Sitting of 27 March 1957

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

  Rent Bill
  Mr. George Craddock: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I beg leave to present a number of Petitions signed by more than 21,000 persons residing in the County of York. They are the humble Petitions of British citizens who are anxious about the proposed legislation to decontrol, and permit increases in, the rents of dwelling-houses, as they believe that this will penalise a large section of the community. The Petitioners conclude:
  " Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that this Bill will be withdrawn or rejected.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray."
  Mr. W. Edwards: I beg to present the following Petition in the name of the Surrey Federation of Trades Councils. It is worded:
  " We the undersigned citizens, desire to present a humble Petition.
  Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that steps be taken to withdraw the Rent Bill.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Morecambe
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Postmaster-General how many applicants are now waiting for telephones in the Morecambe district; and how this figure compares with a year ago.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): One hundred and three, of which 44 are in course of being
    1120
    met. A year ago there were 177 waiting of which 56 were in course of being met.
    Sir I. Fraser: That represents a little progress. Will my hon. Friend go on with the good work?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, indeed. We have a very big scheme of development on foot, and we will go on doing all we can.

    Racecourses
    Mr. Peytonasked the Postmaster-General on what conditions he provides telephone services at racecourses for Press or other special purposes.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Telephones are provided on the standard conditions in the Regulations, to the extent required, and subject to the consent of the owners of the racecourse. The consent of the owner, lessee and occupier is always necessary before a telephone can be installed on any land.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not my hon. Friend think it absolutely wrong that telephones and their cables, which are Government property, should be made the medium for quite exorbitant demands? Will he confirm that such demands are in breach of the telephone Regulations?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, because they are not in breach of any telephone Regulations. The use of the material and cables is governed by the Regulations, and a fee is charged in accordance with those Regulations.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that a number of telephones throughout the country are installed on private premises and bear notices outside, saying, "You may telephone from her"? The charges are charges laid down in the Regulations. Does it not seem to be an outrageous thing that these extraordinary charges are proposed to be made for the use of telephones on these racecourses?
    Mr. Thompson: I have nothing to add to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about what happens in some cases. As far as the case to which the Question refers is concerned, nothing that is happening is in conflict with the telephone Regulations.
    Mr. Stanley: Does my hon. Friend realise that at least 2,500 starting-price bookmakers are asked to pay 4s. a day to get this service, which will help the industry out of which they make a lot of money?
    Mr. Thompson: I have nothing whatever to do with starting-price bookmakers.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Member not agree that these charges are not exorbitant when examined upon the basis of a statement made by his hon. Friend? Is it not time that the Government faced their responsibilities and introduced legislation to deal with off-course betting, which would avoid this kind of thing?
    Mr. Thompson: That is a much wider point than the one raised in the Question.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General whether he will increase the rental charges of telephones installed on race-courses.
    Mr. K. Thompson: It would not be right to introduce a multiplicity of scales for telephone service according to the purpose for which the telephone is used.
    Mr. Lipton: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that a publicly-owned service should be used to exploit the public and profiteer at its expense? If there is any money to be made out of the telephone service, should it not be the Post Office that makes it and not race-course owners who, with the connivance of the Government, are blackmailing people who bet with what is one of our largest national industries?
    Mr. Thompson: The duty of the Post Office is to provide telephone services suitable to the needs of the public, and that we do to the best of our ability.
    Mr. McAdden: Will my hon. Friend make quite clear to those who may seek to increase telephone charges privately and who, if they do not get their own way, cut off the service without the consent of his Department, that they are in clear breach of the Regulations?
    Mr. Thompson: Any interference with the Post Office equipment in connection with telephones is in clear breach of the Regulations.
    Commander Sir P. Agnew: Will my hon. Friend stand up for the rights of
    1122
    the private citizen who does not want to have a telephone on his premises unless he needs it?
    Mr. Thompson: That principle is enshrined in the Regulations.

    Leyton
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General how many applicants for telephones are still awaiting service in the Borough of Leyton compared with 1955 and 1951; and what is the present average waiting period before telephones are installed.
    Mr. K. Thompson: There are at present 381 outstanding applications compared with 1,300 in 1955 and 1,650 in 1951. Of those waiting, 131 will be connected shortly. The Leytonstone Exchange is now full and we are going on with providing a new Coppermill Exchange. There will, of course, be some delay for some applicants until this is completed next year.
    Mr. Sorensen: Whilst expressing appreciation for that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, switching over to Coppermill Exchange means a further delay? Will he say approximately how long that delay will be?
    Mr. Thompson: The provision of the Coppermill Exchange is part of our programme for providing the extra facilities required to meet the demands of the larger number of applicants and is not a delaying factor.

    Long-Distance Calls (Dialling)
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of long-distance calls are dialled direct.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Forty-two per cent. of long-distance calls are now dialled by the trunk operator direct to the distant subscriber. We are making plans to enable subscribers to dial trunk calls direct, and the first installation will be opened at Bristol in 1959.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Western Germany 58 per cent. of the long-distance calls are dialled direct? Does he not think that Great Britain ought to be able to do better

    1123
    than a country which was smashed up almost completely after the war?
    Mr. Thompson: We have nothing to be ashamed of in the progress of telephone development in this country. It is my belief that the system we are at present working on and developing will be at least as good as, and in all probability far better than, anything available elsewhere.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only in his Answer to this Question, but in other Answers he has given today, he has seemed to take too complacent a view of his duties? The figures I have quoted surely ought to show him that we are not doing as well as some of our competitors.
    Mr. Thompson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are by no means complacent. The rate of progress we have achieved is, I think, evidence of that fact.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Hydeasked the Postmaster-General how many telephone service subscribers there are at present in Northern Ireland; how many of these use shared lines; how many outstanding applications there are for the service; and when he expects that these will be met.
    Mr. K. Thompson: There are nearly 70,000 subscribers, of whom some 18,000 are sharing. We are providing additional plant and expect to connect about 7,000 new subscribers this year. At present, 5,100 applications are outstanding, but I cannot say when all these will be met, as this depends on the availability of cables and exchange equipment.
    Mr. Hyde: In view of the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are becoming increasingly telephone-conscious, has my hon. Friend considered whether it is not technically possible for more than two subscribers to share a party line and thereby reduce the current waiting?
    Mr. Thompson: I will have the proposal contained in that supplementary question examined. I am not sure that it would be altogether as popular as my hon. Friend appears to think to have party lines shared by more than two people.

  POST OFFICE

    Birthday Greetings Telegrams
    Mr. McAddenasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further announcement about birthday greetings telegrams.
    Mr. K. Thompson: I have arranged for the introduction, on 1st April, of a specially designed birthday greetings telegram form, by Mr. David Knight, as an alternative to the standard greetings telegram now in use, and at the same price as the standard greetings telegram. A new design of greetings telegram form for general use, by Miss Barbara Jones, will also be brought into use on 1st April. Copies of the two new forms are being placed in the Library of the House.

    Mail Deliveries, Sutton-in-Craven
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General (1) why there is delay in the delivery of mail in Sutton-in-Craven, near Keighley;
    (2) what reply his Department sent to the Sutton Parish Council regarding complaints on the late delivery of mail; and what action has been taken.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Late deliveries in the Sutton-in-Craven area have been due mainly to operational difficulties, now largely being overcome. In addition, I regret there was recently some delay to circulars posted by the Labour Party agent. This was due to a mistaken decision to spread delivery of the circulars over several days. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply sent to the Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council last November and of a further letter sent on 1st March.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not merely a question of delay to Labour Party circulars, but that it was more serious in view of the fact that it affected a meeting of the Skipton Rural District Council, because there was delay in the delivery of the agendas? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been far better to have drafted the reply and dealt with the points I raised rather than to have attempted to score a political point? Is he aware that these complaints from the parish council have been made for a long time and that, until these

    1125
    Questions were put down, no steps were being taken to reorganise the postal services in the area? Really, it is not good enough to continue in this way.
    Mr. Thompson: I am constantly under some stress to avoid scoring political points off the hon. Gentleman. We have done a great deal to put right what we recognise to be weaknesses in the postal services in the area over a considerable period. It is not quite true to say that nothing has been done. We wrote to the Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council last November and again on 1st March, and we are sending the hon. Gentleman copies of the letters.
    Mr. Hobson: That is not good enough. Is the Minister aware that, quite recently, correspondence has been sent between two Yorkshire villages—adding insult to injury—via Colne, in Lancashire? It is not good enough, and something will have to be done about it.

    H.M.T.S. "Alert"
    Mr. Hobsonasked the Postmaster-General if plans and specifications have yet been made for a new ship to replace H.M.T.S. "Alert".
    Mr. K. Thompson: Not yet. They are being reconsidered as part of a review, now taking place, of the need to supplement our cable fleet. H.M.T.S. "Alert" was extensively refitted in December, 1955.
    Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this ship was taken from the Germans as war reparations, that it is very old and that the refitting was merely a question of changing it from a coal burner into an oil burner? In order to maintain the fleet at an efficient level, is it not time that something was done to replace this very old ship?
    Mr. Thompson: We realise that there are very serious shortcomings about this vessel, but as a result of the refit to which I have referred it now has a Board of Trade certificate, so it clearly must have been nothing but an important refit. We will go on doing the best we can with it.

    Sub-Offices
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General what is the new financial arrangement for sub-post offices; and
    1126
    what number of these now exist in England and Wales compared with 1950 and 1939.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Award 326 of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal increased the net pay at most sub-offices by 3 per cent. with effect from 1st December last; there has been no other change. There are about 19,850 sub-offices in England and Wales compared with 19,480 in 1950 and 20,146 in 1939.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that there will be a further reduction in years to come in the number of sub-post offices? In regard to the financial arrangements, has there not been a certain amount of disappointment expressed about the amount granted to sub-postmasters and is there to be any reconsideration of the matter?
    Mr. Thompson: This is the result of an award by the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. So far as I know, no disappointment has been expressed, although it would not be surprising if there were varying views held about whether 3 per cent. was adequate. In reply to the question about the number of sub-post offices, they remain at a level which enables us within existing rules to satisfy the needs of the varying areas of the country.

    Commercial Telegrams (Coding)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider compiling and making available a coding system such as exists for commercial cables with a view to enabling inexpensive coded domestic messages to be sent; and if he will give an estimate of the extent to which the present minimum charge could then be reduced for such brief messages drawn from the official code.
    Mr. K. Thompson: A coded domestic inland telegram would not cost less to handle than an ordinary telegram sent at the minimum charge. There could, therefore, be no reduction in the present minimum charge which is, in any case, below cost.
    Mr. Sorensen: How is it that, in fact, commercial codes exist which obviously must have some financial advantage? Why cannot there be domestic codes?
    Mr. Thompson: Commercial codes have a dual advantage in that they may save money on the length of the message and also are secret in their contents. Those are commercial considerations which do not apply in the case of domestic users.

    Postal and Money Orders
    Mr. Liptonasked the Postmaster-General how far postal orders of higher value that £ 2 have reduced the demand for money orders.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Since the introduction of the new postal orders, sales of money orders in the value bracket affected have fallen by about one quarter.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the pay of sub-postmasters depends upon the sale of money orders and that, if the sale of money orders drops, their pay is correspondingly reduced? What is he doing to recompense these miserably under-paid, but, nevertheless, very useful public servants?
    Mr. Thompson: Our duty is primarily to the public, and if the service we offer in the new postal orders is convenient to the public, we must nevertheless accept that kind of difficulty. We are not unaware of the needs of those who run our sub-post offices.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    V.H.F. Station, Rowridge
    Dr. Kingasked the Postmaster-General if he is now able to state when the very high frequency station at Row-ridge will be completed.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The B.B.C. informs me that it hopes that the station will be completed within the next two or three months.
    Dr. King: I congratulate the Minister and his Department upon their great achievements in providing V.H.F. coverage for nearly the whole of Britain, but is he aware that South Hampshire is usually at the end of the queue for radio improvements? Is he further aware that it has very bad medium-band reception and will welcome this new station as a source of new high quality radio reception?
    Mr. Thompson: All those who are taking part in the major feat of providing V.H.F. reception for this country will be obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said.

    Wavelengths, North-East England and Northern Ireland
    Mr. Greyasked the Postmaster General when the North-East will be allocated a wavelength separately from Northern Ireland.
    Mr. K. Thompson: As regards a medium wavelength, I am afraid there is nothing that I can usefully add to what my right hon. Friend said following the hon. Gentleman's Question of 20th March. The North-East, of course, already has a wavelength separate from Northern Ireland in the V.H.F. service.
    Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Member aware that when this arrangement was made in 1945 it was explained by the B.B.C. that it was a necessary measure, although it deplored it, and that it was only temporary? That was twelve years ago. Since then we have been asked to share a wave-length with an area whose interests and culture are quite different from ours. Is the Minister aware that the people of the North-East now regard this matter as an abomination because they are paying for something which they are not getting?
    Mr. Thompson: I have had the opportunity of replying to some of the points made by the hon. Member in a recent Adjournment debate. We are aware that the position is less satisfactory than the people in the North of England would like, but it is the best we can do with the resources available.
    Mr. Greyasked the PostmasterGeneral if he will give an estimate of the number of people who have very high frequency wireless sets in the North-East.
    Mr. K. Thompson: No statistics are available which would enable me to make such an estimate.
    Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Member using this very high frequency facility as an excuse for not giving us our own wave-length? If so, may I ask him how far he is in conflict with the Government, in view of the fact that V.H.F. equipment is found only in new sets and that the hire-purchase restrictions placed upon them

    1129
    mean that people cannot afford to buy them? I suggest that the Minister might be able to do something more in regard to the medium wavelength.
    Mr. Thompson: The days of my being in conflict with the Government came to an end when I came to the Front Bench. The quality of the Government improved to such an extent at that time. The fact is that because of the difficulties of medium wave broadcasting, with which we are all familiar, the only way out is by extending and relying more upon the use of V.H.F. broadcasting and receiving.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the Minister's remark that the days when he was in conflict with the Government ended when he came to the Front Bench, will he have another look at himself and see if he cannot enter into conflict once more with his colleagues on behalf of this common justice claim by the people of the North-East? Very high frequency transmission is not the answer in this area. Will he again consider the question of a separate wavelength? [Interruption.] For twelve years the North-East has endured difficulties——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now making statements. He is not asking a question.
    Mr. Popplewell: Is the Minister aware of the difficulty, and of the intense feeling which exists among people in the North-East, with regard to this shared wave-length? Will he not now rearrange the wavelengths so as to allow some other area to share, and let the North-East have a fair do?
    Mr. Thompson: As a number of later Questions make various suggestions about alternative sharing arrangements, I think that I should deal with them when they come up.
    Mr. Shortasked the Postmaster-General whether he will introduce a lower wireless licence fee for listeners in the North-East of England and in Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that they are required to share a single regional programme.
    Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Short: Is it not unjust that the people of the North-East and Northern Ireland should have to pay the same
    1130
    licence fee as people in other regions when half the time they have to switch off the Home Service because—as far as we are concerned—the programme from Northern Ireland is incomprehensible.
    Mr. Thompson: The broadcasting receiving licence covers the installation and use of wireless receiving apparatus. It is not related in any way either to the amount of use that the individual makes of his set or to the quality of the reception. We try to get the quality as good as it can be all over the country.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would my hon. Friend say what volume of complaint has been received from Northern Ireland, or are listeners there more tolerant about other people's cultures?
    Mr. Thompson: I think that it would be unwise for me to enter into a discussion on the relative tolerance of different parts of Britain.
    Mr. Woofasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to convene an international conference so that another wavelength may be made available for the North-East of England.
    Mr. K. Thompson: None, Sir. As explained to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) on 20th March, it is highly improbable that an extra medium wave-length would be forthcoming from such a conference. At the 1948 conference we got one less than we asked for, and since then the number of medium wave transmitters in Europe has doubled.
    Mr. Grey: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter? I am sure that there would be a way out of the problem if there were an international conference to reconsider the whole matter. It is twelve years since the war and there is a chance that someone might give us a wavelength to ease our burden.
    Mr. Thompson: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Ainsleyasked the Postmaster-General on what date the decision was made to link together the British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts from the North-East of England and Northern Ireland; and on what date the arrangement came into force.
    Mr. K. Thompson: The arrangement for North-East England and Northern Ireland to share a wavelength was decided on at the end of the war. It came into effect on 29th July, 1945, when the Regional services were resumed.
    Mr. Ainsley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the long-suffering people in the North-East have very little interest in "News of the North" and that many of them used to enjoy "News of the North" more when they sat with their headphones on tickling the cat's whisker in order that they might hear the local news rather than the programmes that they are now being asked to endure?
    Mr. Thompson: We are very much aware of all this, as I think I have already indicated, and it is our belief that a separate wavelength on the V.H.F. service will provide the answer to all the problems.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the long-suffering people in the North-East are not going to suffer very much longer and that if he is not careful they will stage a revolt against the Government which might force them to resign? Will he be good enough to say what is the intellectual affinity between Northern Ireland and the North-East of England, because, so far as I know, there is none?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that those responsible will take due notice of the threats embodied in the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I do not propose at this stage to embark on a discussion on the intellectual affinity that may exist between any two parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that both his predecessors in office and himself have relied on V.H.F. to solve these problems, and is it not obvious by now that it is no solution of the problems? In view of this experience, will he have consultation with the B.B.C. with a view to trying to make some rearrangement in the medium wave band?
    Mr. Thompson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at this with the greatest possible care, but I cannot hold out a lot of hope of any solution other than along V.H.F. lines.
    Mr. Grey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to all the Questions that I have asked, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hydeasked the Postmaster-General how long he expects the Northern Ireland Regional station will continue to operate on a shared wavelength.
    Mr. K. Thompson: I cannot foresee any change in the present arrangement regarding the shared medium wavelength. The V.H.F. station at Divis has its own wavelength.
    Mr. Hyde: As the Northern Ireland Region was originally allocated a separate wavelength over thirty years ago and now has to share it with the North-Eastern Region, will not my hon. Friend agree that as Ulster listeners are getting only half a wavelength for their money they should not be called upon to pay more than half fees for their wireless licences?
    Mr. Thompson: I think I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that out of all the hours of broadcasting in any one week only between nine and ten hours belong to the Northern Ireland Region and between nine and ten belong to the Northern Region. It seems to me to be as good an arrangement as we can get in the time available.

    Third Programme
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the abandonment of the Third Programme wavelength.
    Mr. K. Thompson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the hon. Member not heard the disturbing rumours floating around, which appear to have originated in Broadcasting House, about the future of this programme? Is he aware that the disappearance of what is a unique broadcasting venture would be resented by very many people, including more than 130 hon. Members of all parties in the House who have signed a Motion to that effect?
    [That this House would deeply regret the passing of the British Broadcasting Corporation Third Programme.]
    Mr. Thompson: I am aware of the feelings which exist, and I am in no doubt that the B.B.C. is also aware of them and that its attention will, in due time, be drawn to the Motion on the Order Paper. The fact is that the B.B.C. issued a statement on 31st January announcing that it was having another look at the whole system of sound broadcasting. Nothing more than that has happened, and it would be presumptuous of us to enter upon a discussion of what is likely to happen to any programme until the B.B.C. tells us the results of its review.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In view of the kites now being flown about this matter, will the B.B.C. be reminded of its obligations under the Charter, as this is one of the unique features of British broadcasting which is admired all over the world? Will he see that the B.B.C. bears that fact in mind?
    Mr. Thompson: I am quite sure that the B.B.C. is aware of the feelings which exist, both inside and outside the House, and also that it will take them into consideration when it makes an announcement about the results of its review.

    Wavelengths (Sharing)
    Mr. Randallasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for Droitwich, Postwick, Lisnagarvey and Londonderry to broadcast on 276 metres so that Stagshaw and Scarborough may have the exclusive use of 261 metres.
    Mr. Ainsleyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for one of the West Region's medium wavelengths to be transferred to the North-East of England.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for the Welsh and Scottish Regions to share a wavelength during the next twelve years so that a wavelength may be thereby released for the North-East of England.
    Mr. Greyasked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements for Stagshaw to broadcast on 276 metres, by arranging for the Midland and Welsh Regions to share on 341 metres.
    Mr. K. Thompson: No, Sir. Stagshaw and Scarborough sharing with Lisnagarvey and Londonderry is the best arrangement that can be made in the general interest.
    Mr. Randall: That Answer was not unexpected. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that just over half the licence holders in the two major counties of the North-East are demanding a return of their wavelength, and, in view of this persistent agitation and the lowering of the standard of the programme in that part of the country, will he not reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Thompson: What I have to say on this point covers all these Questions, that any rearrangement of the medium wave-length available to us would result in a large number of people being subjected to less than perfect reception. Taking the national interest as a whole and aiming at the greatest advantage for the greatest number of people, this is the best arrangement that can be made.
    Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we all realise that it is desirable to have this mush over the Irish Sea. but cannot we have a Welsh and Scottish mush for a change?
    Mr. Gower: In my hon. Friend's resistance to the proposal in Question No. 34, will he be sustained by the recollection that the separate language and culture of Wales has been recognised by the provision of a separate Broadcasting Council and separate broadcasting facilities for Wales?
    Mr. Thompson: We try to take all these factors into consideration.
    Mr. Grey: Would it not be a good idea, so far as we are concerned, to have a rearrangement for a limited period? I am not, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), going to be so cruel as to suggest twelve years, but I would suggest that if it happened that everyone had to "enjoy" this abomination for a few more months there would be such a campaign against it that we would have our own wavelength back?
    Mr. Thompson: It is perfectly well recognised that there are difficulties in any two stations sharing a wavelength of this kind. In order to meet them, we are facing a problem which is common to the countries of the whole of Europe. We are developing V.H.F. broadcasting, as other countries are, and we are in front of most of them. I hope that the people

    1135
    of the North-East will live to thank the B.B.C. and the Post Office for what they are doing in that respect.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be to the advantage if discussions were entered into with the American Forces Network with a view to the allocation of one of its wavelengths, because I believe that it has three or four at the moment? Could not one of these be obtained for use for the North-East Coast and has that approach been considered?
    Mr. Thompson: We have considered that and a number of other approaches. I will deal with the main burden of the hon. Member's supplementary question in reply to Question No. 14.

    Receiving Licences, Northumberland and Durham
    Mr. Woofasked the Postmaster-General how many wireless receiving licences are in force in Northumberland and Durham; and what estimate he has made as to the number of receiving sets involved which are capable of receiving very high frequency broadcasts.
    Mr. K. Thompson: On 31st December, 1956, there were 599,082 current licences. They comprised 363,496 licences for sound only and 235,586 for television and sound. No statistics are available which would enable me to make an estimate of the number of receiving sets which are capable of receiving very high frequency broadcasts in those areas.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would it not be worth while for the Post Office to make some inquiry about this to find out for itself what number of V.H.F. sets there are available, because one's general impression is that the numbers are, in fact, very small? In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman take some action and not just sit back and do nothing?
    Mr. Thompson: We have information that there are about 600,000 V.H.F. sets in use in the country as a whole. The Question relates to those in use in the North-East of England, and it has not been possible to get a breakdown into the different areas of the country as to where the sets are likely to be.

    B.B.C. Services, Scotland (Survey)
    Mr. N. McLeanasked the Postmaster-General when he expects the detailed survey now being made by the British Broadcasting Corporation of their services in North and North-West Scotland will be completed; and what other steps he is taking to improve the present poor radio reception along the West Coast and Islands of the Highlands.
    Mr. K. Thompson: I expect to have the outcome of the B.B.C.'s survey in the course of the next few months. I cannot usefully consider the problem until I have the B.B.C.'s views.
    Mr. McLean: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for his Answer—which I am sure will be welcomed in the West Coast of Scotland and the Islands—may I suggest to him that he should consult the Secretary of State for Air with a view, perhaps, to using the technical staff and equipment of the R.A.F., which doubtless will be stationed in the Uists and Benbecula, with those of the B.B.C. to overcome the difficulties of reception facing the West Coast of Scotland?
    Mr. Thompson: I will certainly convey both to the B.B.C. and to those responsible within the Post Office the interesting suggestion my hon. Friend has made.

    Sporting Events (Televised Broadcasts)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to reply to the letter sent to him on 20th March by the hon. Member for Maryhill relating to television broadcasts of sporting events.
    Mr. K. Thompson: We have, as promised, sent a copy of the hon. Member's letter to the British Broadcasting Corporation. Otherwise, I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member on 20th March.
    Mr. Hannan: Whilst recognising that the Department of the hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for having the England-Scotland International televised, and while thanking him for forwarding my letter, may I ask if he will get his right hon. Friend to undertake to send a greetings telegram to the Scottish team congratulating it on its victory?
    Mr. Thompson: I will put that proposal to ray right hon. Friend.
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is about time that the Government considered introducing legislation to compel promoters of sporting events to allow of their being televised and broadcast?
    Mr. Thompson: All these subjects were fully debated when the Television Bill was going through this House.

    Regional Wavelengths
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the allocation to regional use of wavelengths 464 metres and 194 metres.
    Mr. K. Thompson: None, Sir.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will my hon. Friend use his influence to secure that these wavelengths continue, either nationally or regionally, to be available for Third Programme type of material which to many people provides a refreshing oasis of culture in a great desert of so-called entertainment?
    Mr. Thompson: I have no doubt that that is precisely the kind of consideration which the B.B.C. has in mind in the examination it is now making of its sound broadcasting services.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Current Affairs (Training)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air why it was decided that training in current affairs should no longer be compulsory in the Royal Air Force unless commanding officers consider this to be necessary; and in what proportion of the Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom and on the Continent of Europe this compulsion is exercised.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): The earlier scheme of compulsory instruction for airmen in their first or second year of service proved impossible to work without loss of operational efficiency, and was modified on the recommendation of the R.A.F. Education Advisory Committee. Under the arrangements introduced last January instruction is to be provided for all officers and
    1138
    airmen, but I cannot yet say how far it may be found necessary to make attendance at the lectures compulsory.
    Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Wolfenden Report on National Service stated that the young man of today will not present himself voluntarily to the education officer and that pressure is necessary? Is it not most necessary to adopt some system of compulsory education so that the young man may at least know why he is serving where he is, and, indeed, why he is serving at all?
    Mr. Ward: We have this obligation very much in mind. Unfortunately, the earlier scheme of compulsory education in working hours simply did not work. After a full-scale review, the Education Advisory Committee concluded that the scheme could not be made to work if operational efficiency was not to suffer, the reason being that men in undermanned trades were constantly unable to attend classes because they could not be spared from their work. The new arrangements are a good deal more flexible, and I think that, for that reason, we may hope they will be more effective.
    Mr. Snow: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the immediate post-war period a great deal of hostility was directed towards the Army Bureau of Current Affairs, chiefly in Conservative circles, which makes the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) all the more pleasant to hear?
    Mr. Johnson: If it is so difficult to do this in the Royal Air Force, can my right hon. Friend tell me why a compulsory system is used in the Army and in the American Forces?
    Mr. Ward: It will, of course, still remain compulsory at some stations, but it is too early to say how many stations will be able to keep it compulsory and how many will not.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there has always been opposition from Regular officers to this kind of education in the Forces? Will he use his influence in getting the matter reconsidered?
    Mr. Ward: I will certainly make a note of the hon. Member's point.

    Senior Officers (Employment)
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Air how many air chief marshals, air marshals, air vice-marshals, and air commodores, respectively are on the active list of the Royal Air Force and how many of these are employed according to their respective ranks, hold commands, are employed at the Air Ministry, are employed on other staff duties or are not employed on any specific duties.
    Mr. Ward: As the Answer includes a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Kershaw: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is in the Royal Air Force any squadron leader who commands a squadron, any wing commander who commands a wing, or any flight lieutenant who commands a flight? If the answer is in the negative, will he take steps to have the names of these ranks altered?

    —

    Air Chief Marshal

    Air Marshal

    Air Vice Marshal

    Air Commodore

    Serving at the Air Ministry

    3

    5

    19

    44

    Holding commands (1)

    2

    11

    25

    29

    Employed on staff duties outside the AirMinistry (2)

    2

    2

    32

    61

    In process of changing appointments

    —

    —

    2

    9

    Total now on the Active List

    7

    18

    78

    143

    (1) Including officers holding commands under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or with Commonwealth Air Forces.
    (2) Including officers employed with the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Supply, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, or Commonwealth Air Forces.
    (3) With the exception of the 2 air vice marshals and the 9 air commodores in process of changing appointments, all of these officers are employed according to their respective ranks.
    (4) Marshals of the Royal Air Force are excluded.

    Surplus Razor Blades (Sale)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for Air what opportunity was given to airmen to purchase surplus safety razor blades before nearly 8,000,000 were offered and sold at public auction sales since 1st January, 1955, at an average price of eight blades a penny.
    Mr. Ward: None, Sir. The blades did not come from Air Ministry stocks, which are limited to a small number of blades needed for survival packs.
    Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous Prime Minister set up a high-powered committee to ensure that no goods would be sold by public auction unless they had
    Mr. Ward: Of course there are wing commanders who command wings and flight lieutenants who command flights, although it is not general throughout the Service.
    Mr. Shinwell: While we are waiting for the figures which are to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in his opinion, there are too many or too few high-ranking officers in the Royal Air Force and at the Air Ministry?
    Mr. Ward: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are having a special review of all air ranks. However, we have to take account of commitments other than our own. We must remember that about 10 per cent. of officers of these ranks are filling posts in, for instance, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Supply, N.A.T.O., and Commonwealth Air Forces.
    Following is the answer:
    first been offered to other Departments? Is he saying in this case that so quickly after that decision was taken the Ministry of Supply failed to offer the razor blades to his Department? If the Ministry of Supply had done so, would the right hon. Gentleman have ensured that airmen had an opportunity of getting a cheap line?
    Mr. Ward: That is a hypothetical question.

    Danabar (Bombing)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Air what was the cost of the recent aerial bombing of the village of Danabar in the Aden Protectorate; and what was the value of the property destroyed thereby.
    Mr. Ward: The direct cost of the operation was about three thousand pounds. The value of the property destroyed was probably rather greater.
    Mr. Fernyhough: While we deplore and regret the occasion which gave cause for the raids, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us feel that, just because the Government cannot catch the guilty, they have no moral right to punish the innocent? Is he not aware that the village was under the protection of British Forces? Is he not further aware that if he carries on this policy we shall be driven holus-bolus out of the Middle East much quicker than even the Suez affair would have warranted?
    Mr. Ward: I think I had better draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what was said recently by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He said:
    " It was undertaken after full warning and no lives were lost. It was, in fact, both the most effective and the most humane way of ensuring that the village would not again be used by dissident tribesmen as a base for attack on Government forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 172.]
    Mr. G. Thomas: Does the Minister mean that this humane way of wiping out the homes of people who are under the protection of the British flag is to be continued in other parts of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that people from the village had ambushed a patrol of Cameron Highlanders, killed two of them and wounded six.

    Canberras, Germany (Atomic Bomb Equipment)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air when the Royal Air Force Canberras stationed in Germany were equipped to carry tactical atomic bombs.
    Mr. Ward: They are in process of being so equipped.
    Mr. de Freitas: Has not the Secretary of State read the statement attributed to the Royal Air Force Commander-in-Chief in Germany? How much longer will it be necessary for us, in order to find out what has been done in the Royal Air Force, to read in American and Dutch
    1142
    newspapers particulars about the armament and equipment of the Royal Air Force in Germany?
    Mr. Ward: The statement was made by the Commander-in-Chief in reply to a question addressed to him by the Press. I have drawn his attention to the need to avoid making comments of this kind without proper authority.
    Mr. de Freitas: That is not the point. Will the right hon. Gentleman please look into this? It is the second time within the last couple of months that important information, which we in the House have been denied, has come from American and Dutch journalists concerning the Royal Air Force for which we pay and for which we expect to have responsibility?
    Mr. Ward: I must express my regret to the House about this, and I have drawn the attention of the Commander-in-Chief to it. I had every intention of announcing this as soon as I could.

    Commands (Technical Branch Officers)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers of the Technical Branch were in command of Royal Air Force Commands on 1st January, 1953, 1955, and 1957, respectively.
    Mr. Ward: One in 1953 and 1955: none on 1st January, 1957.
    Mr. de Freitas: Since the numbers have come down, does not this make nonsense of the statements of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State two weeks ago in this House that increasing recognition was being given in the Royal Air Force today to the Technical Branch, especially in high posts?
    Mr. Ward: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the post of Controller of Engineering and Equipment at the Air Ministry is established for an officer of air marshal rank of the Technical Branch. Generally speaking, however, I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that air rank appointments should be allocated to the best man for the job, with the best experience and qualifications, irrespective of his branch.

    New Aircraft (Testing)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what facilities there are in operational commands of the Royal Air Force for the squadron testing of new types of aircraft.
    Mr. Ward: Aircraft entering squadron service are subjected to intensive flying trials. Other squadron trials are arranged as necessary thoughout an aircraft's life.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State look at this to see if more testing of new aircraft cannot be done by the Royal Air Force in operational commands, not only in order that the testing itself may be better, but that there may be less delay at the Ministry of Supply stage before the aircraft becomes operational?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, I quite agree with the aims behind the hon. Gentleman's Question. It is most important that they should get these aircraft as quickly as they can, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise the number of steps which are already taken in this connection—such things as liaison officers at the manufacturers, the Central Fighter Establishment, the Boscombe handling squadron, and so on. And, even when the aircraft gets into squadron service, the aim is to try to fly 1,000 hours as quickly as possible and to send in periodical reports.

    Former R.A.A.F. Members (Fighter Control Units)
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air what facilities are available for former members of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force fighter squadrons who join fighter control units; and how many so far have been transferred.
    Mr. Ward: The normal training and other facilities of fighter control units are available; there have been 458 transfers so far.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say if the men who have transferred are to get facilities to do some real work, and useful work?
    Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that there is a limit to the kind of useful
    1144
    training that we can provide, but, within the facilities available, we will give all the useful training we can.

  HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of the independent scientific organisations on whose reports Her Majesty's Government have relied for their view that there is no danger of genetic damage from continuing hydrogen-bomb tests; and whether he will publish such of their reports which have been made to Her Majesty's Government.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I have been asked to reply.
  The findings of the Committee appointed by the Medical Research Council were contained in Command Paper No. 9780. This stated that "the genetic effects to be expected from present or future radioactive fall-out from bombs fired at the present rate and in the present proportion of the different kinds are insignificant."
  Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Medical Research Council's evidence suggests that there is at least a grave doubt; that the World Health Organisation's findings confirm that view, and that the American National Academy of Science has gone even further in this direction? Where there is a doubt, will he not give the benefit of the doubt to humanity, instead of to the hydrogen bomb?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman asked which is the organisation, and I have given him the name.
  Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the Government's policy to continue hydrogen bomb tests until such time as agreement has been reached on a general convention for the reduction, limitation and control of armaments and abolition of weapons of mass destruction.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have been asked to reply.
  As is stated in the Bermuda communiqué, in the absence of an effective and comprehensive disarmament agreement,

  1145
  the security of the free world must continue to depend to a marked degree upon the nuclear deterrent. To maintain this effectively, continued nuclear testing is required, certainly for the present. Her Majesty's Government have, with the United States Government, declared their intention to conduct nuclear tests only in such manner as will keep world radiation from rising to more than a small fraction of the levels that might be hazardous.
  Mr. Zilliacus: Does not this reply go back on the undertaking of the former Prime Minister to deal with the hydrogen bomb tests as a separate issue? Is not the Government's argument that this would weaken national defence met by the point that if the Soviet Union also stopped testing hydrogen bombs their defences would be equally weakened? Are not the Government going back on the whole principle that disarmament by agreement means that the two sides agree, mutually and equally, to weaken their defensive powers?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think so. I think that it was always contemplated that discussions should take place, and it is only natural that those discussions should start with our allies in the United States. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to add to the communiqué that has been issued.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his swift promotion, may I ask him why the Government have changed their mind from that indicated in the statement made by Sir Anthony Eden on 20th December—very recently—that they were prepared to make an agreement on H-bomb tests independently of any general disarmament agreement?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that Sir Anthony Eden's statement envisaged that discussions should take place, and it is perfectly clear that if discussions are to take place they should start with the United States. That is what has, in fact, been going on. The communiqué setting out the results has been published, and I do not think that I can add to it today.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory on this
  1146
  point, because the Prime Minister announced on 20th December that proposals on this matter would be put forward very shortly? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer give some indication as to why there has been this change in the Government's attitude? It is a matter of great importance. Does he not realise that, by linking the whole question of the hydrogen bomb tests to general disarmament, the impression is created very widely that there will be an indefinite period before Her Majesty's Government attempt to achieve any kind of general agreement on H-bomb tests?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that I can add to the communiqué which has just been issued.
  Mr. Wade: Even accepting the view that expert opinion differs on this subject, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are rapidly approaching the position where incalculable harm may be done? That being so, would it not be wise for the British Government to take the initiative in this matter, and would not the psychological effect of a bold announcement that we would make no further tests far outweigh any advantages which might be gained from these experiments?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question is limited to the policy to be pursued pending any further general settlement, and the Answer I have given sets out the agreement as announced from Bermuda.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 20th December the then Prime Minister said:
  " We have been at work on drafting these proposals "—
  the proposals relating to the hydrogen bomb—
  " and it is my hope that within a very few weeks we shall have our proposals ready in that respect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 1456.]
  Have the Government abandoned those proposals? If not, when can we expect them to be produced?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: It seems to me that that is a somewhat different question—[Interruption.] The question here is simply what policy is to be pursued. That policy has just been stated in a

  1147
  communiqué issued from Bermuda, and I do not think that it would be for me to add to it.

  ATOMIC ENERGY

    Power Stations
    Mr. Osborneasked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will give details of the latest type of atomic power station designed to be ten times more powerful than Calder Hall; how many of these stations are in the current programme of the Atomic Energy Authority; and how many such stations will require to be built before electricity adequate for all needs can be generated without recourse to coal.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The nuclear power stations now being built for the Electricity Authorities are expected to have about four times the electricity output of the first Calder Hall station. A further increase in output as a result of straight-forward engineering development can already be foreseen, and if a number of technical problems can be solved, a station generating about ten times the electrical output of Calder Hall may be feasible, but no such station has yet been designed. The second and third parts of the Question, therefore, do not arise.
    Mr. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is some difference in what he says now and what he told me in an Answer just before Sir John Cockcroft spoke to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee upstairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—as reported in the News Chronicle. That is perfectly in order. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that Sir John Cockcroft is reported in the public Press as having said that within ten years we should have sufficient of the new power to make us free from the need for coal supplies, whereas my right hon. Friend said only two days earlier that we should require a total of 60 million tons extra? I want to know which statement is true.
    Mr. Maudling: I think that some reports in the newspapers of what Sir John Cockcroft was supposed to have
    1148
    said were definitely inaccurate, and what I have said this afternoon represents the facts.

CYPRUS
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) both have Questions on the Order Paper about the answer which has been received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies by Archbishop Makarios? In view of the very great public concern that there is about this, and as I imagine that the Colonial Secretary has not asked you for permission to make a statement, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he is in charge of the Government Front Bench, when we are likely to have a statement from the Government on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: That is quite out of order now.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that, Mr. Speaker. May I submit to you that as we are in a very delicate stage in Cyprus at the moment, where we are waiting for the decision of the Archbishop, upon which may hang whether there is a resumption of violence or not, it would be very helpful indeed if we could hear from the Government when we are to get a statement on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: That might be very true, but it is not a matter with which I can deal. No notice has been given of this, and we have not reached it.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Would it be in order, Sir, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as representing the Leader of the House, whether the Government propose to make a statement on Cyprus in the course of this week?
Mr. Speaker: It is not really in order at this time. The business Question will come tomorrow. We can deal with all these things then. However important things are, the House must follow its own procedure.

SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (DISPUTES)
Mr. Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about further developments in the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): As I told the House yesterday the employers and the unions are willing to co-operate with the Court of Inquiry which I have decided to appoint to inquire into the shipbuilding dispute. Accordingly, I am concentrating my efforts on finding a basis on which there can be a return to work in both the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.
I have just seen the engineering employers and discussed with them a possible basis on which there might be a resumption of work. They are to consult their management board on this tomorrow morning.
Mr. Robens: There is no lack of good will in this House towards the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to solve this problem, but is he aware that it has recently been announced on the tape that engineering unions have called out their London area members for this week-end, which will involve about 1½ million people being on strike or being affected by it? Could he, therefore, now tell us a little more about the sticking point in this particular matter? The two disputes are inter-related, but slightly different. Would he say what is the exact position in relation to the shipbuilding dispute and what is the real position now with regard to the engineering dispute?
Mr. Macleod: The proposed spreading of the strike would have most serious consequences not only economically, but also by greatly increasing the bitterness which might come from that action. The two disputes are most closely related. A Court of Inquiry into the shipbuilding dispute has been appointed, in which both sides have agreed to co-operate.
The position in the engineering dispute is that, after discussions with the unions, I have put certain proposals, only a few minutes ago, to the engineering employers.
1150
They are the office holders of that body, and they feel that on a matter of such great importance they must report to their management body, which is to meet tomorrow morning. They have undertaken to tell me straight away what the result of that meeting is. In any case, I can give the House the assurance that, whatever happens in those discussions, I and my officers will be tireless in continuing to try to find a solution to this dispute.
Mr. Robens: There is no suggestion, then, at this stage, that to alleviate the apparent deadlock between the engineers and the employers there should be a Court of Inquiry similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the shipbuilding dispute. Is it a fact that the engineering employers offered 5 per cent., with what have been referred to as strings, and that the engineering unions are prepared to take 5 per cent. without strings and call off the strike, and then, presumably, the other matters would be discussed? Is it possible that the Court of Inquiry procedure might be useful in this case?
Mr. Macleod: The position with regard to money is not as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. No discussions about money have taken place between the engineering employers and the unions concerned. I think it likely, and I hope, that there will be a Court of Inquiry into the engineering dispute, also; but there is one stage to take before that, namely, that there might be a meeting of the engineering employers and the engineering unions perhaps on lines similar to that which took place successfully, as far as that stage went, in the shipbuilding dispute, before the actual Court of Inquiry is set up.
The reason I am so anxious to get resumption of work, apart from the consequences to the national economy, is that if one is to have two Courts of Inquiry—both complicated—it is bound, with the best will in the world, to take quite a little time, and it would be a very sad thing if the strike dragged on while those investigations were taking place.
Mr. Robens: Do I understand that the engineering employers have not yet met the engineering unions in like manner to the arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman for meetings round the table

1151
between the shipbuilding employers and the shipbuilding unions? Is that the position?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. That is the position, and it is on that matter that the engineering employers are consulting their management board tomorrow morning.
Mr. Jack Jones: Is the Minister aware that, arising from instructions given by the National Executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, misinterpretations of those instructions are now taking place, and that, arising from such misinterpretations, the Manchester Committee of that particular organisation gave instructions last Friday which meant that on Saturday last the largest steel works in Lancashire was closed down, lock, stock and barrel?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if a ballot of the men concerned in these works were taken not 1 per cent. of them would be in favour of such action having been taken, that the leader of that particular organisation is an avowed Communist and that labour relations second to none in this country have been disturbed in that organisation? Would he take steps to bring this information to the notice of the trade union authorities, so that misinterpretations and distortions shall not in future be allowed to impinge upon an otherwise peaceful industry?
Mr. Macleod: I am aware of what happened in the Manchester area and of the unauthorised attempts to spread the strike there. I have no reason to doubt the truth of any of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that it would be most unfortunate if, in
1152
a dispute of this magnitude, involving so many millions of people, the idea got abroad that this was a Communist conspiracy instead of a frontal battle between two great interests which, up to now, have unfortunately been irreconcilable? Will the right hon. Gentleman draw a sharp distinction between the responsible men who are negotiating with him——
Mr. Jack Jones: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend did not help it with his views.
Will the Minister draw a sharp distinction between the responsible men who are negotiating with him and any misinterpretation which might be put on matters at local level, a misinterpretation which, after all, is deplored by everybody? Is he further aware that some of us who have spent a lifetime in the trade union movement on the engineering side, and who have kept our mouths shut during the interchanges here, out of respect for his difficult position, are not helped by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones)?
Mr. Macleod: It is not for me to intervene in a dispute between hon. Members opposite, but, if I may say so, with respect, I do not think that the two hon. Gentlemen—I am, perhaps, doing a little bit of conciliation here—are as far apart as they think, because the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) was specifically drawing my attention to, and I was specifically agreeing about, one local instance, and one local instance only, which I know perfectly well was widely resented by moderate opinion and was not typical of the approach of most of the leaders in this dispute.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RENT BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 10.—(RELEASE FROM CONTROL UNDER RENT ACTS.)
Amendment moved [26th March], In page 9, line 10, at the end, to insert:
"or where an exchange of tenancy is created and registered in accordance with the Schedule (Exchange Tenancies) to this Act".—[Mr. Mitchison.]
3.40 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: When consideration of the Bill was adjourned last night, I was engaged in drawing the attention of hon. Members to the importance of exchanges of tenancies as a means of dealing with questions of under-occupation and I think I secured the complete assent of the Minister to the fact that under-occupation should be dealt with if possible.
I am not sure whether I secured his complete assent to one other proposition, that his own Bill as drafted would, particularly under subsection (2), operate to hinder the dealing with under-occupation by means of exchanges. There is, however, little doubt that it would have that effect, and I was engaged in taking as instances the really typical cases, on the one hand, of the old couple who were left in a house which was too large for them and, on the other, of the young couple who, with a growing family, wanted a larger house.
The object of both this Amendment and the next 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."
is to enable an agreement to be made, if possible, between the persons concerned in a desirable exchange of that character and to enable that agreement to be made without importing the element of insecurity into either of the two tenancies.
The present position is that if the old people, whom we will call the A tenants, agreed with the young people, whom we will call the B tenants, to exchange, both of them would be left in their new houses
1154
under decontrolled tenancies and, subject to the provisions of the Bill, by and large at the mercy of the landlords as to any agreement that might be made. With that in view, it is obvious that without some provision of the kind that we suggest, subsection (2) would hinder the carrying out of these exchanges.
I trust that I shall carry right hon. and hon. Members opposite with me in this further proposition. We are very anxious that old folk in this position should be induced to move into more suitable accommodation if they are willing to do so, and if that accommodation is available on similar or better terms and with similar security, but we have always taken the view that it is not right to force old people out of their homes simply because those homes are at the moment too large for them.
While, no doubt, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would agree with that, if it were a matter of forcing them out by some statutory provision, we go one further and we say without hesitation that whatever the landlord's rights and interests in this matter those tenants ought not to be forced out by some form of economic pressure, which ought not to be put upon them and which they are in most cases in no position effectively to resist. Of course, it would be a forcing out of that character if, in fact, they were unable to pay the increased rent under the Bill. It would equally be a forcing out if, in any circumstances, there was a question of decontrol.
3.45 p.m.
We want to make it perfectly clear that what we are proposing here, in the first place, and subject to one point which I shall mention presently, is a matter of agreement as a rule between four parties—the landlord and the tenant of tenancy A and the landlord and the tenant of tenancy B. Of course, if it is the same landlord in each case, there will be only three parties, but that is immaterial for these purposes.
I want to go a little further before I come to the point of difference——
Mr. Graham Page: This is not an unhelpful intervention, because I have some sympathy for the points that the hon. and learned Member is making. He describes what he is proposing as a matter of agreement between the landlord

1155
and tenant of A tenancy and the landlord and tenant of B tenancy. If it is a matter of agreement, could not the security—at least a fairly substantial security—be given in the course of that agreement without imposing a statutory obligation?
Mr. Mitchison: No doubt one can agree to anything one wishes, but if there is a provision of this character one is far more likely to get a reasonable agreement between the four parties.
I was just about to develop this additional reason. There may, of course, be a landlord who is a private landlord or there might be a landlord who is a council or some other body in a similar position. For purposes of drafting, in the Amendments we have called the latter kind of case a public tenancy. Those are uncontrolled tenancies. They were taken out of control by the 1954 Act. In some cases, they were out of control earlier.
A housing authority, a council acting as such, has rather different considerations in view than a private landlord has when contemplating an exchange of this kind. That housing authority has to look at the matter in view of its general duties as a housing authority, sometimes as a sanitary authority, too. The initiative for this kind of exchange has often come from councils and there has been a continuous pressure on councils from the Government of the day to do their best to promote and carry out exchanges of this kind when the circumstances were suitable. I gave the details yesterday and I do not propose to repeat them, but let me pay the Minister the compliment of saying that he has taken a large part in trying to promote that kind of thing.
What has happened in the past is that in the case of an exchange between one council and another, of people moving geographically, there has been no difficulty, or comparatively little difficulty of the kind that we are now considering. There has, however, been considerable difficulty in councils getting the consent, not of the other tenants, but of the other landlord concerned. It appears to be the case that the last Government circular, in 1954, to which, again, I referred yesterday, broke down, in effect, because no useful discussions could be held between the councils and the landlords.
1156
I quite see the private landlord's point of view, although I do not agree with it. The matters with which he is concerned are not as broad nor as general as those which concern the council. The private landlord looks to his own interest as regards the particular house, and, perhaps, as regards others, but he, unlike the council, has no general housing responsibility and does not have to consider the general housing position. The result is that attempts to promote exchanges between councils with their tenants, and private landlords with their tenants, have not failed entirely, but have met with only modified success.
In discussing the 1954 Measure we had evidence—from Sheffield, for instance—showing that the housing authority had found that some landlords were willing to play and other landlords definitely were not. That was not a question of individual cases. It was a question of general attitude. There appear to be some landlords who, on principle, have objected to any sort of exchange because they have always hoped that if they left things a bit awkward they might finally get possession of the house.
Mr. John Hay: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that is a perfectly accurate description of the Sheffield case. What happened was that the landlords were asked to agree to these exchanges, but were not given any chance of choosing the people who would be moving into their private houses. In other words, they were not being given any kind of choice as to the person to come into their houses, the sitting tenant going off to a council house. That is really what the problem was. There was no blanket refusal on the part of landlords in Sheffield to agree to exchanges.
Mr. John Hynd: Before my hon. and learned Friend answers the point, may I explain what the position was in Sheffield? The local authority got an agreement with the organisation representing landlords that they would encourage their members to agree to exchanges in reasonable cases. Some landlords—a minority—did, in fact, carry out that agreement. The majority refused to carry it out irrespective of the individual cases. There was no provision in the agreement that the

1157
landlords should have to accept blindly any exchange at all. It was subject to suitability. But there was a blanket refusal to carry out the agreement irrespective of the individual cases.
Mr. Mitchison: I obtained my information from Sheffield, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has just said has accurately stated the substance of what I was told at the time.
Although I have never taken the view that all landlords are evil, I have equally never taken the view that all landlords are saints. They are not. It is highly probable, given human nature as it is, that there will be some landlords who will simply refuse to play in matters of this kind, and one sees the motive for this. I am not asking the House to approve or disapprove of the motives. I am simply saying that, as a fact, some landlords naturally refuse to consent to anything of this sort because they think they will get a greater advantage by leaving matters in a rather awkward position, and ultimately perhaps, under the existing law, getting possession of the houses themselves.
That is to apply equally if this Clause goes through unamended, for the possibility then is that if an exchange is persistently refused the landlord may be able to get decontrol, whereas if an agreement is put through—for instance, a purely voluntary agreement on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—the effect might—I do not say it would—amount to the same as continued control. Under our proposed Amendment there is something more than that, because what we are suggesting is that on an exchange of this sort control should continue.
Now I come to the difference between the two Amendments, and it is really a difference between the two proposed new Schedules which appear later on the Notice Paper, one entitled "Exchange of Tenancies" and the other entitled "Exchange Tenancies". We are dealing entirely with controlled tenancies, because this is to be an exception to Clause 10 (2). The question that we are considering all the time is whether, on an exchange, there is to be decontrol.
The present position, as I understand, is this. A controlled tenancy may be
1158
either a statutory tenancy or a contractual tenancy. In the case of a contractual tenancy, if there is no provision one way or the other in the contract, the consent of the landlord is required, for otherwise the landlord can get possession under paragraph (d) of the Schedule to the 1933 Act and corresponding provisions in the case of new control.
It comes, therefore, to this, that whatever the provision in the contract, there is no effective means of enforcing an assignment without the landlord's consent. I am talking about contractual tenancies. The question whether the landlord's consent is unreasonably withheld can arise only by virtue of an express provision in the contract. That express provision may either be that it shall not be unreasonably withheld or it may simply be that his consent is required, for in the latter case the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act will import the condition that it should not be unreasonably withheld.
Therefore, in some cases—probably not the majority, but some—the question of unreasonably withholding can arise, but in the majority of cases it is simply a question of consent or no consent, and the tenant cannot really move without the landlord's consent, for otherwise he can be evicted and, be it remembered, evicted without proof of alternative accommodation. That is the substantial difficulty at present.
Statutory tenancies which are equally controlled tenancies under this Bill simply cannot be assigned. They are not really tenancies at all. They amount to a right to remain in the house, and a personal right; they are not capable of assignment. Therefore, without some express provision of this kind, no assignment will be possible in most of these cases.
That leads me to the question of the landlord's consent. The provision that the landlord's consent "shall not be unreasonably withheld"—and there is really very little difference between that and the alternative form of wording that unreasonable conditions shall not be imposed—is no new thing and it is not peculiar to the Amendment which we are proposing. In fact, it ensures that the landlord's interests, where they are proper and legitimate interests, are taken fully into account. It has been so construed in connection with the Landlord and

1159
Tenant Act and with cases of particular covenants for a long time. There is really not much doubt——
Sir Ian Horobin: If I may interrupt, what the hon. and learned Member says meets with a good deal of sympathy amongst us on this side of the House, particularly the proposals in his first new Schedule. I wonder whether he could enlighten us on one point. On this matter of unreasonableness of consent, the question which is very often the stumbling block in matters of this sort is not the right of the particular tenants being exchanged but the consequential right of their families which may differ extraordinarily when one is leaving a house under control.
In the case of the hon. and learned Gentleman's second Schedule, where it is not a question of an agreement on both sides, but where the landlord may be faced with an exchange which he does not like, he may have to prove that he is not unreasonably withholding consent. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman anticipate that it would be a reasonable ground of objection that in the one case, to put it crudely, the tenant's rights might be expected to cease with that tenant, while the new suggested tenant—a much younger person, for instance, married and perhaps with a family—would lead to him being saddled with a controlled tenancy over a long period of time?
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Mitchison: I do not think the hon. Member or the House would welcome an attempted exposition of the law about this, which is of quite long standing and covers that kind of question. Speaking with real diffidence on this question, because it is not too easy a one, I think it is right to say that it has been held not to be an unreasonable withholding in cases where it would have the effect of turning what would otherwise be a very short tenancy into a very long one. That, I think, is what the hon. Member has in mind.
I would say just one other thing to him, I hope courteously. The boot is on the other foot. It is not the landlord who has to prove he is not unreasonably withholding, but the tenant who has to prove he is unreasonably withholding in these cases.
1160
This is a very limited provision in favour of the tenant or in favour of those who desire to exchange, as against a recalcitrant landlord; a very limited provision, and not one of which any good landlord ought to be in the least afraid. There are, however, cases of the type to which I referred just now, the cases in Sheffield; and I understand that my hon. Friends from Scotland have a number of similar ones in mind. I am sure that it appeals to the common sense of the House when I say that there will be recalcitrant landlords, and that there is no use burking the fact. If we do not meet it by a provision of this sort, then they will get away with what is really an anti-social obstinacy or an anti-social selfishness, and no one in the House ought to wish landlords to get away with that.
That is all that this, in my view very limited, proposal provides. It is certainly all it is intended to provide, because it uses well-known language for its very limited purpose, but I do say that I have not the least doubt that the right new Schedule of these two is the one to which I have put my name and which contains this limited provision to deal with recalcitrant landlords—in the nature of the case and by the language of the new Schedule, unreasonable landlords. The other new Schedule will look all right, will serve some purpose, I quite agree, but will serve only half the purpose.
I shall feel, if the Government or hon. Gentlemen opposite accept the pure agreement Schedule, without any recourse against the recalcitrant landlord, that they are really neglecting their social duty and taking a view of what they ought to do in the interests of the landlord with which I, for one, certainly cannot agree. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the longer, the second of the two new Schedules.
There is one further observation I want to make. The county court was given jurisdiction in this question of unreasonable refusal, but it is at present a very limited jurisdiction to make declarations. I am suggesting here that it should be given a more effective jurisidiction than that, simply to simplify proceedings. Hon. Members will find on the Notice Paper appropriate Amendments to the Clause of the Bill which deals with the

1161
jurisdiction of county courts, Amendments providing for just the addition of a word or two. I feel sure that that would simplify the proceedings.
On this matter, which we on this side regard as of considerable practical importance, I have taken up a little time. I have endeavoured to put what are really very moderate proposals in a very moderate form. I hope I have succeeded, but I want to say again to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as they are responsible, that I do not understand why this Bill, if it was intended to cope with questions of under-occupation, to the solution of which exchange is clearly a very valuable contribution, left this enormous gap. The effect of the Bill as it stands will be to deter exchanges in cases in which they are really suitable.
The attention of the Minister and his hon. Friends and supporters was called to this matter by me on Second Reading, when it was contended that the Bill as it stood would make some contribution to solving this problem. I took the line, and I still take it, that the Bill for that purpose is of very doubtful validity as it is drafted, and certainly it does a whole lot of other things and causes hardship and insecurity and is unsuitable for dealing with this problem. I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of his own efforts in this direction. I reminded him of the circulars which have been issued by the Government. I reminded him of our efforts on this side at the time of the 1954 Measure.
I am still puzzled and, I admit, a little frightened, because the right hon. Gentleman has not as yet produced anything whatever on this subject and has left the Bill so that it will have this effect, that in the cases of these controlled tenancies it will definitely deter people, particularly old people, from making exchanges which would be to their benefit and to the social advantage, because by doing so their tenancies will become decontrolled.
The Bill ought to be put right, and I commend these two Amendments, particularly the one enabling us to deal with recalcitrant landlords, to the good sense and good feeling of the House. I hope that they will meet with support from both sides.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to second the Amendment.
1162
What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said about the Sheffield cases applies in many parts of the country. Most of us have recognised the importance of developing this system of exchanges and have been interested in the provisions in other countries, in some of which compulsory powers have been taken, if landlords are to gain advantage in the form of rent increases, to require them to accept in proper terms exchanges of tenants. We have looked into some of these to see whether they would be applicable in this country, too. This is a very much more modest proposal, of course.
The problem comes before us almost every week when we meet our constituents. In my divisional committee rooms we keep copies of the form the local authority asks the landlords to sign, stating that they would be willing to accept tenants from the council's waiting list. The council does not specify any tenant in particular. The landlord is fully entitled to make as wide a choice as he wishes. All that is said by the local authority is, "It will assist us, of course, if we can get private landlords to agree to take as tenants some of those on the council waiting list." In exchange for that the council is prepared, very often, to advance the rehousing of some of the tenants of the private landlords—a very proper thing to be done.
I have had private landlords complain bitterly to me that while they have tried to work the scheme—and they have shown that they have—the great majority of their brother landlords would not work it. Clearly, these are cases where there is no specific requirement that a landlord must take a particular tenant and, of course, there is a very wide opportunity of choice. I support entirely my hon. and learned Friend's view that the Bill will make exchanges more difficult rather than improve the opportunities for them. Therefore, a provision of the kind that we propose, modest though it is, is obviously required.
On many occasions I have called attention to the need for exchanges. I have quoted figures prepared by the Nuffield Trust and organisations of that kind, and which are contained in surveys and in the 1951 Census, which undoubtedly support the need for more

1163
exchanges to be carried out. We, on this side of the House, firmly believe that the proposals of our own party on future housing policy will meet these cases far more satisfactorily but, granted the unfortunate misery of this Bill, we regard our Amendments as being very constructive and modest proposals.
As hon. Members opposite have been chiding us continuously for not putting forward constructive proposals, here is the fiftieth or sixtieth that we have put forward which we should be glad if the Government could accept.
Mr. Hay: I think that most of us have been in some difficulty, until the hon. and learned Member for Kettering moved the Amendment, in getting a clear understanding of what all this is about. There are two Amendments in page 9, line 10 in different names, and, unfortunately, the related Schedules are not printed in the same order.
Mr. G. Lindgren: But the hon. Member is a lawyer.
Mr. Hay: Fortunately, I am, and I have been able to puzzle it out.
This debate raises in an interesting way the difference of view to which we have come about the new housing situation. Before the Bill becomes law we shall still be living in an era of widespread rent restriction. All our thinking about housing problems has been conditioned to a very great extent by the existence of rent restriction. We have now to look at housing problems, after the Bill becomes law, in an entirely different way. We have, to begin with, to accept the fact that the market will be much wider and freer and the need for compulsions of various kinds to ensure full use of housing accommodation will be no longer so great as it has been.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering has pointed out the great difficulty there has been in the cases of which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has particular knowledge because of his chairmanship of the committee which was mentioned last night. I refer to the difficulty in arranging exchanges and transfers between different tenants. This difficulty has been largely due to the very fact that rent restriction exists.
1164
Although the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and I may differ, as we have done this afternoon, about the precise details of the Sheffield case, there is some truth in what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said about landlords not having been tumbling over themselves to get fresh tenants if there has been the slightest chance of obtaining possession. The reason has been the existence of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
4.15 p.m.
Now, for a great deal of property, rent control will be lifted altogether, and for a far wider section of houses rent control will no longer apply on a fresh letting. Although the proposal in the Amendment and the related Schedule is appended to the proviso in subsection (2) of the Clause, which itself creates the opportunity for free lettings for the first time since the end of the war, I think that in principle it is right that some provision relating to exchange tenancies should be included in the Bill.
I am certain that the very existence of the new free market which will arise and the very fact that much more accommodation will come into the letting market than has been the case for the last ten years, which I do not think is really disputed, will remove a great deal of this great problem of exchanging tenancies. Up to now, the landlord, faced with the prospect of an exchange of tenancies, has always had in mind the possibility of getting vacant possession and thereby being able to unlock some of the capital locked up in that house. From now on, he will be able to let that accommodation at whatever rent the market will pay, and he will no longer be under that driving compulsion to realise something out of the property.
It is true that this will mean that rents will rise, but they will reach a more realistic level than that at which they have been for many years past. Therefore, the question of exchange tenancies may not prove, over the next few years, to be so awkward and difficult to handle, simply because the free market will be there and more accommodation will generally be available. The problem will not be quite so pressing.
Nevertheless, I want to support what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said about one of the Schedules. I

1165
do not like the second of the proposed new Schedules, to which he has put his name. I dislike it only because of the element of compulsion introduced into it. If we accept the picture of a freer market, it is not really necessary to have the rather cumbersome, complicated and certainly expensive machinery which the Schedule proposes, with its applications to the county court. The first of the proposed new Schedules, in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and his hon. Friends, is much more acceptable and desirable because that enables simple agreements to be arrived at and the whole machinery to be created for that to be done without the element of compulsion.
I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Minister will say of the debate, but I ask him to look at the matter very sympathetically and, in particular, to consider whether in some way he can accept the idea behind the new Schedule proposed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough. I hope that he will not accept the Schedule as it stands, because I am not at all happy about the drafting in some respects. However, that always happens with complicated affairs of this kind.
I mention only one point to show how difficult these things can be. Throughout the Bill we use the definition of "landlord" contained in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. It is done by reference to the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, and then back to the 1920 Act. "Landlord" can, of course, include a tenant, that is, a tenant of somebody called a superior landlord. If the landlord referred to in the Schedule is himself a tenant, I am not altogether certain what the position will be, under the drafting, vis-à-vis the superior landlord, and so on. I mention that small but not unimportant point only to show that the drafting needs consideration. I do not want to argue, because this debate is subject to the guillotine procedure; as we have so often been reminded.
Mr. Mitchison: The point had not escaped me. I thought that it was met by the question of what is and what is not unreasonable, but no one would want to stick to the drafting of these Clauses.
Mr. Hay: I am merely saying that if my right hon. Friend accepts the
1166
principle of the matter I hope that he will not accept every word of the Schedule, and that even if it is decided to accept it in another place he will look at the drafting.
The proposal can do something to help, although my general conviction is that the position will not be nearly so difficult or acute in the future as it has been in the past ten years, simply because we shall be having a freer market in housing accommodation and much more accommodation will be available than has been the case for many years past.
Mr. William Hannan: As a newcomer to the debate, I do not want to speak in an argumentative mood, after the reasonableness of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), but whatever may be the strength of the reasons for his assertion that new accommodation in a free market will become available in England and Wales, those reasons do not hold good in Scotland. It is not a free market which will provide more accommodation there; it is a question of builders, finance, the Government, and local authorities.
Having said that, I want to support the Amendment which proposes to amend Clause 10, which is the heart of the Bill. The Clause provides for the release from control under the Rent Acts of houses of over a rateable value of £ 40 in Scotland. During the discussion on the Report stage of the Housing Repairs and Rents (Scotland) Bill in 1954, as the Joint Under-Secretary will be aware, I moved an Amendment of this character, which sought to lay down a further condition for rent increases. It was then rejected, mainly upon the ground that its drafting was not acceptable.
Although my hon. Friends from Scotland profoundly believe that forsaking the principle of control will make matters worse in Scotland, we agree that we have had our arguments in Committee and we now merely ask that the Amendment should be considered upon its merits, and in the spirit which has already manifested itself, as distinct from the argumentative atmosphere in Committee. Having accepted the fact of decontrol, we hope that the Amendment can now be considered on its merits.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)

1167
said that if, by Statute, Parliament agreed that houses should be decontrolled, it would have to recognise that a minority of landlords would not be animated by the necessary public spirit. Landlords should be made to recognise that they have to show some signs of public spirit in considering these matters.
It has been part of the Government's case that by decontrolling houses they would create more flexibility and fluidity in the movement of people from unsatisfactory to more satisfactory accommodation. This was the theme of the Minister of Labour when he spoke in the House on 3rd July, 1956. He said:
"We should encourage, in particular, the maintenance of as big a pool of houses to let as possible. In that field a solution lies."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 1289.]
This has all tended to confirm us in the view that, although the proposed Amendment will not solve the housing problem, it will make a fairly substantial contribution towards easing the difficulty where it hurts most. We believe that it will help to ensure the better utilisation of existing stocks of houses. It will also ease the difficulty which exists in Glasgow, and in Scotland generally, of securing exchanges between tenants of corporation houses and tenants of private landlords.
It is in this matter that most harm occurs. My impression is that whereas most local authorities are at least prepared to be very helpful in these matters, exchanges are often held up because of the adamant refusal of some private landlords to agree to the exchanges. Local authorities want to be assured that the persons coming from private property have sent applications to them and that the necessary qualifying period has elapsed, or that the question of over-crowding arises.
Two such cases are very clear in my mind. One concerns a man living with his wife and three children in a single-apartment house, on the ground floor of a tenement building. On the same entry, or close, two storeys up, is a widow who is over 60 years of age and who is incapacitated. Those two apartments belong to the same landlord. He was approached about an exchange but he absolutely refused point-blank to do anything about it, not because of the Rent Restrictions Acts—at least, that was not the
1168
reason he advanced—but because he knew that in the case of such an exchange the incoming tenant would expect minor repairs to be carried out there and then. Despite the intervention of the Minister, and a visit which I made—which may not have helped matters—the landlord still refused, and those two tenants are still living in the same accommodation and are both dissatisfied.
The other case concerned a widow living in a four-apartment corporation house —accommodation which she admitted was too large for her. Her family had grown up and had married. She found someone else who had the necessary qualifications and who could have exchanged his tenement for her home. The corporation was agreeable, but the private landlord refused.
I should like to give some figures in respect of Glasgow. We have 32,900 single-apartment houses and 106,000 two-room houses—and these are landlords' houses and not corporation houses. We have a total waiting list of 120,000 applicants, 43,000 of which are homeless and 40,000 overcrowded. These are facts, and within the present pool of houses, amelioration cannot be achieved if the Amendment is not accepted.
4.30 p.m.
I think I have said enough to stress the point that I wanted to make. I know that, despite our political differences, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has in the past sincerely addressed himself to the debates in the Scottish Standing Committee and the House on housing problems. When he represented Govan, one of the most overcrowded areas in Glasgow, he said in the Scottish Standing Committee on 5th April, 1951, when speaking about conditions in his constituency:
" In some cases, if exchanges could be allowed, it would materially help to solve the problem, and I would appeal to the owners of such property to give priority to public over individual consideration on the question of exchanges, which represent 33 per cent. of the genuine housing problems in my constituency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 5th July, 1951; c. 2339.]
Such a speech might well have been made by any of us who are supporting the Amendment. As the present hon. Member for Craigtony is the Joint Under-Secretary still as enthusiastic in that respect as when he was the hon. Member

1169
for Govan? Craigton is a little more residential than Govan. I am not trying to be unkind; perhaps "facetious" would be the correct word. If the hon. Gentleman is as enthusiastic now, will he use his influence with the Minister to accept the Amendment?
I would reinforce what has been said about conditions prevailing in Denmark, Holland and Norway, where there prevail tight agreements which go much further than what is proposed in our Amendment. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would come to our conclusion if he examined such information. Our proposal will not solve the Scottish housing problem, but it will make a contribution towards the solution.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): We have had a short but very interesting debate in which both sides of the House have taken part. I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I think it is fair to say that he recognised that at least some contribution could be made to improving our housing situation to the advantage of many tenants if they were able more easily to move from one house to another. That is connected with, though it is not wholly dependent upon, the fact that we have many people living in houses which are too large for them and many others who are at present precluded from obtaining as much accommodation as they want.
Speaking for myself—I say this in the friendliest spirit—I welcome the recognition by the hon. and learned Gentleman of the fact that if we can do something to reduce under-accommodation we shall be doing a service to the country.
Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that it is nothing new. It was in recognition of that that the Opposition moved the Amendment to the 1954 Act to which I have already referred. I am sorry to say that the Government turned it down. I hope that by now they have more wisdom.
Mr. Bevins: I remember the Amendment moved by the Labour Party on that occasion. I also remember some of the rather volatile speeches made on the topic in Standing Committee and, in particular, the rather strong attack made by the hon.
1170
Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who castigated the "wealthy gentlemen" on this side of the House who occupied one house in London and one house in the country. I can only hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman now carries with him his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, which I do not think he did previously.
The hon. and learned Member rightly reminded the House of the great interest in and knowledge of the question of transfers possessed by my right hon. Friend. The Minister was chairman of the sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in 1953 when it produced what is commonly agreed to be a most valuable report on the general subject of exchanges of tenancies. That body is not in the ordinary sense of the term a political body at all. When my right hon. Friend was chairman of it, the chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee, who led the Labour majority on that Committee at that time, was also a member. In spite of the different political complexions of its members, the sub-committee produced a unanimous report which was shortly afterwards accepted by my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, although commending the principle of transfers, was, I thought, a little reluctant to admit what has been the principal impediment to exchanges taking place in the past. I think that in their hearts all hon. Members realise now that rent control has been the principal impediment to the free exchange of tenancies. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Whether we agree or disagree on that, let me say plainly that my right hon. Friend and all my hon. Friends are entirely in accord with the spirit of the voluntary proposal tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Indeed, our minds are completely open to all suggestions, put forward from whatever quarter, which are designed to facilitate the exchange of tenancies. Recently several large local authorities have suggested that they might be permitted to purchase relatively modern houses offered to them by owner occupiers at a certain price on condition that the local authority could rehouse the tenants in smaller accommodation, and then the local authorities would be free to put larger

1171
families into the vacated premises. My right hon. Friend looks upon proposals of that sort in the most sympathetic way. Anything that we can do——
Mr. Julius Silverman: If what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, will he say why his right hon. Friend prevented that very process from proceeding in Birmingham and banned the purchase of such houses for several months, and has only in the last few days reluctantly accepted the proposal of the Birmingham Corporation?
Mr. Bevins: The proposal originally put to my right hon. Friend by the Birmingham Corporation was much wider than that. When representatives of the Corporation visited the Ministry and their proposal became clear, it was quickly made apparent to them that we were in sympathy with the proposal which has now been approved.
We had an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) in which he clearly set out the objections that we feel towards the proposal that compulsion should be used in the matter of exchanges. I say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that we are perfectly prepared to consider the Amendment and the related new Schedule which would facilitate exchanges on a voluntary basis.
Mr. Mitchison: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government regard it as compulsion to take a landlord to the county court on the ground that he has unreasonably withheld his consent to an exchange? Was that the compulsion he meant, because that is the only "compulsion" in the Amendment?
Mr. Bevins: That is the element of compulsion in the new Schedule to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his name. It is a Schedule which is unacceptable to my right hon. Friend; but I repeat that we are perfectly prepared to consider the principle of the Amendments and the related Schedules which would help matters on a voluntary basis. I want to make it quite clear that any proposal which my right hon. Friend may produce at a later stage will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will
1172
be prepared not to press the Amendment but to leave my right hon. Friend to deal with the matter at a later stage.
Mr. Mitchison: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be undertaking on be-half of the Government to insert in another place a Clause to the effect of the new Schedule standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren)?
Mr. Bevins: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. We are prepared to consider in principle the Amendment and the related Schedule in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, and we shall take the appropriate action at the right time.
Mr. Mitchison: If I am correct, that is all I want to say about it. I understand that this provision will be inserted and it is only on that understanding that I say what I am about to say. This is the first time that I have heard any Government spokesman say that it was compulsion to bring a landlord before the court because he had unreasonably withheld his consent. I suppose that it is also compulsion to do so under the Landlord and Tenant Acts. Apparently, in the view of the Government it is compulsion to use the law of the land at all on the sacred person of a recalcitrant landlord.
We take the strongest objection to that, and if this had not been the middle of a guillotined Bill we should have gone to a Division on the Amendment to show that the Amendment is necessary and that the one in the name of my hon Friend the Member for Wellingborough, although better than nothing, is still insufficient. However, in view of what has been said, and in view of our wish to get a discussion on subsection (3), which is very important and which was hardly discussed in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I want to say a few words about the Amendment before it is withdrawn. The Minister should reconsider his decision. If a voluntary arrangement is made, it is obvious that we shall be entirely dependent upon the landlord's decision. My opinion and that of a number of people on both sides of the House is that an exchange in the ordinary way, similar

1173
to those under the Landlord and Tenant Acts, is extremely sensible and an arrangement which the Minister should accept. I am not satisfied that depending upon landlords who have hitherto refused to allow exchanges will take us very far.
4.45 p.m.
The Minister is taking a gamble, because the Bill depends upon surmise about what will eventually happen. That gamble must be carefully watched and the risk minimised as much as possible. Even those hon. Members opposite who insist that the result of the Bill will be a plentiful supply of houses know very well that it is a gamble. They are not entitled to ask those whose houses come within the purview of the Bill to take that risk without first being satisfied that the tenants in question are protected if the gamble fails. This is a simple way of testing it.
Hitherto, we have depended on the reasonable provision that if alternative accommodation is available a landlord is entitled to possession. Hon. Members who support the Bill say that alternative accommodation will be available. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have asked that a form of alternative accommodation should be available to those whose houses remain under control. It is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to suggest that people in controlled tenancies should take the risk of allowing a landlord to make an arrangement if he chooses to do so. The request is extremely reasonable and I hope that the Minister will think about it again. He has promised to deal with one aspect of the matter, but I hope that he will not allow this arrangement to be put on a voluntary basis but will give people in controlled tenancies an opportunity to have alternative accommodation so that they will not be put into the streets if they try to move to another house.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 9, line 11 to leave out subsection (3).
I cannot say that I am over-flushed with success after having had some measure of concession on the Amendment which the Government have accepted in principle.
Mr. Hay: Half a loaf is better than no bread.
Mr. Lindgren: It is, but I was about to say that the Government may further demonstrate their generosity by accepting this Amendment. The subsection gives the Government power to extend decontrol to houses which, for the time being, are within control under the Bill. I take it that the Government's case for including the subsection is that, having publicly stated that their aim is complete decontrol of all houses and the creation of a completely free market in housing, they are justified in taking power to extend at any time the area of decontrol.
The Government are seeking authority by the Bill to decontrol 810,000 houses; that area is comparatively small. Without wishing to be too provocative, I say that they are the better types of property occupied by persons in the higher, if not in the highest, income groups who may be able to fend for themselves in a free-for-all. Yet even the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), moving an Amendment yesterday, said in effect —I do not want to do him the injustice of misquoting him—that the 810,000 people were not so much concerned about rent increases as about security of tenure. He tried to secure a three-year delay, and we voted for it, but the hon. Gentleman did not succeed.
The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) went so far as to say that even with the 810,000 houses there was likely to be chaos. I admit that that number includes the higher and better types of property, in which the tenants can fend for themselves. The Government claim that they are justified in removing control from them, yet even among Government supporters grave fears are put forward, which we share. We are sure that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet and other Government supporters will be realised.
In the subsection which I am proposing to delete we are dealing not with 810,000 families but with 5 million families, mainly of the manual and lower-paid types of worker. Again, without trying to be provocative, I say that this type of property varies in age and character and in its standard of maintenance, and that comparison between these 5 million properties below the rateable value limits of £ 40 and £ 30 and the 810,000 houses is not possible because

1175
conditions which might obtain in one case are not likely to obtain in the other. The bulk of the 5 million properties are in industrial areas where pressure of housing, if there were further decontrol, would give opportunities to landlords to increase rents above the limits allowed for in the Bill.
Employers of labour are now asking substantial bodies of workers to undertake not to apply for increases of wages for twelve months. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to agree to keep rents within control. As a trade unionist, I ask the Minister whether it is fair to expect trade unionists to agree not to put forward wage-increase demands for twelve months while the Minister asks for power to withdraw control and increase rents and so lower the standard of living of the tenants?
This kind of provision hampers agreement in the industrial world. Whether the Minister likes it or not, trade unionists do not trust the Government and take every step they can to protect themselves. They will not tie their hands behind their backs by making agreements with employers while they believe that the Government are out to increase rents and do away with control. They still remember what happened under the Housing Subsidies Act, which contains a Section of this kind. The previous Minister of Housing and Local Government acted upon it to withdraw all the subsidies.
Mr. Hay: The hon. Member should not say that, because it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts about the subsidies.
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member is a very good advocate for the property-owners. I do not want to be ruled out of order in talking about subsidies; perhaps it is my fault for introducing the subject. The Housing Subsidies Act gave the Minister power to make an affirmative Resolution to withdraw the remaining £ 10 subsidy for general housing need, and that is what the previous Minister did twelve months ago today.
Mr. Hay: Not all the subsidies.
Mr. Lindgren: I am not a lawyer. I speak ordinary, common English, and most people understand it. It is not necessary to be so precise as to cover
1176
every item likely to arise in the housing field. The subsection gives the Minister power to withdraw control in whole or in part. Trade unionists, knowing that the previous Minister withdrew the remaining housing subsidies under a similar Section within twelve months of the Bill being passed, will assume, not unreasonably, that a Minister of Housing and Local Government will use this subsection within twelve months for a complete withdrawal of control from all properties. Such factors do not help industrial negotiation, but have an unsettling influence, increasing the difficulties of the Minister of Labour, who has a lot to handle in these days.
Is it fair that the future 5 million families should rest with an affirmative Resolution brought before this House between 10 p.m. and 11.30 p.m., which we would have no power to amend but could only vote for or against?
5.0 p.m.
Here we are dealing with 5 million families of men who are vital workers in British industry, and all that we can do for the security of their homes is dealt with on the basis of 1½ hours' discussion in this House at a time when most respectable people are getting ready for bed. It is not a fair way of dealing with the future of the homes of the people of this country. I suggest that if we are to deal with this question of the security of people's homes, we must remember that in many cases these are the only homes which they have ever had, and that it might well mean that if they lost their homes they would be likely to have to move away from the area in which they work. It is quite wrong that all these features of insecurity, which add so much to the fear in the lives of the workers, should be dealt with in 1½ hours late at night and by the procedure of the affirmative Resolution.
I submit that this matter ought to be dealt with by further legislation, when the Government can come forward with that legislation in the light of experience of what has happened to the 810,000 which are over the £ 30 and £ 40 rateable value. At least, where this very large section of the working people of the country are concerned, I think it is quite reasonable that we should ask for the opportunity of new legislation, which can be discussed

1177
adequately, to which Amendments can be submitted, and on which, in addition to that, the Government will have to justify the action which they contemplate.
Mr. Niall MacDermot: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a most extraordinary Clause to find in any Rent Bill. It is perhaps all the more extraordinary to find it in a Rent Bill introduced by the party opposite. What this Clause proposes to do is to give power to the Minister by delegated legislation to sweep away completely the protection of the Rent Acts from any section of protected property in any part of the country at any time that he sees fit, subject only to the protection which has just been described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren)——
Mr. Lindgren: Not learned.
Mr. MacDermot: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was carrying the courtesies of another place into this House.
That protection was a short, limited discussion in this House and another place, with no power of amendment at all.
The principles of delegated legislation have come to be fairly generally known and accepted. They were originally clarified and summarised in the Donoughmore Report, and these principles have, by and large, been adhered to since by Governments of all complexions in this country. This Clause is a complete departure from all of those principles.
May I summarise them briefly? The first case in which there is a strong argument for delegated legislation is when the subject matter of legislation is of such complexity that Parliament would not have time to discuss and consider all the details of it, and, therefore, by necessity, that legislative power must be delegated. That cannot possibly apply here. All that this subsection provides for is the Minister making an order providing that the Rent Acts shall no longer apply. There is nothing complex in the slightest in that.
The second class of case is where the subject matter of the legislation is of such a technical nature that again it would not be suitable for discussion or consideration in Parliament, but needs to be delegated to persons who can bring to bear the necessary expert knowledge. Again, that has no application whatever to this sub-section.
1178
Thirdly, we get the class of case in which it is necessary, in working out a broad scheme of legislation and to allow to those who are to administer it flexibility to meat unforeseen contingencies. Again, there is nothing of that kind or class here. Finally, we get the class where it is necessary to give to the Executive special legislative power in an emergency; of course, paramountly, in time of war. There is nothing of that kind here.
What we are dealing with here is giving power to the Minister to sweep away protection of a kind which has been built up by a series of Acts of Parliament over a period of over forty years. It is true that within these Acts there have been some providing for decontrol, but always the decontrol and the power of decontrol has been limited to decontrol by Act of Parliament. One of the significant features of this class of Rent Act legislation is that there has been virtually no delegated legislation in it at all. Apart from some very minor and purely procedural matters, there has been no delegated legislation. Everything up till now has been reserved to Parliament, and quite rightly, because what one is dealing with in this legislation is something which vitally affects people in their ordinary lives to a greater degree than almost any other legislation that one can contemplate.
We are concerned here with the security of people in their own homes, the ability of people to consider the place where they live as being their own home and not some temporary foothold from which they may be evicted at any time at the whim of their landlord. That such a power as that should be given to a Minister to sweep away such control by delegated legislation is a complete innovation into this whole sphere of legislation. This process of decontrol is something which, it must be admitted on all sides, and I think is admitted on all sides, is bound, at least to some extent, to cause suffering and hardship.
What hon. Members opposite believe is that it will be a short and painful process and that great good will result. We do not agree with them. We do not believe that great good will result. We think that very little good indeed will result, but we do agree with them, and on this there will be no dispute, that suffering and hardship will be caused, that some people at

1179
least are going to be evicted every time there is a measure of decontrol, and that some people are going to be placed in the position of having to search round for other accommodation, which will not be provided for them by their landlords.
Hon. Members opposite believe that the measures they are taking in this Bill will ensure that other accommodation will be available for them, but there is no qualification of any kind at all in this subsection on the powers of the Minister. It is a quite absolute power, and that again offends against one of the fundamental principles of delegated legislation.
It might be different if the subsection provided that the Minister had to see that certain conditions were satisfied before he could make the order; for example, that the Minister should be satisfied that the housing situation in the class of house which he was proposing to decontrol was such that the supply of such houses in the areas in question was sufficient to meet the demand once decontrol had taken place. It may be that the Minister would have it in mind to do that, but there is nothing in the subsection at all requiring him to satisfy himself on that account, and that again offends against one of the clearest and most fundamental principles of delegated legislation.
May I quote from the Donoughmore Report, which on page 58 says:
"… we venture to express a hope that in the future Parliament will be more conscious both of the principles at stake and of the safeguards needed; that wherever legislative power is delegated, the limits of the power will be clearly defined in the statute by which it is delegated; that Parliament will not depart from the normal into the exceptional type of delegated legislation without special need, nor without conscious consideration of the special grounds put forward as constituting the need; and that it will grant delegated powers of the exceptional type—e.g. powers to legislate on matters of principle or to impose taxation— only on exceptional grounds."
Again, on page 21, it states:
"… the precise limits of the law-making power, which Parliament intends to confer on a Minister, should always be defined in clear language by the statute which confers it."
There are no limits of any kind, precisely defined or otherwise, in the Minister's powers under the subsection as it stands in this Bill. The great danger which we on this side of the House fear is that when the critical moment comes
1180
and it has to be decided whether to extend decontrol or not the Minister will take precipitate action at the very time when caution is required. I do not think anyone would deny that the whole of this Bill is, to say the least, a bold step on the part of the Government. Some of us think that it is a very foolhardy step. What is quite clear is that it is a precipitate step. It is being rushed through with the power of the Guillotine behind it, and with the minimum of discussion having been able to take place.
It is a matter which was first brought to the public attention at Llandudno last summer. There was no mention of it—as has been repeatedly stated—in the Election Manifesto of the party opposite at the last General Election. All that spoke of was reviewing Rent Act legislation, which most people—certainly those of us who are lawyers—thought meant trying to reduce to some more manageable form the complexity of this legislation. No one, I think, dreamt it meant, or that anyone intended it to mean, that legislation was to be swept away. But this is the situation in which this legislation is now being rushed through Parliament.
Suppose the situation arises that this legislation does not have the result which the Minister thinks it will have; that it does not have the result which those who are advising the right hon. Gentleman advise him that it will have. It will not be the first time that such a mistake has been made. We remember that only as recently as 1954 we had "Operation Rescue." We were told by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government—no doubt he was acting upon the advice of those who were advising him on these matters—that he was confident that that Measure would have the effect planned for it. I am now referring chiefly to the repairs aspect—namely, that the power given to landlords to increase rents, when they spent a certain amount of money on repairing the property, would have the effect of improving the standard and condition of the worst class of tenanted properties in this country.
Everyone knows now that it had virtually no effect; that it was a dead letter from the start. That was the result of a complete misjudgment. That misjudgment having been made, we are now told, with equal confidence, by hon. Members opposite and by the Minister

1181
that they are quite certain that the provisions of this Measure, which enable the landlords of such properties to increase the rent to twice the gross value, will offer such an inducement that the landlords will do the repairs.
We on this side of the House beg to doubt the accuracy of that. We doubt that it will have that effect, and we may prove to be right once again. In fact, we doubt very much whether that is really the reason why the Government are providing for an increase of rents. We think the reason why they are providing for the increase of rents is in order to ensure that when people invest their money in dwelling-houses for other people, that investment shall be a successful hedge against inflation. That is the object of this Bill, to make sure that as the cost of living rises the landlords return rises. That is the principle which the old-age pensioners have recently asked the Government to accept in relation to their paltry pittance, the old-age pension. The Government have rejected it for them, but have accepted it in relation to landlords.
5.15 p.m.
Suppose, as I say, that this Bill does not have the effect which is claimed for it. What is to happen then? The Minister, no doubt not wanting to admit that he has applied the wrong medicine, will say, "Double the dose." In order to justify his case, he will take the even rasher step of bringing before the House legislation by means of regulation for extending the area of decontrol and say, "Well, if that dose of medicine, unpleasant as it was, did not do the trick, we will double the dose. We may have a great deal of increased hardship, but do not worry, it will only be temporary, for such an increase of additional housing will become available that you will see that all we claim will result."
Cannot we have a little more patience about this matter? During the debate yesterday the Minister said:
"… 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 1001.]
He was there, of course, referring to property which is to be decontrolled. I will refer to my own constituency—I cannot give figures for North Lewisham, I can only give figures for the whole
1182
Borough of Lewisham, including the three Lewisham constituencies—because I think it is a good example to take. It is a London constituency; it does not include the very highest class of accommodation which, on the Minister's own admission yesterday, is likely to result in very high rents. Out of, I think, about 63,000 dwellings it includes 12,500 dwellings of a rateable value of £ 40. That is a very substantial number, and it is out of those dwellings that the Minister looks for the additional accommodation, the enormous amount of which will be let almost as soon as the market is free.
On the Lewisham council's housing list there are 7,250 families waiting to be housed. If what the Minister claims in this Bill is true, we may expect, within the 15-month period or shortly afterwards, that a very substantial reduction indeed in that housing list will become apparent. If that reduction does not take place, is it right that such a power as is envisaged by this subsection should be given to the Minister to extend the decontrol when we still have ample opportunities to see and consider what is the real effect of the kind of legislation which is now being brought forward?
In my submission, that is a matter which should be considered temperately. It should be considered after due time and due warning notice has been given to all those who will be concerned about what is the proposed Measure. Then it should be fully discussed with powers of amendment and the full process of a Bill going through Parliament. What are the Government afraid of? Why do they need to take this power which has never been taken before by any Government, including any Conservative Government, when they have introduced legislation for decontrol? There has been this whole problem of decontrol before. Why should this power to decontrol by delegated legislation be taken now in these days when the Government are determined to force through this liberation of the landlords, irrespective of the hardship it may cause and irrespective of the will of the public and the people about what they are doing?
Our confidence in this matter is not increased by the extraordinary phrase which the Minister used yesterday in referring to rent control. Stung perhaps by the

1183
frequent use of the adjective "iniquitous" when applied to his Bill, he referred yesterday to the:
"… iniquitous system of rent control. …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 1002.]
The "iniquitous system of rent control" has given reasonable security and protection to millions of people for forty years. Is it right that the power, by delegated legislation, to sweep away that protection should be given to a Minister who considers the system iniquitous?
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am sorry to interrupt, but this system of rent control, which the hon. Gentleman says has done so much good, has also caused millions of houses to fall into decay—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is the landlords."]—causing an unnecessary housing shortage.
Mr. MacDermot: That is the Minister's contention. We know. I am pleading that we should have an opportunity to find out the extent to which the Minister is right about that before he should be given powers arbitrarily to sweep away further sections of that control.
I have much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), when he moved the deletion of sub-clause (3), dealt with the matter on a rather different basis from that adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in Committee and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) this afternoon. He seemed to consider himself the chosen representative of 5 million families. I thought that it was rather a pity that he was supported by only thirteen Members of his own party when he was speaking, and that one of them was laid out flat and fast asleep.
Since I cannot range over such a wide field as the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, who I thought at one stage was trying to talk the matter out, I should like to confine my remarks to the subject raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and again this afternoon by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North, namely, the
1184
question of the circumstances in which delegated legislation of the kind contained in the Clause can properly be employed. It is an important question of principle.
We ought to consider carefully the circumstances in which we use the so-called Henry VIII Clauses which give an executive authority—normally the Minister—power to amend the parent Act or any other Act in order to bring the parent Act into full operation. I must say that in the normal course of events, I very much dislike having Acts of Parliament amended by rules and orders. It is right that this House should be extremely conscious of the dangers of surrendering its authority to the Executive. At the same time, I must say that I thought that the language of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering in the Committee was mere rhetoric. It struck me as manifestly absurd when he told the Committee:
" I hope and pray no Labour Government will ever sink to the depths of oppression and duplicity which this Clause and the use of it represents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th February, 1957; c. 960.]
Of the many forms which this type of provision can take, it seems to me that the one the Government propose, namely approval by affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, is by far the least objectionable. I can only say that I very much wish that the Labour Government had used it more often. It is by no means as questionable as the very common provision that rules and regulations made under a Section
"shall have effect as if enacted in this Act,"
or that power to amend or modify a Statute should be by order subject to a negative Resolution, and it is very far removed from some wartime and postwar sub-delegated legislation which gave these powers not merely to a Minister, but also to officials.
I thought that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North was as wide of the mark in saying that this Clause was a complete innovation as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering was in describing it as a tyrannical procedure. If hon. Members opposite really want examples of tyrannical procedure and a misuse of delegated powers of the kind which the Donoughmore Committee so strongly deprecated, let them read the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947,

1185
which was also the subject of a Guillotine and whose proceedings occupy a much smaller volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT although it was a far longer Measure. Let the hon. and learned Member for Kettering and his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, who do not claim, like the hon. Member for Wellingborough, not to be lawyers, look at Section 3 (1) of the 1947 Act which provides that:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the
Minister."
That was a power to make directions, which was absolutely unlimited. The Minister—the Socialist Minister—could do anything he liked. He could nullify the proceedings of the Board. He could introduce differential development charges as part of planning policy. He had absolutely unfettered powers, with no reference at all to this House whether by negative or affirmative Resolution.
The same sort of thing is to be found in Section 13, where a general development order affecting people in every walk of life and having a profound effect upon the planning policy of the country, may be made not by affirmative Resolution, but by negative Resolution. I do not think it lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to complain as a matter of principle of the present proposal.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, North referred specifically to the Report of the Donoughmore Committee. That Committee certainly gave a great deal of attention to this subject, and it recommended that this form of legislation should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases. I myself entirely agree with that conclusion, and I believe that we should deal with this as an exceptional case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am quite happy to explain why. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North made a general defence of the power and indicated the circumstances in which it may properly be used, such as when certain modern enactments—such as this one—are so complicated that they cannot be brought into full operation on a particular date.
Here, however, the real argument in favour of this provision does not rest on that general defence. It arises out of the local difficulties of the kind which the
1186
Donoughmore Committee also dealt with, which it evidently felt might justify the use of these powers and which will appear to have precluded it from recommending their total abolition. The Committee was thinking specifically, I think, of the difficulties that arise when there are conflicting local enactments. It should be borne in mind that it has been an argument on this Bill that it is necessary to differentiate between different areas acording to the housing situation in each area, and that has been done, of course, in the case of the Metropolitan Police District.
It has even been argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there should be no general decontrol as is in fact proposed in Clause 10 (1). For my part I must say that I believe it is right that a start should be made by decontrolling the houses of a rateable value of over £ 30 in the country generally and £ 40 in the Metropolitan Police District. I believe that the larger the pool of houses decontrolled, the greater the safeguards to the general body of tenants.
5.30 p.m.
For the future, however, it may well be better to make an order applying only to a specific area. Obviously it is inappropriate that a provision for decontrol which applies only to a particular area should be the subject of an amending Act of Parliament. It is in those circumstances that I believe it is right and proper to make the provision in subsection (3). I believe that it is a sufficient safeguard in these circumstances that those orders shall be made operative as a result of an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be rejected.
Mr. Mitchison: We have had this Amendment moved from one point of view and seconded from another, and I can imagine no more appropriate occasion for hearing both those points of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) put the point of view of the ordinary man who is considering the cost of living and its effect on his pay packet and on any demands he may make. He will be concerned with this subsection.
Next, we have the point of view of those concerned with maintaining some, at any rate, of the constitutional traditions

1187
of the country in the face of an opposition which tends more and more to give powers to Ministers in defence of certain interests, and to derogate more and more from the powers and privileges of this place. There could be no better instance than this subsection.
Once upon a time this country was filled with constitutional clubs, put there by the party opposite. There are still some of them standing about. Since then they have been playing old Harry with the Constitution, and "old Harry" for these purposes means the late lamented King Henry VIII, who was the first person to introduce a Clause by which Acts of Parliament could be altered by Orders. He was not the last.
There have been other and more interesting precedents lately. The French Government got into considerable trouble by endeavouring to do too much by what we know as décret-loi. The German Government, under the late, unlamented Adolf Hitler, did much the same thing, and that is one of the ways by which a party in power can eventually entrench upon democracy and attribute to the Executive powers which should only be given to Parliament itself.
Let us consider, in plain, simple language, exactly what the Government propose to do by this wicked subsection. They have introduced a complicated and difficult Bill to deal with the question of rent control, which is something that immediately and directly affects practically every person in this country. It is an entirely different matter to have delegated legislation in connection with town planning. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) would take the trouble to read the Donoughmore Report, he would find the reasons for it well stated there.
Let him and other hon. Gentlemen opposite for one moment use a little horse sense in this matter. What they are dealing with in this Bill; what would be dealt with in the kind of Order envisaged by this subsection are the actual living conditions, the security of the homes of millions of the people we are sent here to represent.
Mr. Graeme Finlay: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not concede that the Town and Country Planning
1188
Act dealt with issues quite as important to the security of the home?
Mr. Mitchison: That seems to me to be an entirely different kind of legislation. If the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) will follow the advice I have just given to his hon. Friend, and read either the Donoughmore Report or the excellent summary of it given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), he will see the reason; that is to say, if he prefers to take it in terms of Blue Books.
But I am suggesting to him and to his hon. Friend that a little horse sense might lead them rather more shortly to the conclusion that the Rent Acts affect ordinary people in this country in a way in which no town planning legislation can affect them. The Rent Acts affect people directly and immediately. Does the hon. Gentleman or do any of his right hon. and hon. Friends think that the agitation there has been in the country about the Bill could conceivably have been caused by any town planning legislation? If they do, they must have rather less sense of reality than I usually attribute to the Tory Party.
Look at what has happened to the Bill itself. That is the best argument against this subsection. We have had a very complicated Bill introduced. We have then had it sent to a Committee upstairs, in spite, I may say, of protests from this side of the House. What happened then? It was discussed, and fully discussed up to a point. Then, on a matter directly affecting millions of people—I do not hesitate to say it again—this Government—in that respect, this tyrannical Government—put a Guillotine on this kind of Bill. And it is only because of that Guillotine that the Bill is here now. It is only because of an action which, on any principle of democracy, I find it impossible to defend, that at this time of the year we are considering this Bill.
Take the effect of the Guillotine on this Clause, not merely on this subsection. What happened upstairs? We took as much time as we could on it. We were shut out of thousands of Amendments on subsection (2) and of raising really substantial points. We were shut out practically altogether of any discussion of this vital subsection.

1189
Take the Notice Paper today, with the Guillotine still in operation. We have had to abandon three extremely important Amendments on subsection (2) because time does not permit us to go any further. That is the effect of what the Government have done in this Clause. But even so, even with the Guillotine, we had very nearly 30 sittings in Committee. We would have had more, and rightly, if there had been no Guillotine.
Take the Bill itself. Take the Minister's own Amendments on the Notice Paper now. They are vital to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has made concession after concession to points which we raised in Committee—points about repairs. The concession that was made just now about the exchanges—an absolutely vital matter on any view of the effect of this Bill—was not introduced by the Minister himself but by the Opposition, and that at a comparatively late stage, and it is something which will affect a large number of people, which will have a weighty social effect, and which will be some slight mitigation of the harm that will be done by the Bill.
All that has been in connection with this Bill, but what the Minister proposes on one of the most vital features of the Bill, decontrol, is to take power to himself to do it purely by affirmative Resolution. I would ask right hon. and hon. Members whether they have forgotten the limits of debate and discussion of Amendments to an affirmative Resolution? Are they so besotted with this sense of their own infallible judgment that they really think that they will get it right every time; that they will hit on the precise amount of poison to administer to the body politic to secure the health of the landlords of the country?
Do they really suppose that they can get this right every time? What a marvellous intuition they must have. I remember that Cromwell once called upon his men in words which it would be unparliamentary to use—and Cromwell was not always a great liker of Parliament—to remember that they might be mistaken. I suggest that even the Tory Party might occasionally remember that it might be mistaken. What it is doing now is to empower itself to introduce these Orders without any possibility of
1190
proper or full discussion, and as the House well knows, without any possibility of amendment.
Are right hon. and hon. Members opposite ever mistaken? My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North reminded them just now—and what could be more apposite—of many of the things they said, many of the things they hoped and many of the things in which they purported to believe, in connection with the 1954 Act. It was brought in by that great man, that far-seeing statesman, the present Prime Minister and he christened it with that singular felicity which he always uses in his carefully worked out utterances, "Operation Rescue".
We all wanted to know what it would rescue. He told us that it was the buildings—it was not the landlords. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) described it as a "mouldy old turnip" for the landlords. That is just about what it was. Others have called it "Operation Flop," and that is exactly what it has been
Mr. Rippon Mr. Rippon rose——
Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Member rising to tell us that it was a success? If so, I shall be interested to hear him.
Mr. Rippon: I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) also hedged his bet by describing it as "a landlords' ramp."
Mr. Mitchison: So it was. It was both, only it was a very unsuccessful ramp, and as a mouldy old turnip for the landlords it proved to be exactly what he prophesied it to be. What better example could we have of a Measure on which such high hopes were founded both by the Tory Party and by the landlords of the country and which proved completely ineffective, either for the purpose of substantially enriching the landlords or for the better social purpose of getting repairs done to houses?
Mr. Finlay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mixing his metaphors. On the question of mixed metaphors, is he aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) called that Bill "a gold mine for the landlords"?
Mr. Mitchison: What we are on is the question of what is to be done by administrative order to create hardship and insecurity among the ordinary people, and mixed metaphors do not seem to me to matter anything in comparison with that. What the hon. Member must realise is that what he and his hon. Friends are standing for is not a question of language, but whether the rights of Parliament are to be preserved in a matter of this kind. It is not a laughing matter. It is not a matter to be taken on the question of mixed metaphors or similar trivialities.
Coming back to the substance of it, I am talking about the 1954 Act as it now is. Let me remind hon. Members of one thing—and this is the last thing of which I am going to remind them—that has happened in connection with this Bill. It contains the most completely unintelligible Schedule relating to repairs ever introduced into any Act of Parliament by any Government. It really is a most dreadful piece of legislation.
We offered the right hon. Gentleman upstairs the choice of going back to the Prime Minister's Schedule—it was in the form of a Clause actually in the 1954 Act. I feel that his hon. Friends will be shocked to hear of the facility and ruthlessness with which he flung the Prime Minister overboard. He flung him out, as it were, with the bath water. He just chucked him aside like that. Is a party infallible that introduces a Bill which has none of the effects which it predicts, and then makes the man who introduced the Bill and prophesied what was to happen their chosen leader and, therefore, the Prime Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "Chosen?"] I apologise for using the word "chosen". There may be a better word. We will leave it like that. That is the position at present.
I ask hon. Members opposite to remember their responsibility in this matter. They are dealing with the homes and the happiness of millions of people. They are proposing to have those things dealt with without proper discussion and without any of the ordinary democratic procedure that the traditions of centuries have imposed on this House. They are putting the Executive in a position in which no Executive ought to be put in a matter directly affecting the people. That is what they are doing. They are
1192
supposed to be a constitutional party. They are making a fine mess of the Constitution by a provision of this sort.
I have said all that I have to say today, and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend will get up and say, "Well, we did not look far enough ahead. We cannot be so certain that we are right. We are not really so set on putting Parliament into a position of merely assenting to anything we propose, and we shall, therefore, withdraw this subsection." I hope that in the name of the freedom and of the people that is what they will do.
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has moved to leave out sub-section (3) of Clause 10. I should like to address myself to the Amendment and what it implies. The effect of the sub-section, as the House knows, is to enable my right hon. Friend to bring new groups of houses out of control by Order. The Order has to specify the houses by reference to their rateable value. The Order may relate to the whole of England and Wales, it may relate to the whole of Scotland or to particular areas of the country. It may apply generally to houses over a certain rateable value, or to particular classes or descriptions of houses.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is widely drawn to give the Minister at the time considerable discretion as to the nature of the Order which he puts before the House. The Order can reduce the transitional period of decontrol to not less than six months, and in the absence of any provisions in the Order, of course, the period would remain at fifteen months.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) very rightly said, it would be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and I stress the word "affirmative". In spite of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), this is not a new idea. It is not entirely an innovation, because in 1937 the Report of the first Ridley Committee recommended a scheme for progressively reducing rent control by Order and on a geographical basis area by area. That proposal was related to a scheme based on the amount of

1193
overcrowding in a given area at a particular time. As it happened, the recommendation was not implemented but the idea was there and it was put forward in the Report of the first Ridley Committee.
Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman must get this clear. What my hon. Friend said—and rightly said—was that no proposal of this sort has ever been sanctioned by Parliament in relation to rent decontrol.
Mr. Bevins: I quite appreciate that, I am merely pointing out that so influential a body as the Ridley Committee—and, after all, it was an important Committee —did make this proposal as far back as 1937. In 1945 the Report of the second Ridley Committee said that rent control might have to be kept on for a period of about ten years, but it also suggested that the situation should be reviewed after a few years had elapsed to see if rent control could be partially relaxed at that time.
I think we owe it to the House to explain why the Government have included this provision in the Bill. I want to say quite plainly that, in the view of the Government, the sooner we can revert to the normal relationship of landlord and tenant in a situation where there are houses available for letting, the better for the country as a whole. I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite, that the two sides of the House are divided on that issue, but I assert, speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them?"]—that that is our view. Therefore, we do not wish to see hampers and controls in the economy prolonged beyond the time when they have ceased to serve any useful purpose.
The defects of rent control are far too well known—certainly on this side of the House—to require any repetition by me at this stage in our proceedings tonight, but what we are here considering is whether the Government should have the power to bring about further decontrol by Order. In our view, this power is a necessary part of the Bill and we have made it clear that our object is the gradual elimination of rent control, We have made it clear that that is what we mean to do.
1194
I ask hon. Members opposite why this provision is objected to. Is it because they think decontrol in itself is wrong? Is it their view that control of rents should form a permanent feature of our country's legislation? I find that very hard to believe, on the basis of the policy of the party opposite. Its idea is to municipalise the great majority of the houses. That in itself is a recognition that rent control, if kept for too long, has disadvantages as well as advantages. Given that we wish to see a normal relationship between private landlords and tenants, and do not wish to see local authorities as everybody's landlords——
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point. The policy of the Labour Party is for modernising these properties. It should not be forgotten that 7 million of these houses of which we are talking have no bathroom. The landlords have done nothing to provide bathrooms for them, and the Bill does nothing to provide them.
Mr. Bevins: That may well be so, but the fact is that it is implicit—indeed, in parts, expressed—in the policy of the Labour Party that rent control in this country has brought in its train certain evils which on both sides of the House are perfectly well recognised. The issue before the House at the moment is a perfectly simple one. My right hon. Friend has incorporated in the Bill the provision that he or his successor may by Order vary the limits for rent decontrol. We believe that is a fair provision. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North referred to the possibility that a Government might use power under such an Order either precipitately or intemperately. It is quite inconceivable that, after the experience a Government would have had of the working of this Measure after the lapse of eighteen months, two years or maybe longer, a Government would take precipitate action, on the basis of their experience, to do something which was manifestly anti-social.
Mr. Mitchison: Why is that?
Mr. Bevins: It seems to me to be implicit in the whole of the case which has been deployed from the benches opposite this afternoon. In spite of what has been happening in the country in recent by-elections, it certainly seems to be assumed

1195
by hon. Members opposite that the party on this side of the House will be successful at the next General Election—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Otherwise, I can see very little point indeed in the proposal which is now before the House.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Does that mean that the Minister does not propose to introduce any Orders under this subsection until after another General Election? That would be very interesting.
Mr. Bevins: It means precisely what I said. Having said that, I cannot advise the House——
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: What do the Government intend to do for the people of this country? They are not going to get out of their houses on decontrol. What action will be taken because people will not get out of their houses? I hope they do not get out.
Mr. Bevins: I am afraid the hon. Lady has not followed the speeches——
Mrs. Braddock: I have followed the speeches. I cannot accept anyone else's speech. I should like an answer to my question. What are the Government going to do if the people will not get out?
Mr. Bevins: I think the hon. Lady has answered herself. Had she listened to speeches made, not by hon. Members on this side of the House but by her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering and her other hon. Friends, she would have realised that what we are discussing is not houses taken out of control under Clause 10 (1), but houses which at a certain point in the future may become decontrolled. Therefore, her question has no relevance.
Mrs. Braddock: What are the Government going to do if people do not get out?
Mr. Mitchison: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary rightly? Is it proposed to use this subsection to decontrol completely all houses as soon as possible?
Mr. Bevins: I said nothing of the sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I made it perfectly clear at the beginning of what I
1196
had to say that this subsection was so drafted as to give the Minister of Housing considerable discretion as to whether he should give further slices of decontrol either geographically, by rateable value, or otherwise.
Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what limits he proposes to set to the decontrol with which the present Minister of Defence threatened the country at the Tory Conference at Llandudno? We were then told that it was to be complete decontrol. We understand this Clause to be the instrument for complete decontrol, without any Act of Parliament. Are we wrong?
Mr. Blenkinsop: Let the Minister answer.
Mr. Bevins: I have made it perfectly clear, so has my right hon. Friend on a number of occasions, that the ultimate objective of Her Majesty's Government is the decontrol of house property in this country.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very glad that Scotland has been remembered because, with this Clause retained in the Bill, Scotland will actually be in a very much worse position than England. At the moment Scottish rents will be increased by 25 per cent. under this Bill, and, under the 1954 Act they will be increased by 50 per cent. The king-pin of the property owners of Scotland has just been pointing out in a letter to the Glasgow Herald that in that delectable country of England:
"… landlords are to be allowed to charge as rent a sum not exceeding twice the gross value of the house as at 1939,…This represents an increase of some three to four times the rent charged in 1914; and that increase I regard as reasonable."
That foreshadows that the Bill, as at present drafted, will not satisfy the landlords of Scotland——
It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 232.

Division No. 86.]

AYES

[6.0 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

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

Aitken, W. T.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Alport, C. J. M.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Glover, D.

McAdden, S. J.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Godber, J. B.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Arbuthnot, John

Goodhart, P. C.

McKibbin, A. J.

Armstrong, C. W.

Gough, C. F. H.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Ashton, H.

Gower, H. R.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Atkins, H. E,

Green, A.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J- M.

Gresham Cooke, R.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimond, J.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Balniel, Lord

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Barter, John

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maddan, Martin

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Gurden, Harold

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Marshall, Douglas

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mathew, R.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maude, Angus

Bidgood, J. C.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

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

Mawby, R. L.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

Bishop, F. P.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Body, R. F.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Boothby, Sir Robert

Hay, John

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

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

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

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Braine, B. R.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Neave, Airey

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

Hesketh, R. F.

Nicholis, Harmar

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Bryan, P.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nugent, G. R. H.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Oakshott, H. D.

Burden, F. F. A.

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

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

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

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

Holt, A. F.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Campbell, Sir David

Hornby, R. P.

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

Carr, Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Osborne, C.

Cary, Sir Robert

Horobin, Sir Ian

Page, R. G.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Partridge, E.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Howard, John (Test)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Cooke, Robert

Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooper, A. E.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hurd, A. R.

Pitman, I. J.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

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

Pott, H. P.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Powell,J. Enoch

Crouch, R. F,

Hyde, Montgomery

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Iremonger, T. L.

Profumo, J. D.

Cunningham, Knox

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Currie, G. B. H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rawlinson, Peter

Dance, J. C. G.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Redmayne, M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Johnson, Eric (Blackney)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Joseph, Sir Keith

Remnant, Hon. P.

Deedes, W. F.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Ronton, D. L. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kaberry, D.

Ridsdale, J, E.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Keegan, D.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robertson, Sir David

Drayson, G. B.

Kerr, H. W.

Robson-Brown, W.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kershaw, J. A.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

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

Kirk, P. M.

Roper, Sir Harold

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lagden, G. W.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lambert, Hon. G.

Russell, R. S.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Elliott, R. W.

Leavey, J. A.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Erroll, F. J.

Leburn, W, G.

Sharpies, R. C.

Farcy-Jones, F. W.

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

Shepherd, William

Fell, A.

Finlay, Graeme

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

Fisher, Nigel

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Fletober-Cooke, C.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Fort, R.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Soames, Christopher

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

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

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Freeth, Denzil

Longden, Gilbert

Speir, R. M.

1198

1199

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

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

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

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

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

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Webbe, Sir H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Turner, H. F. L.

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

Storey, S.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Vane, W. M. F.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Wood, Hon. R.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wade, D. W.

Temple, John M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Mr. Wills and Mr. Barber.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hale, Leslie

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Albu, A. H.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Mort, D. L.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hannan, W.

Moss, R.

Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Moyle, A.

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, S.

Mulley, F. W.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Balfour, A.

Healey, Denis

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

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

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

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

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

Herbison, Miss M.

Oram, A. E.

Benson, G.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Orbach, M.

Blackburn, F.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Oswald, T.

Blenkinsop, A.

Holman, P.

Owen, W. J.

Blyton, W. R.

Holmes, Horace

Padley, W. E.

Boardman, H.

Houghton, Douglas

Paget, R. T.

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

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

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

Bowles, F. G.

Hoy, J. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Boyd, T. C.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pargiter, G. A.

Brockway, A. F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parker, J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hunter, A. E.

Parkin, B. T.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Paton, John

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Pearson, A.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Peart, T. F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Pentland, N.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Callaghan, L. J.

Janner, B.

Popplewell, E.

Carmichael, J.

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

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Chapman, W. D.

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

Probert, A. R.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jenkins, Roy (Stetchford)

Proctor, W. T.

Coldrick, W.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Pryde, D. J.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

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

Randall, H. E.

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditoh & Finsbury)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Rankin, John

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Redhead, E. C.

Cove, W. G.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Reeves, J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Reld, William

Cronin, J. D.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Rhodes, H.

Crossman, R. H. S.

King, Dr. H. M.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lawson, G. M.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lewis, Arthur

Ross, William

Delargy, H. J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Royle, C.

Dodds, N. N.

Lipton, Marcus

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Donnelly, D. L.

McGhee, H. G.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

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

McGovern, J.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

McInnes, J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Skeffington, A. M.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacDermot,Niall

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

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

MacPherson, Malcoim (Stirling)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mahon, Simon

Snow, J. W.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Sorensen, R. W.

Fienburgh, W.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Finch, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Sparks, J. A.

Fletcher, Eric

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Steele, T.

Forman, J. C.

Mason, Roy

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

Mayhew, C. P.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Gooch, E. G.

Mellish, R. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P, C.

Messer, Sir F.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Greenwood, Anthony

Mikardo, Ian

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

Grenfell, Rt. Hon, D. R.

Mitchison, G. R.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Grey, C. F.

Monslow, W.

Swingler, S. T.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Sylvester, G. O.

1200

1201

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Watkins, T. E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Weltzman, D.

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

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

West, D. G.

Willie, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Thornton, E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Timmons, J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Woof, R. E.

Tomney, F.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilkins, W. A.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Usborne, H. C.

Willey, Frederick

Zllliacus, K.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, David (Neath)

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had beer, given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.
Amendment made: In page 9, line 44 at end insert:
" and those subsections shall have effect subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Act".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 11.—(FURNISHED HOUSES.)
Amendments made: In page 10, line 5, leave out "a given date is" and insert:
"any date as on which rateable value fell to be ascertained under subsection (1) of the foregoing section, or under an order which has come into force under subsection (3) thereof, was".
In line 39, leave out "the given" and insert "a".
In line 42, leave out "the given" and insert "that".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 12.—(PREMIUMS NOT TO BE CHARGED FOR DECONTROLLED TENANCIES.)
Amendments made: In page 12, line 1, leave out from "apply)" to end of line 2 and insert:
(2) As respects grant, renewal or continuance otherwise than for a term of more than twenty-one years, and as respects assignment of a tenancy granted, renewed or continued after the commencement of this Act, subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 (which excludes from the Rent Acts tenancies where the rent is less than two-thirds of the rateable value) shall be disregarded for the purposes of the foregoing subsection.
In line 4, leave out "last foregoing subsection" and insert "foregoing subsections".
In line 5, leave out "it applies" and insert "they apply".
In line 7, leave out "last foregoing subsection "and insert:
"subsection (1) of this section".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 15.—(RENTS OF SUBSIDISED PRIVATE HOUSES.)
Amendments made: In page 13, line 17, leave out from "amount" to end of line 19 and insert:
"subject however to the provisions of sub-section (2) of that section".
In line 25, at end insert:
"then, subject to the next following subsection".
In line 40, at end insert:
(4) In relation to a tenancy falling within paragraph (c) or (d) of section thirty-three of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954 (which exclude from the operation of the Rent Acts certain tenancies where the interest of the landlord belongs to a housing association or a housing trust),—

(a) paragraphs (a) to (c) of the last foregoing subsection shall not apply; but

(b) the condition shall limit the rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if it limited the rent, to such amount as may from time to time be agreed between the association or trust and the local authority (or the London County Council in the case of houses the construction of which was promoted by them or in respect of which improvement grants were made by them under the Housing Act, 1949) or as may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Minister; but if the condition was imposed before the commencement of this Act it shall, until the said amount has been agreed or determined under this paragraph, have effect as if this Act had not been passed.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 19.—(INTERPRETATION.)
Amendments made: In page 15, line 16, leave out from "'dwelling'" to "the" and insert:
"except in section (Minimum length of notice to quit) of this Act, means in relation to a controlled tenancy."
In line 17, at end insert:
"and in relation to a contract the aggregate of the premises to which the contract relates."
In line 18, after "alteration," insert "extension or addition."
In line 40, at end insert:
" rateable value" shall be construed as provided in Part I of the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
In page 16, line 8, at end insert:
"the valuation officer" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Local Government Act, 1948.
In line 13, leave out subsection (3).
In line 45, leave out from "the" to end of line 46 and insert:
" fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Clause 21.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)
In page 17, line 32, leave out first "and" and insert:
" section (Restriction on requiring payment in advance of rent under decontrolled tenancies), section (Minimum length of notice to quit), section (Concurrence of superior landlords to agreements as to 1956 gross value and rateable value), section.".
In line 33, leave out "Fourth and Sixth Schedules" and insert:
"and Fourth Schedules, Part I of the Fifth Schedule, the Sixth Schedule."—[Mr. Maclay.]

First Schedule.—(ADJUSTMENT OF RENT IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS.)
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 18, line 31, at the end to insert:
(3) An election under this paragraph shall not have effect if the tenant dissents from it in writing within one month of the service on the tenant of the notice under the foregoing subparagraph; but if the tenant duly dissents the First Schedule to the Act of 1933 shall thereafter have effect in relation to the dwelling as if the grounds for possession specified in paragraph (a) thereof included the ground that the tenant has failed to keep the dwelling in a reasonable state of internal decorative repair, having due regard to its age, character and locality.
Hon. Members will remember that we had a spot of bother in Committee about the choice of wallpaper, and the purpose of this Amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides, is to try to clear up that problem. The difficulty arises where there is uncertainty whether landlord or tenant is responsible for internal decorative repairs. The Bill as it stands gives the landlord a power to elect to undertake that responsibility, and to receive the higher rent in consequence.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl)—I am sorry he is not in his place—asked whether it was not unfair that the tenant should have no power to withhold consent to the landlord's election. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) suggested that if a
1204
tenant refused consent to a landlord's election, but undertook this responsibility, the tenant should thereupon be made responsible for keeping the house in good internal decorative repair. I looked into that suggestion, but it is not a possible method of proceeding, because no landlord could, by virtue of the Bill, be put under a legal liability to do repairs which are assumed to be his responsibility for the purposes of the rent provisions of the Bill.
The Amendment provides, not that a tenant's consent is necessary to the election—which was the point which the hon. Member for Widnes urged—but rather that an election by the landlord can be rendered void if the tenant dissents in writing within one month of receiving notice of the election from his landlord. If the tenant does this, and then does not keep the house in good decorative repair, there clearly must be some sanction. By the Amendment it will become a ground on which the landlord will be able to apply to the court for an order for possession, which the court will be able to grant under the Rent Acts if it finds it reasonable so to do.
It is quite necessary, I think, to give some such remedy to the landlord. Otherwise, although a house is not kept in good internal decorative repair the landlord will be debarred from receiving a rent that will enable him to take that financial responsibility on his own shoulders. A good tenant, of course, has nothing at all to fear. A bad tenant might dissent from the landlord's election merely in order to escape a rent increase, and with no intention of doing anything about internal decorative repairs.
6.15 p.m.
The notice of the election which I will prescribe will contain information making it perfectly clear to the tenant what his position will be if he dissents, and what it will be if he does not. I have sought to solve what was recognised to be a difficulty by both sides during the Committee stage. I trust that I have done it in a manner that will solve the crucial problem here, which is how to fix on one party or the other the responsibility for internal decorative repairs, and make the rent vary accordingly.
Mr. James H. Hoy: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he

1205
tell us if this new provision would be applicable to Scotland as well as to England and Wales?
Mr. Brooke: I apologise for not having informed the House of that. It would not apply to Scotland.
Mr. J. Silverman: We on this side of the House regard the Amendment as completely outrageous. In substance, it means that where an election is made in these circumstances and the tenant does not paper the walls or put paint on a particular part of the house, the landlord can take him to the county court and get him evicted. I want to point out the completely different way in which the landlord and the tenant are treated by this Schedule. If the landlord does not do repairs, what happens? Every method of procrastination is provided for him. There is six months' notice; three weeks for one form and three weeks for another —every device for delay and evasion is provided for the landlord.
On the other hand, a tenant who does not fulfil what is, in any case, a doubtful contractual obligation, and who does not put paper on the walls, can be taken to court and evicted. It is a thoroughly outrageous proposition, which proves that this is a landlords' Bill, introduced by a landlords' Government. The difference between the treatment of the landlord and of the tenant over internal repairs and decoration is so obvious that I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the Amendment.
We agree with the principle of election, and I should have thought that if there is no compulsion upon the landlord to do the repairs that is a sufficient sanction; but this Draconic sanction of turning the tenant out if he does not paper the walls is thoroughly bad.
Mr. Page: When we were in Committee, hon. Members opposite wanted the tenants to be able to prevent the landlords from electing to do internal decorative repairs. They wanted the tenants to be able to say to the landlords, "You shall not do internal repairs." Their argument in support of that was the tenants might like to do their own internal decorative repairs. I see that, after ten columns of debate, in six lines I suggested a solution to this problem. I said:
" May I offer a solution? If the tenant refuses to allow the landlord to elect to do the
1206
internal decorative repairs, I think that the tenant ought then to be prepared to take on liability for those repairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th March, 1957; c. 1171.]
That seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. If the tenant will not allow his landlord to do those internal decorative repairs, then he ought to take on the liability for them himself.
My right hon. Friend in introducing the Amendment has said that he could not accept my suggestion. I am very grateful to him, for he has accepted it in toto. He has accepted exactly what I intended to say in that offer of a solution. He has thrown the liability for internal decorative repairs on to the tenant who prevents his landlord from doing them. In my judgment, that is the right and proper course, and I therefore support the Amendment.
Mr. Mitchison: I have no objection whatever to the first sentence of the Amendment down to the words "the foregoing sub-paragraph." If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to taunt me and say that we ought to have put down an Amendment to leave out "but if the tenant" and so on, I can only reply that to err is human, and in this case we have erred. We ought to have put down such an Amendment, but I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman or any responsible Minister would desire to take a point of that sort. If he really believes that the provision is wrong, I hope he will take steps to withdraw it.
In the first place, one ought in a Bill of this kind to be very slow to add any further grounds for eviction. In the second place, it seems quite obvious that this provision is open, I will not say to abuse, but to use of which I feel everybody in the House will disapprove. For instance, let me take the ordinary common example in which the landlord is responsible for external repairs and the tenant for internal repairs, which is the one we must particularly have in mind. The landlord realises that he has only to serve a notice of election, when one of two things will happen: either he will get an additional rent or else, for no reason whatever relating to the original contract, he will get an additional ground for turning out the tenant. This is plainly very unfair.
Mr. Page: If the landlord is getting additional rent, he will get the additional

1207
liability for doing those internal decorative repairs, and the tenant can prevent him having that additional rent by applying for a certificate of disrepair.
Mr. Mitchison: I am afraid it takes a little time to make the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) understand, but perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I will say it again. Take the ordinary case in which the landlord is responsible for external repairs and the tenant for internal repairs. If the landlord serves a notice of election, one of two things will happen: either he will get some additional rent for assuming a liability which I thought that the hon. Member for Crosby and I both thought was not the sort of liability he ought to assume without the tenant's agreement, or, if he does not do that, he will get an additional ground for turning out the tenant. Previously, he could not have turned him out for lack of internal decorative repairs, since the tenant had no obligation to him with regard to internal decorative repairs.
What the Amendment does is to provide an additional ground by which, for no good reason and beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties, the landlord is given an additional ground to evict the tenant. Really, that seems to me, quite simply, to be most unfair, and I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends would think about it they would see that it was unfair.
By far the simplest thing to do, and the right thing to do, is not to allow the landlord to make the election at all except with the tenant's consent. It is much the simplest plan. I say, quite honestly and without bitterness, but with complete conviction, that this really is very unfair to the tenant, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at it in this way. I hope that he will tell the House that he will look at it again and reconsider this aspect of the matter which I have put to him.
Mr. Hay: Before coming to a decision that the Amendment is unfair, the House ought to look at the other side of the picture. An election can be made only under Part I of the First Schedule in respect of internal decorative repair if the landlord is already, under contract, liable to do internal decorative repair or,
1208
secondly, if, neither party being liable for it, he chooses to become so responsible. It is with the second case that we are particularly concerned. Where the landlord chooses to undertake the liability for internal decorative repairs, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has pointed out, he will get an increased rent, it is true, but he runs the risk of a certificate of disrepair.
Mr. Lindgren: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me on what authority he thinks it likely that a sanitary inspector would give a certificate of disrepair in respect of a property for lack of decoration?
Mr. Hay: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that quite a lot of them did under the 1954 Act.
Mr. Lindgren: No.
Mr. Hay: Yes, they did; I have seen them. But that is not the point I was on. What the Amendment seeks to do, as I understand it, is to make clear that if the tenant refuses to let the landlord make such an election, then he must bear what I should have thought was the perfectly fair consequence: if the house falls into such a state of disrepair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Decoration."] —internal decorative disrepair as a result of the tenant's own failure to look after it, then that should be an additional ground under the general heading of lack of repair contained in the First Schedule to the Act of 1933.
Mr. Mitchison: Take the case that we both have in mind where, originally, the tenant is under no responsibility to the landlord to do internal decorative repairs. Suppose that the tenant does not want the landlord to take the responsibility for them. Why should the tenant have imposed upon him an additional ground of eviction simply because the landlord chooses to make an election? What ground is there?
Mr. Hay: I was just about to explain why. It is only right to keep a fair balance. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asks why should the tenant be under an obligation to do internal decorative repairs when he was not under that obligation originally, and why should he run the risk of eviction if he fails to comply? In my view, it is right that he should be in this

1209
position, because the landlord is, in any event, under a number of obligations under other statutes, under the Housing Acts, the Public Health Acts, and other statutes which impose direct obligations on landlords which local authorities are swift to enforce and tenants swift to demand.
What my right hon. Friend proposes in the Amendment helps to even out the situation a little. None of us wants to see tenants living in very bad conditions. We do not want to see them living in houses in bad decorative repair internally, but it is complete nonsense for the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) to say that the effect of the Amendment is that if the tenant does not paper the walls he can be turned out. That is going much further than the Amendment seeks and much further than my right hon. Friend wants to go.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Janner: I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) wants the Amendment. Is he suggesting that a landlord now has to bear in mind the aesthetic taste of a tenant and insist upon his having some internal decorative repair so that his way of life and his mood shall be guided by the atmosphere in which he lives, for instance, by the wall-paper? The hon. Member is a solicitor, not a layman, and he knows very well that "internal decorative repair" means nothing other than an addition to internal repairs in respect of which the word "repairs" has no vital meaning.
Does he realise that this Schedule was inserted into the 1933 Act? Does he realise that he is now putting a bit of wallpaper and a splash of paint on the same level as hardship? The Schedule was introduced into the 1933 Act for specific purposes. The main purposes were to compel a tenant to pay his rent, and to balance the question of hardship. He is now asking the House, by a silly device, to allow a landlord to tell a tenant that he has to have certain kinds of wall-paper or be taken to court.
Mr. Hay: Nothing of the sort.
Mr. Janner: That is precisely its purpose. One of the subsections of the First Schedule in the 1933 Act enables landlords to obtain possession on certain grounds. The Minister is now saying that
1210
a splash of paint is as important a ground as that of a man asking for possession because his family is desperate for accommodation.
Mr. Hay: Does the hon. Member think that if an action under paragraph (a) of that Schedule as amended were brought in a county court, the court, in those circumstances, would find it reasonable to make an order?
Mr. Janner: I am asking the Government not to be silly. It would obviously be unreasonable under any circumstances to bring a man to court because he had not put a splash of paint on the walls, or because his wallpaper was not to the landlord's liking. That is what the Minister is asking us to do.
The sinister part of all this is that it hangs a threat over the heads of tenants who do not understand their rights. Landlords will compel tenants to do what the landlords want them to do under the threat of driving them out of possession. I beg the Minister not to be foolish about this. At present, there is no law to compel a person to undertake internal decorative repairs. Hon. Members who stand for the rights of contract go too far in suggesting that this great sledge-hammer should be used to make tenants use a splash of paint, or put a little wallpaper here and there. I hope that the Minister will see how foolish it is and withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. H. Brooke: I do not think that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) and other hon. Members opposite would have spoken as they did if they had really understood the situation. I am confirmed in that view by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) having suggested that all these troubles would disappear if we accepted the Opposition's suggestion that we should make an election conditional on the consent of the tenant.
If we did that, exactly the same problem might arise. What happens when a tenant, either having withheld his consent under the Opposition's suggestion, or having expressed positive dissent under the Government's Amendment, then fails to carry out his obligations? We must have a solution to that. Parliament cannot just leave it in the air, because

1211
unquestionably it is wrong that Parliament should make no provision whatever for getting a house into proper internal decorative repair.
Mr. Albert Evans: We regard this matter of paint and wallpaper as of some importance, but not a ground for possession by the landlord if the tenant neglects it.
Mr. Brooke: If a tenant has an obligation to keep the house in internal decorative repair and neglects to paint the woodwork so that the woodwork rots, the landlord has his remedy under existing law and it is the same remedy which we are seeking to establish in this case. If the landlord takes the matter to court it can only be through the tenant having deliberately refused his assent to the landlord maintaining the house in proper decorative repair, thereby taking the obligation on his own shoulders, and then neglecting that obligation.
Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with what is puzzling me? The original position in most of these cases was that the tenant was under no obligation to the landlord. He did his own internal decorative repairs, the landlord usually doing the external ones. Why should the landlord, by making the election, be in a position to impose a new obligation on the tenant and why should the result of that imposition be that the tenant could be turned out for a breach of obligation—that is what paragraph (a) is about—which originally he never undertook and which arises only out of the landlord's election and the tenant's refusal to agree to it?
Mr. Brooke: He has undertaken it by refusing to agree to the landlord's election. The tenant cannot have it both ways, but neither can the landlord. The landlord is saying that he is willing to take on his own shoulders the responsibility for internal decorative repairs. In the case with which we are here dealing —I have been seeking to meet the view of the Opposition on this—we are providing for the case where the tenant does not want that. He wishes to be under the obligation himself, thereby to pay twice the gross value as rent instead of two and one-third times the gross value. He is gaining a reduction of rent
1212
and is taking upon himself a financial responsibility.
Then we have to envisage the possibility that the tenant will not discharge that responsibility. He has gained on his rent and yet he has not fulfilled his obligation. Parliament cannot just leave a lacuna there. Something must happen. I invite hon. Members to examine what the Amendment says. It says that the grounds for possession will include the ground that the tenant has failed to keep the dwelling in a reasonable state of internal decorative repair.
Does anybody imagine that if the tenant had used a wallpaper that the landlord did not like, or had let a little bit of the wallpaper become torn, the court would accept the landlord's plea that the dwelling was not being kept in a reasonable state of internal decorative repair?
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government were being silly, but what is happening is that he is assuming that the court will be silly. In fact, so far as I am aware, the courts are very accustomed to interpretating this word "reasonable". I would further remind hon. Members that under the 1933 Act the court will give an order for possession only if it considers it reasonable so to do. The word "reasonable" comes in twice, and attention has to be paid to it both times. If the court thinks that the tenant is failing to keep the dwelling in a reasonable state of internal decorative repair, and thinks, also, that it would be reasonable to give an order for possession, the court will do so.
I cannot believe that there is so much between us on this matter that the House needs to go to a Division. I am doing my very best to solve a genuine problem, and I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, if they think about it quietly, will agree that there should be some provision of this kind.
Mr. David Weitzman: I agree that we ought to think about this quietly. Let us assume that the tenant has taken upon himself an obligation to carry out repairs and that he does not do so. There is a remedy. He can be taken to court and sued for damages for breach of contract.

1213
That is an effective remedy. Why put him to the penalty and the danger of being evicted because of that?
Mr. Brooke: What I have been trying to make clear is that the court would not give an order for possession and could not do it under the 1933 Act unless it
considered it reasonable so to do. What the Opposition is now arguing is that the court cannot be trusted.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 223.

Division No. 87.]

AYES

[6.43 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Fisher, Nigel

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Aitken, W. T.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

Fort, R.

Leavey, J. A.

Alport, C. J. M.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Leburn, W. G.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Freeth, Denzil

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

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Arbuthnot, John

George, J. C. (Poliok)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Armstrong, C. W.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Ashton, H.

Glover, D.

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

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Godber, J. B.

Longden, Gilbert

Atkins, H. E.

Gomme-Dunoan, Col.Sir Alan

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Goodhart, P. C.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Baldwin, A. E.

Cough, C. F. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Balniel, Lord

Gower, H. R.

McAdden, S. J.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Graham, Sir Fergus

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Green, A.

Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

McKibbin, A. J.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Bevins, J. R.(Toxteth)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Bidgood, J. C.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Gurden, Harold

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hall, John (Wycombe)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Bishop, F. P.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maddan, Martin

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

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

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

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

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Braine, B. R.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Marshall, Douglas

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

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Mathew, R.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hay, John

Maude, Angus

Brooman-White, R. C.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Mawby, R. L.

Bryan, P.

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

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

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Burden, F. F. A.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hesketh, R. F.

Moore, Sir Thomas

Campbell, Sir David

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Carr, Robert

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Neave, Airey

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Nicholls, Harmar

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Conant, Maj, Sir Roger

Hobson, J. G. S.(Wrwok & Lmngtn)

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

Cooke, Robert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hornby, R. P.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Oakshott, H. D.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Horobin, Sir Ian

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

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Crouch, R. F.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Howard, John (Test)

Osborne, C.

Cunningham, Knox

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Page, R. G.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Dance, J. C. G.

Hurd, A. R.

Partridge, E.

Davidson, Viscountess

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

Peyton, J. W. W.

D'AvigdOr-Goldsmid. Sir Henry

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Hyde, Montgomery

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Iremonger, T. L.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Pitman, I. J.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwioh)

Pott, H. P.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Powell, J. Enoch

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

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Rawlinson, Peter

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Kaberry, D.

Redmayne, M.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Keegan, D.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Kerby, Capt. H, B.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Elliott, R. W.

Kershaw, J. A

Renton, D. L. M.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Kirk, P. M.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Fell, A.

Lagden, G. W

Rippon, A. G. F.

Ftnlay, Graeme

Lambert, Hon. G.

Robertson, Sir David

Robson-Brown, W.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Rodgere, John (Sevenoaks)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Studtiolme, Sir Henry

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

Russell, R. S.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Temple, John M.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Webbe, Sir H.

Sharples, R. C.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

Shepherd, William

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Soames, Christopher

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Speir, R. M.

Turner, H. F. L.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Vane, W. M. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stevens, Geoffrey

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Vickers, Miss Joan

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Grey, C. F.

Monslow, W.

Albu, A. H.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moody, A. S.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hale, Leslie

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hamilton, W. W.

Moss, R.

Awbery, S. S.

Hannan, W.

Moyle, A.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Mulley, F. W.

Baird, J.

Hastings, S.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Balfour, A.

Hayman, F. H.

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

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

Healey, Denis

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

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

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

Oliver, G. H.

Benson, G.

Herbison, Miss M.

Oram, A. E.

Blackburn, F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Orbach, M.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Oswald, T.

Blyton, W. R.

Holman, P.

Owen, W. J.

Boardman, H.

Holmes, Horace

Padley, W. E.

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

Houghton, Douglas

Paget, R. T.

Bowles, F. G.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

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

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hoy, J. H.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Brookway, A. F.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Parker, J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Parkin, B. T.

Brown, Thomas (Inee)

Hunter, A. E.

Paton, John

Burke, W, A.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Pearson, A.

Burton, Miss F. E,

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Peart, T. F.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Pentland, N.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Popplewell, E.

Callaghan, L. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Carmichael, J.

Janner, B.

Probert, A. R.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

Proctor, W. T.

Chapman, W. D.

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

Pryde, D. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Pandall, H. E.

Coldrick, W.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Rankin, Johr

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

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

Redhead, E. C.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh & Finsbury)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Reeves, J.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Reid, William

Cove, W. G.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Rhodes, H.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Cronin, J. D.

King, Dr. H. M.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lawson, G. M.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lee, Mitt Jennie (Cannock)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Ross, William

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lewis, Arthur

Royle, C.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lindgren, G. S.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Delargy, H. J.

Lipton, Marcus

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Dodds, N. N.

MoGhee, H. G.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

McGovern, J.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

MoInnes, J.

Skeffington, A. M.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

MacDermot, Niall

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Snow, J. W.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mahon, Simon

Sorensen, R. W.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Fienburgh, W.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Sparks, J. A.

Finch, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Steele, T.

Fletcher, Eric

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Forman, J. C.

Mason, Roy

Stones, W.(Consett)

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

Mayhew, C. P.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Gooch, E. G.

Mellish, R. J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mitohison, G. R.

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

1216

1217

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Swingler, S. T,

Warbey, W. N.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Sylvester, C. O.

Watkins, T. E.

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

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Weitzman, D.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

West, D. G.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Woof, R. E.

Thornton, E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Timmons, J,

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Tomney, F.

Wilkins, W. A.

Zilliaous, K.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Willey, Frederick

Usborne, H. C.

Williams, David (Neath)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, to leave out "six" and to insert "two".
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is desired to take a number of Amendments together, all dealing with the question of time limits, as specified in the Schedule. Is that correct?
Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and including the question whether the landlords' undertakings are really necessary.
Mr. Hynd: Our other Amendments which are related to this are the next, in page 19, line 5, leave out from "then" to end of line 7; in line 36, leave out paragraph 5; in line 38, leave out "three weeks" and insert "one week"; and the Amendments in page 1151 of the Notice Paper——
Sir I. Horobin: On a point of order. It is almost impossible to know what Amendments are being enumerated. Could we ask the hon. Member to go back and say again which of these Amendments we are discussing together?
Mr. Speaker: I have found it a little hard to follow. Would the hon. Member enumerate the Amendments at dictation speed?
Mr. Hynd: The other Amendments are: in page 19, line 5, leave out from "then" to end of line 7; in line 36, leave out paragraph 5; in line 38, leave out "three weeks" and insert "one week"; in page 21, line 8, leave out paragraph 8; in line 8, leave out "six months" and insert "one month"; in line 8, leave out "six" and insert "twelve"; in line 8, leave out "six" and insert "fifteen"; and in line 15, at end insert:
Provided that by agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant, made at any time before the expiration of the period of one month mentioned in this paragraph, that period may be extended to any period stated in the agreement and not exceeding six months
1218
The effect of these Amendments is to reduce the delay at present provided before a certificate of disrepair can be got, and to delete the provisions relating to the delay which can take place because of a landlord's undertaking.
Under existing legislation a tenant whose house is in a state of disrepair can ask his local authority to provide him with a certificate of disrepair. The certificate can be issued immediately the local authority's inspector has inspected the premises and has confirmed the complaint that the premises are in a state of disrepair. Immediately that certificate is issued the tenant is in a position to withhold that part of his rent which is charged to him to pay for repairs.
The Bill would bring about an entirely different situation, which, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I can denounce as an intolerable one. To use the term applied when we were debating the last Amendment, it would be an outrageous situation. What the Bill provides is this. Having failed by the ordinary methods of application to get his landlord to carry out the repairs the tenant must notify the landlord in a written statement of the repairs required to be done. He must state the details of the repairs required. He must then give the landlord six weeks to reply before he can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.
The tenant does not get it even then because the local authority, having sent an inspector to inspect the premises, and having confirmed the complaint that they are in a state of disrepair, is not even then in a position to issue the certificate. but must notify the landlord—after six weeks—that a certificate has been applied for, and it must give the landlord three weeks to reply. If, within either of those periods, the six weeks which the tenant has to give the landlord, and the subsequent three weeks which the local authority must give him, the landlord gives an

1219
undertaking to carry out the repairs nothing further can be done by anyone for another six months to ensure that the repairs are done or to reduce the rent.
That, in short, is the position the Bill creates. It is to remedy that that these Amendments have been tabled. The first, which I am moving, relates to the six weeks which the tenant must give the landlord to reply to him before the tenant can apply to the local authority for the certificate of disrepair. It reduces the period to two weeks.
The Bill as it stands means that if the repairs are not carried out by the landlord, or begun, the tenant may apply to the local authority for a certificate at the expiry of six weeks. If, in the meantime, the landlord gives his undertaking the tenant cannot even apply for a certificate within that six weeks. The second of the group of Amendments would delete the reference to the landlord's giving an undertaking, so that the tenant may apply sooner.
In paragraph 8 of the Schedule there is already provision that if the landlord gives an undertaking to the tenant the tenant must wait six months before he can deduct any of the increased rent. One of these Amendments proposes to rule out that paragraph because we feel that, even without the provision for a landlord's undertaking, there is far too much delay made possible by the Bill, a delay of over eight months, before anything effective can be done.
I would remind the House that experience of the Rent Acts up to date has shown no necessity for any further delay in getting repairs carried out under certificates of disrepair. On the contrary, it is the experience of every hon. Member that already, although it is provided that a certificate can be issued immediately the tenant applies for it and the local authority confirms the condition of the house and the tenant can then withhold the 25 per cent. increase under the earlier Acts until repairs are done, from that moment on many weeks, often months, elapse before any effective action can be taken. The reason is that the local authority, having issued a certificate of disrepair, and the tenant having withheld the appropriate proportion of his rent, the local authority is in a position to take
1220
action against the landlord if the repairs are not done within a reasonable time.
7.0 p.m.
The question is: what is a reasonable time? The local authority has to wait. Weeks go by and the tenant complains that the repairs have not been done. The local authority must write to the landlord. If the landlord does not carry out the repairs, the local authority may take him to court, but it cannot do that until it can satisfy the court that it has given the landlord a reasonable opportunity. Consequently, the local authority has to wait two or three weeks. It does not receive a reply and it has to write again and give the landlord a further two or three weeks before considering the issuing of a summons or taking action itself.
Therefore, in every case where the local authority has felt it necessary to take action against the landlord, even in present conditions, it has been inevitably held up because of the need to give the landlord every opportunity and of satisfying the court that it has given him those opportunities. In the meantime, the unfortunate tenant and his family have to suffer the conditions arising from the disrepair of the house. All hon. Members know of grievous cases where water pours through the roof, doors have come off their hinges, floorboards and stairs have gone and these conditions prevail throughout the winter before anything effective can be done by the local authority through the courts to force the landlord to do the necessary repairs. It is no exaggeration to say that, in constituencies like mine, in the industrial areas, there are large numbers of families in which children and adults have suffered bronchitis and other ailments as the result of this lack of repairs and the delays which already exist without the further delays that are provided for in the Bill.
The Amendment to leave out paragraph 5 would deal with the situation in which the local authority is not allowed to issue the certificate of disrepair—even when it has confirmed the state of disrepair—for a further three weeks or even longer if the landlord gives an undertaking. The authority must then wait six months before action is taken. The Amendment in page 19, line 38, is an alternative to that course. Since we are

1221
on the last stages of having any Amendments made at all to this infamous Bill, and there is still the possibility that the Minister will not be prepared to agree to the deletion of the provision about undertakings, we have placed this fourth Amendment on the Notice Paper. It reduces the period for which the local authority has to wait from three weeks to one week. This is in addition to the six weeks during which the tenant has had to pay the new rent. Therefore, even then the landlord will be given seven weeks as against the nine weeks provided in the Bill.
The fifth Amendment would delete the provision for a six months' delay, so that the withholding of the increase will apply from the date of issue of a certificate of disrepair, which I remind the House is six weeks, eight weeks or nine weeks after the tenant has notified the landlord. We are not at all satisfied that paragraph 8 of the Schedule is necessary and we are, therefore, proposing its deletion. The paragraph provides for this six months' delay after the giving of an undertaking.
This is not six months after the tenant has applied for the certificate or six months after the local authority has written to the landlord, but six months after the landlord has undertaken to do the repairs, which may be after the expiration of nine weeks since the tenant notified the landlord. Therefore, this is a further six months on top of nine weeks. This is what the paragraph provides and we see no reason at all for this additional delay.
I expect that from the other side of the House we shall have more arguments about the rights of landlords, but in this case we are concerned particularly with the rights of tenants.
Mr. Mitchison: If I have followed my hon. Friend's description rightly, it comes to this—that there are three groups of Amendments. One group reduces the six weeks and the three weeks to two weeks and one week. Another group entirely eliminates the provisions relating to landlords' undertakings. The third group provides, as an alternative, that instead of the landlord having six months to carry out the undertaking, he should have one month or such further period not exceeding six months as may be agreed between him and the tenant.
Mr. Hynd: Certainly. The six weeks' notice which the tenant must give to the landlord is reduced to two weeks. The provision for the landlord's undertaking, which would delay the operation of the Schedule, would be deleted. The three weeks which the local authority must wait after the six weeks which the tenant has waited would be deleted or, alternatively, if the fourth Amendment were accepted, would be reduced to one week. The six months' delaying period after all that would be deleted altogether.
I was coming to the latter point when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) intervened. Hon. Members opposite have on the Notice Paper Amendments in page 21, line 8 which show that they are not satisfied even with the long delay to which I have referred. They provide, in alternative Amendments, that after the nine weeks' wait before anything can be done, if the landlord says that he will do the repairs and whether he does them or not, the landlord will be given 12 months or 15 months, according to the respective Amendments, before anybody can take action against him. This is a monstrous provision because already, in existing legislation, without any of these additional delays, severe hardship is created for the tenants. It is difficult to understand the delays which are already provided for in the Bill. It is even more difficult to understand why hon. Members opposite should wish to move further Amendments to increase the delays to 12 and 15 months.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering has pointed out, we have a final Amendment, as a kind of last ditch effort. If the Government insist upon these prolonged delays or argue that there may be conditions of disrepair which will take more than six or nine weeks to put right and that it might take several months to carry out a major job of repair, we propose that a limit of six months should be provided by our Amendment in page 21, line 15.
This Amendment provides that in such circumstances the tenant and the landlord may agree to suspend the operation of the Schedule, as it would be amended is our Amendments were adopted, and enable a period of up to six months to elapse before the provisions of the Bill became effective for

1223
enforcing the repairs increase. That is the minimum that should be demanded in these conditions.
My own view, which I have expressed before in Committee, is that even under the provisions in existing legislation in relation to these repairs, landlords ought to be treated summarily because of the interminable delays which inevitably take place. In many cases, landlords have no intention of carrying out the repairs and by every kind of subterfuge they seek to avoid their obligations. They ought to be convicted. If they allow houses to get into such a state that they are deleterious to the health of the occupants, to their safety, or even to their comfort, because they have failed to do the repairs within a reasonable time from the date on which notification was given, they should be treated as butchers who sell bad meat are treated.
That, however, we cannot get into the Bill at this stage, so we have put down these moderate Amendments. To get justice for the tenant under this Bill would mean moving the deletion of the Schedule altogether, which we cannot do now. Therefore, we are seeking to mitigate the monstrous additional provisions which the Bill makes about repairs.
Again, it may be said that the landlords require the three weeks, six weeks or, in total, eight months and, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will tell us, even another six months or nine months before they can carry out repairs. Even without the additional increases of time which will be proposed from the other side of the House, I regard this Schedule as one of the most heartless provisions in the Bill, and one for which there is no possible justification.
I am sure that there is no hon. or right hon. Member on either side of the House who can tell us that his experience of the operation of existing legislation on the enforcement of repairs to rent-controlled houses has resulted in hardship to landlords, or in any situation in which landlords have not been given adequate and reasonable time in which to carry out all the necessary repairs.
Finally, I anticipate that the Minister will again use the argument he has used on practically every discussion on almost any part of this Bill, that its real purpose is to ensure that houses are to be put into a good state of repair. We have
1224
heard that over and over again. We have had the admission on the Government side that the 1954 Act—" Operation Rescue"—has been a complete failure. It is difficult to understand, if the Minister is so sure that the team of expert advisers who were behind him in the drafting of this Bill cannot go wrong, how he explains the failure of that Act, because I am sure that precisely the same group of advisers were available to him then.
The fact is that the Bill not only does not make any additional provision for ensuring that repairs are done in return for the increased rent which is provided for but, as this Schedule clearly shows, it reduces the incentive to landlords to carry out repairs in a reasonable time. It also removes existing protection for the tenants in the carrying out of repairs, and thereby is encouraging the worst type of landlordism without doing anything for the better landlords.
These Amendments represent the minimum we ask of the Government. We insist that the closest possible consideration should be given to the modification of the Bill in the matters to which I have referred. If the Government are adamant, and refuse to make any concessions, we shall have to vote against them.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Janner: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Minister has been rather difficult all along, and I suppose it is impossible to believe that he can change his attitude now. I wonder whether he realises what the Bill says about the length of time that is to be taken before a tenant can have a house put into a proper state of repair? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it takes him a considerable time before a tenant can take steps to ask for repairs to be attended to? All hon. Members know that tenants have put up with the most shocking conditions until their houses have been in such a state that they have been condemned before approaching the sanitary inspector for a certificate of disrepair under the present Acts.
In our "surgeries" we have advised tenants that they should not put up with this, and I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite have done the same thing. When a tenant went to the local authority and obtained a certificate, all he had to

1225
do was to make a copy of it and serve it on the landlord. Then not only was the 25 per cent. increase of rent allowed under the 1920 Act for repairs suspended, but, in addition, the 15 per cent. allowed under an entirely different Section of that Act was also not recoverable. In other words, there was a penalty on the landlord forthwith, in that not only did he not receive the rent for the repairs which he was supposed to have done, but, in addition, he did not receive the additional 15 per cent. allowed for an entirely different reason.
It is within the knowledge of everybody here that months transpired and that the landlord did not do the repairs even then. Now we are asking tenants to pay increased rents and—this is where the rub comes—the Government say that the increased rents are for the purpose of enabling the landlord to do the repairs. The Government cannot get away from that; otherwise there is no justification for the Bill.
What the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends have said all along is that without this Bill the landlord would not have the necessary money to enable him to do the repairs. If that is so, the landlord has undertaken the obligation to do the repairs, or will have done as soon as this Bill becomes an Act. The major portion of the 4½ million houses concerned are houses for which the landlord was under an obligation to do repairs, and, indeed, received an additional sum of money for that purpose. But the landlord has not done them, and now a new gift is to be given to him. The new gift is to be made in consideration of the wonderful way in which he has allowed the house to get into a bad state of repair, although he has received from the tenant the 25 per cent. increase to enable him to deal with the condition of the House. And he received that increase at a time when he could have done the work. The argument that the landlord cannot do the repairs at the price allowed did not apply during the many years when that money should have been used for putting the place into repair.
We are upset because this imposition is to be placed on the tenant. The Bill is putting the cart before the horse. The Government are not telling the landlord to do the repairs first and then get his money. What the Government are telling
1226
him is to get the increase and then do the repairs, and if he does not do them the obligation is still on the tenant.
This is the remarkable part of the whole affair: the obligation is placed upon the tenant, and in most cases the tenant will not know what are his rights. No hon. Member opposite can deny that. We know that tenants do not know their rights under the Rent Acts, and they will not know their rights under the Bill. There are millions of cases in which tenants have allowed the houses to fall into disrepair, although the landlord is under compulsion to put them in repair. The reason is that tenants do not know their rights. Even when they have discovered their rights under the Bill, months and months could pass before the repairs are done.
The tragedy is that in fact months will not pass before the repairs are done, because the tenant will have to do them himself, as he has done in the past. He will not continue to live in a room with a leaky roof for nine months, with buckets to catch the rain. He will do the repairs himself and pay for them. There is no provision in the Bill whereby he can recover that money from the landlord.
As a result, the tenant will do exactly the same as in the past. He will say, "I cannot be bothered with all this red tape. Even if it means that I have to spend £50 or £100, I will beg or borrow the money and do the repairs in order that the health of my family will not be endangered any further."
I put it to the Minister that the position is absurd. If a roof is leaking, if there is a hole in the wall or if damp is coming through, it is absurd that it should take six weeks before anything happens at all; and then, if a landlord gives an undertaking, he is given another period of months in which to do the work. It is too absurd for words, as the Minister well knows. The Minister realises that the ultimate result will be either that the tenant will do the work himself or that the tenant will say, "I cannot stand this any longer; I must get out of here and find somewhere else." That is shocking, because it is taking advantage of scarcity in houses in order to make tenants do work which they ought not to be compelled to do and to pay for work which has not been done by the landlord in the

1227
past and will not be done by him in the future.
I hope the Minister realises that our Amendments are very reasonable. The landlord will still have an opportunity to collect money without doing repairs. We should like to see the whole procedure swept away. We cannot do that at this stage, but I do not want the Minister to run away with the impression, because we put down such Amendments as this, that we are not opposed to the Bill altogether. He tried that this afternoon. He knows very well that we put down these Amendments in order to minimise the damage as far as possible and not because we feel that this can be any other than a bad Bill. We are unhappily in the position that we can do nothing different; we are trying to do as much as we can to take the sting from the Bill. I appeal to him to accept our Amendments.
Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will forgive me if I do not comment on a good deal of his speech which I can only describe as a gramophone record which we have heard ad nauseam. I will not delay the proceedings by going into it.
The problem which we are discussing is a little complicated because we are talking about three different although admittedly related things. First, we have the question of delay in itself, and I will say a word on that in a moment. Next we have a question which, quite apart from any effect of delay, is also important—namely, whether the conception of undertakings by landlords is desirable in itself. Thirdly—a point with which I shall deal in the Amendment in my name, which we are discussing and which seeks to extend the period—we have the question of the money available to do the works, even if the landlord wishes and intends to do them.
On the question of delay, we are in a difficulty because there is a great deal in common on both sides of the House in the view that with a certain kind of landlord delays in the past have been longer than they should have been. As I pointed out in Committee on more than one occasion, our difficulty in all this is that we have to deal with two kinds of landlord under the same provision. There is, of course, the fact that some hon.
1228
Members opposite think that all landlords are always bad and always wrong, and we shall never reach an agreement on that.
I do not dissent at all from the proposition that on many occasions there have been unconscionable delays in doing and even starting works; nor do I think the Minister will dissent from that. On the other hand, we must have some regard for realities and possibilities when we are dealing not with a special class of criminal persons but with all the landlords of the country, because the Amendments apply to them all. Under certain circumstances any landlord, however good, will come under the provisions outlined in the Amendments.
We must bear in mind in all our discussions that these are not the only powers which local authorities possess in urgent cases such as those described. All their powers under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Acts remain and should be employed in urgent cases.
I submit that, purely from the point of view of delay, any reasonable person dealing with house property would regard these Amendments as unworkable. The first has the effect that if on the expiration of two weeks from the service of a notice any of the defects remain unremedied, the application may be made for a certificate.
The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who has considerable experience in housing matters, unconsciously gave away his case, because he said something which is obviously reasonable but which is not covered by the Amendment; he said "if these defects remained unremedied or the work had not begun." But there is nothing in the Amendment about the work having been begun; it must have been completed. I put it to anyone concerned with house property that it is unrealistic to suggest that a landlord to whose attention many of these cases are drawn can have them remedied within two weeks, even with the best will in the world. He has to go to an architect and he has to find a builder, and it is completely unrealistic to suggest that, even if he starts at once, he must have finished in two weeks.
Mr. J. Hynd: Although there is no reference in the first paragraph of the Amendment to work having begun, it

1229
provides that if the work has not been completed the tenant may apply to the local authority for a certificate. Clearly if the work is about to be done no certificate will be issued in time for it to be effective in reducing the rent before the work has been finished.
Sir I. Horobin: In some cases it cannot even be begun. Suppose there is a suggestion that pointing must be done on a flank wall or a gable wall, or suppose there is dry rot, or not even a certainty that there is dry rot, and that workmen have to begin pulling up the floorboards, or suppose they ultimately find beetle and have to trace it; the work would not even be begun in time. I am not denying that some landlords have permitted unreasonable delays, but here we are asked to deal with an Amendment and to write into the Bill something which is completely unrealistic and unworkable.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. A. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if the repairs have not been done within the time stated, it will be unreasonable for the local authority to say so and to issue a certificate to say that the repairs have not been done?
Sir I. Horobin: Undoubtedly, because the effects of this provision are to say that throughout all that period the landlord, who is supposed to be getting an increase of rent for keeping a place in repair and honestly trying to do it, is to lose money out of which to pay for the repairs. That is unreasonable.
Mr. Mitchison: May I remind the hon. Member that under the 1954 Act there was no time at all?
Sir I. Horobin: I know. As I pointed out, there are many things about the 1954 Act from which we ought to learn. While not a complete failure, that Act was not a complete success. Unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite who, having once made a mistake, say, "ditto, repeat" for fifty years, we learn by our mistakes.
The second point which we are discussing in this group of Amendments is the new idea of landlords giving undertakings. Most hon. Members opposite agree with me that that is a very admirable provision. I will at once say why, and again I repeat that we are here dealing not with a peculiar, small section of criminals, or semi-criminals, but with
1230
ordinary landlords and ordinary tenants. Just as the Bill attempts in certain other cases to bring tenants and landlords together to enter into new agreements for three years and so on, we are here trying to recreate a proper and healthy tenant-landlord relationship.
The proper and normal thing to do, once rents are brought nearer to a realistic and up-to-date level, is to expect tenants to be able to go to landlords and, in normal circumstances, landlords should be expected to be able to agree that certain things should be done. Only if there is neither an agreement nor an undertaking and if work is not started should the force of the law, with the local authority acting under its powers, be brought to bear. The normal thing in a tenant-landlord relationship should be for the parties to come together and agree about what should be done.
In the Bill as originally drawn there is only one grave danger about undertakings. I drew attention to it upstairs and perhaps partly as a result of that, certainly in accordance with it, the Minister has introduced an extremely important provision for strengthening the proposals about undertakings, without which I would go a long way with those hon. Members opposite who are doubtful about this. It is the provision which says that in about half a dozen certain specified circumstances a local authority is entitled to say, "We have had enough undertakings from you, and we are not having that one." That provision will shortly be written into the Bill and will commend itself to both sides of the House.
It should be assumed in the absence of cases of that kind that until a landlord is proved to be guilty, he means what he says, and if he enters into an undertaking, the assumption should be that it will be carried out. That is a very sound thing to introduce into our housing customs and legislation.
My third point—and it is the thought behind the Amendment in my name—is the question of the money out of which these various improvements are to be made. Whatever his preconceptions, it is useless for anybody to try to deal with the private landlord problem if he does not appreciate that, while not necessarily in all cases, but certainly in a great many —I believe in the majority—landlords

1231
have simply been bled white by inflation against a background of rent control. The money is just not there. That was primarily where the 1954 Act broke down. Incidentally, I hope the Minister will initiate a drive in connection with the 1949 powers which local authorities have and do not use.
I admit at once that my Amendment has the grave disadvantage that lengthening the period will give bad landlords six months more in which to do nothing. That is an objection and I admit at once that it is a grave one.
Mr. A. Evans: Is not it one of the prime functions of Parliament to protect the weaker party in this contract and to see that people who evade their responsibilities are brought to book?
Sir I. Horobin: I entirely agree, but this is doing no good to tenants. The whole history of the country's housing in the last forty years proves that the average tenant is done no good by the production of a situation in which, even if he wants to keep it decent, a landlord has to watch a house fall down. That is an ill service to tenants, and it is the thing which differentiates the two sides of the House.
As I said, I admit that by lengthening the period we run the risk of giving that extra rope to the minority of thoroughly undesirable landlords. If anybody can find a way to deal with that, he will have my support. For the majority of landlords the Amendment will have a very important advantage. I do not think that many people have appreciated how small in fact the additional rent in the first six months will be. Of course, it is the additional rent in the first six months which matters because, if the landlord has not repaired all specified defects in that six months, he has to refund the excess rent he has received.
In the first six months he can receive only twenty-six times 7s. 6d., which is almost exactly £10. That is the maximum. The real danger in many cases, as I have said on more than one occasion, will be that landlords who no longer have ready cash and who, because a local authority will not play, or because they have no other property on which to borrow—the man who owns three or four houses; there are many all over the
1232
North of England—who cannot milk one account for the benefit of another, will not operate this Bill any more than they operated the 1954 Act, because the most they will get will be £10 while running the almost certain risk of getting a certificate of disrepair which may land them in an expense of £15 or £20, thus making the game not worth the candle.
That is the very great risk which we run with the Bill as now drawn if our primary concern is not so much to safeguard the tenant against an increase of rent as to stop him getting pneumonia. I am much more interested in the latter than in the former. With the objection which I have admitted, the point behind my Amendment is that, on the advice of their agents or on their own determinations, many landlords will be able to put work in hand, and will get a sum of money reasonably sufficient to do the work if they want to do it.
I sum up the whole thing. On the topic of delay, the Amendments suggested are unworkable and unrealistic. On the topic of undertakings, this is a sound principle and the House should accept it. On the subject of the appropriate length of time before which all the work has to be completed, there is a very strong case—even in spite of the objection, which I have admitted—for increasing the time to a reasonable period, so that a reasonable landlord who wants to do the work will not have the excuse that it is impossible to do it because the amount of cash is insufficient.
Mr. J. A. Sparks: We are suffering from the disadvantage of taking a number of Amendments together. The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) put his finger upon that weakness. He coupled the first two Amendments together and spoke of their effects.
If both Amendments were adopted, they would produce the result which the hon. Member described to the House, but if they could be put separately, Mr. Speaker, our intention would be very much more clearly revealed. One Amendment is very largely dependent upon the other. If the first is carried, there is not the same necessity for the second, whilst if the first is not carried there is greater necessity for the second.
The first Amendment proposes to reduce from six weeks to two weeks the

1233
period during which the landlord has to complete a list of repairs. The right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to tell the House, when we suggested an extension of this time in order to allow tenants to find out their rights and take steps to secure a certificate of disrepair, that the Bill had been before the country since last November and that by the time it became an Act there would have been a fair period for tenants to become aware of their rights and responsibilities. There was, therefore, no place for extending from three months to nine months the period after the service of a notice of increase.
Exactly the same argument applies to the landlords, who have had the same amount of time as the tenants, and ought to be aware of the responsibilities which will devolve upon them when the Bill becomes an Act. The hon. Member for Oldham, East pleaded the poverty of landlords; I do not think that is true in the great majority of cases. There may be very small landlords with one or two, or three or four, dwellings, and who are not men of wealth, but, by and large, property is owned by property companies or by people well able to afford to carry out the repairs provided for in the Bill.
Exactly what repairs are we talking about? There are insanitary conditions, to deal with which local authorities enforce the Public Health Acts. How long do they give landlords to carry out repairs in the statutory notices they serve? I think it is three months. At the end of the time, if the landlord does not carry out the repairs, the local authority may proceed to do them and, if the landlord has no money, the local authority is entitled to deduct something from the rent or to take the whole rent until the cost of the work has been met. Then the landlord resumes receipt of the rent. It is not at all a bad arrangement. The landlord's property has been preserved, the local authority has done the job at the lowest tender and has been paid for it, while the property is better as a consequence.
I assume that the repairs provided for in the Bill are not the kind enforceable under the Public Health Acts. If the rain is coming through the roof, which needs substantially rebuilding, that is a repair covered by the Public Health Acts. I cannot imagine that the list of repairs
1234
which the tenant will serve on the landlord will include types of repair covered by those Acts. If that is not so, I hope that the Minister will put the House right on this point. If the Bill includes those types of repair we shall get into deep water. This matter needs clearing up.
7.45 p.m.
If the landlord does not carry out the Public Health Acts repairs within a certain period of time, the tenant can go to the local authority which can serve a statutory notice on the landlord, who will have to do the repairs within three months. The period which we suggest during which the landlord should be asked to carry out the repairs is two weeks. It does not mean what the hon. Member for Oldham, East said it meant, that the landlord has to deal with the whole list of repairs in two weeks. If the first Amendment is carried we might very well leave the wording proposed to be left out in the second Amendment as it is. If, at the end of two weeks, the landlord has not been able to carry out the list of repairs, he can give
"an undertaking in the prescribed form to remedy those defects or such of them as the tenant may agree in writing to accept as sufficient."
The landlord then has a further period of six months in which he can carry out the repairs.
If he goes back on that undertaking, who will assess whether he has failed in that undertaking or not? The argument used against the Amendments by the hon. Member for Oldham, East, was the impossibility of the landlord being able to do all the repairs in a fortnight, whereas he would have a further six months provided he gave an undertaking. If he did not carry out that undertaking, presumably the tenant would be entitled to a refund of the excess rent which he might have paid.
The first Amendment is necessary because it compels the landlord to face his responsibilities almost immediately, within two weeks of the Bill becoming effective. The landlord has already had prior notice of what is taking place in this House. He ought to be aware of what is required to be done and be ready and willing, by making prior arrangements with his building contractor or decorator. If he cannot complete the repairs in two weeks, he can enter into

1235
an undertaking to do so within six months.
Here, again, is the weakness of this Bill. Let us suppose that at the end of six months, he has not, in fact, carried out his undertaking, and that the period extends into seven or eight months or even a longer period of time. It may well be that the tenant has not been able to get a certificate of disrepair, because as long as that undertaking is valid, the tenant cannot get a certificate of disrepair from the local authority. The tenant, therefore, might well be driven up to the very end of the period of six months before he can go to the local authority and ask for a certificate of disrepair.
Tenants will not be watching these dates on the calendar. They will not be pin-pointing the dates when the six months period elapses and making a note that they must go to the local authority on the day before the six months expires to ask for a certificate of disrepair. They will not work it out in that sort of way, and the consequence in a large number of cases will be that the period of six months during which the undertaking has to be made effective, in the cases in which it has not been made effective, will have been exhausted before the tenant goes to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.
If he has not got one in six months, the landlord walks away with an increase of rent. It is quite true that thereafter that rent may be reduced from twice the gross value and one-third, but, even so, it will represent, in some cases, quite an appreciable increase of rent to the landlord, while leaving the landlord in the position of not having spent very much on the repair of the property and having no need in some cases to do any more, while receiving the lowest minimum increase of rent.
This problem is full of all kinds of difficulties and perplexities, particularly for the tenant, and unless the tenant watches scrupulously the dates and times, the fact remains that in the end, where there is an unscrupulous landlord, the tenant will suffer. I would not like to say that all landlords are unscrupulous, because I believe that they are very much like tenants, some of whom are bad and some good, just as some landlords are good and some bad. I think the good
1236
landlords will get on with the job and get it done, but we are concerned constantly and continually with the type of landlord who is commercialising his property, who cares not two hoots about his tenants, their children or the condition of the place, so long as he can get as much money as he can out of it. I refer to the type of landlord who does not care two hoots about the conditions but is concerned in the main with his moneybags.
It is the bad landlord whom we want to catch. We do not want to provide the bad type of landlord with an escape route by playing up delay, by giving an undertaking and then going back on it, and by bamboozling and misleading his tenant in order to gain time to bring him an increase of rent to which he is really not entitled unless he carries out his obligations.
Therefore, I trust that the House will at least agree to the first Amendment, or, if not, that it will agree to the second. If the first Amendment is not agreed to, and the period of six weeks remains in which the landlord is expected to carry out his list of repairs, I think that that period of six weeks is a very reasonable length of time for him to carry out the kind of repairs which a tenant would request him to do.
We cannot emphasise too strongly, because the Minister has emphasised the point in regard to the tenant, the fact that the landlord will have already had foreknowledge of the Act and ought to be prepared, when this Bill becomes an Act, to carry out his obligations. Six weeks is quite a fair period of time in which to get the job done, because, in the main, I would assume that the items of repair which the tenant would be validly able to put on his notice of disrepair are those kinds of repairs which are not included in the types covered by the Public Health Acts.
I think the Minister ought to clear up this point, because the tenant will not know, and at the moment we do not know, what repairs the tenant may validly put upon his notice. As this list of repairs is subject to the endorsement of the local authority later on, and, in the case in which the landlord goes to the county court, also of the county court, it may well be that a tenant might have repairs on his list that are not valid and which are covered by previous Acts.

1237
Perhaps the Minister can explain to us a little more precisely what kind of repairs the tenant may include in his notice of disrepair to the landlord, because it would help us very considerably to understand more clearly the implications of this part of the Schedule
Mr. H. Brooke: My hon. Friends will notice that we have made one striking advance this evening. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has discovered that there are some good landlords. We have sat for very many days in Committee, and I do not recollect a single admission from the other side that that animal existed at all, except that there was one shining specimen in the shape of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
I have no objection at all to seeking to include these three subjects in a single debate, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Acton for having suggested that it is quite a considerable intellectual feat to do it. He himself devoted most of his speech to the first one.
I want to explain to the House why the Government think that the plan devised in this Bill is the most practical one we can put forward. It is that it will have the result of getting the work done, which is the major objective, in a manner that will not overload the public authorities, but will leave the full strength of the public authorities, in reserve if anybody tries, as it were, to cheat
Here, at the outset, I want to re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) so aptly put to the House—that all these provisions about repairs and certificates of disrepair in the First Schedule are additional to the existing provisions of the Housing Acts and the Public Health Acts. The hon. Member for Acton, who understands these matters, appreciated that, I realise, but the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) gave the House a picture of gaping holes in the roof continuing for eight months with the rain pouring in and nobody doing anything about it. If he thinks that is what happens, he is not indicting this Bill; he is indicting the local authority.
Mr. J. Hynd: May I point out to the Minister that this Bill deals with increases of rent in relation to repairs? What the
1238
Schedule provides is that, irrespective of what may be done under the Public Health Acts or any other provisions, the landlord will escape the consequences of this Bill for nine weeks, or for six months plus nine weeks. We propose to protect the tenant against an increase of rent while these other provisions operate.
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member surely realises that this Bill in no way detracts from the existing powers of the local authority to step in and do the work itself if some situation arises which is an offence under the Housing Acts or Public Health Acts and the landlord has had a notice served upon him and is doing nothing about it.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Acton inquired what sort of repairs the tenant could put in his notice of defects to the landlord. The tenant can put in anything he wishes, large repairs or small. He will probably put in everything he can think of to make up the list of things which are wrong with the house, and which, in his judgment, should be put right before he is willing to agree that the landlord is entitled to an increased rent. Some of those items may be affected by the provisions of the Housing Acts and the Public Health Acts and, naturally, there comes the inquiry as to why the local authority has not taken any enforcement action or done the work itself to remedy that state of affairs earlier. The Government believe that it is wise in the first instance to seek to bring the landlord and tenant together. We reject the idea that was pressed upon us during the Committee stage discussions that the tenant should go straight to the local authority, and ask for a certificate of disrepair.
Mr. Sparks: If the tenant's list includes repairs which come under the provisions of the Housing Acts and Public Health Acts, and assuming that the landlord does not do them within six weeks and the tenant goes to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair, can the local authority invoke the Public Health Acts, independently from the rest of the procedure of this Bill, to get those repairs carried out under its enforcement regulations?
Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Member that this Bill takes away not

1239
one iota from the existing powers of local authorities as housing and public health authorities.
As I was saying, we believe that if we accepted the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, that the tenant should go first and report defects to the local authority, the result would be that many local authorities would be submerged under enormous masses of paper referring to defects which could and would be put right without any reference to the local authority at all. Yet, because they had been reported, the authority would have to send its public health inspectors although, in many cases, there would have been no need to do so because the matter could have been cleared up directly between the landlord and the tenant. That would delay the public health inspectors in getting round to the really serious cases where work that definitely needed doing was not being done. It would do less than justice to those tenants who were being dunned by landlords for additional rent when in fact the landlords did not qualify for it.
The first of these Amendments suggests that the landlord should have only two weeks instead of six weeks to decide what he is to do when the tenant serves on him a notice of defects. What has the landlord to do? He has to examine the list. He has to visit the house himself, or his agent has to do so. He will probably have to discuss with the tenant a number of items in the list because, whereas some may be clear, some others may be doubtful. No doubt, when the landlord and tenant go over the house together they may find that there are some items included in the notice which do not deserve to be there. They will find others which ought to be there. No one can say for certain that the original list of the tenant will not go further than the work that really requires to be done.
Then the landlord will have to get the builder to do the job, or alternatively, if it is a big undertaking, he will have to consult a surveyor or an architect. He will then have to get an estimate for the work involved. There are very few cases in which one can be assured that all this can conceivably happen within two weeks. After all, the tenant can serve a notice at any time. The landlord may not be at home that day. The whole machinery
1240
may not start working instantly, and no one could say, even if trivialities were involved, that two weeks would suffice for this purpose. Yet hon. Members opposite have been urging this Amendment, not to secure that trivial defects are dealt with, but substantial defects, and it is substantial defects which will require rather more time than the period of two weeks which hon. Members opposite wish to put into the Bill. The Government think that six weeks is the shortest period which could possibly be fixed for all this to happen and for the landlord to be able to put himself in a position in every case either to carry out the work or to know whether he can give an undertaking to do so.
There is a related Amendment—I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who, in his intervention, distinguished these three groups. The related Amendment is that which would allow the landlord only one week instead of three weeks, if the local authority had notified him that it intended to issue a certificate of disrepair. By the provisions of paragraph (c) the tenant is allowed three weeks in which to make up his mind whether he wishes to object when the local authority proposes to revoke a certificate of disrepair. All the tenant has to do is to say "Yes" or "No". If three weeks is a reasonable time to allow the tenant to say "Yes" or "No", surely it cannot be argued that one week is a reasonable time in which to call on the landlord to decide what he proposes to do when the local authority gives him notice that it is going to issue a certificate of disrepair.
A new situation has arisen here. The House will realise that it is not just a repetition of the provision of six weeks. In those six weeks the landlord and tenant may have been unable to agree on what is really necessary. The landlord may have said, "I think the following items are necessary". The tenant may say that he thinks a great many others are necessary, and the landlord may then say, "I will not do all those, or undertake to do them". Then the tenant goes to the local authority and seeks a certificate of disrepair. The local authority may strike out some of the items and say to the landlord, "Unless you carry out this revised list of repairs, we shall issue a certificate of disrepair".

1241
That is a new situation for the landlord and he must make another appreciation of the position. Having got the local authority's view of what work is needed, he must make up his mind whether or not to put it in hand or to give an undertaking.
The Opposition wish to eliminate the whole conception of undertakings from the Bill. Here there is a fundamental difference between us. The Government believe that it is wise to institute this system by which landlords can give undertakings, because we think that in this way we shall succeed in getting a larger amount of repair work done. It will not be possible for everybody to put repair work in hand instantly. Obviously, were that to happen, there would be a colossal and sudden over-loading of the builders and decorators of this country because people were seeking to get everything done simultaneously.
We believe it better that the landlord should be given the option of doing the work at once or of giving a promise, because that is what it is; it is a promise to carry out the work. If he gives that promise, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East, he will gain the assistance of the increased rent he can collect to enable him to afford the repairs.
I should have thought that even hon. Members opposite in their criticisms of the 1954 Act would be willing to recognise that one of the serious difficulties in getting the work of repair put in hand is that so many landlords literally have no surplus cash with which to get started. This system of being able to collect the higher rent provided that one has given a promise to do the repairs, and that one carries out the promise, will speed up and not delay the work of repair. The fundamental difference between us is the different views taken as to whether or not it should be practicable for the landlord to give an undertaking.
If a landlord—here I may be answering a point raised by the hon. Member for Acton—gives an undertaking and then does not fulfil it within six months, the tenant does not have to make another application to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. He can start abating the rent at once. Not only will he not have to pay any more than the old rent, but he will also be able to start deducting, even from that, the amount
1242
that he has overpaid, in accordance with the formula in an Amendment which we inserted in Committee. That happens automatically. In a Government Amendment on which I hope I may have a moment to speak a little later, we are providing that it shall be possible to get the local authority to give its decision as to whether an undertaking has or has not been carried out.
The third point which this group of Amendments raises is whether or not six months is a reasonable time in which a landlord should carry out his undertaking. Contrary views have been expressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East urged in Committee that six months was too short and that in cases which he could visualise in his constituency the landlord would not be able to collect sufficient cash in the space of six months to put in hand repairs unless they were very small repairs. We have, on the contrary, the view expressed by the Opposition—I hardly think the Opposition presses it seriously—that the period of six months should be drastically reduced and brought down to only one month, which could be extended by agreement in writing between the landlord and tenant.
If one inserted such a provision, a tenant might frustrate the perfectly sincere object of the Opposition by refusing to allow the landlord more than a month even though the landlord could not possibly get the work done in that time. There must be many cases in which the work could not be completed in a month even if everybody was trying his very best. One month would be altogether too short a period at any stage, and more particularly at the initial stage when we must contemplate that there will be an unusual load on the building industry. In many cases it will not be possible to get a builder straight away to take on any job to be done, and the work will have to be spread. The landlord who is more than anxious to go forward with it may nevertheless not be able to get anyone to do it.
That is why the Government have taken the view—I cannot hold out any hope to the Opposition or to my hon. Friend that we could depart in either direction—that six months is a wise and reasonable period for the undertaking to run. In many cases, of course, the work

1243
will be carried out long before that time is over. In other cases, through dishonesty, through lack of money or through sheer practical inability to get the work done, the promise may not be fulfilled. The House will have noticed that there is an Amendment in my name which deals with the case of dishonesty. I hope this will be effective and that it will be welcomed by both sides of the House.
8.15 p.m.
As I have said, if the work is not carried out by the end of six months, the tenant has his immediate remedy by way of abating the rent. I would point out to the hon. Member for Acton that in the first instance it will be an abatement not to one and one-third times the gross value but right back to the original rent. The abatement to one and one-third occurs only if the house has been put into proper repair and then falls out of repair again and a certificate of disrepair is claimed.
I have tried in a reasonable time, having regard to the Guillotine arrangement, to reply on what are really three separate points. I hope I have convinced the House, if it is open to conviction, that it really would not improve the Bill to accept either the three main Amendments recommended by the Opposition or the Amendment recommended by my hon. Friend; but that if we leave the Bill as it is, subject to the improvements incorporated in subsequent Government Amendments, we really shall be establishing a practical system by which repairs will be put in hand, and if a landlord seeks to gain increased rent and yet fails to carry out his undertakings to do repairs, the tenant will have a speedy and practical remedy.
Mr. Mitchison: The reason the three groups of Amendments were suggested for discussion together is that they are to a considerable extent alternatives. Obviously, the one to abolish landlords' undertakings altogether and the other to limit their time must be alternatives. Equally, I would say that the reasonableness of the time allowed in the first instance must depend on whether or not there are to be landlords' undertakings.
I do not feel that I have embarrassed the right hon. Gentleman in the least.
1244
He was quite capable of coping with the intellectual problem of discussing the three groups of Amendments together. If that was all he had to cope with, he would not have much difficulty.
The right hon. Gentleman always strikes me as completely omitting the story before the moment when the tenant serves a notice on the landlord. He seems to assume that all tenants are malevolent and that most landlords are honest. If for one minute he will get all these nasty ideas out of his head and realise that the majority of his fellow men are probably about halfway, let us see what is likely to happen.
Mr. H. Brooke: I cannot recollect having made in my speech a single reference to the malevolence of any tenant, though I did say that there were some types of landlord who did not fulfil their undertakings.
Mr. Mitchison: I can give the right hon. Gentleman his reference. He suggested that local authorities would be snowed under by applications from tenants. If he thinks all those applications are well founded, what a terrible indictment of the landlords. He can have it whichever way he likes, but it seems to me that one or the other must be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman completely omits that before any of these proceedings obtain the tenant will have tried to get satisfaction from the landlord. At any rate, that has to be presumed in the vast majority of cases. The real question, then, is whether we have got effective machinery for preventing the landlord from continuing to collect rent when he ought to have done repairs. To me, it does not seem that in other respects the local authorities' powers have very much to do with this. What we have really to consider is just that.
In Committee, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an example, and as I do not think that he has thought enough about it I shall have to remind him of it. Let us take the hole in the roof through which the rain is coming, whether many repairs are wanted or not. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is laughing. He can have it as a hole in the wall if he likes, or, if he goes round London, he can see plenty of holes in

1245
roofs. I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise the state of disrepair into which many of these houses have been allowed to fall. I suppose that they never see the dwellings of the humble.
Mr. Page: I was not laughing at the question of repair, but at the hon. and learned Gentleman's repetition of the example of the hole in the roof, of which we heard so much in Committee.
Mr. Mitchison: It is a very good example, but I do not mind taking a hole in any part of the structure of the house, if it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The point is that if external repairs are not done, a hole, fault or other defect appears in the external structure. Once that happens then, in the British climate, and in most others, the wet comes in. That is half the trouble. The old phrase that one must keep the house windproof and waterproof relates just to that, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well.
If there is such a defect, what will happen? For the answer, I come back to this timetable. Suppose that, in fact, the landlord wants to play for time, or suppose that he is in no position to do the repairs, or, suppose, if hon. Members like, that he just does not bother about it—take any of those suppositions. Six weeks have to elapse before the tenant can go to the local authority; three weeks have to elapse before the local authority can do anything about it. Suppose that, at the end of those nine weeks, the landlord wakes up and decides to put in an undertaking—he has not to carry it out for six months.
There really is something wrong with legislation which provides that the landlord can go on collecting an increased rent when there is some defect or other in the structure which ought to be repaired. Here he can do that for over eight months on end. That is the whole trouble with this bit of legislation. As for landlords' undertakings, nobody in the least objects to a landlord promising to carry out repairs and doing what he has promised, but here it is given statutory force, and he is allowed to hold up the issue of a certificate of disrepair by the local authority—and is allowed to do so for no less than six months on end.
On the other hand, if the landlord cannot do the repairs within one month, or six months, what is the worst that will
1246
happen to him? All that will happen is that after that time he will not be able to collect his increase of rent. I do not see that there is anything unreasonable in that——
Mr. H. Brooke: And will have to repay the increase he has collected.
Mr. Mitchison: All right—but what is unreasonable about it?
I absolutely fail to understand the suggestion that this is some terrible imposition on landlords. It is far more likely, if left in its present form, to prevent tenants making any effective use whatever of this Schedule. I have been through the Schedule several times, I have heard all the discussions on it, and, though I do not say that it has been put in for the purpose of preventing tenants making effective use of it, I do say that it has been put in for the purpose of limiting very considerably the powers that tenants should have to get repairs done, and to withhold the rent increase until they are done.
In the legislation of the 'twenties, which remained in force for twenty years or thereabouts, there was the simplest possible formula, and it worked for years. All that had to be done was to get a certificate from the local authority, and certain rent increases dependent on questions of good repair and the like were suspended. In the 1954 Bill, another and more complicated provision was put in. Really, the indecent haste with which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite chuck the whole of that provision over, and the Prime Minister with it, continues to shock me.
If they had put anything better in its place, if, above all, they had put something simpler in its place, I would sympathise with them, but this is an incredibly complicated provision, and I remain of the opinion that the purpose of the Schedule is to limit the tenant's right to get repairs done, and to withhold rent increases while they are being done. I think that the landlords, and the Tory Party, have found this habit of tenants insisting on landlords doing repairs, and of withholding rent meanwhile, much too troublesome, and that this complicated, nasty and unjust Schedule is designed to prevent that right being freely and properly exercised.

1247
I must be a very nasty, suspicious-minded person, but I have listened to every possible reason put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friends, and not one of them carries the least conviction. Why, in particular, they allow the landlord six whole months to put right something like a broken sash-cord—which was held by the House of Lords to put a house out of good repair —and to stop up, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman, a hole in the roof, is utterly incomprehensible.
Question put, That "six" stand part of the Bill: —
The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER having
directed that the doors be locked——
Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray(seated and covered): May I raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? May I ask whether sufficient time, according to the Standing Order, was allowed before the doors were locked? May I have your answer, please?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I understand that the clock went wrong. We shall have the Division again.
Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Question put, That "six" stand part of the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 215.

Division No. 88.]

AYES

[8.35 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Doughty, C. J. A.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Aitken, W.T.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

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

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

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Alport, C. J. M.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Howard, John (Test)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Elliott, R. W.

Hurd, A. R.

Arbuthnot, John

Erroll, F. J.

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

Armstrong, C. W.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Ashton, H.

Fell, A.

Iremonger, T. L.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Finlay, Graeme

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Baldwin, A. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carllsle)

Balniel, Lord

Fort, R.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Barber, Anthony

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Barter, John

Freeth, Denzil

Kaberry, D.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Keegan, D.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Kershaw, J. A.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Glover, D.

Kirk, P. M.

Bidgood, J. C.

Godber, J. B.

Lagden, G. W.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Lambert, Hon. G.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Goodhart, P. C.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bishop, F. P.

Gough, C. F. H.

Leavey, J. A.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Gower, H. R.

Leburn, W. G.

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

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Braine, B. R.

Green, A.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Llewellyn, D. T.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

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

Brooman-White, R. C.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Gurden, Harold

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McAdden, S. J.

Burden, F. F. A.

Harris, Frederlc (Croydon, N,W.)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Carr, Robert

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McKibbin, A. J.

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

Cooke, Robert

Hay, John

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Heald, Rt, Hon. Sir Lionel

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

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

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Craddock,Beresford (Spelthorne)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Maddan, Martin

Crouch, R. F.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Cunningham, Knox

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Mannlngham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Currie, G. B. H.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Marshall, Douglas

Dance, J. C. G.

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

Mathew, R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maude, Angus

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hope, Lord John

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Deedes, W. F.

Hornby, R. P.

Mawby, R. L.

Dighy, Simon Wingfield

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Redmayne, M.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Remnant, Hon. P.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Mott-Radeliffe, Sir Charles

Renton, D. L. M.

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

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thornton-Kemeley, C. N.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Robertson, Sir David

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Neave, Airey

Robson-Brown, W.

Turner, H. F. L.

Nicholls, Harmar

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Roper, Sir Harold

Vane, W. M. F.

Nugent, G. R. H

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Oakshott, H. D.

Russell, R. S.

Vickers, Miss Joan

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

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Shepherd, William

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Osborne, C.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

Page, R. G.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Speir, R. M.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Partridge, E.

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

Webbe, Sir H.

Peyton, J. W. W.

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

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

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Stevens, Geoffrey

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Pitman, I. J.

Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)

Wood, Hon. R.

Pott, H. P.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Powell, J. Enoch

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Studholme, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Mr. Bryan and

Raikes, Sir Victor

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Mr. Hughes-Young.

Rawlinson, Peter

Temple, John M.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Fienburgh, W.

Lewis, Arthur

Albu, A. H.

Finch, H. J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Lipton, Marcus

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Forman, J. C.

MacDermot, Niall

Awbery, S. S.

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

McGhee, H. G.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Gooch, E. G.

McGovern, J.

Balfour, A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

McInnes, J.

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

Grey, C. F.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

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

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Benson, G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Blackburn, F.

Hale, Leslie

Mahon, Simon

Blenklnsop, A.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Blyton, W. R.

Hamilton, W. W.

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

Boardman, H.

Hannan, W.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

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

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hastings, S.

Mason, Roy

Bowles, F. G.

Hayman, F. H.

Mayhew, C. P.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Healey, Denis

Mitchison, G. R.

Brockway, A. F.

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

Monslow, W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D,

Herbison, Miss M.

Moody, A. S.

Burke, W. A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Mort, D. L.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Holman, P.

Moss, R.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Holt, A. F.

Moyle, A.

Callaghan, L. J.

Houghton, Douglas

Mulley, F. W.

Carmichael, J.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hoy, J. H.

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

Chapman, W. D.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oliver, G. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Oram, A. E.

Coldrick, W.

Hunter, A. E.

Orbach, M.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Hynd, H. (Acorington)

Oswald, T.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Owen, W. J.

Cove, W. G.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Padley, W. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Paget, R. T.

Cronin, J. D.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

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

Grossman, R. H. S.

Janner, B.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Pargiter, G. A.

Davles, Harold (Leek)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Parkin, B. T.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Paton, John

Deer, G.

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

Pearson, A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Peart, T. F.

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Pentland, N.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Popplewell, E.

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

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

King, Dr. H. M.

Probert, A. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lawson, G. M.

Proctor, W. T.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Ledger, R. J.

Pryde, D. J.

Edwards, Robert (Bliston)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Randall, H. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Rankin, John

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

Redhead, E. C.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Reeves, J.

1250

1251

Reid, William

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

West, D. G.

Rhodes, H.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Swingler, S. T.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Sylvester, G. O.

Wilkins, W. A.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Willey, Frederick

Ross, William

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Williams, David (Neath)

Royle, C.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Short, E. W.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Thornton, E.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Timmons, J.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Skeffington, A. M.

Tomney, F.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Usborne, H. C.

Woof, R. E.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Viant, S. P.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Snow, J. W.

Warbey, W. N.

Zilliacus, K.

Sorensen, R. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Weitzman, D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Sparks, J. A.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

Steele, T.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Something appears to have gone wrong. If, in fact, the Tory Party guillotined the clock, do we get any extra time to make up for the time lost by that?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry that the House has been put to inconvenience because the clock on the Table went wrong, but there is no question of extra time, as the House is governed by the Timetable Resolution.
Mr. E. Shinwell: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the clock has gone wrong once it may go wrong again. Ought not we to suspend the sitting?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We can rely on other clocks.
Mr. J. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 19, line 15, after "notice", to insert:
" of defects consequent on those defects or of other substantial defects ".
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it will be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), in page 19, at end insert:
Provided that, if on inspection of the dwelling the local authority are satisfied that any defect not specified in the said notice could properly have been specified therein or, being a defect not apparent or not fully apparent at the time of the service of the said notice, could properly have been specified in a notice served at the time of the said inspection, the local authority shall proceed as if that defect had been specified in the said first-mentioned notice.
and the one after that in the name of the Minister, in page 19, line 20, at end insert:
1252
(3) If on an application by the tenant the county court is satisfied, as respects any defects, that the local authority have failed to issue a certificate of disrepair which ought to have been issued, the court shall direct the authority to proceed on the footing that, in relation to those defects, they are satisfied as to the matters specified in the foregoing sub-paragraph; and if on an application by the tenant the county court is satisfied that any defect not specified in a certificate of disrepair ought to have been specified therein, the court shall order that the defect shall be deemed to have been specified in the certificate.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. J. Silverman: As the Bill stands, a tenant has to give notice in writing to the landlord of the defects of which he complains. Consequently, he is completely bound by the list of defects which he provides for the landlord in the first place. The local authority cannot give any certificate relating to any other defects even if those defects are consequent upon the defects enumerated in the first place by the tenant. If, in the course of his investigations, the sanitary inspector finds other serious defects in the house, he cannot deal with them or make them part of his certificate, because they are not part of the specifications which were rendered to the landlord by the tenant.
This is an entirely new departure in relation to the Rent Acts. Up to now, under the 1920 Act, the tenant goes to a local authority and the local authority, if it thinks fit, issues him with a certificate of disrepair. Why on earth should not that procedure be continued? Is it because too many certificates have been issued and it would be too easy and too uncomplicated for the tenant to obtain a certificate of disrepair?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said,

1253
with reference to the previous Amendments, that the whole of the Schedule is designed to limit the right and the power of the tenant to obtain his certificate of disrepair. As far as I can see, every device which ingenuity could provide for procrastination, delay or evasion, to prevent and discourage the tenant from obtaining a certificate of disrepair and to enable the landlord to get away with it, is incorporated in this extraordinarily complicated and difficult Schedule. I cannot but think that this has been a deliberate intention on the part of the Government.
The tenant, who is not a qualified person and knows very little about the nature of the defects, finds water coming through the roof. It may be that some slates are missing or it may be that there is a hole in the roof. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) derides this, but for tens of thousands of tenants it is not a joke.
Mr. Page: I was not laughing at the hole in the roof but at the hon. Member raising that subject again when we had such amusement over it in Committee.
Mr. Silverman: The tenants are suffering, and "suffering" is not by any means an unduly harsh expression. They will not regard the hon. Member's amusement with any amusement. This is a most serious problem for tenants, and there are tens of thousands of tenants who complain about defective roofs and about water coming in. They cannot sleep. Water comes in on the beds, it rots the boards and spoils their clothes.
There are many hon. Members of this House who have had scores of examples of this from their own constituencies. This is not a source of amusement. Of all the types of disrepair it is the one which causes the most serious discomfort. When the tenant prepares his specifications how can he say what is the cause? There may be damp on the walls and water coming in. He does not know whether the ceiling is out of repair, whether the slates have gone, whether there is a hole in the roof.
Whatever the specification he prepares, as the Bill stands he is tied to it. The local authority is not entitled to go beyond the specifications, and if eventually, as he is entitled to do, the landlord appeals to a county court, the
1254
county court is bound to interpret those specifications rigidly and to tie the tenant to the original and specific complaints he has made. That is most unjust, and it imposes a considerable hardship on the tenant. It means that he has to get qualified assistance for which he must pay a considerable fee, because if he has to call in his own surveyor that will cost him quite a few pounds. This will discourage, and I cannot help feeling that it is intended to discourage, tenants from claiming their rights and from taking this procedure.
These Amendments propose two things. They propose first that if there are any defects consequent on the defects which have been outlined—for instance, water has been coming in and, as a consequence, floor boards have rotted—those are matters which the local authority can take into consideration. The Amendments propose also that if on inspection the sanitary inspector finds other defects, he can incorporate them in his certificate.
That is reasonable, and it means that it is left to the local authority's sanitary inspector to decide whether the house is certifiable or not. In that respect he can take into consideration, as he has done up to the present, every defect which he finds on investigation. We think that is reasonable and that it gives some balance between landlord and tenant. Therefore, even at this late stage, we are still hoping that it will be possible for the Minister to accept these Amendments.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
I also want to refer briefly to the Amendment standing in my name, in page 19, line 20, in the form of a proviso, and also to the Minister's corresponding Amendment at the same place.
The trouble about the Minister's Amendment is that if the local authority finds more than the tenant knew of, or something that the tenant omitted—and often there will be defects of which the tenant could not have known at the time, as, for instance, dry rot—there has to be an application to the county court. I ask simply, why not leave the question to the local authority which knows all about these things and, from other points of view, often has to deal with them?
From one point of view I would commend the wish of the right hon.

1255
Gentleman to provide more work for the Bar, but from any other point of view I regard it as unnecessary and unfair on the tenant to have to make an application to the county court whenever there is a question of any defect which was not apparent to him, or which he may accidentally have omitted. The entire matter should be left to the local authority without the need for an application to the county court to enable the local authority to specify further defects, which is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I, therefore, prefer our own.
Mr. Page: Following what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), I am not even sure that the words in the Minister's Amendment would cover the case of defects not specified in the notice, because that Amendment refers merely to defects which "ought to have been specified" in the certificate of disrepair. In fact, they ought not to have been specified in the certificate of disrepair if they were not specified in the notice. I do not think the Amendment covers the point made by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman).
I stand by what I said in Committee; I support the Amendment in principle and think it would be good if it were introduced into the Bill. Whenever we on this side of the House and on our side of the Committee upstairs found any good in a point put forward from the other side, we unstintingly supported it without any party frills. When hon. Members opposite found a point which we raised with which they agreed, they agreed grudgingly and with all the party abuse which they could find.
I sincerely agree with what has been said in support of the Amendment. I do not think its wording is quite right as it stands, because we do not want to give the local authority a roving commission. The words at the end of the Amendment to page 19, line 15, "or of other substantial defects" go, I think, too wide. There are other powers for a local authority, under the Housing Acts and the Public Health Acts, to deal with these matters.
Nevertheless, if there are defects consequential on those which the tenant mentions in his notice, I see no reason that they should not be included in the certificate of disrepair. If a landlord
1256
has allowed the matter to go as far as to the local authority, it seems to me reasonable that he should run the risk of the local authority finding that a hole in the roof has caused dry rot. That is the best example; there are many others, but that example explains the sort of defect which a tenant may not recognise and which a local authority might find on inspection. It would be reasonable for the authority to put it into the certificate of disrepair. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to consider this again.
Mr. Bevins: I am very glad to have an opportunity of saying a word on this Amendment, although the principle of it was exhaustively discussed in our proceedings in Standing Committee.
The series of Amendments to which the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) addressed himself would allow local authorities to add items as they thought fit to the tenant's list of defects, or consequential defects or other substantial defects; that is the sum total of the series of Amendments. The argument for the Amendment is that the tenant, not being a qualified man, cannot be expected to know all the defects in the house which he occupies. We have had over and over again the well-worn case of the hole in the roof and the dry rot which may follow from it. The argument is that it would be sensible for the public health inspectors of the local authorities to be allowed to add to the list because they are better qualified than the tenants to decide what is wrong.
I am bound to point out that from the beginning, rightly or wrongly, the Bill has proceeded from the assumption that it is the tenant and his family that occupy the house and that it is the defects which interfere with the enjoyment of the tenant and his family which are the important defects which should be repaired. If the tenant is not satisfied, he has an un limited right to draw the attention of the landlord to any additional defects ——
It being Nine o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 254.

Division No. 89.]

AYES

[9.0 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Peart, T. F.

Albu, A. H.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pentland, N.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Holman, P.

Popplewell, E.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Holmes, Horace

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Awbery, S. S.

Holt, A. F.

Probert, A. R.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Houghton, Douglas

Proctor, W. T.

Baird, J.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Pryde, D, J.

Balfour, A.

Hoy, J. H.

Randall, H. E.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Rankin, John

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

Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire)

Redhead, E. C.

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

Hunter, A. E.

Reeves, J.

Benson, G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reid, William

Blackburn, F.

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Rhodes, H.

Blenkinsop, A.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Board man, H,

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

Janner, B.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Jay, Bt. Hon. D. P. T,

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Bowles, F. C.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Ross, William

Boyd, T. C.

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

Royle, C.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Brookway, A. F.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Short, E. W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Skeffington, A. M.

Burke, W. A.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

King, Dr. H. M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Lawson, G. M.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Ledger, R. J.

Sparks, J. A.

Chapman, W. D.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Steele, T.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Coldrick, W.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Stonehouse, J. T.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Stones, W. (Consett)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lewis, Arthur

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (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.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.>)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomson, George (Dundee,E.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Mahon, Simon

Thornton E

Deer, G.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Timmons. J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

Tomney, F.

Delargy, H. J.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Dodds, N. N.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Usborne, H. C.

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

Mason, Roy

Viant, S. P.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mayhew, C. P,

Warbey, W. N.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mitchison, G. R.

Watkins, T. E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Monslow

Weitzman, D.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Moody, A. S.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mort, D. L.

West, D. G.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Moss, R.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Flenburgh, W.

Moyle, A.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Finch, H. J.

Mulley, F. W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Fletcher, Eric

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Wilkins. W. A.

Forman, J. C.

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

Willey, Frederick

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

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Williams, David (Neath)

Gooch, E. C.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Oram, A. E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Grey, C. F.

Orbach, M.

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

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oswald, T.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Owen, W. J.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Hale, Leslie

Padley, W. E.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paget, R. T.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hamilton, W. W.

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

Woof, R. E.

Hannan, W.

Palmer, A, M. F.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Hastings, S.

Pargiter, G. A.

Zilliacus, K.

Hayman, F. H.

Parker, J.

Healey, Denis

Parkin, B. T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Paton, John

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

1258

1259

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Gower, H. R.

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

Aitken, W. T.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

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

Green, A.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Alport, C. J. M.

Gresham Cooke, R,

Marshall, Douglas

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.>

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Mathew, R.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maude, Angus

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Maudilng, Rt. Hon. R.

Arbuthnot, John

Gurden, Harold

Mawby, R. L.

Armstrong, C. W,

Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

Ashton, H.

Harris, Frederlo (Croydon, N.W.)

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Actor, Hon. J. J.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Atkins, H. E.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Harrison, Col. J, H. (Eye)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Baldwin, A. E.

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

Nabarro, G, D. N.

Balniel, Lord

Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Barber, Anthony

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Neave, Alrey

Barter, John

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Nicholls, Harmar

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Hay, John

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Nugent, G- R. H.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

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

Oakshott, H. D.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Henderson, John (Cathoart)

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

Bidgood, J. C.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Biggs-Davison; J. A.

Hesketh, R. F.

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

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hicks-Beach, Mal. W. W.

Osborne, C.

Bishop, F. P.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Page, R. G.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

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

Hirst, Geoffrey

Partridge, E.

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Peyton, J. W. W.

Braine, B. R.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, w.)

Hope, Lord John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

Hornby, R. P.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pitman, I, J.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Horobin, Sir lan

Pott, H. P.

Bryan, P.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Flo-ence

Powell, J. Enoch

Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Howard, John (Test)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Profume, J. D.

Carr, Robert

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Cary, Sir Robert

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Rawlinson, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hurd, A. R.

Redmayne, M.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

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

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hyde, Montgomery

Remnant, Hon. P.

Cooke, Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Renton, D. L. M.

Cooper, A. E.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Robertson, Sir David

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Robson-Brown, W.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Joseph, Sir Keith

Roper, Sir Harold

Crouch, R. F.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Kaberry, D.

Russell, R. S.

Cunningham, Knox

Keegan, D.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Currie, G. B. H.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Dance, J. C. G.

Kershaw, J. A.

Shepherd, William

Davidson, Viscountess

Kirk, P. M.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Lagden, G. W.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Deedes, W. F.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Speir, R. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

Doughty, C. J. A.

Leavey, J. A.

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

du Cann, E. D. L.

Leburn, W. G.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

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

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L,

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Linstead, Sir H. N,

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Elliott, R. W.

Liewellyn, D. T.

Storey, S.

Erroll, F. J.

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

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Longden, Gilbert

Studholme, Sir Henry

Fell, A.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Finlay, Graeme

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fisher, Nigel

McAdden, S. J.

Temple, John M.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Fort, R.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Fraser, Sir lan (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

McKibbin, A. J.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Freeth, Denzil

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

George, J. C. (Pollak)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Turner, H. F. L.

Gibson-Watt, D.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Glover, D.

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Godber, J. B.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Goodhart, P. C.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Gough, C. F. H.

Maddan, Martin

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

1260

1261

Wakefield, Sir Wavall (St. M'lebone)

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

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

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

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Mr. Richard Thompson and

Webbe, Sir H.

Wood, Hon. R.

Mr. Brooman-White.

Mr. DEPUTY-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 Nine o'clock.
Amendments made: In page 19, line 20, at end insert:
(3) If on an application by the tenant the county court is satisfied, as respects any defects, that the local authority have failed to issue a certificate of disrepair which ought to have been issued, the court shall direct the authority to proceed on the footing that, in relation to those defects, they are satisfied as to the matters specified in the foregoing sub-paragraph; and if on an application by the tenant the county court is satisfied that any defect not specified in a certificate of disrepair ought to have been specified therein, the court shall order that the defect shall be deemed to have been specified in the certificate.
In line 31, after "cancelled", insert "under this paragraph".
In line 33, after "is", insert "so".
In line 44, at end insert:
Provided that where—

(a) a previous certificate of disrepair under this Schedule has been issued against the landlord in respect of the dwelling or any part thereof, or

(b) the landlord has previously become liable under subsection (3) of section ten of the Housing Act, 1936, as the person having control of the dwelling or of any premises comprising the dwelling, to repay to the local authority (within the meaning of that section) any expenses incurred by them under that section, or

(c) the landlord has previously given an undertaking under this Schedule in respect of the dwelling, or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority, and any of the defects to which that undertaking related remained unremedied on the expiration of six months from the giving thereof, or

(d) the landlord has previously been convicted of an offence under section ninety-five of the Public Health Act, 1936, of failing to comply with, or contravening, a nuisance order or an offence under paragraph 12 of the Fifth Schedule to the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, of failing to comply with an abatement order or contravening a prohibition order or a closing order,

the local authority may refuse to accept the undertaking and may issue a certificate of disrepair, and if they do so the undertaking shall be deemed never to have been given.
In page 20, line 15, at end insert:
(4) Where the local authority have cancelled a certificate of disrepair, the tenant may apply
1262
to the county court, and if on the application the court is satisfied that the certificate ought not to have been cancelled the court may order that it shall be deemed not to have been cancelled.
In line 29, at end insert:
" or subsection (1) of section fifteen of this Act or sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8 of the Sixth Schedule thereto ".
In page 21, line 15, at end insert:
(2) Where such an undertaking has been given the landlord or the tenant may apply to the local authority for a certificate under this sub-paragraph, and the local authority shall certify whether any, and if so which, of the defects to which the undertaking relates remain unremedied.
(3) A certificate under the foregoing subparagraph shall in any proceedings be evidence until the contrary is proved of the matters certified.
In line 48, after "disrepair," insert:
"or a certificate under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 8 of this Schedule".
In line 49, leave out "the certificate is granted the applicant" and insert:
"a certificate of disrepair, or a certificate under the said sub-paragraph (2) certifying that any defects remain unremedied, is granted to the tenant he".
In page 22, line 1, leave out "the certificate" and insert:
"a certificate of disrepair".
In line 27, at end add:

PART III

  OVERSEAS COMPANIES
  17. In a case falling within subsection (3) of section two of this Act, except where the tenant is responsible for all repairs a notice of increase served in respect of the dwelling by the landlord referred to in the said subsection (3) shall not have effect unless either a certificate of repair has been issued to the landlord with respect to the dwelling not earlier than twelve months before the service of the notice of increase or a previous notice of increase served by that landlord in respect of the dwelling has had effect.
  18.—(1) If, on an application for a certificate of repair, made by the landlord in the prescribed form and stating the name of the tenant, the local authority are satisfied that the state of repair of the dwelling is such that (without regard to paragraph 11 of this Schedule) no certificate of disrepair could be issued in respect of the dwelling, the local authority shall issue the certificate of repair and shall serve a copy of the certificate on the tenant.
  (2) On any application for a certificate of repair there shall be paid to the local authority a fee of two shillings and sixpence.
  19. If on an application for a certificate of repair the local authority are not satisfied as aforesaid, the authority shall send to the landlord a statement of the defects in consequence of which they are unable to issue the certificate of repair; and if on an application to the county court the landlord proves that all the defects specified in the statement are either defects for which the tenant is responsible or defects amounting only to internal decorative disrepair and for which the landlord is not responsible, the court shall order the local authority to issue a certificate of repair.
  20. If after the issue of a certificate of repair a certificate of disrepair is issued in respect of the same dwelling, the certificate of repair shall be deemed never to have been issued.
  21. Paragraph 15 of this Schedule shall apply to this Part of this Schedule as it applies to Part II thereof.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Fourth Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ON DECONTROL.)
Amendment made: In page 24, line 17, leave out "him" and insert "the tenant".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 24, line 21, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where for the purposes of section ten of this Act the rateable value of the dwelling

5

5.—(1) Where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, then if the tenant gives up dossession of the dwelling-house at the end of the tenancy therein mentioned, or on ceasing to retain possession by virtue of this Schedule, he shall be entitled, if he has made a claim for the purpose at any time before giving up possession, to be paid by his landlord compensation in respect of any improvement on the dwelling-house, not being a fixture which he is by law entitled to remove, which on his giving up possession adds to the value of the dwelling-house, being an improvement made by him, by any other person who retained possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule, or by any other person being a tenant under the said statutory or controlled

10

tenancy, and completed after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five.

15

(2) The sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the net addition to the value of the dwelling-house as a whole which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement, allowance being made for any benefits which may have been received from the landlord or his predecessors in title in consideration expressly or impliedly of the improvement; and in determining the amount of the said net addition regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the dwelling-house shall be used after possession has been given up, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish or to make structural alterations in the dwelling-house or any part thereof or to use it for a different purpose, regard shall be had to the effect of such demolition,

20

alteration or change of use on the additional value attributable to the improvement, and to the length of time likely to elapse between the giving up of possession and the demolition, alteration or change of use.

25

(3) In determining the amount of compensation under this paragraph regard shall be had to any diminution in the value of any other property belonging to the same landlord, or to any superior landlord from whom the immediate landlord directly or indirectly holds, which is the direct result of the improvement.

30

(4) No compensation shall be payable under this paragraph if the improvement is one of a kind for which a claim for compensation may be made under section one of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, or if the person by whom the improvement was made was under an obligation to make it in pursuance of a contract entered into for valuable consideration, or if the improvement was made in breach of the terms of the controlled tenancy, or if before the completion thereof the landlord notified the person by whom it was made, in writing, that the landlord objected to the improvement.

house falls to be ascertained by apportionment, no notice shall be served under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph until the apportionment has been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
This Amendment is designed to meet a point which arose in Committee on an Amendment moved, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The debate ranged widely, and I promised to consider carefully what was said. I am sure that it is desirable that we should make this Amendment, the effect of which is that where, to ascertain whether a part of a house is or is not decontrolled by subsection (1) of Clause 10, it is necessary to apportion the rateable value of the house, the house will be treated as controlled until the apportionment has been obtained. I think the point is clear, and, as far as I am aware, quite uncontroversial.
Mr. Mitchison: On this side of the House, we agree with the proposal, as we had, if I remember rightly, a similar proposal to offer during the Committee stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 25, line 5, at the end to insert:

35

(5) Any question whether compensation is payable under this paragraph, or as to the amount of any such compensation, shall be determined by the county court; and if the court determines that, on account of the intention to demolish or alter, or to change the use of, the dwelling-house, no compensation or a reduced amount of compensation shall be paid, the court may authorise a further application for compensation to be made by the claimant if effect is not given to the intention within such time as may be

40

fixed by the court.

45

(6) Where the landlord is himself a tenant of the dwelling-house, he may recover from his landlord such part (if any) of any compensation payable by him under this paragraph as may be agreed between the parties or determined by the county court to be just having regard to the terms of his tenancy, and in particular the length of the unexpired term thereof, and to all other relevant circumstances; and the foregoing provisions of this sub-paragraph shall apply in relation to sums recoverable thereunder as they apply to compensation under this paragraph.

50

(7) Section thirteen of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927 (which confers power to apply and raise capital money for the payment of compensation under that Act), shall apply to compensation or other sums (including costs, charges and expenses) payable by a landlord by virtue of this paragraph as it applies to such compensation and other sums as are mentioned in that section.

This is a lengthy Amendment, and it deals with a matter to which I think the House should attach some importance. It was raised in Committee upstairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who called attention to the case where a tenant who has to give up occupation of premises as a result of decontrol has made improvements to the property. In Committee, I undertook to produce an Amendment in suitable form on Report, and the effect of this Amendment is that a tenant of a decontrolled house will be entitled, before giving up possession, to claim compensation in respect of any improvements made by him or his predecessor in a controlled tenancy.
There are, of course, conditions attached. In fact, I am wrong in saying "any improvements"; they are improvements which satisfy or do not contravene certain conditions. The amount of the compensation will be the addition to the value of the house which is attributable to the improvement, less, of course, the value of any benefit that has been received from the landlord in respect of the improvement. The obvious case there is that the landlord himself may have contributed towards the cost.
The Amendment also provides that the improvement must have been completed after August, 1945. It is so unlikely that improvements will have been made during the war that, for all practical purposes, that really takes us back to 1939. The fact of an improvement having been made and the amount of the compensation to be paid for it are matters to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant. If the landlord and tenant disagree, of course, that is a matter which can be determined by the county court.
9.15 p.m.
As I indicated, various rules are laid down in the Amendment covering the right to compensation and the amount of payment. For example, obviously no compensation is or should be payable if the improvement was carried out in breach of a covenant, or if the landlord objected in writing to the improvement being made before it was completed. If the House will look at paragraph (6) it will be seen that it is there provided that if the landlord himself is a tenant he is entitled to recover from his superior landlord that proportion of the compensation which he has to pay.
For the interest of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies I would point out that the Amendment applies to Scotland, subject, however, to the adaptation made by a later Government Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
From the discussions during the Committee stage, I believe that it was generally accepted that we should make a provision of this kind in the Bill for the benefit of the tenant who has to leave his house or flat, but has made material improvements to the property. I hope that the House will agree that the words which we have devised fulfil that need.
Mr. Hay: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 9, to leave out, "or controlled".
The Amendment which the Minister has moved is one which will, I think, receive a fairly warm welcome in this House, although I cannot say that it will receive a very warm welcome in some quarters outside. I think it a desirable improvement to make to the Bill.

1267
As my right hon. Friend has explained, the intention is to compensate a tenant who is obliged under the provisions of Clause 10 (1) to vacate a house in which he has been living for some time and to which he may have made improvements. I think it is agreed by those who took part in the Committee stage discussions, and others who have commented on this part of the Schedule, that it is a very desirable Amendment to make.
In moving this Amendment, I am concerned to make sure that we do not go too far. I think we desire to compensate the sitting tenant, the person who has made the improvements. I do not think we should compensate a sitting tenant who has not himself made the improvements. The intention of my Amendment is to try to remove any possibility of that happening. It will be seen that in lines 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of paragraph (1), reference is made to the persons by whom the improvement must be made before compensation can accrue.
First, improvement must have been made by the tenant himself, that is to say, the person who is to be evicted or who must leave the house. The second qualification is that it must have been made by:
"… any other person who retained possession of the dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule …"
The third is:
"…by any other person being a tenant under the said statutory or controlled tenancy …"
I think that the latter qualifications are intended by the Minister to cover the successor to a statutory tenant, the most normal case being that where a husband who was the statutory tenant has died and his widow is protected in respect of the preceding condition as the successor to his statutory tenancy. That is a situation with which we are all familiar.
I want to ensure that where a lease has been assigned, perhaps through one set of hands or perhaps through several sets of hands, until it arrives in the hands of the person who has to leave under Clause 10, that latter person, the actual tenant at the time, who did not himself make the improvement, shall not be entitled to compensation.
I have chosen to attempt to delete the words "or controlled" because of the
1268
definition of "controlled tenancy" in the Bill. Clause 19, the Interpretation Clause, states that:
"'controlled tenancy' means a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply or a statutory tenancy …"
I think it is clear, therefore, that if we delete the words "or controlled" from the Minister's Amendment it would make certain that the right to compensation would accrue only to a statutory tenant or, in the circumstances which I have described, the successor to a statutory tenant. It would remove any risk that a person who was still a contractual tenant—that is, a person holding a lease or tenancy agreement which has not expired or been brought to an end by notice to quit—would be entitled to compensation.
It may be said that this is a somewhat involved way of doing it, but short of redrafting the new paragraph introduced by the Minister, I cannot see any brief way of dealing with the mischief which I feel the House will want to correct. We do not want to give a tenant who is having to leave the property under Clause 10 some entirely uncovenanted benefit for improvements which he himself has not actually made. It may be said, of course, that he may, being in that position, have paid money to his predecessor in title when he took an assignment and that in those circumstances he should be entitled to compensation. That may be, but short of substantially redrafting the paragraph to cover that situation, which has not been possible in the very few days that the Amendment has been on the Order Paper, I think the only thing we can do is to delete the words "or controlled," I feel it is desirable in this case not to give the right to compensation to someone who has not, if I may use such an expression, earned it and that we should rather retain it only for a person who has actually carried out an improvement and is thus rightly entitled to compensation when he leaves.
Mr. Mitchison: With the hon. Gentleman, I deplore the difficulties of the Guillotine in these matters. Would not the effect of his Amendment be, among other things, that if Mr. A, a controlled tenant, and the first tenant, dies and the property passes, as it would under the Rent Act, to his widow, then Mrs. A would not fall within these provisions any

1269
longer, because if Mr. A had made improvements he would have been a controlled tenant when he made them?
Mr. Hay: I see the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is probably valid. The problem is, as I have explained, that I have tried very shortly to deal with a provision which really requires to be completely re-written.
Sir I. Horobin: Not being a lawyer, I hesitate to intervene, but surely in the case which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggests, the widow would be a statutory tenant and the tenant in possession and would qualify under the provision?
Mr. Hay: I think my hon. Friend is wrong. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I hate to have to say that, but I am afraid I must in this case. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made a valid point.
We want to ensure that the person who made the improvement, or his widow or a member of the family succeeding to him, has the right to compensation, but not some stranger. That is really what I am driving at, and I hope that the Amendment will find favour with my right hon. Friend. I accept at once that the words may be inappropriate. If so, I hope that he will say so and will devise appropriate words which can be adopted when the Bill goes to the other place.
Mr. Page: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose in any way to embellish the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I want to express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister for introducing his Amendment. The Amendment which I put on the Order Paper in Committee was based on the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, which applied to business premises. I realise that, in certain circumstances, it was not appropriate, so I am grateful to him for devising an Amendment which fits the case.
This matter is of very great importance to many controlled or statutory tenants. They have relied in the past on being statutory tenants, possibly anticipating that they would be such for some time. They have done improvements to their houses, often even to the extent of building a garage, or putting in a bathroom,
1270
or changing the old kitchen range for a new fixture. In doing so, they have improved the value of the reversion, and it does seem to be unreasonable to allow the landlord to give them notice under Clause 10 and get this windfall represented by those improvements. My right hon. Friend's Amendment would, in fairness to the tenants who have really improved their property, avoid that.
One point which has not yet been mentioned and which may relieve the minds of some landlords is that at the end of sub-paragraph (4) there are set out the cases in which the tenant would not be entitled to claim compensation for improvements——
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member now seems to be addressing himself to the Amendment proposed by the Minister, whereas we are at present considering the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) which, I understand, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has seconded.
Mr. H. Brooke: I greatly appreciate the praise which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) managed to get in for my Amendment. I hope to be able to persuade him and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) not to press their Amendment, though I fully realise the excellent purpose which is in their minds in moving it. That purpose is to prevent someone who is a tenant at the time of decontrol from receiving compensation for an improvement carried out by a previous tenant who assigned the tenancy to him.
It appears to my hon. Friends that the tenant at the time of the decontrol may be getting a sort of uncovenanted benefit, but I would ask them to look at it from this point of view. The reason why my Amendment is so drafted, and why improvement is allowed to qualify for compensation even though it has been carried out by a previous tenant, is that a contractual tenant who carries out the improvement is permitted by Section 2 (4) of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, to charge a premium equivalent to his expenditure on the improvement when he assigns the tenancy. If the tenant at the time of decontrol has had to pay a premium of that character, as will normally be the case, it certainly seems

1271
reasonable that he should be just as much entitled to compensation as if he himself had carried out the improvement. I hope that my hon. Friend, having taken that point into consideration, will feel that he need not press his Amendment to my Amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Hay: With the leave of the House, may I say that I had appreciated the point that my right hon. Friend has just made, and I hoped that I had spoken about it when I moved the Amendment. If it were possible so to do, it would, I think, be a good thing if the new paragraph which the Minister proposes could be altered to ensure that this kind of case is fully covered. I do not think it is right for him to say that it has invariably been the case that people have charged premiums in these circumstances. According to my experience, it is far more usual for tenants who have had a lease and have wished to assign it to charge either for fixtures and fittings or for the lease itself and not to charge a premium for improvements which they have themselves made.
There is a problem here, and despite the explanation—I will not call it a dusty answer—which my right hon. Friend has given as to why he prefers to retain the form of his Amendment, I would ask him to look at it once more. I do not want to take up the time of the House now. This is a guillotined Bill. We on this side are devoted to progress on the Bill, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Mitchison: I do not propose to move either of the Amendments to the Minister's Amendment, having regard to the Guillotine and to certain Amendments which follow.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 26, line 9, to leave out "that, in" and to insert "for".
Mr. Speaker: I think that this and the following Amendment could conveniently go together.
Mr. Mitchison: I hope not to take up very much time about this Amendment,
1272
but it does raise an important issue. We have here the question of Orders under Section 10 (3). That subsection, the House will remember, is the subsection which empowers the Minister, by administrative Order, subject to affirmative Resolution, to decontrol entirely, to decontrol in bits and pieces, to decontrol one part of the country and not another, and so on. On the demerits of such an order, constitutional and other, we have already had some discussion.
Not content with these arbitrary powers, for they are arbitrary powers, which were taken by the Minister in the original draft of the Bill, there were added at a later stage these further arbitrary powers. Under the Bill as it stands up to this point, the Minister would not, as I understand, be allowed to give shorter notice than the famous fifteen months which, under pressure from his own supporters, he substituted for six months in the original draft. What it is sought to do by this provision is, having yielded that much, then more unobtrusively in the middle of the Schedule towards the end of the Bill to take the right to go back to the six months in orders made under subsection (3). There is no justification for it at all.
I object strongly, though I shall not repeat my objections now, to the whole procedure under subsection (3). Why it should be extended not merely to decontrol but to shortening the period of notice which has been found necessary in this case, I fail to understand. After all, there are some limits to what one can do by administrative order even in a Tory Government. What we are coming to now is a situation where the order can not only extend the original provisions of the Bill but can actually vary them. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman, for all his mild appearance and, no doubt, his monogamous tendencies, beats Henry VIII on some things, and this seems to be a case much in point.
I should have thought that this kind of addition was quite unnecessary and that it was open to all the objections to which the original subsection (3) was open and to a few additional objections on its own. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman, if his tyrannical mind is capable of any thought on this subject at all, to think again whether it really is necessary to

1273
provide for this further extension of the encroachment of the Executive which is proposed by subsection (3) of Clause 10.
Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the proposals which have been put before the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will be accepted. They refer acutely to the part of Middlesex that I represent, and also to the whole of London and most of our great towns and cities, where the housing problem will not be solved for a very long time. Indeed, the shortage of housing accommodation has existed in London from as long ago as the time of Queen Elizabeth I, when because of the serious shortage of housing accommodation, attempts were made to restrict the number of people coming to London.
The right hon. Gentleman made an alteration in his original proposal for the decontrol of houses by altering the period of six months during which a tenant was to be decontrolled and would enjoy security of tenure to a period of fifteen months. In the main, the right hon. Gentleman's case for the extension of the time to fifteen months was based on the difficulty of tenants of decontrolled property being able, first of all, to adjust themselves to the new circumstances, which, in the main, will mean that a large number of them have to leave their accommodation.
The difficulty of being able to obtain alternative accommodation in London and in the great towns and cities within six months of the passing of the Bill led the Minister to increase the period to fifteen months. He seems to think that at the end of fifteen months it will be possible for people to find alternative accommodation. He is, however, completely misunderstanding—or, at least, does not want to understand—the core of the problem.
If the right hon. Gentleman takes action under Clause 10 (3), as, undoubtedly, he will, and substitutes a period of six months instead of the fifteen months which now appears in the Bill, he will not be taking cognizance of the problem which is likely to exist for a considerable time and, very likely, for the lifetime of most of us here.
1274
Consider, for instance, my own constituency, which is similar to most of the constituencies in London and Greater London. We are a built-up area. It is quite impossible to build any more houses to accommodate people. Under Clause 10 of the Bill, approximately 8,000 houses will go out of control. A minimum of at least 2,000 of them will be tenant-occupied houses. There is not much doubt that the tenants, if they remain in, those houses under new tenancy agreements, will have to pay considerably higher rents than they have hitherto paid if the landlords allow them to remain as tenants. Otherwise, they will have to leave, and the landlords may want to sell the houses.
There is felt in most London constituencies and in our other great towns and cities where there is industrial concentration the pressure of people who want to come into them to live. About 15,000 workpeople come into my constituency every day to work, and many of them would live in my constituency if they could find accommodation, but they just cannot find it. There has been for hundreds of years this tendency of people to want to come from the provinces into London, and it will continue, so far as we can foresee, for a long time yet.
The right hon. Gentleman, if he exercises his powers under Clause 10 (3) to decontrol more houses in built-up areas, will add to the housing problems in the congested areas. If he exercises to the full his powers under that subsection and decontrols all the dwellings remaining controlled, then in my constituency a further 7,500 dwellings which will at first remain controlled will cease to be controlled. If the right hon. Gentleman does that an appalling problem will be created not only in my constituency but elsewhere in London and in the other great towns and cities.
It will mean that more rents can be increased to the very highest limit, that more people can be put out of their homes. The local authorities in the built-up areas are unable to provide accommodation because there is no more land in their areas on which to build. The result of such action by the Minister must inevitably be exceptionally high scarcity rents—as there are already in many parts where there is a scarcity of housing accommodation.

1275
He says that more accommodation will be made available because owner-occupiers will each let out a room or two. That is not a solution of the housing difficulty. There will be in all those areas an intensification of scarcity value of housing accommodation, and the people in those areas who will find themselves dispossessed because of the further actions of the Minister will be called upon to endure considerable hardship, and the hardship will be just as great in five, ten or fifteen years' time as it is today.
If there is a case now for the Minister to increase from six months to fifteen months the period during which the tenant may remain in a decontrolled house after the passing of the Bill, there will be a case for it as far ahead as we can imagine, because the housing problem in the great cities and towns will not be eased by the proposals in this Bill. The local authorities are running down their housing schemes. The scarcity of housing accommodation is becoming more intense. Rents are likely to rise very high. House property values will rise.
To be consistent, the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to extend the time of protection of the tenants of those houses to come out of control immediately the Bill becomes an Act, must apply the same principle in exercising his powers under Clause 10 (3). Therefore, I appeal to him to maintain the principle that he has already established in Clause 10, and, if in the future he issues, as he undoubtedly will, orders for further decontrol, at least to show those tenants whose homes will then become decontrolled the same consideration he is now proposing to show to those tenants whose homes will be immediately decontrolled.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. H. Brooke: In Committee, we amended the six months standstill period to fifteen months. I think that it was the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) who immediately suspected that I had simultaneously introduced a provision that would empower me by Order to reduce the original fifteen months by nine months. That point is cleared up now and it is accepted by everybody that the period of fifteen months for the original decontrol under Clause 10 (1) is firm and cannot be reduced.
1276
The Bill makes it possible, if an Order is subsequently made and confirmed by an affirmative Resolution from both Houses to extend the slice of decontrol by fixing lower rateable values, to provide that the standstill period in that case, before any notice of increased rent can take effect, shall be not greater than fifteen months nor less than six months. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that in all cases the standstill period shall be fifteen months and no more, and no less, whatever the conditions may be at the time.
This matter was briefly debated in Committee, and I put it to the Committee that the Minister must have some discretion, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time that a decontrol Order under subsection (3) comes to be made, to prescribe a period between fifteen months and six months. I have no doubt that the period of fifteen months is right for present circumstances, and I think that we unanimously agreed in Committee that it was proper to extend the six months' standstill to fifteen months in the light of the present circumstances.
Those are the words that I stress, because it would not necessarily be right when the time comes to make an Order under subsection (3) to keep this standstill period at fifteen months. Ex hypothesi by that time the housing situation throughout the country will be better. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, unquestionably—certainly if this Government remain in power. And if, indeed, it were right to fix lower rateable value limits for decontrol at the present time, we should be doing it in the Bill.
We are fixing the limits where they stand because we believe that they are right at the present time, but despite the Amendment to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 10, on which the House divided, we are taking power to reduce these limits by Order, either generally or in certain parts of the country, at a later date in the light of the situation as it will, by then, have been improved. That is why I say ex hypothesi the situation will have improved by the time any such Order is made. Therefore, the Government must have a certain discretion as to the length of time for which the standstill Order should then prescribe.
If the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggests that

1277
there is anything sacred about fifteen months, it is worth while looking back on past experience, because it proves my point that the housing situation in the country differs from time to time.
The fifteen months which we are providing in the Bill for the standstill on the first decontrol is far longer than the period which was provided for in the decontrol legislation between the wars in 1933 and 1938. The 1933 Act provided for a standstill period not of fifteen months but of 2½ months, and in the circumstances of the day that worked reasonably. The 1938 Act, five years later, provided for a standstill period of four months, and that again worked reasonably.
So we have this historic evidence that in different situations from time to time different lengths of standstill may be appropriate. It is on those practical grounds that I urge the House to maintain the discretion given by the Bill as to what should be the appropriate length of the standstill period on various occasions rather than to bind the Government of the day to a fifteen months' period whatever may come. I feel sure that this is the wise course to take, and I
sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment, which I feel sure is in the circumstances misconceived.
Mr. Sparks: Before sitting down, would the Minister explain to the House how it is possible for the housing situation to improve in the future in built-up areas where local authorities cannot possibly 'provide more accommodation for as far ahead as they can see?
Mr. Brooke: I represent a built-up area myself. I think the hon. Member for Acton will agree with me that we cannot look at a national problem of this kind on the basis of individual local authorities alone. I will go further than that, however, and remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the effects of the Bill will be to make more housing accommodation available in all areas, as I have repeatedly explained to the House.
Hon. Members: How?
Question put, That the words "that, in" stand part of the Bill: —
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 223.

Division No. 90.]

AYES

[9.52 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Freeth, Denzil

Aitken, W. T.

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

Garner-Evans, E. H.

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

Carr, Robert

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Alport, C. J. M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Gibson-Watt, D.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Glover, D.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Godber, J. B.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Arbulhnot, John

Cooke, Robert

Goodhart, P. C.

Armstrong, C. W,

Cooper, A. E.

Gough, C. F. H.

Ashton, H.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Gower, H. R.

Astor, Hon. J. J,

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Atkins, H. E.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Green, A.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Baldwin, A. E.

Crouch, R. F.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Balniel, Lord

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Barber, Anthony

Cunningham, Knox

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Barter, John

Currie, G. B. H.

Gurden, Harold

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Dance, J. C. G.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Davidson, Viscountess

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Deedes, W. F.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Bidgood, J. C.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Doughty, C. J. A.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Bishop, F. P.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Body, R. F.

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

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hay, John

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

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

Boyle, Sir Edward

Elliott, R. W.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Braine, B. R.

Erroll, F. J.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hesketh, R. F.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fell, A.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Finlay, Graeme

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Fisher, Nigel

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Bryan, P.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

Fort, R.

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

Burden, F. F. A.

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Holt, A. F.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Hope, Lord John

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Roper, Sir Harold

Hornby, R. P.

Maddan, Martin

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

Russell, R. S.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Marshall, Douglas

Shepherd, William

Howard, John (Test)

Mathew, R.

Smitriers, Peter (Winchester)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Maude, Angus

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Speir, R. M.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Mawby, R. L.

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

Hurd, A. R.

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

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

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

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Iremonger, T. L.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Johnson, Eric (Blakley)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Storey, S.

Joseph, Sir Kelth

Neave, Alrey

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Nicholls, Harmar

Studholme, Sir Henry

Kaberry. D,

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Keegan, D.

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

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Temple, John M.

Kerr, H. W.

Oakshott, H. D.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Kershaw, J. A.

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

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Kirk, P. M.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thomson Kenneth (Walton)

Lagden, G. W.

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

Thornton-Kemsley, C.N.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Osborne, C.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Page, R. G.

Turner, H. F. L.

Leavey, J. A.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Turton,Rt. R. H.

Lebum, W. G.

Partridge, E.

Vane W.M.F.

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

Peyton, J. W. W.

Vaugham-Morgan, J.K.

Legth, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Vickers, Miss Joan

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Liewellyn, D. T.

Pitman, I. J.

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

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

Pott, H. P.

Ward Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Longden, Gilbert

Powell, J. Enoch

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt, Hon. C.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Webbe, Sir H.

McAdden, S. J.

Profumo, J. D.

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

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Ralkes, Sir Victor

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Rawlinson, Peter

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

McKibbin, A. J.

Redmayne, M.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wood, Hon. R.

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Renton, D. L. M.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Ridsdale, J. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Rippon, A. G. F.

Mr. Richard Thompson and

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Robertson, Sir David

Mr. Edward Wakefield.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Greenwood, Anthony

Albu, A. H.

Coldrick, W.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Grey, C. F.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelfy)

Awbery, S. S.

Cronin, J. D.

Hale, Leslie

Bacon, Miss Alice

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coine Valley)

Baird, J.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hamilton, W. W.

Balfour, A.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hannan, W.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

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

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hastings, S.

Benson, G.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hayman, F. H.

Blackburn, F.

Deer, G.

Healey, Denis

Blenkinsop, A.

Delargy, H. J.

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

Blyton, W. R.

Dodds, N. N.

Herbison, Miss M.

Boardman, H.

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

Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hobson, C. R. (Kelgley)

Bowles, F. G.

Edelman, M.

Holman, P.

Boyd, T. C.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Holmes, Horace

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Houghton, Douglas

Brockway, A. F.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Brcughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

Hoy, J. H.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Burke, W. A.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Hughes, Emrys, (S, Ayrshire)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Flenburgh, W.

Hunter, A. E.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Finch, H. J.

Hynd, H. (Aocrington)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Fletcher, Eric

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Callaghan, L. J.

Forman, J. C.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Chapman, W.D.

Gooch, E. G-

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

1280

1281

Janner, B.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Sparks, J. A.

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

Oliver, G. H.

Steele, T.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Oram, A. E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

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

Orbach, M.

Stonehouse, J.T.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Oswald, T.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Owen, W. J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

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

Padley, W. E.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Paget, R. T.

Swingler, S. T.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pargiter, G. A,

Thomas, George (Gardiff)

Lawson, G. M.

Parker, J.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Ledger, R. J.

Parkin, B. T.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Paton, John

Thornton, E.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Peart, T. F.

Timmons, J.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Pentland, N.

Tomney, F.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Lewis, Arthur

Popplewell, E.

Usborne, H. C.

Lindgren, G. S.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Viant, S. P.

MacDermot, Niall

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Warbey, W. N.

McGhee, H. G.

Probert, A. R.

Watkins, T. E.

McGovern, J.

Proctor, W. T.

Weitzman, D.

Mclrmes, J.

Pryde, D. J.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Randall, H. E.

West, D. G.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Rankin, John

Wheeldon, W. E.

MacPherson, Maloolm (Stirling)

Redhead, E. C.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Mahon, Simon

Reeves, J.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Reld, William

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

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

Rhodes, H.

Wilkins, W. A.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Willey, Frederick

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, David (Neath)

Mason, Roy

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Mayhew, C. P.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mellish, R. J.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

Mitchison, G. R.

Ross, William

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Monslow, W.

Royle, C.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Moody, A. S.

Short, E. W.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Mort, D. L.

Skeffington, A. M.

Woof, R. E.

Moss, R.

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

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Moyle, A.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Mulley, F. W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Zilliacus, K.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Sorensen, R. W.

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

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Amendment made: In page 26, line 13, at end insert:
12. As respects any time after the time of decontrol, references in this Schedule to the tenant include references to any other person who by virtue of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 would have been entitled on the death of the tenant to retain possession if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to the dwelling-house.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
10.0 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg
to move, in page 26, line 14, at the end to insert:
(a) in paragraph 5 for any reference to the county court there shall be substituted a reference to the sheriff, and in sub-paragraph (4) the words from "if the improvement is one" to "1927, or", and sub-paragraph (7) shall be omitted.
This Amendment makes the necessary modification in the application to Scotland of the new paragraph 5 of the Schedule, which deals with compensation for tenants' improvements.
Amendment agreed to.

Fifth Schedule.—(MODIFICATION, IN SPECIAL CASES, OF 1956 GROSS VALUE.)
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 26, line 32, at the end to insert:
ASCERTAINMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATEABLE VALUE AND 1956 GROSS VALUE

  PART I
  Ascertainment of rateable value and adjustments for pending proposals
  1. In relation to any premises in England or Wales, any reference in this Act to the rateable value on a particular date (hereinafter referred to as the "date of ascertainment") shall subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule be construed—

  (a) if the premises are a hereditament for which a rateable value is then shown in the valuation list, as a reference to the rateable value of the hereditament, or where that value differs from the net annual value, the net annual value thereof, as shown in the valuation list on that date;

  (b) if the premises form part only of such a hereditament, as a reference to such proportion of the said rateable value or net annual value as may be agreed in writing between the landlord and tenant or determined by the county court;

  1283

  (c) if the premises consist of or form part of more than one such hereditament, to the aggregate of the rateable values (ascertained in accordance with the foregoing sub-paragraph) of those hereditaments or parts.

  2.—(1) The following provision shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act or an order made under subsection (3) thereof, that is to say, where after the date of ascertainment the valuation list is altered so as to vary the rateable value of a hereditament, and the alteration has effect from a date not later than the date of ascertainment and is made in pursuance of a proposal to which this paragraph applies, the rateable value on the date of ascertainment of any dwelling-house consisting of or wholly or partly comprised in that hereditament shall be ascertained as if the amount of the rateable, or as the case may be net annual, value of that hereditament shown in the valuation list on the date of ascertainment had been the amount of that value shown in the list as altered.
  (2) This paragraph applies to a proposal made—

  (a) if the date of ascertainment is that specified in subsection (1) of section ten of this Act, before the fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven;

  (b) if the date of ascertainment is a date specified in an order under subsection (3) of the said section ten. before such date as may be specified by the order for the purposes of this provision.

  3.—(1) Where the application or non-application of the Rent Acts to a dwelling-house may be affected by an alteration in the valuation list made in pursuance of a proposal to which the foregoing paragraph applies, then'—

  (a) if the proposal is pending at the commencement of this Act, nothing in subsection

  (1) of section ten thereof, and

  (b) if it is pending at the date specified in an order under subsection (3) of that section as the date from which the Rent Acts are to cease to apply, nothing in the order,

  shall exclude the application of the Rent Acts to the dwelling-house at any time before the proposal is settled.
  (2) The foregoing sub-paragraph shall not have effect as respects the said subsection (1) in a case where the proposal is one for an alteration in the valuation list reducing the rateable value of the dwelling-house and that rateable value on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, was such that, if it had remained unaltered, the Rent Acts would apart from this and the last foregoing paragraph have ceased to apply to the dwelling-house by virtue of the said subsection (1); and in any such case the said subsection (1) (if it has effect in relation to the dwelling-house) shall have effect in relation thereto as from the commencement of this Act notwithstanding that at that date the proposal has not been settled.
  4. The following provision shall have effect for the purposes of section eleven of this Act, that is to say, where after the date of ascertainment the valuation list is altered so as to vary the rateable value of a hereditament, and
  1284
  the alteration has effect from a date not later that the date of ascertainment, the rateable value on the date of ascertainment of any dwelling consisting of or comprised in that hereditament shall be ascertained as if the amount of the rateable, or as the case may be net annual, value of that hereditament shown in the valuation list on the date of ascertainment had been the amount of that value shown in the list as altered.
  5. This Part of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications—
  (a) for paragraph 1 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
  "1. In relation to any premises in Scotland, any reference in this Act to the rateable value on a particular date (hereinafter referred to as 'the date of ascertainment') shall, subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, be construed as a reference to the rateable value thereof as shown in the valuation roll on that date, or where the premises form part only of lands and heritages shown in that roll, to such proportion of the rateable value of those lands and heritages as may be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the sheriff.";
  (b) for references to the valuation list and to a hereditament there shall be substituted references to the valuation roll and to lands and heritages and any reference to net annual value shall be omitted;
  (c) for any reference to a proposal to which paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies there shall be substituted a reference to an appeal or complaint duly made in accordance with the provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, and the Acts amending that Act, against an entry in the valuation roll, and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall be omitted;
  (d) in paragraph 3, for heads (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1) there shall be substituted the words "nothing in subsection (1) of section ten of this Act or in an order under subsection (3) of that section ", and in sub-paragraph (2) for the words "the thirty-first day of March "there shall be substituted the words" the fifteenth day of May";
  (e) for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule an appeal or complaint shall be taken to be settled when an alteration is made in the valuation roll to give effect to it, or when the appeal or complaint (including any further appeal to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court) is finally determined, or when the appeal or complaint is withdrawn, whichever first occurs.

PART II.
It may be convenient to discuss with this, the Amendments in page 26, lines 34 and 38, and in page 27, line 7.
These Amendments are linked with previous Amendments which passed under the Guillotine and which I have not had an opportunity to explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, and as all those were

1285
minor paving Amendments, I am taking the opportunity to explain the main Amendments here. This group of Amendments deals with proposals to amend the valuation lists which were made before 15th March, 1957, the date on which the Amendments were tabled.
Under the Bill as drafted, the gross value for calculating the rent limit is the gross value in the list on 7th November last. There is provision for adjusting that gross value to take account of proposals to alter the list that were made before 7th November, but there is no corresponding provision for rateable value on that date. It is rateable value which determines whether a house is decontrolled or not, so it is reasonable to allow proposals which have the same effect on rateable value for the purpose of decontrol as they have on the 1956 gross value. That is one of the results which the Amendment achieves.
It deals with a further matter. The date before which proposals must be made has been brought forward to 15th March. The reason is that it is desirable to bring in as many bona fide proposals as possible. If a dwelling is above the decontrol limit at the commencement of the Act, and if a proposal, made before 15th March to reduce the rateable value, is still pending, the dwelling will remain in control until the proposal is settled. If the dwelling is finally shown to be decontrolled, the 15 months' standstill will begin to run from that day.
There is one case where a pending proposal is not allowed to hold up decontrol. It is the case in which the old rateable value, that is the pre-1956 rateable value, was above the decontrol limit. This Amendment is to prevent decontrol being held up where, for instance, an Amendment to the valuation lists in respect of a house with a rateable value of say £75 is now pending. Reduction of rateable value in that case could not conceivably bring it below the decontrol limit. Where there is a pending proposal to increase the value for rating purposes of a dwelling that is now under the decontrol limit, the dwelling will remain controlled until the proposal results in the rateable value being raised above that limit.
This matter was touched on in Committee and there was a consensus there that action of this kind should be taken. Paragraph 5 of the Amendment provides
1286
for the application of this part of the Schedule to Scotland. It contains provisions equivalent to those contained in Part I for England and Wales, but it does not contain the provision for aggregation as in paragraph 1 (c) of the English provisions because the case dealt with in that provision does not arise in Scotland. I hope that with that brief explanation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—I will have satisfied English, Scottish and Welsh Members that the Amendment is reasonable.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." Those that are of that opinion say "Aye".
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To the contrary, "No".
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The "Ayes" have it.
Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I had risen, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before you finally collected the voices.
Mr. Weitzman: Further to that point of order. I was on my feet before you put the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not see the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Weitzman: I am sorry, but I rose immediately the Minister sat down.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course, I have a name, which the hon. and learned Member might have shouted. Mr. Weitzman.
Mr. Weitzman: As the Minister has stated, the Amendment is linked with a number of Amendments which could not be discussed because of the Guillotine. I see that paragraph 1 (a) of the Amendment deals with premises that are a hereditament, whilst paragraph (1) (b) deals with premises that form part of a hereditament. I want to ask the Minister if he can assist me and say whether the Amendment deals with a very difficult situation which I think arises under the Bill. May I put an instance to him?
Suppose that a person is a tenant of premises in London the rateable value

1287
of which is over £40, and suppose that these premises are let to a number of sub-tenants, the tenant retaining one or two rooms only. Clearly, the subtenants can have their rateable values apportioned, and if their premises are rated at less than £40 they will foe controlled tenants, but, as I read the Bill, the tenant whose rateable value is over £40 is a decontrolled tenant. If the Minister would be good enough to look at Clause 10 and to link that up with Clause 19, which is the definition Clause. he will see that that situation arises.
Clause 10 says quite clearly that the Rent Acts do not apply to a dwelling-house where, in London, the rateable value is £40. Clause 19, the definition Clause, defines a dwelling thus—
" dwelling ", in relation to a controlled tenancy, means the aggregate of the premises comprised in the tenancy:
It is true that subsection (3) of Clause 19 deals with the rateable value of part of premises, but that does not affect the definition of a dwelling as contained in that Clause, and, as I read it, the extraordinary position is created that a tenant of premises in a tenancy of a house with a rateable value of over £40, where he may have been in occupation for many years and may now be in occupation of perhaps one or two rooms only, is a decontrolled tenant, and the rest of the premises, let to a number of sub-tenants, are controlled premises.
There are thousands of these cases throughout the country, and this means that a very difficult situation will be created and a great deal of injustice done to the tenants of premises who, although technically tenants of premises where the rateable value is £40, are only in physical possession of a very small part of the premises. I ask the Minister whether he recognises that difficulty, whether this Amendment deals with it in any way, and, if it does not deal with it, whether he will look into it again so that grievances of this kind may be remedied as soon as possible, and litigation made unnecessary to clear up the point if there is any doubt about it.
Mr. H. Brooke: I will certainly examine and re-examine what the hon. Gentleman has said, but, if I understand him aright, the point he has raised has been covered by an Amendment to page
1288
24, line 21, to which a rather thinner House agreed about an hour ago.
Mr. Harold Gurden: I will be very brief, but I wish to touch on the same point. Apparently, according to columns 1318 and 1330 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates of Standing Committee A, the Members of the Committee were not quite clear what the position would be under the Schedule. I am concerned, and I think most of us should be concerned, with the position regarding flats over shops. I still do not understand, even after listening to my right hon. Friend, whether or not a flat which is rented with a shop as one whole tenancy would be decontrolled or not under this Schedule.
10.15 p.m.
There are thousands of cases where flats may have a rateable value of £20 or £25, with the shop having a rateable value of £30 or £35, which brings the whole property out of control, if it is considered as a whole, whereas the flat itself is the only part which is a dwelling. If it is the intention of the Minister to take out of control only dwellings which are over the £30 or the £40 limits, I cannot see why dwelling accommodation consisting of a flat over a shop should not continue to be controlled if it is below the £30 limit.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify that point. If, even with the Amendments which have been made, the provisions of this Bill will result in taking out of control dwelling accommodation below a rateable value of £30, some of us have been deceived—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have all been deceived."]—and I ask that my right hon. Friend clarify that point.
Mr. H. Brooke: A dwelling-house with a rateable value below £30 will certainly remain controlled. [HON. MEMBERS: "For how long?"] I think that my hon. Friend has at the back of his mind certain difficult questions about mixed tenancies, and I shall be glad to have a talk with him about it—[HON. MEMBERS:"Talk to the House."]—but I would say, with respect, that the Amendment which I am commending to the House deals with an entirely different matter.
Mr. Weitzman: Will the Minister please note that the Amendment to which

1289
he refers as being an answer to the point I raised does not answer my point in any way? I shall be grateful, therefore, if he will look at the matter again.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 34, leave out from "the" to "or" in line 35 and insert:
"fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven".
In line 38, leave out "said date" and insert:
"seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 27, line 1, to leave out paragraph 3.
This is a paving Amendment for a much longer Amendment in line 36 at the end to insert Part III and Part IV. The new Part III deals with the position of the tenant who has carried out, or has contributed, to the cost of improvements which he claims have had the effect of increasing the 1956 gross value and rateable value of his house. I hope that I shall have the attention and sympathy of hon. Members opposite in explaining this Amendment, because it deals with a point raised originally by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in the earlier stages of the Bill. In fact, it was my predecessor who gave an undertaking that he would look into this matter, and I have carried out that promise.
The provision of this new Part III will carry out the assurance given by my predecessor both as regards the 1956 gross value, which determines the rent limit for the letting of the house remaining in control, and as regards rateable value which decides whether the house should go out of control or not. It is only improvements of a substantial nature which will affect the valuation for rating purposes and the provisions are accordingly limited to improvements which involve structural alterations, extensions or additions.
The Amendment explains how the tenant must make his claim, how the reduction of the gross value and the rateable value may be effected by agreement between the landlord and tenant, and how, if there is disagreement, the tenant must refer the matter to the county court, whose decision is final and conclusive.
As this is an Amendment designed —successfully designed, I believe—to
1290
meet a point raised in Standing Committee by the Opposition, and as I am anxious that the Opposition should have an opportunity to move an Amendment later on the Order Paper, I will, with the permission of the House, not prolong my explanation.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 7, leave out "said seventh day of November" and insert:
"fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven".
In page 27, leave out lines 26 and 27.
In line 36, at end insert:

PART III

  REDUCTION OF 1956 GROSS VALUE AND RATEABLE VALUE IN CASE OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS
  7.—(1) Where the tenant, or any previous tenant, under a controlled tenancy current at the commencement of this Act has made or contributed to the cost of an improvement on the premises comprised in the tenancy and the improvement is one to which this Part of this Schedule applies, then if the tenant, not later than six weeks after the commencement of this Act, serves on the landlord a notice in the prescribed form requiring him to agree to a reduction under this Part of this Schedule,—

  (a) the 1956 gross value of the premises, and

  (b) their rateable value as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act,

  shall be reduced by such amount, if any, as may be agreed or determined in accordance with the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
  (2) This Part of this Schedule applies to any improvement made before the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, by the execution of works amounting to structural alteration, extension or addition.
  8—(1) the amount of any such reduction may at any time be agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant.
  (2) Where, at the expiration of a period of six weeks from the service of a notice under paragraph 7 of this Schedule any of the following matters has not been agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant, that is to say,—

  (a) whether the improvement specified in the notice is an improvement to which this Part of this Schedule applies;

  (b) what works were involved in it;

  (c) whether the tenant or a previous tenant under the controlled tenancy has made it or contributed to its cost; and

  (d) (if it is agreed that the tenant or previous tenant has contributed to its cost) what proportion his contribution bears to the whole cost;

  1291
  the county court may on the application of the tenant determine that matter, and any such determination shall be final and conclusive.
  (3) An application under the last foregoing sub-paragraph must be made within three weeks from the expiration of the period mentioned therein or such longer time as the court may allow.
  9.—(1) Where, after the service of a notice under paragraph 7 of this Schedule, it is agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant or determined by the county court—

  (a) that the improvement specified in the notice is one to which this Part of this Schedule applies, and what works were involved in it; and

  (b) that the tenant or a previous tenant under the controlled tenancy has made it or contributed to its cost, and. in the latter case, what proportion his contribution bears to the whole cost,

  then if, at the expiration of a period of two weeks from the agreement or determination it has not been agreed in writing between the landlord and the tenant whether any or what reduction is to be made under this Part of this Schedule, and the tenant, within two weeks from the expiration of that period, makes an application to the valuation officer for a certificate under the next following sub-paragraph, that question shall be determined in accordance with the certificate, unless the landlord and the tenant otherwise agree in writing.
  (2) On any such application the valuation officer shall certify—

  (a) whether or not the improvement has affected the 1956 gross value and the rateable value on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six (as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act), of the hereditament of which the premises consist or, as the case may be, in which they are wholly or partly comprised, and

  (b) if it has, the amount by which the said gross value and rateable value respectively would have been less if the improvement had not been made.

  (3) An application for such a certificate shall be in the prescribed form and shall state the name and address of the landlord, and the valuation officer shall send a copy of the certificate to the landlord.
  (4) Where the amount of the reduction under this Part of this Schedule falls to be determined in accordance with such a certificate, it shall be equal to the amount specified in pursuance of head (b) of sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, but proportionately reduced in any case where a proportion only of the cost was contributed by the tenant or a previous tenant under the controlled tenancy.
  (5) Where at the time of an application for a certificate under this paragraph a proposal for an alteration in the valuation list relating to the hereditament is pending and the alteration would have effect from a date earlier than the
  1292
  eighth day of November nineteen hundred and fifty-six, the valuation officer shall not issue the certificate until the proposal is settled.
  10. Where the rateable value of a dwelling-house on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, as ascertained for the purposes of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act, is reduced under this Part of this Schedule and, as reduced, is not such that the application of the Rent Acts to the dwelling-house is excluded by the said subsection (1), nothing in that subsection shall be taken to have excluded the application of those Acts to the dwelling-house between the commencement of this Act and the time at which the reduction is agreed or determined.
  11. An order under subsection (3) of the said section ten may make provision as to the reduction of the rateable value of dwelling-houses for the purposes of the order corresponding (with such modifications as may be provided in the order) to so much of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule as relates to rateable value.

PART IV

  GENERAL PROVISIONS
  12. Where, after a notice of increase has been served in respect of any dwelling, its 1956 gross value is reduced under paragraph 1 or under Part III of this Schedule, the notice shall not be invalidated but shall take effect so far as it can without causing the rent to exceed the rent limit.
  13. For the purposes of this Schedule, a proposal shall be taken to be settled when an alteration is made in the valuation list so as to give effect to it, or to an agreement made in consequence of it, or when the proceedings on an appeal against, or a reference to arbitration relating to, an objection to the proposal (including any proceedings in consequence of such an appeal or reference to arbitration) are finally determined, or when the proposal is withdrawn. Whichever first occurs.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Sixth Schedule.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS.)
Amendments made: In page 29, line 25, after "in," insert "subsection (1) of."
In line 26 leave out from "1954" to end of line 29, and insert:
"subject however to the provisions of subsection (2) of section one of this Act."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 30, line 47, after "to," to insert:
"the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, and."
The object of the Amendment is to remove doubts as to whether local authorities in England and Wales have powers to prosecute for premium offences.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Janner: I beg to move, in page 31, line 17, to leave out from the beginning to the first "for" in line 18 and to insert:
" the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."
Almost at the twelfth hour we have come to an Amendment which, in the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, is of extreme importance, as it discloses the fallacy of the policy which the Government are adopting in the Bill. The sore which is being exposed by the Amendment is something which will stir the country into very violent reaction to the Measure proposed by the Government.
The purpose of the Rent Acts was to avoid hardship to those who could least bear it. That has been recognised since 1915. The purpose of the Acts was to prevent bad and rapacious landlords—I do not say "all landlords"—from extracting from tenants sums of money for rents which they could not possibly resist as no other accommodation was available for them. During the last forty years the Rent Acts have been intended to protect people from being ejected from their premises if no other accommodation was available to them.
The Amendment is designed to restore a position which the House almost unanimously accepted in 1939, which was that if a person, knowing that the Rent Acts prevailed, purchased a house in the hope that at some future time he might be able to obtain it on the ground of hardship to himself, he was unable to apply to the courts for possession on such a ground.
This is no longer the red herring that it was intended to protect widows, spinsters and all the rest. This is the hard fact of the man who purchased—not a person to whom premises have been bequeathed, but a man who purchased—a controlled house at a cheaper price because it was controlled. He has no right whatsoever to complain about being led up the garden path because he could not get possession on the ground of hardship.
It is a piece of effrontery on the part of the Government now to give to the person who bought a house for speculative purposes an advantage which not only should he not get but which he never expected to get. He bought this commodity with all its defects, knowing full
1294
well that he would have to let at a proper rental, that he could not turn the tenant out, and that even if the tenant left the house would still remain under control. Consequently, he paid a price which took account of all those considerations.
Of all the terms contained in the present Bill, nothing is more damaging, nothing is more sinister, than this attempt to remove a protection which has existed hitherto, and to give a landlord a very considerable advantage which, in the aggregate, will amount to very many millions of pounds. In every case, the landlord will be able to get at least from £200 to £300 more for his property, as a consequence of this Bill, than he would have been able to get before. He will be able to turn out the tenant on the ground of greater hardship to himself, and within a few months, or a year, the house having been decontrolled as a result, he will be able to sell on the open market a decontrolled house. It is a monstrous imposition.
Mr. MitchisonI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. H. Brooke: This Amendment is tantamount to one which was defeated in Standing Committee. We have repeated what has been done in, I think, seven previous Acts—brought more up to date the time before which a landlord would have had to buy his house if he were, under certain conditions, to be able to claim possession from the court. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) modestly did not mention this fact but, of course, his Amendment is one for perpetuating hardship. It is essential to realise that because, if the owner's hardship is not at least as great as that of the tenant, and if he fails to satisfy the court that it is reasonable to make the order, there will be no chance of the court granting possession.
What the hon. Member is seeking to do is to withhold from the court the possibility of determining where the greater hardship lies. I find it quite impossible to understand how a man with human feelings, such as the hon. Member——
It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes, 224.

Division No. 91.]

AYES

[10.30 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Aitken, W. T.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

McAdden, S. J.

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

Gibson-Watt, D.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Alport, C. J. M.

Glover, D.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Godber, J. B.

McKlbbin, A. J.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Mackle, J. H. (Galloway)

Anctruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Good hart, P. C.

McLaughtln, Mrs. P.

Arbuthnot, John

Gough, C. F. H.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Armstrong, C. W.

Gower, H. R.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Ashton, H.

Graham, Sir Fergus

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

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Green, A.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Atkins, M. E.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Baldwin, A. E.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Maddan, Martin

Balniel, Lord

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

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

Barber, Anthony

Gurden, Harold

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Barter, John

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.w>

Marshall, Douglas

Beamish, Ma). Tufton

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Mathew, R.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Mathew, R.

Bevint, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harrison, Col. J, H. (Eye)

Maude, Angus

Bidgood, J. C.

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

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Mawby, R. L.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

Bishop, F. P.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Body, R. F.

Hay, John

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Moore, Sir Thomas

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

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

Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles

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

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Nairn, D. L. S.

Braine, B. R.

Hesketh, R. F.

Neave, Airey

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

Hicks-Beach, MaJ. W. W.

Nicholls, Harmar

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

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

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hlnchingbrooke, Viscount

Nugent, G. R. H.

Bryan, P.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Oakshott, H. D.

Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

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

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

Burden, F. F. A.

Holland-Martin, C, J.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Holt, A. F.

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

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

Hope, Lord John

Osborne, C.

Carr, Robert

Hornby, R. P.

Page, R. G.

Cary, Sir Robert

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Partridge, E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Peyton, J W. W.

Conant, Ma). Sir Roger

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooke, Robert

Howard, John (Test)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooper, A. E.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hughes-Young, M, H. C.

Pitman, I. J.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pott, H. P.

CorfleM, Capt. F. V.

Hurd, A. R.

Powell, J. Enoch

Craddook, Beresf ord (Spelthorne)

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

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Crouch, R. F.

Iremonger, T. L.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Profumo, J. D.

Cunningham, Knox

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Currie, G. B, H.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Rawlinson, Peter

Dance, J. C. G.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Davidson, Viscountess

Joseph, Sir Keith

Remnant, Hon. P.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Renton, D. L. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Kaberry, D.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Keegan, D.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Robertson, Sir David

Doughty, C. J. A.

Kerr, H. W.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Kershaw, J, A.

Roper, Sir Harold

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

Kirk, P. M.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Lagden, G. W.

Russell, R. S.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Elliott, R. W.

Leavey, J. A.

Shepherd, William

Erroll, F. J.

Leburn, W. G.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Farey-Jones, F. W.

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

Soames, Christopher

Fell, A.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Finlay, Graeme

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Speir, R. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Linstead, Sir H. N.

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

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fort, R.

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

Stevens, Geoffrey

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Longden, Gilbert

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Freeth, Denzil

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Storey, S.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Webbe, Sir H.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Studholme, Sir Henry

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Taylor, sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Temple, John M.

Wade, D. W.

Wood, Hon. R.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Richard Thompson

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Turner, H. F. L.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

NOES

Alnsley, J. W.

Hannan, W.

Oram, A.E.

Albu, A. H.

Harrison. J. (Nottingham N.

Orbach, M.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hastings, S.

Oswald, T.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hayman, F H.

Owen, W J

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Healey Denis

Padlley, W. E.

Awbery, S. S.

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

Paget,R. T.

Bacon, Miss Alcee

Herbison, Miss M.

Paling, Rt. Hon. (Dearne vallely)

Baird, J.

Hewitson Capt. M.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Balfour, A.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Pannell. Charles(Leeds, W.)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Holman P.

Pargiter, G. A.

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

Houghton, Douglas

Parker, J.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Parkin, B. T.

Benson, G.

Hoy, J. H.

Paton, John

Blackburn, F.

Hughes Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pearson, A.

Blenkinsop, A.

Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayglesey)

Peart, T. F.

Blyton, W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

Pentland, N.

Boardman, H.

Hunter, A. E.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

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

Hyrnd, H (Acorington)

Popplewell, E.

Bowles, F. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Atteroliffe)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Boyd, T. C.

Irvine, A, J.(Edge Hill)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Probert, A. R.

Brockway, A. F.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Proctor, W. T.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Janner, B.

Pryde, D. J.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

Randall, H. E.

Burke, W. A.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Rankin, John

Burton, Miss F. E.

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

Redhead, E. C.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.>

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reeves, J.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Reid, William

Callaghan, L. J.

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

Rhodes, H.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jones, David. (The Hartlepools)

Roberts, Rt Hon. A.

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Coldrick, W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

King, Dr. H. M.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Lawson, G. M.

Ross, William

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Ledger, R. J.

Royle, C.

Cronin, J. D.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Short, E. W.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lewis, Arthur

Slater, Mrs. H (Stoke, N.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lindgren, G..S.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

MacDermot, Nlall

Smith Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Deer, G.

MoGhee, H. G.

Sorensen. R. W.

Delargy, H. J.

MoGovern, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Molnnes, J.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

Stewart. Michael (Fulham)

Steele, T.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. c.

MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Stonehouse, J.T.

Edelman, M.

MaoPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Stone, W.(Consett)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mahon, Simon

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George(Vauxhall)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Malnwaring, W. H.

Summerskill Rt Hon. E.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Bring)

Swinger, S. T,

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

Sylvester, G. O.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Taylor,Jonn (west Lothian)

Fienburgh, W.

Mason, Roy

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Finch, H. J.

Mayhew, C. P.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Mellish, R. J.

Thornton, E.

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Timmons, J.

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

Monslow, W.

Tomney, F.

Greenwood, Anthony

Moody, A. S.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Usborone, H. C.

Grey, C. F.

Moss, R.

Viant, S. P.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Moyle, A.

Warbey, W. N.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mulley, F, M.

Watkins, T. E.

Hale, Leslie

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Weitzman, D.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

Hamilton, w. W.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Oliver, G. H.

1298

1299

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

West, D. G.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Woof, R. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Zilliacus, K.

Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Willey, Frederick

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilkins.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to the remaining part of the Bill.
Amendments made:
In page 33, line 1, at end insert:
28. Where a repayment has been or will be made under section twelve of the Clean Air Act, 1956, in respect of an improvement the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two of the Act of 1920 to the amount expended on the improvement shall be construed as a reference to that amount diminished by the amount of the repayment.
In line 22, at end insert:
(3) Paragraph 9 of the First Schedule to the said Act of 1954 shall have effect as if at the end there were added the following subparagraph—
" (c) if or in so far as the cost thereof has been or will be repaid under section twelve of the Clean Air Act, 1956".—[Mr.
J. N. Browne.]

Seventh Schedule.—(GENERAL TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
Amendment made: In page 34, leave out lines 45 and 46.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Title
Amendment made: In line 7, after "houses", insert:
" to provide a minimum length for notice to terminate residential lettings".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

CANCER, WALES (TREATMENT AND RESEARCH)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
10.41 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: On 4th March, I asked the Minister of Health the number of vacant beds in tuberculosis sanatoria in Wales. He gave me a most heartening reply in column 11 of HANSARD for that date, as follows: —
Mr. Vosper: 658, of which 384 are empty as there are no suitable patients awaiting admission to them. The Welsh Regional Hospital Board is considering alternative uses for some of its tuberculosis hospitals.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 11.]
This is momentous news for a country that has been plagued with tuberculosis. Great tribute is due to those people in the medical profession who have brought about this happy result. They have almost worked miracles in the field of tuberculosis, and they deserve our highest tribute and our heartfelt gratitude.
It is clear from the Minister's reply on 4th March that it is now possible to use at least one large hospital in Wales for other purposes. I am conscious that there are many good and competing causes for the service of this hospital. There are the chronic bronchitis sufferers, people suffering from other chest diseases, and the chronic sick, both young and old. These are all good causes, but I wish tonight to deal with the ever-growing cancer casualties of our community.
The Minister of Health has given me some startling replies in recent days. On 18th March he told me, in column 3 of HANSARD, that in Wales the death rate from cancer of the lung increased from 207 per million of the population in 1950 to 329 per million of the population in 1955, an increase of 59 per cent., I believe that by 1956 the figure is probably over 60 per cent., and

1301
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give us the figure when he replies.
This disease of cancer is grasping from our circle more people every year. In Wales alone, 500 more people die every year from cancer now than was the case in 1950. It is not part of my case that the figures for Wales are proportionately worse than they are for England. My submission is that this is a major problem, and it is high time that we had an opportunity to discuss it here in the House.
In this matter, the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) for the part he has played. On 11th February, when the House turned its attention to Welsh affairs, the hon. Member took part in the debate and said:
" If Welsh Members will take the trouble to look at the increase in the figures for cancer in Wales they will be appalled, and yet at the moment there are no Welsh hospitals, in Cardiff or anywhere else, with adequate facilities, or with research departments, to deal with this dread disease. That is a problem which as Welshmen we have to tackle. This is a disease which is feared, and about which people are inclined to be secret, so nobody bothers to do anything about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 989.]
Those were disturbing words, and hon. Members on both sides have been addressing Questions to the Minister of Health on this subject ever since.
The hon. Member for Watford is playing a leading part at the present time, I know, with the voluntary organisations which are seeking to raise the necessary funds to ensure adequate research into the causes and cure of cancer. I admire the work of these people, and I should like to express my regard for what the hon. Member is doing. But I think it monstrous that in Great Britain in 1957 we should have to have flag days and charity appeals in order to conduct our research into the causes and cure of this dreadful disease.
I was ashamed when the Minister of Health told me, as reported in column 7 on 18th March, that
" The total expenditures from all sources by the Medical Research Council "—
in 1955–56 was £2,480,656 and that the expenditure on cancer research was £327,000. He added:
1302
" In addition to expenditure by the Medical Research Council further substantial sums are spent on medical research in general and on cancer research from private and also from public funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 7.]
But the figures from the Medical Research Council seem to me totally inadequate to meet this grave challenge to our people. This is the front line in civil defence in the protection of our British people, and we spend more on preparing for a mythical war of the future than on meeting this cruel enemy that is here today.
This is my main emphasis tonight—that parsimony prevents progress. I want to see a hospital in Wales specialising in the treatment of cancer sufferers. When publicity was given to this proposal in the Western Mail recently, some of our most eminent consultants in the Principality wrote to the Press disagreeing with the proposal. The Western Mail has served as a useful public forum, and I am very grateful to the editor for the way in which this subject has been treated. I give the utmost consideration to the contributions of these eminent men, but I have had the opportunity during the past few days, along with some hon. Members opposite, of discussing this question with some of Britain's leading cancer authorities.
In the columns of the Western Mail one distinguished consultant said:
" Cancer is best treated in general hospitals by those surgeons and others whose work is in the special region of the body in which the disease occurs."
He added:
" It should be clearly understood that with the complexity of modern surgery there can be no such thing as a cancer specialist."
This is a substantial argument from people of standing. It is a point of view. But I submit to the House that it is not the only point of view which eminent people in this worthy profession are holding at the present time. There are today eminent cancer specialists associated with our cancer hospitals. There are already hospitals devoted almost entirely to the care of cancer patients.
Mr. L. M. Lever: Christie Cancer Hospital, Manchester.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not proposed to name any of the hospitals, for obvious reasons, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for

1303
his intervention. There is a hospital in Glasgow with 100 beds devoted to cancer patients. There is a hospital in Manchester with 260 beds devoted to cancer patients, and there are two London hospitals devoted to cancer patients. Is it psychologically right in Glasgow, Manchester and London, but wrong in the Principality of Wales?
I know that people dread the name of cancer. They dislike going to a cancer hospital. They disliked going to the tuberculosis sanatoria, but we are wiping out tuberculosis—I am not suggesting that the problem is settled by any means, although victory is in sight. If for psychological reasons the name "cancer" is to be left out, so be it, but let us have the facilities. I do not care whether the hospital is in Cardiff, Swansea, North Wales or Mid-Wales, but the Principality needs it.
I will illustrate what is happening in Cardiff. We have one wing of a hospital devoted to X-ray therapy. Eminent consultants with whom I have spoken have asked why there cannot be under one roof a chemo-therapy wing, an endo-chemo-therapy wing, an X-ray therapy wing and a research unit. That would mean that equipment would be centralised and the learned gentlemen who are concentrating on this complaint would meet in the common room to share and pool their ideas.
There is a hoodoo about cancer. It has been surrounded with such mystery that people take their lives for the very fear of it. That is where the present system has brought us. Even the medical profession itself must face the fact that there is an ever-mounting death rate from cancer in this country. In the past five years in England and Wales the increase has been no less than 6,000 deaths per year extra compared with five years ago.
I am told by doctors in South Wales that there is practically no research into this disease in Wales. There is treatment, but no research. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight what plans there are for the establishment of a research unit into this terrible disease in the Principality. I want to see a greater urgency.
My last point is this: it seems that nobody really knows the scope of the prob-
1304
lem and how many cancer patients there are in the Principality. Is there a register? I want to know, and people in Wales want to know. Does the Minister realise how many beds are wanted?
My four points, summarised, are: firstly, we ought to be ashamed of the niggardly amount spent in our name on cancer research; secondly, we need to over-ride vested interests where necessary and increase the provision of hospital beds for cancer patients, as in Glasgow, Manchester and London; thirdly, we must have more money so that a cancer research unit can be established; fourthly, there must be a register of those who suffer from this complaint. The only register we have today is the list of deaths published by the Registrar-General.
I have tried to be careful in what I have said to the House, because I realised that this is a delicate subject, but it is one upon which public people have a responsibility to speak.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Farey-Jones: I am very happy indeed to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), and I am very grateful to him for his kind remarks. I shall try to compress into three minutes what I would like to say on a subject on which I could address the House for a very long time. I regard the hon. Member's contribution as the first shots at the beginning of a campaign which hon. Members from both sides of the House will continue to fire until the Government form a national cancer policy, because without a national cancer policy, without a complete revolution in our ways of approaching this problem, we have no hope of dealing with it other than in a hopelessly piecemeal way.
It is incredible that in a National Health Service today costing the country £690 million we are this year spending about £300,000—the cost of one school-on cancer. In London, the Chester Beatty Cancer Research Institute is carrying on, as a result of a medical charity of £60,000, in 1957, which is 20 per cent, of our national subsidy for this scourge.
In fairness to the Minister, all I need do is to thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for being the first to raise this matter and then give some absolutely official figures which will bring hon. Members up short when they

1305
realise what is happening in regard to cancer. These official figures were produced especially for me by the medical fraternity.
In 1927, deaths in this country from all causes were 484,609; the deaths from cancer in that year were 54,078. In 1937, deaths from all causes were 509,574; deaths from cancer had gone up to 66,991. In 1955, deaths from all causes were 518,000; deaths from cancer had gone up to 91,000. Think this out. In 1927, male deaths from cancer were 10·2 per cent., or one in nine. In 1937, they were 12·4 per cent., or one in eight. In 1955 they were 18 per cent., or one in every five. What do these figures imply?
I must give the Minister time to reply, but I have one interesting set of figures from which I will quote three special items. In 1957, for every eleven women dying before they are out of their 50's four are dying of cancer. For every four men dying before they are out of their 50's one dies of cancer. In the year just ended, and certainly in 1957—and worse in 1958—nearly 100,000 people die of cancer in England and Wales each year. This is an important point: of this number, nearly 30,000 are still in what should be the productive years of their life, that is, between 15 and 59.
I need not say more. There is one personal request I would make to the Minister. In 1958, we shall have here in London the International Cancer Congress, the first time it has been held in Great Britain for 25 or more years, I think. I hope that the Minister's Department will underwrite that congress and that the Government will give every facility to the specialists who will come here from all over the world. I hope that as a result of this beginning of our effort the Minister will indicate—as I am sure he is ready and probably only too happy to do—that this dreadful scourge, which is being driven underground from fear and secrecy, will be brought out into the open, and that he will tell us his policy.
11.0 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): This debate has wandered rather far from the original title which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) chose. I should
1306
like to begin by expressing gratitude to him for the courtesy he has shown to me in giving me more than adequate notice of the points he intended to raise. I did not really need such adequate notice. I had seen the cuttings from the Western Mail and his Questions as well. I was fairly well acquainted with the way in which the campaign—if I may call it that—was developing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones), in his moving remarks, went into a rather wider sphere. Perhaps he will forgive me if I bring the debate back to the more local question affecting Wales, though I must say that I very much appreciate what he said.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West quoted certain figures for England and for Wales which show that there has been no marked difference in the growth of the cancer figures in the two countries. There have been certain fluctuations, but they are not unusual or unexpected in this disease. The increasing rates reflect, as I think hon. Members now know, partly better diagnosis, the increasing age of the population and the diminishing death rates from other diseases which have been overcome by modern treatment. They do not necessarily point to inadequate facilities.
It would not be right for me tonight to embark on a full academic discussion from the medical aspect on whether we should or should not have a separate series of cancer hospitals, but I must remind the House that the organisation of the cancer services in the National Health Service was outlined in a Memorandum sent out in 1949 by the Ministry of Health and based on the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee on Cancer and Radiotherapy. The policy laid down then embodied the one main principle that cancer should not be treated as a specialty in itself. A complete cancer service should be provided in each region based on general hospitals.
I am fully aware of the work done by the hospitals which the hon. Member mentioned, and by the hospital in London, all of which have changed their names, for very sensible reasons; but that does not alter the fact that the present, more modern policy is to base a cancer service in each region on general hospitals. We must remember that, however important it is to diagnose and treat cancer, it is equally important to diagnose

1307
and treat many other conditions. It is really only in a general hospital that both these objectives can be attained. In a general hospital a patient can receive the more general attention which is needed, and cancer would not then be treated in isolation but in a true relationship to other conditions and illnesses.
Frankly, the claim made in favour of cancer hospitals, that certain special ancillary services could be provided, such as laboratory facilities, medical photography and so on, does not stand examination, because all of these can be provided at a major general centre and they are equally applicable to other forms of medical and surgical work. If I may sum up the changed policy, it is that concentration of this particular disease in one hospital is bad for morale. We must bear that in mind.
I have rather a lot of ground to cover and I must leave that aspect and go on to what is being done to treat cancer in Wales. There are two main forms of treatment, surgery and radiotherapy. Diagnosis is the first step. I am advised that there is no delay in Wales in providing the facilities necessary for the diagnosis of cancer. Investigation of suspected cases receives urgent consideration and is dealt with promptly. I do not think the hon. Member mentioned this, but there are now thirteen cancer consultative clinics in Wales, situated at outlying hospitals and all visited by a radiotherapist from the main centre. That, surely, is the right way to approach this matter. Once the disease is diagnosed the policy is to provide admission to hospital urgently.
It cannot be said that general hospital facilities in Wales are entirely adequate, but, whoever suffers from that inadequacy, it is not the cancer patient. Most are under treatment within three weeks, many in a few days. Although there are no hospital beds reserved specifically for cancer patients, there are 17,000 beds, apart from mental beds, and the cancer patient would receive very high priority.
Although I have given arguments against specialised hospitals, this does not mean that there is not partial specialisation. For example, radio-therapy in North Wales is carried out through the Liverpool and Manchester Regional Hospital Board. That in South Wales
1308
is based on the Radio-therapy Centre at Whitchurch, near Cardiff, and Cardiff Royal Infirmary, with a sub-centre at Swansea.
The Whitchurch Centre was opened in June, 1956, and is still awaiting delivery of two cobalt units for treatment by radiation from radio-active material. The centre will then provide a service as good as any in the country. The centre is now fitted with two 300 K.V. deep X-ray sets. Over four thousand M.Gs. of radium is held and radio-active isotopes are being used soon.
There is no waiting list, and patients can be admitted immediately from clinics or other hospitals as the occasion arises.
It is true that there is no specific cancer research unit in Wales. Frankly, this is not a matter which can, or should, be approached on a narrow geographical or nationalistic basis. From the point of view of the patients, it is not relevant where research is carried out.
Research is being carried out, not only by the Medical Research Council, or directly sponsored by the British Empire Cancer Campaign, but by hospitals all over the country, not necessarily specialised under the sub-heading, as it were, of cancer research. There is quite a lot of active work in this field taking place in Wales. In the Welsh National School of Medicine research is being carried out by the Pathology Department into certain specified aspects of cancer. There is another special investigation being carried out under the auspices of the British Empire Cancer Campaign into the differences in cancer rates in North Wales. There is a further project now under consideration for a special investigation at Sully Hospital into cancer of the lung.
Lastly, but by no means least, cobalt units for Whitchurch are being specially designated by manufacturers in conjunction with radiologists there, and their construction alone is a piece of original research which will add to our knowledge of this form of treatment.
I have not been able to cover all the points, but I would like now to come to the question of the establishment of a register. It has not yet been found possible to effect a reasonably good scheme of cancer registration in South Wales, but a start has been made on such

1309
a scheme, and the appointment of an officer to undertake the work has been approved by the Welsh Board of Health. In North Wales, cancer registration is working satisfactorily, and I think we can say, although we shall have to watch the position, that the situation is better than it was.
In one of his quotations, from the Western Mail, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West referred to domiciliary visits by a consultant. His words were that he regarded as "haphazard a system which allows anyone to suffer and die from cancer without a domiciliary visit by a consultant". It is open to any general practitioner to call for such a visit to any of his patients who would benefit by it, but it is a fundamental principle of medical practice which we would not want to change to suggest that the consultant should in any way replace the family doctor in regular attendance on a patient—and I do not think the hon. Member wanted to suggest that.
1310
In dealing with the matter of the redundant tuberculosis beds, we have to remember that the majority of these hospitals are miles away from the centres of population, are isolated, and inaccessible to consultant staff. They are equipped to deal only with tuberculosis and are not provided with operating theatres or pathology laboratories, so are not really suitable for surgical treatment of cancer. But the Welsh Regional Board is now giving full consideration to how to use the redundant beds, probably by increasing the turnover of existing beds in general hospitals, thus speeding up treatment for those conditions not receiving the same priority as cancer.
I have tried to cover a few of the points which the hon. Member raised——
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Security Officials (Warrants)
  Security Officials (Warrants)
  Aintree Racecourse (Bookmakers)
  Aintree Racecourse (Bookmakers)
  Subscribers (Charges)
  Subscribers (Charges)
TELEVISION
  Rosemarkie Station
  Rosemarkie Station
ATOMIC ENERGY
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Accidents
  Accidents
CIVIL AVIATION
  Elmdon Airport, Birmingham
  Elmdon Airport, Birmingham
  Airfield Approaches (Safety Precautions)
  Airfield Approaches (Safety Precautions)
  London Airport (News Theatre)
  London Airport (News Theatre)
  Accidents
  Accidents
  Aircrew (Flying Fatigue)
  Aircrew (Flying Fatigue)
ROADS
  Poole Bridge
  Poole Bridge
  A.1 Dual Carriageways (Ouse Bridge)
  A.1 Dual Carriageways (Ouse Bridge)
  Kerbstones
  Kerbstones
RAILWAYS
  London Underground (Passenger Safety)
  London Underground (Passenger Safety)
SHIPPING
  Gulf of Suez (Mining)
  Gulf of Suez (Mining)
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION
  SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION
  SPAIN (GIBRALTAR FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS)
  SPAIN (GIBRALTAR FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS)
TANGANYIKA
  African National Union
  African National Union
  Mr. Julius Nyerere
  Mr. Julius Nyerere
CYPRUS
  Situation
  Situation
  Orange Trees, Famagusta (Compensation Payments)
  Orange Trees, Famagusta (Compensation Payments)
  Pamphlet
  Pamphlet
  Archbishop Makarios (Censorship of Publications)
  Archbishop Makarios (Censorship of Publications)
  Member's Telegram (Archbishop Makarios)
  Member's Telegram (Archbishop Makarios)
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
AFRICAN TERRITORIES
  Education
  Education
  Congo Basin Treaties
  Congo Basin Treaties
NIGERIA
  Eastern Region Finance Corporation
  Eastern Region Finance Corporation
ROYAL NAVY
  Razor Blades
  Razor Blades
  Aircraft Accidents
  Aircraft Accidents
  Frigate?Loch Insh?
  Frigate?Loch Insh?
EMPLOYMENT
  Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference
  Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference
SCOTLAND
  Messrs. MacBrayne (Freight Charges)
  Messrs. MacBrayne (Freight Charges)
  Clyde Bridge, Carstairs
  Clyde Bridge, Carstairs
  Cartland Bridge, Lanark
  Cartland Bridge, Lanark
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Rations Scales (Improvements)
  Rations Scales (Improvements)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Rum (Imports)
  Rum (Imports)
  POPULATION (STATISTICS)
  POPULATION (STATISTICS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Export Scheme (Motor Cars)
  Personal Export Scheme (Motor Cars)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Hawker Aircraft Factory, Blackpool
  Hawker Aircraft Factory, Blackpool
BRITISH ARMY
  Record and Pay Offices (Staff)
  Record and Pay Offices (Staff)

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

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE
Sir Robert John Sinclair, K.C.B., K.B.E., having been created Baron Sinclair of Cleeve, of Cleeve in the County of Somerset—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

LORD BRIDGES
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Ettingdean Bridges, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., M.C., having been created Baron Bridges, of Headley in the County of Surrey and of Saint Nicholas at Wade in the County of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE NATIONAL PENSION FUND
2.57 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 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 to give the estimated annual and cumulative deficits on the National Pension Fund, for the years 1965 and 1970.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, on the basis of the present rates of contribution and benefit, it is estimated that the deficit of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the year 1965–66 will be £233 million, and £309 million in respect of the year 1970–71. It is estimated that the sum total of the annual deficits will reach £1,215 million by 1965–66 and £2,610 million by 1970–71.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: While thanking the noble Viscount for his Answer, I should like to ask him this question—I hope I am not embarrassing him as a financial expert in relation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by so doing. Can he throw a little more light on these figures? Are they purely actuarial estimates of the deficits, or will they be definite amounts which represent excesses of expenditure over income and which would therefore have to be met out of the Budget, unless, in the meanwhile, some legislation is passed having a different effect?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the answer is that the deficits are the estimated excesses of current expenditure over income, and that, as I shall explain in a moment—and I fear that the explanation is a little complicated—current legislation makes provision under which they can be met out of voted monies as they occur. Owing to the increasing number of retirement pensioners, the expenditure of the National Insurance Fund, out of which these pensions are paid, is expected by the year 1958–59 to exceed the income of the Fund from contributions, Exchequer supplement contributions and interest on the invested balances in the Fund and the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund. With the object of meeting these deficits, provision was made in Section 2 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1954, for the payment by the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund of sums totalling not more than £325 million, to be paid in such manner and at such time as the Treasury may determine, over the period of five years beginning at April 1, 1955, and thereafter such sums as Parliament may determine.
The sum of £325 million provided in the Act as the maximum was related to the size of the annual deficits forecast at the time by the Government Actuary in his report on the financial provisions of the National Insurance Bill, 1954. The figures have since been revised, and it is now estimated that a deficit of about £40 million will first occur in 1958–59, and that the subsequent annual deficits will increase as indicated in my original Answer. Over the quinquennium to March 31, 1960, the total sum required is likely to be substantially less than the £325 million available. The reduction is

801
mainly due to the level of unemployment being currently less than that assumed for the purpose of forecasting in 1954, which was necessarily arbitrary.
The deficits will arise because the National Insurance contribution is based, apart from a relatively small addition made to the actuarial contribution in 1955, on the amount actuarially required to provide a person who contributes from the age of sixteen with the benefits as they were at the time at which he entered the scheme. In fact, however, most people have been admitted to the scheme at ages well above sixteen, and improvements in benefits and pensions have been given to all persons already within the scheme, including those already drawing pensions. The occurrence of the deficits is not unforeseen or unexpected; they result from deliberate acts of policy in granting the concessions described in the two factors which I have just enumerated.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the illuminating figures and facts that he has given us.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, does that mean that we are now reconciled to the idea of contributing each year a certain amount towards the deficit and have to accept as a fact the insolvency of the fund in all time coming?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should be rather slow to reconcile myself to anything of that order.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given private notice: Whether Her Majesty's Government have any statement to make on the shipbuilding and engineering disputes.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, with permission of the House I will ask leave to intervene in this afternoon's debate at about a quarter to four in order to make a statement on the strike situation.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
3.4 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND LORD BILSLAND rose to call attention to the effects of the working of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, upon industry and employment to make certain suggestions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said, My Lords, twelve years have passed since the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, inaugurated a positive policy to promote employment in certain defined areas, and I wish to suggest to your Lordships this afternoon that the time has come to review the results achieved by that policy; to establish how far it has been effective in its purpose, and to consider what further action is required. There is no doubt that the policy has had a beneficial result. It was inaugurated by the White Paper which was framed by the Coalition Government. The Act was passed by the Conservative Government which followed it and was put into force by a Labour Government. Broadly speaking, therefore, in a Party sense this is a non-controversial question, and I hope it may remain so.
My knowledge of the working of the distribution of industry policy was gained as Chairman, until a year ago, of Scottish Industrial Estates Limited, charged by the Board of Trade with the provision of factories under the Act; and also as Chairman of the Scottish Council, an independent representative body in Scotland which endeavours to promote Scottish welfare on a broad front. But this, of course, is not a Scottish matter alone; it is one which affects the country as a whole, and I wish to deal with it as such.
The Report of the Royal Commission on Distribution of Industrial Population, presented to Parliament in January, 1940, generally styled the Barlow Report, and to which I shall refer by that name, pointed the way to the policy enunciated by the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. I suggest that the Barlow Report is worthy of study to-day. Its findings were that heavy urban development, and particularly the increasing concentration of industry in London and the Home Counties, were producing an alarmingly unbalanced distribution of industry. The Report declared:
"A reasonable balance of industry and population throughout the country should be a main feature of national policy during the coming years."

803
Further, it stated:
"It is not in the national interest, economically, socially or strategically, that a Quarter or even a larger proportion of the population of Great Britain should be concentrated within 20 to 30 miles or so of Central London."
On the other hand it said:
"A policy (i) of balanced distribution of industry and the industrial population, so far as possible, throughout the different areas or regions in Great Britain; and (ii) of appropriate diversification of industries in those areas or regions, would tend to make the best national use of the resources of the country and, at the same time, would go far to secure for each region or area, through diversification of industry and variety of employment, some safeguard against severe and persistent depression, such as attacks an area dependent mainly on one industry when that industry is struck by bad times."
I suggest that that is a sound statement. It may be thought that this is no time to raise a matter of this kind, when we are enjoying a state of full employment, taking the country as a whole; but I suggest that that would be a superficial view. I shall endeavour to show that the maldistribution of the industrial population, to which the Barlow Commission drew attention with such force seventeen years ago, has been and is being still further intensified; that there remain persistent pockets of unemployment in various parts of the country, and that the figures of unemployment are not always a true reflection of the position, on account of migration of labour from various parts of the country, mainly from North to South, to an extent which I suggest is beyond what is healthy and natural. This is, of course, in addition to the large-scale emigration overseas which is taking place and which points to a feeling of a lack of opportunity at home.
I shall also suggest that account should be taken of two factors that have emerged since the Barlow Commission made their Report: namely, the development of new coalfields and the consequent creation of new communities where employment will be required for miners' dependants; and secondly, in some cases, the provision of employment for what is termed the "overspill" of population from large centres to new areas. If, as I feel, the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, with all its successes, has fallen short of the full achievement of its purpose, there is, I submit—and this is one of a number of points I wish to put to your Lordships—
804
a case for a review of the position to-day, on the lines of the Barlow Commission, to recommend, in the light of experience and of the facts of to-day, what action is necessary to correct the weaknesses, whether within or outside the development areas, and to provide, as may be necessary, for the new factors that have emerged, to which I have just referred. I would go further. Unemployment throughout the country is no real problem to-day. The most urgent problem is the attainment of full development, of the maximum use of our resources and the achievement of the fullest efficiency. In the past twelve years, I suggest, the tempo of change has been greater than at any time. We should be thinking out a policy to meet the new stresses and opportunities; for we dare not lag behind. The distribution of industry policy is a policy of limited aim. I submit that the national purpose and the policy to effect it should be reviewed to take account of and provide for the needs in the field of industrial development created by the conditions of to-day.
What I have in mind is that many of our factories are out of date; but with taxation and building costs at the current rate it is becoming more and more difficult to undertake rebuilding. If we lock abroad, we see that in the United States, for example, the practice is increasing whereby industrial corporations rely on financial institutions of one sort or another to finance building and rebuilding programmes, in order that they may conserve resources for the provision of plant. It is a fact that in Germany much of industry has been re-housed since the war. In Great Britain, industry must use its resources—seriously limited by taxation as they are—to the fullest extent in re-equipment of plant, as a first charge on resources, in order to compete successfully in the markets of the world. But, too often, amounts that are ploughed back are insufficient to meet requirements for plant in full. The most modern plant, I suggest, requires the most modern layout to operate effectively. This, I admit at once, is a larger question than distribution of industry as such, but I submit that it is relevant to the general concept. Therefore, I venture to suggest that if the review which I have urged is undertaken, as I hope it may be, its scope should be enlarged to embrace this question.
From such a review there should naturally follow a fresh declaration of policy in all these matters. In the latter stage of my association with distribution of industry affairs there was a lack of a clear policy regarding them. My feeling that there remains a lack of clear policy, other than a very negative one, finds support from two facts. The first is that it will be nine years this year since any Government issued a White Paper reporting on the results of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. The only White Paper issued on this subject—in 1948—sprang from the requirement of the 1945 Act that a review should be made after three years. The Government of the day were not bound to publish the detailed results of that review, and I think it is to their credit that they did so. The second fact is that fifteen months ago a unanimous Report by a Select Committee on Development Areas was presented in another place, although I am not aware that any decisions have been announced on that Committee's recommendations.
The Government attitude towards the development areas, and towards development of industry policy generally, appears to have undergone a substantial modification in the last year or so. For example, there was the announcement in another place in June of last year that Government assistance for the provision of factories in the development areas would be forthcoming for only a very few projects of special urgency and importance. The presentation of estimates for the development areas for the forthcoming financial year may clarify the matter. Meantime, this modification raises an important question, to which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply to this discussion, will make reference. The question is that a major Act of Parliament has been rendered practically inoperative by this announcement without any declaration of policy regarding its replacement.
My Lords, I wish to look at what has so far been achieved by distribution of industry policy before pointing out where I feel that it has failed. By the end of December, 1956, factories administered for the Board of Trade by the estate companies in the development areas throughout the country had provided just over 44¼ million square feet of factory space. That included a little over
806
5 million square feet which had been built before the Act came into force, and about 13 million square feet of space taken over from other Government Departments. The number of workers employed in these factories was of the order of 190,000. Unhappily, almost from the beginning of the operation of the Act the tempo of progress has been seriously affected by the economies imposed by our recurring financial difficulties. In 1947, for example, there was a temporary slowing down of factory building in the development areas. In 1948, the White Paper to which I have referred stated that building projects for the development areas not already approved must be held up for at least six months, and many were at that time definitely and finally turned down. Moreover, most regrettably, all advance standard factory building was stopped. In July, 1951, it was announced that further economies would have to be affected, and that even more rigorous tests would be applied to all applications for factories. In 1952, there were further restrictions, and in June, 1956, the announcement to which I have already referred was made in another place.
The development areas' share of industrial building in the country as a whole, on the average of the years 1945 to 1947, was over 50 per cent. For the two succeeding years the figure fell to 17 per cent. For the years from 1954 to 1956 they ranged from a low of 17·3 per cent. to a high of 18·9 per cent. Although the Distribution of Industry Act has achieved beneficial results, it is clear that the improved conditions in the development areas are due in large measure to the revival of the basic industries in these areas, and the fact remains that, despite the Act, maldistribution of the industrial population is still on the increase, pockets of persistent unemployment continue in being and the true employment position in certain areas is masked by the migration of population to other areas.
The Barlow Report is illuminating on the progressive tendency towards maldistribution of population. The Ministry of Labour prepared for the Commission a statement showing the changes that had occurred in seven specified areas compared with the rest of great Britain. The specified areas selected in 1801 (the Report goes back a long way) contained 45 per cent. of the occupied population;

807
in 1931 they contained 73 per cent., and in 1937 79 per cent. of the insured population, the proportion of this number in London and the Home Counties in 1937 being 26 per cent. of the total insured population of the United Kingdom. In 1937, therefore, 79 per cent. of the insured population lived and worked in 27 per cent. of the total area of the United Kingdom. It is not possible to make an exact comparison between these specially prepared figures and current statistics, but it is a fact that in 1955 the Greater London area, which extends from High Wycombe to Southend and from the North of Hertfordshire to the border of Sussex, contained 29 per cent. of the insured population of Great Britain, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, over 20 per cent. of industrial building approved for the whole country between 1945 and 1956 was located in that area.
I have referred to the persistence of pockets of unemployment, both within and outside the development areas. At the last count, the United Kingdom figure of unemployment was negligible, at 1·8 per cent.; for Greater London, it was 1·1 per cent.; for Wales, 3 per cent.; for Scotland, 3·1 per cent.; for North Lanark and Greenock, in the development area, 4·2 per cent. and 6·6 per cent.; for the North East of Scotland, outside the development area, and on the Moray Firth coast and in the Buckie area, 9·1 per cent. and 8·4 per cent.; and for four Scottish fishing ports, which are outside the development area, and in which activity in fishing is unlikely to be resumed, 20 per cent., 25·7 per cent., 11·9 per cent. and 24·1 per cent. respectively. In Wales there is a similar situation. The most recent figure of the percentage of unemployment in the Anglesey district is 10·5 per cent.; in Caernarvon, 8·2 per cent.; and in Port-madoc, 10·5 per cent. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time with quoting more figures, but there are many districts in England with an unemployment rate five or six times the national average.
With regard to what I have termed the migration of labour, the Barlow Report shows that from August, 1928, to the middle of 1937 nearly 150,000 men and 40,000 women were transferred from depressed areas under Ministry of
808
Labour arrangements to find work in other parts of the country. About one-third of them returned. But to quote the Report:
"in the 18 months ended mid-1937 some 61,500 unemployed men moved on their own initiative, either to take up employment they had found on their own account, or to look for employment."
The official figures of inter-regional migration of work people between 1937 and 1955, after the Act to redress the balance had been in operation for ten years, show that the London, South-Eastern, Eastern and Southern regions gained 87,000 workers by migration, and the Midland region, 15,000; while the East and West Ridings lost 21,000, the North-Western region 17,000, the Northern region, 12,000; Scotland, 31,000, and Wales, 16,000. These figures, which, if dependents are taken into account, constitute a considerable migration of population, show, I suggest, the continuance of a geographical pattern of development that has been persistently in progress for half a century but one which, I submit, is undesirable.
It is clear from the facts I have stated that one cannot accept the ingenuous view, which appears to be gaining currency, that the distribution of industry picture to-day is simply one of a comparatively featureless level plain of prosperity throughout the country, undisturbed except for an upsurge of unemployment here and there. The increasing centralisation of industry in the South and Midlands, of which the Barlow Commission took a serious view, is still to-day the central problem in the distribution of industry in Great Britain.
There are two further factors, to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, which have, or may have, an effect on the distribution of industry—namely, the development of new towns, mainly sited around London, and the defence cuts. I do not deny, of course, the need for the new towns, but if assisted expenditure is maintained on factory development there and cut to the minimum, as it is meantime, on development area factories, one cannot evade the fact that that constitutes a distortion of the distribution of industry policy as contained in the Act. As regards the defence cuts, I should like to ask whether consideration is being given to their effect on

809
the distribution of industry and employment. It has been reported, for example, that the vast aircraft factory at Blackpool has been closed and that production is being concentrated at Kingston-on-Thames. In Scotland we have bitter memories of the concentration of rearmament, other than shipbuilding, in the South before the war.
I referred earlier to two factors that may affect the balance of the industrial population: first the development of new coalfields and the need to consider employment for miners' dependants; and, secondly, the provision of employment for population moved to the new towns from what is termed the "overspill" of large centres of population. In Scotland, there are two main new coalfields—in Fife and Midlothian. As the Scottish Council have produced reports regarding the employment problems that arise, I shall not pursue that question to-day. As regards the overspill, I would remind your Lordships that in every large centre there are slums of industry, as well as of housing, and I suggest that the provisions of the Act, enlarged as may be necessary, should be used to facilitate the transfer of selected firms to new factories where such transfers can be carried out on an economic basis.
May I sum up the case I have endeavoured to make? I believe that the Distribution of Industry Act has had beneficial results, on the whole, notwithstanding national economic difficulties since 1945. I submit to your Lordships, however, that the time has come for an authoritative review, on the lines of the Barlow Commission, of the results achieved, and that this review should be followed by a fresh declaration of policy. I should hope that, as a result of such a review, effective machinery would be set up to keep the position of the country as a whole under constant review, to ensure action being taken regarding, and, so far as possible, in advance of, difficulties arising. The machinery I envisage would be charged with the task of keeping under review not only areas of abnormal unemployment but maldistribution of population, undue migration, assisted re-housing of industry, where a case can be made for it, and problems of employment arising in new coalfields and in new areas created by the overspill from large centres. The Barlow Commission made
810
representations in that sense; but I do not go so far as they did in pressing for a National Industrial Board.
It has frequently been said, and was said by the Select Committee, that the size and boundaries of the development areas are out of date. Whilst it is true that a change of boundaries may lead to constant agitation for further change, the economy is never static, and the maintenance of the original boundaries, apart from the additions that have been made to the areas, appears unrealistic. If the Act is to remain, and an active policy replaces the present state of suspended animation, the boundaries should be reviewed from time to time. In a review of the boundaries, however, I submit that the state of unemployment should not be the sole criterion. The percentage unemployed in relation to the national average may be entirely misleading. The position, I suggest, should be judged and the action governed by the state of need of the area, whatever the need may be; whether to arrest decline or to promote development in developing areas, where it can be shown that assistance in such areas is in the national interest.
The proposals I have submitted to extend the facilities of the Act may be criticised on the ground of spreading too thinly the benefits of the Act. I do not accept that criticism. They may be further criticised on the ground that they are beyond what our economy can afford. On that matter, I would point out that Board of Trade expenditure on the provision of factories for the period 1951 to 1956 was £21·8 million, while for the period 1951 to 1955, a year less, the Exchequer contribution for permanent housing was £196 million. It is of interest to record that there are very good prospects of the industrial estate companies being able to show, within a comparatively short time, a direct return on the factories at a rate greater than the cost of Government borrowing to finance them.
Finally, I make two submissions concerning administration. First, I suggest that the machinery for dealing with applications for factories is still too complicated and cumbersome. Some years ago I had a discussion with Ministers concerned with this subject on behalf of the Scottish Council, and I am not conscious of any material improvement

811
in procedure. The main reason for that discussion was the criticisms I had received on a visit to the United States of America in an endeavour, on behalf of the Scottish Council, to interest American businessmen in operating in Scotland. My second submission on administration is that the Board of Trade should give the maximum autonomy possible—much more than they had in my time—to the boards of industrial estate companies, formed, as they are, of experienced businessmen. For many years when I served on one of these boards I suffered a sense of severe frustration. The Distribution of Industry Act has performed a useful purpose, but not the full purpose it set out to achieve. For the reasons I have stated, I hope that inquiry may now be made into the working of the Act, and that, as a result of such action as may be shown to be necessary, it may still further promote the progress of our national economy. I beg to move for Papers.
3.35 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, it falls to me to offer to the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, the congratulations of his fellow Peers. He seemed to have a little doubt in the early passages of his speech whether now is the time to introduce this Motion. I do not think he need have any doubt whatever. The case he made in itself indicated that now is the time to consider whether the 1945 Act is doing what it should do for the whole of industry throughout this country. I would also compliment the noble Lord on what, to me, was a speech remarkable in its clarity and conciseness, and especially in its constructive strength. It may be that I shall not agree with some of the suggestions that he made, but there are a number which I shall support.
The 1945 Act was anticipatory legislation, and that is never easy legislation. It is much easier to legislate with a problem before you than to try to anticipate a problem that may or may not arise later on. The Coalition Government thought it wise to make some preparation in regard to the distribution of industry. Obviously they had in mind that in the 1930's there was a vast scourge of unemployment, and they confined their
812
attention to the areas affected by that unemployment—they are the areas included in the First Schedule. The history of the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament is now well known to all of us. It was moved in another place by Mr. Hugh Dalton; during its passage the European War ended, the combination of Parties broke up, and the Bill was carried through this House and another place, finally, by a Conservative Government. I refreshed my memory over the week-end by reading the debates that took place then in both Houses, and obviously there was not much enthusiasm for this Act; and there was less in your Lordships' House than in another place. There were doubts and misgivings in your Lordships' House as to whether the Bill, as it then was, was dealing with a problem that would or would not arise; and one can understand the difficulty.
It is true that in Wales this Act has done much good—not throughout Wales, but in a part of Wales. That happens to be the part that was most seriously affected by unemployment before the war. Those of us who knew that area before the war, like my noble friend Lord Hall, and occasionally visit it today, do see a difference. Then we saw idle mines and thousands who had been unemployed for years trudging along the streets. I met one man in the Rhondda Valley during those years who was married, with two children, and had never done a day's work; from fourteen years of age to twenty-four he had not done a day's work. To-day it is different, and when you go through these valleys you not only see the pulleys running round the collieries, but you see factories dotted here and, there as a result of this legislation.
I am not quite sure that South Wales would not have got along for the first ten years after the war without those factories. I am glad to see them, because they have introduced variety in South Wales, but I am not sure that the basic industries themselves would not have employed all the employables in South Wales without them. That is why I am not entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Bilsland as to whether now is the time to have a review. I would agree that ten years after the operation of an Act of Parliament seems to be a normal and reasonable time to have a

813
review, and had they been ten normal years I should not have minded. But they have not been ten normal years. The first ten years after a world war of six years' duration could not be a normal period. That is why I am not sure whether we can judge the operations of this Act, in view of the fact that that was an abnormal period. It may be that Members of your Lordships' House will not agree, but I am not sure whether the election of a Labour Government in 1945 did not affect this problem. I would submit that the nationalisation of the mines was a big factor in stabilising employment in the industrial areas. That came about as a result of a Labour Government. That was not anticipated when this Bill was before Parliament.
I do not want to quibble at all on the value of this legislation; it has been very valuable indeed. As I have indicated, South Wales has benefited, and whether or not it could have maintained its employment for all the employables without the benefits of this legislation does not make any difference to the value of the legislation to Wales. But I want to emphasise that it is largely, if not entirely, confined to South Wales. I travel almost weekly from north to south by car or train. Whichever way I travel, I notice the difference in South Wales as a result of this Act. In Mid-Wales, and particularly in North Wales, I notice the difference in the conditions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, for the figures of unemployment he gave us—in Anglesey 10 per cent., in Caernarvonshire very little less, and in Merionethshire a similar figure. I know that when one gets down to numbers it makes a difference. Ten per cent., of a small number when compared with 10 per cent. of a large number does not appear so bad. I know that the percentages, when expressed in numbers, are hundreds in some cases and may be dozens in others, because the number of people in the area is small compared with the number in South Wales. What your Lordships must remember, however, is that it means the same thing to the unemployed person, whether he is one of a big number or one of a small number. Something needs to be done to deal with this problem in North Wales, and this Act does not deal with it.
814
One could make many suggestions, but I would suggest, in the first place—and here I am in agreement with the noble Lord. Lord Bilsland—that it may be a good thing if the First Schedule of the Act could be looked at again. It was laid down solely on the number of unemployed in the various areas in the 'thirties; that determined what should go in the First Schedule. There was no other consideration. If it were based on the percentage of unemployment, some of these places in North Wales would qualify to be included in the First Schedule. I can well understand any hesitation on the part of the Government to disturb that Schedule. If they are unready I will not press it, but I would ask: what is the alternative? What can be done for those pockets of unemployment in North Wales without including those areas in this Schedule? The late Minister for Welsh Affairs, now Lord Tenby, was confronted with this problem last year. In fact, I think all the Ministers for Welsh Affairs, and those who have assisted them, have been confronted with this problem. There is this to be said: they did go out of their way to get acquainted with the Welsh problem. Might I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that few men have done more to familiarise themselves with the problem than he did, and he knows the problem as well as anybody inside or outside your Lordships' House.
But what is going to be done? I referred to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and I wish to quote what he said in the debate on January 30 last year, when dealing with this very problem. He referred to the fact that there were other ways of dealing with it, and he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 548, col. 711]:
"It should be of assistance to industrialists thinking of establishing themselves in northwest Wales to know that the Development Commission is prepared in suitable cases to consider recommending the building of factories by means of the Development Fund for letting to approved industrial tenants."
I do not know whether I can ask for information to-day and whether we can be told how many suitable cases have been found since January, 30, 1956. Is the reference to the "Development Fund" a development fund under the 1909 Act? If so, is that Act being used to the extent it could be used in development in North Wales?

815
If that is an alternative—and it may well be—I can see the value of it. I am not objecting at all to the fact that this area is not included in the First Schedule of the Act we are now discussing. What, I suggest, is the value of the Act is that it gives two inducements. It tells the industrialists in various parts of the country: "If you come inside the area covered by the Act you will have factories ready built, let to you at a low rent. Also, capital will be provided by the Treasury to develop your business." Is that possible under the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, when he spoke on behalf of the Government a year ago? Even if that can be done, I understand—and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will know this better than I do—that the Treasury keep a firm hand on the extending of facilities, even under the Act. I have no objection to their keeping a similarly firm hand in dealing with the 1909 Act.
What I am asking, with regard to the pockets of unemployment in North Wales, is that if the Government are not prepared to include them in the Act they should take other action outside the Act to see to it that their problem is dealt with. After all, what is happening is a de-population of rural areas. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships' House believes that that is a good thing. But you cannot expect to keep the population in rural areas if you do not keep full employment there, with a good standard of life. In North Wales, in Anglesey in particular, efforts are being made to deal with this difficult problem. Factories have already been built to let at a reduced rent under the 1909 Act. Two factories were built in North Wales, one at Blaenau Ffestiniog, in Merionethshire, and the other at Pengoes, in Caernarvonshire. Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, to the various companies operating in these different parts of the country. In Anglesey we have Welsh Agriculture and Industries Limited. They have provided factories on a similar basis to those provided under the 1909 Act.
What happens in the development areas? The capital has been provided on the recommendation of the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, which by now has acquired a great deal of experience in dealing with this problem. What I want to ask the noble Lord
816
—I appreciate it is a big question to be put without notice—is whether he could tell us if the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee could function with regard to the development fund provided in the 1909 Act? Would it be possible for finance for this purpose to be provided out of the development fund and managed on behalf of the Development Commissioners by the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee? In this way the two inducements which have proved so successful in attracting industrialists to the scheduled development areas could be offered in those rural areas where there are pockets of unemployment.
The location of industry is never an easy thing. For some reason our natural resources locate our industry. If the coal is in South Wales, the collieries will be there and the industries will be there. To a large extent the location of industry is determined by our natural resources. In an agricultural area the employing capacity is much less than in a mining area. One appreciates how difficult it is for any Government—I think it is impossible—to direct. All that can be done by this Act is to attract industries to the areas where it is thought they will serve the national interest best.

THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
3.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, will forgive me if I intervene for a moment in order to make the statement that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I would make concerning the strike situation. As I told the House yesterday, the employers and the unions are willing to co-operate with the Court of Inquiry which my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has decided to appoint to inquire into the shipbuilding dispute. Accordingly, he is concentrating his efforts on finding a basis on which there can be a return to work in both the shipbuilding and engineering disputes. He has just seen the engineering employers and discussed with them a possible basis on which there might be a resumption of work. They are to consult their Management Board on this to-morrow morning.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his statement. I wonder whether he could give

817
the House some information about the Court of Inquiry: what is its composition, whether it has been appointed, the names of the personnel and any other information he can give about it. Secondly, I should like to ask whether, in addition to seeing the employers to-day, the Minister has seen or is seeing the unions. There is just a ray of hope in the last paragraph of the noble Lord's statement. I wonder whether the unions have had the position put to them as well as the employers.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not certain as to the composition of the Court and whether it has yet been set up I cannot answer definitely whether it has actually been appointed, I am afraid, but I will certainly find out for the noble Lord. The composition would, I think, be roughly upon these lines: an independent Chairman, one member from the employers and one member from the union side, but none, of course, directly interested in any way at all personally in the dispute. As to consultation with the unions, I can only tell the noble Lord that I informed the House yesterday that my right honourable friend was in constant touch with both sides, and if he sees any chance of fruitful progress I am certain he will consult the unions as soon as he possibly can.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, if that is the case, I wish it had been stated in this statement which goes out to the rank and file of these industries. The way it struck me—and, as I know, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, as well—was this: how will it read to those in the country? The representatives here in London may understand the position—I expect they do—but I wish that there were some reference here to the fact that the Minister was also in touch at this moment with the representatives of the workers. It is quite misleading.
LORD MANCROFT: No, I do not think it was quite misleading. The statement that I have just made is by way of being a progress report—at least, I hope it is progress—in the day-to-day series of reports that I have been making to your Lordships' House about this time of the afternoon. I very much hope that these day-to-day statements will cease as soon as possible. If the noble Lord had been
818
here yesterday and last Thursday, he would have observed that my right honourable friend was in constant touch with both sides. There is no suggestion in the statement I have made to-day that there was any exclusion of the unions. This statement is merely bringing the report of progress up to date.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor in congratulating the noble Lord on raising this question today in your Lordships' House. While, with my noble friend, I certainly would not agree that the time had come for a review of the Schedule, I think there is something in the suggestion which the noble Lord made for having what one might call a kind of permanent Commission for dealing with the industrial side of this country. I think, as I have always thought, that it was remarkable that we could go nearly two centuries after the advent of the Industrial Revolution in this country before being forced into appointing a great Commission to inquire into the effects and impact of that Revolution. It is worth noting, too, that the noble Lord himself played a not inconspicuous part, if I may put it that way, in trying to deal with the effects of the depressed areas when we arrived at that lamentable position.
When we are considering this question of the Schedule, particularly, we have to ask ourselves what was the real reason underlying the fact of the depressed areas. I think there was general agreement that the depression occurred on a large scale in the heavy industrial areas—areas where there were mining, heavy steel production and heavy engineering. The reason why I should not agree with the need for a review of the areas that are within this Schedule at the present moment is that I am sure that, as things are to-day in the heavy industrial areas, they could not take up new employees coming into industry.
Why was it that the depression hit these areas? It was due to the simple fact that new forms of power had come into operation. The internal combustion engine, with its use of oil for factories,

819
made it possible to establish industries in areas where they had never previously had a chance of being established. Before the First World War, oil for that purpose had hardly been known. The use of electricity had scarcely begun, as compared with what happened a few years after the First World War. These things made it possible for industries to go to other parts of the country. They established themselves on a big scale in the London area and in all parts of the South. Employers simply said, "We are not going up to these barren, wild parts if we can establish light industries here." While I am loyal and patriotic to my own part of the country, I understood their position. In fact, there was one gentleman who, in giving evidence, told the Commission, "If we can get theatre ' first nights ' in London, and the Oxford Street sales, we are not going to Durham or Wales or places like that." In a crude and blunt way, I think he was stating what was really the truth.
Fortunately, there was a Coalition Government during the First Great War, and whatever had or had not been done, everybody in the country was moved in this terrible time of depression described by my noble friend. I once heard a Conservative Member in another place say, with a wealth of feeling which it is impossible to carry to your Lordships' House, "It is a terrible thing to see a whole family unemployed." Of course it was still more terrible to see whole communities unemployed. Those of us who lived in the midst of that situation during those long years saw the state to which our old work friends, whom we knew to be fine men and fathers of fine families, were brought. That was one of the most painful experiences of my life. Now it is delightful to go from one end to the other of the county in which I live and to see the state of industry and family life, the pride of being and dress—all the differences between heaven and hell. It is delightful to go again to these places, and to see what is being done. I confirm what my noble friend says: it would be dangerous to encourage a review of the Schedule, because the heavy industry areas would not be able to pick up the slack of their employment unless there were some definite direction of light industry into those particular parts.
820
But let no-one in your Lordships' House have the impression that that is the end of it all so far as the Act is concerned. The Act is most clear. It makes it possible to expand to other parts of the country. I do not know what the Board of Trade are doing about this matter, or how they are working. Section 7 says that:
"The Board of Trade may from time to time, and shall on the expiration of the period of three years from the passing of this Act, take into consideration the question whether any area should be added to, or removed from, the First Schedule to this Act."
Taking it by and large, I think the effect of this Act has been most encouraging in regard to the method proposed at that particular time, and I hope that to-day your Lordships will give no encouragement whatever to the rough handling of this First Schedule. As I have said, there has been only one real Commission sitting upon this matter. Indeed, the Government were baffled at the time as to what to do and how to meet this new development. But it must be evident to your Lordships that other great changes are taking place in the country. While the noble Lord has pointed out that there are overspills which create the need for new towns and that sort of thing, the great heavy industrial areas could not, of their own accord, or their own volition, keep pace with their own overspill—that is, new employees coming into being—unless there is some definite direction into those areas of light industry.
I myself should not be greatly averse to setting up a Commission to deal with the general industrial state of the country. About a fortnight ago, I pointed out that practically a new industrial Revolution was taking place in the country through the prospective application of atomic power. I confess to your Lordships that I am astounded that this new state of affairs is being conducted with little Parliamentary control. I read in the newspapers this morning about a new atomic power station that is to be established in order to create power for the electricity grid running to another part of the country. On one occasion we were told that twelve new stations are to be established, and before we could digest that fact we were told that there will be twenty new stations. But except by way of complaint from people in different parts of the country, or from

821
the newspapers, your Lordships' House and Parliament generally have nothing whatever to do with the direction of this great new Industrial Revolution which, ultimately, will be far wider in its range and speedier in its power of application than the old slow-moving Industrial Revolution.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether the Board of Trade have anything to do with this matter. Do they not deal with the trade of the country? Are not these atomic station sites dealing with the trade of the country? I say that it is time that the Board of Trade, or at any rate the Government and Parliament, in some way or another, came to grips with this new form of power. Certainly it gives force to the noble Lord's plea for the establishment of a new Commission, though not, I would stress, a Commission to settle this question of the Schedules, because, as I have tried in my own rough way to point out, that will remain a factor which will require the direction of light industries by the hand of the State and its representatives. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, has done your Lordships' House a service by introducing this Motion to-day. I have said as well as I can what I feel about this matter, to which I have long given attention, as have both noble Lords who have spoken, the noble Lord opposite as well as my noble friend below me, and I only trust that this debate will not be as fruitless as the recent debate in your Lordships' House on atomic power.
4.10 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I should certainly like to express agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that my noble friend, Lord Bilsland, has again done a very real service in introducing this subject for discussion in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Perhaps in this respect I should declare a small interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, knows, I have the responsibility of being chairman of a company which has a subsidiary company not only in one of the development areas but in one of the so-called "Board of Trade factories," but I hope that that will not prejudice anything I may say here this afternoon.
As my noble friend, Lord Bilsland, has said, this is not a subject which
822
easily provokes great excitement in this time of full employment. It might well have done so, and should have done so, in the nineteen-thirties, when there were the great areas of dreadful unemployment to which all noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred. But to-day, with full employment, that sense of urgency, important as it may be, is not easy to create, except perhaps in a few of the small areas to which reference has been made, where from time to time there are really bad cases of unemployment, either potential or existing. Yet, for all that, any failure to look at this matter now and perhaps to take amending action in some form might well be the cause of serious, and I would say justifiable, recriminations in ten, twenty or thirty years from now. That is why I personally welcome my noble friend's Motion and, like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, hope that it will not end in a futile way but will achieve something.
It seems to me that there are really two ways in which one can consider the question of the distribution of industry. There is the approach whereby one merely considers the introduction of new industries into development areas with a view to relieving excessive unemployment and so relieving hardship. Or there is the wider approach—I think one might call it the "long-term approach "—the approach of town and country planning in its wider aspect, where one would attempt to bring some degree of coordination to the location and use all of the nation's resources to the best advantage; and under this heading of "resources" I include the men and women who do the work, industrial capital, agricultural land, housing, communications, social capital of one kind and another and other such things. In that context one has always to bear in mind very closely three considerations which, to me, are vital: first, the fact that there is a diminishing acreage of agricultural land; secondly, the absolute necessity for industry to be so sited that it can produce most economically, and thirdly, the strategic considerations, which were very much to the fore in the terms of reference given to the Barlow Commission.
Whilst I cannot say that I have completely re-read the Report of the Commission recently, I have looked through it

823
during the last few weeks and, as I understand it, its terms of reference were rather on the wider aspect. On the other hand, the post-war distribution of industry policy, as enunciated by the 1945 Act, was really confined to the question of the development areas, attempting to cure the extreme unemployment in particular areas where basic industries had been so tremendously damaged by lack of orders during the inter-war years. One thing which I feel requires emphasis and which perhaps has not come out quite as much as it might have done is that the 1945 Act did not start something; it really carried forward the 1934 and 1937 Special Areas Acts. It tried to give what were at first called special areas, which were scheduled as development areas, the same chance of continuity and variety of employment—and, therefore, of course, of prosperity—as the rest of the country. The 1945 Act attempted to do that—no less and no more. That is a very important point.
I am going to try to steer a middle course between the rather narrow aspect of the Act and the wider background of the Barlow Report. Reference has been made to the success of the working of the 1945 Act. It has had success, but I believe it would be fair to say that in some respects it has had a good chance of achieving success. The immense demand for every form of industrial production after the war, both for home and overseas consumption, urged industry as a whole to go out of its way to acquire new premises and tap new pools of workers; and it helped the Board of Trade to implement the policy that was set before it. In retrospect, we must admit that some of the choices that were made by industry in putting factories here or there, as a result of that urge to find new opportunities to produce more, have not proved to be as entirely selective as they might have been in different circumstances; but, broadly speaking, the main areas of unemployment were filled.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, suggested that we must recognise that the apparent success of the policy was perhaps due more to the increased activity of the basic industries, themselves situated in these development areas—a degree of activity which I am sure we are all glad to know persists and is still expanding. That is a broad statement
824
and there may be those who, in regard to certain particular areas, would challenge me upon it. But, taking the development areas as a whole, the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, quoted a number of figures of factories and areas of factory space which had been provided under the Act. I should like to quote just one figure which I believe is reasonably correct and gives a measure of what has been done: the new employment achieved or provided in the so-called "Board of Trade factories" in the development areas amounts to barely 5 per cent. of the total insured population in those areas. That is, to my mind, a very important factor as indicating the fringe form of this introduction of new industries into these areas. It may be barely 5 per cent., but it is a very important 5 per cent.
This raises another point. You may provide an area with substantially all the employment opportunity it needs, but it does not by any means follow that you achieve a perfect, or even an adequate, degree of diversification, and certainly not one that can be relied upon to be enduring. To expect that you could do that—certainly to expect it in a mere ten years—would be, I think, to expect the impossible. It would be like chasing a will-o'-the-wisp. I would go so far as to say that we should never forget that the development areas, like any other industrial areas, whatever we do, are bound to have their ups and downs. Indeed it would not be healthy if they did not, because it would show that they were being cushioned more than the rest of the industrial country against the changes about which I wish to say something very shortly.
There are those—I do not know whether anyone speaking in your Lordships' House to-day will take this point of view—who have felt that the development areas have, in fact, been pampered. We must remember that whilst, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there have been successes, these areas have been up against difficulties and frustrations which the original policy did not intend at all. For instance, in the Act, Section 3 (2) laid it down that assistance could be given for the improvement of basic services in those areas; but, in fact, that provision has been little used, for reasons that I think were pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. Hardly had the Act been passed and the policy started

825
when the economic climate worsened and balance of payment difficulties, inflation and consequent cuts in capital investment came to interfere with the excellent intentions that had originally been put forward.
Then, again, the growing insistence over these ten years on rapid—and I want to underline the word "rapid"—increase in production for export at economic prices, and, in 1950, the insistence on rapid increase of armaments production, tended to encourage industries which might have moved part of their plants into the development areas to say: "No, we can do this much more quickly and much more economically at our own location than in the development areas." So there has been a great deal of frustration for those who were anxious to see the distribution of industry policy go ahead as originally intended. None the less, it is fair to say that the policy has achieved a considerable measure of success. Important new opportunities for employment have been created in those areas, particularly, I should like to emphasise, opportunities for female employment, which existed hardly at all before. I do not think I should be wrong if I were to describe it as a piece of first-aid; and as a piece of first-aid it must be counted as effective.
Having got so far, I think we can rightly ask: "Where do we go from here?" All noble Lords who have spoken so far have posed that question. I should like to put it this way. The conditions that existed in the 1930's—and, after all, the whole policy was based on an assumption that the conditions of the 1930's would return again after the war—were, I think we can say, conditions of static depression, whereas those that exist to-day in 1957, I suggest (and I hope that I am not using too extravagant language) are conditions of dynamic change, expansion and discovery right through industry. And both sets of conditions may have their dangers for particular localities. Therefore I say that, whilst the medicine on the shelf for the 1930 conditions may have been all right, the medicine we may need to have available for quick use for the 1950 and 1960 conditions may be rather different.
I should like to mention one way in which, in my view, the 1945 Act has not worked so well. I do not think this is
826
necessarily a criticism of the Act, but perhaps rather of the difficulty of implementing it. It was clearly in the minds of those who framed the 1945 Act—this is shown in Section 7 (2)—that the Board of Trade should be allowed to schedule an area where there was
"likely to be a special danger of unemployment ".
The three words I want to underline to your Lordships are "likely to be". I suggest that this applies in the case of areas where employment at the time may be quite good—may even be very good—but where too much dependence on one industry or on a group of kindred industries carries obvious dangers in the event of any recession in that industry or those industries. So this was a very important provision. It gave the opportunity to take precautionary measures. I recognise that it is not easy to implement this provision. I have in mind, as an example here, particularly the case of North-East Lancashire. North-East Lancashire has been scheduled now, but had Section 7 (2) been acted on sooner some of the present difficulties might have been obviated, and some of the thousand potential workers who are now leaving that area every year could possibly have found employment there and need not have gone away. So I would say that this particular aspect—that of being able to take action in a locality where there is likely to be danger, even though conditions at the moment are good—needs further consideration. And I should like to class that with a further consideration—namely, the question of concealed unemployment.
The conclusion to which I have come is somewhat similar to the conclusion which has been reached by other noble Lords. I also want to see a review of this distribution of industry policy. I should like to make it clear that my review would not by any means be with a view to winding up the policy, nor would it be with a view to having something like what the Barlow Commission recommended—a continuing national authority. I do not want that. What I want is this—and here I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, when he said that perhaps ten years was not soon enough; I think one does not want to regard it as taking steps after ten years. I should like to look at it after twenty

827
years—and, after all, it is practically twenty years since the Barlow Commission was set up.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, my point was that ten abnormal years was not the right period to take, but ten normal years might have been.
LORD ROCHDALE: They were certainly abnormal years and I want to say more about that abnormality in a moment. The reason why I want this review is that, just as the pattern of industry as we know it to-day is singularly and significantly different from what it was twenty years ago, so, if we are to continue, as we must, as a leading exporting country, that pattern must constantly change; and the change would not be at the rate these abnormal ten years have shown but at a much greater rate. One has only to look at some of the changes which are going on now. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to the atomic power stations. Can anyone assume that the arrival and locations of these stations are not going to make considerable changes in the distribution of industry? To take another matter that is very much in our thoughts at the moment: if the European common market is established and we are associated with the free trade area, can anyone assume that that is not going to make profound changes in the pattern of our industry? One other example—one need only look at the schedules of our exports to see that the all-over range of exports in the 'thirties was vastly different from those of to-day, and that change will continue. Obviously these are changes we are going to pursue because we think that they will do the country as a whole considerable good.
It is unlikely that there will not be some small factories and localities that will be temporarily afflicted with hardship of one kind or another, and that is what we want to be in a position to meet, and to meet quickly. To my mind, we need a machinery which is quick, flexible and decisive in action, and I think that no-one here could say that the present scheduling process for development areas is either quick or flexible. We want some organisation that can deal with the kind of difficulty that might occur in a small locality but which the larger area could
828
not be said to suffer. To my mind there is a great deal to be said for having smaller development areas—I could expand on that point—but the whole of a large area cannot be given the same treatment, and your Lordships know from experience that if one part of an area is helped and not another, local animosities arise.
That brings me to a point that has already been raised: namely, the question of de-scheduling a development area. The Select Committee on Estimates for 1955–56 include among their recommendations that there should be a review of the development areas with a view to de-scheduling any area or part of an area no longer in special danger of unemployment. I should have thought it not unreasonable to suggest that the addition of new development areas, however small, is a less probable process, even an undesirable one, unless some of those at present scheduled are de-scheduled. The de-scheduling of any area is bound to be most ill-received and unpopular in the area. And, although provision is made in the Act, de-scheduling is bound to raise considerable administrative problems. I suggest that these problems are not insuperable if de-scheduling proves to be necessary. Do not let us forget that three of the largest development areas were originally designated as special areas in 1935 and were amongst the original development areas in 1945, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask how long their problem is to remain unsolved.
I want to see a high-powered committee appointed to review the whole position and to make suggestions for the future. Reference has been made to the fact that the whole of this subject is completely non-Party, and it is very pleasant to be able to take part in a debate of such importance where no question of Party arises at all. By the same token, we want to deal with this problem on a national, and not merely on a local, basis. Decisions will take time to bear fruit; therefore I hope that action will be taken immediately.
4.37 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, there are certain subjects that can be relied on to fill the Benches in your Lordships' House and others of which almost the opposite can be said. If this subject should come into the latter category, I do not think that it is because of its lack

829
of importance—far from it—but because of its complexity and specialised nature. I assure your Lordships that I should not venture to embark on this complicated subject but for the fact that a year ago I had the honour of succeeding the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, who moved this Motion, as Chairman of the Scottish Council. Noble Lords who have heard him expound this subject this afternoon will agree that to succeed him is no easy task.
I do not propose to follow the line of other noble Lords regarding development areas. I would rather look at a different problem, though one closely connected with it, which arises from one of the lines developed by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, in his opening speech—that is, the trend of the movement of population. The noble Lord gave us figures which show that, while the population of Great Britain is increasing, it is increasing at different rates in different parts of the country. It is increasing much faster in the Midlands and South of England than in other parts, and in this respect the worst loser is Scotland. The same sort of thing is happening inside Scotland. We hear constantly of the depopulation of certain areas, in particular, the Highlands and the Borders. That this is no mere parrot cry is borne out by the statistics.
The figures produced by the Registrar-General of changes in population over the six years 1949 to 1955 show that, while the whole population of Scotland increased very slightly—something of the order of one-half of one per cent.—it increased much faster in the central belt and in the south-west. It did not increase at all in the north-east; it decreased in the Borders and very substantially in the Highlands. So we have the repetition in Scotland of the pattern of movement of population in Great Britain as a whole. When we look at the statistics for the building of new factories that has taken place over the same period we see that there is something in common with that pattern. It is in areas where most factory building is proceeding that the population has been increasing most rapidly, so I think it is clear that it is opportunity of employment which is the mainspring of this migratory movement. I believe that the consequences of this movement are bad. They are bad, first, for the towns and the countryside from
830
which the people are going: these places are being drained of their lifeblood, and a process of decay is setting in. They are bad, too, for the great concentrations of population to which these people are being attracted. This movement is aggravating the existing overcrowding and concentration of industry which is already causing considerable anxiety to the authorities.
Other noble Lords have mentioned that horrible word "overspill", of which we hear more and more. We are faced with the problem of decanting some part of these great concentrations of industry and population into new areas outside, new towns and so on. But while the planners may talk glibly of "overspill", I wonder whether they appreciate the difficulties involved in this process. Take a great industrial concentration like Glasgow and Clydeside, which has grown up over decades and, indeed, centuries. There is the whole interconnected relationship of supplies of steel and coal, engineering works, shipyards, transport services and housing, and the lesser industries which make the parts and components for the basic industries. It is all very well to talk about moving a substantial portion of that industry; but surely it is only the lighter and more mobile industries that we can contemplate moving, except at prohibitive cost. At the same time, we have the picture of completely new industry growing in and around these very concentrations, encouraging, and at the same time encouraged by, the inflow of working population from the remoter towns and the countryside.
I am not suggesting that there is any merit in maintaining our present distribution of industry or of population, but I submit that this present constant drift of working population to the already congested areas is leading to a position that is unacceptable. Very large sums will have to be spent to relieve this congestion. Would it not be better, in this case, to go for prevention, rather than cure? Would it not be better policy to spend a fraction of all this money on inducing new industry to go to these very areas which are suffering from depopulation? It is not only a question of finance. Much can be done in this direction by the local authorities in these places, by the chambers of commerce and other bodies, to show the facilities and

831
attractions that they can offer to industry, using the powers which they already have. But there is no doubt that one of the most potent forces for the attraction of industry, as has been shown in the development areas, is the availability of factories to rent—initially at a low rental, though this need not continue: they can soon be made economic. I believe that we should now be turning to the new areas which have inherited these former troubles of the greater concentrations of industry.
It will probably be asked: Can these areas, and Scotland, in particular, absorb a migration of industry of this kind away from the concentrated and congested areas into areas which are not traditionally centres of industry? I believe firmly that the answer is, "Yes". In the first place, look at the unemployment figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, some of which I hope may have shocked your Lordships: figures of the order of 10 and 20 per cent. of unemployment in particular places. These figures show that the labour is there. One company in northeast Scotland, in a town where the level of unemployment shown by the figures is comparatively low, recently advertised thirty vacancies; and they received 1,300 replies. Nor are the brains and the skill lacking. It is a sad reflection to me, as a Scotsman, that of all the engineers leaving Scottish universities to-day more than half are having to move out of Scotland to find employment. Certainly the opportunity is there for industry, if it cares to take it.
I do not want to give the impression that nothing has been achieved in this direction. Far from it. The flow from Scotland, if not halted, has at least been stemmed by the inflow of new industry in the last ten years. If I may say so, few people have been more responsible for that than the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. It may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that in the past ten years, since the war, of all the new North American branch factories established in Great Britain, 75 per cent. have been established in Scotland, which has only 10 per cent. of the British population. Within Scotland there are also some striking examples of industry moving to the smaller towns: companies of the calibre of Consolidated Pneumatic Tools at Fraserburgh;
832
Coventry Gauge and Tool, at Brechin and Arbroath; Airscrew and Jicwood, making chipboard at Annan.
There is still, however, a great deal left to be done. I believe that if the problem is properly handled we in Scotland—and this applies also to other areas of Great Britain—may well be on the threshold of a great new development of industry based on the hidden potential of a large number of towns not previously used to industry: county towns, towns in the Highlands, the new towns, towns in the newly developed mining areas, of which we have heard, old fishing towns and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, spoke of a period of dynamic expansion in industry—I am not sure if those were his exact words. I believe that we are on the threshold of such a period, and the industries that hold out the most promise in this period are those based on scientific research and knowledge. Many of these industries have, in fact, just the qualities that are required for these towns. They have, in the first place, a high conversion factor—in other words, the value of the finished product is high in relation to its weight and bulk, so that transport costs, that bugbear of the outlying areas, do not enter seriously into the problem. Many of these products can be made in factories employing comparatively small numbers of highly skilled workers—they do not require vast numbers. Moreover, many of them would employ a high proportion of women, which is most important, because I am sure that unemployment figures for female labour do not give a real indication of the numbers of women available for work.
At the start of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, quoted the words of the Barlow Report about "a reasonable balance of industry and population throughout the country" as being a desirable objective. That can be maintained, I believe, only by guiding new industries away from the crowded areas in the Midlands and the South, and away from the already congested areas in Scotland. The problem is: how is that to be achieved? The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and other noble Lords have made certain suggestions to that end, which I hope the Government will take to heart; and I should like to throw in one more—or, rather, to develop one that

833
has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.
He spoke of the work of the Development Commission, set up, I believe, under an Act of 1909 for a very different purpose. We in North East Scotland have a striking example of the work of that Commission, just as the noble Lord has in North Wales. I think that that body is too inclined to hide its light under a bushel. As a result of its work in the area of Buckie and Peterhead, what was a state of decay has been arrested and reversed. Two of the projects there—one already functioning, the making of electric lamps, and another, under construction, the making of precision tools—are excellent examples of the type of industry suited for those communities. I wonder whether the work of this Commission could not be extended, and the interpretation of its functions broadened to include not only areas of unemployment, but also those places suffering from loss of population and from under-development—those smaller areas which the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, submitted might be worthy of attention.
As I said earlier, there is an ever-growing awareness of this problem among those on the spot, among local authorities, chambers of commerce and other voluntary bodies, who are putting more and more effort into attracting new industry to the places where it is most required. That is something from which we must take heart. At the same time, I believe that in this matter we must have a firm lead from the Government, in the form of a clear statement of policy on distribution of industry, preceded, if need be, by an inquiry such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. Without such a lead, all our efforts may be at cross-purposes or in vain; and, with the rate of development of industry at the present time, unless we do this very soon we may well be too late.
4.52 p.m.
LORD BENNETT OF EDGBASTON: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rochdale, I have to admit a connection. I believe that one of the companies with which I am connected rents a factory from the Government. In fact, I think it has now been taken over by them, but there may be one which they are still renting. I should like to make certain
834
that I do not have to go to prison for having failed to make that clear. I know nothing about that matter, but I have made the statement. So, having cleared my mind, I will come to the subject. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rochdale that there is need for a high-powered committee, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, that this should not include the areas which we tend to overlook and say, "This matter has been dealt with", and, "Matters are now straight", because we know that there are still areas (and they have been mentioned this afternoon) in Scotland, North Wale; and Anglesey, and also—although nobody has mentioned it—the eternal problem of Northern Ireland, which have not yet been cleared up. I agree largely with the position taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that we must not just look at the outstanding parts that are left and the failure, so to speak, of the policy; we must look also to the success of the policy, and I hold that its success far outweighs the residue of the problems which have unfortunately remained with us.
I was concerned in this matter at the early stages. I had to give evidence before the Barlow Commission. This problem is one that we have been considering for twenty-five to thirty years, from the time of the early troubles in industry when we began to feel the problem of unemployment so badly. In the evidence we gave before the Barlow Commission—and if you remember, our minds were then upon preventing more industry drifting into London, so that the Great West Road did not become factories all the way to Bath—we recommended that the Government's attitude should be one of persuasion. The legislation which was enacted in 1945 and modified in 1950, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, all worked along those lines. I should like to remind my old friend Lord Lawson that there is no direction. Direction is not part of the Government policy, either for industry as to where it should go, or for the worker as to where he should work. It has been done by persuasion, and it is a marvellous testimony, I think, to what has been achieved.
Three lines were put forward: first, to introduce new industries into distressed

835
areas; secondly, to discourage companies from going to congested areas which were over full, and, lastly, to steer, by persuasion, companies who had a choice, to go into new areas, trading estates and new towns. I believe that that policy has on the whole proved very successful. It has not achieved all we hoped. Not being an ordinary Englishman, I can look at the successes in the South, but I can sympathise with anyone else. I was in the other place long enough to have heard the story of the depopulated Highlands. I know that there are those areas, and I know that there are areas in Wales and in Northern Ireland where they have a much higher proportion of unemployment than the average of which we talk so glibly. But, taking it generally, I think the policy has been successful, and that there have been enormous changes since this policy was started.
A little while ago I was reading some articles about visits to South Wales just after the First World War. The womenfolk were lamenting the fact that there their men had to leave the mines and go to work elsewhere because there was no work for them, and that the girls could not get married to miners and had to go to London. It was a great hardship that the traditional employment in the mines was no longer being adopted. After the Second World War, those same women, or their daughters, were lamenting that their men had to go down the mines, which was a horrible life. Of course, the whole coal industry will remind us that there were too many miners and there was too much coal. We could not get rid of it, we had troubles, and there was great unemployment. Now there is a shortage of coal, there are not enough miners, and we are having to import coal. That has all happened since the end of the First World War. So there are areas which had labour to spare and to-day they have not got any.
Industry was asked to go into some of these areas—I am not talking about the North of Scotland, but about areas in England—where there was plenty of labour. Some of us went to them and started little factories. We found that other people had been told the same story, and to-day there is a shortage of labour or a shortage in sight. We were asked to put light industries into certain areas where there was plenty
836
of woman labour. To-day we find that that is drying up. I am only saying that there has been an enormous change since the end of the First World War and the end of the period when we were investigating the location of industry, and to-day. The labour available is drying up, although the Government have done what they could.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, referred to London. There has been a big effort to stop factories from being re-established in London. Permission has had to be obtained from the Government. But, in spite of that, it has been shown that the Board of Trade have not turned down, firmly and finally, expansions in London where it has been shown that that was the only place where it could be done. The same thing happened in the Midlands. There was great difficulty in obtaining permits for expansions, but it is sometimes quite clear that it is impossible to move part of the industry. The only way in which to get the output which is necessary for export and the export industries is to have a slight extension. But it has been very difficult to get those building permits. The Government have been very keen in suggesting that industry should go elsewhere. I maintain that industry has played the game and gone elsewhere. The result is that to-day I am sometimes staggered when I read reports of companies that I had no idea had branched out and gone to the North of England or Scotland with branch factories. It has worked.
On the unemployment question in the so-called distressed areas, I am aware that in those pockets it is very high, but, on the average, according to the latest reports, there is only 1 per cent. difference between the figure for the distressed areas and the figure for the insured population, The national average is 1·2 per cent. I know how misleading averages can be, but those are the figures taken as a whole. Therefore the problem cannot be a great one, taken as a whole, but it is very acute where it arises. My noble friend Lord Rochdale referred to places where there was "likely to be" unemployment—that is the note I have here. The Board of Trade have to consider the future, but, in considering the future, it is difficult to know where unemployment is likely to be because we do not know what will

837
happen in the next few years as industry develops.
But the day has passed when special aids are necessary to induce people to go into some of these areas—such things as special building permits, special facilities and loans from the Treasury. The Select Committee on Estimates, to which reference has been made, recommended that this matter should be looked at again. The Board of Trade promised to investigate it. I know that the noble Lord opposite is most anxious that the Schedule should not be altered. I think that if a measure has reached a stage when the general spread is proved to have been conquered, it would be as well to look at the special cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. I do not want to see anything clone to make the matter more difficult, but there are some cases which do not need help to-day, and, as they should not have it, the help should be concentrated where it is needed and where it is proved to be needed. Industry is everywhere.
My noble friend says that some of these districts have been a little pampered. For instance, in the placing of Government contracts, firms in the development areas have been given preference when tendering, even when the prices were not favourable. They have been given a second chance and part of the business, in spite of the fact that their prices were wrong. I feel that what was understandable and perfectly natural in 1934 when we started on this problem is not necessary to-day. I agree that conditions have changed so materially that it would be as well to look at them again. The Government and the Board of Trade should give their consideration to the question whether help should be given in places where it is proved that help is not needed.
5.3 p.m.
LORD GREEN HILL: My Lords, if there is one great advantage about your Lordships' House, it is that now and again we can have reviews of the kind that we have had to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, which in themselves are a call to the nation at large, without introducing any Party political question at all. Indeed, one sometimes feels that if it were possible to have the kind of objective and scientific approach to a
838
problem that we have had to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, we should perhaps arrive at sounder results than we sometimes have done. If there is one thing with which we are all concerned, irrespective of the Party to which we may belong, it is that our country should prosper. If there is to be a division of opinion, that division may take place over the shares which each section of the community would be able to divide among themselves. So the problem is one that concerns all of us.
Lord Bilsland's contribution to-day was, I thought, particularly interesting, because, although the terms of his Motion appear to confine themselves to the effects of the Distribution of Industry Act, he introduced this enormously important question dealt with by the Barlow Commission about the distribution of population. That raises not merely economic but social problems, too. The little that I want to say to-day may be divided into two parts, one of which is that in 1952, at the time when the noble Lord was himself Chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), that Council set up a Committee to deal with local development in Scotland. It is not my intention to emphasise merely the Scottish aspect but rather to remind your Lordships that the Committee set up by this unofficial body went into the kind of problems which have been so ably discussed to-day. They drew up a Report indicating the kind of evidence on which they based their recommendations. One assumes that the Committee pased on those recommendations to the Secretary of State for Scotland; but since then, if my information is correct, nothing more has been heard.
The composition of the Committee was interesting because its membership was confined to four individuals—the chairman, Professor A. K. Cairncross, the well-known economist, and three other members. There were six assessors, who were members of departments of the Scottish Office. They delved into the material, and brought the facts before the Committee. The members of the Committee and these assessors then discussed the implications of the facts that they had brought up. If I do not myself stress the importance of the Distribution of Industry Act, it is because, as the

839
Committee's Report indicates, in paragraph 70:
"The priority that has been enjoyed by the Development Areas has usually been justified in terms of the unemployment figures for those areas. Unemployment, however, cannot be the sole criterion of policy. Apart from the overriding need to promote the growth of new industries in suitable locations, there may be a greater volume of concealed unemployment in other areas; or the danger to the community fabric may be in greater jeopardy in areas where unemployment is not at present high but where a steady drift of population has already set in."
I would add the first sentence of paragraph 71:
"In any event, the areas of heavy unemployment no longer coincide with the Development Areas but occur in pockets,"—
a remark which has been heard in the course of this debate this afternoon—
"some of which are within and some outside the Development Areas."
There is the balanced view of the Committee, who considered this problem of unemployment in relation to the development areas and found that the development areas were mainly the outcome of the need to cure the problem of unemployment.
In Appendix II of the Report, there is a summary of the powers of this Distribution of Industry Act, which I would strongly recommend your Lordships to read. I will not trouble noble Lords by reading much of it, but I will quote one or two extracts. The Appendix says:
"The Government affects the distribution of industry in a great number of ways, but in general there are five types of control or influence which may be brought to bear."
Then it sets out the five types of control as follows:

"(a) Development Area Policy.

(b) Planning Control.

(c) Building Licensing.

(d) Consequences of other Economic and Social Policies.

(e) Factory Building.

All these factors, I think, have been touched upon by one or other speaker in the course of this afternoon's debate. There is one small correction, of atmosphere rather than of fact, that I should like to introduce, because of what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth said in reference to unemployment. If one examines the Command Paper entitled
840
Industry and Employment in Scotland, 1955, one reads at page 6, paragraph 11, these words:
"Between January and September unemployment in the Development Area fell from 38,703 (3·3 per cent.)—comprising 25,919 men and boys and 12,784 women and girls—to 28,213 (2·36 per cent.)—comprising 17,975 men and boys and 10,238 women and girls…"
I hope your Lordships will pardon my introducing these figures; they will probably look better in print than they sound. Then paragraph 13 goes on in this way:
"Throughout the year, as in recent years, there was a persistent shortage of skilled men of various classes, particularly in the engineering, the shipbuilding and ship repairing and the printing and publishing industries "—
and so on. So that the picture of unemployment in Scotland is not, one hopes, too bad at the moment, although there are those pockets of unemployment to which the earlier Report refers.
Now, my Lords, if one considers a large city like Glasgow, with its large population constricted within a small area, in which it is agreed that there are something like 300,000 people in excess of the available accommodation for housing within the city, that raises an enormous industrial, economic and social problem, and one which must be tackled Unless the Government take care to examine the implications of that situation, and do not leave it to the play of economic forces to settle themselves. I think one might find oneself, in a comparatively short time, again faced with the kind of problems that have been discussed in general terms this afternoon. Some kind of authority to plan the distribution of this excess population (I hate to use the word "overspill"; let us remember that these are human beings), must be set up and some kind of plan devised whereby the excess population within this large city can be found not only housing accommodation but places of work, of amenity and culture, of open air and so on, within more or less easy access to their homes. That is a most difficult problem, and one that needs careful consideration.
There is one other matter which arises out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland. I am optimistic enough to believe that we have got past for ever the possibility of unemployment, in the sense in which we knew it in the 'thirties. I believe that what has come to be known

841
as "full employment" is not merely a political cry, but, if you like, an economic discovery which will ensure that no longer do we have unemployment in excessive numbers, so that the kind of problem which led to the passing of the Distribution of Industry Act is of no great importance in these times. Nevertheless, there are other problems.
Mention has already been made of the development in the kind of industries which are now coming forward. In my view, it is not merely that the nature of industry is changing. What is also of immense importance is the rate at which it is changing. No sooner do we adapt ourselves to one system of production, to one system of energy, than another begins to show itself. Already we have to begin to think of how to bring up the new generations of workers who will be able to deal with the new kinds of products, machinery and ideas necessary for the development of these new things. That, I think, raises a very serious problem. It is not merely a question of the number of our population, but of their quality. Can we now afford to face a situation in which the great majority of our population are insufficiently trained to apply themselves to the higher skills which in the near future will become the normal characteristic of industrial production?
I wish I could believe that all the emphasis now being placed on the importance of encouraging technological education is as successful as we should like it to be when one thinks of the general level of education of so large a section of our population. Is there anything we can do, either by educational methods or by some process of selection, whereby we can encourage these young men and women to apply themselves to the new kinds of scientific problems—problems which, I do not hesitate to say, demand not merely clear thought but a new kind of thought. What is there that we can do in order to encourage this new kind of mentality which the near future suggests is the kind of mentality we shall require in our coming populations? I should like to end by once again congratulating Lord Bilsland on bringing forward this immensely important matter. He has not pretended to provide solutions. All he has asked is that these problems, which affect not only this country but every industrial country, should be considered seriously by
842
us in order to see whether, by some means or other, we can arrive at some course of action which will redound to the prosperity of our country.
5.19 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, it was seven years ago—in point of fact, on June 13, 1950—when the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, made his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, upon the Second Reading of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1950. After seven years, he has come back to his first love. I remember the occasion so well, because then I was standing at the Government Dispatch Box piloting that particular Bill through your Lordships' House. It was then what we called the second phase of the 1945 Act, and it gave the Board of Trade added powers by which to help the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has said that the 1945 Act was a first-aid Act; and I think he is right. Until we calmly think about it, as my noble friend Lord Greenhill has done, as he showed in an outstanding contribution to this debate, many of us may not have realised that we have revolutionised this country since 1945. I will give your Lordships two figures, one of which surprises me, while the other staggers me. The 1945 Act contemplated coming to the rescue of what were originally known as distressed areas—latterly, more respectably, called development areas—to the tune of just under £60 million; and from 1945 to 1950 that is what the State contributed. Then, for four major industries in this country—power, gas, coal and transport—the taxpayers of this country will be finding, in about the next seven years. £3,000 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, comes to your Lordships' House, and in a speech of about five minutes earmarks nearly £2,000 million for his atomic power stations and other electrical energy. That is what we have to think about, and I confess that it frightens me. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will recall that I made a speech in your Lordships' House when we were discussing the railways' plan to spend £1,200 million. I then said that what really affrighted me was that we were making heaps of the taxpayers' money and shovelling millions of pounds into the development of our industry, without, so far as I

843
could see, any sensible appraisal or correlation of the size of any one heap with the others. I am afraid that in this country to-day we are facing a position where industrial development is getting rather like Topsy—and she "just grow'd".
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, asked: "Where do we go from here?" I would not do anything to disturb the 1945 Act, though, with my noble friend Lord Greenhill, I hope that the days of distressed areas are gone from our ken for ever. But we shall always have pockets of unemployment—and what a gigantic problem this is!—because unemployment can be created overnight by the fiscal policy of any Government. Birmingham, Coventry and Dagenham are three examples. Credit squeezes can compress the economy and literally force unemployment. And let us be quite blunt about it: that was the declared policy of the credit squeeze: to create unemployment in a certain industry where there was too much employment. What are we to do on that? I would respectfully suggest that we are facing now, and shall face for the next five or six years, a problem vastly different from that which we faced in 1945, when we had a desperate situation on our hands. Look at South Wales, West Cumberland, and the North East. Would your Lordships call West Cumberland a depressed area to-day? In the 1930's, I gather, that was one of the most depressed areas, with 85 per cent. unemployment. Yet to-day, I understand, there is not a man there unemployed.
My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who, as he usually does, kept up the high standard of speeches on industrial subjects from this side of the House, pointed to the position in North Wales, where 10 per cent. of the employable population are unemployed. But what are we doing about that? The real development that we are going to bring to Wales in the next five or ten years, so far as I can see—huge industrial development that will attract millions of pounds of capital—is in Pembrokeshire, where there is hardly anybody unemployed. Why? Because to bring our oil supplies to this country we shall require deep draft tankers, and right round our coast there is only one available
844
port where we can bring in an 80,000 ton oil tanker; and that is at Milford Haven. Once the docks and refinery are built there, other industries will be attracted. That is forced upon us. Evidently Southampton Water is now getting outmoded and, because of the draft of these new tankers, I doubt whether any huge refinery will now be built there.
I do not know whether it is so, but it does not seem to me that in all this expenditure there is any planning. My noble friend Lord Lawson, who is not now in his place, saw in The Times to-day a paragraph which I saw stating that the Central Electricity Authority are now prospecting the southern coast of this country from Kent to Wales with a view to putting up atomic power stations. Who said that the Authority could do so? To-day, our planning is so badly organised that, while we have a Board of Trade who are supposed to be responsible for industrial planning, and a Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who are responsible for another type of planning, the Minister of Power is a law unto himself. He bows the knee to nobody. I am not going to develop this theme because to some extent this will be severely challenged, but if Government policy follows this course (and Her Majesty's Government say all these power stations have to be built in the South of England and in remote places) it will not be towns like Southend on Sea, Margate or Brighton that will have those power stations but the best and prettiest part of our coastline. Unless something is done, it is there that there will be pockets of industrial development. But for what purpose, and according to what plan?
These are some of the things that worry me. We are now living in an age of scientific revolution and, as my noble friend Lord Greenhill has said, one cannot set up committees and wait for Commissions to get to work, because the very technique of production or power changes overnight. I feel very sorry for those who, like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, have Cabinet responsibility, for the trouble is that we are blinded with science from scientists, and the only people who can contradict them are other scientists. It is the scientists who lead us into these things—to what end none of us knows.

845
That is our position as I see it to-day. I do not think there is any comparison between the industrial position of this country to-day and the position that existed in 1945. At that time we had to legislate for the future, or what we anticipated the future would be; and in 1945 we were afraid that we were going to be faced with depressed areas. I do not think that we need entertain such a fear now. But I am certain—and I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government will agree—that we have got to do some very sensible planning.
As I listen to ministerial speeches (I will not mention individual Ministers by name), I note that when a Minister wants an alibi for not doing anything he says, "Of course the trouble is that this country is so small." Sometimes this is said in such a way as almost to give the impression that if some of us took a step backward without looking where we were going we should step right off this land of ours altogether. When roads are mentioned, we are told that we cannot have this, that or the other thing, because: "The trouble is that the country is so small and it has got so many people in it." All the more reason I say—and again I hope the noble Lord will agree—for us sensibly to plan our industrial resources of every kind, human and material. And unless we do so we are going to waste a great deal of them. As I have said, we are going to spend—and the taxpayer will contribute the money—£3,000 million on four industries, which I think works out at somewhere in the region of just under 20 per cent. of what it is anticipated will be the total investment of this country in the next eight years. We cannot afford to waste that. We cannot afford to make mistakes when we have such a gigantic project as that of atomic power in hand. At the same time, we have to look after these pockets of unemployment.
I was very much interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, because when this was my particular care, at the time when I was a member of His Majesty's Government and connected with the Board of Trade, we experienced great difficulty with moving labour. We learned one lesson: that in carrying out a policy of industrial development, to be successful you must take the work to the
846
worker, for the worker will not go to the work. I remember a classic example of that in Scotland. The Lanarkshire coalfield was worked out; the Fifeshire coalfields were being developed. Houses were being built at Kinross and we waited for the miners to go from Lanarkshire to Fifeshire. But they would not do so. Roots to them meant more than houses. That, I suppose, was why that huge trading estate at Hamilton was developed, that estate which now contains what I suppose is one of the finest electrical equipment factories in Britain. It was created to absorb that labour. Let us remember and do not let us theorise too much. We had some very good lessons with regard to labour and the movement of industry during the time when we built all those estates on development areas.
I would not do away with the Act of 1945. I would agree with nearly everything that Lord Bilsland said, except that I would not follow him in the matter of committees. I do not think you want another Barlow Commission or a Committee. What I think we must have in this country—I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will say "Hear, hear" to this suggestion—is a central authority, a Minister, who will be responsible for the industrial planning of this country. We must have a high-ranking Cabinet Minister who will be Minister of Industrial Development, because at the present time our industrial development—the thing upon which we depend above everything else in this country—is the plaything of various Departments The Board of Trade is supposed to have responsibility; but look at the expanse of the interests of the Board of Trade. We had a Minister of Town and Country Planning—my noble friend Lord Silkin was the first to hold that office. I always thought it was a mistake when that Ministry was absorbed in that of Local Government and Housing. I think we have to get back to something like that Ministry of Town and Country Planning.
How can we allocate our scarce resources unless we have some overriding authority? I should not like to say whether £2,000 million is sufficient for atomic energy power projects, £1,200 million for the development of the railways and £600 million for the coalmines.

847
I do not know what is going to be the shape of our industries if we have European free trade, on which one noble Lord has, I think, raised a question. Undoubtedly one of the most important things we shall have to do then is to look to our costs. I have noted a very interesting suggestion about one of the things we shall have to do if we are going into the European Free Trade Scheme—that will be to build a Channel tunnel. The only cheap way we can get our goods into Europe will not be by sea or over the water at all. There will have to be huge capital development in that connection. Therefore I should not tie myself to a suggestion of either resurrecting the Barlow Commission or having a committee. I think this matter has to be under constant review. The whole fit-up of our industry, financial, material and human, must be under constant review, and there must be one overriding authority. As my noble friend Lord Lawson has said, Parliament must play a greater part.
I am very worried about the way some things are going on behind the scenes. Enthusiasts rush in, and before we know where we are we shall have to spend thousands of millions of pounds on putting up atomic power stations and not on the sensible basis of the right places to put them. As the Minister admitted to your Lordships in this House, they are to be put in the South of England because the public think it dangerous to have them in the North. He was careful to add that the Government are satisfied that there is no danger, but the public thinks that there is. Is that a sensible way to plan the expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds? Suppose it turns out that these atomic power plants are as safe as the Government think they are, what are we going to have? Are we going to have industrial development around every power station because it will be possible to get cheap power there? Are we going to build power stations down on the South Coast, losing millions of pounds worth of heat by putting up the temperature of the sea 15 degrees and letting it cool again, just because somebody thinks that there may be radioactive effluent? I should like to see these things tackled by a Department of Industrial Development presided over by a Minister. In my view,
848
that is the way to meet the case which the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, so admirably made this afternoon.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is nearly four years since we last debated this subject, and I think that the periodical exchange of views on such an important subject as this is very welcome. The Government indeed welcome this debate, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, as other noble Lords have done, for having brought this matter forward. It has given rise to a specially interesting debate, with contributions from noble Lords who speak with authority and knowledge on this subject. Your Lordships have criticised and praised. Criticism was only to be expected, for this is a controversial and difficult matter, and it is easy to find room for criticism. If I have not the answers to all the questions which have been put to me to-day, I claim it for a virtue for this reason: that it would be silly for me to come to your Lordships and say that the Government have made up their minds finally on this point and that we shall listen to no further arguments on it. This matter changes from day to day, and there is no finality in our policy. The mind of the Government is certainly not closed to any possible improvements that might be brought about in the working of this Act. Therefore, we shall look with great care at the suggestions which noble Lords have made and if we can possibly carry out your Lordships' wishes we shall do so.
As I say, criticism is easy, but I was glad to hear the almost unanimous praise for the general working of the Act. I think that the distribution of industry policy has certainly yielded most beneficial results. I must do justice to my noble friend Lord Rochdale, who pointed out, in all fairness, that the dice has been rolling the way of industry in the course of the last ten or twelve years but, nevertheless, the results of this Act have been strikingly successful. Nearly 350,000 direct jobs have been provided in development areas, and the figure of indirect employment has been much greater. I think that the success of the Act has been evidenced by the new openings for employment which have been created and

849
by the impressive statistics of new Government factory building, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, mentioned. The Board of Trade are responsible for factory accommodation of nearly 45 million square feet, of which 26 million square feet have been built since 1945.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, drew attention to the startling success of steering new enterprises into hitherto vulnerable areas, such as South Wales. He made the interesting point that, looking back on it, South Wales could have got along without the Act because of the most welcome success of the heavy industries. I must say that, to those who knew South Wales in those terrible days, it must be a heart-warming sight to see such enterprises as the John Summers Works in the North, and Richard Thomas and Baldwins, and the Steel Company of Wales, in the South, whose great furnaces are working day and night, and not forgetting, also, the coal mines. But I think that the noble Lord would admit that, by bringing diversity of labour into these areas, we have provided work not only for the menfolk but for the daughters of the miners; and this, of course, encourages the miners to stay in the mines. To those like the noble Lords, Lord Hall and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who knew South Wales before I was born, it will be an astonishing sight to see factories like those of the Anglo-Celtic Watch Company at Ystrad-gynlais and of British Nylon Spinners at Pontypool—a factory which, incidentally, is vivid proof of the fact that factories need not necessarily be eyesores.
As noble Lords have said, North Wales is in a different category. It is a problem with which I am familiar, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, for his kindly reference to my work in Wales during the last two and a half years. North Wales presents a problem to which I do not see the answer at the moment. Under the Development Fund, four factories have been put up, and we have done everything in our power to attract work to the area. I have gone down on my bended knees to manufacturer after manufacturer, pointing out the beauties of Penrhyndeudraeth and Anglesey. They admit the beauties of North Wales, but they will not put their factories there. One can take a
850
manufacturer to North Wales but one cannot make him erect his factory there. The figures are bad in North West Wales, and I agree that it is no good comforting ourselves by saying that it is only a small matter. The percentage of unemployment is high, yet it is not very high when we consider the country as a whole. That, I know, is precious little comfort to Dai Jones who is unemployed in Caernarvon. I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that we are most anxious about the problem in North Wales and we want to do everything we possibly can to improve the situation. I do not think that scheduling would improve it. That has been suggested, but if we did schedule the area it still would not make manufacturers build their factories there.
I revert to the labour problem. The improved conditions elsewhere have been closely linked to the welcome effects of full employment. The maintenance of the policy of full employment is a primary feature of the Government's economic policy. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, emphasise that, although he went a great deal further—and I would not disagree with his view. The importance of the welcome recovery of the basic industries, particularly coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding, has been mentioned by all noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will remember that when the Act of 1945 was launched it was about heavy industry that there was most anxiety. In point of fact, that anxiety has not been fulfilled. It is the remarkable stability of the heavy industries, to which attention has been drawn this afternoon, which makes the present strike situation all the more sad. The problem has been that of the more volatile secondary industries, and that brings us to the importance of diversification. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned West Cumberland, where we have factories making fashion silks and chemicals; and, of course, there is Calder Hall. There could not be a greater diversity. Before the war, light industries occupied only one-tenth of the total; now the proportion is about one-third.
Mention of Calder Hall brings us to the important question of power stations, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Lucas of Chilworth.

851
The siting of these is a very difficult point. I will not go into the matter to-day, if your Lordships will forgive me, because there is to be a debate on the whole question in the near future, but I will certainly make it my business to draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Mills to the rather fanciful picture which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has painted, in which he described the finding of sites for power stations rather like a game in which a child who is blindfolded at a party tries to pin the tail on a donkey. There is certainly far more to it than that, as my noble friend will reveal to your Lordships next week. I admit that my noble friend has a free hand. He does not need to get planning permission, or an industrial development certificate; but there is the closest link between the Minister of Power and the Board of Trade and other Ministers concerned, and I assure the noble Lord that the difficulties he has in mind are not regarded in any lighthearted or complacent manner.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the hard core of unemployment and special pockets of unemployment. We have had an unacrimonious debate this afternoon, and I do not propose to introduce a note of acrimony now. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to the credit squeeze. If I may use the language of the public house, I would say to him, "If he will come outside and repeat those remarks, he will learn something to his disadvantage."
I was delighted to hear my noble friend, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, refer to Northern Ireland, which is, of course a problem of its own. As in the case of North Wales, the figures are disproportionately high. Your Lordships know that Lord Chandos has been doing valuable work there. However, it is a matter of teamwork: the Government of Northern Ireland, Lord Chandos, industry and the Board of Trade are all trying to solve the difficult problem of Northern Ireland.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord that I was not trying to make any Party point when I mentioned the credit squeeze. The fiscal policy of any Government, because of the great control
852
they have over the economy, can create unemployment far more quickly to-day than it could years ago.
LORD MANCROFT: I recognise that. It was the next point to which I was taking exception. To get back to Northern Ireland, as your Lordships know, the Government are doing their best to steer industry there, and I think we are having some success. We are continuing our efforts. That goes for other parts where there are small pockets of unemployment. North Lanarkshire and Dundee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, referred, are two areas that come to my mind. I would, in passing, remind your Lordships of one successful by-product of all this, and that is the Remploy system. I do not think the public are aware of how much success has been achieved by the Remploy system in finding work for people who would otherwise, due to some physical defect, be unemployable. That has had a great moral effect among a small but important section of the community.
Conversely to all this, there is the need to discourage new industrial development in the congested areas, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bennett of Edgbaston, referred. It is an important part of Government policy not to permit new factories to be put up in the central Midlands, Birmingham, or the London area. Since the war no new permits have been granted in these areas other than for extension. It will continue to be a firm part of Government policy to try to keep down factory development in the London area, so that factories do not stretch down the Great West Road as far as Bath. I think a great deal has been achieved, and industry has played its part well. It has been helped by the natural desire of firms, which are providing their own money, to go where labour can be found.
I turn now to an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland—that is, the question of overseas investment applications. These are very welcome when they are suitable, but they are not always wholly suitable. Over 600 United States and Canadian investment projects in the United Kingdom have been approved since 1950. That includes a large number of factories, particularly in Scotland, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. Apart from the examples he gave us, there was the

853
announcement two or three days ago that the Euclid people were to have another factory for earth-moving machinery in Lanarkshire; and Burroughs Office Machinery have planned a large extension which will help the new town at Cumbernauld.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, if I understood him aright, complains that the machinery for American firms investing here is too complicated and a little cumbersome. I hope that is not so, but I should be grateful if he would let me know of any cases that are worrying him, so that we may see whether the machinery can be improved. The Board of Trade co-ordinate this and fully appreciate the importance of attracting this type of business to the country. Indeed, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade recently issued a booklet called Make it in Britain which contains all the information that American, Canadian or, indeed, other employers might wish to know about the prospects of setting up a factory in this country. The pamphlet, which I should be glad to send to noble Lords who may be interested, even goes so far as to try to define the Board of Trade itself on the back cover, which is a very brave thing to do. Applications are welcomed; they will all be examined on their merits, and, I hope, speedily and tidily. But they must have this overriding qualification: they must be to this country's advantage. What we do not want is American businesses coming here merely to assemble American-made components in a British factory. Quite frankly, they are not at all welcome.
That brings me to the question of the suitability of location, a matter on which several noble Lords have touched. Despite Government prodding, some places—and we know about Wales—are inevitably unattractive to industry. Therefore, there must be a generally recognised need for a mobility of labour to some degree. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that one can easily be too hopeful in that respect. Excessive migration, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, pointed out, is very bad. Birmingham seems to be full of young Welshmen who have gone there and who spend their time writing angry letters to the Western Mail complaining about the conditions of their fellow countrymen
854
whom they have left behind. That is undesirable, in whichever country it occurs.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, referred to overspill, and said that it was necessary to provide for the overspill from Glasgow. I think he probably knows that this special problem is one of the reasons for the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Bill, which is now being considered in another place, and which I think will facilitate not only the re-housing of families, but also the re-location of industries outside Glasgow. Her Majesty's Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, as to the need to ensure balanced employment. That is the whole point of bringing the light industry into the heavy industry areas.
Several noble Lords have commented upon the recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. I rather understand that the noble Lord who moved the Motion, and one or two others who support him, do not wholly agree with their recommendations. Here I am in some slight difficulty, because I cannot with propriety anticipate the Report of the Select Committee to Parliament on the Board of Trade's replies to that Committee; but one or two ideas occur to me, having listened, as I have, to the speeches of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and my noble friend Lord Polwarth both drew attention to the problems of the European free trade area. I readily agree with them that a lot of careful thinking is needed before we get this matter into proper perspective. The Government have, I think, already announced in another place that the problems put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, are being studied carefully, so that they can make a final decision with the full knowledge of all the difficulties as well as the advantages. The process of the removal of tariffs will be spread over about twelve to fifteen years from the start. Perhaps I might remind the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, because it is important, of what the White Paper said on this subject. It said:
"Her Majesty's Government believe that the establishment of a free trade area would in no way prejudice the high level of employment which Europe generally has enjoyed, and that it should be an objective of member countries to maintain a high and stable level. This would be an essential condition for the working of a free trade area."

855
Therefore the Government are fully aware of the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite properly referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, talked about the smaller black areas. But the Distribution of Industry Act is concerned with areas as a whole, not with small black spots. I think if we start considering smaller districts of trouble we shall run into a basic disadvantage. Your Lordships will remember George Orwell's Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
If we have all areas special, and some more special than others, we shall wreck the whole purpose of the Act. There is a real danger if we break away from the initial and fundamental purpose of the Act: we shall find ourselves whittling away the purpose of the Act until it is ruined, because every area has become a special area. That is implicit, I agree, in the question of varying the Schedule to the Act. All additions and all subtractions—people are a little chary of talking about subtractions—automatically cause lobbying, agitation and pressure. There have been four additions since this Act came into being: Wrexham, Mersey-side and South Lancashire, the Highlands and North-East Lancashire. I have not heard anybody speaking about the de-scheduling of an area—nobody seems very eager about that. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, flirted with the idea, and suggested that the time had now come for South Wales to come out. I would not recommend him to go down to South Wales for two or three days after making that remark. It seems to me to be clear that if one is talking about additions, then subtractions must be implicit.
LORD GREENHILL: What would the Govenment lose if there were a subtraction here and there?
LORD MANCROFT: I quite agree; but I want those who are suggesting additions to realise that they should consider subtractions as well, and very few people do that. I quite see the noble Lord's point.
The next matter with which I should like to deal is the question of the slowness of the procedure. I do not think it is
856
particularly slow when one bears in mind the need for Parliamentary scrutiny and the need for consultation with local authorities and with other bodies who know all the facts upon which decisions are to be made. Indeed, with South Uist in mind, I should hate to stand at this Box and suggest in any way at all that consultation should not be as full as one can possibly make it. There is, as we know, less money now available for Board of Trade factory building—that is part of the general economy. I think it is most important, therefore, that the butter should not be spread too thin. I think also that it is most important that we should be certain that we have taken everything into consideration, and that we do not have to go back afterwards and make a plan over again.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, asked for greater autonomy of industrial estate companies. There has been a certain amount of devolution, but we must remember that the Board of Trade are responsible to Parliament for the administration of the public funds involved. We have had trouble recently with razor blades, blanco, heavy duty vehicles, chairs and certain underclothes for the women's Services. We do not want to have further trouble over the industrial estate companies. I think it is right that Parliament should retain a proper degree of financial control. As much as can be left to the companies must be left, but I think there is a limit.
The last point with which I wish to deal is the need for a new formal review. That is what I think all your Lordships have spoken about this afternoon. The request for a review presents an odd situation. It is usually the other way round. The Government, faced with an awkward problem, say, "Let us have a Royal Commission, a review, a departmental inquiry, or another Barlow Report," and everybody gets up and says cynically, "That is because you have not an answer. You want to shelve the thing for another couple of years." The Barlow Report involved two years—remember that. We now have your Lordships suggesting the need for a review. But I suggest that the Government have all the information they want, and can carry out that review from the information already available.

857
Policy is reviewed when any request is made. This Act does not live on a dusty shelf, to be taken down from time to time; it is a constantly working process. I have not been convinced by anything I have heard this afternoon that we should, from another review, get any information that we do not possess already. I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the question must not be looked at through blinkers, and must be given a wide examination in the same way as nuclear development, European free trade, and so on. But that is being done already. I will discuss the matter with my right honourable friend, and he will note what your Lordships have said, but at the moment I should have thought that the Board of Trade had all the information they wanted and all the power they needed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will accept my point that the reason why I am not in favour of a review is because any review that takes place must, as he said, be going on every day and in all the contexts which must be so wide as to be outside the scope of any Committee. It can only be within the whole scope of the Cabinet.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is perfectly right. There is constant consultation with other Ministries, with the regional controllers, who are the ears and eyes of the Board of Trade in this respect, and with the regional organisations and various other voluntary bodies, such as the Scottish Council, with which the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, are so closely linked. I would suggest that the procedure is flexible and adaptable enough.
We will readily consider any improvements your Lordships have suggested this afternoon, or care to suggest in the future. I do not wish to shut the door, by any means, upon the suggestions that there should be a formal review. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bilsland in his dislike of direction of industry. I think one of the essences of the success of our policy is that there has been no direction of labour. It has been a question of co-operation and not coercion. I think that must go on as being a successful pattern for the future as well. I suggest,
858
therefore, that the policy upon which the Government are now working is, by and large, the right one, and that it is working well. Just because at the moment it may be suggested that there is no need for it in an area like South Wales, where there is full employment, or in the other areas which have been mentioned, that is no reason whatever why the Act should be scrapped or the policy and principles abandoned. We may well want them in the future.
This debate has been valuable in showing the problems which this Act and those who administer it may have to face in the Future under new conditions of European free trade, nuclear development, and so on. It does not in any way detract from the fact that this has been a most important feature of the Government's policy of economic, industrial and national well-being. God forbid that we should ever return to the starvation, the dole, the bread queues and the unemployment of twenty and thirty years ago! This Act is one facet only of the means by which we hope to prevent those days returning. We have to use all our resources efficiently, and I think none more so than by the application of this great Act. We shall do everything in our power to continue making it work as efficiently as we possibly can.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BILSLAND: My Lords, the debate on the Motion before your Lordships this afternoon has been a useful and interesting one. Many points have been made by noble Lords on both sides of the House which are well worthy of consideration. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in these points, but I would reiterate what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said: that the situation as it is is unsatisfactory, admitting as we all do the progress which has been made. What we want to know is, where do we go from here? My noble friend Lord Mancroft has made what I may term an interim reply to the discussion this afternoon. He has said that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on distribution of industry is the right one. But I put down this Motion for your Lordships' consideration because I am not sure what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is, and that fact has, I think, been borne out in the

859
speeches of many noble Lords on both sides of the House this afternoon. The real fact is, so far as I can judge, that Government policy has come to a standstill on this subject at the present time. The noble Lord admitted that he glossed over the difficulties of the small special areas.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for offering to go into questions of cumbersome machinery and the slow working of machinery when dealing with applications for factories. I shall
860
certainly be happy to supply the noble Lord with information upon that subject. We have had, as I have said, an interim reply from the noble Lord this afternoon, and I hope that the Government will give full consideration to the points which have been put from all sides of your Lordships' House, and give before long a full reply. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes after six o'clock.