that justice should be done between landlord and tenant. It will be noticed that. as it stands, the Clause deals with the landlord's rights, but not with the co-relative rights of the tenant. In that way it is overweighted in favour of the landlord. The Amendment is clearly designed to rectify those defects.
    7.45 p.m.
    Clause 7 enables an increase of rents of controlled houses to be made in Scotland. Up to the present, the tenants of those houses have enjoyed a certain measure of protection and security. This Clause is designed to take away that measure of protection and security, and to give to the landlords a right which they did not possess before. The Amendment is designed to poise, to adjust, to balance the iniquities of the Clause so as to take account of the tenants' rights.
    As the Clause stands, justice will not be done as between landlord and tenant. It is expressed to enable an increase of rent to be made by the landlord, whether or not he has done anything to keep the house in repair. But the Clause is even worse than that—it goes a little further, and deals with the case where the landlord is under covenant to keep the house in repair and does not do so.
    The Amendment takes into account the situation where the landlord, being under an obligation to keep the house in repair and not doing so, the tenant takes over
    1054
    that responsibility, and does so, not necessarily to enhance the landlord's security, but, no doubt, for his own comfort and security as a tenant. If that happens, the landlord should not be entitled to benefit from it and to derive an advantage from two things; first, the fact that he has not carried out this covenant to repair and to keep in repair, and, secondly, that the tenant has, in fact, taken over the landlord's responsibility, has carried it out and has thereby enhanced the landlord's security.
    As the House will see, the Clause as it stands has two enormities. First, it benefits the landlord for not doing that which he is bound to do under covenant. Secondly, it penalises the tenant for enhancing the value of the landlord's property by doing certain repairs to it. Manifestly, that is wrong and unjust, and the Amendment is designed to right that wrong and to remove that injustice.
    No doubt this Clause, like the whole of this Bill, arises from the inordinate cost of living under which both landlord and tenant are at present living, but it is manifestly wrong that the cost of living, which weighs heavily on both landlord and tenant, should be used as an excuse to ameliorate and improve the condition of the landlord and to deteriorate and disimprove the position of the tenant. Nevertheless, that is indeed what this Clause does. Therefore, as it stands, it is wrong and requires this Amendment to rectify it.
    For the sake of simplicity, may I just refer to the essential words in this Clause in order to enforce my argument? I shall leave out certain words and read the bare skeleton of the Clause. The words I shall read are:
    " Where a dwelling-house in Scotland is subject to a controlled tenancy, and the landlord is responsible, … for the repair of the dwelling-house, then, … if and so long as the conditions justifying an increase of rent, … are fulfilled, the rent recoverable from the tenant shall… be increased …"
    Our Amendment is designed to insert after the word "fulfilled" these words which take account of the rights of the tenant which are completely ignored in the Clause. We seek to insert after the word "fulfilled" the words:
    "and the maintenance of the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair is not attributable to the discharge by the tenant of any responsibility incumbent on the landlord".

    1055
    The Clause, as it stands, will enable the landlord to take advantage of the tenant's work, to take advantage of the fact that the tenant has repaired the premises and has enhanced the landlord's security and capital. This is manifestly wrong. The co-relative is left out of the Clause. The landlord's rights are put in and enforced, while the tenant's rights are left out and ignored. This is plainly injustice.
    The Lord Advocate has long experience of the law of landlord and tenant, of the harrowing administration of the Rent Restriction Acts, and this experience, together with his knowledge of the law of contract as between landlord and tenant, will teach him, I have no doubt, to realise that justice demands that the rights of both landlord and tenant should be equipoised and balanced. They are not balanced in the Clause as it stands, but they will be balanced if this beneficial Amendment is accepted.
    Mrs. Mann: There have been many contradictions in these Acts in regard to the maintenance of a dwelling-house. If what my hon. Friends have been saying is all true, there are many tenants in Scotland who could raise an action against the owners of property. It is not, perhaps, generally known—it may be that one has to be an owner to know—that every year, in the valuation form which an owner signs on soul and conscience, there appears the rent, and then, in order that no owner may impose other conditions such as a requirement to keep the property in good and habitable repair for the landlord and obtain hidden payments in that way, any arrangement for repair come to between the parties must be declared upon the valuation form. For instance, let us suppose that the rent is £20, but that the tenant, either with or without an understanding, executes £10 worth of repairs a year, that £10 for the landlord ought to be declared to the valuation authority. If the owner has not so declared it, he has committed an offence.
    It would appear that these repairs are being carried out, but we must be clear in our minds what is keeping the property in tenantable repair and what is merely an improvement such as improving a grate by taking away an old interior and putting in a new one. That is not considered to be a repair, although it does improve the property. I should like to know what the views are of those tenants
    1056
    who have actually repaired the pipes instead of sending for a plumber. A tenant of mine just sends for the plumber; he never consults me. He sends for the builder and the others. Where that is done and a tenant bears the cost himself, there is no occasion whatever for charging him the extra 25 per cent.
    I find another contradiction in the Act of 1954. In that Measure the Government went to the extreme of insisting on a two-fifths expenditure by the owner before any increase was to be permitted whereas in the Bill they have gone to the opposite extreme and are permitting by this Clause a 25 per cent. increase without the landlord having to fulfil any condition as regards maintaining the dwelling-house in good and tenantable repair.
    Since 1923, when the Rent Restriction Act permitted a 47½ per cent. increase in Scotland, there has been a feeling of grievance among tenants. That 47½ per cent. permitted 15 per cent. in respect of extra interest and mortgage charges, etc., 25 per cent. in respect of repairs, and 7½ per cent. in respect of increasing owners' rates. The grievance was that the condition attached to the 25 per cent. in respect of repairs was never adhered to. The money was lifted, but it was never spent on repairs. We are now trying to redress that grievance, and I hope that our Amendment will be accepted.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I will deal, first of all, with one or two points which have been raised before dealing with the main issue. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) spoke about the Gorbals houses. I have seen them myself. I used to tell the hon. Lady the Member for the Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) that the houses in Govan were as bad as they were in the Gorbals, but when I had seen them I had to admit that these were worse. Surely, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock cannot believe that the Bill would affect that kind of house. It cannot possibly do so.
    Mr. Ross: Why not?
    Mr. Browne: Because such a house would never qualify for other than a certificate of disrepair.
    Mr. Ross: Are we to understand that all the houses in the Gorbals have got certificates of disrepair?
    Mr. Browne: No, but I am referring to houses of the type which he was describing to the House. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a case on a false premise, and it is quite wrong to base anything——
    Mr. Willis: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will not——
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish? No such point against this Bill can be argued on that type of house, which the Glasgow Corporation is trying to pull down.
    Mr. Willis: There is no certificate of disrepair unless the tenant applies for it. We discussed all this at great length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman must know that a great many of the people who live in these houses know nothing about certificates of disrepair or applying for them, or anything of that sort.
    Mr. Browne: But a tenant has not got to apply for a certificate of disrepair unless the landlord asks for an increase. I am sure that nobody who knows the area can conceive of any landlord asking for an increase for that type of house.
    Mr. Willis: Of course we can.
    Mr. Ross: May I make it clear that I addressed myself entirely to the point of considering whether the conditions justifying the increase had been fulfilled. I did not refer to these houses in the Gorbals at all. In fact, my reference to the Gorbals was only to a house which was in good condition because of the efforts of the tenant.
    Mr. Browne: If I have taken the hon. Gentleman up wrongly, I apologise. I shall see in HANSARD tomorrow what it was he said.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said that a little over 2 per cent. of our Scottish houses had been repaired under the 1954 Act. The hon. Gentleman is unlikely to put himself in the position of being corrected by his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), but the hon. Member for Motherwell knows the correct figure at the latest convenient date, which is 27,000 out of 700,000, not 2 per cent., but between 3 and 4 per cent. [Interruption.] Well, it is nearly twice as much.
    Mr. Willis: "Operation Rescue."
    Mr. Browne: It was a little rescue.
    Mr. Willis: Very little.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Member for Motherwell saw something ridiculous in the certificate of disrepair procedure. I did my best to try to follow him. Surely, the best system for getting our Scottish houses put into and kept in repair is the carrot of a rent increase and the stick of a certificate of disrepair to take it away if the house is not fit. I could not follow the hon. Member's argument at all.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) had in mind the doubt that is in the minds of many of us in connection with the Amendment. In discussing the Amendment, it is important to appreciate the type of repair that is necessary to bring a house into good and tenantable repair and fitness for human habitation. No doubt, a good many Scottish tenants have spent quite a deal of money on their houses——
    Mr. Ross: They certainly have.
    Mr. Browne: —but most of the money has been spent—we have all done this—on minor repairs and improvements for the tenant's own comfort and convenience. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central talked about wallpaper keeping the houses from falling down. Really, he knows that wallpaper is not the responsibility of the landlord and that many of these repairs done by the tenant fall into disrepair in a comparatively short number of years. Such repairs may, indeed, have improved the house as a pleasant dwelling-house. The tenant has spent money on them and has enjoyed, and is enjoying, the results of his expenditure. That is what money is for.
    My point is that even if this money had not been spent by the tenant, even if many of these repairs—I am not saying all of them—had not been done, the house still might be in good repair and fit for human habitation.
    Mr. Willis: It is very doubtful.
    Mr. Browne: In a typical, well-maintained Scottish property—[Interruption.] Yes, there are well-maintained Scottish properties, far more of them than this debate would lead one to think.
    Mr. McInnes: Monuments in the cemetery.
    Mr. Ross: Even they are not in good repair.
    Mr. Browne: I credit the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, who is a constituent of mine, with knowing far more about housing conditions in Scotland than one would imagine after reading his speech. In typical well-maintained Scottish houses, the landlord regularly carries out the more costly repairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to which no reference has been made in this instance—repairs to the fabric of the building, to the roof, to the common property, the stairs and the entries. That is big money that the landlord has spent and for which the tenant has had no responsibility whatever.
    Mr. Ross: Why only 3 per cent. in the 1954 Act?
    Mr. Browne: That is one of the reasons for the Clauses that we are now discussing.
    The Amendment does not, therefore, alter the position either for the good landlord or for the industrious tenant such as I have described.
    Mrs. Alice Cullen: Does the hon. Gentleman know of good landlords?
    Mr. Browne: Yes——
    Mrs. Cullen: I do not.
    Mr. Browne: —good and helpful landlords. There may be cases where the tenant, of his own volition, has done some repairs that should legally have been carried out by the landlord—that is true. It would be very unusual if the landlord himself had not also done as much as he could afford to do in the house.
    Mrs. Mann: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the matter of landlordism in Scotland. The individual landlord is usually quite fair, but we are not dealing with individual landlords. We are dealing with vast agents who own great parts of Glasgow and in whom the individual touch is completely missing.
    Mr. Browne: I have no experience except of Scottish landlords and I have found that these big companies have been extremely helpful and, in a great many
    1060
    cases, have done a great deal to try to keep the houses in repair under extremely difficult conditions.
    The very fact that one tenant may have done something that the landlord should have done does not mean that the landlord has done nothing. Very often, he has done all he could afford to do. I agree that a few have failed to do what they ought to have done, but it would be difficult in legislation to pick out those few who have failed to do what they ought to have done and who could have afforded to do it. If the landlord had not done some work, the house by now would be in such a state of disrepair, normally speaking, that any idea of obtaining an increase in rent would be quite out of the question.
    Mr. Willis: Really.
    Mr. Browne: It is true.
    Mr. McInnes: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately ignoring the kernel of the problem. We confess that 400,000 or 500,000 houses are not in good and tenantable repair in Scotland, leaving another 300,000 or 400,000 houses that are in good and tenantable repair. Why, then, have only 27,000 of them been repaired by the landlords? What is the explanation for the difference? If the hon. Gentleman wants the answer, it is obvious that the tenants themselves have done all the repairs.
    Mr. Browne: Oh, no. First, the landlords had not the money to do the repairs, and, secondly——
    Mr. Willis: What did they do with it?
    Mr. Browne: —the grave deterrent of going back to the 1914 rent made it not worth the landlord's while to do it at all. That, however, is the subject of a later Amendment, and if I can get on we might be able to reach that Amendment.
    One of the main reasons for the Bill is that if we are to have houses put into repair, and, what is more, kept in repair, the rent must be reasonably adequate, In spite of everything that has been said, I do not believe that the average Scottish tenant is opposed to paying a slightly higher rent for a good house. [Interruption.] The maximum rent increase that we are discussing is 3s. 10d. a week and the average rent increase is less than 2s. a week. I say again that where the

    1061
    tenant has helped the landlord in the past by doing some of the basic repairs which the landlord should have carried out, I would expect the tenant's attitude to harden to the extent of expecting the landlord to carry out his obligations.
    Mr. Willis: There is nothing in the Bill about it.
    Mr. Browne: People are human, if the landlord wants his increased rent to continue——
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is saying something with which we on this side have not so far disagreed. He is putting up an Aunt Sally to knock down himself. He suggests that the tenant does not mind paying 2s. a week more provided he gets the repairs done. We have not disagreed with that. All we have suggested is that where the landlord is not doing the repairs, the tenant should not pay the 2s. Where the tenant is paying for the repairs, he should not have to pay twice, in the rent and in the repairs. Secondly, where in the Bill is there any guarantee that the money will be used to keep the premises in repair?
    Mr. Browne: Had the hon. Member been listening, he would know I had been addressing myself to the difficulty of drawing a dividing line between one type of property and another. The hon. Member asks where in the Bill there is anything to say that the money has to be spent on the house. Surely, he knows that if money is not spent on the house, it will deteriorate and that if the landlord fails to spend money on the house, he will no longer qualify for the increased rent.
    Mrs. Cullen: That is because of the deterioration.
    Mr. Browne: Whether the landlord is responsible wholly or in part for the repairs is a legal question. It depends on the terms of the contract, but under Section 23 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, applied to the 1957 Act increase by Clause 8 of the Bill, unless the tenant is under express liability to carry out repairs, the landlord is deemed wholly responsible for them. The hon. Member for Motherwell made a significant point. He said that the landlords had evaded the law over the years. Surely, is it not the duty of the
    1062
    House, if such conditions have applied, to create new conditions to stop that state of affairs? If the Rent Restriction Acts have had that effect, is it not our job as the House of Commons to put the matter right?
    Mr. Ross: By giving the landlords an extra 25 per cent. rent?
    Mr. Lawson: We are trying to settle into the Clause a provision that where the repairs are carried out by the tenant the landlords shall not benefit. That is what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Browne: So are we, but we disagree with the hon. Member that he has the best way of doing it.
    he Amendment seeks to relieve the tenant of the consequences of something he may have done but has not contracted to do.
    Mr. Ross: Not "may."
    Mr. Browne: All right then, something he did that he did not contract to do, but landlords under the Bill have better conditions and more means and more incentive to fulfil their obligations. Furthermore, it would be in practice very difficult to define and explain to the satisfaction of the tenant, and certainly to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, the correct dividing line between those repairs which the landlord should have done and those which do not fall into that category. I have tried to answer all the points and I am sure that after such a clear exposition of what is wrong with the Amendment the Opposition will consider withdrawing it.
    Mr. Douglas Johnston: I feel that my hon. Friends will regret not only the reply but the reasons advanced for the reply, because, having listened to the Joint Under-Secretary with some care, I find that four-fifths of his reply did not in any way relate to the Amendment.
    Mr. Browne: It is very difficult for me, because if I replied to the Amendment only I should not be able to reply to the speeches, and hon. Members would have something then to complain about.
    Mr. Johnston: The hypothesis on which the proposed Amendment proceeds is that the house is in good and tenantable repair. All it seeks to do is to provide that if the tenant has been the means by

    1063
    which the house has been kept in good and tenantable repair, he shall be rewarded for that rather than that the landlord should be rewarded. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary appreciates that.
    Surely, it is wholly inequitable that a landlord should be entitled to this 25 per cent. increase in rent if the increase is not due to his fulfilling his legal obligation to keep the house in tenantable repair but is the result of the tenant fulfilling the landlord's obligation. I feel sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will agree that that is an inequitable result. If it is inequitable, why not provide that the landlord shall not receive that increase?
    Mr. Browne: Would the hon. and learned Member address himself to the point that the landlord has to keep the house in good repair also?
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Johnston: I concede, of course, that the landlord is under an obligation, but the hypothesis of the argument is that he has not fulfilled that obligation in the past and there is no express obligation upon him to do so in the future. The hon. Gentleman might reply that there is and that the sanction, if the landlord does not keep the house in good repair, is the sanction of a certificate of disrepair.
    Mr. Browne Mr. Browne indicated assent.
    Mr. Johnston: I notice that the hon. Gentleman nods his head, but he knows as well as I do that the certificate of disrepair procedure has been in existence since the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1919. It has not worked for various reasons. One reason is that the tenants have not known about it. The second is that in many cases tenants have been afraid to operate it. A third reason is that landlords have said, "We can do what we like. We do not intend to make the repairs." It is in those circumstances that the tenant has undertaken the repairs which were the obligation of the landlord, with the result that the house is now in good and tenantable repair, and that if the Amendment be not accepted the reward will go to the landlord rather than to the tenants.
    I submit that that is a wholly inequitable result. I understand that the only
    1064
    justification put forward for it is that it is administratively difficult to decide what would be the landlord's repairs and what would be the tenant's, and that in those circumstances we have just got to put up with the inequity. That reply, of course, is not satisfactory, because there is already a provision in subsection (4) of the Clause that any question arising as to whether the landlord was responsible for repair or whether it was the tenant's responsibility shall be decided, in the event of there being no agreement between them, by the sheriff. That Clause is very apt to decide the very point now put forward in the Amendment, which is who in fact did the repairs that kept the house in being and in good an tenantable condition. It is a pure question of fact which could easily be decided by the sheriff.
    Mr. Browne Mr. Browne indicated dissent.
    Mr. Johnston: Why not? Why should it not be possible to decide who repaired the roof, who repaired the rone pipes, who put the new window in and who supplied new sashes? Suppose that a landlord went to the court and said, "It is true that I have not done any repairs in the last thirty years", as many landlords have not done, and the tenant were able to say, "I paid Mr. X and Mr. Y, the tradesmen who carried out the repairs to the roof and to the rone pipes."
    Mr. Browne Mr. Browne indicated dissent.
    Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is not enough to shake his head. He must give reasons.
    Mr. Browne: The hon. and learned Member raises so many doubts about whether the landlord or the tenant repaired the roof or the rone pipes and so on. How would one put all that into legislation?
    Mr. Johnston: I should have thought that that was a question of fact and that if the landlord was unable to prove that he had carried out the repairs he could not be entitled to the increase in rent. The courts are accustomed to carry out investigations of facts as complicated and, indeed, somewhat more complicated every day. This is a matter of fact very capable of being decided by the sheriff. It is just as capable of being decided by him as those questions which are remitted to him under subsection (4) of this very

    1065
    Clause. I do not accept an administrative difficulty which is a pure figment of the imagination of the Joint Under-Secretary as being a good excuse for committing what is obviously an inequity on the tenant.
    I should have thought that a still better reason for accepting the Amendment was this. It is, as I understand it, the Government's policy behind this Bill that repairs should be completed to houses. I take it that that is their view. It really does not very much matter to anyone who does these repairs. What is important is that the repairs should be done——
    Mr. Browne: And continue to be done.
    Mr. Johnston: —and continue to be done. It is quite clear from the past history of housing in Scotland that very few landlords will do repairs. There are various reasons for that, and I do not think that the fact that rents are to be increased would encourage landlords to do any more repairs than they have done in the past, or have done under the 1954 Act. I think that is quite clear. It would, however, encourage tenants to do the repairs if they knew that if, as a result of doing the repairs, they were not to be penalised, but, under the provisions of this Clause as unamended, they are to be penalised, because they are to have their rents increased.
    I should have thought that in these circumstances the Government would
    have accepted this Amendment with alacrity and enthusiasm, because it does follow what we understand are the basic ideas behind this Clause, and I regret very much that the Government will not do so. I can only hope that they will think again, and that the Joint Under-Secretary will now get up and say that he will reconsider the matter because he is unwilling that an injustice should be done to tenants and is anxious that houses should be put in repair. I notice that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only assume from that that what he is most anxious to do is what I have long suspected—not to keep houses in repair, but to provide another 25 per cent. for landlords under this Clause, irrespective of what is done at all. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well, as I know, that very few landlords will spend money on houses, and that still fewer tenants will risk the displeasure of their landlords by seeking to get certificates of disrepair.
    For myself, I can only regard this Clause, unless it be amended in the way I have suggested, as a gift of another 25 per cent. to landlords, in the same way as there was a gift of some 40 per cent. under the 1919 Act.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 269.

    Division No. 84.]

    AYES

    [8.22 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edelman, M.

    Albu, A. H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Carmichael, J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Champion, A. J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Baird, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Balfour, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Frenburgh, W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Finch, H. J.

    Bence C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Fletcher, Eric

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Benson, G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Beswick, Frank

    Cronin, J. D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Blackburn, F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Goooh, E. G.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Blyton, W. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Boardman, H.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Grey, C. F.

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Deer, G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hannan, W.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hastings, S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Healey, Denis

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Dye, S.

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Holman, P.

    Messer, Sir F.

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

    Holmes, Horace

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Monslow, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Moody, A. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Hubbard, T. F.

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

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mort, D. L.

    Steele, T.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Moss, R.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Moyle, A.

    Stonehouse, J. T.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    O'Brien, Sir Thomas

    Swingler, S. T.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Janner, B.

    Orbach, M.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

    Oswald, T.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Owen, W. J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

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

    Thornton, E.

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

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Timmons, J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Panneil, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Parker, J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Paton, John

    Weitzman, D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Peart, T. F.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Pentland, N.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    West, D. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Popplewell, E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Probert, A. R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wigg, George

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Randall, H. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Rankin, John

    Willey, Frederick

    McGovern, J.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mclnnes, J.

    Reeves, J.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Reid, William

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Mahon, Simon

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Ross, William

    Woof, R. E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Royle, C.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Short, E. W.

    Mason, Roy

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Pearson.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Davidson, Viscountess

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

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

    Deedes, W. F.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Bryan, P.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Ashton, H.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Atkins, H. E.

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

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Carr, Robert

    Fell, A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Finlay, Graeme

    Barber, Anthony

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Fisher, Nigel

    Barter, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Fort, R.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Conant, Maj. sir Roger

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdair)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cooke, Robert

    Freeth, Denzil

    Bennett, F. M, (Torquay)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Cooper-Key, E. M,

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Godber, J. B.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthome)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Crouch, R. F.

    Goodhart, P. C.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Cower, H. R.

    Black, C. W.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Body, R. F.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Green, A,

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    1068

    1069

    Grimond, J.

    Leburn, W. G

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfleld)

    Redmayne, M.

    Crsvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Rees-Davies, W. R

    Gurden, Harold

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Llewellyn, D. T

    Renton, D. L. M

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E)

    Ridsdale, J. E

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

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

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Harris, Rader (Heston)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Robson-Brown, W

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V (Macclesfd)

    McAdden, S. J

    Russell, R. S.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Harvey-Watt, Sir George

    Maokie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.'

    Hay, John

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P

    Sharpies, R. C

    Heaid, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Shepherd, William

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

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Heskcth, R. F

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W

    Maddan, Martin

    Speir, R. M

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. {Kons'gt'n, S)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hobson, J. G. S (War'ck & Leam'gtn)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife,E,)

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Mathew, R.

    Storey, S

    Hope, Lord John

    Maude, Angus

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Hornby, R. P

    Mawby, R. L

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Horobin, Sir lan

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. lves)

    Mllligan, Rt. Hon. W. R

    Temple, John M.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Nairn, D. L. S

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Neave, Airey

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hylton-Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Harry

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Vane, W. M. F

    lremonger, T. L.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

    lrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

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

    Viokers, Miss Joan

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wade, D. W.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Oakshott, H. D

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

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

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Kaberry, D.

    Osborne, C

    Webbe, Sir H

    Keegan, D.

    Page, R. C

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

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Kerr, H. W

    Partridge, E

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Kimball, M.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Kirk, P. M

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wood, Hon. R

    Lagden, G. W

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Pott, H. P

    Lancaster, Col. C. G

    Powell, J. Enoch

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)

    Mr. R. Thompson and

    Leavey, J. A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L

    Mr. Brooman-White

    Clause 10—(RELEASE FROM CONTROL NDER RENT ACTS.)
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out from the beginning, to "the" in line 39.
    In the Standing Committee on the Bill an Amendment was carried against my advice, the effect of which would have been to prevent the decontrol of houses which had been purchased on or after 7th November, 1956, being the date when this Bill was published. I deeply respect the intentions of those of my hon. Friends who moved and supported that Amendment. Their sole purpose, I know,
    1070
    was to punish speculators in house property who were seeking to make a quick and indefensible profit out of the provisions of the Bill.
    When that Amendment had been carried I had to consider most carefully what was the right advice which I should give to the House on Report, because I expressed myself in no uncertain terms in Committee about speculators. I said that I was willing to do anything I effectively could, whether by administrative action or by legislative proposals to the House, to make sure, as far as it in me lay, that speculators did not have a chance of easy money under the Bill.

    1071
    I had to examine carefully what the effects and consequences of the Amendment then inserted into the Bill would be, and I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion that it would hit perfectly honest and honourable and normal transactions much harder than it would hit speculative deals. I have made inquiries, and contrary to what appears to be the common opinion in some quarters, there has not been any uprush of transactions in house property consequent on the Bill. In the stock market, if speculation develops in this market or in that, one can see that there is an unusual flurry of transactions; people are getting in and out quickly. There has been no evidence of anything of that kind in the property market since the Bill was published, nor was there such evidence in the weeks or months before that.
    I grant the House at once that this does not prove that nobody has sought to speculate in the property market. The speculator will always be present and, in normal times, may perform a useful function in steadying the market and ironing out sudden oscillations this way or that. Certainly I do not propose to stand up here and say to the House that there are no speculators in property. What I say is that all the evidence available goes to show that there has been no outburst whatever of speculation, either in expectation of the Bill or after its terms were published.
    We have to examine how the Bill would work if it were left at it stands. The words inserted against my advice in Standing Committee would have a limited operation; they would apply only to houses purchased after 7th November, 1956, and before the commencement of the Act. The House will appreciate that if a purchase took place after the commencement of the Act, then if the house fell within the rateable values for decontrol it would become decontrolled irrevocably and could not, as it were, be pulled into control again by this Amendment.
    That small chronological section of houses purchased during that limited period would have remained in control if the Bill went through as it stands, and I have been asked whether it would be possible at a later date to decontrol them by use of my powers under sub
    1072
    section (3), under which it is possible to decontrol further categories of houses in one area of the country or another. I went into that and I was advised that it would not be possible to use my powers in order to decontrol the particular class of house which was retained in control because of the Amendment passed in Committee.
    The conclusion which I reached, therefore, taking one thing with another, was that though this Amendment might hit the odd speculator, it was likely to do injustice to a far greater number of people who, in the perfectly normal course of business, had conducted property transactions on and after 7th November, 1956.
    Certainly one is anxious to avoid injustice to the honest individual; that is. indeed, one of the purposes of Parliament. Moreover, I was very doubtful whether it would catch the speculators, because it struck me that the man who was determined to make a profit would examine how he could avoid the mischief of the Amendment and would take steps to see that his actual purchase, in the legal sense, did not take effect until after the commencement of the Act. He would then escape the effect of the Amendment. He would have been, as it were, too clever for it. On all these grounds, I reached the conclusion that this was not an effective way to punish speculators, a thing which I should dearly like to do if there were practical means of doing it.
    I know that publicity has been given to the kind of speculation that might take place. An hon. Friend of mine in Committee referred to a case—I think in the Borough of Harrow—where it was said that a block of flats had been purchased by speculators who intended to evict the tenants and let the flats furnished to American Service men who were stationed in the area. I have endeavoured to follow up everything that was said in the Standing Committee, and the moment that was said I had inquiries made; and what I found was that the block of flats had changed hands before the publication of the Bill, so that in any case it would not have been caught by the Amendment, and out of the 320 flats concerned only six were above' the rateable value limit for control. If, therefore, the buyers had bought them in the expectation that they would be able to get

    1073
    vacant possession of all the 320, they would have been grievously disappointed in about 314 of them; so that case certainly did not assume the proportions of scandal which at first it appeared it might.
    I have examined a number of alternative possibilities to see whether I could find some device or some formula which would catch the speculator without also catching the bona fide purchaser. Having in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) said earlier about the importance of acquainting myself with professional opinion, I have taken steps to try to obtain the best advice on the effect of the Amendment and as to alternative suggestions which might be made for achieving the object we all have at heart in some other way which would do less harm.
    I have, as I say, considered a number of alternatives, but frankly none of them passed muster. They did not appear to me to be at all likely to penalise the man who was just out for a quick profit, whereas they would certainly have damaged and damnified ordinary people who in the course of perfectly normal business, winding up estates and the like, would have entered into property transactions after 7th February, 1956. I say here and now that I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having raised this in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, because I think that a good purpose has been served through the Committee for the time being disregarding my advice. I am being perfectly frank with the House. This will have given a sharp shock to the few people who thought that it was easy to disregard our intentions in a matter like this.
    I am sure that if anyone had been acting in that way he would have spent an uncomfortable afternoon when reading in the evening paper that the Amendment had been carried. I am quite certain that during the period of weeks since the Amendment was passed and before I put down this Amendment there must have been a great deal of heart searching and, undoubtedly, some withdrawing from transactions which might otherwise have been entered into. In that sense, I consider that my hon. Friends have served
    1074
    their purpose and a valuable purpose. If their Amendment were to remain in the Bill and reach the Statute Book, I can only advise the House that the injustice it would cause to a large number of perfectly innocent and honourable people would heavily outweight any good that it would do by hitting the speculator. It is for these reasons that I invite the House to accept my Amendment.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is acquiring the manners of a school master intent on punishment. He ended his speech by thanking his hon. Friends for inserting an Amendment. He began by rebuking them for disregarding his advice. I am not quite certain whether we take Philip complacent or Philip irritated as the better of the two personages.
    Mr. Brooke: Philip sober.
    Mr. Mitchison: Philip sober. I hope so, but there are moments when, having regard to the contents of the Bill, I wonder whether we should take Philip sober, but the right hon. Gentleman himself invited the comparison which I should not have dared to make.
    This has been a more successful mutiny than the Margate one. Apparently a mutiny is better understood in Oldham than in Margate, and in this case an Amendment was carried against the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt a most irritating state of affairs. I would remind him that the Amendment was considered in Committee at the same time as an Amendment which would have taken the date a great deal further back. What strikes me in the whole of this discussion is that the right hon. Gentleman finds it very hard to draw the line between speculation and legitimate transactions. So do I. I am not at all sure that there is such a line.
    It is extremely difficult to draw a line in the case of landed property and the question is what ought to be done about those who had speculated—if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's words—in landed property, and not only since the date which now appears in the Bill. I never quite knew why that date was introduced. Could we not go back to the Llandudno period when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was talking

    1075
    about complete decontrol? Could we not go back earlier yet to when the Tory Party was talking about reviewing the Rent Acts? Could we not go back to the period when one section of the Tory Party was saying that on no account whatever would rents be increased if the Tories came back to power and another section was saying that, all the same, the Rent Acts must be reviewed?
    It would be a very interesting study, but is there any very large distinction between the gentlemen who will be caught by this Amendment and those who have been indulging in speculation earlier? Is it not the fact that transactions in landed property, whether we call them speculative or not, are going to yield, as a result of the Bill, an uncovenanted benefit to those who made them at the expense of the tenant? That seems to me to be the position. I hope we shall not take too long about the matter, because, at present, it is a dispute between, on the one side, the right hon. Gentleman and his loyal supporters, and on the other his loyal opponents on this side of the House and another crowd of doubtful, rather hesitant mutineers who, I am perfectly certain, will neither support nor vote for the Amendment which they moved and voted for during the Committee stage. We have seen quite enough of Tory dissidents to know that and to know that they will produce excellent reasons why they should not do so.
    I hope that we shall not take too long about the matter, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on this side of the House have no intention of letting pass unopposed any Amendment which limits the effects of a subsection which we regard generally as quite wrong. Therefore, we shall vote against what he now proposes to do.
    Sir I. Horobin: As the hon. Member who succeeded both in defeating and pleasing the Minister on this matter during the Committee stage discussions, I feel, despite the avuncular advice of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that I must ask the House to spend a little time on it. In spite of what my right hon. Friend said, I still think that this is a bad and an unnecessary Amendment which he is
    1076
    moving. I regret it and I still think, in spite of what he has said—and bowing to his great experience and his special facilities for expert advice—that most people in the country feel, whatever their views on the general principles of this Bill, that there is a danger of undesirable speculation having occurred in the early days after this Bill was introduced.
    Whether this is the right way of dealing with it or not, I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the House consider that something ought to be done about it. I say at once, as I said during the Committee stage discussions, that I agree with the Minister that a great deal of nonsense is talked about this and many other subjects by hon. Members opposite, They talk a lot about speculation, but they have not succeeded in putting anything on the Order Paper with regard to it. So far, the Amendment which I carried against the Government is the only one put down——
    Mr. Mitchison: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make that sort of statement. We moved to leave out the whole of the subsection in which this occurs.
    Sir I. Horobin: I know, but that has nothing to do with speculation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening to himself while he was talking.
    On the other hand, in this matter, whatever their views about speculation in general, I think most people will feel that in the very tricky and difficult operation of getting rid of something like forty years of an artificial market, the presence of people seeking a quick profit will complicate the issue, and that, if it is at all possible, they should be specially dealt with.
    From what they have said to me, I think that some hon. Members, who were not present during the Committee stage discussions, are not clear about what the Amendment which was carried upstairs would do and what it would not do, and 1 wish to make that clear. In the first place, and for reasons which seem to me obvious and sensible, it is not retrospective legislation. We are not altering the law retrospectively to the damage of anybody. No owner of property would be any worse off as a result of the Amendment than he would have been before the Bill was introduced. He would

    1077
    only be not quite as much better off as he will be if the Minister's Amendment to put the Bill back into its original form is carried. Nor will the Amendment carried in Committee affect any of the other ways in which property can be decontrolled. It does not affect Clause 10 (2) at all. All it does is to take away the automatic decontrol arising out of the gross rateable value of the house.
    I am very glad that the Minister has made the point himself, but lest he should give the impression that this was an oversight on my part when I drafted the Amendment I repeat that, in addition, it does not bring back into control any house automatically decontrolled when the Bill becomes law. There is no question of its imposing a permanent standstill in respect of a certain type of house. If, when the Bill becomes law, a house is in the same ownership as it was when the Bill was introduced, it will automatically become decontrolled, and the Amendment carried in Committee will not act to bring it back into control.
    The Amendment affects a small, but important, section of the property market. It deals with those houses which changed hands between the time when the proposals of the Government became known, on 7th November last, and the time when the Bill becomes law. It deals, in reality, with an even smaller set of houses. As the Minister has admitted, after the Amendment was passed on 20th February the whole of the speculative market, such as it was, collapsed. I am glad to think that I played some part in bringing that about. Anybody buying after that date bought in the knowledge that there was a risk of his being left with controlled and not decontrolled property.
    When we are talking about the Bill as it left Committee we must be absolutely clear what the Minister is trying to do in the Amendment. I still believe that in respect of houses whose ownership changed between the date of the introduction of the Bill, which made it known that legislation was being introduced to decontrol certain properties—which was on 7th November last—and the date upon which the Amendment was carried in Committee, certain special characteristics make it wise for Parliament to insert a certain special protection.
    I am glad that I asked the Minister to refer to a point which I put to him,
    1078
    which carries the matter a little further, namely, that even those houses which were bought with the immediate knowledge of the decontrol provisions do not require to be permanently left as special exceptions. The Minister has said that Clause 10 (3), which gives him power to make orders, does not in its present form enable him to make a later order decontrolling such properties when the market has settled down. I was surprised to hear that, but, even if his expert advisers are right, it could not be in the least difficult for another place so to amend that very wide order-making power as to make it possible for the Minister, if he so desired, to decontrol these houses at a later date.
    9.0 p.m.
    Surely that is the sensible way of proceeding. The whole of this Bill is based upon the theory—I think the right theory —that a fair market will develop in these higher gross rateable value houses. I know that hon. Members opposite do not accept that, but at least that is the basis upon which the Bill is presented and we do accept it. Surely it does not follow from that that we have to spoil a good case by overstating it and pledge ourselves to the view that that perfectly safe, well-known, straightforward market will settle down in the immediate future. I should have thought it doubtful that it would in some parts of the country.
    Even expert advisers will not be able to advise clients what is the right and proper figure for leases and new agreements. Surely, the sensible thing to do—if I may use the colloquialism—is to keep these people "on ice" until the market has settled. Then everyone can make up their minds as to what is a reasonable agreement and an Order can be made to deal with it. If it is not possible under Clause 10 (3) as it stands, it should not be beyond the wits of Parliamentary draftsmen to make it so. I confess I cannot understand how that cannot be done even as it stands. If hon. Members will look at page 9 they will see that the Minister can make Orders and subsection (3) says:
    "… an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified."

    1079
    I frankly cannot understand on that basis why an Order cannot be made covering the whole of England, Wales and Scotland and applied to those houses, and only to those houses, which would have been decontrolled but for the words in the Amendment we passed in Committee upstairs. If that would not be an Order applying
    "… generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified,"
    I cannot understand the words of the English language.
    Mr. Herbert Butler: Could the hon. Member explain to the House why he considers it undesirable to speculate in land at a certain date, but obviously desirable to speculate before that date?
    Sir I. Horobin: I was coming to that. The distinction I am making is simply that in the immediate period after these proposals became known some of us believe—certainly a great many persons outside believe—that a substantial number of undesirable people who, as always when it is likely that the price will go up, jumped on to it. It is the natural thing to do——
    Mr. G. Lindgren: It is Tory philosophy.
    Sir I. Horobin: It is not only Tory philosophy. I have no doubt that if we looked at the shares of hon. Members opposite we would find that they did not always buy something before it went down. Let the hon. Member ask some of the millionaires in the metal market who sit beside him. Do they always buy copper or lead when it is going down? They would not have made the vast sums they have made if that were so. Come off it. It may be Tory philosophy, but it is the practice of a great many millionaires on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Mitchison Mr. Mitchison rose—
    Sir I. Horobin: There is a Guillotine on this discussion. The next point I want to put to the House arises directly out of the point I have been making that the clear, known, straightforward, balanced market cannot be expected to arise in a few months when this Bill becomes law.
    There are two dangers we have to guard against. First, there is the danger
    1080
    of what I may call the eviction in error. My right hon. Friend and many people defending the Bill have frequently said that the real protection is that if owners ask too much they will burn their fingers and have their houses empty.
    There is a great deal in that, but what consolation is it to somebody who has been turned out of a house? Once the market has declared itself we may reasonably hope, and I am sure it will in fact happen, that people will know what is a rent which can be asked and what is a rent which they must expect to pay for similar accommodation, and an arrangement will be reached. But if these unsavoury gentry in fact give a number of evictions, then, even if they eventually burn their fingers, a great many people will have been turned out of their houses who ought not to have been turned out of them. For that reason alone I think the Amendment which we passed in Standing Committee is good.
    There is a second, and to my mind very much greater, danger which we have to guard against. In many cases, we must guard the tenants against themselves. As a result of much of this propaganda which has gone on, with some basis but a great deal of it very exaggerated, there is a danger if we are not careful that many tenants will sign agreements for three years and other periods for rents which later the landlords would have been unable to get. and they will be very sorry that they have signed them. It is partly a result of Socialist and Thanet propaganda that there is a danger of tenants entering into agreements which later they will regret..
    During these discussions, which have been going on for weeks, I have suggested that it might well be worth the Minister's while to consider putting a compulsory break clause in the Fourth Schedule for any of these leases which are signed. I know there are objections to that, but I strongly suggest to the House that in the case of some of the persons who bought property immediately after the introduction of the Bill there is a danger either that they will evict or that they will lead tenants, through fear, into signing agreements which they ought not to sign. The Amendment which we carried in Standing Committee would protect tenants against that, and for that reason I believe it should be allowed to stand..

    1081
    I must deal with two other points which the Minister has used in his argument. He started by talking about innocent transactions. Of course, a great many of these transactions are perfectly innocent in that sense, but I cannot assent to his proposition, nor can I see why hon. Members on either side of the House should assent to it, that owners of property are entitled to feel that they have a grievance if a Bill is amended in the course of being passed through Parliament. The Minister is saying that it is wrong for the hon. Member for Oldham, East in Standing Committee to change a Bill on 20th February, because people may have entered into transactions on 7th November thinking that they would get control of houses. He says it is wrong that on 20th February, while the Bill is going through the House, that provision should be altered. How can that argument be used? Two days earlier, on 18th February, the Minister himself introduced an Amendment telling unfortunate, innocent people who had bought expecting to get decontrol in six months that, in fact, they would have to wait for fifteen months. Why is it wrong and improper forty-eight hours later?.
    The other argument which is put to us is that here we are getting the complication of a peculiar little set of houses contrary to the general rule, and it makes it an untidy Bill. That is the kind of thing Departments always say. It is perfectly true that it is an arbitrary date to some extent. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said he did not understand. I would not stress that but at any rate it is an arbitrary date. But whatever the hon. and learned Member may say on that. the Minister cannot..
    I would invite the House to look at the Sixth Schedule in page 31, of the Bill as introduced by the Minister. This was not an afterthought or a revolt, or a "Jolly Roger" business. This is how it was originally introduced. The Minister put in a provision—I think a very good one—that we should improve the opportunities for owners who wanted to get their own house for their own occupation to get it without proof, in that case, of alternative accommodation..
    I do not want to upset the Minister at this late hour, but I must just read three lines from his own Bill—paragraph 21:
    1082
    "(h)the dwelling-house is reasonable required by the landlord (not being a landlord who has become landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house or any interest therein after the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six) …"
    If it is very wrong to draw a distinction between people who buy after and people who buy before, he is in the dog house with me.
    A third point is surely this. Nobody can go into metaphysics as to whether a purchaser is innocent or guilty. We have to draw a broad distinction. On the one hand, there are some persons, who, without any idea of speculation at all, have become possessed of their property in those three months, and will not, if our Amendment stands, be quite as much better off as they would have been. To that extent they are less better off than are others. On the other hand, we have to balance the possibility that tenants of landlords of the undesirable type whom all of us, including the Minister, do not like, may find themselves either on the street or subject to a long lease which they have signed, under misapprehension, at too high a price. How can anyone seriously balance the two damages that will be done, on the one side and on the other?
    I have taken some time, but I believe that this matter of speculation is important. Of course, if the Government, by hook or by "Brooke"—[HON. MEMBERS: "By crook."]—are deterinmed to get this, nobody, at this late stage, can stop them. I know that we shall be jeered at by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have carried this against the Government upstairs, but there is no point at all on our part to try to force it by voting against the Government. [Interruption.]Well, what will happen? People who have not listened to the debate will come in and it will be "Clear the Lobbies—bring in the dancing girls," and the Minister——
    Mr. Mitchison: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. to refer to hon. Ladies in this House as dancing girls?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that the hon. Member's imagination went too far.
    Sir I. Horobin: I am sorry. I was led away, thinking for a moment that I was Mr. Dulles explaining the American way of life to Ibn Saud.

    1083
    I can only hope that, on the balance of argument, in another place the Government will realise that on this matter they will be very well advised to try to do something. if the Minister does not like our way of doing it, then, I say, it is up to him to find a better way. I am very sorry that he has moved this Amendment, and I hope very much that he will think better of it.
    Sir Harold Webbe: I am afraid that I cannot hope to emulate the boisterous and breezy manner of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin). Indeed, having listened to him, I think that there is every reason why the Chancellor should reconsider the whole question of entertainment tax and put some sort of tax on our debates here.
    I want, if I may, very briefly to make a suggestion. I do not want to traverse or in any detail go into the arguments in favour or against this particular Amendment. I should like for a moment to remind my right hon. Friend of what happened when this Amendment was moved in Committee upstairs. I was not a Member of the Committee, but I have with me the OFFICIAL REPORT of what took place.
    9.15 p.m.
    When the Amendment was introduced, the Minister welcomed it as one with which he had the greatest sympathy, and he expressed himself as entirely in sympathy with its object. He then proceeded to say a great many things about speculators and he showed a fluency of invective of which I, in the years I have known him, had never before suspected him to be capable. He made the point, which he has made again tonight, that the number of speculators is probably much less than many people think, but he did say:
    " I agree with my hon. Friend that the number is very small. but, even so, a few evilly-disposed people can do great damage".
    He went on to express his own concern that something should be done to curb the activities of speculators, however many or few there may be, and said:
    "I certainly assure the Committee that I intend to go into this matter very carefully and to leave nothing undone to secure the objectives which my hon. Friend has in mind and which I believe have the support of the Committee."
    1084
    A little later he said:
    " I am giving this assurance in the strongest possible terms".
    and he said that from his experience at the Treasury he had learned that
    " it was desirable not to explain in too great detail in public what devices are available to those who are seeking to prevent these light-fingered gentlemen from getting round the law Or around public opinion."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th February, 1957; c. 880-1]
    I have looked at the Notice Paper. Apparently, my right hon. Friend feels that his lips are still sealed and he has not yet given any indication of when he will be prepared to open them.
    A little earlier today we had a short debate on a proposed new Clause intended to limit the rents which landlords might demand of their tenants for a short interim period of three years. Quite frankly, I did not like that Clause as it stood, because, as the Minister pointed out, it went far too wide and might be properly effective, perhaps, in such areas as Central London but would have a bad effect in the rest of the country. I therefore voted against that new Clause. The problem of the speculator still remains, and one method of exploitation open to him is the demanding of excessive rents. Coming to consider the Amendment now before us, I believe that the Minister is right to ask that the words which were inserted by the Committee should be withdrawn, because, with him, I consider that the words as they now stand go far too wide and affect too many people.
    The suggestion I should like to put to him in this. Is there not here a possibility for a compromise solution? Would my right hon. Friend consider whether he could, in another place, introduce some provision which would impose a reasonable limitation on rents which a landlord could demand, but apply it simply to the limited class of property to which the Amendment now under discussion relates? We must assume that that class comprises many, if not most, of the speculators whom we all desire to stop.
    If we could have some kind of limit on those speculators, if the figure were reasonably fixed, no serious damage would be done to honest investors in property who fell within the category of short-term owners. No serious damage

    1085
    would be done to them because the limit would not be one which they, if they were serious owners, would want to exceed, but it would certainly be another method of holding up the speculator in preventing him from using the weapon of demanding excessive rents.
    If before the time that the Bill goes to another place my right hon. Friend could consider whether a compromise of that kind could he reached by the insertion of a temporary rent ceiling in respect of this limited group of properties, I believe that it would he appreciated by the public. I believe that it would have some effect, and I do not believe that the objectionable consequences to which my right hon. Friend has referred would follow.
    Mr. Sparks: I want to add a brief word in support of the retention of these words in the Clause. There is validity in some of the arguments which have been advanced from the benches opposite, and it is a development of which the Minister should be aware. In the first place, we all know that in point of law a tenant of a house is not entitled to sublet any part of that house unless he has obtained the consent of the landlord to the subletting. Over the course of time, a good deal of subletting of this kind has taken place, especially in our great cities and towns, in which the tenant has sublet accommodation in the house without the knowledge and the consent of the landlord. We know that these subtenants have no security whatever under the Bill, but there are undoubtedly cases when. at sonic time, the tenant probably had the verbal consent of the landlord to subletting part of the house.
    I am rather amazed at the new development which is taking place. An old lady came to see me in my constituency a few days ago. She is the tenant of a house. In the course of years her family grew up and went away and she sublet part of the house to two other tenants. The house had been sold to a new landlord since 7th November, 1956. Quite recently, the new landlord came to the house and introduced himself. He asked the tenant to let him see the house. She proceeded to let him see it, and obviously had to reveal that there were two subtenants. He said. "But they have no right to be here." The woman said to him, "But they have been here for some
    1086
    years." He replied, "Show me the landlord's consent to the subletting." Obviously, she could not show him any consent, although by custom over a period of time the sub-tenancy arrangement had continued.
    As it happens, the house itself will come out of control under the Bill because it is about £40 rateable value. But if the rateable value were apportioned among the three tenants in the place it would be retained in control. The new landlord has told the tenant that he intends to obtain possession of the house and to sell it. He has told the tenant that he has no right to sublet any part of the house, and the tenant was unable to produce proof that the landlord had at any time given consent to subletting.
    The object of this new form of development is quite clear. In my constituency, where there is a serious shortage of housing accommodation, the object is to acquire a house of that kind at a reasonably low figure and then to dispossess the tenant, because the house goes out of control, and to dispossess the sub-tenants because the mesne tenant is unable to produce proof that the landlord has consented to subletting, and then to take possession of the house. put three families out on the street and sell the house at a higher price than could be obtained for it a few months ago.
    I have an idea that if the words proposed to be left out remain in the Bill some protection will be given to those people who live in the house, because the house has been purchased since 7th November, 1956. and this individual would be one of those who would not be able to benefit by what is obviously a sheer speculation. I am quite satisfied that this sort of thing is going on. It may well gather momentum unless there is some form of protection to tenants and subtenants in similar conditions.
    I hope that the Minister will look into this aspect of the matter. In Committee pressed him to inquire into this very factor, but he has not indicated whether he has done that or what proposal he will submit to the House to protect innocent people who find themselves in a situation in which they are likely to be put out on the street, either because of the custom of subletting in the way I have mentioned, or because the superior or mesne tenant has not proved that the

    1087
    landlord has actually given him consent to sublet. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to allow these words to remain in the Clause, because although they are not a very great protection, they are some measure of protection against the growth of speculation of the kind that I have described.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I hope that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks. I was unable to follow the niceties and complexities of his argument. I want to take up the matter of the Amendment which deals only with the question of houses purchased after 7th November, 1956. The Amendment, unfortunately, is wholly indiscriminate. It covers the good with the bad. It covers the trustee who is buying on behalf of the widow in the same way as it covers the others, but it is quite useful until we have some proper provision against speculation. Every hon. Member has spoken against speculation, but there is no provision in the Bill against it which will have any effect at all, other than that which refers to premiums, and that will have no effect until it be amended later.
    9.30 p.m.
    Before we discuss speculators, we should define what they are. Neither the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) nor the Minister has had a crack at that task. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin), in his engaging if somewhat schizophrenic speech—schizophrenic only because he complained against speculation, but puts down an Amendment which will hit speculators and others equally. and then attacks me for having put down an Amendment which would, in fact, protect one against any speculation, and against excessive rents and which would have the desired effect we all have in mind. However that may be, I think it is important to define what is a speculator. May I suggest that a definition of a speculator is as follows? A speculator is a person who engages in transactions—more than one—for the purpose of gaining unjust enrichment at the expense of tenants. [Laughter.] I am not quite sure whether, so to speak, hon. Gentlemen opposite are laughing with me or against me, but I hope it is not at me, but with me.
    1088
    The principles of the doctrine of unjust enrichment are part of the common law of England, and it is perfectly clear what are the principles of unjust enrichment. It is for the Government to determine when they become unjust, in the light of the circumstances of the case. In fact, if we prescribe such a level of rents as takes no account of the factor of scarcity, so that people can exploit the emotions of other people, we are doing something in the way of providing opportunities for unjust enrichment, and that is speculating in rents.
    Let us examine some cases of speculation for sale. In the case of a speculator, a person who sells at the proper date with possession and in the open market cannot be a speculator on the sale of property, because there is the free play of the market. But if one goes to a woman who has lived for twenty-five years in a particular property, whose children are at the local school and whose friends have been built up in that neighbourhood, and says to that person, "I am going to ask you £2,500 for this property whereas I would only ask £2,200 in the open market; I know you will pay the extra £ 300, because you do not want to move," one is, in fact, inviting unjust enrichment and engaging in speculation.
    Mr. Janner: Is not that precisely what this Bill is doing? It is exactly what the Bill does.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) obviously did not hear the observations which I made earlier this afternoon, and the suggestion which I put forward to prevent this type of speculation, either by way of limitation of excessive rent or premiums or by giving an option to the sitting tenant to purchase.
    What I am saying is that if the hon. Gentleman is sincere, and I presume that he is sincere in his desire to stop speculation, and if we are, in fact, to stop speculation, we must stop it both in selling and in letting, in premiums and in excessive rents, and also deal with it in the question of sale by providing that the tenant has a chance to buy. If we do that in these three fields, we shall prevent speculation; otherwise, we shall not do so.

    1089
    May I now give examples in relation to this Amendment? Although I am attracted to the idea behind it, I think that, in fact, it is completely impracticable. Let me take two examples. Malvern Court, Chelsea, was bought by the Glass Bros. last October or November, and they asked a £7,000 premium, with the offer of a lease to be taken up for sixty years. They are also asking for high rentals, well over double what they were previously.
    This Amendment will not cover them because the cleverest of the speculators bought twelve to fifteen months ago in London. They have not been buying since the Bill was published. They have been waiting to see its effects. I assure the House that they have not been buying very much since some of us made speeches in the Second Reading debate, because they recognised that there was a great deal of feeling against them on both sides of the House. They have been waiting. Therefore the speculator was either the person who bought earlier or he will be the man who will start after the Act comes into effect.
    Now I will take the case, a shocking one, of Park West, Edgware Road, a block of flats near the Marble Arch. I have the facts from an estate agent concerned in the matter. There are 650 tenants at Park West and all of them will receive notice to quit. The intention is to convert the flats into service suites, all furnished. The present rentals are £200 to £300 a year unfurnished, and for a two-room service suite furnished a price of £37 a week is to be asked. It is no good people saying that this Amendment will cover that type of person. I suggest that something has to be thought of before the Bill becomes law to stop that type of unjust enrichment.
    I am not contending that any of the Amendments which I or my hon. Friends have put down are perfect. It would be intolerable for anyone to suggest that any specific Amendment is perfect in housing matters of this kind. They all represent the lesser of two evils, but, one way or another, it seems to me that such a type of person must be stopped. I say frankly that this Amendment may have played some part in stopping what has been going on. That is entirely in accord with what the Minister has said
    1090
    on this matter, namely, that there has not been a lot of speculation since the Bill was published up to the present time. However, at some stage, and somehow, these people must be stopped. They will not have a very long run once the market settles down. We hope that tenants will listen to professional advice and will not be stampeded by landlords. The fact that this Bill is going through, and the views which have been expressed, may well stop tenants from being stampeded. Nevertheless it would appear that somehow there ought to be some quid pro quo for the removal of the Amendment.
    The Minister said it must have been a sharp and salutary shock for the speculators when the Amendment was carried, and that they must have had an unfortunate afternoon. I think they must have done, but the cleverer ones knew quite well that it would be reversed here. They said so. They knew it would be reversed for a very good reason. They knew that the Minister has a good knowledge of housing and knew that the Amendment was unsatisfactory. To be frank, so did all the hon. Gentlemen on those 'benches opposite know it was unsatisfactory. They knew very well that it was not the way to do it. Therefore, we have to find another way.
    I can see that in the light of what has been said this afternoon we must find a way. I hope that in another place, where there are men with considerable knowledge of the property world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are agreeing."]—I know, but, after all, some landlords and their professional advisers are not averse to safeguards and Amendments. For a very good reason, too. We often talk here about the bad landlord. He represents less than 10 per cent. of all the landlords, and about 90 per cent. of the property of this country is in the hands of the great companies, such as the Prudential and others, whose standards are of the highest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, and these good landlords recognise that it is the bad landlord who is giving a thoroughly bad name to the profession. If it means losing a little money from their point of view for a short term to create conditions of stability, it is my judgment that these landlords are prepared to forgo

    1091
    that money for the sake of stability in the long run, for they are in the market for their lives, for the future and for the stability of their companies.
    In conclusion, I would make this plea. I hope that before the Bill takes effect some further safeguards will be provided by way of graduated rents, or a control on the ceiling of rents, and also a control on the option to purchase. Then I believe we shall be able effectively to prevent the type of unjust enrichment which, I believe, defines what is meant by a "speculator."
    Mr. Blenkinsop: We cannot let the Amendment go without asking the Minister to reply to the very strong speeches which have been made from both sides of the House. We are suffering under the Guillotine, which prevents free discussion of the matter, but on this subject we have had expressions of concern from all who have spoken. There is doubt about the value of the Amendment carried in Committee and general agreement that there must be revision of the Measure before it becomes an Act.
    If there were an honest free vote and hon. Members opposite could express their views, or had the courage to do so, there is no doubt that the Bill would have
    to be altered, whether the Minister liked it or not. Will he, therefore, at least let us know what Amendments he proposes to meet the case put by all his hon. Friends who have spoken?
    Mr. H. Brooke: Naturally, I shall give attention to everything that is said in the House, as I did to everything that was said in Committee. The fruits of that attention are seen in a large number of Amendments in my name on the Order Paper.
    However, at the moment we are addressing ourselves to an Amendment I have moved to delete some words inserted against my advice in Committee, which, if they remained in the Bill, would do a grave injustice to a considerable number of innocent people. It is contrary to my principles and philosophy to advise Parliament to do harm to innocent people, and it is because I believe that the Bill will do great good without these words that I must urge the House to accept the Amendment.
    Question put That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 268

    Division No. 85.]

    AYES

    [9.42 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Grimond, J

    Albu, A. H

    Cove, W. G

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hamilton, W. W

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Hannan, W

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hastings, S

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H,

    Hayman, F. H.

    Baird, J.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Healey, Denis

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

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

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Herbison, Miss M

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

    Deer, G

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Benson, G.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Holman, P.

    Beswick, Frank

    Delargy, H. J.

    Holmes, Horace

    Blackburn, F,

    Dodds, N. N

    Holt, A. F.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Donnelly, D. L

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Blyton, W. R

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

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Boardman, H.

    Dye, S.

    Hoy, J. H.

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

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hubbard, T. F

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Edelman, M.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bowles, F. G

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Boyd, T. C

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Brockway, A, F.

    Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Burke, W. A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Burton, Miss F. E

    Fernyhough, E

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Fienburgh, W

    Janner, B.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Finch, H. J.

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

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Carmichael, J.

    Forman, J. C

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

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Champion, A. J

    Gibson, C. W.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Chapman, W. D

    Gooch, E. G

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Coldrick, W

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Grey, C. F

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Owen, W. J.

    Stonehouse, J. T.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Padley, W. E.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Ledger, R. J.

    Paget, R. T.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

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

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Parker, J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Parkin, B. T.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Paton, John

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Peart, T. F.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Pentland, N.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Thornton, E.

    McGovern, J.

    Popplewell, E.

    Timmons, J.

    Mctinnes, J.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Probert, A. R.

    Wade, D. W.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Mahon, Simon

    Randall, H. E.

    Weitxman, D.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Rankin, John

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Reeves, J.

    West, D. G.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Reld, William

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Mason, Roy

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wigg, George

    Mellish, R. J.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ross, William

    Willey, Frederick

    Monslow, W.

    Royle, C.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Moody, A. S.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

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

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Moss, R.

    Skeffington, A.M.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Moyle, A.

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

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Woof, R. E.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    O'Brien, Sir Thomas

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Zilliacus, K.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Orbach, M.

    Steele, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Oswald, T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Browne, J Nixon (Craigton)

    Fort, R.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Freeth, Dezil

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Carr, Robert

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Godber, J. B.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Goodhart, P. C.

    Ashton, H.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Gower, H. R.

    Astor, Hon. J, J.

    Cooke, Robert

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Atkins, H. E.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Green, A.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Balniel, Lord

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Grimston, sir Robert (Westbury)

    Barter, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col- R. G.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Gurden, Harold

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Davidson, viscountess

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Black, C. W.

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

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Body, R. F.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hay, John

    Boothby, Sir Robert

    Duthie, W. S.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

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

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

    Elliott, R. W.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Braine, B. R.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fell, A.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hill, John (S Norfolk)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    1094

    1095

    Hobson, J. G. S.(War'ck & Leam'gtn)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Robert, Sir Peter (Hesley)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Hope, Lord John

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Maddan, Martin

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Russell, R. S.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Sharples, R. C.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Mathew, R.

    Shepherd, William

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Maude, Angus

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

    Mawby, R. L.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

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

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Speir, R. M.

    Hyiton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Jennings, J C. (Burton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Neave, Airey

    Storey, S.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, D.

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

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Keegan, D.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Temple, John M.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Kershaw, J. A.

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Kimball, M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

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

    Kirk, P. M.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thornton-Kemsloy, C. N.

    Lagden, G. W.

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

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

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

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Osborne, C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Leavey, J. A.

    Partridge, E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. D. C.

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

    Pott, H. P.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

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

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Raikes. Sir Victor

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Redmayne, M.

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan.

    Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment I propose to select is that in page 8, line 44, at the end to insert:
    "and the tenant of which was not then over pensionable age".
    Mr. Mitchison: This and the next two Amendments on the Order Paper, in page 8, line 44, at the end to insert:
    Provided that—

    (a) where under this subsection a dwelling-house becomes decontrolled a statutory tenant who was in possession of such dwelling-house for a period of one year or more immediately prior to the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, may serve upon the landlord a notice requiring the landlord to grant a tenant a lease of not less than three years at a rent to be agreed; and, failing agreement, either party may apply to the county court to determine a reasonable rent, hereinafter called the new rent; and

    1096

    (b) upon such new rent being determined by agreement or otherwise the landlord shall grant a lease (which except as to rent shall be upon the pre-existing terms and conditions) to such tenant if required to do so by the tenant and in the event of his failing or refusing to grant such lease the landlord shall not be entitled to recover possession of the said dwelling-house until after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act so long as the tenant pays the new rent and observes the other terms and conditions of the tenancy.

    and in page 8, line 44, at the end to insert:
    Provided that—

    (a) where under this subsection a dwelling-house becomes decontrolled a statutory tenant who was in possession of such dwelling-house for a period of one year or more immediately prior to the seventh day, of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six. may serve upon the landlord a notice requiring the landlord to grant to the tenant

    1097
    a lease of not less than three years at a rent to be agreed; and, failing agreement either party may apply to the tribunal to determine a reasonable rent, hereinafter called the new rent; and

    (b) upon such new rent being determined by agreement or otherwise the landlord shall grant a lease (which except as to rent shall be upon the pre-existing terms and conditions) to such tenant if required to do so by the tenant and in the event of his failing or refusing to grant such lease the landlord shall not be entitled to recover possession of the said dwelling-house until after the expiration of three years from the passing of this Act so long as the tenant pays the new rent and observes the other terms and conditions of the tenancy.

    were not discussed in Committee because of the Guillotine and, having regard to the Guillotine and subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper, and only for that reason, we do not propose to move them.
    Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, at the end to insert:
    Provided that, for the purpose of this subsection, the Urban District of Hornchurch and the Borough of Romford shall be deemed to be included in the Metropolitan Police District.
    The effect of this Amendment will be to bring into the scope of the Clause the Borough of Romford and the Urban District of Hornchurch and make them as the Metropolitan Police District. Those of us who are familiar with the Metropolitan Police District sometimes look upon it as merely the area of Central London and its immediate neighbourhood, but in point of fact the Metropolitan Police District stretches very far wide of Central London and the particular district which is covered by K Division takes in places such as Ilford, Barking, Dagenham and Chadwell Heath and goes right to the borders of the Borough of Ilford and the Urban District of Hornchurch.
    The Borough of Ilford has some 85,000 people and the Urban District of Horn-church has 115,000 people. I hope that the Minister has made inquiries. Perhaps I may reasonably hope that he visited this area. If he has, I challenge him to say where the Metropolitan Police District starts and finishes. If this Amendment be not accepted the position will be that neighbours conversing with each other over their garden fences on a Sunday morning will find that one man can say, "I am a Londoner, and the
    1098
    amount of the rate-able value which affects me is £40," while his next-door neighbour will be able to say, "For the purposes of this Bill I am a provincial, and for me the amount is £30." That is an obvious injustice which I do not think even the Minister can explain away.
    I hope my right hon. Friend will not tell me that the matter is dealt with in this way because it is a neat and tidy way of doing it. I think he should pay more regard to the effect which it is likely to have on this tremendous number of people and a little less regard to the neat, tidy and convenient way which his Department would like to deal with the matter. I was very glad to hear the Minister say, "I am anxious to avoid injustice to honest persons." I am presenting him with an opportunity to be just to nearly 200,000 persons. This is a question of expediency versus justice, and I hope I may be confident that my right hon. Friend will come down on the side of justice at the expense of expediency.
    If we contemplate some of the other divisions in the Metropolitan Police District, we find that nowhere does the same set of circumstances apply which applies in the K Division. Nowhere are there such tremendous numbers of the population which actually meet, street by street, and house by house, with populations in the Metropolitan Police District. For instance, if we take the S Division, we will find that just inside is Potters Bar and Radlett and just outside is Smug Oak. In the B Division West Moseley is just inside and Esher outside, with four divisions of country between the two.
    If the Minister, when looking at this matter, is attracted by attractive names, he will find that in the P Division Farnborough is just inside while Pratts Bottom is just outside. I wish to do no injustice to Pratts Bottom, but I wish to do justice to Hornchurch and Romford. In case my right hon. Friend should think this only a small matter, I can assure him that the 200,000 people in those two very large areas will be saying tonight, or tomorrow morning, "I wonder whether the Minister was really sincere when he said, 'I am anxious to avoid injustice to honest persons.'" These are honest persons and they look to the Minister to do justice in this case and to accept the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: I am reminded of one of my hon. Friends who represents a Scottish constituency and who, during the discussions on a Scottish poaching Bill, sought on every possible occasion to exclude the River Tweed. This is a magnificent constituency Amendment. I rise to put my nose into the affairs of these two places only because I find the motive for the Amendment extremely interesting. I have been sitting here throughout the day watching the splits in the Tory Party. They run in every possible direction. We have the Oldham mutineers and the Margate mutineers, and here we have a separate and highly individual effort on behalf of the constituency of the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Lagden). What he is anxious to do is to remedy injustice, and what is so interesting about the matter is what he considers to be injustice. He considers it unjust that people living in the neighbourhood of London in houses which have rate-able values between £30 and £40, should find those houses decontrolled.
    He considers that to be an injustice because he looks at the question from the point of view of his constituents. For the people living in his constituency decontrol is a wicked and unjust thing, and it is in order to remedy that injustice that he requires part or the whole of his constituency to be deemed to be part of the Metropolitan Police District.
    Mr. Lagden: I should like to inform the hon. and learned Member—although I should have thought that he would have known this—that the Borough of Romford is not in my constituency; it is represented by one of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Mitchison: I quite agree, but what interests me is the hon. Member's advocacy on behalf of his own constituency, and his reasons for it. I find it very fascinating. It comes to this: the hon. Member considers it an injustice to his constituents that the Bill should deconrol those houses in his constituency with a rate-able value of more than £30. He wants to extend the decontrol limit to one of £40 rate-able value.
    That was the whole burden of his speech. How an hon. Member who holds
    1100
    those views of decontrol can possibly support this part of the Bill passes my understanding. For that matter, it passes my understanding how the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) could really say that he was in favour of the Bill and then demonstrate with such particularity and eloquence the enormous amount of harm that would be done by it, by giving examples from one part of London and another.
    The demoralisation on the benches opposite is growing to a degree which begins to interest us all. Is there a single right hon. or hon. Member opposite—except the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary—who is really in favour of the Bill, or in favour of all of it? Or is it the case that hon. Members opposite are all in favour of some little bit, but would like exceptions made and, like the hon. Member for Horn-church, would like it to apply to the rest of England but not to Hornchurch, or the rest of England but not to the Isle of Thanet, or the rest of England but not to this or that other marginal constituency held by a Tory Member on the outskirts of London or anywhere else?
    It is fascinating to watch the spread of this demoralisation; the splits growing and widening; the number of factions opposite getting larger and larger; the efficacy of the Government slowly fading away, and the Minister being pushed over first in one direction and then in another by his professed supporters. I hope that he will learn a lesson from this small and innocent Amendment and do the honest and thorough thing—withdraw the the Bill.
    Sir Victor Raikes (Liverpool, Garston): In view of the taunt which has been made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that this is merely a constituency matter, I as the Member for the Garston Division of Liverpool rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) on this Amendment.
    I think I am entitled to give my reason why I support the Amendment. I know a little of the County of Essex. When one gets to the Romford and Hornchurch area one is just approaching the Green Belt. Supposing the area which my hon. Friend was referring to was the other side of the Green Belt, it might be said

    1101
    that the whole of it should be considered outside the Metropolitan area, but that is not so. Probably the Minister has a map before him, but certainly the hon. and learned Member for Kettering had no map in front of him, as was plain from his speech.
    Sir Robert Boothby: He would not have been able to read it.
    Sir V. Raikes: He may have been able to read it as one can read anything, but I do not think he did. The Metropolitan area spreads out. Here we have an area on the border of the Green Belt, partly in and partly out of the Green Belt. If it were outside the Belt there would be no complaint at all, but looking at the map of Metropolitan London, I challenge my right hon. Friend to say that Rom-ford and Hornchurch are not an absolute mess, which in fact they are.
    Mr. Lagden: Much as I appreciate the attempt of my hon. Friend to support me, I must disagree with him when he says that Hornchurch is a mess.
    Sir V. Raikes: I apologise most deeply to my hon. Friend if I suggested that Hornchurch was a mess. It was until my hon. Friend was returned for the constituency. I must not say more, although I should like to. It is what we might call a territorial mess from the point of view of the Metropolitan area. Every Ministry hates making any change. It is not a question of tidiness. I disagree with my hon. Friend over tidiness. It is vilely untidy, but every civil servant hates to see his own tidiness tidied up when it becomes untidy. With the growth of population and e Green Belt it has become incredibly untidy. The tidy way of dealing with this matter would be to make the Green Belt the demarcation area. Then no one could complain.
    Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Member give the House the benefit of his views as to why he wants this particular district to have a £40 limit, whereas his own constituency should have only a £30 limit? What is it all about? The Minister said that decontrol is a wonderful thing; does the hon. Member say it is not?
    Sir V. Raikes: I am much too old to he caught out by that sort of thing. The
    1102
    answer is very simple. If Romford and Hornchurch were the other side of the Green Belt, they should be treated as being outside the Metropolitan district. As they are inside the Green Belt, in my view they should be treated as being within the Metropolitan area, irrespective whether the limit is £30 or £40. The latter point does not affect me. I am talking in terms of tidiness. I am glad the hon. Member realises that I cannot be caught out with that sort of catch question.
    Mr. H. Brooke: First of all, I suggest that the House should set aside all these arguments about the alleged tidiness of the civil servants and the alleged messiness of Hornchurch. Neither of those is a true bill, and I certainly wish to defend the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) against any such dastardly allegations.
    I assure him that Romford and Horn-church are not wholly unfamiliar to me. Of course, I have not his intimate knowledge of all the physical quarters of his constituency which he described, but I have some understanding of the map and the relation of his constituency and the Borough of Romford to the Metropolitan Police District and to the Green Belt. I understand and sympathise with his motives in moving the Amendment, although I am afraid that I must disappoint him by saying that I cannot advise the House to accept it.
    The fact is that ever since the original Rent Act in 1915, there has always been a separate rate-able value limit for the Metropolitan Police District. That is not because civil servants wish to be tidy, but because Parliament in its wisdom has always felt certain that there should be definite and known demarcation lines with no uncertainty or dubiety about them, and the Metropolitan Police Area has always been taken for the purposes of the Rent Acts as it stood at the time when the legislation was introduced.
    My hon. Friend is suggesting that we should deem the area to be extended to include one particular fringe area. I am saying nothing derogatory of his constituency, but I think that is the most accurate way in which I can describe the plea which he is making to me. He will correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the Metropolitan Police District boundary does not run through

    1103
    his constituency or through the Borough of Romford but to the west of them. The plea which he is making to me and to the House is that the Green Belt would be a better boundary for Rent Acts purposes than the long-established boundary of the Metropolitan Police District.
    The facts are that the greater part of Hornchurch and almost the whole of the Borough of Romford are within the Green Belt, and if one made the boundary for Rent Act purposes the inner edge of the Green Belt, one would have the situation in which most of his constituency and almost all the Borough of Romford were in the provincial area for Rent Act purposes whereas South Hornchurch and Rainham, and possibly some other small areas, would be within what is classed as the London district for Rent Act purposes. My hon. Friend does not want that. By his Amendment he wants the whole of the urban district of Hornchurch and the whole of the Borough of Romford to be brought within the area. I must ask myself, if I were to recommend Parliament to do that, what consequential action we should have to take. I am sure that he has given attention to this, too, because it is such an obvious point.
    10.15 p.m.
    Clearly, we must look all round London to see if there are other areas where a similar case could be made. I have tried to do that, and, undoubtedly, there are places like Watford and Dartford—and, I have no doubt, others—where a similar case could be made. I give my hon. Friend the greatest credit for having been the hon. Member who has brought to the attention of the House the particular case for his own constituency, but if he were to rest his case on the Green Belt argument, I think that he would be creating more difficulties than he would solve, because we would have a new dividing line which would, in fact, cut through both these local authority areas.
    I am sure I carry the whole House with me when I say that whole districts have to be taken for the purpose of certainty. Therefore, one cannot take the Green Belt dividing line. One must either stick to the Metropolitan Police District area, with all the criticisms that may be brought against that, or one must
    1104
    extend it—as it were, bulge it out in this direction or in that—in order to include a further built-up area which has developed on the fringe, just outside the district. The Metropolitan Police District area, having stood for these forty-two years as the dividing line, and having got that very important degree of certainty, I could not advise the House to make an alteration in it tonight.
    I know that, whatever boundary one takes, one will have anomalies. One is so familiar with it in the county boundaries. My own constituency is on the edge of the County of London. One walks along the road and finds oneself, unknowingly, having walked into the County of Middlesex. That may make no difference so far as the Rent Acts are concerned, but there may be anomalies in other spheres. I fear we cannot make this land of ours so tidy that one can draw with absolute certainty demarcation lines that will avoid all anomalies. In my view, were we to depart from the Metropolitan Police District boundary we should do more harm than good.
    Mr. Janner: Before the Minister sits down, would he take the opportunity of explaining to his hon. Friends that, after all, it does not really matter? I think that the Minister will be able to explain that it is much better that the district should have decontrol at a rateable value of £30 instead of £40, because the Rent Acts are an iniquitous system of rent control. Perhaps the Minister will explain that his hon. Friend ought not to press the matter, because it is much better for his district that the control should be at the rate of £30 and not £40.
    Mr. Brooke: I am asking my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, and I hold to what I said before, that, over the years, the Rent Acts have proved an iniquitous system of rent control. But what I am arguing is that it is desirable that there should be certainty in these matters.
    I am arguing that it is impossible to avoid all anomalies, and I am suggesting to my hon. Friend, with great respect—and with all honour to him for the way in which he has put up a constituency point—that we should, as a Parliament, be doing more harm than good if, at this stage, we were to seek to adjust the demarcation line for Rent Act purposes.

    1105
    I am well aware that my hon. Friend is arguing that his constituency and the Borough of Romford are parts of the built-up area of London rather than parts of the rural County of Essex. That may well be so. Nevertheless, I must ask the House to lay down a definite line, and I do not think that we shall get a more definite line than the Metropolitan Police District boundary.
    Mr. Lagden: Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in line 10, at the end to insert:
    " or where an exchange tenancy is created and registered in accordance with the Schedule (Exchange Tenancies) to this Act."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the new Schedule concerning exchange of tenancies.
    Mr. Mitchison: Would it also be convenient if we could discuss the next following Amendment in line 10, at the end to insert:
    " or where an exchange tenancy is created and registered in accordance with the Schedule (Exchange of Tenancies) to this Act."
    and the Schedule appertaining thereto? They are very closely related.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think that would be for the convenience of the House.
    Mr. Mitchison: It is really rather remarkable that Amendments about exchanges of tenancies should not have been introduced into the Bill at a far earlier stage by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have listened very carefully to the case which has, from time to time, been made for the Bill from the benches opposite, not only by the right hon. Gentleman but by his supporters. It has really been based, as far as I can understand, on two points only, the first being that landlords are entitled as of right, by Act of Parliament, to a certain return on their property if kept intact or maintained. I say nothing about that at the moment, because this Amendment is not concerned with it. I would only make it quite clear that it seems to us on this side the most complete nonsense, and
    1106
    philosophically, politically and morally entirely wrong.
    There is another matter which has some validity in it. It is pointed out that the census of 1951 showed a considerable degree of under-occupation in the country. It is further pointed out that there is ground for supposing that some, at any rate, of that is still there. One is faced, therefore, with a situation where there are, on the one hand, houses which are under-occupied and, on the other hand, houses which are over-occupied, often being overcrowded. When this was put forward on Second Reading as a reason in favour of the Bill, I took the opportunity of saying at once, in reply to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Parliamentary Secretary as he then was, that the right remedy for that situation is exchanges, and I went a little into the history of it.
    The right hon. Gentleman is particularly qualified to consider this matter, for he was the Chairman of the Central Housing Advisory Committee when it reported on transfers, exchanges and rents. That Committee pointed out, quite rightly, that a very great deal can be done to help the housing situation by transfers and, even more, by exchanges. In the course of the passage of what is now the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, there was from our side an Amendment moved to facilitate exchanges and empower local authorities to take action, into which I need not go now. When I refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the Committee, I find that the right hon. Gentleman himself, on 16th March, 1954, rose to speak and began by saying:
    "Having spent a considerable part of the last 18 months in studying related questions to this, I can claim to be as keen as any Member of the Committee on facilitating exchanges, because I am one of those who believe that a very large contribution can be made by extending the system of exchanges towards securing fuller use of the housing accommodation that we have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, , 16th March, 1954; c. 988–9.]
    That has been substantially the only point that I could appreciate urged in favour of the present Bill by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman then took exception to the method in the particular Amendment, but we are not concerned with that today.

    1107
    That being the position, let us take it just one stage further. The next result was that the Amendment was refused by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister. The next stage was that the present Prime Minister attempted by a circular to impose transfers and exchanges rather more on local authorities. I take no objection whatever to that. The difficulty about the matter was that while he suggested that to local authorities, much of what was proposed depended upon consultation and agreement with private landlords. That consultation and agreement seem to have been quite ineffective, for nothing whatever has been heard of the matter—at least, nothing has been published—since Circular No. 68 of 1954 followed on the Amendment moved by us in Committee.
    Then I come to the right hon. Gentleman's party political broadcast on 14th of this month, in which, again to cut the matter quite short, the case he made for the Bill, apart from the landlord's supposed right to have a certain return on his investment, depended so far as I could see solely on the question of under-occupation and the desirability of exchanges.
    The next question is, if so much depends on exchanges, what is to be the effect of the Bill, and particularly of the subsection which we are discussing, on exchanges? The subsection provides that if a new tenancy is created, there is to be decontrol. The Rent Acts are not to apply and the obvious consequence will be that in most cases, given the present housing situation, the landlord will ask for a very much higher rent. That is perfectly obvious. It must have been obvious to the right hon. Gentleman all along and yet it has been left to us, at the very last moment, to introduce proposals to meet that difficulty.
    I want to emphasise once more the effect of the Bill as it stands on the object which the right hon. Gentleman himself seeks to attain and which he puts forward, quite illogically, as one at least of the main grounds for the Bill. It is perfectly clear that if there is to be decontrol on a new tenancy, the tenant who is in the house will not agree to it except for some very special reason, for it is obvious that he would have to pay a higher rent.
    1108
    Let us take the most obvious case of a desirable exchange. Take the old people, whom on Second Reading, with the support of at least some hon. Members opposite, I took as a typical instance —the old couple who, having brought up a large family, have been left in a house which, as matters now are, is too large for them, where they have, in short, more rooms than they need. Take that old couple, on the one side, and, on the other side, younger people who are rearing a family and without sufficient room for their young folk. We ask the old folk to move out of the house, and the first consequence is——
    It being half-past Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

EMPIRE TOBACCO (IMPORTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
10.31 p.m.
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I wish to raise with the Minister of State, Board of Trade, and to bring to the notice of the House a matter which has from time to time excited the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is the question whether it is desirable, in the first place, and possible, in the second place, to increase the percentage of the non-dollar and Commonwealth tobacco in the import quotas of tobacco imported into this country. That is probably something we should like to do if it is at all possible. Moreover—and this will certainly commend itself to my right hon. and learned Friend—it is a proposition which will not cost the Treasury anything, but rather the reverse —it may well save the Treasury a little money and so help the Treasury in certain difficulties.
Can we, in the first place, and should we, in the second place, use more non-dollar tobacco at the expense of dollar tobacco imported into this country? Were we maintaining in our smokes the percentage of dollar tobacco that we were maintaining in 1938 it would, I am told, be costing us an additional 50 million

1109
dollars a year. I have made some calculations, and they may be wrong, but if these figures be true, as I am assured by tobacco companies they are, then were we to maintain the same percentage of dollar tobacco in our smokes as we did in 1947 it would cost us about 150 million dollars to do so.
The last Parliamentary word on this question, as far as I can trace, was said on 12th February, when I asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend would consult the manufacturers to see whether it was possible for them to use more Empire tobacco, and my right hon. and learned Friend, who is to reply to the debate tonight, said:
"Officials have discussed with manufacturers the possibility of using more sterling area tobacco. I understand that the manufacturers' fear is not so much directed to the impact on individual concerns as that their total sales would fall. We are. of course, considering this question in the general context of the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 1074.]
I am fascinated by that last sentence.
There are in this business three parties, the Government, the growers and the tobacco manufacturers in this country. All these three parties have not necessarily conflicting interests. In many important respects their interests are the same.
Let us consider, first, the manufacturers' arguments and their fears. The manufacturers state that they have taken and will continue to take as much first grade Empire tobacco as they can get—with one proviso. It is an important proviso, and it is this. It is the manufacturers' view that the point will be reached —I do not know that they are prepared to say exactly where—at which what they call the essential character of the cigarette or tobacco, the Virginia character—the sweet Virginia character, I am told it is—will be changed, and that then the whole smoking habits of the British people will be changed. I shall say a little more about that, which one may call the critical point, later.
What are the arguments of the tobacco growers? They, of course, use, as it is quite logical they should because it suits their purpose as well as the Treasury's purpose, the argument of the dollar saving which I have already mentioned.
They also use the argument which would naturally appeal to each one of us in this House—what one might call
1110
the Imperial argument—that such increases in the Imperial rate are to the advantage of the Commonwealth and Empire, from the point of view both of this country and of the Empire country concerned. But they also have serious fears about the intentions of the United Kingdom. For example, on 7th February the President of the Board of Trade said:
"I am ready to look at this matter, but, as I understand it, the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt)—that a change in the proportion of American tobacco might have very serious effects upon the cigarette industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 590.]
Phrases like that, even if not calculated to do so, certainly have the effect of raising some fears and doubts in the minds of the growers and create an air of contentment in this country as to the present tobacco situation.
It is further said that, although it is factually correct, it is quite wrong of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to state that pretty well all the good quality tobacco from Rhodesia is now bought. It is factually correct, but the implication is incorrect because what has happened is that in Rhodesia steps are being taken to reduce the crop of tobacco rather than to increase it as we all wish to see.
Lord Malvern made a suggestion to my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was at the Board of Trade, namely, that the ratio of 61 per cent. dollar tobacco as against 39 per cent. Imperial tobacco should be changed. Had my right hon. Friend been able to accede to that request, I think we could have made a great step forward.
It is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to state the Government's view, which, as I understand it, roughly speaking, is that, all things being equal, they would like to see a greater percentage of non-dollar tobacco used in this country provided that they themselves are not asked to interfere too much in the matter. Secondly, they would say that they are precluded from taking a straightforward tariff discrimination by the operation of G.A.T.T. Thirdly, they would say that, as tobacco is brought into this country on private

1111
account, it is not in the first instance a matter for Her Majesty's Government.
What of the interests, as opposed to the arguments, of the manufacturers with regard to dollar tobacco? First, they are not responsible for our dollar reserves, and one must accept that. It is no part of their responsibility to husband dollar resources in this country. It is their job to produce the best type of cigarette or tobacco, and the type which more and more people will buy. They want to get that tobacco at the lowest possible cost. I think that the tobacco companies have behaved perfectly properly in this matter, and it is not for them to initiate any action.
I should like to make some suggestions to my hon. and learned Friend. In this question of tobacco one has to use the average of cigarettes, pipe tobacco and cigar tobacco generally. Since 1947, the percentage of dollar tobacco used in this country has gone down from 87½ per cent. to 60½ per cent. That was a direct result of an arrangement whereby, I think in the time of the Labour Government, a maximum of 61 per cent. of dollar tobacco should be used in this country. It is worth noting in that context that that percentage has been adhered to consistently ever since it was imposed. It is to be noted, therefore, that the percentage of American tobacco was 61 per cent. in 1953 and 60½ per cent. in 1956, and that the current rate is 60½ per cent. My hon. and learned Friend may have different figures, but those are the best figures that I can obtain.
They indicate to me that the 61 per cent. is at the moment the limit that the Government have set up and one beyond which the tobacco companies are not prepared to go unless some other form of action is taken or an inducement is brought to bear upon them. They are quite obviously not prepared to go it alone as individual companies when there is a risk that their competitors might not do the same. It is said, though I do not believe it is true, that the Government have an unhealthy interest in maintaining high sales of tobacco at whatever cost. One gets a morbid vision of rows of Scrooges sitting on the Front Bench and raking in the shekels, whatever the result. They have this interest, it is said, because
1112
of the immense effect of tobacco sales on the Revenue.
I have mentioned the critical point which the tobacco manufacturers fear. They fear that at some point, which they are not able to specify, the whole of the great British public will cease smoking tobacco because the essential character of the cigarette has changed. I do not think that will happen with a public which has been undeterred by the sudden imposition of the taxation which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) put on when he said that he was imposing an extra 1s. to bring down the amount of cigarette smoking in the country. The public has seen that the Commonwealth tobacco content has been increased, and that the dollar tobacco content has been reduced from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. The British Medical Association has told people that if they smoke cigarettes they will kill themselves with lung cancer and still, year after year. they smoke more. I cannot believe, therefore, that at the point when a little more Rhodesian tobacco is put into cigarettes the great British public will throw them away and give up the smoking habit altogether.
I should like the Government to consult with the trade to see whether it is not possible, bearing in mind the difficulties of cultivation and storage in Rhodesia where the industry is still growing, to increase the quantity of Commonwealth tobacco, by agreement with the manufacturers in this country, by 1½ per cent. or 2 per cent. at varying periods. Those are amounts which I am sure nobody would notice. There is, however, the valid argument that the quality of Rhodesian tobacco has fallen. Therefore, as a second suggestion, the Government might be asked, in order to induce the Rhodesian or Commonwealth growers to grow a better quality, to encourage a higher percentage of better quality tobacco at the expense of a lower percentage of poorer quality. Good Rhodesian tobacco at its best is second to none in the world, and bad Rhodesian tobacco can be really bad.
Like many others, I hope, I myself smoke Empire tobacco. One gets a certain amount of smug satisfaction, within certain limits, that one is doing the right sort of thing. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to say that he will look at the whole question again, that

1113
there is no sense of contentment on the part of the Government, and that he will try to help in this matter which has such an immense psychological and sentimental appeal not only to us in this House, but to the vast majority of people in the country.
10.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) has correctly said that this is a subject which has excited a good deal of Parliamentary attention in recent months. In fact, there was an Adjournment debate on this subject shortly before Christmas, and between that debate and this a large number of Parliamentary Questions have been asked, some of them by my hon. Friend himself. But it would be quite wrong to draw from that the inference that this is in any way a deteriorating situation. In fact, if the situation is seen in perspective, I believe the reverse to be true.
My hon. Friend quoted early in his argument the 1938 figures of Commonwealth tobacco. In 1938, the Commonwealth percentage of all types of tobacco —I am using here the figures of clearances from bond for home consumption—was 24. By 1945 it was down to 20½ per cent., but by 1952 it had gone up to 45 per cent., and in 1956 it was no less than 48 per cent. That 48 per cent. was Commonwealth tobacco.
My hon. Friend rather tended to use the terms "Commonwealth tobacco" and "non-dollar tobacco" as if they were interchangeable. That is, of course, a misapprehension which is rather common in this controversy. It is not in any sense a straight issue between United States tobacco and Rhodesian tobacco. Commonwealth tobacco consists, for this purpose, of Rhodesian, Indian and Canadian tobacco, and Canada is part of the dollar area.
The trend of the dollar percentage compared with the Rhodesian percentage shows that in 1938 the dollar percentage was 87½, as I think my hon. Friend said, and the Rhodesian was only 7½. By 1956, the dollar percentage was 60½ and the Rhodesian percentage had gone right up to 22. I submit that, in perspective, this is a situation which is moving in the way which I understand my hon. Friend would want.
1114
This advance has proceeded with the aid of two agreements or arrangements. My hon. Friend said that the Government had set the limit of 61 per cent. There is a voluntary arrangement with the United Kingdom manufacturers whereby they restrict their usings of light flue-cured tobacco from dollar sources for home trade cigarettes to 61 per cent. Again, that 61 per cent. contains two elements—50 per cent. United States and 11 per cent. Canadian tobacco.
The second agreement is the so-called London Agreement between the United Kingdom manufacturers and the Rhodesian growers which specifies the quantities that the manufacturers are prepared to buy subject to availability, quality and price. Those quantities have increased year by year. Again, comparing the pre-war position with the present, pre-war the Southern Rhodesian crop was only 30 million lb.; by 1956 it showed a record production of no fewer than 165 million lb. If we take the test of the United Kingdom purchases, we get the same gratifying trend, from 20 million lb. before the war to 84 million lb. in 1956, plus a further 4 million lb. from Northern Rhodesia.
Indeed, the Commonwealth enjoys considerable advantages arising out of the trade and tariff structure. In the first place, dollar supplies of tobacco are the only ones which are restricted. Imports from non-dollar Commonwealth countries are on open general licence and non-dollar countries outside the Commonwealth have their imports of tobacco freely licensed. So the non-dollar Commonwealth, in which I understand my hon. Friend to be primarily interested, enjoys the advantages of both an open market and of Imperial Preference at 1s. 6½d. per 1b.
My hon. Friend referred to G.A.T.T. Of course, it is not possible to increase the Preference margin for the reasons that he knows. Article I of G.A.T.T, forbids the extension of the Preference margin in this context, because the present duty was fixed in 1943, that is to say, four years before the base date year 1947, when the G.A.T.T. was signed.
I want now to refer to the Rhodesian crop to which my hon. Friend devoted part of his argument. I assure him that at present all the good quality leaf and,

1115
indeed, a good deal of poor quality leaf is still being bought by the United Kingdom and other sterling area countries, particularly Australia. As my hon. Friend is primarily concerned with the Commonwealth, I would put it to him that there would be no point in expanding our purchases of Rhodesian tobacco if the effect was merely to push Australia pro tanto into the dollar market because Australia is also part of the Commonwealth, is part of the sterling area and has its own balance of payments difficulties.
My hon. Friend asked about Government policy. Our policy is, as I think he apprehended, that we want to see Rhodesia and other Commonwealth sources further expand the export of good tobacco so that our manufacturers may increase their purchases. As he will know, there are really two basic factors in this and he referred to both. The first is the availability of good quality non-dollar leaf at reasonable prices and the second is consumer taste.
On the first of those two matters, my hon. Friend referred to what he called the reduction of the Rhodesian crop. If I may briefly indicate the facts with regard to that, they are that the rapid expansion of the tobacco acreage in Rhodesia has temporarily outstripped the facilities for supervising and curing the crop. In consequence of that, the percentage of sub-standard leaf has so increased that the United Kingdom has bought a considerable amount of inferior tobacco in recent years. The whole of the increased yield which made 1956 a record crop year was in the so-called "nondescript" grades, that is to say, a type not suitable for our market.
It is in those circumstances that the Rhodesian Tobacco Association has called for a reduction in the acreage planted. Naturally, we hope that these steps which it has taken to check over-planting and to improve the standards will succeed, and that good Rhodesian tobacco will become more nearly competitive in price with the North American.
The second matter which influences this question is the matter of consumer taste to which my hon. Friend referred. I am told that it is a fact that a marked increase in the proportion of Rhodesian tobacco would affect the flavour to
1116
smokers. Of course, it is true that we cannot precisely say at what point that would affect consumption. But at least we have this to guide us, that the market in the United Kingdom for all-Rhodesian cigarettes has practically vanished.
That being so, I think my hon. Friend, and those who think with him on this issue, must concede that there is clearly a case at any rate for some caution in the context of those facts, and especially in the light of the Revenue aspect, because, although my hon. Friend had some hard words to say about the Treasury in this matter—and I was at the Treasury when it first became my duty to study this subject—I think he would readily concede that the Revenue aspect is highly relevant in the context of tobacco.
I hope that I have been able to put the matter fairly and objectively in regard to this question of the sources of our tobacco. It is a customary courtesy to say that a service has been done in raising these matters. I should certainly say that in regard to my hon. Friend's initiative, and especially so if, as a result of it, those interested in the matter will be good enough to study the clear and simple facts as I have sought to explain them and reflect upon them. I am sure that they will come to the conclusion that we need not take the rather pessimistic view which my hon. Friend has taken.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I listened with interest and satisfaction to the reply given by the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). I have considerable interest in the subject because I have in my constituency what I believe to be the largest of all the tobacco manufacturing factories in the country, and I have therefore taken opportunities to discuss these matters with the directors of that company. In the first place, I want to make it clear that this is not a matter which concerns only the Imperial Tobacco Company; it concerns all the tobacco manufacturers in the country.
I think I am entitled to say, from the conversations which I have had with them, that the last thing in the world they want to do is to curtail their purchases of Rhodesian tobacco. The evidence of that is to be found in the amount of capital investment which they put into

1117
that country, and I believe they are prepared to extend the welfare services which they have already sponsored there. But we must recognise that they have some sense of pride in the manufacture of their goods. After all, we say that it is the quality of our goods which is the hallmark on which we depend for selling them abroad, and that applies no less to the manufacturers of tobacco than to any other industry. That is their major concern.
The Minister of State rightly stressed the most important fact in the whole of the debate, that there was a tendency to overgrow, if I may use that expression, and to outstrip their ability in Rhodesia to produce a first-class article. It is a fact that particularly Australia, but also many other countries, are prepared to buy the best grade of Rhodesian tobacco while wishing to leave behind the seconds and thirds which it is most difficult to sell except in certain countries where they are prepared to smoke almost anything. It seems to me to be primarily a matter of techniques of growing and especially of curing. We must be honest about this and recognise when we are talking about
1118
Virginia tobacco that we are talking about tobacco produced in a country which has been growing it for many years and where the technique has been developed to a fine art. That has to be learned in Rhodesia.
I believe that the tobacco manufacturers here feel that the Government could help them in the expansion of the Rhodesian tobacco industry in certain directions, possibly in making technical advice available and in other forms of the application of technical machinery. May I therefore suggest to the Minister of State that it might be well if his Department got in touch with the tobacco manufacturers, if it is not already doing so—as I expect it is—to see in what way the Government and the manufacturers can work together to improve the quality of the tobacco which is being produced in Rhodesia?
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 accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Hydro-Electricity Board (Connection Charges)
  Hydro-Electricity Board (Connection Charges)
  East Kilbride
  East Kilbride
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (CIVIL SERVANTS)
  COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (CIVIL SERVANTS)
  BERMUDA TALKS (MID-OCEAN CLUB)
  BERMUDA TALKS (MID-OCEAN CLUB)
BRITISH ARMY
  Reichsmarks (Revalued Currency)
  Reichsmarks (Revalued Currency)
  Royal Scots Fusiliers, Malaya (Mail)
  Royal Scots Fusiliers, Malaya (Mail)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hide and Company
  Hide and Company
  Anglo-French Trade (Brandy and Whisky)
  Anglo-French Trade (Brandy and Whisky)
  North Vietnam (Trade)
  North Vietnam (Trade)
  Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Imports)
  Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Imports)
  Import Controls
  Import Controls
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Stamp Office (Adjudication Section)
  Stamp Office (Adjudication Section)
  Petrol (Emergency Charge)
  Petrol (Emergency Charge)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Government Action in Wales (Report)
  Government Action in Wales (Report)
  Street Furniture
  Street Furniture
  Rating Information, Newcastle- under-Lyme (Expenditure)
  Rating Information, Newcastle- under-Lyme (Expenditure)
HOUSING
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
  Subsidised Agricultural Properties (Rents)
  Subsidised Agricultural Properties (Rents)
  Demolition Works (Site Clearance)
  Demolition Works (Site Clearance)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Court and Industrial Disputes Tribunal
  Industrial Court and Industrial Disputes Tribunal
ROYAL NAVY
  Razor Blades
  Razor Blades
  Establishments, Holton Heath
  Establishments, Holton Heath
  Officers (Afloat and Ashore)
  Officers (Afloat and Ashore)
TRANSPORT
  Norman Arch, Bristol (Road Sign)
  Norman Arch, Bristol (Road Sign)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Further Education (Committee)
  Further Education (Committee)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Razor Blades
  Razor Blades
EDUCATION
  Spastic Children
  Spastic Children
  Intelligence Tests
  Intelligence Tests
  School Building Programme, Hertfordshire
  School Building Programme, Hertfordshire
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motoring Offences (West Cromwell Road)
  Motoring Offences (West Cromwell Road)

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

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
2.35 p.m.
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

CHELSEA CAR MART
2.36 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 a site in Chelsea acquired by the London County Council before the war for use as a fire station is now being used by a Mr. Thomas Bruce as a car mart, notwithstanding the opposition of local residents and of the Chelsea Borough Council; on what date Mr. Bruce acquired his interest in the land; on what date he applied to the London County Council as planning authority for permission for the structural alterations which he has now made and for the change of use; and whether, when, and on what terms the London County Council gave him permission.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The dates in question are respectively January 14, January 16, and March 25, 1957, all in this year. The following conditions have been attached to the permission:

(1) It will be for a limited period expiring April 1, 1958;

(2) A modified form of floodlighting must be provided to the Council's satisfaction; and this must: be switched off by 7.30 p.m.;

(3) The King's Road frontage will be laid out as an ornamental garden;

731

(4) No building or structure or erection will be erected or maintained on the site;

(5) Vehicles will use only the Dove-house Street entrance, and the pedestrian access to King's Road will be reduced in width to 7 ft. 6 ins.;

(6) No repairs will be carried out to vehicles on the site.

LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and wish to ask him this further question. Does he realise that permission was not granted until yesterday; that the development has been carried out without any permission but with the knowledge and, presumably, the connivance of the planning authority who were this man's landlords? Is my noble friend further aware that the development conflicts with the development plan and is a matter of dispute between the planning authority and the local authority? In these circumstances, has his right honourable friend the power to take this matter over and consider the application himself?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that there is some dispute between the London County Council and the Chelsea Borough Council on this matter, but he would not be prepared to interfere. The reason is that the London County Council are the planning authority for the neighbourhood. I am aware that permission was granted yesterday by the London County Council, but I am not aware whether work took place on the site before the date the permission was granted.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, has the Minister not inquired whether—what is notoriously well known by anybody in that district—work had been proceeding on that site? Since the Borough Council obviously represent directly both the residents and the amenities most concerned, and in the circumstances elicited by my noble friend, is it not a case in which the Government might properly intervene?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not think my right honourable friend would be inclined to intervene on a matter which concerns entirely the London County Council as planning authority for London.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, would my noble friend bring to the notice of his right honourable friend the Minister that the reason the London County Council installed this man here was to get rid of him in Stockwell where they had already commenced legal proceedings against him? Will my noble friend consider whether, in those circumstances, it is not clear that the London County Council did not bring to the consideration of this problem the matters which it was their duty as a planning authority to consider?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am not aware of all these details. Legislation lays down that the London County Council should be the planning authority for London, and my right honourable friend would not wish to intervene. And for my part, I should be very reluctant to see him do so.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they do not agree that the huge floodlit advertisement hoarding on this site is also a great eyesore; and, if so, will they urge the local authority not to give permission for the erection of advertisements of this kind in places of particular architectural interest?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to that point. As I have said, these lights will be switched off at 7.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that all those who are connected with the London County Council will be extremely grateful for the noble Earl's statement, which is not only correct but extremely important as a matter of principle. I am sure he agrees that the London County Council always go to the Minister when they are obliged by Statute to do so, and that when powers are conferred by Statute the Council should be allowed to exercise them without interference.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether I correctly understood the position: that the Minister has powers under the legislation as it stands to intervene, but that as a matter of discretion decided in this case not to intervene?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think it is correct that my right honourable friend has powers to intervene, but he would not intervene except in circumstances of the gravest moment.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, are there not here circumstances that would justify special intervention, as my noble friend has brought out? In this case, the London County Council have obviously had in their mind other considerations than those they would have had in mind had there been an application from another proprietor for the use of this site in this way, in which case they would presumably have acted in a judicial spirit which they are hardly able to in the circumstances brought out by my noble friend.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to make a statement in this House to-day with regard to the present industrial dispute situation?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I will, with the permission of your Lordships, seek leave to intervene at about a quarter to four, in order to make a statement about the present industrial situation.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister, the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, two questions. The first is whether, in view of the fact that the Bill has already been before the House so long, there is any substance in the still spread rumour that it is not the Government's intention to proceed with the Bill in all its stages this Session; and,
734
secondly, whether or not it is the case, as has been suggested in the Press, that the Government have made up their minds to accept an Amendment to revert to the 8 o'clock late hour closing? It is quite fortuitous, as I gave the noble Viscount notice of the question last week, that there is in The Times newspaper this morning a leader, obviously inspired by some organised reaction to the Bill, which describes the Bill as "a bad Bill". I hope very much that the Government, in their endeavours to bring the law into its proper form, in the light of the ten-years' old Report of the Gowers Committee, do not intend to give way to pressure.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I certainly was not aware, and I am very shocked to hear, that the Bill has been before the House too long. I hope the noble Viscount is not suggesting that we have been dealing with it otherwise than in the most expeditious way possible. I was under the impression that we had, in fact, attempted to be conciliatory, and therefore had not tried to curtail discussion in any way, but that we had dealt with the matter to the general satisfaction of noble Lords on both sides of the House. I can only say, as I said to the noble Viscount on February 12, that we intend to go on with our business. As regards the second part of his question, I have had no notice of it, and I should like to see it on the Paper.
LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Viscount has rather indicated that this Bill should go through. That is a point of view supported by the Government and by his Party, but it has been opposed by noble Lords on these Benches. I think it only reasonable to say at this stage that if some such Amendment as has been suggested were put forward we, at least, should support it; but, failing that, I think that we should oppose the passage of the Bill either on Report stage or on Third Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 66:
Provisions as to libraries
66.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, the business of lending books or periodicals for the purpose of gain shall be deemed to be retail

735
business, but Part I of this Act shall not apply to—

(a) a library at which the business of lending books or periodicals for the purpose of gain is not carried on otherwise than for the purpose of making profits—

(i) for a philanthropic or charitable object (including a religious or eductional object); or

(ii) for a club or institution which is not carried on for purposes of gain; or

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of four Amendments in subsection (1), the first being to leave out the first "or" and after "periodicals," where that word first occurs, to insert, "gramophone records or cinematograph films". The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 together, as they all cover the same subject matter. If the Gowers Committee had sat ten years later, I think they might well have reported in favour of what we want to do by means of these Amendments, because they simply cover events which have happened since the Gowers Committee reported. This clause seeks to bring ordinary lending libraries into the same category as businesses, for the purposes of the Bill, so that they also will have the same limitations about closing, and so on, with the one exception that charitable libraries, libraries that are run on a non-profit-making basis, will be exempted. Since the war, in London, at any rate—I cannot speak for other great towns—the business of lending gramophone records and films has also grown up and become a form of lending on a commercial basis very comparable with the lending of books. All I am seeking to do in these Amendments is to bring the lending of gramophone records and films for commercial purposes into line with the lending of books by libraries, so that the same restrictions apply to firms engaged in this modern business development. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 7, leave our (" or ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Strathclyde): I have listened with great care to what the noble Earl has said in support of the Amendment. He spoke of what the Gowers Committee might have reported if it had sat ten years later, but I would
736
remind him that in the year 1953 the proposals were circulated to some sixty-six different organisations, including the local authorities, and I would tell the noble Earl that, until he put down this Amendment, this proposal had never been discussed, or even mentioned, by any of those particular organisations. It may well be that there is a case on abstract grounds for the principle of treating these libraries in the same way as the libraries which lend books—I would agree with that—but at this moment we are not aware that there is any practical need for the restrictions. I would say to the noble Earl that the Government's general attitude to the Bill is that restrictions should be applied only where, on reasonable balance of consideration, they can be shown to be necessary. So far, a case for the Amendment on these grounds does not seem to me, or to the Government, to be made out.
There is a further consideration which I should like to put to your Lordships. We do not know what the practical effect of applying the Bill to film and record libraries might be. If the Amendment were to be accepted, there might be quite unexpected and unintended consequences. The Bill is a very complicated piece of legislation, and it would be impossible to rule out repercussions of that kind. It is for these reasons that I must tell the noble Earl that I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment. I would ask him to withdraw it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect, I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying that I have never before heard such an unsatisfactory reply to an Amendment. Is he not aware that there is a modern tendency among all local authorities who provide that most necessary lending-library service now to have record libraries? It is common practice, the more so, perhaps, in rural areas than in urban areas. That is the modern trend. Parliament is here to legislate. Parliament does not follow the dictates of representations made to them by vested interests. Surely Parliament is something more than a rubber stamp. The noble Lord has said that the Government have not had representations over these ten years from all the interests concerned. Surely he does not mean to imply that Parliament must not do anything about it until it has seen the repercussions upon

737
vested interests. I do not think there is any vested interest at all connected with my noble friend's Amendment. I should have thought that the noble Lord would at least have said that he would take it back and thoroughly consider it, as it deserves to be considered, instead of saying that he must resist it upon grounds which I think, if he will forgive my saying so, are totally inadequate.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I would only say, in reply to that comment, that the noble Lord's knowledge of these things is evidently much wider than mine or that of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, who referred to London only. I do not know whether the noble Lord would be prepared to provide me with a list of these local authorities—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Yes, I will do it now.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to continue. Perhaps he would supply me with such a list, because it is outwith my knowledge, and, as I am advised, there is no general need for this particular Amendment. I have already explained the Government's attitude towards the Bill as a whole.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect, why should I do the noble Lord's work? Surely his advisers at the Home Office who are sponsoring this Bill are able to get the information that I have imparted to the noble Lord. They can communicate with every local authority or county council in this country. They will soon tell the noble Lord which of them provide a lending library for records as well as for books. Surely it does not rest with the Opposition to have to tell the Government where to get this information.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I noticed that the noble Lord said he thought that there was a good deal to be said in favour of this Amendment on abstract grounds. Perhaps he would not disagree with me if I were to substitute the word "logical" for "abstract." If that is the case—and it appears to be so—it seems rather strange to resist the Amendment. I think his principal argument was that there was not sufficient demand for this change to be made. I have raised the example of London because that is the only example with which I personally am
738
familiar. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth referred to other local authorities. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, if between now and Report stage my noble friend and I are able to produce more evidence of the demand on the part of local authorities for this change, the Government will be willing to reconsider this Amendment. I would also express the hope that in the meantime the noble Lord himself might be willing to do a little research.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Perhaps I should go a little further than I have gone. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was, I think, referring to local authority libraries. Of course, these are not affected by the operation of the Bill: only commercial libraries are concerned here. But certainly I will look at the point again.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this Amendment again. On that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 75 agreed to.
Clause 76:
Short title, commencement and extent
76.—
(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
2.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be of no effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution by each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: If it is not too far back in the dim and distant past, the Committee will recollect the discussions we had on Clause 49 of the Bill in dealing with Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 84 and 85. I then pointed out the difficulties that would arise in putting into operation Part VI of this Bill, after the duties of administration had been transferred from county councils to district councils. I said that there would be duplication and other difficulties, especially in view of the fact that it was known at the time when I was speaking that the Government had in

739
view a reorganisation of local authority responsibility. Since I made those remarks—I think it must be now about three weeks ago—the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made an announcement that during next Session the Government intend to introduce legislation with reference to the reorganisation of local authority responsibility.
The Committee will remember that when I raised the whole question of administration I asked the Government whether it was their intention to bring this measure into operation before 1959. I then said that if this measure, with its duplications and its transfer of responsibility from the Shops Act, 1950, is going to be brought into operation before the Government are ready with their reorientation of local authority administration, confusion would be worse confounded. I have not altered my opinion, in spite of the arguments and the speech made by the noble Viscount who was then speaking on behalf of the Government.
The Amendment I now move is a simple one. If it is adopted, subsection (2) will read:
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
Provided that such order shall be contained in a Statutory Instrument which shall be of no effect unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
In other words, what I seek to get from the Government is acceptance of the fact that Parliament shall have an opportunity of discussing in the context of this Bill any alterations that will have to be made to this Bill, or Act, as it will be, when the Government have made up their minds, and Parliament has acquiesed or otherwise, in regard to the new duties of local authorities.
I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will be impressed with the seriousness of the position. Duties are to be altered, responsibilities are to be placed upon local district councils which may or may not be in existence in the state of things to come. They may have their boundaries altered; they may have their responsibilities altered. They may not wish, in their new status, to assume the responsibilities that are put upon them in this Bill. Surely I need not impress upon
740
the noble Lord who is going to reply the necessity of ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity of seeing that what it finally approves is in this Act, as the Bill will become—and in parenthesis, I repeat what my noble Leader has said: we gather that the Government are going on with this Bill. If the Government do go on with it, and it gets on to the Statute Book before the reorganisation of local authorities, surely Parliament should have the opportunity of seeing whether all the responsibilities which have been placed upon various local authorities—county councils and district councils—will then be fitting for the new organisation to bear. That is the simple reason for my Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Without in any way wishing to derogate from my noble friend's argument, which I think is a very important one, I should like to say a word on the general principle of making a Bill come into operation at some uncertain date in the future which the Secretary of State may by order appoint. Normally a Bill comes into operation when it is passed, or it may come into operation on a fixed date which is stated in the Bill. But it must be very rarely that a Bill is left, as it were, in the air, with no date fixed for its coming into operation, and it is left entirely to a Minister to decide by order some date in the future when it is going to come into operation.
This Bill involves important changes to the business community. Their hours are going to be shortened generally, but in some cases they are going to be lengthened. It is only fair to the business community as well as to the shopping community that they should have good notice of when this Bill is going to come into operation. Unless there is some good reason which has not been disclosed, I cannot understand why it should be left in this uncertain state. So I very much hope that it will be possible to look into this question (I think it is an important one) and either fix a date for the Bill to come into operation or fix no date, in which case it comes into operation on the passing of the Bill.

741
I realise (and I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will not make a debating point of this) that this is not exactly my noble friend's point. His point is that the Bill should not come into operation until the whole question of local government has been determined. That is quite a separate question and is one which is well worthy of being dealt with on its merits. I am taking the constitutional question. I cannot think of any Bill with regard to which it has been left open merely for a Minister to decide, possibly at the shortest possible notice, when it will come into operation. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will address himself to that point as well as to the point made by my noble friend.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I address myself first to the argument which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The Amendment commences with the words
"Provided that such order shall be contained in a statutory instrument."
The Bill already provides for that in Clause 55 (2). If the noble Lord will look at it he will see that it is there laid down. I realise the other consideration which the noble Lord has in mind. I am aware that the county councils want transfer of responsibility deferred until local government reorganisation has taken place. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be satisfied if I give him this assurance: that the position in regard to local government reorganisation will be one of the factors which the Home Secretary will take into account before making an order. Further, the Home Secretary will also consult with the local authority associations. In that way I think we shall get over the difficulty which the noble Lord has stressed, because it is clear that the Home Secretary would not make an order until his consultations with local authority associations had been completed. He would also take into account the effect of local government reorganisation.
Lord Silkin's point was a somewhat different one. He raised the whole question of the principle involved here; the uncertainty of the date of operation and the fact of the Bill's being brought into operation as the result of a decision by the Minister concerned. Certainly there are important changes; but this Bill is so intricate in many of its details that I
742
think it is well that plenty of time should be given for everyone concerned to be consulted and for the fullest consideration to be given. The noble Lord I am sure appreciates that it is not only local authorities but the business community, as he said, who are concerned. I cannot see any need to fear that the Minister will bring the Act into operation before he has given plenty of time for consultation and for consideration. I think this period must in essence be unlimited, to give everyone an opportunity to understand what the Act is all about. Perhaps in these circumstances the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very appreciative of what the noble Lord has said. Of course, having consultation with interested parties and having consultation with local authorities is a different thing from having consultation with Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not think that this is one of my prejudices, but one becomes accustomed to Governments thinking that after they have agreed with the vested interest concerned "that is that" and Parliament must act as a rubber stamp. I have always quarrelled with that view. I feel that the Government must get the endorsement of Parliament on this matter. I am not saying it is not necessary to carry vested interests with you, if possible—I use the expression "vested interests" in no offensive sense; I mean local authority interests or industrial interests. It is necessary to carry them with you. But whether they agree or whether they do not, the noble Lord really has said that then, without coming to Parliament, the Minister may make an order bringing the Act into force. That is my interpretation of what the noble Lord has said.
I quickly read Clause 55 but that does not help me very much. What I want the noble Lord to say is that, in view of the administrative difficulties of the Bill and the state of flux in which the Government find themselves, vis-à-vis this Bill and local authority reorganisation, they will not make the statutory order bringing this Bill into operation, irrespective of any consultations they may have, without first coming to Parliament. I think that in a serious and far-reaching matter like this Parliament should have the last word; it should not rest with the Department. The Department have

743
had consultations on this Bill with local authorities for almost as long as the Gowers Report has been in circulation, and there are still major disagreements with the local authorities on the Bill. I think that Parliament should be able to debate it and any difference of opinion that may exist in future before the step is taken of bringing this Bill into operation by a simple declaration of the Secretary of State.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I really do not see the force of the noble Lord's argument. The noble Lord referred to a "rubber stamp". Surely he would not argue that all the proceedings on this Bill in this House have been of the nature of "rubber stamp". What is it that the House have to argue? The House will already have passed the Bill before we reach the point of bringing it into operation; it will have become an Act of Parliament. It is the will of Parliament that that Bill should be on the Statute Book. What are we going to argue about—the date from which the Minister says the Bill should operate? That does not give room for a great deal of discussion. Surely that is something which does not need to be discussed by Parliament. In the normal course of events, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the Act would operate from the date on which it received the Royal Assent. Here, all the Government are doing is to postpone that date until such time as the Minister is absolutely sure in his own mind that I everything necessary to be done has been done. Local authorities have to make orders under this Bill, as well as other things. I honestly do not see the force of the argument which the noble Lord is putting forward.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I put this consideration before the noble Lord? This Bill places on small district councils the responsibility of setting up an organisation for a shop inspectorate, because heretofore these responsibilities have been vested in the county council. Here, if I may, I will go back a little. The noble Lord will remember that the Amendment to which I have just referred sought to give power to a district council, if they did not want to assume the responsibilities placed upon them by this Bill, to hand it over to the county council by arrangement with the
744
county council. That proposal was resisted by the Government. While in this Bill county councils may give powers they now possess to the district councils, the obverse was not acceptable. Why, I do not know. Let us suppose that when the Government bring in their Bill for the reorganisation of local government, some of the local authorities have their areas whittled down, their responsibilities altered or absorbed by others, and that some of them who have been compelled to set up organisations for the enforcement of this Bill when it becomes law, do not exist in the legislation which the Government are going to bring forward. What happens?
I am quite prepared to accept the noble Lord's assurance that no Minister worth calling a Minister is going to put into operation an Act that places responsibilities on non-existent bodies; but he has to find some method of putting these responsibilities on somebody, and that might well require some amendment to this Bill. Some of the local authorities who have these responsibilities placed on them will not know whether they are going to live or die. Surely it is not too much to ask that, before this is done, the Secretary of State shall come before Parliament with his proposals for doing this. I am not saying that they will not be passed. Surely it is not beyond the possibility that this kind of thing might happen. The noble Lord did not like my expression "rubber stamp," but that is what it will amount to unless we are going to give Parliament the power which I seek to give by this Amendment.
I am not going to press the Amendment, but will the noble Lord consider it, and the arguments that I have put forward, between now and the next stage? This is entirely an administrative matter. We want to know what is going to be done. The noble Lord will appreciate that the reason why the previous Shops Act has been brought into disrepute and, as his noble friend Lord Mancroft said on Second Reading, has become a "farrago of nonsense" is that the Act has become incapable of being put into operation. Let us learn from that experience and not follow the same foolish course that has been followed in the past. That is all I ask the noble Lord. If he will consider that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I came down to your Lordships' House to press the very constitutional point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I was going to raise it on the Motion that the clause stand part, but perhaps it is appropriate to touch on the matter now. I would not, with respect support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because I do not think that it meets the constitutional point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not remember—my memory may well be at fault—many other Bills being passed by Parliament in which it says:
"This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint."
Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to cite other cases. It is certainly an unusual provision, that an administrative order shall be passed which will bring into effect a Bill which has passed through both Houses of Parliament and has received the Royal Assent. It seems to me that it would be much better if we could get away from this unsatisfactory vagueness of an administrative order, to be issued at any time the Secretary of State wishes, which would automatically bring into operation an Act which has had the Royal Assent. I think that this is a dangerous precedent for the future. There may in the future be Governments with other political complexions, and if we are to accept a position that, because Parliament passes a Bill which may have much wider provisions than those contained in this Bill, the present Bill is, so to speak, to be kept in suspense until it is a convenient time, from the point of view either of the Minister or of the Government, for it to come into operation, then I believe we shall be introducing something of a dangerous custom—I will not say "precedent"—and one that is certainly not to be encouraged.
The coming into operation of this Shops Bill, when it is an Act, will affect not only local authorities and Government Departments but many small citizens and business people, who may not read the Press widely and may not be aware of the issuing by the Minister of an order bringing the Bill into operation. Would it not be better if a fixed time could be set saying, for example,
746
that the Bill shall not come into operation until this day six months or a year hence? I would prefer to say that it shall be read this day six months hence, but that is another question. Would that not be preferable to giving the Executive power to implement, as and when the Executive wish, the decision of the Legislature? Would the Minister be good enough to consider that point between now and the next stage?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. The matter might have been argued one way or the other, as he readily admits. Though I cannot give him the actual Titles of the Acts, my information is that many Acts contain provisions postponing commencement of effect until the Minister decides. Delay is necessary because of regulations and orders which have to be made by the Secretary of State and local authorities. That is the reason for allowing the Minister to decide.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord is explaining why the Act cannot come into operation at once, but he is not explaining why a date cannot be fixed. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke of a delay of six months, but I do not suppose he would object if it were six years.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, I should not.
LORD SILKIN: But whether it be a year or two years, I urge the Government: fix a date, and within that time all the formalities can be carried out. That would be far more satisfactory.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I agree that it would be perfectly possible to fix a date a prescribed number of months ahead, and to insert that date in the Bill. I presume that the date is left indefinite because it is more convenient that it should be so; but I will report to my noble friend what the noble Lord has said, and he may give it consideration. I still do not follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because the fact of the matter is that the Bill will have been passed and become an Act of Parliament, and will be on the Statute Book. That is the position. The noble Lord says, "Let it come back to Parliament again and let us amend the Act." But that cannot be done

747
except by passing another Act. I really do not see what the noble Lord wishes to do when the Act comes back.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 76 agreed to.
First Schedule:
PART II
GOODS WHOSE SALE IS PERMISSIBLE UNTIL LATER HOUR OR, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME
4. Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery.
8. Newspapers, periodicals, magazines, guidebooks, picture post-cards and photographs.
9. Bread.
LORD MILVERTON: This Amendment and the next go together and they represent a minor attempt to try to clarify or make easier the working of the intention of the Act; and in speaking to this Amendment, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 109, 113, 118 and 119, all of them dealing with the same point—that as flour confectionery is excluded from the Schedules, shops inspectors must be able to advise shopkeepers which articles are deemed to be sugar confectionery. I understand that frequent requests for guidance in this matter are received from shopkeepers, and in the absence of a definition no consistent answer can be given. The result is that shops in the same street, where the boundaries of local authorities meet, may be given different advice, and the public may be able to buy an article in one shop yet be refused the same article in a neighbouring shop. Presumably it is intended that the sale of articles similar in kind to sweets shall be permitted outside the ordinary closing hours. Since a definition of "sugar confectionery" seems to be out of the question, and since no great hardship would be entailed by the deletion of sugar confectionery from the Schedules altogether, the course which these two Amendments suggest is submitted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 13, after (" sweets ") insert (" and ").—(Lord Milverton.)
LORD MACKINTOSH OF HALIFAX: Perhaps I am the only Member of your
748
Lordships' House who is closely associated with the sugar confectionery business, and I am not sure that it would be wise to leave out the words "sugar confectionery". The three major associations connected with the business are the manufacturers' association, known as the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; the wholesalers' association, represented by the National Association of Wholesale Confectioners; and the retailers' association, which is the National Association of Retail Confectioners. Sweets, as such, are never mentioned in the technical jargon of the confectionery business. The word "sweets" has become a general, common term used by the man in the street for all kinds of sweets—chocolates, as well as sugar confectionery—just as the term "candy" is used in the United States of America. I believe that it would be unwise to leave out the term "sugar confectionery". There is, of course, flour confectionery. I suggest that it would be wiser to leave it as "Sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery." Then every point of view will be met.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax, for his explanation. The argument of my noble friend Lord Milverton was that the words "sugar confectionery" must give rise to doubt. The noble Lord will have heard what has been said in that connection by the noble Lord, Lord Mackintosh of Halifax. Her Majesty's Government are informed by the trade that the meaning of the term "sugar confectionery" is as clear as any such term can possibly be. It means articles mainly confected of sugar, as opposed to articles mainly confected of flour. If the words "and other sugar confectionery" were to be excluded, it would have an effect which is not intended by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. The term "sweets" means more than goods ordinarily sold in sweet shops. To give the Committee an example, it includes a certain kind of intoxicating liquor. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that "sweets" here, joined with the words "and other sugar confectionery", clearly does not include such items; but if the words "and sugar confectionery" were to be left out, there is the possibility that doubt would be very much increased. In these circumstances, I trust that the

749
noble Lord will be satisfied with the explanation I have given and will be kind efnough to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MILVERTON: In view of the assurances given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 8, to leave out: "and photographs". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is in line with the spirit of the Gowers Report. As your Lordships will remember, one of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee was that as many exemptions as possible from the restrictions on the opening hours of shops should be cut out; and this, I think, is an exemption that should not be made. I do not think photographs should be exempted as articles which may be sold at times when shops are closed for the sale of other articles. It seems to me that there is a case for museums and art galleries, but surely they are covered by the exemption of picture postcards; that is to say, the reproduction in picture postcard form of objects that have been shown in these museums or art galleries. There is no need for that purpose to include photographs.
Again, I can see that there is a case for the sale of photographs, which sometimes have to be done at short notice on an afternoon when other shops are closed; but they are specifically dealt with in the Second Schedule. Surely, however, the photography business is no different from the business of a shoemaker or a tailor. I cannot see why I should be able to go to a photographer and buy a photograph of myself or of Miss Marlene Dietrich on an afternoon when all the neighbouring shops are closed and I cannot buy a pair of shoes or a suit. It seems to me that there is little justification (I hope the noble Lord may be able to show that there is) for the inclusion of photographs among the articles that may be sold at hours when shops are closed for the sale of other articles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, leave out ("and photographs ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SILKIN: When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replies, I should be
750
glad if he would explain what is meant by "photographs". Does it mean a portrait? It does not mean picture postcards, or the kind of photograph which you buy at the seaside. What is the justification for making it possible to buy photographs at any time of the day or night? I can understand a person's being seized with a sudden desire to buy ice cream or tobacco, or even a periodical, at a late hour. But is it necessary for a person to be able to buy a photograph outside the normal shopping hours? I am puzzled on two grounds. One is that without some definition of "photograph" it seems to cover far too wide a field; and the other is where the justification comes in for linking it up with newspapers, periodicals, guide books, or even, conceivably, a picture postcard, which one might want at all hours. I do not understand why a photograph should be included. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The object the Government have in view is to prevent what we consider to be an absurdity. You can purchase a postcard, which is, in fact, a photograph, except that it has an address place on the back. This Amendment would prohibit the purchase of exactly the same picture without the place for writing an address on the back. It seems to be an absurd distinction. There are many things that tourists want: for instance, there are those little booklets which one pulls out with photographs of the various surrounding places of interest. These are photographs, and we think they they should not be excluded. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me what a photograph is. I can only tell him that it is a photograph. We feel it is absurd that a photograph which has the place for an address on the back can be sold, but that exactly the same photograph, because it is plain on the back, cannot be sold. I may say in this connection that the Bill follows the present Act, and I can assure your Lordships that there is no evidence that the provision has been found to cause any real difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wondered why one should be able to buy photo-graphs, portraits, or whatever they might be. There are times when one wants a photograph quickly, as, for instance, in the case of a passport photograph.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord will observe that passport photographs are exempted in the next Schedule.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: That is one form of photograph, and I accept what the noble Earl says. I hope I have explained why "photographs" is included, and I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I must say that I am not very happy about that reply. It seems to me that the essential point is that there is no definition of what is a photograph. The result is that not only can photographs that are sold in art galleries, museums, and so on, which are not picture postcards—as the noble Lord said they have not a space on the back on which to write an address; no one would have any objection to those being sold outside the normal hours—be sold, but any photographer can sell a photograph of any person or any object at any time. It seems to me that this provision is much too wide, and that what is needed—it is beyond my ingenuity, but I am sure it is not beyond that of the Government draftsmen—is to define "photograph" in a way that will allow photographs that are sold in art galleries or museums to be included in the Bill and exempted from the ordinary closing restrictions, but will exclude the ordinary photographer's business, such as we see in any of the main streets of our large towns, from that privileged position as compared with other tradesmen, because their articles are exempted from the restrictions on opening hours of shops. I hope that between now and the Report stage the noble Lord will ask his advisers to turn their minds to the possibility of some definition which will narrow the meaning of the word "photograph" so that on both sides we can get what we want.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I intervene for a moment? I hope that we shall not try to find some technical definition of something that we all know. We must all know a photograph when we see it, just as we know a hippopotamus when we see it. But if the skilled draftsmen get busy trying to define what a photograph is, one does not know where it will lead us. I remember, as no doubt will the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, that many years ago, when I was
752
President of the Board of Trade, somebody moved the adjournment of the House because my Under-Secretary was asked: "What is a blank?", and he replied, "A blank is a blank." That was a good answer. And a photograph is a photograph.
I should like to look at the question from the point of view of a person who is going to commit a criminal offence if he does something which is not permitted by this Bill. If you are to have some wonderful definition of "When is a photograph not a photograph?", nobody will know whether the kind of thing he is selling, which may be a picture postcard of Britain or of the Mona Lisa—it does not matter what it is—can be sold. On the other hand, if you leave the simple English word, or the mixed word "photograph", in, the man will know what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. I hope that we shall not go in for any of these pseudo-scientific refinements.
LORD MANCROFT: Might I intervene for a moment to suggest that the House should resume for a short while in order to enable me to make a statement about the present situation of the strikes.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
3.41 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, direct negotiations began yesterday between the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on the Confederation's wages claim, but broke down late in the afternoon. Representatives of both sides were then invited to the Ministry of Labour for further discussions with my right honourable friend and his officers. It became clear that no progress was possible by way of conciliation, and he decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the dispute. In view of this decision the unions were asked to call off the strike. The unions have not yet given their answer to that request, but both they and the employers

753
have indicated their readiness to cooperate fully with the Court. The union representatives have had meetings with my right honourable friend and his officers to-day and further discussions with both sides, which will relate to both the shipbuilding and engineering disputes, are due to take place later in the day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving us this statement. We are now in a very difficult situation. I sense in this statement that there is just a little progress in one direction, which is that the Court of Inquiry is to be set up, and that both sides have agreed to co-operate in the use of the Court of Inquiry. That is undoubtedly some progress, and whatever strong feelings some of us may feel about one side or the other, I think we should for the moment be entirely neutral until we can see what further progress is being made. I hope it will be real progress.

SHOPS BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II, in paragraph 9: "and flour confectionery." The noble Lord said: The discussion we have had upon Amendments Nos. 104 and 106 have surely paved a way for the noble Lord to accept this Amendment, because I thought he put up an unanswerable argument for the retention of "other sugar confectionery" to run alongside "sweets". Surely, he must accept my Amendment, that running alongside "bread" should be "and flour confectionery", because that is what was in the original Act. Frankly, I cannot see how you can possibly distinguish between bread and other flour confectionery. If you have a loaf of bread plain, I suppose it is bread. If you have a loaf of bread with currants in, what is that? Is it still bread? I suppose so. But if you have a bun with currants in, what is that? I suppose that is "other flour confectionery". How you are to distinguish between bread and other flour confectionery I do not know. I suggest to the noble Lord that he puts in the words, "and other flour confectionery", and then if you want to buy a loaf of bread with or without currants you can, and if
754
you want to buy a bun or a cake you can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 20, after (" Bread ") insert (" and flour confectionery.").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: To start with, perhaps I should explain what the Gowers Committee thought about this matter. They recommended that the goods which could be sold after 1 o'clock on the early closing day should be limited to those for which there was a genuine and substantial need at the time. They thought that if the list were made at all long, the requirement to observe an early closing day would become unreal and ought to be dropped, in spite of the fact that many trades are very anxious to have a compulsory early closing day. The Committee went even further: they went so far as to recommend that bread should not be allowed to be sold on the early closing day. But in the course of consultations with the trade organisations it was found that that would have the effect of preventing the completion of bakers' rounds. It would be absurd to allow the sale of bread on a round at a time when it could not be sold in the baker's shop. It was decided, therefore, to exempt the sale of bread from the early closing day requirement.
I agree with the noble Lord that there is a good deal to be said for allowing bakers' shops, which are open on the early closing day for the sale of bread, to sell flour confectionery as well. But although flour confectionery does not come under the First Schedule of the Bill, the Bill does make indirect provision for it. I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 11. Under that clause, the Secretary of State can—and I would add "and will"—make regulations specifying refreshments that can be sold by registered shops at any time. Flour confectionery will certainly be considered for inclusion, and the trades concerned will be consulted before the regulations are made.
There is an advantage in providing for flour confectionery in that way, and it is this. It should effectively prevent shops from pretending to be open on the early closing day for the sale of flour confectionery when in fact they sell little or no such goods, and are merely using this as an excuse for evading the early closing day requirements. Registration under

755
Clause 11 will be open only to shops which really do a substantial trade in the specified refreshments after shopping hours. I think the noble Lord will find that Clause 11 contains something which he did not consider in his opening remarks. I believe that, if the Bill is to work, we must reduce these exemptions as much as possible.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On this question of flour confectionery, as I understand the Minister, he is wishing to refuse the Amendment of the noble Lord because he can do it administratively under Clause 11, and he will do it if he is satisfied that the man is a big man and has a big trade.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: If it is a substantial part of his business.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: What we want to do is to see that the little man has an equal chance.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: "Substantial" applies to the little man as well. It all depends on the business he is doing in relation to the particular article.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Minister means "substantial" in relation to this Amendment. Is it not better to accept the Amendment rather than get around the position by administratively applying the Amendment in specialised cases? It does not seem to me a wise form of legislation that we should refuse an Amendment in general because we want to apply it administratively in particular. It would be better to have another look and see whether a provision could not be put into the Bill that flour confectionery is allowed, provided it forms a substantial part of the man's business. All through this Bill I and many noble Lords have felt that we want to see as much put in the Bill as possible and as little as possible left to administrative order. This seems to me a case where the Government might think again as to whether they should not redraft this particular clause so as to meet the point of the Minister and, at the same time, be fair to all the various authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bal-four of Inchrye. I would hesitate to turn the knife in the wound that the editor
756
of The Times must have made in the side of the Government today, but The Times is quite right—this is making nonsense. What the noble Lord has just said is this: Under the Act you can sell bread, but if you want to sell a loaf of bread with currants in it you have to be registered. Under Clause 11 you can sell other flour confectionery if you are licensed. What as? I do not know: perhaps as a kosher butcher. You have to be licensed. So, if one goes into a shop and wants to buy a loaf of bread with currants in it, one cannot do so because the man has not been licensed to sell bread with currants in it; he has not been licensed to sell a bun or, taking into account the noble Lord's national prejudices, what I think is called a bap. Is that bread, or is it "other flour confectionery"? So if you go to a Scottish baker, you can buy a loaf of bread under the Act, but, unless the baker is licensed to sell baps, you cannot buy a bap.
Then the noble Lord said, "The reason for making all these distinctions is that we want this Act to work." Really! The noble Lord answered his own argument when he answered his noble friend on the Back Bench about "sweets, chocolates and other sugar confectionery" under this Schedule. Bread, and bread alone, can be bought under this Schedule; other flour confectionery cannot. Will not the noble Lord, if he will not listen to my plea, which perhaps he may find difficult, at least listen to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and have another look at this matter? I do not want to divide the Committee on a question like this, because it is so senseless. Will the noble Lord either accept the Amendment or undertake to redraft quite a number of the provisions in this Schedule which make the Bill really nonsense?
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I hope the Government will have another look at this point. I am in favour of this Bill in principle, and of the early closing of bakeries and other places, within reason, but the important thing when we legislate in this kind of way is to carry public opinion with us in practice; otherwise we bring the law into contempt, and that is a dangerous thing to do. Particularly is it a dangerous thing to do in social legislation which is basically right. That is where one has to be careful not to indulge in all

757
the refinements of the Gowers Committee. What is really the position? The baker is not going to pay the extra cost of keeping open unless there is business for him to do and there is a demand in the locality for him to do it. In that case he is going to be allowed to keep open under the Act, and then, if he goes through all the rigmarole of applying to somebdy for registration, he can register under one of these fancy names which enable him, apparently, provided the quota of his business bears more than the ratio of the number you first thought of, to be licensed to sell a muffin. Is it really sense? You have to carry with you the good will of the people who go into the shop.
Suppose your wife goes into a shop to buy a loaf of bread and then suddenly remembers that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, likes a crumpet to his tea, and there are all the crumpets in the world set out. But, oh no! you can take him back kilogrammes of bread, which he does not want, but you cannot give him a muffin to his tea. It does not make sense. If the shop is going to be shut, let it be shut altogether. If it is going to be open, let it be open for the sale of things that anybody who goes into a baker's can buy, whether it is a loaf of bread, a bap or all the things that ought to make a great appeal to the noble Lord now in charge of this Bill, because he has grown fat on all these cakes. Do let us have a little common sense about it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am indebted to the noble Earl who has just spoken. The whole object is to stop loopholes. After all, grocers' shops and mixed shops all sell flour confectionery. If you give them the opportunity of remaining open, they sell other things. It is the object of the exercise to stop such loopholes. But, in view of the representations that have been made by both sides of the Committee, I will ask my noble friend to consider the point further.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that, because the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is quite right. Having a life experience of distribution, may I say that if you think that a grocer would keep open the whole of his shop for the sake of evading the law to sell a bit of flour confectionery, you do not give much
758
credit to those hard-headed people in busines who only open shops to make money. I will withdraw the Amendment and leave myself at the mercy of the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to Part II:
"10. Flowers.
11. Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with flowers. I am allowed to sell flowers from a shop on a Sunday because they are perishable, but. I am not allowed to sell flowers from a shop on an early closing day—I suppose, because they are not perishable. That is the only thing I can read into this clause. All I want to put back is what is in the existing Act. I do not mind whether or not on non-opening days one wants flowers or other perishable goods sold such as:
"Fresh, frozen or dried fruit and fresh, frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
You can sell all these things on a Sunday, but, as I interpret this clause, you cannot sell them on an early closing day. You either do no: sell them at all or, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, you shut the shop up. But if they are perishable on one day, surely they are perishable on another. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"Page 54, line 20, at end insert the said words."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: As the noble Lord said, the Bill makes an alteration in the existing law. The noble Lord would rather retain the existing law. I would point out that fruit and vegetables will be considered for inclusion in the list of refreshments which may be sold on the half-day in shops registered under Clause 11. I must tell your Lordships that the Bill follows the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. They considered that if the sale of flowers, fruit and vegetables were excepted, there would be a large loophole in connection with half-day closing, as these goods are sold in grocers' shops and also in mixed shops. They pointed out that one of the main arguments for the original exemption of fresh fruit and vegetables was that they were perishable. That

759
argument no longer helps, for in these days we have refrigerators and supplies are much more easily obtained than they used to be. The Government consider that the considerations which the Gowers Committee put forward are important, but I will take note of what the noble Lord has said and of the arguments he has put forward.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As is now emerging, and as has emerged right through the debate in Committee upon this Bill, much as we agree with the general principle of the Gowers Committee in trying to do away with abuses, that Committee has cut right through every sensible thing when it comes to trading. To bring in a little sentiment, may I put this situation to the noble Lord. Here you are stopping a florist, with his shop situated outside a cemetery, from selling flowers. But the barrow boy or the stall-holder who has a few bunches of flowers outside the cemetery gates can compete with the legitimate shopkeeper. I am sure the noble Lord does not want that. If the noble Lord wants to prevent the sale of flowers on Sundays, or on half-days, let him make one clean sweep and have no exemptions at all. The noble Lord has tried to get the best of both worlds but has fallen between the two. However, I think he sees the force of the argument, and upon this Amendment as upon the last I am quite prepared to leave myself in his hands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE
TRANSACTIONS PERMISSIBLE IN GREAT BRITAIN AT ANY TIME ON WEEKDAYS AND IN ENGLAND AND WALES AT ANY TIME ON SUNDAYS
1. The sale—

(a) at any premises for consumption thereat;

(b) in a vessel, railway train, omnibus or aircraft, for consumption therein;

of meals (including tobacco supplied therewith for immediate consumption) or refreshments, mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery or ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers).
5. The sale or supply of drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances or spectacles or eyeglasses.
7. The sale of reading matter or stationery at such book-stalls as may for the time being be approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State, being book-stalls appearing to him to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers.
8. The sale, at a theatre to a member of the audience at a performance, of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice-cream (with or without wafers or edible containers), tobacco or matches, so long as the sale is effected in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access.
4.2 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: This Amendment is moved in the interests of clarity. The word "omnibus" is quite vague, and in all legislation dealing with public transport the term used is "public service vehicle", the definition of which is well known to many noble Lords who have taken such an active part in transport Bills in this House. The word "omnibus" certainly covers a stage carriage; it may cover an express carriage, and it may (although it is by no means certain) cover a contract carriage. There are other public service vehicles, such as trolley buses, tramcars, and motor coaches, and it seems to me that the words "public service vehicle" would be far more suitably used in this place in the Bill because their meaning is quite certain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 26, leave out (" omnibus ") and insert (" a public service vehicle ").—(Lord Gifford.)
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule makes provision for the sale of meals or refreshments on coaches, trains, omnibuses or aircraft, and it also provides for the sale of meals or refreshments at railway and omnibus stations or airports for consumption on trains, omnibuses or aircraft, as the case may be. The effect of accepting this Amendment and the next would be to allow sales on all public service vehicles instead of on omnibuses only—that is, on trams and trolley buses. It seems to me that here we are arriving at the somewhat extraordinary situation that we have sales at an omnibus station and goods sold for consumption on a tramway car or a trolley bus. Apart from that, it is

761
difficult to believe that the sale of meals or refreshments will ever take place on trams or trolley buses, which as I have already said, seem to be the only kinds of public service vehicles other than the omnibus. I should point out to the noble Lord, that this paragraph is largely a repetition of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Shops Act, 1950, with an extension to omnibuses and omnibus stations, which seems to me all that is necessary. I really do not see the sense in extending the provision to other public service vehicles. The whole object of the exercise is to provide people on long-distance transport with an opportunity for having a meal on the way. To include all public service vehicles, which, as I have said, brings in the trolley bus and the tramway car, seems to be a little ridiculous.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Does the noble Lord really mean that if I buy a bun at an omnibus station and then eat it in an omnibus I shall be not guilty of any offence; but that if I eat that bun on a trolley bus I shall be guilty of a criminal offence? Is this not really getting beyond a Civil Service joke?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Is the noble Earl really considering where he can get the bun that he is going to eat? He must go to the omnibus station to get it. I honestly do not see the noble Earl going to the omnibus station, which deals with long-distance transport, buying his bun, and going on to the trolley bus thereafter to eat it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord is quite wrong. I am more familiar than he is in regard to the way in which public service vehicles manoeuvre themselves about. I have not an official motor car in which to travel about the metropolis, and I can assure him that there are places—Victoria, for instance, from which I take my modest bus home from the House—where buses and public service vehicles of all kinds stop for short and long distance travel. I am perfectly serious about this matter. I took an extreme incident, but it is not a foolish incident to take. What is important is that we should not write nonsense into an Act of Parliament which will have to be construed strictly. I quite seriously put this point to the noble Lord: if, at an omnibus station from which omnibuses and trolley buses and any other kind of
762
vehicle starts—and there are quite a number of such stations—I buy a bun, is it really true that it is a criminal offence to eat it in one kind of vehicle but perfectly legitimate to eat it in another? It may be that the language is wrong; it may need some recasting.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: For information, may I ask the noble Lord this question? If I buy another bun at the omnibus station and then decide that I will not go by omnibus but will get a taxi, am I right in thinking that I cannot eat it in a taxi because the taxi is a public service vehicle?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am advised by the noble and learned Viscount that a taxi is not a public service vehicle, but the noble Lord may be correct. The whole object here is to provide food at stations from which buses or trains or aircraft leave on long-distance journeys. If, of course, you really want to go to the station and buy a bun, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, desires, there is nothing to stop you doing so. But why you should do that so as to have the pleasure of eating it on a trolley bus, I do not know. The whole object of this exercise is simply to see that people who are going on long journeys can get something to eat on those journeys; and the trolley bus and tramway car do not really come into the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have been most interested and highly amused by the contributions which have been so cleverly made by your Lordships. But the real fact about this Amendment is in connection with the sale on a Sunday in a vessel or in a railway train or an omnibus of these particular viands. So I think that a good deal of the debate which has taken place to-day has been rather irrelevant to the actual context and to the Amendment. It seemed to me that the noble Lord who moved this Amendment wants to make any public service vehicle a place in which the sale of these items may take place on a Sunday. That is how I read his Amendment and paragraph 1 (b) of the Second Schedule. I do not want to harrass the Minister in any way, or to discuss the wide views which have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber. All I will say is that there are considerable sections of our

763
population who already object strongly to the original form of the Statute in this respect. A lot of people object to the fact that on the Sabbath Day an omnibus can be hired, and that in the omnibus there may be a tremendous sale of things that are needed for what are called "bottle parties". I think we might do much better work, from the point of view of ensuring the proper keeping of the Sabbath, if we addressed our attention to such matters as that and did not address ourselves too assiduously to the point raised here.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wonder if the Minister can tell me this. In the course of his remarks he used the word "coach". Does the word "omnibus" cover the long-distance coach?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Yes.
LORD GIFFORD: Lord Balfour of Inchrye has largely clarified my point. I should like to ask if the word "omnibus" does really include "stage carriage", "express carriage" and "contract carriage". I should be very happy to withdraw my Amendment on an assurance that the term "omnibus" does include all those three types of vehicles.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should be very doubtful about defining those terms offhand. If the noble Lord would agree to withdraw his Amendment, on my undertaking to consider the exact meaning of the term "omnibus," I should be very happy to give that undertaking. Unfortunately, I have not brought Stroud's Judicial Dictionary with me, and I am doubtful whether I am qualified to decide the legal meaning of the terms in question. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept an undertaking that I will consider the point, rather than an express assurance as to whether the term "omnibus" covers all the carriages he mentioned.
LORD GIFFORD: After this interesting debate, in which we have had reference to trolley buses and tram cars, and all the rest, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance which the noble Viscount has just given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to paragraph 1:
"(2) The sale at any premises at which the business carried on, or to be carried on includes the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption both on and off the premises, of all foods for consumption elsewhere than on the premises, except those—

(a) which cannot be immediately consumed without cooking; or

(b) sold in sealed containers of metal or glass or metal and glass,

but including those which—

(a) can be consumed immediately when merely heated up or toasted; or

(b) are sold in sealed containers of metal or glass or metal and glass where the contents of the containers do not exceed 4 ozs. in net weight and which can be immediately consumed without cooking or when merely heated up or toasted.

Where meals and refreshments are sold for consumption on the premises in one part of the shop and for consumption elsewhere than on the premises in another part of the shop the two parts of the shop shall be deemed to be the same premises."
The noble Lord said: This is a rather serious attempt to meet what I think is a modern need, and I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically. The object of the Amendment is to facilitate the sale of partly cooked meals. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is going to make his exit now, may I congratulate him on the way he has weathered the storm and tell him that I am very grateful. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will listen sympathetically to what I have to say. There is a growing demand, especially on the part of those who have to work in offices during the day, for facilities to collect their evening meal partly cooked, with a view to completing the cooking of it or warming it up when they get home. I expect that perhaps even the noble Viscount has suffered, like so many of us, from shortage of domestic staff and has experienced the difficulty which one sometimes has in entertaining one's friends in the evening as a result. By buying partly cooked meals that can be quickly hotted up, one is able largely to overcome that difficulty.
In this connection, the Bill, as drafted, is very loose. This procedure was allowed under the earlier Act. I think the noble Viscount will agree that whatever was wanted years ago is wanted to-day. This is undoubtedly a great convenience to the public. I do not think I need elaborate

765
my argument to your Lordships. Most of you, I am sure, find yourselves up against this problem at times—the problem of spending one's time at work during the day and then getting a decent meal not only for one's self but perhaps for a few friends in the evening. The opportunity of buying these partly cooked meals in containers on the way home is undoubtedly of great advantage to many people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 37, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord has invited me to listen to this with sympathy, and I certainly do so, so far as the purpose of the Amendment is concerned. I had not realised, on reading the Amendment, that it was intended to deal with partly cooked meals only. I thought, and I still think, that the words of the Amendment can be more widely construed. The policy of the Bill—which I think is right—is that the sale of refreshments from restaurants or cafes should be dealt with (as they would be, apart from the Amendment) under Clause 11, which gives the chance of greater flexibility of definition than would be possible if the exemption were dealt with under the Schedule. I entirely sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment, but I am advised that the purpose can be carried out under Clause 11 and that it would be better carried out under Clause 11. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider that and whether, in the circumstances, he desires to press the Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The difficulty is that under Clause 11 it has to be done by regulation. The trouble under the old Act was that the Home Office, or whoever had the drafting of regulations, found great difficulty in making the appropriate regulations. So it was thought that it would be better to have here a definition of what is meant by a partly cooked meal. This is an attempt to do it. Those who are in this business—as distinct from the theoretical draftsmen—have thought it better that this should be put down in the Schedule to enable exemption to be made; and I agree with them. We think it is better to do it this way than leaving it for a lot of regulations that may or may not come
766
before Parliament at some future time. I think your Lordships will agree that it is better to have these definitions written into the Bill.
The noble Lord who had charge of the Bill earlier raised his self-same argument with regard to the term "sugar confectionery", which embraced many things. It is not my purpose here to embrace anything but a partly cooked meal. If the noble Viscount will glance down the Amendment he will see the expert's definition of a partly cooked meal. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like to press upon the noble Lord this point: do not let us leave this matter subject to the same kind of slipshod definition that has been the bugbear of this sort of legislation in the past. If the noble Viscount can give me an assurance on that point, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. I am happy to think that he is seized with the principle that these pre-cooked or partly-cooked meals should be available to people who cannot afford to go into expensive restaurants or have expensive staffs in their homes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My own feeling, if I may be frank with the noble Lord, is that he is creating additional anomalies by this Amendment. Take a tin of peas or, to be more elaborate, a tin of spaghetti. Is that a partly-cooked meal?—for it only needs heating up, so far as I know, to become eatable. If it is, there is this difficulty: that the ordinary shop which sells refreshments can register under Clause 11, but if it happens to be a restaurant, it does not need to be registered. When two classes of shop are selling an identical article, why should one class require registration and the other not? When we take the question of what a tin contains, while some tins contain food which requires little more than heating up, there are others that require to be mixed with additional ingredients, and so on.
In general, I would accept the noble Lord's proposition that we ought to create law by Act of Parliament and not by regulation, but the difficulty that has arisen in connection with this is such as to make regulations exactly the desirable instrument to do it, if it is to be done, because we can change a regulation if it proves to give rise to anomalies. But your Lordships know only too well what

767
pain and suffering one has to undergo in order to change an Act of Parliament. I can see this Amendment, or any Amendment of this kind, which exempts restaurants from the ordinary provisions of registration in respect of meals consumed off the premises, giving rise to many more anomalies than the Bill does in its present form. The solution offered by the Bill is to define the word "refreshments" in a series of flexible regulations under Clause 11, which will make it possible to proceed in matters which are not of very great principle, or worthy of the constant day-to-day attention of Parliament, by way of trial and error—I hope more often by trial than by error. I should have thought that, on the whole, the solution offered by the Bill was preferable to that which the noble Lord offers, and it would achieve the same result with a good deal less general suffering. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. If he will allow me to say so, I agree with the spirit in which he moved it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not pressing this Amendment. I am going to leave myself in the hands of the noble Viscount, I hope as securely as I left myself in the hands of his predecessor. But will the noble Viscount tell me this? What is the real object of registration? I can see his point. I can buy a tin of beans from a restaurant that sells partly-cooked foods, which I suppose will be granted a licence to sell partly-cooked foods. I sense that what the noble Viscount wants is to stop the ordinary grocer, who is not a restaurateur and who sells tins of baked beans, from being registered, because there will be the temptation for a person who goes into a shop to buy this partly-cooked food to buy things that it would be wrong for him to buy. Is that the object of registration?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I can assist the noble Lord there. We have a great difficulty under the present law in dealing with the sale of refreshments, and the provisions of Clause 11, which we have passed, represent an attempt to solve the problem that will not be unduly retrictive but, at the same time, will avoid bringing the law into (I am almost inclined to say) the contempt into which it has been brought at the present moment. The provision requiring shops to register
768
under Clause 11 with the local authority for the sale of refreshments for off-consumption is to enable the local authority to have some check on the shops that are entitled to sell refreshments, and, in particular, to ensure that the sale of refreshments is not used as a mere excuse to keep open for the sale of goods which cannot be legally sold at the time.
We do not think that in the ordinary course these considerations apply to restaurants and cafes, which may be legally open at any time for the sale of meals and refreshments for consumption on the premises. There are, however, plenty of border-line cases whose main trade is the sale of refreshments for off-consumption but who, if the Amendment were accepted, could carry on such trade without registration, on the pretext that to some extent, at any rate, they sold meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises. The local authority have no power to refuse registration on any ground other than that a substantial trade in these refreshments is not carried on at the time of registration; and if they do refuse, as the noble Lord will remember, there is provision for appeal to the courts. So I do not think that we are imposing a heavy burden on restaurants.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the noble Viscount's undertaking to look at this question and consider the whole matter, I willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to paragraph 1:
"(2) The sale by occupiers of premises, whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals or refreshments for consumption on the premises, of meals or refreshments for consumption off the premises."
The noble Lord said: This is not quite the same point. I should like to cite a case which will illustrate what I have in mind. If I am staying in an hotel and want to go out in my car with my wife for a picnic in the afternoon, and that afternoon happens to be half-closing day in that town, under the Bill the hotel cannot put together a tea-basket for me, or, if they do, I must sit in the grounds of the hotel and consume its contents. I cannot take a tea-basket out of that

769
hotel at any time while the shops in that town are not legally authorised to be open. If I am staying in an hotel and have a long train journey ahead, I cannot ask them to cut a packet of sandwiches for me to put in my pocket and consume on the train, because they cannot cut sandwiches for me to take out of the hotel at any hour past the closing time laid down in the Bill. I feel sure that the noble Viscount does not agree with that state of affairs.
I grant him his point about registration of multiple shops that can sell meals for consumption on and off, but I am now talking of an establishment
"whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals or refreshments…".
an establishment which is purely and simply an hotel—I put in "mainly" because the noble Viscount might want to argue that the principal business of some hotels is the letting of rooms and that supplying meals is not the principal business. I am not wedded to this wording, but does it not seem ridiculous that I cannot take a tea-basket out of an hotel at which I am staying for a picnic at any time which happens to be after the early closing hour for shops in that particular town? The noble and learned Viscount may say that the hotel can be registered by the local authority; but why should it be necessary for an hotel to be registered for the purpose of carrying on the business of an hotel? It does not do anything else. Surely, if I stay in an hotel I should be able to have all the amenities which that hotel can rightly provide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 37, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am trying to get the reference verified but I am told that the noble Lord is mistaken as to the effect of the Bill as drafted and that it is possible to do as he wishes, although Clause 11 would have to be invoked in order to do it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That means registration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Yes. Fundamentally one is faced with the fact that the object of the Bill is to restrict the hours during which shops can be open. If a shop, restaurant, hotel or any place
770
within the extended definition wishes to sell refreshments for off-consumption it can do so, but it must tell the local authority so that the local authority may check whether this is a genuine business or a purely casual business. Subject to that one provision, the hotel or other concern may supply refreshments in that way, without let or hindrance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is probably taking too gloomy a view of his chances with the refreshment basket and the sandwiches. My own difficulty has always been to get hotels or railway refreshment rooms to cut sandwiches at all except during the hours when they are open, and I believe the noble Lord will find that if he walks into a railway restaurant which is open he can buy his sandwiches and take them away in his pocket as he has always done hitherto, even without any registration of that restaurant under Clause 11. It may not be open during some part of the day, but the Amendment of the noble Lord will not help it to open; it will only enable him to be served when the place is open. Therefore, I do not feel that his difficulty is a very real one. In so far as it is a real one, it can be dealt with under Clause 11, by registration.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Does this mean that any hotel whose business is wholly or mainly in connection with the sale of meals could not give a picnic basket for a Sunday supper out in the country unless the hotel had actually registered under Clause 11? If so, it seems to me that we are inciting the breaking of the law. Surely it would be much better not to rely on registration under Clause 11 but to insert in the main Bill some provision which would allow the very reasonable facilities for which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asks. Perhaps the Minister would look at this matter again to see whether some such provision could not be inserted in the Bill, rather than rely on the need for registralion with all the rigmarole which would have to be fulfilled by the applicant if, for some reason or other, the local authority refused the application for registration. It all seems rather complicated and is something of a temptation for someone to ignore the necessity for registration.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I see the point which is made by the noble

771
and learned Viscount, but I fear that for the sake of stopping up a few loopholes we are going to shackle the legitimate trader. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount has any experience of the hotel business, but I can assure him that the volume of rules, regulations and form-filling with which an hotelier has to cope at the present time is fairly large. Why now ask him to register in order to carry on his perfectly legitimate business? If the noble and learned Viscount does not like the wording of my Amendment he may alter it. I do not mind the introduction of words to make it apply to bona fide hotels and restaurants. That would go at least some way towards my point. I am not speaking of railway station restaurants but of the kind of country hotel at which one would stay on holiday or at a week-end, where one may ask on a Sunday to have a luncheon basket. Unless the hotel is registered to give luncheon baskets or tea baskets it cannot do so outside the early closing hours regulated in that particular area under this Bill. Would the noble and learned Viscount, when he is considering this matter, see whether he can be more specific? I agree that any loophole should be stopped up, but we do not want to set up a huge machine of registration to stop what may be a very slight breaking of the law by small people. If the Minister can minimise that by specifying in this particular context bona fide hotels and restaurants, then I should be quite satisfied.
LORD GIFFORD: May I make a suggestion which may help the noble and learned Viscount without going as far as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth? Could there not be some provision for this facility to be made available to bona fide residents of an hotel? I appreciate that somebody may come into the hotel for the particular purpose of buying sandwiches or other refreshments, but it seems ridiculous that residents of an hotel should not be able to buy a picnic meal if they wish.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Let us define the point at issue. The point is not whether they should be allowed to or not, for, so far as I know, we are all agreed that they should be allowed to obtain such refreshments. The question is simply one of administration, as to
772
whether or not a restaurant which contemplates, in the ordinary course of its business, the sale of comestibles for consumption off the premises should take the precaution of registering under Clause 11. I would point out to my noble friend below the gangway that there is no rigmarole here. The local authority has only one reason upon which it can refuse registration; that is, that no substantial business of the kind is being carried on at all. It can refuse only for that reason; therefore the hotel has an absolute right to supply comestibles at any time it wishes to do so; and it will do so only if it has an employee to serve them. The only question, therefore, is whether one registers or does not register. The present view of those advising me is that to omit the necessity for registration probably would lead the way to abuse, while to insert an Amendment of this kind would invite the anomalies of the kind that I have pointed out. For instance, in the poignant example given by the noble Lord of the sale of meals at the country inn at which he was staying, I very much doubt whether the business of a residential hotel is wholly or mainly connected with the sale of meals. I should question whether he could substantiate that. Therefore, he would have to search for some other form of words in order to achieve his purpose.
I will certainly cause this matter to be looked at again. The last thing I have ever tried to be in connection with this Bill is dogmatic. I am sure that those advising me and advising my right honourable friend will take this debate into account and think of it without any preconceptions before the Report stage. But my own present feeling is that probably the noble Lord is worrying too much about this matter. I agree that the burden of regulations on hoteliers and restaurateurs is very high at the moment, but it is mainly high in relation to the licensed victualling trade, and so long as we retain our present licensing laws it is inevitable that that will be highly regulated, quite independently of anything we do here. The process of registration under Clause 11 is one that will have to be undertaken by other people, and I am not sure that hotels and restaurants should be put in a privileged position. However, as I say, I

773
do not wish to appear dogmatic at this stage or to say that we will not think about it. We certainly will.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Minister took me to task about "rigmarole", and perhaps that was no quite the correct word to use. However, I would remind him that registration is not so simple. The hotel has to make an application to the local authority, who then have to satisfy themselves
"that it is the applicant's intention that the business carried on or, as the case may be, to be carried on…"
Presumably, the applicant will have to furnish various information, including figures, possibly of his complete turnover or of that portion, which relates to this point. The Minister knows well, because he has had to deal with local authorities, that it is not so easy as saying "You make an application"; indeed, you have to go through—and I repeat—a consider-able rigmarole.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think my noble friend is probably mistaking what is a complicated form of words for what is a relatively simple form of action.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps it is the Bill that is a rigmarole. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and, on his undertaking, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment. I hope he will not think it unkind of me if I remind him that it was once part of the Ark of the Covenant of the Party opposite to "Set the people free."
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord is inviting me to withdraw the Bill altogether, which I do not think would please his noble friend sitting to his right. Perhaps he should change places.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am not inviting the noble and learned Viscount to do anything at all except to cogitate on some of the things that have been said in the past.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JESSEL: Under existing law, off-licence holders are subject to the same selling hours for alcoholic liquor as public houses, and both are allowed to sell tobacco, cigarettes and matches until the close of permitted hours in the evening. This Bill takes away the right from the off-licence holders to sell tobacco and puts them on a par with ordinary tobacconists.
774
So we have the situation where one could go out to an off-licence shop to buy a bottle of beer, and after 7 p.m., although one could buy the bottle of beer, one could not buy a packet of cigarettes and some matches at the same time. On the other hand, cafes, restaurants and cinemas can sell tobacco throughout the evening for what is described as "immediate consumption with a meal". I must say that the idea that somebody may consume twenty cigarettes with a meal is engaging, but, strictly speaking, to keep on the right side of the law, that is what he would have to do. During the past fifty years all new and rebuilt public houses have had separate off-licence shops, so that one on licence covers both the public house and the off-licence shop. These can sell cigarettes and matches all the hours they are open, but the off-licence shop on its own cannot. This seems to me to be extremely unfair, as the result will be that increased trade is bound to go to the premises attaching to the public house, to the detriment of identical premises not covered by a public house licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 2, leave out (" on-licence ") and insert (" licence ").—(Lord Jessel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it has escaped the attention of my noble friend that on February 12 last I promised to make an exemption for the sale of tobacco and confectionery. I personally do not see what the purpose of this Amendment is if, in fact, that exemption is made. I would ask him to reconsider the muter, because if you are allowed to sell tobacco anywhere. I do not see the purpose of inserting a provision that you can sell it at an off-licence.
LORD JESSEL: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I agree that if what he said he might do is in fact done, there is not much point in this Amendment On the other hand, suppose it is not done. I still think that off-licence premises should maintain their present position by having the same rights to sell tobacco as they have at present. However, in the circumstances, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved to leave out paragraph 5. The noble Viscount said: I

775
move this Amendment because it is a fact that, although in considering another part of the Bill we have discussed certain other aspects of pharmacies and pharmaceutical practices on Sundays, there is still a strong objection in the profession with regard to this particular provision. The two lines that I desire to be deleted from the Bill in themselves remove the limitation on the supply of medicines on Sundays now permitted only from pharmacies and shops contracting under the National Health Service. In the view of the profession, at any rate—and I speak now from information supplied to me from the Pharmaceutical Society and the National Pharmaceutical Union—this would be a retrograde step and contrary to the view expressed by the Ministry of Health to the Gowers Committee. It would establish a privilege which is not based upon any special knowledge possessed by the persons concerned, or upon any special service that such persons can give.
The existing law, providing for an article to be supplied if there is reason to believe that it is required in the case of illness, gives all the latitude which the public may require. The Pharmaceutical Society, as well as the National Pharmaceutical Union, take that point of view. It is certainly an extension of the general use on Sundays of pharmacies and chemist shops, and in certain cases other shops, which ought not to be allowed to remain as it is now in the Schedule. I am very much in favour—as I am sure all Members of the Committee are—of making adequate provision for a supply of drugs and medicines prescribed, or which are regular lines, for illness. But when it comes to opening the door to all kinds of apparatus such as spectacles and surgical appliances, one might say that in what is called medical apparatus every kind of prophylactic might be included. It is not progress to extend the powers at present existing for these businesses on Sundays so as to permit that kind of thing. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will give special attention to this Amendment. I am not saying that on Report stage some words may not have to be inserted to make it quite clear what is limited, if the noble Viscount should, with his advisers, think that the existing law would not otherwise be maintained. I have not actually looked up that point,
776
because I am not a lawyer. But perhaps the noble Viscount would look at this again. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 3, leave out paragraph 5.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is an endeavour to restrict liberty, for various reasons which I will analyse, and I hope that, for that reason, the Amendment will not commend itself either to the Committee or to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has tactfully absented himself whilst this particular Amendment was being moved by his noble friend. The effect of the Amendment is to remove the exemption from the sale of drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances, or spectacles or eyeglasses from the Schedule of the Bill, which permits certain transactions at any time on week-days and, in England and Wales, at any time on Sundays. Paragraph 19, it is perfectly true, provides exemptions in respect of goods which the person effecting sale has reasonable grounds to believe are required in a case of illness. That was not designed in practice to deal with medicines at all. The object of paragraph 19 was to allow transactions of ordinary articles which might be required in cases of emergency, and it was thought right to exempt them. In general, it is the desire of the Government to exempt drugs, medicines, medical or surgical appliances, or spectacles or eyeglasses, without putting it upon the seller of them to find out if someone is genuinely ill at the time they are bought. On the whole, that is the view which I commend to your Lordships.
It is, of course, true that a number of powerful bodies of organised opinions, and, may I add, highly reputable bodies, take a contrary view. The National Pharmaceutical Union, the Co-operative Union, and other organisations representing pharmacists, take the contrary view. I think one can speculate as to why. My own feeling is that they are possibly influenced by the belief that shops legislation should be used to limit the sale of such articles except by persons enjoying special qualifications. But that is not the Government's view. In our view, the Shops Bill is not the proper instrument to achieve this purpose, if it is desirable to achieve it. There are plenty of people who think it is desirable,

777
but it is no part of the function of this Bill—which is a Bill for limitation of hours and the protection of assistants—to cure any of the various evils which may arise from the sale by unqualified persons of spectacles, eyeglasses or drugs.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? I am not at all clear. The noble Viscount is no doubt expressing a legal view as to what he thinks the Government intend. But the law at the present time is that these goods may not be sold in a pharmacy or a chemist's shop unless that shop—I do not say is staffed entirely by professional people, but, at any rate, is under the management of one who is qualified. As I listened to the noble Viscount, it did not seem to me that he was providing for that view. If we are to have goods of this sort sold in general, then there should be a qualified chemist in charge.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was aware of the need for a qualified chemist in certain circumstances, but I do not think that applies to the sale of a packet of aspirins in every case. I think we discussed that point at some length under Clause 41. I was saying only that if that were, as I suspect it is, the underlying motive of the very reputable bodies whose view the noble Viscount so well represents, it is not the Government's view that that objective ought to be obtained by the device of using the shops legislation for obtaining it, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that comment.
The present situation is that under the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act, which lists transactions exempted on Sundays, sales are limited to chemists, opticians and other qualified persons. But what the noble Viscount did not point out was that the Second Schedule of the same Act allows sales after the week-day evening closing hour by any shop so long as the shop is open only long enough to serve each customer; and the First Schedule exempts such sales by any shop from the early closing day provisions. Exemption in cases of illness is additional. Clearly, something ought to be done about this extraordinary example of muddle and anomalies under the existing law—having one for Sundays, one for the late closing hour and one for the early closing hour. Something must be done to rationalise the whole jungle.
778
Of course, it would be possible to exempt sales at chemists' shops and opticians' shops and not to exempt any other sales. But we do not think that that would do either, because we think it would be absurd to prevent other shops which were lawfully open on Sunday, and which stocked made-up medicines, from selling a box of aspirin to a customer who might think he urgently needed it, unless he could persuade a totally unqualified owner of the shop that he was really ill. If he could not be served, he might have to wait until the evening and then walk miles to the nearest chemist's shop whose turn it would be under the rota scheme. That seems to me to be what my noble friend below the gangway would call a rigmarole, and in this instance I think he would be right.
Apart from paragraph 19, which I have said was not designed for this type of business at all, the National Health Service rota scheme for pharmacists would not be able to operate on the early closing day and on Sundays at all if this Amendment were passed. Shops which stocked such made-up medicines as aspirin would not be able to sell them outside normal shopping hours, even though the shops were normally open for the sale of exempted goods. I do not think the noble Viscount opposite really wishes to destroy the rota scheme as this Amendment would do. On the contrary, the purpose of his Amendments to Clause 41 was to make the rota scheme effective, and his claim was that Clause 41 endangered it. This, however, would make the rota scheme a thing of the past, except under paragraph 19; and anybody who operated it would do so entirely at his peril, because in each case he would have to make quite certain that there was a genuine case of illness. My own feeling is that this is an unduly restrictive Amendment. The law is being tidied and rationalised by the inclusion of paragraph 5, and it would be a mistake to exclude it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not quite met the spirit in which I moved this Amendment. I told him that I thought it might well be that, if we could exclude these words at the present time, we should need to have something put in their place. Of course, I want to maintain the rota system, as

779
the noble Viscount knows full well. But what I was astonished at in the course of his reply was that he should come down flat in favour of allowing any kind of shop to open on Sunday to sell such things as aspirin. That is a retrograde step; it is retrograde in the view of the professional bodies that I have already mentioned. There is no indication in the noble Viscount's remarks—because, of course, he cannot cover everything—of the type of shop which is going to sell not only aspirin but other classes of goods of a medical nature under this clause. There has been no real difficulty at all, with the help of the rota scheme, in fulfilling all that was required in the last few years by selling through the chemists' shops, either as separate shops or by the rota system, in some cases. In my view, this opening up of Sunday trade, and especially Sunday trade to shops of this character, which are at present not able to deal in these goods, is a grave and retrograde step. I shall certainly return to the matter if the noble Viscount is going to persist in saying "I cannot give any further consideration to it."
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The Leader of the Opposition characterises this as a retrograde step opposed by professional bodies. He has, quite rightly, put forward his point of view, but there is another point of view. At the beginning of his remarks, he said "the organised professional bodies". There is the bigger body of persons, unorganised—the general public. I believe that this is a liberalising of the facilities given, and rightly given, to the general public, and therefore I warmly support the words the Minister used in resisting this Amendment. I hope that he maintains his position.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must correct what the noble Viscount opposite said. I never said that I thought it desirable that shops should open on Sundays in order to sell these things. I said it was ridiculous that a shop which was open on Sunday lawfully for the sale of other things should not be allowed to sell a bottle of aspirin.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And what else? Aspirins are certainly not the only things which
780
can be sold under this paragraph of the Schedule which I want to leave out. The noble Viscount knows that quite well. Some of the things are not, in fact, very respectable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I know nothing about them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.4 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved, in paragraph 7, to leave out "such book-stalls" and to insert:
"book-stalls at railway stations, omnibus stations or airports, and such other bookstalls ".
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I spoke about this Amendment and the one immediately following at the same time. Both these Amendments have the same object, but they achieve it in a slightly different way. In the Shops Act, 1950, the exemptions for book-stalls were confined to main line or terminal railway stations or omnibus stations, and the wording in the present Bill was, I understand, designed to extend those exemptions a certain amount so as to cover book-stalls which might not be actually in the station but were in the immediate vicinity and mainly serving the travelling public.
In the furtherance of this laudable object, an uncertainty has crept in. I should like to ask what is the definition of a long-distance traveller. Many of us travel each day to London from places like Maidstone, Orpington, Esher or Woking. Would such travellers be long-distance travellers? I do not know. Therefore, I have put forward an Amendment which will divide the two classes of bookstalls. Those actually in the railway stations, omnibus stations or airports would, by my first Amendment, be exempt from receiving the approval of the Secretary of State, and the long-distance criterion would come in only for those outside the bus stations or airports. The second Amendment provides that all the bookstalls must be approved by the Secretary of State, but the long-distance qualification comes in only for those which are outside the station premises. Obviously, they must be looked at much more carefully, and it would be quite proper that they should be approved only if they really did cater

781
mainly for long-distance travellers. It seems to me that bookstalls actually in the railway stations and airports ought to be almost automatically approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 11, leave out (" such bookstalls ") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think one could welcome the spirit underlying this Amendment, but I rather question whether it would not be more complicated than what is at present proposed. Under the existing law, there are exemptions for the sale of reading matter at such terminal and main line stations as may be approved by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 7 of the Schedule, which is the paragraph under consideration in this Amendment, is intended to carry out the same objective, but in rather a more effective manner, by giving the Secretary of State powers to approve exempted bookstalls which appear to him
"to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers."
Under the present law, some difficulty has been experienced owing to there being a doubt whether a particular bookstall is in the station or not. That difficulty is dealt with. The Secretary of State is able to exempt bookstalls which are not so qualified. The effect of the Amendment is that bookstalls at all railway stations, omnibus stations and airports are technically exempted, To say that the Secretary of State's power would be confined to adding to the exemptions bookstalls such as those around, but not actually in, the stations would continue the present doubt as to whether a particular bookstall was automatically exempted or not, for the sake of obtaining a purely illusory advantage.
On the other hand, it would suffer, as it seems to me, from an absolutely conclusive disadvantage, because, if we are going to regulate these openings at all, we must hold the balance fairly as between trade competitors. That is obviously an elementary necessity of regulation. There can be no reason at all why, apart from the provision of reading matter for long-distance travel, a bookstall should have an advantage simply because it is in a station. If that were so, it would give a premium to the
782
occupier of a bookstall in the railway station against his competitor in the neighbouring street. If he is supplying reading matter for the traveller, I agree that there is a specific reason why he should be given privileges; but if he is simply in competition with the bookstall in the neighbouring street, I should have thought that there was no case for privilege. That is why the privilege is given by regulation under paragraph 7, and the qualification is that sales must appear to the Secretary of State
"to be intended for the use of, and substantially used by, long-distance travellers."
In practice, I do not think that any difficulty will be occasioned in interpreting those words. I should resist adding to them for the reason that I have given—namely, that it would give an unfair privilege to a number of people who were not really entitled to it.
LORD GIFFORD: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD: I have already spoken generally on this Amendment. I felt that the noble Viscount might have some difficulty about my first Amendment, but it seems to me that this one provides adequate safeguards in that all bookstalls have to be approved by the Secretary of State but he does not have to consider the long-distance qualification when the bookstall is actually in the railway station, omnibus station or airport. I agree that there would not be many cases of doubt, but long-distance travel is a new provision. Under the old Act that proviso did not exist, and it seems to me that, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, it ought not to exist under this Bill if the bookstall is in the station. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 13, after (" being ") insert (" either book-stalls at railway stations, omnibus stations or airports or other ").—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: With respect, I should have thought this Amendment was open rather nakedly to the same objection that I was indicating before. I can see that there is a case which might be argued by the protagonists of liberty—who are, I am glad to say, numerous in your Lordships' House—that all bookstalls ought to be open on Sunday for

783
the sale of reading matter to anybody. That is not the view taken by the Government, but it seems to me that there is a perfectly strong libertarian case to be put for that. Equally, I can see that there is a strong case for the Government saying "No; that would infringe the rights of the shop assistants, and so on. We must have the exemption limited to long-distance travellers." But what I cannot see that there can be a case for is for giving a privilege to railway station bookstalls where the books are not required for long-distance travel. That is the sole object of this Amendment, and I myself cannot see that there is a case to support it.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of the remarks made by the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I, with the permission of the Committee, discuss Amendments Nos. 112 and 114 together as they run together? By Amendment No. 114 I seek to leave out of paragraph 8 the words
"so long as the sale is effected in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access."
I seek to safeguard the position by inserting earlier in the paragraph the words "bona-fide". The paragraph would then read:
"The sale, at a theatre to a bona-fide member of the audience at a performance, of mineral waters or other non-intoxicating drinks, sweets, chocolates or other sugar confectionery, ice cream…tobacco or matches."
I want the sympathetic understanding of the noble Viscount. I do not seek to do anything that he does not wish to do, but I would argue that the Bill as it stands to-day will affect the vast majority of cinemas and prevent them from supplying bona fide members of the audience with those things with which the Government wish them to be supplied. Owing to the construction of about 75 per cent. of the cinemas of this country it is physically impossible to put the sweet kiosk in a part of the theatre to which no members of the public other than members of the audience have access. That is the difficulty. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is
784
knowledgeable on the architecture of cinemas, but at least in the provinces he will find that most of the kiosks from which confectionery and tobacco are sold are on the public side of the box office; and they are, admittedly, used as sweet shops during the time that sweet shops are allowed to be open because the public have access to them.
I am in entire sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount a moment or two ago—that we must hold the balance fairly as between one trader and another. I do not want our cinema sweet kiosks to compete unfairly with the ordinary sweet shop; I do not want that kiosk to be open to ordinary members of the public as long as the cinema is open, which would be to a later hour than ordinary sweet shops across the street. My difficulty—which the noble Viscount will see—is this: that if he and I, together with our respective wives, were members of an audience, and if we listened to their blandishments and were persuaded to buy them each a box of chocolates in a theatre where the kiosk was on the wrong side of the pay box, we should have to go out and come back again into the theatre. Very likely we should have to pay another entrance fee. I do not know how to get over that at the moment, except by the Amendment that I have put down, providing that it should be open to a bona-fide member of the audience to purchase those things which it is open to him to purchase, even if the site from which he is to buy them is in a part of the theatre to which the public have access. I hope that I have made myself clear. I would put the responsibility upon the theatre proprietor to see that none other than bona-fide members of the audience went to that kiosk during hours which would be prohibited to the general public. If the noble Viscount can see a better way out I will readily accept it. At the moment I cannot, and I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 16, after the second (" a ") insert (" bona-fide ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in admitting that he succumbs to the blandishments of his wife to touch forbidden fruit, is a true son of Adam.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Not forbidden fruit.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think there is no harm in doing that—at any rate, no more harm than there ever was. But I think the better way is shortly this. At an earlier point in the Committee stage on this Bill I agreed to exempt sweets in general from the restrictions on trading. If I do that, the Amendment may be unnecessary, though the noble Lord will still, of course, retain his right on Report to move any Amendment that he thinks suitable. Even if the Amendment were not unnecessary, I should be inclined 10 think that it would be objectionable as giving an advantage to the cinema as against the sweetshop. At any rate, we need not quarrel about that. If I am going to do something for everyone there is no need to do it, for a defined and limited class.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and I am not going to press the Amendment. But will he bear this in mind? You can buy sweets in a cinema right up to the time of closing of the cinema, which may be as late as ten o'clock, so long as you buy them from a tray. But if the noble Viscount's wife, or my wife, has rather more expensive tastes, which cannot be satisfied from the contents of the tray, one is debarred from going to the kiosk to buy a box of chocolates because it is in the part of the theatre to which the public has access. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will bear that in mind. I am grateful for his promise to give consideration to this, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to paragraph 9:
"or (e) at any garden, park or open space under the control of a public authority."
The noble Earl said: This Schedule allows the sale of guide-books at museums or art galleries, places of natural beauty or historic interest, zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, and many other places, including the Festival Pleasure Gardens in London. It does not appear, however, to allow the sale of guide-books in parks or gardens managed by local authorities. Let us look at the
786
position in London. There are a number of very agreeable parks which are run by the London County Council. For instance, there is, in this part of London, Battersea Park, and, rather further east, Victoria Park. These parks are open on Sundays and in the summer months, when people like to be in such places fairly late, they remain open long after shops are closed. Why should not these places also be places where guide-books may be sold on Sundays, and also late in the evening, and at any time when the public is allowed to frequent them? The object of the Amendment—which is a liberalising Amendment—is to extend the number of places where guide-books and other things that are relevant can be sold to the public when they go there. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 55, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I personally am rather sceptical about this Amendment. I realise that its scope would be limited to the sale of guide-books, reproductions of works of art, picture postcards, photographs, photographic films or photographic plates or souvenirs. So, to some extent, it would not open the flood gates, as they are called. But I must say that the prospect of an "open space"—to quote the words of the Amendment—being subject to an exemption, even as wide as that which I have just read, fills me with a certain amount of disquietude. I can see at once, of course, why the Bill as it stands allows these guide-books and so forth to be sold at the places mentioned, including the Festival Pleasure Gardens in Battersea Park. But I cannot see why, for instance, the London County Council should want to sell a guide-book in Lincoln's Inn Fields, or even in Battersea Park itself, outside the Pleasure Gardens.
When we come to places like a bird sanctuary, or the National Trust property in the Peak District of Derbyshire (which I suppose is an open space; it certainly is not a closed one), I begin to think that the Amendment goes beyond anything that really is necessary. My own feeling is that the Bill already provides what is necessary. If mere are any classes of places not included in paragraph 9 which the London County Council has specifically in mind, I will gladly

787
undertake to consider whether they could be included in the Bill by way of exemption. But I feel that to allow any place to be exempt from the provisions of the Bill for the sale of photographs—which might include any kind of photographs—simply because it is controlled by a public authority (I think that is the phrase) is too wide. So I ask the noble Earl not to press this Amendment, though if he has something quite specific in mind I certainly will undertake to pass it on with a view to its being considered.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there is a great deal of force in the noble Viscount's arguments. Clearly, the wording of the Amendment, as he suggests, can be construed rather widely. The words "open space", particularly, might be open to be construed too widely. The sort of example I will give the noble Viscount is the exhibition of sculpture which is staged in Battersea Park. I will certainly take advantage of the noble Viscount's suggestion that I should consult with the London County Council and find out whether there are any specific places which they think ought to be included in this part of the Schedule as places that are exempted under the Bill. In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 11, after "vehicles" to insert "caravans, trailers". The noble Lord said: Paragraph 11 of this Second Schedule exempts:
"The sale of parts of, or accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for, vessels, aircraft, mechanically propelled vehicles, cycles or agricultural machinery or equipment."
At an earlier period I tried to tempt the noble Viscount into giving me a definition of "mechanically propelled vehicles," but he was too quick. I think he did venture to go so far as to say that a vehicle that was propelled by a mechanically propelled vehicle could not be called a mechanically propelled vehicle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I said that a caravan was not a mechanically propelled vehicle unless it had an engine of its own.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I seek to do here is to exempt also
788
caravans and trailers. It is, I suggest, rather ludicrous that you are empowered to get a spare tyre for your motor car—indeed, you can get a spare tyre or anything for your motor car—on a Sunday, or at any time after the place is open, irespective of anything in this Bill, yet you cannot get some part or a tyre for your trailer or caravan. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the number of caravans that are trailed about behind motor cars or tractors, constitute a fair proportion of the traffic on the road to-day; and if you are going to say that spare parts may be obtained for motor cars, it is difficult to say that attachments like that may not be similarly treated. So I hope the noble Viscount will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 37, after (" vehicles ") insert (" caravans, trailers ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord will remember that I gave an undertaking to consider an earlier Amendment of his with regard to the sale of mechanically propelled vehicles. This Amendment deals with parts of these. I think that there is a great deal of force in what he says, but I would ask him not to press the Amendment in the words in which he has put it, because I should like to consider this point in connection with the more substantive matter of the vehicles themselves, and perhaps I could deal with the two together on Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I wonder if the noble Viscount could deal with a small point, which I think it is appropriate to put in now—namely, the definition of "aircraft". Could the noble Viscount see that it includes (it may already do so) gliders and is not strictly confined to power-driven machines? There are many clubs with motorless aircraft which one would like to see covered by this definition.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I shall certainly make a note of that. I have not had notice of it, but it seems to me to be a reasonable point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for the noble Viscount's undertaking to look at this question in the general consideration of motor vehicles.

789
Reserving my right to put the Amendment down again if the reconsideration is not satisfactory—though I do not think I shall be driven to that necessity—I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved to add to the Schedule:
"22. The sale of omnibus, coach, rail, sea and air transport timetables."
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands. I think it is clear that the sale of timetables constitutes retail trade. Part II of the Third Schedule refers to periodicals and guides but does not appear to refer to timetables. Even if it did, that would not permit the sale of timetables at all hours of the day and night, which is what is desired. It is true to say that there have net been any practical difficulties under the present law and I do not suppose that there will be under the Bill as drafted, but it seems to me that this matter should be put on a proper basis. It should be made clear that it is legal to sell timetables by clay or night without the slightest risk of prosecution. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 11, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Gifford.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the noble Lord said, this is not a large matter, but at the moment the Government find it difficult to believe that there is any substantial demand for timetables after seven o'clock in the evening. It is true that there may be a demand for information after seven o'clock in the evening about the time of the departures of particular trains, but in the view of the Government the practice of travellers is to ask the station staff for the information they require, not to buy a timetable. I am not in the least poking fun at the noble Lord's Amendment, which seems to me to have a reasonable object in view, if there were a substantial demand for it. The Bill is already being complained of as being unduly complex and detailed. There are some people who do not like it at all, as I noticed from The Times leader this morning, which I thought singularly ill-informed about the actual provisions of the Bill, even more than usual criticisms. If we are to have a Bill of this kind, I should have thought that it should not be made unworkable by the addition of particular classes of
790
goods for which it is difficult to conceive a genera] substantial demand after shopping hours. If there is strong evidence of a substantial demand and of passengers going about in dire peril and misery because they cannot buy timetables at eight o'clock in the evening, I think I should advise my right honourable friend to do something. But I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is necessary to introduce an additional exemption for this rather limited class of reading matter.
LORD GIFFORD: By leave of the Committee, I would like to say that, most definitely, transport undertakings get a demand for the purchase of timetables at all hours of the day and night. Let me remind your Lordships that many long-distance buses and trains leave late at night. People going off on a holiday and maybe going on further trips during their holiday want to take a timetable with them to plan their journey. I was not anxious to press the Amendment, as difficulties had not arisen in the past, but from what the noble Viscount said it would be ultra vires to sell timetables outside permitted hours. Therefore I should be much obliged if he could consider the matter again. As one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who are in the travel business, I assure him that there is a demand. After all, there is a twenty-four-hour service at airports, and there is a definite demand for timetables at all times.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Airports are dealt with especially in paragraph 7 of the Schedule. The picture which the noble Lord has to draw in order to arouse my sympathy for his beleaguered traveller is not that of the man at the airport who has forgotten to plan his journey to South America and wants to look up a train on the Pernambuco railway, which I concede he could do if the airport bookstall had one in stock. The picture that the noble Lord has to paint in order to wring my withers is that of the man who cannot find an ordinary bookseller open after seven at right to buy a timetable. I should have thought that there is a very limited demand for that class of shop to be open and no need for the Amendment at all; but I will report what my noble friend has said to my right honourable friend, who is in a much better position to judge these things

791
than I am. As I have said frequently, the last thing I want to do is to give the impression of being dogmatic, but I should have thought that the noble Lord had not made out a case for a special exemption here, though I would recognise at once a case for the exemption of bookstalls at railway stations.
LORD GIFFORD: I do not want to labour the point, but I would point out that though some are sold at bookstalls, timetables are often sold at booking offices. Although timetables used to be given away, they are now expensive books to produce and they are sold at booking offices by the clerks who issue tickets to travellers. I want to see that these men are able to sell timetables through the window of the ticket office for the appropriate 6d., or whatever it may be, without running the risk of prosecution. I am not thinking so much of the bookstalls in this case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I will certainly see that what the noble Lord has said is passed on. I do not want to dash or raise any hopes at this stage, because the picture of these late-hour rushes for timetables is a relatively novel one to me and it may be that I am ill-informed on the subject.
LORD GIFFORD: In view of what the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill:
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to detain the Committee for any length of time, but the discussion that we have had, on this Schedule, lasting a good many hours, indicates that perhaps this is not the wisest way of dealing with this matter at all. There are twenty-one paragraphs in this Schedule. We have tried, and I am sure Her Majesty's Government have tried, to incorporate in this Schedule every conceivable kind of activity which it is desired should take place on a Sunday or out of hours; but I should be astonished if we have thought of everything. I shall be astonished if after this Bill has been passed the Government do not wish they had put in other items. On the other hand, I shall equally be
792
surprised if they do not find some items here which prove unworthy of having been put in this category.
For that reason, though I share the distaste which most people have for delegated legislation, I should have thought that this was essentially a case for delegated legislation—that is, for giving a Secretary of State the power, from time to time, to make regulations adding to or deleting from the list, as circumstances arise. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may well be right in saying that timetables should be considered, or my noble friend Lord Listowel may discover some park or open space where it may be desirable to sell photographs. With delegated authority it will be possible, by regulations, to add to the list, as the necessity emerges, other activities which can be undertaken on a Sunday. I put that suggestion forward for consideration. I know the noble and learned Viscount will consider it and will put it before his noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. Had what I have suggested been done, it might have saved us a lot of time in the passage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Of course I will do so. Anything which falls from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is treated by me with the utmost respect. But this is rather "where I came in" this afternoon. When I came in this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from the Front Bench of the Labour Party, was pressing me with the utmost strength to abandon the right of regulation under Clause 11 and to write it all into the Statute Book, which he said would be much more convenient. Then comes the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asking why we should have this elaborate Schedule and saying we should knock it out of the Schedule and put it all in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State. Before I left for my public appointment the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition said to me: "We hope you are not going to abandon this altogether, as a Bill." And then the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party said: "Unless you do something which radically alters it, we are going to vote against it on Third Reading". And at a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, twitted me for not "setting the people free." I do not suppose a Minister on his maiden voyage in charge of a Bill has ever been so bewildered by so many

793
divergent courses pressed upon him by so many eminent Peers. They are all very forceful pieces of advice. The only thing of which I am quite certain is that they cannot all be right.
LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has made a very clever retort. He has made the most of the differences of opinion which may exist on this side of the House, but this is not a Party suggestion and I do not put it forward on behalf of my Party. I do so because the experience of the last few hours suggests to me that, whatever other people may have said, this is a helpful piece of advice. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will take it in that spirit. I certainly was not trying to score from him and I am sure he is not really trying to score from any of my noble friends.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Will the noble Lord take it from me at once that I was not? My gentle humour was not intended maliciously; but having, like the noble and learned Lord, spent some hours in Committee on the Bill, I could not help observing, in philosophical but faintly humorous vein, upon the divergent courses pressed on me from different eminent sources. I quite agree that the noble Lord's suggestion was not put forward in any Party spirit and it was certainly not taken in any Party spirit.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Goods whose sale is permissible in England and Wales on Sunday until 7 p.m. or other time fixed by local authority]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble and learned Viscount to turn his mind for a moment to the last section of the Schedule, to the subject of
"…frozen or dried fruit and…frozen or dried vegetables (including mushrooms and other edible fungi)."
I assume that mushrooms should be included because although I have never come across frozen mushrooms, I have come across dried ones; and presumably if one can have dried mushrooms one can have dried edible fungi of other kinds—if one is brave enough to face them. This seems to me to raise a point of some importance because, clearly, fresh fruit and vegetables are sold by greengrocers, whereas these frozen or dried articles are
794
sold not only by greengrocers but also by ordinary grocers who sell any number of other articles as well. If the ordinary grocer is to be allowed to open on a Sunday (as he will be allowed to do under the terms of this Schedule) for the sale of frozen or dried fruit and vegetables, there is obviously very wide opportunity for the sale of other goods as well.
Is it really necessary to include them? And if dried fruit is included, where is the line drawn? Why not include tinned fruit? If the grocer is allowed to sell dried raisins or apricots, why should he not sell tinned peaches or pears? I feel that this last section of the Third Schedule deserves careful scrutiny; and although I have not put down an Amendment I should be extremely obliged if the noble and learned Viscount would ponder on this matter between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Provisions as to exercise of order-making powers of local authorities]:
5.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 3 (2) (a), to leave out "were entitled to vote" and insert "voted". The noble Earl said: This Schedule deals with the powers of local authorities to make orders under the Bill. Under the procedure proposed in the Bill, to make an order the local authority have first to get the consent of a majority of persons entitled to vote—that is to say, a majority of ratepayers. As your Lordships are well aware, it is extremely difficult to find out what a majority of ratepayers think, or will think, about an order which a local authority propose to make. The ratepayers are not likely to be deeply stirred by the terms of the order. The difficulty is that if this procedure is laid down by Statute it is quite likely that local authorities will be unable to make any orders at all. For that reason I commend to the noble and learned Viscount the alternative procedure suggested in my present and subsequent Amendments to the Schedule: that the local authority should be empowered to make an order by getting a majority of votes in favour of the order.
May I give the Committee an example of how this procedure is used at the

795
present time? If a metropolitan borough want to promote a Public Bill they convene a public meeting of the ratepayers and, unless agreement is abundantly clear, take a vote. If they get a majority vote they can proceed with the Bill. All I am suggesting is that local authorities should be able to proceed with the making of orders if they can get a majority of votes from people entitled to vote at a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the order, or, indeed, in any other way. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, even if he does not agree with my alternative procedure, will at any rate suggest some way of getting round the procedure laid down in the Bill which may well have the effect of making it impossible for local authorities to make any orders at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 40, leave out (" were entitled to vote ") and insert (" voted ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Earl inadvertently made one error in what he said. The voters are shopkeepers and not ratepayers.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is correct.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Earl inadvertently said ratepayers, when in fact it is shopkeepers who have to vote in these polls. The Bill as it stands represents the view of the Gowers Committee. It provides that the shopkeepers would have to know of the holding of the poll, because under paragraph 4 (d) of the Schedule regulations will require voting papers to be sent to all entitled to vote. It should not be forgotten that some of these orders which are made by the local authority will be restrictive and some will be liberalising. The restrictive ones may be those orders fixing early closing hours or days to be observed as early closing days. On the other hand, as I say, some will be liberalising: for instance, orders allowing more shopping hours in holiday resorts during season.
The issue one has to decide on this Amendment is whether the majority which has to support the local authority before they can act should be a majority of those entitled to vote or of those
796
voting. I do not think it would necessarily follow that one would come to the same conclusion in the case of every kind of proposed order. The point is whether one counts the shopkeepers who are too apathetic to vote as among the ayes or the noes on such an issue. My own feeling is that probably the Bill, which prevents the local authority from acting unless they get a majority of the shopkeepers behind them, is more liberal than the proposed Amendment. I should like to consider this point further, and possibly also my right honourable friend might wish to consider the reactions of another place to this question. I do not think the Government have an established view, but I would ask the noble Earl not to press the Amendment, at any rate until the matter has been further considered, because, as at present advised, we are inclined to think that the Bill is better than the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for his undertaking that this matter will be given further consideration, and on that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This Amendment suggests that, in order to assess the votes to which a shopkeeper is entitled, one should take into account whether he has a number of shops or a number of stalls, and distribute the votes accordingly. The proposal in the Bill is that is should be a vote a head, so to speak. Whether a shopkeeper has a big business, and a bigger stake in the neighbourhood than other shopkeepers, or only a small shop, or perhaps one stall, everyone is to be on the same democratic footing. That may be right, or it may not. I have put down the Amendment so that the Government can consider the alternative procedure. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 24, at end insert:
(" (8) A person entitled to vote in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be entitled to record one vote in respect of each shop occupied by him or each retail trade or business carried on by him otherwise than in a shop in the area to which the order if in force would relate.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is another matter on which I confess at once that I would not go to the stake in either direction—if one can go to the stake in a direction. The Bill, as at present drafted, provides: one man, one vote; and prima facie I should have thought that was the best plan. The noble Earl suggests: one shop, one vote, which would give a chain store in a locality a preference over the small shopkeeper. Again, prima facie I should have thought that was not the best plan. Moreover, it would raise certain difficulties about the man who had vans and not shops—though that could be dealt with by a more elaborate drafting of the Amendment. Again, my own feeling is that we had better leave it as it is. On the whole, I think the Government are right. Again, it is something to which I should like to give further consideration, and possibly also my right honourable friend might care to consider it in another place. The Government have no established view, but the view I have put forward tentatively to the Committee is that "One man, one vole," is a fairly safe, democratic practice.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount. I am not prepared to go to the stake about this Amendment, or even to the Division Lobby. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

WHITE FISH AND HERRING-INDUSTRIES (NO. 2) BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION