Sitting of 14 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the Reading Corporation Act, 1935, relating to Reading Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
  DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the Doncaster Corporation Act, 1926, relating to Doncaster Corporation trolley vehicles, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Coventry
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour what discussions have taken place between his Department, the Board of Trade and the supply Departments concerning the special arrangements to be made for workers in the aircraft industry rendered unemployed in Coventry because of cuts in defence orders, in accordance with the undertaking he recently gave.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. fain Macleod): The Ministry of Supply keeps my Department informed of changes in defence contracts which seem likely to affect aircraft firms
    184
    in Coventry and elsewhere. It is, however, also important that firms should notify my local offices of any redundancy so that early steps can be taken to help those who have to find other jobs.
    Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that— by inadvertence, I am sure— he has not replied to the Question that I put on the Order Paper? I asked him what discussions have taken place. Is he aware that, on 17th April, he gave an undertaking that such discussions would take place, if necessary? What has been done, as regards these aircraft workers in Coventry?
    Mr. Macleod: That is what I answered. It is not a question of having a formal meeting; these discussions are continuous, and go on all the time. But they have been intensified, in view of anxiety which people had about the effects of the defence cuts. I cannot give a list to the hon. Lady of the number of times officials have met or of the telephone conversations which have taken place, but I do assure her that consultation on this matter is actually continuous.
    Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that we are now going through an exceptional period, following the announcement of changes in the arms programme, and can we not have some assurance that, when a certain type of worker becomes redundant, instead of him merely being asked to travel to some other area to get work, an effort will be made to bring work to the worker instead of the worker having to follow the job?
    Mr. Macleod: One must be quite clear— indeed, it would make nonsense of the whole defence programme otherwise— that there cannot be a guarantee that, if defence contracts are removed, other Government contracts are going to take their place. What one can do is to make certain that labour considerations are taken fully into account in the sort of way that I have indicated to the House, and that there is constant communication between the Ministry of Supply, the other Departments concerned, and my own, to make sure, so far as we can, that these points are covered.
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Armstrong Siddeley Motors, Coventry, are faced with the immediate necessity of

    185
    reducing their skilled labour force and the supporting office staffs by several hundred people; that, while immediate steps are being taken to find alternative work, the prospects of doing so in time to avoid redundancy are nil; and what steps he has taken to meet this situation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that 250 workers have been given notice which is due to expire on 22nd May and that 30 of these have already left voluntarily. The remainder are being interviewed at the factories by my local officers with a view to helping them to obtatin other employment. The prospects of placing them in their own occupations locally or within daily travelling distance are not good, and local offices in other areas are being asked to help supply particulars of vacancies in suitable occupations.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, without my asking about telephone conversations, that the numbers involved will be considerably greater than these in the immediate future? Is he also aware that we in Coventry do not think the Government are facing this as a matter of urgency but are showing complacency about it? Has he had any further information from the Ministry of Supply about these numbers?
    Mr. Macleod: The numbers that I have given are those which have been supplied to me by the firm. The announcement of redundancy was made on 7th May, and I am quite certain that the figures themselves are entirely accurate. Dealing with further provisions, the interviewing of people at the factories is starting today. It is a great help in these cases if one can have enough notice and start interviewing people before the time of the notice runs out.
    Miss Burton: This is a very important matter. The Minister said that his Department asks for the longest possible notice from the Ministry of Supply about vacancies which will occur. As I know that there will be considerably more vacancies and as the Ministry of Supply has known that for two months, may I ask when that notice is likely to reach the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
    Mr. Macleod: With respect, the hon. Lady is confusing different things. The Ministry of Supply and other Departments tell me of the cancellation of orders or
    186
    alterations in contracts which may conceivably affect employment. That is one thing. But the question how those alterations will affect, if indeed, they do affect, the number of people employed by the firm is a matter for the firm. I always want the longest possible notice from all firms who may have labour changes to announce.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Neil McLean.
    Mr. Robens rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robens.
    Mr. Robens: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed from the supplementary questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Newton (Mr. Lee) and Coventry, South (Miss Burton) that there is grave concern about this question of redundancy, arising from reductions in the defence programme? Will he not look once again at what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton mentioned a few moments ago— the provision of work in existing establishments? It is the case, is it not, that there is not the greatest co-operation quickly enough between the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Labour? Is it not the case that it would be very much better to try to find work where facilities exist for that work than to put the Government and the country to the expense of finding employment for these people away from their homes under the new scales which the Ministry of Labour has recently announced? Does he not think, therefore, that it would be a useful— [HON. MEMBERS:"Ask a Question."] This is a very important question. I will go further, and say that we may have to have a debate on all these issues.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: On a point of order. Am I not right in thinking, Mr. Speaker, that you called the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. N. McLean), in whose name the next Question on the Order Paper appears? He did not rise to ask the Question. Is not the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) quite out of order?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think so: he hon. and gallant Member must let me be the judge of that. I called Mr. Neil McLean, but he did not rise and my

    187
    calling was therefore ineffective and a nullity. We were then in the same position as if I had not called him.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's question will be brought to a conclusion.
    Mr. Robens: We regard this as important, Mr. Speaker, because it affects the livelihood of many thousands of men and women in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We will put a lot of Questions down; will that suit hon. Members better? Would the right hon. Gentleman again consult the appropriate Departments who are responsible for placing orders— the Service Departments — to see whether it would not be possible even at this stage to find additional work in the places where the facilities exist— that is, where there is the capital investment, machinery and everything else?
    Mr. Macleod: In the first place, I think it is a mistake to exaggerate the employment effects of the defence cuts As I explained in the defence debate, the number whose employment will be affected this year has been considerably less than in preceding years. Consultation on these matters is close. On this particular point, I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has a Question down to the Ministry of Supply in a few days' time. Clearly one cannot give a guarantee— it would be absurd to do so— that if a Government contract is taken away another will take its place.

    Engineering Apprentices
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour what information he has as to the incidence of night working amongst engineering apprentices, and the effects of this upon their technical training.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I am afraid I have no information of this kind. The only information I could obtain relevant to this matter would be the numbers of boys between the ages of 16 and 18 years in the engineering industry who do some night work. I know that the numbers are extremely small, and I doubt whether the exact information would be sufficiently useful to justify a special inquiry.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at recent national conferences of the A.E.U. apprentices concerned have informed us that some of their colleagues are losing their chance of taking technical education because they are up all night at work and then, during the day, naturally, they cannot get to the technical courses which are very important for them at that stage? Would the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, consider what can be done to influence employers not to put apprentices in need of technical training on to night work at that period of their careers?
    Mr. Carr: If what the hon. Gentleman refers to is happening, I certainly agree that it is undesirable, and I should like to look at any information that he has. There is, of course, as he will appreciate, machinery within the industry which should look after this, and I think that that is really the proper safeguarding machinery in this sort of matter.
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour what improvements have been granted by employers during the past few years in the facilities for technical training of apprentices in the engineering industry.
    Mr. Carr: I assume that the hon. Member refers to facilities for technical training provided as part of further education. The available statistics about day release do not distinguish between apprentices and other young people. In the industry group comprising engineering, ship-building and the manufacture of electric goods, the number of students released by employers for part-time education in technical colleges rose from 122,000 to 150,000 in the past four years. I understand also that while precise figures are not available, steadily increasing numbers of young people are being sent by their employers on "sandwich" courses in engineering subjects in technical colleges.
    Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the Minister for those very encouraging figures. Would he agree that the general pattern is not satisfactory; that some employers are very good indeed in helping in every way to provide these facilities for their apprentices, and indeed in doing as much as they can inside the works to help in this way, but that some other employers are not so good? Does not that penalise the good employer? Would he

    189
    publicise:he fact that the Minister would welcome more assistance from that less helpful type of employer in this matter?
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly do everything I can to encourage employers to give proper facilities. Here again, I hope that the Report of the Committee on Training Facilities may be some help in that direction.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour very carefully to study some of the new schemes which are being adopted by German firms in connection with facilities granted to train and educate apprentices in technical and other matters, because in my opinion these are very well worth studying and possibly adopting in British industry?
    Mr. Carr: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do that. As a matter of fact, he is paying a visit to Germany in two days' time. I also hope to lead a deputation from my Committee on the training of younger workers to Germany later in the summer.

    Special Aptitude Scheme
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether the allowances made to boys under the Special Aptitude Scheme are based on the boy's wages, or his earnings.
    Mr. Carr: The allowances are determined after taking account of regular earnings and other income and of necessary expenditure while living away from home.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is really penalising the boys? They are being asked to do overtime and to try to earn more, and when they do so it is put against the allowances which they get from the Ministry of Labour. It is not, therefore, much of an incentive to them to go ahead. Would the hon. Gentleman look at that?
    Mr. Carr: The object of the scheme, of course, is to enable a boy who has not got training facilities available in his home area to be able to benefit from them in a distant area, not necessarily to make him better off for doing so. Its purpose is to ensure that he shall not be penalised through lack of facilities in
    190
    his own area, and, so far as I know, the scheme is doing that.
    Mr. Lee: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that he is in fact penalising them? If we ask for increased productivity and effort, and then, when a boy agrees to attempt to increase production, it is put against what he would otherwise receive from the Ministry of Labour, that is in fact penalising him for attempting to be more useful.
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly keep this in mind, and the committee of which I am chairman, or sub-committee of the N.J.A.C. looking into training, will, of course, look at this scheme, amongst other facilities.

  SCOTLAND

    Control of Deer (Report)
    Mr. Championasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to institute a close season appropriate to each species of deer in Scotland, subject to the exception, in the case of deer actually causing damage, of deer killed in accordance with Sections 39–47 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948.
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now conic to a decision on a close season for deer.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): The Nature Conservancy and interested Scottish organisations have submitted a joint Report on the control of deer, which recommends, among other things, the introduction of statutory close seasons. The Government are considering this Report, but have not yet reached any decision on the subject.
    Mr. Champion: It is with trepidation that I enter into Scottish affairs, but my justification is that I have a similar Question down to the Home Secretary, whose responsibility covers England and Wales in this respect. May I take it that consultation will take place between the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary and that together they will give especial consideration to the fact that both the majority and the minority of those who reported to the Secretary of State in 1954 were in favour of the establishment of a close season in Scotland?
    Lord John Hope: That fact is certainly noted.
    Sir T. Moore: This matter has been debated and discussed in another place over the last couple of years. What is the objection to a close season for these deer, and who are the objectors?
    Lord John Hope: There is no real objection to a close season, but, as my substantive answer, I hope, explained, it is part of a broader plan. That is why there is no decision yet.

    Teachers
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the shortage of teachers in Fife and the likelihood of the situation worsening in the next few years; and what steps he is taking to overcome what threatens to become a serious national problem.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My right hon. Friend is aware that in Fife, as elsewhere, the number of teachers is not yet increasing fast enough to meet the demand. Recent improvements in salaries should attract more recruits and the new superannuation benefits should induce teachers to stay on. Publicity has been given to teaching as a career in all the Scottish universities, and leaflets and posters are this week being issued to all senior secondary schools. The Advisory Council on Education is considering what further measures may be necessary, with particular reference to the staffing of secondary schools.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Minister agree that it is of special importance that endeavours should be made to get teachers to the areas which are developing economically and on which the future of the country so much depends? Will he give an assurance that whatever steps are taken to increase the number of teachers, no steps will be taken that will have the effect of diluting the profession, which would meet with the opposition of most teachers in Scotland?
    Mr. Macpherson: In regard to the first part of the question, so far as Fife is concerned, there has in fact since 1951 been a greater increase in teachers than there has been in pupils, and we are keeping that side of the matter very carefully under review. With regard to the
    192
    second point, that is one of the matters which the Advisory Council on Education has under review, and I think it would be as well to await its report before we take any definite stand on the matter.

    Island of Rhum (Nature Reserve)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the public are to be prohibited from landing on the island of Rhum which is now publicly owned.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The island of Rhum has been acquired by the Nature Conservancy, which has declared it a nature reserve. If in the interests of scientific research, the Conservancy wishes to make byelaws restricting access to the island, these will be submitted to my right hon. Friend for confirmation; and he will have to consider them in the light of any objections which may be lodged after they have been published. He could not, therefore, appropriately make any comment at this stage.
    Mr. Woodburn: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not allow this island to be closed just on theoretical grounds, but that he will require fairly substantial evidence from the Nature Conservancy that the landing of people on this island will seriously interfere with its work? Is he aware that for the last thirty or forty years there has been great indignation in Scotland about this island being closed, long before the Nature Conservancy took over? Now that this island belongs to the National Trust, is he aware that, so far as I know, the National Trust sees no reason why the public should not land on it, as well as on St. Kilda?
    Mr. Macpherson: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He will realise that one of the reasons why the Nature Conservancy has declared it to be a nature reserve is that it has not in recent years been frequented by tourists, and is therefore a very apt place in which to study nature.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the points of satisfaction about the public owning this island is that the previous restrictions by a private landlord can now be removed, and that the public can visit the island which it owns?
    Mr. Macpherson: I would, however, draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Part III of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which lays down what are the functions and duties of the Nature Conservancy once it has declared it to be a nature reserve.

    Road Programme, Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the entire programme of road works for 1956 submitted by Sutherland County Council to the Scottish Department of Agriculture for grant aid under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, was rejected; to what extent the rejection was due to the Government's restrictions on capital expenditure; and whether, in view of the need and the improving financial situation, he will authorise the programme in the current financial year.
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend regrets that the need to limit capital expenditure made it impossible to authorise this programme in 1956–57: but his Department are ready to discuss with the county council the possibility of sanctioning in the current financial year any scheme which they regard as of special urgency.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that the county council, not only in Sutherland but also in Caithness, has put forward for two successive years a large number of schemes, as it has done for years past? Is it not quite wrong that an Act which has for sixty years been on the Statute Book for the benefit of the crofter counties should be abrogated and become a dead letter without a Minister making a statement to the House to that effect? Who is running the Scottish Office?
    Lord John Hope: Without being drawn into the latter part of that rather long supplementary question by my hon. Friend, may I remind him, because I think that he will be the first to wish to get a fair picture, that in October, 1956, the undertaking was given to this county council that representations as to urgency in individual cases would be considered? It is as long ago as that. In only one case were any representations received.

    Infant Mortality Rate
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the birth rates for Coatbridge and Dumbarton burghs are the highest in Scotland for 1956, being 25 per 1,000 live births, but that the infant mortality rate for Coat-bridge is 51 per 1,000 live births, whereas the rate is 18 only for Dumbarton burgh; and if he will make a statement on this disparity.
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of order. May I point out that the figures are for the fourth quarter of 1956, and that the mistake is mine?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I agree that the rates referred to by the hon. Member relate only to the last quarter of 1956. For the whole year 1956, the birth rates per thousand population were 24 in Coatbridge and 26 in Dumbarton. The infant mortality rates per thousand live births for 1956 were 34 in Coatbridge and 22 in Dumbarton. Over the five years 1952–56 the average rates were 36 in Coatbridge and 35 in Dumbarton; these figures over the longer period show no significant disparity.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the general mortality rate is 30, and that if he dips back as far back as 1952 he will find that the progress out-with Coatbridge is very much greater, and that there is no progress here at all? Will he not agree that even one infant death is a tragically high figure, and would he not inquire into the matter?
    Mr. Browne: The actual number of deaths is too small for conclusions to be drawn from quarterly statistics. For example, in the second quarter of 1956, the position was reversed, and there were four infant deaths in Coatbridge, representing 13 per 1,000, and 5 in Dumbarton, representing 27 per 1,000 of live births.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present average infant mortality rate for Scotland and the West of Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The infant mortality rates for Scotland and the West of Scotland for 1956 were respectively 29 and 32 per 1,000 live births.

    Industry, Fife (Report)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet studied the Scottish Council's Report on the industrial future of Fife; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: This Report was submitted to my right hon. Friend on 9th April, and he is considering it in consultation with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour and National Service. He hopes to send the Scottish Council a reply before long, and will be glad to send copies of his reply to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members representing the constituencies concerned.
    Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he recognise that the Report comments on the undue dependence of Fife on Rosyth Dockyard, and in view of the rather disquieting statement which we had yesterday about the future of the dockyards, would he give urgent consideration to this particular aspect of the problem, and to the very varying needs for the industrial development of an area where the main industry is likely to decline?
    Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir, I shall pass what the hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

    Local Government (Structure)
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to review the structure of local government in Scotland.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray) on 9th May.
    Mr. Fraser: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there has been no review of the local government structure in Scotland for nigh on thirty years, and that a few years ago all the local authority associations in Scotland, in their evidence before the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, expressed the view that there ought to be a full inquiry into the structure of local government?
    Mr. Browne: I should not like to debate with the hon. Member exactly
    196
    what the local authority associations did say before the Royal Commission, but I would advise him that I first gave the House this information on 1st November, 1955, when I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that
    "the review of local government finance is not associated in Scotland with the reform of local government organisation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 829.]
    Since then, there has been no approach to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this matter from any of the principal associations of local authorities.
    Mr. McInnes: Would the hon. Gentleman indicate, in view of the alterations which are taking place in the organisation of local government in England and Wales, that the time has now arrived, whether there is a demand from the local authority associations or not, for the Scottish Office to take the initiative?
    Mr. Browne: If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to a Question, to which I have already referred, he will see that he said that he had no evidence of any general demand for a change in the structure of local government in Scotland.

    Radiostrontium
    Mr. G. M.Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations he is making of the incidence of strontium 90 on vegetation on Scottish mountains.
    Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend has made arrangements for the regular sampling, and for the analysis by the Atomic Energy Authority of soil, vegetation and sheep bones from two sites in Scotland, one of which is situated on a high-lying sheep farm in Argyllshire.
    Mr. Thomson: Can the Minister say where the other site is, and can he say whether efforts have been made to take these tests in coincidence with hydrogen bomb tests in various parts of the world, so that we may know how direct the danger is from those tests?
    Lord John Hope: Certainly there will be co-ordination in these matters. As to the name of the other place, perhaps I might let the hon. Gentleman know.

    Electricity Generating Station Project, Hunterston
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposed new public inquiry into the siting of an atomic power station at Hunterston on the Clyde coast.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: There are applications outstanding for my right hon. Friend's consent under the Electricity Supply Acts to the erection by the South of Scotland Electricity Board of a generating station at Hunterston; for his consent under the Town and Country Planning Acts to the project; and for his confirmation of a compulsory purchase order for the site. My right hon. Friend is required by Statute to consider a report before reaching a decision on these applications. The late Sir Randall Philip, Q.C., was unable to make a report before his death and my right hon. Friend has therefore appointed Mr. Harald Leslie, Q.C., to hold an inquiry into the applications.
    Mr. Thomson: Whilst we all regret the circumstances which have caused the new inquiry to h set up, is the Minister aware that the technological race for atomic power between the various nations of the world is so intense that any unnecessary delay may be very damaging to Britain? Can he say, therefore, why Sheriff Leslie should not simply consider the evidence and submissions already made and completed, and why, in fact, we should have any further delay in this matter?
    Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend recognises the great importance and the great public interest shown in this matter, but the fact remains that the procedure at the inquiry, is a matter for the person appointed to hold it, and its importance would be no reason for my right hon. Friend to interfere with the proper conduct of the inquiry.

    Rents, Dumfriesshire (Deputation)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the facts about rents in Dumfriesshire presented to him by the recent deputation from tenants whose rents have recently been increased by the county council; and what was the nature of the reply he gave to them.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The deputations of tenants from Dumfriesshire recently received by my right hon. Friend's Department represented that the rent scheme which the county council proposes to apply from 16th May will lead to hardship and will involve various anomalies. They were informed that the matter is entirely one for the county council and that their representations would be conveyed to the council, as has since been done.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister explain why, although there are seven Scottish Ministers, not one of them was there to receive the deputation? Is he also aware that a great deal of interest is attached to this matter throughout Scotland? It means higher rents throughout the whole of Scotland if this example is followed, and was that case submitted to the council with any representations?
    Mr. Browne: The reception of the deputation by an officer of my right hon. Friend's Department is in accordance with normal practice. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Parliament has expressly given the local authorities the responsibility of fixing the rents of their houses, and the matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend can intervene.

    Poliomyelitis (Vaccination)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the scheme for the inoculation of children with poliomyelitis vaccine.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement to he made tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health which, with my right hon. Friend's agreement, will deal with the position in Great Britain as a whole.
    Mr. Ross: Would it not have been a good idea for the Secretary of State for Scotland to have made this announcement today and to have spoken for England for a change?
    Mr. Browne: The statement which my right hon. Friend will make is too long to be suitable to be dealt with by Question and Answer at Question Time, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will be able to raise questions on Scottish aspects.

    Ayr—Kilmarnock Road, Prestwick
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how long he anticipates it will take to complete the work in progress on the improvement of the Ayr— Kilmarnock road at the northern boundary of Prestwick.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend hopes that the strengthening and widening of the railway bridge will be completed by the autumn; only one-way traffic is in operation now but two-way traffic should be resumed by the end of next month. The diversion of the road at Prestwick Airport will be completed this week and is already open to traffic
    Mr. Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it was rather unfortunate to have these schemes within a hundred yards of one another going on at the same time? It is satisfactory to know that the one at Prestwick Airport is more or less complete, but it is not very good news to know that it will take until the autumn for the widening of this bridge. Surely it could have been got on with much quicker than that?
    Mr. Macpherson: I am certain that the contractors will get on with this work with all urgency.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is it not about time that the more comprehensive scheme was started of putting the road below ground level to make room for the new runway to meet the needs of new aircraft?
    Mr. Macpherson: We will consider that.

    Roads, Ayr (Grants)
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total grant allocated to Ayr County Council in respect of roads under its control for 1956–57; and that to be allocated for 1957–58.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: The total grant to Ayr County Council authorised for work on classified roads in 1956–57 was £155,000. On present information the grant for 1957–58 will be about £184,000; but the amount finally allocated will depend on the progress which the county council can make with the preparation of individual schemes of major improvement.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that the county council and those concerned with this problem have been worried for a long time about the inadequacy of the grants, that the standard of maintenance of the Ayrshire roads, traditionally high, is very much worse than it was before the war, and that it is due entirely to the inadequacy of the grants allocated yearly by the Government?
    Mr. Macpherson: So far as 1957–58 is concerned, the full amount for maintenance and minor improvements applied for is being given.

    Mass X-ray Anti-Tuberculosis Campaigns
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what other local authorities propose to carry out mass X-ray anti-tuberculosis campaigns similar to that recently organised in Glasgow.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: Perth has just completed a magnificently successful campaign. A campaign is under way in West Lothian which has so far exceeded expectations. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of 18 local authorities which propose to carry out campaigns in the next two years.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these local authorities are in areas where there is a high incidence of tuberculosis, and what encouragement will he give to such local authorities to enter into the campaign?
    Mr. Browne: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the local authorities in the list have been selected by the Department of Health for Scotland as being those in whose areas the incidence of tuberculosis is greatest.
    Sir A. Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures for Perth constitute not only a record for the British Isles, but for every city in the world?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Following are the names:
    The town councils of Ayr, Kilmarnock, Port Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Greenock, Rutherglen, Renfrew, Paisley, Coatbridge, Airdrie, Motherwell and Wishaw, Dumbarton, Dundee.
    The county councils of Fife, Lanark, Midlothian and Dunbarton.
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the percentage of the population who submitted themselves to X-ray examination in the recent anti-tuberculosis campaign in Glasgow; the number of voluntary workers who assisted; and the approximate cost.
    Mr. J. N. Browne: The proportion of the adult population in Glasgow examined was 75·7 per cent. This figure of 75·7 per cent. represents 620,491 adults resident in Glasgow and excludes 73,143 persons coming from outside the city and 19,226 children under 15. The number of voluntary workers was about 20,000. No figure of cost is yet available.
    Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether he is satisfied that there will be accommodation and nursing staff available to treat the patients who have since been found to be suffering from tuberculosis, and will he take this opportunity of congratulating the Glasgow local authority, its Medical Officer of Health. Dr. Horne, and his staff, and the voluntary workers for their spirit of service, and, above all, the population for their grand sense of citizenship?
    Mr. Browne: The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir." The answer to the second pan is that I am glad to take this opportunity to express once again to all who were concerned in this great Glasgow campaign the congratulations and thanks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. While it is still too early to give firm details of the results of the campaign, there can be no doubt that Glasgow has made a striking contribution towards the control of the city's tuberculosis problem.

    North Connel-Ballachulish Road
    Sir D. McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the unfinished state of the North Connel-Ballachulish road, A.828, is a great handicap to the development of the tourist industry in the North Lorn area, which industry is vital to the Highlands; and when it is proposed to resume and complete the work of reconstruction which was scheduled as part of the prewar crafting counties road scheme, on which work was begun before the 1939–45 war, and which had to be suspended because of the war.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend cannot yet forecast when it will be possible to complete the reconstruction of the North Connel-Ballachulish road but he hopes this year to authorise a scheme to improve the section between Kentallen and Lurignish.
    Sir D. McCallum: May I ask my hon. Friend if he realises that this is the trunk road between Oban and Inverness, that there are four or five sections which are extremely dangerous, and that it is now eighteen years since this trunk road has had any attention?
    Mr. Macpherson: As soon as the contract documents can be prepared, we propose to authorise this year a scheme between Kentallen and Lurignish, costing about £65,000. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that this, at any rate, is quite a good restart.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Government Building Tenders (Prime Cost Items)
    Sir A. Bossomasked the Minister of Works if he will give consideration to eliminating as far as possible from Government building contracts items for which a prime cost sum is included and for which, in consequence, there is no competition.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): The advantage of avoiding prime cost items as much as possible is well understood by Government Departments engaged in building, and they try to do so.
    Where prime cost items cannot be avoided, it is the normal practice of Government Departments to obtain competitive tenders for these items wherever more than one firm is in a position to undertake work of the required standard.
    Sir A. Bossom: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that where these sums are included there is no competition at all, and that in some cases as much as 70 per cent. of a contract is given out in this way? Will he look into this situation to see that we get the best prices we can?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend can rest assured that we have a lot of sympathy with the points in his Question and shall continue wherever possible to adopt the practice that I have described.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Brackish and Sea Water (De-Salting Experiment)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what part the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has played in the Dutch experiment for de-salting sea water; and what financial contribution has been made to the cost of this research.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research provides the United Kingdom representatives on the International Steering Committee, which co-ordinates the research in the Netherlands on the de-salting of brackish and sea water.
    The Department has made a contribution of approximately £4,700 in each of the last two financial years. The appropriate contribution for the current financial year is still under discussion.
    Mr. Mawby: Can my hon. Friend say whether, if these experiments are successful, this country will be able to share in all the commercial advantages which will naturally arise?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. The D.S.I.R. has fully participated in this research and will have a full share in all the benefits accruing from the experiments and in any equipment developed from them.

    Traffic Flow (Roundabouts)
    Mr. Partridgeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what work the Road Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has done on the flow of traffic at roundabouts; and whether any conclusion has been reached on their maximum capacity.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Road Research Laboratory has been studying traffic flow and behaviour at roundabouts under
    204
    experimental and actual conditions. This is leading to a better understanding of the factors involved and particularly of the relation between maximum traffic flow and the shape and dimensions of a roundabout, but it is not yet possible to forecast accurately the capacity of any particular design under actual conditions.
    Mr. Partridge: Has the Road Research Laboratory advised on the proposed roundabout at Hyde Park Corner?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Sir. I believe that the research results contributed very materially to the decision of the Minister of Transport.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary continue to put the prevention of accidents as a major consideration in the design of roundabouts?
    Mr. Nicholls: Yes, I think I can reiterate what is the Government's intention all along the line: prevention is better than cure in these matters.

    International Geophysical Year (British Programme)
    Mr. Partridgeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how the British contribution to the International Geophysical Year compares with that of other countries.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: I am satisfied that this country will be making a very significant scientific contribution to the International Geophysical Year. Apart from the United States and the Soviet Union, whose efforts both in financial and practical terms are greater than ours, the British programme compares favourably with that of other countries.
    Mr. Partridge: As the start of the Geophysical Year is only about two months ahead, can my hon. Friend tell us anything about the projects in mind?
    Mr. Nicholls: So far as Britain is concerned, the Radio Research Station of the D.S.I.R. will be the European regional centre for radio observation dealing with the ionosphere and atmospheric noise. In addition to that, there will be a programme of research into the upper atmosphere by the firing of high-altitude rockets from the Woomera range. Support has also been given to the Royal Society's expedition to establish a scientific base on the Antarctic mainland at

    205
    Halley Bay. America and Russia are each proposing to launch a number of earth satellites for the exploration of the upper atmosphere, and they also have large expeditions to Antarctica, as have a number of other countries, including New Zealand, Australia and France. It will be seen that during the Geophysical Year quite a number of balloons will be going up for some useful purpose.

    Research Activities (Co-operation with O.E.E.C.)
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what invitations have been issued in the past by the United Kingdom to other Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries to participate in any British research projects; and what response was received.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The United Kingdom has on many occasions taken the initative in suggesting research activities in which other Organisation for European Economic Co-operation countries might cooperate and where the research could appropriately be carried out by a United Kingdom research organisation as a part of, or extension of, a British research programme. In a number of cases schemes of this type have resulted.
    Mr. Wilson: Can my hon. Friend be a little more specific about the topics covered?
    Mr. Nicholls: I did answer my hon. Friend's Question. The topics covered have included food and agriculture, building, energy, including nuclear energy, and other aspects of applied science, business management, economic and human factors, technical information, and trade union programmes. Those are just a few examples of the topics which are being covered.
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are made concerning patentable results of research undertaken in co-operation with the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: When the research project initiated within the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation is
    206
    likely to lead to patentable results, a clause concerning patent rights and their explotation is included in the agreement drawn up between the participating organisations in member countries. Such a clause is designed to ensure that the right arising from patentable results of any new co-operative research are shared equitably between the participating bodies.
    Mr. Wilson: What formula do the Government usually apply to ensure that any developments can be fairly shared?
    Mr. Nicholls: There are no set formulæ. One would apply when a Government Department is concerned, another for a research association, and yet another for a nationalised industry. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that all the formulæ are designed to see that the results are widely and fairly shared.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Trade with Poland (Export Facilities)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the President of the Board of Trade what additional facilities under the export credits guarantee scheme have recently been made available to exporters trading with Poland.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The additional facilities announced on 11th March, which are available to all United Kingdom exporters, will be applicable to trade with Poland. No additional facilities have been made available solely for exporters to Poland.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not desirable to take every possible step to promote British trade with Poland at this critical stage in international relations? Is not the Minister's reply somewhat disappointing in the circumstances?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. I do not think that it is disappointing to anybody who understands the machinery of the export credits guarantee scheme. Exporters to Poland will benefit in the context that I have indicated.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not very important politically as well as economically to take real steps to encourage trade between this country and Poland?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the export credits guarantee scheme is a scheme for ensuring credit contracts for exporters from this country. As I have said, we are doing for exporters to Poland what we are doing for exporters to other countries.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister saying that he cannot do anything because the export credits guarantee scheme is limited? If that is the case, what other measures do the Government propose for encouraging trade with Poland?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: On the contrary, exports to Poland now come under Section 1 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949; that is, commercial guarantees are given. That, of course, is a step forward, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate.

    Turkey
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider arranging a trade delegation to visit Turkey.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I think there is no need at present for a trade delegation to visit Turkey. But if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular problem in mind perhaps he would let me know.
    Air Commodore Harvey: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many people think that talks should take place, preferably in Turkey, but even in London, to improve trade with Turkey? In view of our excellent relations with the Turks, will he look at this suggestion again to see whether something can be done to bolster that trade generally?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It is correct, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that our relations with Turkey are excellent. But the Turks owe us very substantial sums of money for goods already supplied, and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in this matter.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    National Land Fund
    Mr. Owenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for financial assistance were received by the
    208
    National Land Fund from the National Park authorities during 1956; how many were granted; and whether he will state the total amount of the grant during the year 1956.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): There is no power to use the Fund for parks.

    Trade with Poland (Export Facilities)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the United States offer of a cash loan of 30 million dollars to Poland for the purchase of American mining equipment and agricultural machinery; and whether he will provide credit or other facilities to Poland to enable British manufacturers of mining equipment, tractors and agricultural machinery to enter the Polish market on equal terms wih their American competitors.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I understand the negotiations between the United States and Poland on economic aid are still in progress. Her Majesty's Government are not themselves in a position to provide the Polish Government with special credit facilities but the normal facilities of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department are available to United Kingdom exporters to Poland.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Hunterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the annual amount of repayments of post-war credits over the next five years if the age for repayments were reduced to 64, 63, 62, 61, and 60 years, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The current rate of repayment is £17 million a year. Each year by which the age for repayment is reduced would add a further £17 million in the first year, without any substantial change in subsequent years.
    Mr. Hunter: As many people have been waiting for seventeen years for repayment of post-war credits, will the Chancellor consider lowering the age for repayment?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will consider all these things, but it is a costly business.
    Mr. Hunterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of post-war credits owing at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: About £464 million.
    Mr. Hunter: Will the right hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that the purchasing power of the £ has fallen considerably in the post-war years since the system of post-war credits was introduced, and that they are now worth roughly only 55 per cent. of what they were during the war period?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is more a matter of information than a question.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Staff Relations
    Mr. G. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions of membership, in relation to numbers of appropriate staff, are required to be fulfilled before recognition is granted to bona fide staff associations and trade unions in the Civil Service.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 4 to 20 of the Stationery Office publication "Staff Relations in the Civil Service", of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of that publication, Mr. Speaker. Would the Chancellor draw the attention of the joint stock banks to the excellent practice in

    HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION

    —

    England and Wales

    Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough

    Newcastle-under-Lyme Rural District

    31st March, 1955

    …

    …

    …

    …

    150,411

    681

    58

    31st March, 1956

    …

    …

    …

    …

    148,226

    440

    48

    31st March, 1957

    …

    …

    …

    …

    130,460

    402

    24

    Percentage decline. 1957 as compared with1955

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    13

    41

    59

    South Devon Path
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the cost, up to the most convenient date, of the
    210
    the Civil Service regarding trade union recognition?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a different question.

  HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Housing Programmes
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the percentage decline in the number of municipal houses under construction in the last two years to the latest date for which figures are available for England and Wales; and the comparable figures for the Borough and Rural District of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): As the Answer involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Swingler: It involves only three figures. Why is the Minister reluctant to give those figures? Will not he at least tell the House the national figure of percentage decline, so that it may be on the record for the information of the whole House?
    Mr. Brooke: The figure will be on the record. I thought that the hon. Member wished to have the numbers as well as the percentages. Of course, the percentages are misleading if one does not have the numbers. The percentage decline for England and Wales is 13 per cent.
    Following is the Answer:
    survey by the National Parks Commission in the parishes of Strete and Stoke Fleming in the Rural District of Kings-bridge and the Borough of Dartmouth in respect of the South Devon Path.
    Mr. H. Brooke: These areas have been visited from time to time, with other areas in South Devon, by representatives of the National Parks Commission in connection with a possible long-distance route. Such visits are part of the Commission's day to day activities. I cannot state separately the cost involved.
    Mr. Mawby: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that any further spending should be concentrated on using the existing rights of way rather than on opening new ones?
    Mr. Brooke: The National Parks Commission has no power of itself to create a right of way.
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what report he has received from the National Parks Commission under Section 51 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, in respect of the South Devon Path; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The National Parks Commission has not yet submitted such a report, and thus the second part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Mawby: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, after three years, owners and occupiers at least ought not to be kept in suspense any longer than is absolutely necessary?
    Mr. Brooke: I certainly do not want to keep anybody in suspense, but this is a case of the National Parks Commission carrying out its statutory duties in consulting the local authorities, and the local authorities should be well informed about public feeling in their areas.

    Dust Nuisance, Bedworth (Minister's Letter)
    Mr. Bowlesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now received a letter from the Bedworth Urban District Council, dated 3rd May, 1957, regarding the National Coal Board and dust nuisance; and what he has replied.
    Mr. H. Brooke: Yes, Sir. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply to the council.
    Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that reply indicates that my constituents' furniture,
    212
    houses, lungs and food will cease to be covered and damaged by coal dust blown across from this coal dump?
    Mr. Brooke: The reply indicates that the council is mistaken in thinking that Section 22 of the Clean Air Act is applicable to the matter, but it also points out that the council itself has certain powers under Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936.

    Water Supplies (Advisory Committee)
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice on the supply of and demand for water he has received from the Central Advisory Water Committee or from either of its sub-committees; what progress is being made by those subcommittees; and when he expects to receive and publish any report.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I have not yet received advice on these matters from the Committee, as it is awaiting reports from the sub-committees. I understand that considerable progress has been made, but the inquiries are far-reaching and I cannot yet forecast when the reports will be submitted.
    Mr. Mitchison: And will the right hon. Gentleman say how he makes up his mind about a shortage of water or demands, say, for water from Wales, failing these reports or any advice?
    Mr. Brooke: We have a great deal of information in my Department about the water situation, but it will be of value also to have the further advice which this Committee, I hope, through its subcommittees, will be able to furnish in due course.
    Mr. Mitchison: Was not this body set up to advise the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of some urgency? When does he expect to receive a report or to publish it?
    Mr. Brooke: I have said that considerable progress is being made. The matter is in the hands of the subcommittees, but we are not solely dependent on the progress of these subcommittees and on the Advisory Committee for our information about water resources and water demand.

    ANTARCTICA
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will take action to co-ordinate the responsibilities of the Treasury, Foreign Office, and Colonial Office in relation to Antarctic territory; and whether he will state the Government's policy in relation to this area.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I regard the existing machinery for co-ordination as adequate.
    Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to Antarctica is to continue the tasks of surveying and exploring the Falkland Islands Dependencies, which include our Antarctic sector, with a view to ascertaining their value, particularly from the economic and scientific points of view, and by the establishment and administration of the necessary bases to establish our sovereignty over the area. The Government are in consultation with the other Commonwealth Governments concerned.
    Mr. Henderson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the international co-operation which is taking place in Antarctica in connection with the Geophysical Year should be of very great value, and has he considered initiating discussions with other interested Governments with the object of utilising the resources of that region for peaceful purposes and for the general welfare?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly take note of that suggestion.

    ADMIRAL SIR DUDLEY NORTH
    Mr. C. R. Hobsonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now set up a special court of inquiry to examine all the evidence relating to the case of Admiral Sir Dudley North arising out of events in the Mediterranean in 1940.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in the public interest, he will now set up a court of inquiry into the case of Admiral Sir Dudley North;
    (2) whether he is aware of the general disquiet over the number of occasions that have arisen where the recent publication of facts relating to the conduct of the war
    214
    in different spheres have led to the protection of certain personalities at the expense of others; and if he will consider what action he can take to ensure that justice is done possibly by making the appropriate files immediately available to historians;
    (3) if he will introduce legislation to provide, with effect from September, 1939, for officers and men in each service, a right of appeal to a court martial or to a court of inquiry in any case in which they consider that their prospects in their service have been prejudiced by actions of their superiors, short of formal disciplinary measures.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for postponing their Questions. I regret that it has not yet been possible for me to read with the necessary care the considerable number of papers relevant to this matter.
    I know of no precedent for an inquiry of this kind. I hope, however, to be in a position to give a considered reply next week, and I think it would be most convenient if I dealt then with my hon. Friend's more general Questions.
    Mr. Hobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that, having considered the relevant information which is now in his possession, he is prepared to make a statement after Questions?
    The Prime Minister: If that is the most convenient way, certainly. I recognise that I am asking hon. Members for some indulgence, but this' is a rather complicated matter and I did want to try to inform myself by reading a great deal of the material concerned.
    Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the Answer that he has given which, at any rate, shows that he is prepared to look at the case without prejudice? May I say that I am very grateful to him for that decision?
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, when considering this matter, he will look at the discussion which took place in this House at Question Time on 23rd June, 1954, and whether he will bear in mind that the root cause of all the trouble was the fact that Admiral North was never told of the Dakar expedition, and that is what led to

    215
    all the difficulties into which he got? [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the right hon. Gentleman know?"] Because I do know; if the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the debate he will see why. Will the Prime Minister also bear in mind that no fewer than five Admirals of the Fleet, three of whom themselves were First Sea Lords, just about that time pleaded with the First Lord of the Admiralty to have this matter looked into, because they all knew that Admiral North had been treated unjustly?
    The Prime Minister: There is a very large dossier of papers, debates, Questions and statements which I want to try to get through, but I have had one or two other matters to attend to. I had to be in Germany last week and so I asked the hon. Members if they would be good enough to postpone their Questions and I am, I am afraid, asking them to postpone them again, because I really do want to find the time to go through all the material before reaching a decision.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— well, I am going to— having due regard to all his responsibilities, whether he will bear quite clearly in mind the fact that this admiral considers that he has been most unjustly treated and that, whatever the Prime Minister's preoccupations, the sooner the matter is examined and cleared up the better?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will make a statement next week.

    EXPORTS TO CHINA (STRATEGIC RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place with other members of the Commonwealth regarding the relaxation of strategic restrictions of United Kingdom exports to China.
    The Prime Minister: Although there has been no formal discussion with other Commonwealth Governments, those who, like ourselves, operate controls on trade with China are fully aware of our views about relaxation of strategic restrictions. We are in constant informal touch with them on this matter and bear in mind their similar interests.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in fact other members of the Commonwealth were in agreement with us that these restrictions should be reduced or whether there was not unanimity on this matter?
    The Prime Minister: We have had private and informal discussions with them, and in the light of that we are cooperating with them in a common policy.

    RADIOSTRONTIUM
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he will suggest to the Soviet Government that a meeting of British and Soviet scientists and other experts should take place to see if agreed conclusions can be reached as to the hazards involved by polluting the atmosphere with strontium 90 as a result of atom and hydrogen bomb tests.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 7th May.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would not the Prime Minister agree, particularly in view of the complaints that have been received from China about the effect in China of the outfall of strontium from the Soviet tests, that it would be better to ascertain the views of Russian scientists on this matter, and compare those with the views of British scientists?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we are right to rely on the information given to us by the Medical Research Council. I want to make it clear that, although the Report was some time ago, this is a permanent work. There is a Standing Committee of the Research Council; it has its own research units, and it is a continuing progress of research.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister will be aware that not long ago the Lord Privy Seal replied that he would consider the suggestion which I made that a further report should be invited from the Medical Research Council. Can the Prime Minister say whether that is being done?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but there are various methods— whether there should be a full report of the whole

    217
    Council or whether we should publish some of the research papers that it makes from time to time. I want to emphasise that this is not like calling in a body and dismissing it. Through all its various branches this research goes on continuously.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any announcement to make about change of business?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made for a debate to take place tomorrow and on Thursday on the Opposition Motion of censure on the Suez Canal situation.
At the beginning of business on Thursday it is proposed to take an allotted Supply Day formally before resuming the debate.
The business previously announced for tomorrow and Thursday will be postponed.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (LOCAL OFFICES)
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the proposed changes in the local office network of my Ministry.
As I informed the House in a Written Answer on 24th July last I have recently undertaken a comprehensive review of the network of local offices of the Ministry of Labour, which number 1,144 full-time and 129 part-time offices.
This network has been established over the years in response to the needs of particular times. There has been no similar comprehensive review since 1921. Meanwhile, changes in the level of unemployment, in population and in public transport, both generally and in particular areas, have considerably affected the pattern of needs.
It has been my aim in this review to maintain a convenient and efficient service. After giving careful consideration to the local circumstances of each office
218
concerned, including both the long-term and the immediate employment situation, I have come to the conclusion that it should be possible to amalgamate some offices which are close together in areas where transport facilities are good and to close a number of offices where the volume of work is now very small.
I am now referring proposals to my local employment committees for their consideration. One hundred and one full-time offices and 46 part-time offices are in the field of consideration for closure, and 39 full-time offices for conversion to a part-time basis. I wish to emphasise that no decisions will be taken in advance of these local consultations. I am writing today to hon. Members concerned individually to let them know of offices, the closure or conversion of which would affect their constituents, and I shall give a list of the offices tomorrow in answer to a Question which has already been put down to me.
To maintain a more flexible organisation in the future the need for individual part-time offices will be kept under periodic review, and in addition, there will be comprehensive reviews of the whole network at longer intervals.
Further consideration is being given to the best means of providing a satisfactory and efficient service to the public in the light of modern methods— for example, by making use of mobile vans. It is my intention to introduce a limited number of experiments in suitable areas.
Mr. Robens: I should think that when the House, the trade union movement and industrialists have had time to consider this statement they will view with very great concern the action which the Minister proposes to take in the further de-Bevinising of the Ministry of Labour. This is in addition to the reduction of the number of labour attaches, the abolition of appointments officers and the loss of a number of staff employed in dealing with disabled persons. Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consultation the trade union movement, the Federation of British Industries and employers' associations?
I should also like to ask whether the Minister has considered the effect of these closures— which, apparently, concern about 10 per cent, of the full-time offices and one-third of the part-time offices— on the problems arising

219
out of the new defence programme and the other large number of changes which he has already indicated will take place, and whether we may have an opportunity of debating the whole question of the Ministry of Labour?
Mr. Macleod: On the general question, I agree that we would want to look closely at these important proposals. It seems to me that as there has been no review of this sort since 1921, and the whole network is geared to deal with heavy unemployment, the network today should be geared to full employment. No decision will be taken— I would emphasise that— until local people have had the fullest opportunity of expressing their views.
On the question of consultation with industry, at the last meeting of the N.J.A.C., I informed, in confidence, the trade unions and the British Employers' Federation of the outline of the statement I was making to the House.
Mr. Robens: Is the right hon. Gentleman accurate when he says that there has been no review since 1921? In fact — I do not refer to the committee over which the Parliamentary Secretary sat— the late Ernest Bevin went to the Ministry of Labour in the Government of the right lion Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and made a comprehensive review of the services of the Ministry. He built them up into a real public service, and now the right hon. Gentleman is trying to close them down.
Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is quite wrong. There has been no review of this sort since 1921. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right that the pattern built up to deal with heavy unemployment should continue, he can hold that point of view. On this side, we hold a very different point of view.
Mr. Walter Elliot: Is it not a good thing that diminution of unemployment should continue and that a state of full employment should be reflected in the review of the machinery to deal with it?
Mr. Macleod: That is exactly the point. Some of these proposals are very much needed. They affect large offices where there are other offices that can conveniently take the load. To give one
220
example, there is one full-time office which has one man on the register. Surely no one in the House will argue that I should maintain that position. Such a review is clearly needed. There are 150 concerned.
Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to a point of detail? If this change should involve men having to travel some distance to employment exchange offices, will they receive their transport costs?
Mr. Macleod: I have been taking that up in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The number so involved will be very small indeed. Many people may, in fact, have to attend less because— the right hon. Gentleman probably knows the rules— if, as a result of this, they are between four and six miles away, they only attend once a week and if they are over six miles they are dealt with by post.
Mr. J. Rodgers: Can my right hon. Friend say that before any office is closed the consultations will be wider than the local employment committees, and include such bodies as local disablement advisory committees, youth employment committees and the British Legion?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I have suggested to local employment committees that, where appropriate, they can bring the chairmen of local disablement advisory committees, and perhaps youth employment committees, into consultation.
Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman gave us an outstanding case in which one full-time officer was running an employment exchange, which he thought should be closed down. I would not disagree with that, but why does he consider it necessary to make a statement after Questions to deal with a purely administrative task of that kind? Is not this a case where, instead of the Ministry of Labour being built up as a service to men and women in industry, it is being deliberately run down, so that employment exchanges will become once again what they were in the 'thirties— merely places where men signed on and drew their unemployment pay?
Mr. Macleod: That is quite untrue. I informed the House because this is a very

221
large decision and the constituents of very many Members are affected. I have written personally to each of them and they should receive the communications tonight. I did not want to give a full list of offices in advance of the letters which are now going to the chairmen of local employment committees, because I thought that they should be informed personally by me before they read about the proposals.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If the full programme outlined by my right hon. Friend is, in fact, carried out, how much does he estimate will be saved in manpower, money and materials?
Mr. Macleod: If the full programme is carried out— and I shall take no decision on any of it until I have the views of local people— the saving might be about £150,000 and 200 staff, but, in addition, there is a very large saving— about which I cannot be precise— in premises and equipment.
Mr. Lee: Can the Minister say how much it will cost to transfer civil servants and people of that type? How much of that cost will fall upon the Ministry? Is not it quite misleading to tell the House that the only service of an employment exchange is to deal with unemployment? Does not the Minister agree that most of the statistics that the Board of Trade uses for its distribution of industry policy, and that kind of thing, are amassed at Ministry of Labour offices? Is it not quite wrong for the Minister to break down the best service that we could possibly have merely to get the plaudits of the people behind him?
Mr. Macleod: Far from breaking it down, I think that it will be possible to provide a much more modern service by these methods, particularly in rural areas. If we can develop some of the experiments that I have talked of, by such means as mobile vans, there will be a much better service than the isolated part-time offices which now operate.
Major Legge-Bourke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he say, particularly in regard to rural
222
areas where there is a considerable variation in seasonal demand for labour— such as horticultural areas— whether he will take into consultation representatives of the National Farmers' Union and other growers' bodies, and also county agricultural executive committees?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I hope that local consultations will be as wide as possible.
Mr. Redhead: Is not the confident view that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed about the increased efficiency of his Department as a result of these proposals completely contrary to the view which has already been expressed to him repeatedly by the staff of his own Department, through their staff associations? Have not they repeatedly expressed the gravest apprehensions that the proposals will militate against the quality and efficiency of the service?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, those are matters of opinion, as the hon. Member says. I know quite well that sonic of these proposals will be extremely unwelcome. But I still believe that they are right, and I intend to carry them through.
Mr. Gibson: In view of the importance of these proposals to the industrial world, will the Minister make sure that adequate and full discussions take place with trade unions, and not merely with local representatives but also with the Trades Union Congress itself?
Mr. Macleod: Local trade union representatives, or representatives of workers, are, of course, represented on local employment committees, as are local employers and other local interests. That is why I am consulting them before I take decisions in individual cases.
Mr. Nicholson: Have other Departments been taken into consultation, with a view to seeing whether economies can be achieved by the common housing of various regional services?
Mr. Macleod: The question of regional services is a wider one, which does not arise upon the statement that I have made today.

PETROL RATIONING (CESSATION)
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on petrol rationing.
Petrol stocks in this country are at a satisfactory level, and now that interim arrangements have been made for the resumption of traffic through the Suez Canal the Government have decided that petrol rationing can be brought to an end. My noble Friend the Minister of Power has today made an Order giving effect to this decision from tomorrow.
Mr. Ernest Davies: The whole House will welcome this announcement, which is hardly surprising, but will the Minister make a statement about the emergency surcharge which is still imposed upon petrol? Is it not a fact that this was imposed to meet increased distribution costs, increased freight rates due to tankers having to come round the Cape, and the smaller through-put? Is there any justification for continuing this? Even if there is a time lag, are not the profits of the oil companies today so great that they could carry this extra burden?
Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. We are discussing with oil companies the removal of the surcharge.
Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in his discussions with the oil companies, that they are still taking from private motorists 6d. a gallon more than they were in the pre-Suez period? As no more than 2d. a gallon is on account of the extra cost for going round the Cape, will my right hon. Friend be quite sure— if he is to continue controlling petrol prices— that the motorist gets a fair deal? Further, will he consider the British Road Services surcharge of 7½ per cent. which was put on today, when it was known that petrol rationing was to end? Surely, that is not valid in the circumstances.
Mr. Maudling: There has been a considerable rise in Gulf prices, but my hon. Friend should not suppose that the Government intend permanently to control petrol prices.
Mr. Shinwell: Did the right hon. Gentleman listen to his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power yesterday when, in reply to a question, he categorically stated that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the printing of petrol coupons? Is that still the intention? What expense has been incurred in the printing of new ration books? And, when they are printed, what do the Government propose to do with them?
Mr. Maudling: Of course we shall proceed with their printing. It was because the Labour Government, at the end of petrol rationing in 1950, were wise enough to proceed with the printing of ration books that we had them in stock to meet this emergency.
Mr. Paget: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are not going permanently to control prices, are we really to have no protection whatever against these enormous monopolies?
Mr. Maudling: It is not right to say that they are enormous monopolies.
Mr. Chetwynd: As well as dealing with this surcharge, can the Minister say what steps are being taken to remove the odd halfpennies and pennies put on a whole range of goods as a result of petrol rationing? Are we to understand that the Government are keeping the ration books for fear that the noble Lord is taking over the Government?
Mr. Maudling: The surcharge covers the whole range of petroleum products.
Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the House whether or not he is going on printing the books? I do not quite get it. What is the idea of going on printing the books? Does he expect another crisis? We are all very glad to hear the news today, but we cannot understand why this announcement was not made some time ago. What is the good of wasting public money on printing petrol ration books unless the right hon. Gentleman expects more trouble? If he does, would he be good enough to tell us what it will be?
Mr. Maudling: It is sometimes wise to anticipate trouble. Governments are often blamed for not doing so. The right hon. Gentleman's own party was

225
wise enough to print an additional issue of ration books before cancelling petrol rationing. We are doing the same thing.
Mr. Grimond: Do we understand that the Government are now following the Socialist Party in this, as in everything else? If the confusion spreads in the Conservative Party, are we to have another Suez crisis in the next year or two?
Mr. Maudling: We are merely following the party opposite in the wise precaution that it once took.
Mr. G. Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say how much time was saved in introducing petrol rationing by reason of the fact that there was a stock of books in hand?
Mr. Maudling: I cannot say exactly, but there certainly was a considerable saving.
Mr. Lipton: If, as announced, the Government are going on with the printing of petrol coupons, what do they want us to do with the petrol coupons we now hold? Can we keep them?
Mr. Maudling: There are very interesting possibilities. The printing of a new issue will cover future emergencies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.— [The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Army Estimates, 1957–58

  VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum, not exceeding £44,280,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, in addition to the sum of £48,450,000 to be allocated for this purpose from the sum of £210,000,000 voted on account of Army Services generally.
  3.53 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare): In the Memorandum which I circulated with the printed book of Army Estimates I have endeavoured primarily to give hon. Members a background of what has happened to the Army during the past twelve months. In my speech today I wish to concentrate on the problems which face the Army now and, at the same time, to give some idea to the Committee of how I think the immediate future may work out.
  I would like to say a word about finance first. For the current financial year the total net sum required for the Army is estimated at £401·4 million. This represents a reduction of nearly £100 million on the total provision made for the Army last year. We did, of course, take a Supplementary Estimate of £39 million last year, of which £30 million was on account of the Suez emergency. All the same, I think that the Committee will agree that the sum for which I am now asking represents a substantial relief to the country's economy. Furthermore, this reduction has been achieved in the face of a steady increase in both civilian wages and in prices.
  The reduction has been made by several means. Almost half of it comes from the stores Vote. We are not expecting so much equipment to be delivered. We shall save £14 million by using existing stores for day-to-day maintenance purposes and £3½ million by running down food stocks. There will also he a

  227
  considerable increase in receipts from the sale of surplus stores. The smaller Army will require more than £10 million less in pay and allowances and the ending of certain oversea commitments in Korea, Jordan and the Suez Canal Base will save nearly £6 million.
  But I think I must warn the Committee not to expect comparable reductions in future years. As I pointed out in my Memorandum, eating into reserves for maintenance purposes is, largely, a non-recurrent operation. Although the size of the active Army will be progressively reduced during the next few years, economies of the size which have been made this year could only be achieved either at the expense of the soldier or at the expense of the efficiency of the Army.
  Today, there seems to be a tendency to concentrate on the spaceman rather than the human being. We are apt to talk in terms of press button war and tend to think of the soldier as a robot. I do not take that view. Whatever the weapon may be that is put into his hand, the same qualities will be needed of the soldier as served his predecessors on battlefields from Crecy to Arnhem. He must be well disciplined, well trained, well equipped, well led, courageous and sure of his cause.
  Equally, in my opinion, we should be most unwise to minimise the importance of conventional weapons because of the ingenuity of the scientists who are producing nuclear weapons of varying shape and size. Indeed, there are many who think that the existence of the megaton bomb and the approach of what is called the "ultimate weapon"may make it increasingly unlikely that this ghastly instrument of war will ever be used.
  The Army must take its share in forming part of the deterrent and the shield to prevent global war, but, at the same time, it must be prepared and equipped to carry out its Commonwealth and worldwide responsibilities and also be capable of taking an effective part in limited war operations, if need be.
  We need our complement of tactical nuclear weapons, but it would be folly to assume that because of that, conventional forces armed with conventional weapons do not remain of paramount importance. We have to be sure that the Army is equipped and trained to carry
  228
  out its varying tasks and yet, at the same time, be certain that it does not place too heavy a strain on the national economy. Properly organised, equipped and led I believe that it can deal with these varying types of commitment.
  May I say a word about organisation first? In nuclear war, dispersion on the battlefield will be essential if overwhelming casualties are not to result. Communications will be uncertain and there is an undoubted requirement for a smaller basic fighting formation capable of fighting on its own under a looser overall direction from higher headquarters than we were accustomed to in the last two world wars.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned in the debate in March on the Army's Vote on Account that, to meet this requirement, we were thinking in terms of the brigade group. He outlined the composition of the two types of this group, the infantry brigade and the armoured brigade group.
  No final decision has yet been reached on this important question, but we are continuing a thorough examination of it. Its special attraction is that the brigade group would form a closely integrated force, trained as a team and sufficiently self-contained to be able to fight, to move and to maintain itself over long periods. Further practical experience will be gained in the British Army of the Rhine this year and I hope to be able to keep the House in touch with the progress we make in this direction.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Does the Minister hope to be able some time this year to form some definite conclusions on what is to be the fundamental formation basis of the Army?
  Mr. Hare: I certainly hope to be able to do that within the next twelve months. We shall get a lot of experience, I hope, from Germany this year.
  It may well be that some such form of organisation would also fit our commitments in cold war. The essence of success is to be ready for instant action. We aim to reduce our garrisons overseas by our ability to reinforce them from a central reserve with up to a brigade group on a jeep basis. In limited war a brigade group could be married up with its heavier supporting arms in the theatre.

  229
  Both these concepts require mobility. I shall deal with this problem of mobility later, but in mentioning this new type of organisation I must emphasise that it does not differ greatly from the ideas of our allies. They are all tending towards smaller and more closely integrated compact divisions. Some of these divisions have little more fighting strength than the groups that we are considering.
  I should now like to say a word about equipment. By the end of the five-year period on which we are now embarking the field Army will he completely rearmed and the weapons of the 1939–45 war will have almost completely disappeared. I mentioned in my Memorandum the progress being made in the issue of the F.N. automatic rifle, the new submachine gun which will replace the Sten, and the development of a possible replacement for the Vickers medium machine gun. We are also considering a replacement for the present battalion anti-tank weapon with a lighter version capable of a more impressive performance.
  The Conqueror tank is already on its field trials with units and. in our opinion, is capable of defeating the heaviest known tank, but I would point out to the Committee that it may well be the last of the heavy tanks which we shall produce. We have under development an anti-tank guided weapon which should, if all goes well, remove the heavy tank from the battlefield. Medium tanks, on the other hand, will he required for some time yet to provide the close support for infantry which the guided weapon cannot give. A new medium tank is in an advanced state of development. In armoured cars we shall have the Saladin with an armament which gives it the punch of a medium tank, and the Ferret is a scout car of great versatility.
  In field artillery the 25-pounder, which has been a wonderful weapon for nearly twenty years, still has some years of efficient service ahead of it. All the same, with the changing conception of war we realise the need for a weapon of greater range and greater versatility. Between the new field gun, which will replace the 25-pounder, and the Corporal, our long-range tactical nuclear guided weapon, there must be other weapons ready to
  230
  replace the present medium, heavy and super-heavy guns.
  For this purpose we are beginning the development of a nuclear guided weapon which will be complementary to Corporal. It will be a highly mobile equipment capable of quick deployment. We are giving further consideration at the same time to the need for additional types of nuclear weapons for the artillery in the field.
  Although Anti-Aircraft Command has been disbanded our armies in the field will need anti-aircraft protection. To find the answer to this a limited production order has been placed for a surface-to-air guided weapon known as Thunderbird. This will give the Army its first opportunity to train with a mobile weapon of this type. At the same time, to deal with low-flying aircraft, we are replacing the old Bofors 40 m.m. gun with a new light anti-aircraft gun, the L70. With its improved radar fire control this gun, we believe, will be the foremost weapon of its type in the world.
  The whole range of engineering equipment, including bridging, mines, tractors and earth-moving machinery is being modernised.
  I can also announce that a new range of wireless sets is being taken over by the Royal Signals and other arms which will give a performance greatly superior to those of the past. These sets will have more range for less weight. They will work well by night— our existing sets, as some hon. Members may remember, do not always do so—and will be more robust and simpler to operate. In addition, a new signal system, known as the radio relay, is now coming into service. This provides a radio telephone link over considerable distances without the need to lay and maintain lines between headquarters.
  New weapons and new equipment produce more complex demands for training. It was as long ago as 1950 that the first guided weapon course was started at the Royal Military College of Science. We now have three guided weapons training wings; one at the School of Artillery, another at the School of Anti-Aircraft and a third at the R.E.M.E. Training Centre. We also have staff at the Woomera and the Anglesey ranges and will shortly be participating in the tests

  231
  at the Hebrides range. A cadre of instructors has been trained on Corporal, both here and in the United States, and there is no shortage of people able to handle the weapon.
  The progressive introduction of new equipment will go a long way to compensate for the preponderance of numbers which any likely enemy is bound to have. Another factor which will enable us to reduce the size of the Army will be our plan to increase mobility. The growing ability of air transport to move large quantities of men and material all over the world at very short notice can, if properly used, give us back the traditional basis of British strategy. That is to say, a swift application of small forces at decisive points.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has told the Committee about his plans to expand Transport Command's force of modern long-range troop-carrying aircraft. Transport Command, together with the resources available from civil air lines which we intend to call upon in an emergency, will provide the airlift which is essential to a military strategic reserve in this country. I do not pretend that air transport has yet reached the stage where it is the complete answer, because in a modern Army we have certain types of heavy equipment which cannot be transported by air.
  There are three ways of dealing with this problem. In the first place, every new item of equipment ordered by the Army will be looked at as potential air freight. I place great importance on that. Constant investigations are being made to see how the amount of equipment on which the fighting units reply can be reduced. For example, I am glad to be able to announce that the number of vehicles in the field Army is at present being cut by 20 per cent. Secondly, we already have stocks of heavy equipment overseas which formations from this country can draw upon immediately they arrive there. We may have to revise these holdings. In any case, it will cost much less than having to provide and maintain troops all over the place against the possibility that trouble may arise in one particualr area.
  Thirdly, we have retained in service some tank landing ships (LSTs) which were taken out of reserve at the time of
  232
  the Suez emergency. We can give regular employment to a number of these ships in peace time. They would also be invaluable to us in an emergency both for carrying heavy tanks and other heavy equipment and for landing operations if ports are damaged and resort has to be made to the beaches.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: I appreciate the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the kind of equipment required in the future to be airborne. Has he made any estimate of the number of transport aircraft which would be required to lift a brigade group?
  Mr. Hare: Yes, I have, but I do not share the pessimism which is obviously being shown by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the plans of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for building up Transport Command are inadequate. I am certain that we shall be able to get a very considerable airlift.
  Mr. George Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer a specific question? A year ago, we were told in the Estimates debate that there was to be a 24th Independent Brigade to carry out just this function of putting out a brush fire. Would he give the Committee a categorical assurance that the 24th Independent Brigade could be transported with its equipment at present if an emergency arose?
  Mr. Hare: I certainly would not do anything of the sort. If I did, it would be of great interest to the enemy as well as to other people.
  I was saying that these L.S.Ts. will be of great use to us in peace-time.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would acquit right hon. and hon. Members of any desire to acquaint the enemy of our plans. Does he not realise, however, that unless we have an estimate, an approximate idea, of the number of aircraft required to lift a brigade, it is impossible for us to discuss this matter in a debate? We are left completely in the dark.
  Mr. Hare: The answer is that it depends on how long we wish to take to move the brigade, how far the Brigade has to be moved, and how much heavy equipment is taken. I think that that is a very hypothetical question.

  233
  Apart from the strategic air transport force, the Royal Air Force will build up their force of heavy freighters for employment within a theatre of operations and, in addition, there will be light cargo aircraft for employment in the forward areas.
  The Army, as I announced the other day, will have helicopters and light aircraft with an all-up weight of up to 4,000 lbs. for artillery observation and intercommunication duties.
  Now I should like to say something about the Reserve Army. This includes the Army Emergency Reserve and the Territorial Army, both of which have recently been reorganised. The more we cut the size of the Regular Army, the more important become both of these forces. The Army Emergency Reserve will continue to provide essential communications and the technical and administrative services required on mobilisation by both the Territorial and the Regular Armies. It consists of specialist units and pools of skilled men who can be called upon at short notice to fill gaps in Regular units. We have relied a great deal in the last few years on National Service men who bring their specialist skills with them into the Army. A shortage of technicians is bound to become one of our major headaches. The situation will be relieved to some extent by an extension of the Army Apprentices Schools, where, I am glad to say, recruiting is good, but we shall still be heavily dependent on the Army Emergency Reserve.
  The Territorial Army will again become an all-volunteer force and will have as its primary rôle that for which it was intended when it was founded half a century ago, the defence of the United Kingdom. It will continue to be organised as a fighting military force ready to defend this country. Territorial Army formations will be closely connected with Civil Defence regions so that in the event of nuclear bombardment they will be present as a disciplined force to undertake any military task.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he is giving full recognition to the fact that there are some counties whose only link with the Army is through their Territorial regiments, whereas some are in the
  234
  fortunate position of having both a Regular and a Territorial Army link? Would he say that, wherever possible, he will ensure that that link is not entirely broken?
  Mr. Hare: I will certainly give every consideration to what my hon. and gallant Friend says. It is a point that we should certainly keep high in our minds.
  But I do want to stress that the T.A. will remain a strong fighting force. As an ex-Territorial myself, and some other Members of the Committee are in the same position, I do hope that the celebration of the jubilee of its foundation, which will take place next year, will mark an upturn in its fortunes, and that now that it is to be an all-volunteer force its strength will grow up again to what it was in pre-war days.
  May I turn to the questions which are uppermost in the minds of most people in the Army today, realising, as they do, the many changes which will flow from the decision to create a balanced all Regular Army by the beginning of 1963? The questions, as I see them, are as follows. First, "What will be the effect on my regiment or corps?"Secondly," Shall I be affected personally? "Thirdly," If my Army career is abruptly terminated, what terms of compensation shall I get? "And, fourthly," If I am forced to retire, how much notice shall I be given? "I cannot yet give a full answer to all these questions, but I should like to take them one by one.
  First, "What will be the effect on my regiment or corps?" All arms of the Service are to be substantially reduced. It is also obvious that the new Army cannot contain as large a number of regiments and battalions as we have today, however much we increase the proportion of fighting units to administrative services. This raises grave problems for every regiment and corps in the Army but, because of their traditional organisation the most difficult to solve will be problems affecting the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry.
  The question is: how can we best avoid damaging the regimental traditions which have sustained the British Army in its darkest hours and have brought it back to victory time and time again? There is a school of thought which says that a new age demands completely new

  235
  garments, and that the robes of regimental tradition should be altogether discarded. They argue that we should create a corps of infantry with numbered regiments of the line.
  This may be a logical solution. If we were building from scratch a new Army, like the Germans are at this moment, it might well be the best answer. But the morale of the Army rests on regimental traditions, and I believe that to strike savagely at those would be wrong, and would deal a blow to recruiting prospects from which it would take many years to recover.
  The Army Council is now considering all the possible other alternatives, and I hope to make an announcement before the Summer Recess. I shall certainly do so just as soon as I can, but it would be wrong to rush decisions which will vitally affect the future of the Army for many years to come. Meanwhile, I assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that we shall endeavour to temper as far as we can the abruptness of any break with the past.
  Now I come to the second question, "Shall I be affected personally?" At present, it appears unlikely that it will be possible to work out in detail for every corps and regiment the exact number of officers and N.C.O.s who will be redundant until about the beginning of November, although, again, I am doing all that I can to improve on that date. The reason for this delay follows from what I have said about the future reorganisation. Decisions on that must come first. I can assure the Committee that all of us at the War Dffice fully understand how unsettling this period of waiting is, but it is far preferable to arrange things in an orderly manner than to issue a series of unco-ordinated decisions.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence recently announced that between 5,000 and 7,000 officers in all three Services may have to go prematurely. At this stage, I cannot say more than that the Army's share is likely to be a bit more than half of the estimate given by the Minister. The vast majority of these will be majors and lieutenant-colonels who are, or are just about, past the midway point in their careers. Officers below the rank of major should generally not be affected and, in view of the many
  236
  unsettling rumours which are flying about, I want to emphasise that I am confident that we shall be able to continue to offer to the officers who remain in the Service, to cadets now at Sandhurst, and to future entrants, the prospect of a good career in the Army.
  Part of the reason for the delay which I have just mentioned lies in the fact that much detailed work must be done to ensure that future career prospects are not prejudiced by our new reorganisation.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: When the Minister says that we are able to offer people coming in a good career in the Army, with the assurance that it will last, is not that precisely what was promised these men with whom faith is now being broken?
  Mr. Hare: I can only say what I genuinely believe, which is that owing to the proper working out of promotion prospects and to the other measures which we have in mind we can offer to these young men coming into the Army an excellent career.
  What I have just said about the need for delay applies equally to other ranks, where, I am afraid, a forecast of numbers is even more difficult. It is fairly certain that some warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s will have to go but I am equally certain that there are certainly no surpluses of junior N.C.O.s and private soldiers; we want more of them.
  Now I come to the third question, that of compensation, which I shall link with the fourth, "If I am forced to go, how much notice shall I get?" The Minister of Defence has already indicated, in broad terms, the lines on which it is intended to compensate officers and other ranks and he proposes to give further details as soon as possible. The Committee will understand that I cannot anticipate his statement today, but I can repeat that our intention is to make the terms attractive, so that individuals who leave the Army can do so without feeling that they have been unjustly treated. These men, I think we all agree, must be given a fair deal.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that if a man gets an opportunity to settle down before the terms are announced, he will be entitled to compensation afterwards?
  Mr. Hare: We have first to make available the terms of compensation. I was about to deal with the question of how these compensation terms were to be operated.
  We shall try as far as possible to achieve the reductions on a voluntary basis. We shall invite applications from those who wish to take advantage of the terms of compensation after people have had proper time to consider these terms, and after the decisions about the future of regiments have been announced. But the Committee will realise that if we are to achieve a balanced run-down, it will not be possible to meet individuals' wishes in every case. The Army Council must retain the power to reject applications for these special compensation terms it would be dangerous for too many officers or N.C.O.s from one age group or one regiment, or with one skill, all to leave at the same time, as this would obviously unbalance considerable sections of the Army.
  Finally, I hope that I can relieve anxiety to some extent by stating now that it is our intention that all individuals who are required to terminate their Army careers prematurely against their wishes will be told well in advance of the event.
  Now let me come to what is probably the most difficult problem of all. The whole of our planning is dependent on our ability to attract the men we want in sufficient numbers and of sufficient quality for this all-Regular volunteer Army. We must succeed, if we are to meet our foreseeable commitments and, at the same time, dispense with National Service. How are we to do it?
  To begin with, we have decided to alter the terms of engagement. The normal Army engagement will be for twenty-two years. The soldier will not have, as at present, the option of breaking after three years' service. The minimum Colour service is likely to be for six years, with six on the Reserve.
  Mr. Bellenger: And renewable?
  Mr. Hare: And renewable on a three-yearly basis afterwards.
  To meet cases where recruiting is extremely difficult, and to cover National Service men who are prepared to do one year's extra service, I propose to allow some men to enlist on the 22-year engagement but to have the option as at
  238
  present, of breaking at the end of three years with four years' Reserve service, but these will be the exceptions. I do not want to go further into detail, as I hope to bring legislation before Parliament this Session.
  Before the hon. Member for Dudley. (Mr. Wigg), who looks very well pleased, exults too much, I would point out that the intention to end National Service has quite a deal to do with this decision. I hope that he will realise that what is right in 1957 was not necessarily right in 1952.
  Mr. Wigg: I have no intention of exulting. My heart is sad, very sad, because nobody can be certain of what the steps back will be. Once the three-year engagement has done its work the manpower structure of the Army becomes very difficult, and no one knows what will be the outcome. One thing I would ask of the right hon. Gentleman. If I have been right about this, I beg of him to look very carefully at the advantages of the suggestion of a corps of infantry before turning it down.
  Mr. Hare: I always listen with careful attention to what the hon. Member says, because I know of his vast interest in the affairs of the Army.
  The three-year short service man is, in the great majority of cases, a man described sinisterly as a disguised National Service man. If there are no National Service men there is no one left to assume the disguise and there is no point in going on with the three-year engagement further. Nor, in fact, can the reduced Army afford to carry training overheads of the size which short service demands.
  Mr. John Strachey: Is the Minister ending the three-year engagement now, or at the end of National Service?
  Mr. Hare: I hope to bring legislation before Parliament this Session, but I hope to end the engagement this year.
  It would be foolish to speak in terms of overconfidence about our ability to recruit the numbers we need. I do not think that any statistics derived from the past prove the matter one way or the other. The social background of the nation has changed so much over the past forty years that figures derived from the

  239
  years before 1939 are largely meaningless, and since 1945, National Service has really blurred the picture. But I will say this— and I do not care if it is a platitude— that the number of men the Army gets will depend almost entirely on the attractions which it can offer to them and the status which can be accorded to these soldiers of this new Army.
  I have already spoken in this Committee about living accommodation, barracks and married quarters. The large reduction in the size of the Army makes the problem more manageable, but more urgent in its nature. We intend to press on with the provision of new barracks and quarters as fast as we can. I am glad to say that I hope to receive in the next few days, possibly this week, the Report of the Committee on Army Works Services, set up by my predecessor under the chairmanship of Lord Weeks. I am deeply grateful to Lord Weeks and his colleagues. They have worked with untiring zeal and urgency and I confidently believe that their recommendations will do much to speed up Army building procedure.
  From what I have seen there is still quite a lot that can be done within barracks at a cost small in comparison with its effect on the soldier. I have been looking at units, both in this country and overseas, in recent months and there are some thoughts which have occurred to me. Something must be done to improve the furnishings of our various establishments. I do not believe that it is good enough that, in this day and age, soldiers should be expected to sit for their meals at trestle tables, as they did in Kipling's day. I want to see the last vestiges of hideous chocolate and dark green paint removed from living quarters.
  Barracks are the soldier's home, certainly the unmarried soldier's home. I have been very impressed by the pleasing atmosphere created in barracks by the presence of members of the W.V.S. and Church societies. In canteens, libraries and restaurants, wherever one goes, their presence has an excellent effect, and I want to do everything possible to encourage the admirable work which they are doing.
  In all these matters, I believe that it is essential that Parliament should
  240
  approach conditions of service from the standpoint of a good employer. It is inevitable that, in the course of his service, the soldier should, from time to time, have to put up with danger and hardship, discomfort and family separation, things which do not happen in ordinary civilian occupations. There was a time when such benefits as free medical services, long service pensions and free schooling were more readily available in the Army than in civil life. In view of the improvement in the conditions of civil employment in the past twenty years, that is no longer the case.
  I have already spoken about accommodation. Apart from that, there is, I believe, the need to provide in stations overseas amenities comparable to those which the soldier can find when he leaves barracks in a small town at home. There are, at present, many places abroad, where, to say the least, the facilities for a young man to occupy his time between his last duty and his first parade next morning are, to describe them mildly, extremely meagre. I am setting up a working party to see what can be done to bring our practice more into line with, for example, what commercial companies do for their staffs in comparable circumstances.
  Then there is the question of stability. Everyone knows the difficulties caused by sudden changes and postings of individuals during the post-war years. As we build up to an all-Regular force it will be possible to do much to improve the situation.
  Family separations are another problem of the same sort. I am tackling this in various ways; by pressing on with the building of married quarters and by examining the difficulties of married men and of families who are temporarily separated.
  Hon. Members will know that we have recently done something substantial about rations, the scale of which was increased on 1st April last, with meat as a big feature. I believe that there is something to be said for the ancient toast of a famous club, "Beef and Liberty". If we expect our forces to preserve our liberty we should feed them well.
  Despite intermittent efforts, from time to time there is still too much paper and form-filling in the Army. Soldiers do not join the Army to fill in forms although

  241
  far too many of them find themselves doing precisely that. We must try to tackle this problem again, and I hope that I shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides in my efforts. It is not an easy problem, since, in the last resort, much of it stems from our traditional system of parliamentary control of finance.
  Then there are the matters affecting the soldier and his family at the end of his service. Foremost, is the question of post-service employment. A good deal has been done in this direction already, for both officers and other ranks, but a great deal more still has to be done. Personally, I shall not be satisfied until a young man, after he has been in the Army for six or nine years, finds himself no worse placed in a civilian occupation than his contemporary who has not been in the Army at all. I do not think that we should merely accept that as a counsel of perfection. I do not think that we can honestly say that we owe anything less to the soldier than that.
  Finally, I believe that there should be a greater recognition of the status of the volunteer soldier in the modern community. We must get away from the idea that our peace-time Army is merely an expensive encumbrance on the national economy. Our homes, our freedom, our industrial progress, our welfare, all these things depend on the soldier's readiness to come forward. We, each one of us, have a duty, I believe, to see that the community pays recognition and respect to those who dedicate themselves to its service.
  The new Army which we look to will be based on the volunteer spirit and, therefore, on the traditions of the Regular Army of the past. Weapons may change, but the spirit and courage of the man behind them is what ultimately counts. I have every confidence that the soldiers of the future will serve their country with the same devotion as those who fought to preserve us in the past.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Strachey: I congratulate the Secretary of State upon his survey this year. If he will permit me to say so, I congratulate him with very special sincerity, because he had most interesting things to tell us and he told them in a most interesting way. The whole Committee appreciated that.
  242
  Naturally, with some of the things he said I do not find myself in complete agreement, but with the observation made at the very beginning I very much agree. He suggested that in the Army Estimates this afternoon we pass for a time from what I can only call the terrible melodrama of the hydrogen bomb to a consideration of the more familiar old-fashioned weapons of the Army. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that far from destroys the interest of the discussion.
  In many respects, I am much more interested in the relatively old-fashioned, conventional weapons. After all, our interest in nuclear warfare of the hydrogen bomb type is likely to be for the most part what I might call a posthumous interest. I am more interested in precisely what is to be the rôle of our land forces, because they, it seems to me, are the forces most likely to be able to prevent global war from breaking out. What has been called the fire-extinguisher rôle, especially of our land conventional forces, is of the highest interest. Therefore, paradoxically enough, what has almost become a symbol of all our conventional forces, the man with the rifle, is not only as important as ever but is, perhaps, even more important today than hitherto.
  Mention of the man with the rifle brings me to my first point of criticism. In the rather glittering catalogue of re-equipment and rearming which the Secretary of State laid before us— all as a prospect of the future, of course— one feature which I found rather disturbing was his reference in the Memorandum to the new F.N. rifle. Once again, all we are told is that production will begin in this country. Six years ago, when we left office, we were being told that it would take two years to tool up production for that rifle, but now, six years later, all we can be told is that it really will begin this year. I hope and trust that it will, because I regard the self-loading rifle as one of the most important pieces of re-equipment for our land forces.
  Troop trials have taken place, I know, but they have been carried out with rifles purchased from Belgium. It is not a very encouraging prospect for all the other very important features of re-equipment for our land forces which we are promised that there should be this extremely slow-motion record on the rifle which we have had from year to year to emphasise.

  243
  However, better late than never. I agree that, for precisely the fire-extinguisher rôle, the self-loading rifle will be something of the greatest importance.
  The Secretary of State referred to the other side of the Army's work, the nuclear and tactical nuclear weapons with which the Army is to be equipped. We have, no doubt, got to have them; they have to be there in the background because, if the worst happened and a general war began, the West would, no doubt, attempt to fight that war with tactical nuclear weapons without introducing the ultimate deterrent—it would be too late to call it a deterrent then— of thermo-nuclear weapons and the hydrogen bomb.
  I myself have always felt that it was a fairly forlorn hope to imagine that one could limit a war at that point, having reached the point of using tactical nuclear weapons. Once it reached that point, it is almost certain, I have always felt, that the conflict would go the whole way to thermo-nuclear weapons and all that they would mean. I come back, therefore, to the feeling that the really important thing is to have highly efficient, though not necessarily large, fire-extinguisher forces armed with all the very best non-nuclear weapons. It is at that point that an incipient war can very likely be stopped.
  As the Secretary of State went on to say, the arming of our conventional land forces is only part of the story. There is also the highly important question of how we are to organise them. I am not going to plunge into the quite hot military controversy about that question— I do not pretend for a moment that I have the technical military knowledge to give a view about it— but I should like to make just two observations from the political angle on the reorganisation of our land forces in general, and, of course, of our divisions in Germany and our contribution to N.A.T.O., in particular.
  From what the Secretary of State said today and what the Under-Secretary said the other day— I would say, in passing, how interested we are, and glad too, to see the Under-Secretary in his place on the Front Bench this afternoon— I understand that our present four divisions in Germany are to be reorganised as eight brigade groups, each of these brigade
  244
  groups, whether armoured or infantry, to consist essentially of four major units. That is what I might call, for short, the provisional War Office view of what ought to be done.
  The alternative view is that our four divisions in Germany should be reorganised— everybody agrees that they must be reorganised; that is not in question— much more on similar lines to those of our allies, the French and the Americans, and, as I gather seems probable, the new German forces will be organised.
  The essence of that would be that they would be kept still in four divisions, although divisions of a new and much smaller character, but each of them consisting of five major units. Therefore, we would have four divisions of five major units— in the case of armoured divisions, five combat groups and, in the case of infantry divisions, five enlarged infantry battalions, each with supporting armed services, signals and the rest.
  I do not pretend to know the balance of advantage in the military argument. Both ways of doing it add up. I gather, to about the same figure of 60,000— 70,000 men in Germany. One notices, at once, however, two political points.
  If we do it the way that we are contemplating and the way which has been described to us, in eight brigade groups, we produce armed forces organised in a markedly different way to those of our Allies in N.A.T.O. I agree that they are a little more like them than our present organisation, but, despite what the Secretary of State says, they would be organised, surely, appreciably differently from the new divisional formation now being adopted, I understand, by the French and the Americans and to be adopted by the Germans. The essence of their Scheme is that there are the five major units instead of the four and for that reason, I suppose, the thing is still called a division and not a brigade group.
  I should regard it as very unfortunate if our troops were to be organised in so markedly different a way and with so markedly different a structure to our allies in a joint N.A.T.O. force. I do not for one moment say that it is a decisive consideration if all the other considerations were the other way, but it is one which should be taken seriously into account.

  245
  Secondly— this is, frankly, a psychological point, but it should not be written off on that account— it means that by our present way of doing the job we cannot still claim to keep four divisions in Germany. And as the Government have found in recent weeks, our European allies are extremely divisional-minded. They think in terms of divisions.
  Looking at it at first sight, as those of us who have been on the Continent recently have found, the first impression in Continental military circles was that we were to have no divisions at all in Germany. Then, they have looked at the brigade groups proposal and have seen that there will be eight brigade groups, which they add up at once to two and two-thirds divisions. And they feel that this is an enormous reduction in British forces.
  Again, I do not say that that is an overwhelming or decisive consideration, but it is an important one, and a quite unnecessary degree of alarm and despondency has been caused amongst our allies and in N.A.T.O. because of the choice of the four-major-unit pattern instead of the five-major-unit pattern. In the case of the four-major-unit pattern, it cannot be called a division, whereas the five major units can he and are called a division and our allies themselves are calling them a division. Therefore, they could not possibly object to our continuing to call them four divisions. It is a purely psychological point, but I put it to the Government as one which is not speculative but which, we have found, has done a good deal of harm in N.A.T.O. circles.
  Therefore, unless this is now finally decided— and I understood the Secretary of State and also the Minister of Defence and the Government generally to say that it was not finally decided— it might be worth while to look at it again. These two considerations arc of a good deal of importance. Unless the balance of military advantage can be proved to be overwhelmingly on the side of the brigade group type of reorganisation— if it can, of course, that would overrule everything else— I should have thought that the relative uniformity with our allies and the psychological advantage of still having four divisions in Germany were considerations of a good deal of moment.
  246
  Those are the considerations which come to my mind on the subject of organisation. It is, however, as the Secretary of State himself made clear, no use having either the right arms or the right forms of organisation, unless we have the men to arm and to organise. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to spend most of my time on this question of manpower, which is obviously the main question before us this afternoon in these Army Estimates.
  Are we going to get the men to man the all-Regular professional Army of 160,000 men which the Government have proposcde160,000 male other ranks, as I understand it? That is the target at which we have to aim. The Secretary of State has told us something about his present plans. We start, after all, from the present level of recruiting, which, the right hon. Gentleman has told us in his Memorandum, was 38,500 last year. I agree, of course, that that does not have much meaning for his future plans, because much of that figure comprises three-year men who are not Regulars in this sense.
  What we have really to think of, surely, is an all-Regular Army which we maintain by a considerably lower rate of recruiting per year than that. I do not think there is any possibility of getting that rate of genuine Regular recruits per year. Therefore each recruit will have to stay on for a considerably longer time.
  Mr. John Hare: I did not give a figure of 160,000. We have not actually settled the numbers for the Army. Our conception is, as laid down by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, that of the 370,000 rather more than two-fifths would be the share of the Army.
  Mr. Strachey: That, of course, was where I got the figure. I am not suggesting that it has been settled to within a thousand by any means.
  The Secretary of State will agree, surely, that that size of Army must be fed and maintained, if it is to be fed and maintained by all-voluntary methods, by a much fewer number of recruits than we get today, but each of them staying in the Army for a good deal longer. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that from what he said concerning the three-year service.

  247
  I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. One can think of an Army of that size being maintained by an inflow of about 20,000 men a year, each of whom serves, on the average, for eight years. That would about do it. Probably some pattern of that sort is the best way and the best expectation of maintaining an Army of that size. That is roughly the old pre-conscription pattern.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that things are very different today, but that is all the evidence we have. If we look at the inter-war years, for example, it was always a pattern in which considerably more recruits than that— more like between 25,000– 30,000 a year— were obtained, the biggest single slice of them on the 7-year engagement, but some for six years and some even for three years. So we got a slightly different pattern of a rather larger number of recruits serving a rather shorter time. It must surely be on some pattern of that sort that the Government can expect to get their men. In that case, they would have a rather larger Army, too. Those pre-war figures gave an Army of something like 200,000. So we would not need as many as that.
  Is this an attainable pattern? Is it attainable for us to get an Army of that sort? Is it attainable for the Army, and is the corresponding pattern attainable for the Armed Forces as a whole? We are told that we have to get 375,000 men. I do not know what pattern the Minister of Defence has in mind, but I should say that one ought to aim at something like 35,000 on 10·5, or something like that, average years of service, allowing for the fact that the average in the other Forces, especially the Navy, is a good deal longer.
  Those seem to me at first sight to be, in the long run, attainable patterns, though by no means easy to attain. I doubt whether they are fully attainable on the present number of men available, which is about 330,000 men, in what the Continentals call the class or the age group which comes up each year. But that number, fortunately, will rise, and rise substantially, in the 'sixties to 400,000 and in the mid-'sixties to well above that number.
  248
  We have to write that down by something like 25 per cent., I presume, for medical unfitness, and we thus get a class in the critical years of something like 300,000. That would suggest that we would have to get a little over 10 per cent.— something like 11 per cent. or a little more— of the available men to volunteer for one or other of the Armed Forces. In my opinion, that is still a fairly formidable task. It is not nearly as formidable as the task which the Minister of Labour and National Service suggested that we should have to face if we abolished National Service.
  The Committee will remember that last July, when the Government were arguing against the abolition of National Service and we on these benches were pressing it, the Minister of Labour and National Service said that it was quite impossible to do it because we would have to get 20 per cent. of the available men to volunteer. He quite truly said that that was an unattainable percentage. At that time, however, the Government were claiming that we had to have much larger Armed Forces than they now accept. Now it has decided to abolish National Service, the Government seem to be going to the other extreme and to be suggesting that it is quite easy to get the men. I do not think it is easy at all, but I think that with these figures it is an attainable objective, granted that some pretty drastic decisions are taken by way of inducements, about which the Secretary of State began to speak, and that they are taken earlier.
  That brings me on to his announcement about the three-year period of Regular engagement and its abolition. I am not one of those like my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who regarded the three-year engagement as a hideous mistake. I think that as part of the National Service system it was a perfectly understandable thing, and I was never willing to join with my hon. Friend in an all-out attack on the Minister— the previous Secretary of State— for introducing it. It was pretty successful during the period of National Service. Again I also think that the recruit to the Army today, certainly if he makes the Army his life career, should have the right to give notice, as it were, although in the case of the Armed Forces he must give long notice, that he wishes to leave

  249
  at the end of the next three-year period. I am glad to notice that the Secretary of State will retain that right.
  I also agree with him, however, that in an all-volunteer Army it is quite right that the War Office, the Government and the country should say to the men that their initial period of engagement must he substantially longer than three years. Because we invest a lot in the men by way of training and the like, and, therefore, they must sign for a substantially longer period. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has chosen six years, and I dare say that that is the right period to fix. He might have gone even longer, but it might have been a dis-inducement to recruiting, and I can well believe that six years is the right term. The right hon. Gentleman might, of course, have taken the view that it would he better to keep the three-year engagement until the end of National Service, but I think that, on the whole, he is right in abolishing it now. He must expect a sharp drop in apparent Regular recruiting from having clone that, but he will he building up a long-service Force from this year onwards, and I think he is right to do that.
  Now, I come to the passages in his speech in which he spoke about the redundancies of officers, senior N.C.O.s and warrant officers. I am bound to say — though I am not blaming him— that I could not help feeling that this was by far the least satisfactory part of his speech. It was a most unfortunate juxtaposition that he had to say that and then immediately go on to say that we are relying for the future entirely on voluntary recruiting and on men making their careers in the Armed Forces. Is there not some way in which we can get over this very grave disincentive which we are creating to men making their careers in the Armed Forces, this disincentive of compulsorily retiring a good many men today? I realise, of course, that one thing which the right hon. Gentleman must not do, and which his colleagues must not do, is to keep these men on in such a way as to block the road to promotion for the younger men. That would be even worse, and of course he must not do that. It would be a disastrous disincentive; but are there no ways round this difficulty?
  250
  After all, Lord Tedder's speech in another place has been a pretty formidable warning. He may have overstated the case, but it is not a speech to be lightly written off. Cannot various devices— and I can only suggest one or two— be thought of, because I should have thought that the ingenuity of the Departments, if they really got going on this question, might produce something which would go a very long way to preventing men, and certainly all the warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s— a more manageable problem, as I understand it — being compulsorily retired? If it came to the point, is it not worth while establishing special extra posts for these men? There is an enormous amount of work which may or may not be undertaken by the civilian backing of the Army today. There is only too much of this administrative work.
  Again, there is the question of the Commonwealth forces. We are often told that it is impossible to raise forces in Africa and the like— and I remember being told it constantly during my period of office— because it was impossible to provide the senior warrant officers and N.C.O.s for them. In the Commonwealth forces themselves, those of Australia, New Zealand. Canada and elsewhere, who raise their own forces, and which have and need well-qualified officers as well as senior warrant officers and N.C.O.s, surely a good many positions can be found for men who wish to go on with their military lives? If that was proved impossible, there is the question of putting them, if necessary as civilians, into the increasing volume of work which we are told is being undertaken on a civilian basis for the Armed Forces.
  If that were looked at imaginatively, and if the Treasury could be induced to see that it might be one of the most false economies in the world compulsorily to retire these men, because it would make it far more expensive to get the recruits which are needed, surely this can be arranged, I would have thought, by putting the target as high in the case of N.C.O.s and warrant officers as to say that there should be no compulsory retirement. I should like to say the same thing of officers, but I suppose I shall be told that that is a much bigger and more difficult problem. At any rate, in the former, and if possible in the latter,

  251
  too, I am very doubtful whether compulsory retirement in this situation will not prove a very false economy, to put it no higher than that. It is bound to prove a great personal tragedy for many men. I would have thought that the Government ought to look at this most seriously again.
  The Secretary of State turned next to the question of conditions of service and spoke warmly and very well of the conditions of barracks and the like. I trust that we are to have a vigorous programme— as I am sure we are— in the modernisation of barracks and the rest. The right hon. Gentleman did not specifically mention married quarters, and I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the position there? Is it yet satisfactory? I am not making a party point, because if the record is not good it is partly our responsibility, certainly, but I was struck by the two figures given in the R.A.F. Memorandum and in the Army Memorandum. The R.A.F. since the war has built over 16,000 married quarters, and now has 3,000 under construction. The Army, which is much the bigger force, has built only 10,000, and we are not told how many are under construction. I realise that the Army started with a bigger stock, but, even so, is that a satisfactory rate?
  Have any of us, during our periods of office, ever really got the house-building machinery of the Army running as well and efficiently as the house-building machine of the Royal Air Force is running, regarding these two Services as housing authorities, which, indeed, they are under the Act? I would have thought that the Army has not yet shown a good enough record. Of course, I may be told that this will largely solve itself by the shrinkage in size. The Secretary of State shakes his head and, I think, is indicating that it would not, and I agree with him, surely largely because of the considerably larger proportion of the smaller Army likely to be posted at home at any given time. Therefore, I would have thought that a redoubled effort in this field was needed.
  Now I come to the question of pay, which is a very big question. The Secretary of State did not deal with it today, and I do not know whether it was because he felt, as I know some people say, that pay is satisfactory today. I often
  252
  hear it said that pay is not everything, and that one ought not to stress it too heavily because men join the Armed Forces for all sorts of other and higher reasons— patriotism, the desire for a military life and the like. It is very true that pay is not everything and that these people do join for all these idealistic reasons, but none of them is a good reason for under-paying the men who do join. It is in fact a very bad reason for doing so, and when we are told that pay is satisfactory, what does it mean?
  I would only say that pay is satisfactory— and this is a hard-boiled way of looking at it— when it is attracting the number of men whom we have got to get for the Service. My earlier training and inclination was as an economist, and, in the economists' rather soul-less phrase, they talk about "a supply price." There is no doubt "a supply price"in any given circumstances for the men whom we want to encourage to join the Services, and the pay is not satisfactory if we find by actual experience that we are not paying "the supply price"; that is, the price which gives us the supply of men that we need. Nor do I believe this evidence which is sometimes produced that higher pay would not increase the number of men offering their services.
  I do not know if the Secretary of State noticed it, but I was very much impressed by a notice in The Times in the latter part of January last ĩn which were given figures of the number of men applying from this country— from this labour market of which we are speaking here— for admission to the New Zealand Air Force. The New Zealand Air Force was offering a starting rate of pay— comparable with our starting pay in the Services of about £9 or £10 per week, and in the first half of January it is reported that they were getting applications at the rate of 4,000 a month. It shows the remarkable effect of a really high offer of pay, but, of course, the circumstances are very different, and I do not draw any exact analogy.
  I think we are wrong, however, in thinking that really adequate pay does not have, other things being equal, a very important influence. All I would say here is that if we are to have an all-volunteer Regular Force, we have just got

  253
  to pay what turns out to be the necessary rate, and, more than that, we have got to go on paying what turns out to be the necessary rate, and to revise these rates quite frequently, if necessary. It is not by any means impossible or undesirable, in our opinion, that if wage rates in the civilian world go on rising steadily, the pay of the Services must also keep pace with them. This is the market in which the Services must put in their bid and keep their bid competitive, because it is only the market which judges what is competitive and what is not. Therefore, I suggest to the Government as a whole that they should keep this pay question closely under review and see by experience whether they are getting an adequate inflow of recruits.
  These are my suggestions on the question of getting the men, but I would not feel confident, and I do not pretend that I would feel absoultely confident, that, with all that, and if all that is done, we shall recruit an Army today of 160,000 men. What are we then to do? I was very interested in the discussion which went on here yesterday on the Navy Estimates, when a number of speakers made the suggestion and pressed it very hard that we should very greatly increase the size of the Corps of Royal Marines. The Naval figures are interesting, and therefore I looked them up. After all, we have been recruiting for the Navy some 110,000 men.
  As I understand it from the proportions given by the Minister of Defence, we shall only need sufficient naval recruiting to keep up a Navy of the order of 75,000 men. We know from experience that we can get naval recruits for a Navy of 110,000 men. Why not go on doing that in the form presumably of a corps of Marines, or in any other way, getting substantial Marines forces, or forces to perform the functions of the Marines, something in the nature of a Marine division, whether organised like that or not, to supplement the land forces in a really important way?
  Speakers yesterday described eloquently, and with greater knowledge than I have, the particular suitability of the Corps of Royal Marines to form the spearhead of the expeditionary forces, which is obviously one of the functions for which
  254
  we are maintaining our land forces. I would have thought that something in the nature of really substantial forces— 20,000 or 30,000— in effect a Marine division, air transportable so far as possible, would he appropriate.
  I agree that when we talk of our expeditionary forces being air transportable we are a very long way from their being air transportable with all their equipment in one jump. They would have to be sea transportable as well. However, a spearhead can be air transportable. Indeed, there is already a Marine spearhead in the form of the Marine Commandos which is actually airborne. That has great attractions, because it might reduce the Army requirement by a corresponding figure. If we can get the total of men we want in that way, we shall have to be much more flexible in our approach to the matter.
  Of course, I can think of all sorts of objections to this suggestion, and no doubt the Departments could think of a thousand objections to it. There is no doubt that it would mix up the Navy and the Army to a considerable extent, but is that altogether an objection? When we all ponder this question of the unification of the three Forces, the more it seems that their complete, final unification is at one and the same time quite indispensible and quite impossible. And when a thing is both indispensible and impossible, ought riot one to approach it by degrees? — in this case by mixing, deliberately perhaps, the Forces in such proposed amalgamation as that of the Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command, as well as in this suggestion of a Marine division.
  No doubt such hybrids would cause headaches to the Departments. The difficulties of administration would be considerable. There are all sorts of objections in the way of private armies, with their career structures and the like. I can see those difficulties, but I feel that they might have to be over-ridden because of the over-riding necessity of getting the men somehow, and of approaching the unification of the Forces.
  I stress to the Government that these questions do not brook much delay. The time-table the Government have set is not a rapid one, but even under that timetable there arc only three and a half years until the last call-up. Two years after

  255
  that, the last National Service man will go out of the Forces, and in 1963 we shall be entirely dependent on voluntary recruiting. So there is no time to waste if it is a solid and definite decision to abolish National Service.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on that question, whether it is a hard and fast decision of the Government to abolish National Service or not. I find myself a little bewildered on this issue. I will read to the Committee three of the rather varied and different statements which have been made on this issue, because it ought to be made clear. The most definite statement was made by the Minister of Defence, and it was made in the most public way conceivable, on the television, when he was interviewed by Mr. Muggeridge recently. Mr. Muggeridge asked this question:
  "And it has been suggested that when you say that National Service is going to end in 1960, that is not an obligation. What would you say about that? "
  The Minister of Defence replied:
  "Not at all. That is quite untrue. It is an absolutely firm decision by the Government. The decision is that National Service will end in 1960. By that I mean that the last call-up will be in 1960 and the last National Service man will leave the Forces in 1962."
  One would not have thought anything could have been more definite than that statement, but it contrasts oddly with the words of the White Paper, which are:
  "The Government have accordingly decided to plan on the basis that there will be no further call-up under the National Service Acts after the end of 1960.… It must nevertheless be understood that if voluntary recruiting fails to produce the numbers required, the country will have to face the need for some limited form of compulsory service to bridge the gap."
  Far more indefinite still was the statement of the Prime Minister in the recent Defence debate, when he said:
  "We hope to move to all-Regular forces, which will give us Services of equal, if not greater, fighting strength than those at our command. We hope to make them mobile and streamlined. We hope to civilianise where necessary the tail, while retaining the striking power of the fighting units. All this, if we can achieve it, will be a great relief to our economy and to our national Life in every form."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 2051]
  Is this more than a conditional suggestion that if things go well we shall abolish
  256
  National Service? Is it the perfectly clear, forthright, cast-iron statement made over the television by the Minister of Defence? I feel that the country is justified in asking what is the Government's real policy.
  Unless the abolition of National Service is made as a hard and fast decision, irrevocable except in the event of the outbreak of war— a new Korea or something of that kind which none of us can foresee— I do not believe the thing will be done. I believe that it is only if the decision is made as hard and fast as the Minister of Defence made it over the television that anything will get done. So the Government, and the Prime Minister himself, really ought to reaffirm that, and to clear up the considerable ambiguity of his own statement in the defence debate.
  Frankly, unless that is done we shall not believe that the Government are facing this issue with full seriousness. We shall believe that they are going ahead, of course, on the basis and expectation that they hope National Service will be abolished, but not really with clear-cut plans for doing it; that they are drifting onwards wondering what is to happen, with the country also drifting onwards wondering what is to happen. In that event we shall come more and more to the view that the Government are banking confidently on the fact of their own defeat at the next Election, banking on the expectation that they will not be there to face the issue. That would be a very easy way out of it for them, but I am not really suggesting that this would be a possible policy for any Government. So we want a clear-cut reassertion of the unequivocal statement of the Minister of Defence which has been watered down by the Prime Minister in the House. Above all, more than any statements, we want action which proves to us that the Government are in earnest about getting the men.
  I have made five suggestions. One of them has actually been adopted by the Secretary of State, namely, the abolition of the -three-year period, which he has announced. I suggest that there should be a really determined effort to prevent the compulsory termination of the careers of N.C.O.s, warrant officers and officers, that there should be a bigger drive— and we should like to have definite facts and figures at the earliest moment possible

  257
  on this— on married quarters, barracks, conditions of service; that there shall be a willingness to give whatever rates of pay prove indispensable. Lastly, there should be a serious consideration of something in the nature of a substantial corps of Marines of the type that has been suggested.
  When we see the Government moving on these and many other suggestions, with determination to get the men, we shall really believe that the decision to abolish National Service was hard and fast.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I apologise to the Committee for rising rather early in the debate, and I ask for the indulgence which hon. Members so generously give to new and nervous speakers. My trepidation is increased by the knowledge that my distinguished predecessor had already established his reputation and career as a Government Whip at the time when I was a private soldier serving on a Regular engagement of seven years.
  Perhaps it is not inappropriate that the Member for Beckenham should say a few words in this debate at a time when the Army is thinking of turning towards rocket warfare. For the people of Beckenham already know much about rocket warfare, and no constituency was harder hit in the days of V.1s and V.2s. Indeed, we still see the scars of those early guided missiles not far from the High Street of Beckenham.
  This afternoon I want to talk of a form of warfare rather less remote, for during the past twelve months I have been fortunate enough to see our Army in action in Kenya and at Suez. In many ways it was pleasant to see old friends again, to meet old traditions, to feel the spirit of comradeship and loyalty. In other respects, it was less pleasant. It was less pleasant to meet again old and familiar and unfortunately antiquated equipment.
  I have every sympathy with the battalion in Cyprus which, shortly after the Suez operation, decided to invite some of their French comrades to visit them. They wanted to show some new equipment, but they found they had nothing to show their French allies. So they went to some Turkish policemen nearby and borrowed from them four of
  258
  the new Sterling sub-machine guns, to which my right hon. Friend referred this afternoon. They duly showed them to the French, who were much impressed, because they are excellent weapons. It seems slightly odd that Turkish gendarmes in Cyprus should have these new guns, that the Kenya Police Reserve should have had these new guns for almost three years, whereas our airborne forces in the Suez operation had to rely on out-of-date Sten guns.
  I fully sympathise with the problems which face my right hon. Friend when it comes to equipment. On the one hand, there are people like myself, who say that it is deplorable that the Army should have out-of-date weapons and equipment and, on the other hand, there are people like myself who say that it is deplorable that the Secretary of State should have chosen to re-equip an Army at this time, because if he had waited for only a few more months he would have been able to get a much better sort of weapon for the Army.
  I find myself using both arguments about wireless sets, because I was much distressed to find in Kenya and at Suez that our wireless sets were only too often out of date, and, indeed, the same wireless sets with which I unsuccessfully wrestled some thirteen or fourteen years ago. I ought to welcome the decision to introduce the new and greatly improved wireless sets to which the Secretary of State referred this afternoon, but I find myself thinking that it might have been better to have waited a few months or years, because in other countries a revolution in signals equipment is taking place and, if not now, they will fairly soon be equipped with transistor sets, which are much lighter and much more compact and would seem to give a much better performance than those which we are now introducing.
  It seems a pity to introduce at very great expense equipment which must all too soon be obsolete. When soldiers receive out of date and inefficient equipment, the more knowledgeable officers are all too ready to blame the Ministry of Supply. In many cases that blame is misplaced, but there is some ground for the criticism of the Ministry of Supply about wireless sets because, at the moment, the Ministry is not dealing effectively with that problem.

  259
  The experts and officials at the Ministry of Supply are giving too much priority to the more remote schemes for electronic development, and the Royal Air Force is all too often scooping the rest of the pool. It may be desirable and pleasant to maintain constant wireless communication with an artificial earth satellite revolving around the world, but that is not much consolation to a company slogging across forest or mountain range and totally unable to maintain contact with its near neighbours. I should like my right hon. Friend to look into the matter of the Ministry of Supply and the development of wireless sets.
  I should like him also to consider whether it is not possible to extend the tour of certain officers in the War Office who advise on technical questions on equipment, for it seems that only too often they are posted away as soon as they have mastered their highly complex jobs. Finally, I should like him to tackle with renewed vigour, as I know he is already doing, the problem of surpluses.
  The Treasury says quite rightly that the Services cannot have new equipment while they continue to have large stocks of material left over from previous engagements. No sensible man would willingly order large numbers of electric razors while hoping to get rid of 8 million razor blades. However, at the moment that rule may be cutting across operational efficiency.
  The Secretary of State referred to the Saladin armoured car. I have reason to believe that this excellent armoured car was almost strangled at birth, if one can strangle at birth an armoured car, because the Treasury said that there were far too many old Daimler scout cars still left from the last war. I should like my right hon. Friend to look most carefully at the matter of surplus stores.
  Like many others, I believe that the only danger of nuclear warfare comes from a local war spreading and getting out of control, and I believe that a strong if small British Army is the best deterrent to local war. It would be an international tragedy if our military prowess were to be buried beneath a great mountain of surplus battle dress.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who has successfully jumped the hurdle of his maiden speech. He has done it in a magnificent manner; but in a manner which one would expect from the son of so distinguished a father. The hon. Member showed a mastery of his subject, and his delivery was such that I am sure the House will be very pleased to hear him on many an occasion. May I most sincerely— not something formal now— congratulate the hon. Member on his speech this afternoon?
  I am sure that everyone on this side of the Committee welcomes the reduction in expenditure on armaments. I say "on this side of the Committee" because, after what we heard last night concerning certain Members on that side, I am not sure that it is true about hon. Members opposite. Some of us have been advocating this for the last six years, because we knew that it was impossible for the economy of the country to sustain the expenditure over the last six years.
  I particularly welcome the Government's decision to end conscription in three years' time, but I am sorry that they have not ended it immediately. A few months ago we heard the Minister of Labour declare that a large number of those people who are doing National Service training are wasting their time and, as a country, we cannot afford to have anyone wasting his time. I am sorry that the Government did not see their way clear to declaring that conscription, which is so alien to us as British people, should come to an end next year at the latest.
  I want to turn to a matter which is exercising considerable concern in my constituency of Merioneth. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by reminding the Committee of the difficult unemployment problem which we have in that part of the country and in the neighbouring counties of Caernarvon and Anglesey. Indeed, North-West Wales has the highest percentage of unemployment today in the whole country. Not only is there no employment to be found there, but there is constant emigration from that part to other parts of the country, and even to outside its borders.

  261
  For about fifty years the Army has had a camp at Trawsfynydd, and it is now regarded as an integral part of the life of the community. More than sixty people have been employed there. We understand that the camp is to be closed, and we can fully understand the reason. If this reduction in expenditure is to be continued, more and more camps will be closed. I must point out that the closing of this camp gives rise to extreme problems of unemployment. No alternative work is to be found nearby. The majority of the people live in the village of Trawsfynydd, which is adjacent to the camp.
  It may well be that if the camp were situated in an industrial area alternative employment could quite easily be found for them. As a matter of fact, during the last defence debate the Minister of Defence said:
  "I myself do not see that there is much fear, with the expanding economy of this country, that people displaced from war production will not find other productive work."— [OFFICTAT REPORT, 16th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c 1775.]
  I have no quarrel with that observation. It is a fair comment to make, and perfectly true generally speaking, but not true speaking particularly, as I am doing this afternoon. It is not true about Trawsfynydd, and it would not be true of the whole county, and it would not he true of the area of Gwynedd, comprising the three counties which I have named previously. We have been striving to induce industrialists to come to the area and establish new industries.
  Mr. George Thomas: Am I mistaken in believing that my hon. Friend was one of those people who laid down on a path to stop soldiers coming to Trawsfynydd?
  Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to associate me with the acrobatic antics of the Welsh Nationalist Party. Those people were not natives of Trawsfynydd. This afternoon I am speaking on behalf of the people of Trawsfynydd and voicing the fears they expressed to me when I was there only a fortnight ago.
  I should like the Minister to give serious consideration to closing the camp. There must be a last camp to be closed.
  262
  Why not make this one the last? Why not give it that priority in reverse?
  Mr. Victor Yates: We shall never get disarmament at that rate.
  Mr. Jones: Notice what I have said. There must be a last camp—
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Should not the first ordnance factory to be closed down be one in Birmingham? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Bermondsey."] Or Bermondsey?
  Mr. Jones: I am asking the Minister to postpone this until he has done something else about which I asked him a supplementary question the other day. I want him to consult with the President of the Board of Trade to see whether some other industry can be brought to the area of this camp. If that can be done, they can close the camp as soon as they like. They can close every camp in the country— not only in the country but in the world. The sooner camps are closed, the better it will be for our world.
  However, I am pressing the Minister to do this. Here we have splendid buildings which can be used for factory purposes. I am sure that between them the two Ministers responsible for the Army should be able to persuade some one to use these buildings and the splendid labour force which also is to be found in Trawsfynydd.
  I listened to the Minister declaring in his speech how he thought that he should do justice to the officers of the Army who become redundant, by paying them compensation. I wonder whether the workers who have spent their lives at this camp are not equally justified in expecting compensation. Why not? What is the difference between a man in uniform and a man in civilian clothing who has been serving his country? These men have given the best years of their lives at this camp. I am sure that if the Minister can justify giving handsome compensation to officers who become redundant the same should be applied to the workers who have been doing civilian jobs at the camp.
  I hope that the Minister will not say that this is merely a constituency matter. In view of the situation prevailing there I beg the two Ministers to do all in their power to alleviate the position which will

  263
  arise in this area in the very near future. I understand that some people have already been declared redundant.
  5.47 p.m.
  Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I hope that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) will not accuse me of discourtesy if I do not follow him into the Welsh valleys. One day I will come down and see them. He has made his point, and I do not wish to make any comment on it or to try to deal with it.
  I should like humbly to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on his speech on the Army Estimates. As has already been said, it was most interesting and forceful. If he carries out his plans with the force with which he has outlined them today, there is a very good future ahead for our new Army. There is no doubt that this is a stepping stone in the history of the British Army, and the changes will control the pattern of our forces for the next fifty years. I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is supremely important that the decisions which have been made on organisation and rôle should be put into effect slowly and with every possible consideration As my right hon. Friend said, it is not a matter which should be rushed into lightly.
  There are, in my view, two main problems One is the problem of recruiting and the other is that of the organisation for the carrying out of the various rôles of the Army. I will deal first with recruiting. The one thing uppermost in my mind is that in the olden days the Army was a way of life. In some way or other we must bring back that way of life. It has been lost during the days of National Service, when it has been very much a question, for the Regulars, of all work and very little play, largely due to the fact that they have had large numbers of National Service men to train and that as soon as the latter were trained, out they went and new men came in.
  It was all very frustrating, and there was little time for people really to enjoy themselves in the Army. That will cure itself as National Service slowly disappears. But there is another problem. Whether we like it or not— and personally I think that from the point of view of the Service it is a bad thing—men in
  264
  the Service are getting married at a much younger age than they used to do. There was a time when it was a golden rule that one did not get married before the age of 27. That rule is no longer obeyed, and men are now marrying at a much earlier age than they did
  This gives rise to a great deal of grousing and discontent, because inevitably men must be moved from one part of the country to another, and the cost of moving, as well as the disturbance involved, tends to make people disgruntled. I believe that the War Office and my right hon. Friend could do a lot to mitigate that. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend realises the number of times that people are moved? Perhaps he could try to limit the moves in a stated period. If people are moved they must be given proper compensatory grants. I am not sure whether I am absolutely right in my facts, but I believe that there was a time when a grant of £100 was given in one year whether one moved four times or only once. That matter should be examined very carefully indeed.
  There is another point about married families. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend knows it, but there have been camps set up for married families to go into when the husbands go abroad to areas where the wives and children cannot be taken. There is a camp at Emsworth. I have not seen it, but I have heard the most appalling stories about that camp. One of the most idiotic things done there was to provide central cooking. In other words, these married women have absolutely nothing to do. They have not even got the ordinary chores that keep married women busy and interested through the day. Everything is done for them.
  I do not want to criticise in the slightest degree the officer who is running the camp, or his staff. I believe that they are making a very good job of a very bad situation, but there is something that I want to know, although I do not expect an answer today. I should like my right hon. Friend to find out whether it is true that the general officer commanding Eastern Command inspected that camp. If he did inspect the camp, what was his report on it? Did he report adversely, or did he not? If he did report adversely, where did the report get to, and has anybody taken any action whatever on it?

  265
  I do not believe that the Minister can be rapped over the knuckles for this, but I am certain that somebody ought to be rapped over the knuckles. If the general officer commanding reported adversely on the camp, something should have been done about it. That is only a detail, but it is symptomatic of the position. Married families must be looked after better than they have been hitherto.
  Another comment I wish to make is that men join the Army, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) rightly said, not only for the pay. I agree with him absolutely that pay must be paramount, but there are other attractions as well. There is the sense of adventure, the sense of excitement. Let us face it. We are all schoolboys and we all love playing Red Indians. If training is enlightened and exciting, and it can be made so, people will join the Army just for that sort of excitement and fun— and it is fun. But if the training is dreary, drab and out of date, and if the men know it to he out of date, they get fed up and use another word which the Army uses but which I will not use, because it would not look well in HANSARD.
  There is another feature which I have noticed in relation to the question of training, and this applies particularly to B.A.O.R. B.A.O.R. has the searchlight playing on it all the time. The "bright boys" are all sent to B.A.O.R. That is their chance. They are given a division, a brigade— whatever it may be— for three years. They have three years in which to make their names, and how do they do it? They do it by having interminable exercises which they ask senior officers to watch. It is there, and in other places, that individual training has been reduced to the absolute minimum so that when one watches these big exercises one sees the most appalling mistakes made by the troops on the ground because they have had little or no individual training.
  They are taken out, month in month out, on these large exercises in the course of which they sit about for nine-tenths of the time doing absolutely nothing while those on the staff are exercising themselves in trying to prove to senior officers just how good they are. That is something which ought to be stamped on very heavily indeed. No battle can ever be won unless the troops themselves are
  266
  properly trained individually, and it is the individual training in the Army which is fun. That is what I mean when I talk about imaginative and exciting training— the "Outward Bound" spirit.
  When there is nothing else to be done, and there very often is not, it requires only the slightest bit of imagination to invent something which provides good training and which is also fun and exciting, whether it be climbing a mountain, going for a sail in a boat, or putting on some quite unorthodox sort of exercise in which men are sent off for two days on their own to do something here or there without using any public transport. The men enjoy that sort of thing. It is very good for them and it teaches individuality; but, no, we have too many people— and we always have had and I suppose we always shall— who completely lack imagination and who read "Infantry Training" and do nothing else but that.
  Then there is the question of bad administration the whole way down the line. There are glaring examples. I know that we cannot always believe what we read in the Press, but I hope that when my right hon. Friend sees these reports in the Press he does not lightly cast them aside but that he makes immediate inquiries. I do not suppose that this was really true, but if it was then somebody ought to have got a "bowler hat," and quickly, without compensation. Is it really true that weekend leave was stopped for one Regular Royal Tank regiment, and that the men were marched to a football ground and forced to watch a football match? I must say that I was not surprised to read that they cheered the opposing side. If that were true— and I am not saying that it was, because I have a very great respect for that regiment, which I know well, and the report may be completely untrue— then somebody slipped and somebody needs a good kick.
  Was it really necessary to fly a cook out to Bermuda at a cost of £280, when the company there is about to come home within three weeks? That is the sort of thing that gets into the Press. Circumstances are exaggerated, and that gets the Army a bad name. If it is true, then somebody at the War Office who ordered that posting ought to be posted somewhere else.

  267
  I am disturbed, and I think that others are too, at the standard of candidate coming forward for selection for commission as Regular officers. The position is very difficult, and I do not propose to suggest remedies, although I should like to do so some time privately to my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will look into the matter and take the trouble to find out from officers in charge of selection boards what type of candidate is coming forward and why it is that the type is not of the very best. I gather that the question of the standard of candidates is becoming fairly serious.
  I can understand what my right hon. Friend said about compulsory retirement, particularly as he was really talking about warrant officers and n.c.o.s. There is a great deal in what he said but I would point out that, so far as officers are concerned, I have had continual complaints from the "bright boys" in the Army that they are being held back by the "floating majors", as they call those who are waiting for their terminal grants or pension. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will find plenty of those people to get rid of, and he should give them really good compensation to persuade them to go. It will not be a disincentive. It will be an incentive in that people will realise that promotion will be for those with ability and that they will not be cluttered up with people who have not the necessary ability.
  On the question of battledress, am I right in saying that there is a fighting dress— I do not know what to call it if we do not call it battledress— which does not look like any uniform that was ever invented. It is more like a cross between what is worn by a man going salmon fishing and by a shepherd on the hills. It is totally different from anything that one has previously seen in the streets. No doubt it is very good for its purpose, but is there any necessity to continue with the present battledress any longer? Why not get rid of it gradually, if not all at once. For goodness sake, let us have our Regular Army in a decent walking-out dress, so that men will be proud to go out wearing it. Although they may be allowed out in civilian clothes, if men are given a decent walking-out dress they will be prepared to wear it. Why? Because the girls will flock round them like flies
  268
  round a honey pot. That is one incentive to recruiting.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend will try to get an answer to another question. Is there any reason why the bands which own full dress should still be prohibited from wearing it? It is fantastic that they should be. Regiments which own their full dress are, by A.C.I., not allowed to wear it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that matter.
  To discuss matters on a larger and broader level, I would say that I wonder whether the combined training between the three Services is on a basis which is broad enough. We have our senior officer school, Joint Services Staff College and all the arrangements necessary on the higher level. I think that the time has come when combined training of all the three Services should take place from the word "go", from the initial stage of the cadet at Sandhurst right up the whole ladder to the top. That is necessary, because, in my view, every operation in the future will be a combined operation. It is no use at the last moment bringing together people who have not been trained together, and who do not understand the ways in which others operate and then expecting them to operate quickly and efficiently.
  As to the disbandment of the units which is about to take place, I think that it will be a very sad day when it happens. I am certain that my right hon. Friend and those at the War Office will do everything that they can to ease the blow to those who have to go, and will act fairly, and that there will be no discrimination by those who have had throughout their whole military career a dislike for another arm of the Service.
  One of the weak points in the Army, which I love and respect because I have spent most of my life in it, is the jealousy between groups of arms of the Service and regiments. If we get a senior officer of one section of the Service in a senior position in the War Office, his whole attitude tends to be coloured by his previous jealousy, or whatever one likes to call it. One could name a certain adjutant-general whose attitude was very much coloured that way. I hope that there will be none of that spirit shown. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will see to it that there is not, and will stamp on it

  269
  very heavily if he should find any sign of it.
  I hope that he will not run away with the idea that only gunners can fire guided missiles or that only the Royal Engineers can fire them. That is absolute rubbish. I am not saying this in the light of the remarks that I have been making. But the corps of gunners or the corps of Royal Engineers can be reduced without them losing their spirit at all. We could reduce the Royal Artillery to one battery and still the spirit of "Ubique" would be there; we could never kill it. But if we take away only 600 men in a county unit we shall kill the spirit there, a spirit which is absolutely irreplaceable. I hope that that will be taken into account. We shall always be outnumbered in any battle that we fight, and it is that tradition which makes the British soldier, as it always has, fight like five of those of any other nation.
  Mr. John Hall: Is not my hon. and gallant Friend rather in favour of the establishment of a corps of infantry?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: That would be one solution. I think that if we number our regiments from 1 to 60 that will take away a little more of the spirit of which I am speaking. There is another argument about that and to some extent I am arguing against myself.
  If my right hon. Friend has to do that, why not give them back their own numbers which they had originally before they were named? They will be equally proud of that.
  Captain F. V. Corfield: Is my hon. and gallant Friend really suggesting that in order to keep alive one particular unit— and no one could be more in sympathy with that than I am— we should give artillery weapons to another unit and run our artillery in two separate organisations, one the Royal Regiment and the other in a series of units?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. If we are to form a guided missiles unit, I do not see why only the gunners should do it. We all know that provided a regiment is a good regiment its rôle can he changed overnight to any that we like to give it, and it will make a good job of that rôle. We could do that just as well with guided
  270
  weapons as with lances or tanks or whatever arms one cares to mention.
  Mr. Wigg: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that theme about which he has often spoken before, would he be good enough— for he carries great authority with his party— to give serious attention to what happened to the corps of cavalry when the necessity arose for a major reorganisation some twenty years ago? The essential spirit of the cavalry was kept alive and the rights of officers, warrant officers and n.c.o.s were preserved through the formation of a corps of cavalry which preserved the regimental spirit. Before he dismisses this conception, would he give it his most earnest attention?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: That is not strictly accurate. It was the Corps of Hussars, the Corps of Lancers and the Corps of Dragoons. Inter-posting was between those groups. That did not do a lot of harm. They were allowed to retain their own identity. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting a corps of infantry numbered throughout, and with the whole identity of the units being lost.
  Mr. Wigg: No.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Then that is all right. There is quite a strong argument for that.
  The Army is to be prepared for three rôles: global war, limited war, and police war. I shall not deal with global war. B.A.O.R. has been training for that ever since the last war. If it does not know how to fight it now, it never will. The reduction to brigade groups is a question that can be argued, as my right hon. Friend said, but cannot he have one term which would mean the same thing for everybody, such as—"battle group"? He can call it something different if he likes.
  I realise what he means with regard to the feelings of our allies concerning a brigade group. They think that it is something smaller than a division, whereas it is about the same size. Furthermore, it is exactly what the Russians did about eight years ago. I do not think that they were very wrong in that.
  There is the other question of what I call the jeep-borne force, a force that should be capable of being flown out

  271
  at a moment's notice for police operations such as against the Mau Mau in Kenya or operations in Malaya. I am not happy about that idea. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is happy about it, but if not, I am sure that he is the sort of person to get it put right. Is the brigade in Yorkshire ready to fly tomorrow at nine o'clock? It has been training for a whole year. It may be a question of aircraft. If the aircraft are available, is that brigade ready to fly? Has it practised getting in and out of air transport? Has it all its stores and equipment organised? Is there a process for pressing a button, as in the case of a fire brigade in a fire station, so that all the men can come sliding down a pole into the aeroplanes? If this process has not been organised, it is about time that it was put into operation. That brigade has been training for a whole year.
  Did it take part in the Suez operation? Was it flown out at a moment's notice? I do not think that it is right to use soldiers for that sort of operation. The Suez operation was really a police operation. In the first place, we should never have allowed that state to be reached. With proper internal intelligence those developments can be stopped long before they reach boiling point. I was in Kenya in 1946, and at that time every district officer had reported that this Mau Mau rising was coming, but not a single person in Nairobi would believe it. They pooh-poohed the suggestion, and the reports were thrown into the waste-paper basket. That rising could have been prevented long before. It having started, however, dealing with it was still a police action. The soldier in uniform is not suited for that type of warfare.
  I suggest that we might use officers who are to become redundant as a part-time trained force for that sort of warfare. They should be given a thumping good pay packet if they are called up. They should be ready to be sent out to undertake this sort of police action. We should not use our Regular troops. They are quite unsuitable, as was seen in Ireland and everywhere else where they have been used for such purposes.
  Mr. John Hall: Does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that the troops who go out to do this type of police action
  272
  do not require much training? Does he suggest that we should call up partly-trained men?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am suggesting that these men, who are now Regulars in the Army and are to be made redundant, would not require much further training in ordinary jungle warfare. They could be taught in two fortnightly camps in a year, and could be kept right up to the mark. It is not right for Regular forces to be used for such work.
  My last point refers to the question of the limited war. This is far and away the most difficult problem of all. Our mobile reserve is to be kept in Great Britain, presumably for use in a limited war. I do not understand that. It is no use saying that those people can operate in a limited war without tanks or artillery. Paragraph 57 of the Memorandum on the Estimates says:
  "This reserve is organised for limited or global war … the Central Reserve can be moved to any point of danger where they may be needed by air."
  What is the answer? We are 3,000 miles from the Middle East. We have no forward bases. It is 3,000 miles from Mombasa to the Middle East, so let us stop talking about Mombasa as a base.
  There must be an answer. Are we to place all the necessary tanks, guns and ammunition in a forward area and keep this Reserve together and train it in England with other equipment? Will it fly out and take over the stockpile which we have already sent out, and bring it into action? If so, where will the stockpile be? Who will look after it? Will it be usable when it is wanted at a moment's notice? This is a desperately difficult problem.
  I believe that the answer is once again to copy the Americans and have a floating base. I do not believe that in these days bases in other territories are reliable enough to be operative or useful. I am told that the floating base which the Americans have in the Eastern Mediterranean has to be seen to be believed, with its workshops and tank landing craft all on board ship and ready for use. It may be that that is the answer to the problem.
  Anyhow, it is not for back benchers to work out these matters in detail. We have only to say that the position is not right at

  273
  the moment. I beg my right hon. Friend to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence upon this point and to see that this Reserve of ours— which, as stated, would be capable of flying out at a moment's notice to take part in a limited war— can in fact be used. It just cannot work with our present size of tanks and field guns.
  A mobile floating base may be the answer. If it is— and this is a further step towards the integration of all the Services— this force, ready for a limited war, should be trained in England, with all the components required by all three Services— the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the commandos and paratroops. They should be stationed in one area, so that they can get to know each other and train together. Such a force would cause men to flock to it. Once it got the aura of being something special it would get all the recruits it wanted.
  That question needs the most earnest thought. I believe that my right hon. Friend has the drive to see that that sort of thing is done. Let him put an end to senior officers at the War Office producing the sort of kerfuffle which they produced in the Suez operation.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) has made a most stimulating speech. I want to follow him in respect of one of the topics to which he referred, namely, recruitment, and the problem both of getting into the Army and keeping in the Army the number of men we shall want if the Government's plan, resolve, or hope, to abolish National Service is to be realised. I suppose that of all the questions which the Committee will be discussing today this is the largest single one. If we are now to embark upon policies based upon the assumption that we can get an all-volunteer Army of 160,000 men it is of first-class importance to take every step which will make it likely that that assumption will be fulfilled.
  Some time ago, when hon. Members on this side of the House urged the Government to announce a plan for the abolition of National Service advice— which, after the usual time lag, was taken by the Government— we particularly stressed that they must do it as a planned operation, taking, as we thought, perhaps
  274
  four years— and, as they now suggest, five years. But we stressed that from the moment when we said that National Service would be abolished to the moment when the last National Service man was out of the Army no time should be allowed to run to waste. This time must be used for devising every possible expedient and line of policy which will make it a practicable possibility to obtain 160,000 volunteers for the Army.
  It will be a quite different situation from anything that we have ever faced before. Some years before the war, a figure of 150.000 men represented about the usual size for the Regular Army, but we must notice how different the situation will be now. In the first place, we shall be trying to maintain an Army of 160,000 in a time of full employment. There has been a good deal of argument in the House for many years as to the effect of full employment upon voluntary recruiting. For the purposes of the record it might be as well to get the facts clear. If one examines the figures with regard to voluntary recruiting for the Army in the years from the depths of the slump, in 1932, to the outbreak of war in 1939, the first thing to be noticed— and it seems rather surprising— is that as unemployment decreased more and more people went into the Regular Army.
  Taking a superficial view, one would assume that there was no correlation between employment and recruitment into the Army, but looking at the figures more closely one finds that the reason why the number of men going into the Army increased in those years was simply that a higher proportion of those offering themselves were accepted. If we examine the really relevant factor, namely, the number of people who came forward and said, "I want to join the Army", we see that that number was larger when unemployment was heavy, and fell off as unemployment decreased. In fact, there was a clear and unmistakable correlation all the time between unemployment and the number of people coming forward to join the Army.
  Further, if we examine recruiting by districts we find that the number of people who came forward and were willing to join the Army— I am not talking about the number accepted— was always greater in those districts in which there

  275
  was heavy unemployment. It is important that we should get this fact straight because it points to the conclusion that when we say that we are to have an Army of 160,000 volunteers in a time of full employment we are setting ourselves a task that we have never set ourselves before.
  I might add that we are going to do it in a community in which both working-class and middle-class people have become accustomed not only to a higher standard of living but a higher standard of decency and amenities in their ordinary civilian life. If we hope to get them into the Army we must take account of that fact. We have never before tried to raise an all-Regular Army under those conditions.
  Another fact that creates a quite new situation is the fact that when we had an Army of about 150,000 men in the old days the proportion of infantrymen to those in other arms was higher than it is now. It was a less mechanised Army. If we are to have an Army of 160,000 men with the present degree of mechanisation we shall have substantially fewer infantrymen than we have had before in anything approaching the modern history of the Army. That will compel the War Office to consider— as I understand it is seriously considering— the organisation of infantry regiments. It is impossible to do that without disturbing a number of old loyalties, and we must try to strike a balance between the need to keep passionate affections alive, if possible, on the one hand, and the plain necessities of efficiency in a small modern Army with a limited number of infantrymen on the other.
  I would say to the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend that if they must err at all it would be better for them to err on the side of boldness in the degree of reorganisation that they carry through, rather than for them to carry out some reorganisation, upset a number of people, and then find that they have not done enough and have to do it all again a short time afterwards. The creation of an Army of 160,000 men in modern conditions is something quite new, and it is important to try to get the organisation right from the start, and not be too timid about breaking away from old traditions. That is why I welcome
  276
  what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said about the importance of seriously considering his proposal for a corps of infantry.
  What are the inducements which will get us 160,000 men in these conditions, which make it a more difficult task than any that we have had before? I do not think that I need say much about pay, partly because I do not believe that at this moment it is a question to which we ought to give particular attention, and partly because the point made by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate, namely, that we have to consider the fact that we are in a competitive market, is such an enormous truism that, if we think seriously about the matter, we are not likely to forget it. I do not propose to say more than that upon the subject of pay. I intend, however, to make certain proposals that will be expensive.
  We are all glad about what is stated in the Estimates about living quarters. It was implied by the Secretary of State in his speech that progress has been made, and that the War Office are tackling the obstacles that seem to stand in the way of faster progress.
  I turn to the question of the education of the children of ex-Service men. I notice that at the bottom of page 16 of the Memorandum the Secretary of State tells us that he is not satisfied with the arrangements that are made for the education of Service children. This matter will become more important than it has ever been before, in relation particularly to recruiting. As the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing pointed out, young men insist upon marrying before the age of 27 and having families, and upon being concerned about the education of those families. That is an excellent thing. Everybody in the community today is more concerned than they have ever been before about children getting a good education.
  While the children are at the age when it is appropriate for them to receive primary education no serious difficulty arises, because the Army is capable, out of its own resources, of seeing that the children get a good primary education. The Army cannot, out of its own resources, provide, wherever the parents may happen to be, the specialised teaching, equipment, books, etc., that are necessary for a good secondary education

  277
  for the children of Army personnel. Consequently, parents will accept the fact that very often they may be parted from their children during school terms.
  Sometimes parents may be able to arrange for children to live with relatives and attend a good secondary day school, but often the only way of getting a good secondary education for the children will be for the children to be sent somehow or other to a secondary boarding school. I would like the Army to be able to say to anyone who enters upon a Regular engagement, "The Army will see to it, when you have children of secondary school age, that they get a good secondary education, if necessary in a boarding school. You will be put to no more expense for this than is any other parent in civilian life." I recognise that that would be the equivalent of a rise in pay. It would cost the nation something, and would be enormously valuable.
  I do not believe that the present arrangements are satisfactory; indeed, the Secretary of State says they are not. I am suggesting a way to begin. The Army would say frankly. "This is what we guarantee. If a man comes forward and says, Here are my children who are reaching secondary school age. I cannot see how to make satisfactory arrangements unless they go to boarding school, and I cannot undertake that', the Army— or speaking more accurately the nation— will take over the responsibility of doing so." Do not let us try to pack all the children into the same school so that they meet no children except those of parents who are engaged in the same profession. I never think that that is good for any school. We must fit Army children in with other children.
  Another inducement would be the modernisation of Army discipline. As soon as one mentions that, one hears— it would be more likely if the Chamber were rather fuller than it is— cries of enthusiasm in some quarters and cries of horror in others. Let us see whether we can put this problem into its modern setting. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing referred to that ridiculous incident recently when men wore compelled to attend a football match. Those of us who have television saw them all cheering the other side. We were all glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's condemnation of that incident; but
  278
  we must not pay too much attention to a particular incident.
  The officer who does that kind of thing sees himself as a kind of housemaster of a school, dealing firmly but kindly with his boys, in their best interests. Officers in the Army and the nation as a whole must realise that the men we shall want in the Army in future will be shrewd, well-qualified and mature men who have not the least intention of being, or desire to be treated as boys. They have to be treated and regarded as men. No sensible civilian employer would dream of trying to impose conditions such as I have mentioned upon his employees. The Army must be looked at in the same way.
  The men have to be able to demonstrate a high standard of competency and to accept the necessary discipline in their work. If they do that, it must be remembered that apart from their personality as soldiers there is another part of their personality; they are human beings. Many of them will be husbands and some of them fathers. They have their private lives and interests, and they like to have them respected, so far as the needs of the Service will permit. This means that the old paternal relationship between officer and men, admirable as it was when our nation was in a certain stage of development, cannot be fitted into the society in which we are living today. The kind of man that we shall need in the Army does not want that kind of relationship.
  Respect in the Army has to be won in the future by one thing only, and that is competence at the job in the Army, whatever it is. The day has gone when automatic respect was given to people of a particular social class. Everyone in the Army— officers and men— has to be thought of and to think of himself as being in one profession, with gradations in it according to the degree of competence possessed by the men practising that profession.
  A point which I make with rather less assurance, but which ought to be looked at, concerns promotion. Where do we select our officers from? The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing was worried whether enough suitable applicants were coming forward for commissions. I wonder whether we do not try to make the decision whether a man is suitable for a commission too quickly

  279
  after he is first in the Army. I am sure that we have been doing that with the National Service men. We ought to consider whether there is not a type of man for whom a career, first in the ranks and then, through non-commissioned rank and warrant officer, into commissioned rank, may be the right answer.
  Many conflicting views can be held on this subject. We have to ask ourselves what opportunities for advancement we can offer if we wish to have 160,000 volunteers coming forward. Many of them will be skilled, intelligent men who, if they entered a civilian occupation in industry or commerce, could look forward to a steady career of promotion. Some of them at least ought to be able to look forward to something like that in the Army. I know that that means completely revising our ideas on how officers ought to be selected. The ladder which I propose should not necessarily be the only ladder to commissioned rank, but I am led to the opinion that it ought to be one of the important ladders to commissioned rank. It is important for the purpose of getting enough good officers, and as a positive inducement to men to join the Army.
  There must be something in the inducements about what is to happen when the Army career is over. I do not know that this consideration weighs very much with a young man who is deciding whether to go into the Army or not, but when he is considering renewing or not renewing he may have reached the stage at which the question "What is to be the position of myself, wife and children when my complete Army service is over?" is important.
  I do not see how we can say to a man, "We give you an absolute guarantee that when you leave the Army there shall be employment for you of some kind or other in civilian life for so many years", but we could guarantee— this has been done already— with the help of industry, and certainly of the nationalised industries, that there would always be a certain number of jobs available each year for people coming out of the Regular Army. I think that some of the nationalised industries already have an arrangement of that kind. One might see what further could be done in that direction.
  I remember the help that the nationalised industries gave when we were trying
  280
  to recruit men into the Territorial Army. I remember from my own days at the War Office that the nationalised industries could always be relied upon to show a degree of public spirit. Critics of those industries ought to remember that more frequently than they do.
  A man is concerned not only about his job but about his living accommodation. I wish I could think that this problem would disappear. The efforts that have been made to solve the problem for ex-Regular soldiers have not come to anything so far. The attempt to do it through the machinery of local government did not work. The Minister made a series of exhortations to local housing authorities, who went through the motions of putting men on housing lists. They knew perfectly well that putting them on the lists made singularly little difference to whether the men got a home or not. In view of the fact that the numbers coming out of the Army each year in the future are bound to be considerably less, ought not the nation be prepared to say quite definitely, "We guarantee that you will have somewhere to live"?
  From what I am saying about education, housing, employment, etc., we might be thought to be in danger of having a rather pampered class of professional soldier. However, for a large part of their lives soldiers are not pampered. They have to live a harsh, rough, disciplined, and often dangerous existence. The nation must realise that if it wants to get rid of National Service it must be prepared to make up the difference in a number of ways.
  It is not that men want to drive a particularly Shylockian bargain with the nation, but that, having a certain amount of self-respect, they are concerned about their families. It is often true that a man is reckless where his own safety is concerned, but is most cautious and prudent about seeing that nothing shall happen to his wife and children, particularly if anything should happen to himself. It is not in the least inconsistent that a man should be a hero on the battlefield and yet greatly concerned about what may happen to him in his old age. That is a consideration which we have to bear in mind.
  I realise that the Secretary of State cannot be here all the time but I am sorry that he is not here for my next comment.

  281
  I do not think that there ought to be such a person as a Secretary of State for War. I am not referring to the present holder of the office; I think lie should go on existing. I am referring to the office itself.
  I say that for this reason. If we look at the Estimates we see that there are about 375,000 adult males in the Army. At all events, that was the figure for December of last year. In five years' time there will be 375,000 adult males in all the three Services put together. We are coming to a point when there will be no more people in all the three Services put together than there are in the Army now. In my view, one Minister can look after them; and I am sure Lord Tedder was right when he said that if we are to have integration of the Services we had better begin at the top.
  We ought now to be planning on the basis of creating one Ministry of Defence, with one Minister, probably of Minister of State rank, immediately under the Minister of Defence, as a deputy, and then three people in charge of the Services, with perhaps an odd one if necessary, of about Under-Secretary of State stature. If we have somebody in charge of an Army of 160,000 people who is dressed up with the great dignity of Secretary of State, a rank held by people as important in the Government as the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary, and then expect that there will be proper subordination to the Minister of Defence, we shall be disappointed, unless we solve the problem by appointing as Secretary of State for War or Secretary of State for Air or First Lord of the Admiralty people of such mild, amiable dispositions and limited force of character as will ensure that the Minister of Defence will always be able to get his own way. In the long run, and as a permanent arrangement, I do not think that the latter solution would be good for the Services.
  It will mean, therefore, that these posts in respect of the Army, Navy and Air Force in future will be young men's posts. They will be occupied by men of such a calibre in the hierarchy of politics and Government that they can if necessary have their heads knocked together by the Minister of Defence and yet can still be men of considerable parts, gifts,
  282
  and drive, which they can use for the benefit of the Service before, if they are fortunate, they pass to higher spheres of responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) suggested— and I agree with him— that we ought to begin experiments with various kinds of hybrid forces. He said, truly, that that would create administrative difficulties in the Departments. I think lie would agree that those difficulties might be substantially reduced if we were dealing not with three Departments, with the high traditional standards and traditional jealousies, but with one Department with a resolute Minister at its head.
  If we begin to think on these lines we may be able to get a Ministry of Defence containing the Army, Navy and Air Force— we should stop this silly habit of referring to the War Office, as though the Navy and the Air Force were entirely pacific institutions. We are starting a completely new era. An Army of 160,000, in conditions of full employment, wishing to recruit men of high quality, is one symptom of the newness of that situation; and we have to face it with a new organisation and new ideas.
  6.45 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in his desire for the liquidation of Secretaries of State as such. Particularly am I unwilling to do so— and I am relieved to hear that he does not expect me to do so— in the case of the right hon. Gentleman who occupies that position at the moment. I thought the speech which my right hon. Friend delivered this afternoon was one of considerable ability and one which was extremely helpful in drawing attention to the many problems which have to be faced.
  The Defence White Paper sets out a comprehensive and comprehensible scheme of defence organisation, and the difficulties seem to me to arise from the fact that of necessity that White Paper has had to be painted as a picture in the widest general lines. For that reason, I think questions of detailed application are of vital importance.
  I consider the question of recruiting to be of primary importance, and I was therefore particularly interested to hear

  283
  the hon. Member for Fulham raise points which perhaps are not often enough considered, points such as the education of children, changed views as to discipline, questions of promotion and jobs and homes which arise at the end of a man's service. I have a few ideas on this matter, and I am satisfied that it is essential that our accommodation problems should be dealt with first and foremost.
  In my constituency, we still have the unattractive stabling which used to stable the horses after the Crimean War. These buildings have still not been dealt with. Every year the situation gets worse in the sense that we are putting up a number of excellent, first-class buildings which throw into the most vivid relief the unsatisfactory accommodation which still exists elsewhere. I should like to think that this King Charles' head of mine of the "horse barracks," as we call them in Aldershot, will be one of the primary problems to be dealt with in accommodation for soldiers in that town.
  This problem exists in even greater measure in respect to the provision of accommodation for families. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I must point out that he has been to Aldershot, has seen the accommodation, and that there has been a substantial improvement; but the situation is still far from satisfactory What happens very often is that soldiers who are posted from Aldershot to an overseas posting leave their wives in the quarters which they and their wives had shared. The next thing that happens is that the wives are told that they must vacate the premises in order to make room for other soldiers and their wives who have been posted to Aldershot.
  That puts the War Office into the equivocal position of having to give the direct decision that the wife of the soldier posted overseas has to give up possession of the War Office accommodation. I can think of few things more calculated to cause annoyance and exasperation to soldiers posted overseas than to know that until they can join them their wives are having to go round hoping to find some relative who will look after them. Therefore, it is easy to see that the provision of accommodation for families is of first-rate importance to recruiting.
  Another factor in this connection which I hope will be borne in mind is the value
  284
  of the local regiment. Many men are prepared to join the Service because they are joining the regiment from the part of the country to which they themselves belong and their friends. They are proud to walk out in the special uniform of that regiment. Incidentally, if it does become necessary for regiments to be disbanded, I hope that special efforts will be made to keep a permanent cadre, as well as such things as the silver plate, drums and the like which are treasured in some place, so that there are at least a few people to represent these regiments when disbanded. What might be described as brigade depots could surely deal with such things for a number of such regiments and would not be very expensive.
  Walking-out uniform has a considerable effect on the minds of some potential soldiers. They like to appear in their smart blues, with the attractive coloured caps and so on. When I asked about this in the Army debates a year ago I was assured that it was hoped that within the next twelve or eighteen months all soldiers down to the rank of corporal would be provided with this dress. Whether or not that has happened I do not know, but from the general appearance of men going about the streets of Aldershot it would not appear so.
  Pay has already been dealt with. I think that in the short run the probability is that it is not such an urgent matter, but in the long run I agree wih the hon. Member who said that pay must very largely be kept on the basis of supply and demand, but if there is continued inflation—and let us hope that there will not be—the situation will have to be dealt with by pay revisions.
  The main thing is prospects, and in that connection I feel the rôle of the non-commissioned officers has been insufficiently appreciated by the "powers that be". It is trite to say that the backbone of any army is the noncommissioned officer, but I am in some doubt whether our attitude to him is the right one. I realise that what I am saying is likely to be controversial, but when looking at these things afresh, I should like consideration to be given to whether the scope for the senior N. C. O. s should not be increased.
  As I understand it, the basic unit in the new up-to-date Army is the company,

  285
  and there is a good deal to be said for the commands of sections or platoons being available to non-commissioned officers—
  Mr. John Hall: They are.
  Sir E. Errington: I hope that that is correct, but my information is that they are mostly commanded by junior officers.
  What I have very much in mind is that this would need the appointment of fewer junior officers. I believe that, because of the numbers invoked, we are in danger of leading those officers up the garden path. To put it another way, the base of the triangle is very large and tapers very steeply at the top. I feel sure that the best type of officer will have a much fuller prospect of a good career if the general numbers of junior commissioned officers were fewer than at present.
  What is now taking place. and has taken place as long as I can remember anything of Army matters, is that there are a series of bulges. Sometimes the bulge is in the numbers of junior officer ranks, where the numbers are disproportionate to the rest, and sometimes the bulge occurs in the numbers of the higher ranks. When that occurs, we get a belief amongst those who are considering the Services as a career that at any time they may find themselves in a middle-rank bulge and so find themselves right out of the Service at a time when their likelihood of making another career is not very good.
  One remembers, of course, what happened after the First World War, and one saw what happened when there was a serious excess of officers in the Royal Regiment of Artillery. It would not be unfair to say that there are now so many holding the present rank of major —many of whom have held higher ranks with distinction and have come down to their basic rank—that it is very difficult to see how they can be employed. It has to be remembered that they are men who, for the most part, are between thirty-five and forty-five years of age, who have made the Army their career, who find considerable difficulty in placing themselves elsewhere.
  Perhaps I might just turn quite shortly to the immediate problems, as I see them, arising from the contraction of the Services. There is a widespread feeling of
  286
  uncertainty amongst those concerned. Whether that is justified or not, I believe it to be a fact. It should be recognised and, if possible, at an early date there should be a clear statement as to what is going to be done. My Borough of Aldershot always refers to itself, I think with justice, as the "Home of the British Army." I believe that it will continue to justify that title; but it does not know what rôle it will have to play, and it is most desirable that it should know as soon as possible.
  Equally important is the position of the individual. The way in which the White Paper deals with the matter, under the heading, "Switch of Resources", is this:
  "The large reduction in the size of the Forces will inevitably create some surplus of officers and N. C. Os. The proportion will differ for each Service and for the various ranks and branches. Those whose careers have to be prematurely terminated will be given fair compensation and will be helped in every way possible to find suitable employment in civilian life."
  I believe that those are very proper words, but they ought to be quickly translated into action. The problems arising from the surplus of officers and men are not easy. Even at the present time it is not always easy to find the right kind of job for the ex-officer or ex-soldier. I am connected with a voluntary organisation which seeks to help ex-officers, and I know some of the problems. I hope, therefore, that the Government will deal with this matter as one of grave urgency. Indeed, it is a considerable operation. It is not the sort of thing which any Government can readily take in their stride.
  There are certain things which might help. I was interested in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said about the possibilities of colonial police work by some ex-Service N. C. O. s who cease to be members of the Services. I note with satisfaction that, in paragraph 44 of the White Paper, it is said:
  "Every endeavour will also be made to extend the practice of employing civilians or civilian contractors on tasks where it is not essential for military reasons to employ service personnel."
  I hate the use of the word "civilianisation", but I believe that that process can help very much. I am not at all satisfied that there also could not be considerable help derived from increasing the

  287
  amount of work done by retired officers, who do their work, as is well known, very competently and efficiently, being happy to do it because they feel that they are keeping in touch with Army affairs.
  The main task will be a formidable one. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider the appointment of a high-powered committee to deal with the problems arising from the surplus of personnel. It seems to me that the Army, the Ministry of Labour, the trade unions, employers, and voluntary organisations working in this connection could provide membership for a committee which would really get down to fundamentals and deal with the problems and difficulties which will arise and so avoid hardship.
  I do not underestimate the task. Its outcome will be of vital importance to the people directly concerned, but I believe also that the Army will be judged, as to whether it is a suitable career for the future or not, by the way in which this problem is dealt with. If we just pay these men off and take little interest in their future, the country will take little interest in the future of the Service. Speed of decision, and the communication of that decision to those who are affected, is the humane and sensible duty of the Government towards those people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this position.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. James Simmons: Misconceptions and speculations about the rôle of the Army in the nuclear age are, I suppose, tempting subjects for speeches on the Army Estimates, but somebody ought to examine some of the details of the Estimates. We appear to be getting away from the traditional rôle of the debate on the Estimates. Nowadays, we are more concerned with the wide sweep of general policy and the ideas of experts upon matters of large import than with the details of this volume which comes into our hands—belatedly this year, giving us less time than usual to examine it. Although I do not propose to do as we have done in the past and go through it line by line, column by column and paragraph by paragraph, I have in mind one or two
  288
  "King Charles's heads "which I have from time to time raised on these occasions, and I am still bursting for information concerning them.
  Chelsea Hospital, Nell Gwyn's legacy to the discharged soldiers of this country, has always commanded my attention when we have considered the Army Estimates. I have examined the Estimates as they affect Chelsea Hospital on this occasion. I see that pay and other expenses on in-pensioners numberng 420 is up by £810; that is just under £2 per annum each. In the same Estimates, one person, a messing officer, gets an extra £220 per annum, and another person, an assistant secretary, gets £270 extra per annum. I wonder whether Chelsea Hospital is being run for the benefit of the Chelsea Pensioners or for the hangers-on who receive appointments there.
  Can the Minister explain why there is nothing in the Estimates for 1956–57 for maintenance of buildings and supply of fuel, light, and furniture, whereas, under the same heading, there is for 1957–58 a sum of £30,075? Did somebody forget to order the coal during the previous year, or something like that? There must be an explanation for it.
  I come now to another of my "King Charles's heads," the Victoria Cross. I have never, on previous occasions, had an answer to my question, although I have put it again and again. There is in the Estimates provision for paying an annuity of £10 to the holders of the Victoria Cross. We paid an annuity of £10 in 1856 to the holders of the Victoria Cross. What would that £10 be worth today? From that point of view alone, are the First World War and the Second World War holders of the Victoria Cross being treated as generously as those who won them in the Zulu War and the Boer War? In any case, is it not rather a disgrace to this country that the soldier, sailor or airman who, by his unexampled gallantry and courage, wins the highest possible award in the whole range of awards for gallantry in service which can be bestowed by the Monarch, is given a miserable £10 a year as a gratuity? Will not the War Office look at this matter again?
  I do not know whether this applies only to the War Office. As a simple and humble soldier who was never more than

  289
  a private, I am open to correction, but I believe that the Victoria Cross may be awarded to men of all three Services. While it is competent to raise the question concerning the Army when we are considering, the Army Estimates, perhaps in relation to the Navy and Air Force we might direct the attention of the Minister of Defence, the Minister for co-ordinating the three Services, to the question, so that all the holders of the Victoria Cross, to whichever Service they belong, shall be considered for some better treatment than a miserable annuity of £10 a year.
  On Vote 9.P., we see "Other miscellaneous charges," including "Regimental allowances and entertainment expenses." The Explanatory Notes for entertainment expenses refer to band allowance and mess allowance, which is quite understandable, but what are "allowances for jumps"? Is this the high jump? Is it the expenses of courts-martial or something like that? This is one of the items which is included under entertainment. Are assault courses entertainment? I do not know whether the men who go in for the assault courses regard them as entertainment or toughening up. Of course, they may be entertainment for the onlookers, for the officers who are watching the poor lads going through it. Is it not irreverent to include chaplains under the heading of entertainment? Will the Minister look again at paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Notes on page 157?
  On Vote 9.K, technical training charges are down by £123,000, or over one-third. Surely, it cannot be right that in this modern age, when we are having to streamline our technical Army, we should be spending one-third less on technical training than we did last year. It may he found that an equivalent addition can be found elsewhere in the Estimates. On the face of it, however, this is one of the apparent discrepancies about which we should have an explanation. If technical training is down by one-third, it certainly should be carefully looked into.
  On page 150, it is gratifying to find that welfare expenses have doubled, but I note that these are grants to outside bodies. I should like some information as to whether they are voluntary bodies and what proportion of their income goes in expenses and what extent is devoted to the application of welfare to the Forces.
  290
  On page 146, in Vote 9.C, I notice that there is greatly increased expenditure on publicity and recruiting. That is all to the good, but I should like to know whether this money is effectively spent. Is the advertising done by outside advertising experts, or do the War Office try to put amateurs on the job and get it botched? if we are spending public money on advertising and recruiting, we ought to have the best experts in the country.
  Recruiting is one of the most important jobs. The Government say that they are abolishing compulsory National Service and that to enable them to do so they must get a volunteer Army. To do that, we must have adequate and effective advertising and aids to voluntary recruiting. Therefore, just as we would not employ an amateur to produce our nuclear weapons, we should not employ amateurs to do this very important job.
  On Vote 7.C, medical stores show a reduction of £83,000. I do not know whether "No. 9s" are not so much in demand these days as when I was an ordinary private, when the usual reply of the medical officer was "Medicine and duty and the medicine was "No. 9". I do not know whether the demand on the medical stores is less than it used to be. There might be an explanation for this reduction of £83,000. Disinfectants. incidentally, show an increase of £113,000. I do not know whether there is any connection between the two.
  There are many other things that one could criticise in detail on the Estimates, but I want to say a word or two on National Service. Paragraphs 47 and 48 of the Defence White Paper leave us in some doubt as to the position. The Government use the expression, "if voluntary recruiting fails…" Then, in paragraph 48, we have a reference to
  "some limited form of compulsory service ".
  What is the Government's idea of a
  "limited form of compulsory service "?
  Have they any real confidence that they will get their 160,000 men for the Army by voluntary recruiting? If they go into the job half-heartedly, they will not get very far. By suggesting that voluntary recruiting will fail, they are, in fact, meeting trouble half-way. The Government say, in effect, that they are so sure that voluntary recruiting will fail that they

  291
  are already thinking of some form of limited compulsory service to take its place.
  Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government really believe that they can get 160,000 recruits by voluntary means at the time they are required? If not, what is this limited form of compulsory military service which is hinted at in the Defence White Paper?
  Voluntary recruiting must not be allowed to fail. One of the ways to help voluntary recruiting for the Forces is to give the Army a good Press and publicity. An hon. Member opposite has already referred to the Colonel Blimp who marched the lads down to the football match and told them which side they must cheer. Things like that will not do any good to the Army.
  It is no good blaming the Press, because a journalist has to earn his bread and butter, and if a journalist gets a good story he is inclined to make the best of that story, and it will be in the headlines. The Press laps up that kind of thing, and it makes headlines. If the Army do a good job on something the Press says nothing about it. I will grant that; it is perfectly true. If the Army does a good job on welfare, on education or whatever it is, if a unit is happy and there is no trouble in it, because of the personality of the commanding officer and because of the team of officers he has round him, which has made that particular unit a happy family, that story does not appear in the Press, but one little incident like the compulsory parade to the football match hits the headlines.
  What are the Press relations of the War Office? Is there a P. R. O. at the War Office? If so, who is he? Is he some retired lieutenant-colonel or brigadier—
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: He is a major-general.
  Mr. Simmons: Maybe he is a general, or even a field marshal, because there are field marshals who are very good on publicity. They are always hitting the headlines. They have only to look down an old cannon and they hit the headlines. To get real publicity, we have to have a trained journalist. Can the Minister tell us whether in the War Office they have not Army "dug-outs" but trained journalists doing the work of the P R. O.?
  292
  I believe it is of the utmost importance that we should get the Army a good Press and a good name through the Press, which will do as much to encourage recruiting as any other thing.
  On the general question of recruiting and manpower problems, which deserve our utmost consideration at this time, we have been discussing this afternoon what are the incentives that are necessary. The question of pay has been raised, and I am inclined to agree with a good many of my colleagues on both sides of the Commitee that, while pay is important, it is not the only thing that matters. I believe that the pay of the soldier should give him an economic standing comparable with that of his fellow human beings outside the Service. That is the important thing.
  The present Army is mainly composed, or will be more and more composed in future, of craftsmen, and they must have the rate for the job. As a matter of fact, I would say that they ought to have a little more than the rate for the job because of the special conditions under which they live. In my old days in local government—and that is going back about forty years—we always used to say that local government should pay a little higher than the existing district rate as an example to other employers of labour, and that was a general principle in local government at least thirty years ago. I think the Services ought to set an example, and that those who are in the Services should get a little more than the rate for the job they are doing, both for the maintenance of the good name of the Service and as compensation for the peculiar conditions under which they have to work—conditions of discipline and all the rest.
  Next, conditions are important. The question of married men and their families has been raised, and I think that in the new Army which we are now building up, when we are bringing in craftsmen and people who are trained in particular jobs, we are likely to have a lot of married men. I do not know what the conditions of recruitment are to be and whether married men will be welcome. I do not mean married officers, because there always has been provision for married officers. I mean the ordinary rank and file, and I wonder whether these will be welcomed as married men. Then,

  293
  I think that the Army has to do a great deal in providing for these married men and their families.
  One hon. Member opposite, I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), referred to one of these camps where they have a kind of communal kitchen. I have had some experience in local government and in housing, and my wife has been chairman of a housing committee for four years and I have heard her story of it. The worst thing one can do is to put two women in one kitchen because one is bound to get trouble, but if you put half-a-dozen in one kitchen they will play merry what's it. These human considerations are important when dealing with this problem. We are going to cater for married soldiers, whether they be officers or other ranks, and we have to cater for the family aspect of the situation, as well as for the position of the single man.
  Another important matter is status. If we are to recruit a modern Army we have to make a man proud to belong to it and not ashamed of it. We must not have an Army made up of people who are too incompetent or too lazy to do a job outside. We have to go out for the best, and if we go out for the best we have to give these men status, which means that there will have to be less bossing about—and I could use other words with which to describe it. There will have to be less of this petty tyranny and petty Hitlerism that we have had in the Army in days gone by. The technician soldier has to be as much an individual in the Army as he would be if he was working in a factory or workshop, and we have to give him that status as a full human being.
  Then, I believe it is important that we should make some provision for the man's post-Service career. I know that that is going to be difficult, but if industry could be approached I think we would get cooperation, and I am sure that we shall get co-operation from the trade unions. If the trade unions were sure that a man was paid the rate for the job in the Service, that he had been properly trained for the job and would not be undercutting anybody when he came out, I believe that the trade unions would stand by him in his post-war job. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) referred to the nationalised
  294
  industries, and I should like to emphasise what he said. Surely, there is a wide field here in which we could find employment for these men after their Service.
  I also believe that the housing of these men when they come out of the Service is another important problem. We know that the Minister has approached the Minister of Housing and Local Government and that he has approached the local authorities. We also know that the man who is discharged from the Services today receives, I think I am right in saying, in the case of the majority of our larger local authorites, some priority in consideration for housing. I know that in Birmingham, he receives an extra point for every year of his service, which brings him up on the housing list, but when we have a housing list of 60,000 people and an increase in the number of houses of only a couple of thousand a year, the fact that the man is brought higher up on the housing list does not sound very satisfactory.
  If the nation wants to take them out of civilian life and out of their normal surroundings for a period of nine, twelve or twenty-one years, at the end of that period the State itself ought to have an organisation whereby the houses could be built by direct labour through a Government Department in various parts of the country where these men could be housed.
  I am sorry that I have taken longer than I intended, but these points are important. The Army Estimates are not the place to make what might be called policy speeches, but we are being asked to vote sums of money, admittedly less than previously, for a new kind of Army, with new weapons. What worries me is whether we are going too far in the direction of nuclear war, leaving ourselves bare of the more conventional methods of defence. From what I can see at the moment we intend to equip our Army with nuclear warheads, and in the event of an attack in the West we would start the war as a nuclear war whatever the other side did. That has been said already only this week by a general in N. A. T. O. I wonder if we would do that. I thought we regarded the use of nuclear weapons as a reprehensible and horrible thing. Therefore, I should have thought that if the other side used conventional weapons

  295
  we would reply with conventional weapons.
  But suppose the other side starts the war with conventional weapons and we have not got the conventional weapons with which to reply, we are either defence-less or we have to be the first in that war to use the weapon that we ourselves describe as the most monstrous and inhuman weapon that can be used in war.
  It is a dilemma that ought to be faced, namely, whether we will commit ourselves to being the first, if necessary, to use the nuclear weapon, whatever the potential enemy does, or whether we will have sufficient power by way of conventional defence to fight a conventional war. The one thing we ought to guard against is that the ultimate deterrent becomes the initial weapon in any future war.
  7.33 p.m.
  Brigadier Sir John Smyth: It is always a pleasure to me to follow the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons), a man who, as a Minister and on the back benches, has done such a wonderful job for the ex-Service men and for the war disabled. With his usual pertinacity the hon. Gentleman has dug into a lot of matters about which he has asked for an explanation from the Minister, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give him one.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the Victoria Cross and to the Victoria Cross gratuity. It might interest him to know that last year there was a general wish that we should form, in the centenary year, a Victoria Cross Association, of which I was invited to be the first chairman. I have two vice-chairmen, the Right Honourable Milton Gregg, who is the Minister of Labour in the Canadian Government. and the Rev. Harold Woolley, who is known to many of us here.
  The holders of the Victoria Cross are a rapidly dying community, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, and since the centenary parade last year eleven of my colleagues have already died. I do not think that any of us would wish that another award of the Victoria Cross should ever be made, because that would envisage some form of war happening, which none of us wants. So we decided a little while ago that the dying community of the Vic-
  296
  toria Cross should invite, as associate members, the new, live and growing George Cross community to become associate members of our association. They have received our invitation with great enthusiasm, and only this morning I received a letter from the Governor of Malta, who informed me that the people of Malta would be honoured to accept our invitation to become associate members of this association.
  We have already had referred to us the matter of the gratuity which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It is still £10 for other ranks only, as it was in 1856, and it has never been granted to officers. Whether it is considered that this should be increased or not is a matter of opinion. What is more important is that there are a few holders of the Victoria Cross who were in very straitened circumstances, and I am grateful to hon. Members of this House, to whom I have referred their cases, and who have given me a lot of assistance.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the matter of National Service, which has already been raised by one or two other hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence had not been clear and definite as to whether he really meant that National Service is to come to an end after the five-year period. To my way of thinking, he has made it absolutely clear and definite that this will happen and there is no doubt about it. However, I would ask the Under-Secretary to be definite on this matter of the end of National Service when he replies, since it has been mentioned by several hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the important question of the use of nuclear weapons in another war or for our troops in N. A. T. O., and I will answer that point in the course of my speech.
  The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), made an extremely important point when he said what a good thing it would be if there could be boarding schools for the children of married ranks in the Services. When one thinks of it, that is really the answer to the education problem. The real difficulty is that the married soldier and his wife going abroad have to face the problem of what to do about the education of their children. If their children are sent home to day school,

  297
  who will look after them? I very much welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for Fulham about these boarding schools. That is very important, indeed.
  He also mentioned the importance of offering a real career in this new Army we are now starting to raise. I go even further than he has done and say that we shall not succeed in raising the number of voluntary Regular recruits which we want in our new Army unless we offer the men entering the Services a real life career. It is not enough simply to say that if they are kicked out of the Army in their thirties or forties the Army will find them some other career. I am sure that the Government have to be responsible for the men of our new Regular Army in exactly the same way as they offer a career to civil servants. Only by offering a career which is worth while in pay, conditions, continuity and security will we get the sort of Army we want.
  In an excellent opening speech the Secretary of State referred to the importance of the status of the soldier. That is of supreme importance if we are to get the Army we all want. If we believe that peace and the maintenance of peace is all-important and that the first job of the Services is not to fight a war but to keep that peace. then we must see that in the Armed Forces we have the very pick of our young men to enable us to keep that peace.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) brought up the interesting topic, to which my right hon. Friend referred, of the brigade group and of whether our N. A. T. O. forces should be organised in brigade groups or in some form of division as at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West was against the brigade group because he thought that it would make a difference between the organisation of our forces in N. A. T. O. and the forces of our allies. I do not think that is very important. I like the brigade group organisation. I have had a certain amount of experience of it, because before Dunkirk my division trained in brigade groups and fought through the Dunkirk operation in brigade groups and not as a division.
  If we are to organise in brigade groups, the brigade group staff is important. One cannot change from division organisation to brigade group organisation and merely
  298
  shove on to the brigade commander, as was done in my division at Dunkirk, a whole regiment of artillery, tanks and engineers and expect the brigade staff to be able to cope. That is the important thing. We have to make up our minds which type of organisation we want and then stick to it.
  In recent years in these debates it has become more and more difficult to separate defence and foreign affairs and to separate defence as a general question from the onsideration of the affairs of the various Services. That is an inescapable problem today, and it will become more so as time goes on. Several speakers have referred to it in the other Service Estimates debates. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made an excellent comment on that point in his speech on the Air Estimates. He said:
  "…there must be a horizontal functional division of the subjects rather than a vertical division as between the Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1225.]
  He is probably quite right, and as war becomes more mechanised and the Services become more integrated—and I am certain that that will be the modern trend, dislike it as we may—it will be more and more difficult to keep our debates on the Service Estimates strictly on the line of one particular Service, because the problems of manpower and all those other problems which we have been considering today equally affect the other Services.
  I want for a moment to consider the rôle of the new Army. The rôle of the Army at present and in the future, as envisaged by the Minister of Defence in the White Paper and by the Secretary of State for War, is very much simpler than it was before. Rightly or wrongly, it is based on the nuclear deterrent, and it is because we have accepted the basis of the nuclear deterrent in the shaping of our Forces of the future that the Army is taking the shape which we are now envisaging.
  In actual fact the power of the deterrent has been in operation for a number of years. What has deterred the Russians from advancing further westwards has been a combination of the nuclear deterrent and N. A. T. O., but chiefly the nuclear deterrent, because until quite recently N. A. T. O. was very weak indeed and is

  299
  even now very greatly inferior in manpower and conventional forces to anything which the Russians can put into action against it.
  We should consider for a moment—and this answers the point put to me by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill—in what circumstances the deterrent will operate. I suggest that it does not much matter whether N. A. T. O. forces are armed with conventional weapons or with tactical nuclear weapons. I firmly believe that if there is any head-on clash between the nuclear Powers, that is, between Russia on the one hand and Britain and the United States on the other, it is almost certain to result in nuclear war, sooner or later, whether the one side or the other, or both, uses tactical nuclear weapons or not.
  I believe that that is a good thing. As one knows from experience, it is possible to drift into a war—we have done that before now. If it is perfectly well understood by both sides that if there is a head-on clash in any part of the world between the nuclear Powers it is almost certain that sooner or later—and I believe that it will be sooner—it will develop into a wholesale nuclear war, then it is unlikely we shall have a global war.
  In introducing the Defence White Paper, the Minister of Defence on 16th April said:
  "If…the Russians were to launch a full-scale offensive against Western Europe, it would, I submit, be quite unrealistic to imagine that the issue could be fought out on limited conventional lines and according to rules. In such circumstances, that is, a head-on clash between the great Powers in Europe, between the Communist world and the free world, it is inconceivable that either the Soviet Union or the free world would allow itself to be defeated, with all that that would mean, without throwing everything it had into the battle including nuclear weapons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1957; Vol. 568. c. 1767.]
  Whether we like it or not, I believe profoundly that that is perfectly true today. If we accept that as a fact, it helps us to understand the rôle—and what should be the organisation for that rôle—of the British Army in a global war.
  The second rôle of our Army is defined in the White Paper and in my right hon. Friend's Memorandum. It is to defend British Colonies and protected territories against local attack and to undertake limited operations in overseas emergencies. For that second rôle we need
  300
  a highly trained, highly mobile Army. It need not be a very big one, but the essential feature is that it must be in instant readiness, able to be moved quickly by air or sea to any particular point.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In what part of the world does the hon. and gallant Gentleman conceive that such a limited war could break out?
  Sir J. Smyth: I give Suez as a good example. It has been said of the Nuremburg trials that it is a hanging matter to be on the losing side. I think that is the lesson that most people would take from those trials. On Suez we may disagree, but I believe that our decision to intervene between Israel and Egypt and thereby to stop a war developing throughout the whole of the Middle East was a correct one. The big mistake over Suez was that the forces at our disposal to cope with that situation were so organised that they could not act quickly, and so we had that long delay of six days when there was the bombing of Egyptian aerodromes, and so on. That is an example.
  It might be that the Aden Protectorate was attacked or that our interests were threatened in another part of the world. It is difficult to define the circumstances exactly, but it is for this purpose that the central reserve is being created by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.
  In an operation of that sort, a limited operation with a limited objective, we must use limited forces. That has been so for many years. An interesting example is that in 1920 we were faced in India with a threat of what turned out to be the biggest frontier campaign we have ever had to deal with, and we really had not the troops available. Therefore, we brought forward a deterrent. It was not a nuclear deterrent. It was the threat of air bombing against the tribes, and it had never before been used in our history. The tribes were not put off by the threat and we used the deterrent, and that was not effective. The result was a long and costly campaign. That was a deterrent of a different nature, and we hope that the nuclear deterrent is a far more effective one which will prevent another global war from starting.

  301
  I wish to make a few comments about manpower. Several hon. Members have referred to the speech by Lord Tedder in another place and to his criticism of the White Paper which he said had had a shattering effect on the morale of all three Services. He said that the ranks of the Services were one seething mass of rumours. I think that was an exaggeration. What concerns the Services is their own position—whether they are to he declared redundant and retired, or not; but I do not believe that the alterations and the innovations which are being made in the Services have worried the personnel all that much.
  We have had other upsets in the past. I can remember what an upset it was when the cavalry had their horses removed. I was in India at the time, and it appeared to them to be a major disaster at the time. I remember one general officer saying to me, very bitterly, that the motto of the cavalry in India was Aut polo aut nihil,which, according to my translation from the Latin, means "Either polo or nothing". I think that that was rather a libel on them, because if a man is going to war on a horse it is extremely good training to play polo. However, the cavalry, having had their horses taken away and replaced by armoured cars, very soon got used to their new rôle—and they still continued to play polo.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: We still have plenty of horseshoe nails.
  Sir J. Smyth: if we are really to get the Army and the Services that we want we must offer the men who join the new Services a whole life career which will be really worth while and attractive to the type of men whom we want to recruit.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) that it is difficult to disassociate foreign policy from our consideration of military affairs. Obviously, if Government policy was one of neutrality and pacifism it would not be necessary to have an Army, a Navy or an Air Force; but we know that it is not so based. 'Therefore, in discussing the Estimates we must always keep constantly in mind the policy of the Government.
  302
  The Committee knows fairly well from statements which have been made that Government policy is one of supporting in Europe the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. In that respect, we are not merely discussing our own national Army; we are discussing that Army in association with the allied forces in that organisation. Therefore, I suggest that much of our discussion today has been unrealistic. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) who stressed the unreality in the make-up of the fighting formations. I think that it was he who said that our forces in Germany are not to be considered as so many divisions but as so many brigade groups.
  Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for War, in a previous speech, in answer to some questions of mine, tried to inform us of the constitution of the various elements which make up brigade groups which we must now consider to be the real fighting forces of the British Army. How far have our allies so constituted their forces that they can work in with our brigade groups? We do not know that completely. Of course, we must not argue that point today otherwise we might possibly be ruled out of order. We are discussing the British Army Estimates but nevertheless the thought must be in the minds not only of hon. Members but of generals too: is the whole of this force going to be efficient?
  I do not think that at the moment the authorities at S. H. A. P. E. are quite sure ill their minds as to the forces that they have at their disposal and whether they will be able to utilise them. Obviously, if the balloon goes up, we have it on record, from the Commander in Chief and Field Marshal Montgomery and others that the deterrent, in other words the bomb, will be dropped. It is quite probable that that kind of war will not happen.
  In relation to the Government's policy of co-operation with their allies, they did for a time diverge from that system by "going it", if not alone, with one other ally, France, in association with Israel. They soon found that it was impossible, first, to mount that operation and, secondly, to follow it right the way through, as ought to have been done once it was started. I have a suspicion that

  303
  the Under-Secretary of State for War was, if he is not now, of the same opinion.
  That operation was a complete failure, not only because of the political implication but because the Army, in co-operation with the Air Force and Navy, could not be thrown in to complete the operation as it should have been done in the face of practically no armed resistance from the Egyptians and in the time that it had at its disposal. Therefore, I say to the Committee that in that illustration I am not exaggerating when I say that our military forces, at any rate so far as the Army is concerned, are not capable today of doing the job which the Secretary of State told us this afternoon they would be able to do.
  I think that it is our duty, as the guardians of the national interest, to probe very deeply into these matters. Of course, we are limited. A smoke screen of faked security goes up. We experienced it this afternoon from the Secretary of State for War and we had it from the Secretary of State for Air the other day. They come here and make their large statements, and when an hon. Member gets up and says, "How are you going to do that", immediately up goes the screen and we are told that it is not in the public interest to give the information, or that it would be of great value to our enemies. Our enemies know a great deal of what is happening, and if we know, as the First Lord of Admiralty told another place a few days ago, the approximate number of submarines that Russia has, does not the Committee think that the Russians have a pretty shrewd idea of what we have by way of armed units or formations?
  Sir J. Smyth: I agree with most of the things which the right hon. Gentleman has said, but would not he agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, from his Defence White Paper, has obviously assimilated the lessons of Suez? With the look forward that is portrayed in the White Paper, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has realised the state of affairs and he intends to remedy them with his central reserves and his methods of air transport?
  Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I would not agree. What I think the Minister of Defence has done is to realise that that operation was a failure; in other words,
  304
  the British military forces are today not capable of carrying out Government policy, and all that the Minister of Defence has done has been to act as the surgeon who diagnoses what he thinks is the disease and then gives to his assistant surgeons—the chiefs of the Service Departments—the order to cut, and leaves them to cut. That is why today we are not able to see the pattern and the shape of our Army.
  If hon. Members will look at the preface in the Secretary of State's Memorandum they will find the clue there. The Committee should be given an indication of what our forces will be in the future—because it does not matter what has happened in the past, that is past history and the historians can deal with it. It does not need the Secretary of State to come here and tell us what has happened in the past. At any rate the Government will not tell us what has happened in the immediate past, otherwise they might have a few resignations. This Memorandum deals primarily with the work of the Army during the past year, and goes on blandly to say that
  "The Government's defence policy…has far-reaching implications for the Army. These can be dealt with in our forthcoming debates."
  How can they be dealt with if the Secretary of State is now waiting for private Members of the House to tell him how to build his own Army? Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State to give some indication to the House about how he is proposing to build the Army of the future? He says very little, and I shall proceed for a few moments to investigate what he does say and principally what he does not say.
  The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, in his speech—and I am bound to say in his absence, and I hope that it will be passed on to him, that I thought his speech was by far and away the best of the three Service speeches that we have listened to from the Front Bench opposite—at least tried to put some life into a somewhat lifeless subject, because he had not the material with which to build up his speech. The other two Service Ministers simply stuck rigidly to the briefs prepared by their Departments, and consequently the House was left just as wise after their speeches as it was before as to what is really happening in those two Departments.

  305
  I myself, as hon. Members know, have been at the War Office and I know how Ministers' speeches are made up. In the War Office, before the Secretary of State makes his Estimates speech, the various directorates send in their bits and pieces and, of course, the Secretary of State finds that he has too much material to give the House. Then someone, perhaps the Secretary of State himself, tries to reduce it to a compass which he thinks the House can reasonably be expected to bear with. But it is a mosaic, and if the right hon. Gentleman does his job properly it gives the House some sort of a pattern on which it can at least judge as to the readiness of our forces.
  The whole trouble is that not one of the Service Departments can make up a pattern today because the bits and pieces of the mosaic which they have to play with are all so jumbled that they cannot make any picture that we can look at in perspective and say, "That tells us at least something. It is a landscape or else it is a portrait". We do not know what it is at the moment, except that we can be pretty sure that it is something of a still life.
  I turn to what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon. When he was talking about re-equipment he gave us a whole catalogue of what I might call the stale stock of the Army. He said that we were going to clear out the shop shelves and do away with the 25-pounder artillery gun, which has been a very good weapon for very many years. He said that we are to re-equip the Army with the F. N. rifle and, in place of the Sten submachine gun, to equip the Army with the Sterling sub-machine gun, which is also an excellent weapon. I have fired it and I can assure those Members of the Committee who have not seen it in operation that it is a first-class weapon for its job.
  So first-class is it that at least forty customers from various parts of the world are asking for or have ordered some of these weapons. That is probably why the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in his excellent maiden speech, referred to the supply to our soldiers of some of these guns by Turkish policemen. It may be good as an anecdote to underline his point of
  306
  view, but the fact remains that the Sterling gun, which is made in this country, is exported to other countries by permission of Her Majesty's Government, and the reason why the gun is not in full production here is that the Ministry of Supply held up the weapon for at least two years trying to redesign it.
  That leads me to the conclusion that the Ministry of Supply and its functions require to be looked into. I remember the debates which took place before the war, when hon. Members opposite who were supporting the Government of those days advocated the setting up of a Ministry of Supply. I am not at all sure that in the question of defence the Ministry of Supply is not something of a fourth wheel. The Navy, at any rate, orders a good deal of its own supplies direct. For clothing, and supplies like that, which are common to the three Services, except as to the colour of the material, the system may be all right, but I am not at all sure that the Army or the Air Force is getting the best possible weapons with the present system of leaving to the Ministry of Supply the designing and supplying of them.
  The Committee probably knows that many of the officers in the Ministry are seconded from the War Office. I believe that there is a lot of duplication. It may be that the War Office should allow hon. Members to see something of these modern weapons. In that connection I would draw the attention of the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend to an exercise which many hon. Members attended a few days ago, staged by the Royal Navy. I believe that the exercise was called "Fairlead". That was an operation which had been going on for two weeks, and Members of Parliament, prominent industrialists, and leading men in all walks of life, were invited to it.
  In one day we learned a good deal of what is happening in the Navy. I am not a naval man and I can therefore plead ignorance of the Navy's weapons, and the way in which it will fight its wars, but it staged a show—if I may call it such—which impressed all those present. It included all the Commonwealth representatives taking part in the operation, and we were allowed to see models of the actual weapons. We were able to see how a battleship, aircraft

  307
  carrier—which is today's battleship—or cruiser is pre-wetted in order to minimise the effect of atomic radiation. Many of those things were available for hon. Members and others to see. If the War Office wants the co-operation of hon. Members it must tell us something more about itself. If it has anything to hide—and it undoubtedly has—it must not be surprised if it is criticised, because that is what the House is for. We are all acting in the interests of our country and its safety and security.
  In another place the First Lord stated that the Russians had 500 submarines. That poses a problem which not only the Navy must answer but which all hon. Members must try to visualise. When we are discussing the Service Estimates we must see whether the military forces are able to compete with our potential enemies. Can any hon. Member opposite—many of whom have much more recent experience than I of active service with the Army or of the Reserve—tell the Committee that he believes that we have as efficient a fighting force for the job, that we have to do as we had five or six years ago?
  During the time that I was at the War Office we were running down the Army—demobilising from a strength of over 3 million down to the Army that we were trying to keep for the future. The Army has never been right, and I believe that the most important reason why it has never been right is that we have had National Service. I know all the arguments about our commitments, but what are these commitments?
  When I compare the map which the Secretary of State kindly attached to his Memorandum with the map attached to the Memorandum in 1954, a very startling picture is provided. The 1954 map shows thousands of troops dotted all over the globe. supposed to be doing a job. What is their job now? The Secretary of State's Memorandum mentions the British Army of the Rhine and garrisons in Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, the Arabian peninsula, and so forth. In Cyprus we find that merely to tackle civil disobedience—I agree that it is perhaps on a much more serious scale than ordinary civil disobedience—we have about 18,000 troops, presumably all armed with modern weapons, in order to deal with a job which ought to be a police job.
  308
  Why is it not a police job? It is because our intelligence has failed us in Cyprus. We cannot send troops into action against guerillas and expect them to force the surrender of those forces in the way that they could force an enemy to surrender in a pitched battle.
  A survey of our forces dotted all over the world shows us that in Malaya we have 22 battalions, including United Kingdom, Gurkha and Commonwealth battalions; we do not know how many troops there are in the Hong Kong garrison. The right hon. Gentleman does not tell us, but Hong Kong is chock-a-block with troops. It may be that it is part of the strategic reserve for the Far East. In Malaya we have eight battalions, including United Kingdom and East African forces. I wonder what is the purpose of these armed troops.
  If the Under-Secretary will tell us that they form part of our strategic reserve, placed in the most strategic posts. I can understand his policy, but when I am told that they are there merely to subdue Mau Mau or E. O. K. A. I begin to wonder whether the rôle of the Army is so clearly defined as the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said in his speech. I do not believe it. I think that the Army is being misused today.
  At some time the Minister and his military advisers at the War Office will have to study how the Army was built up forty years ago. We produced four divisions in 1914 who were splendidly trained and, on the whole for those times, very well equipped. They were able to hold a very strong German Army at bay and to play their part with their French allies. Today, we have not four divisions like that or as well trained as they were to be able to tackle a potential aggressor, although we have very good troops in Germany.
  When the right hon. Gentleman gets down to the question of the volunteer Army, I hope that he will train it as a Regular Army and not, as he has been training the Army, as a mixture of Regulars and National Service men. I do not decry National Service men—three or four of my sons have done their Service—or their qualities, but they are not being trained for the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to understand. The right hon. Gentleman submits this Memorandum and comes

  309
  here this afternoon and, in his somewhat disconnected remarks, tells us what is the future of the British Army. Let me take one point, if only to show that my criticism does not consist of wild generalities.
  I will take the question of air transport. The whole mobility of the British Army, with the strategic reserve—or central reserve as it is now called—centred in this country, depends upon transport aeroplanes. When I asked the Secretary of State for Air how many aeroplanes he had to lift those troops, he said, "You must not ask questions that would be useful to the enemy." Look at the Secretary of State's Memorandum. I have read page 12. where he deals with the subject of movement. In paragraph 80 he tells us that since the crisis in the Mediterranean trooping to the Far East has been maintained only spasmodically. Yet we may be attacked in the Far East. There may be some aggression in the Far East tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that owing to a somewhat provisional arrangement which the Army has been able to make, 1,100 personnel each way are all who are being sent by air each month for all three Services.
  Therefore we have a movement of 12,000 per annum for all three Services, The R. A. F. is a very big user of that transport to the Far East. That is all we can maintain, partly because of the difficulties about landing grounds for aeroplanes from Britain to the Far East and also because we have not the transport aeroplanes. I know that that is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, but what do hon. Gentlemen understand from all this mumbo-jumbo? That is all it is. Why talk about the mobility of our central reserve and all the rest of it if we have not the means of mobility? Everybody knows that if war should come it would be very difficult to get our reserve mobilised and sent out of the country to fight wherever it might have to fight to stop the enemy from getting here.
  What has the right hon. Gentleman told us about the rôle of the Territorial Army? He says that it has to be trained as a fighting force, but in the next breath, or a least in the next sentence, he tells us that it may be used for Civil Defence.
  310
  From the map we see that we have in the United Kingdom a Territorial Army of 10⅔ divisions. I do not know what the size of the division is, but let us take it as being 10,000. I suspect that it is much more than that. That means 100,000 men in the Territorial Army. What for? The right hon. Gentleman says, in his Memorandum, that they are to be trained as a fighting force. What for? To defend this country; but long before they could do so the country would be overwhelmed from the air. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to speak about 28 battalions which are presumably for Civil Defence duties.
  I wish the right hon. Gentleman had told us a little more about the rôle of the Reserve Army and the Territorial Army in relation to Civil Defence. I go so far as to suggest that that is one problem that the Army, in conjunction with the Home Office, which is responsible for Civil Defence, has not settled today. It is a long way from settling it. I suspect that the Home Secretary's Department on Civil Defence, which is doing very good work at the staff college and in a small way in local government areas, has no settled plan as to how it is to work in conjunction with the Territorial Army or the reserve force if war should occur.
  I will conclude by referring to one or two observations, or insinuations, which the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon. He did not specify who was creating alarm and despondency, and spreading rumours about redundancy and the bowler hats that are going to be distributed in the Army. Let the right hon. Gentleman be under no illusion: the Army knows far better than we do what is coming to it. Let hon. Members take the numbers of officers disclosed in the Estimates and the right hon. Gentleman's own words this afternoon, when he said that of the 5,000 to 7,000 dismissals that were to take place, the Army would have to sustain about half.
  What do we find? One in six or seven Army officers will be axed. Who will those officers be? The senior officers in the main, for whom it will be difficult to find jobs in civil life Sometimes, as I listen to the Minister or to hon. Members saying what we will do to reduce the pains of dismissal for these Army officers I fancy they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks. I know how difficult it

  311
  is for men who are aged 35 or 40, as many of these men are, to go from a life of military training, which I can assure hon. Gentlemen does not fit them for civil training, and try to find a place in industry.
  During the debate on the Air Estimates one hon. Member told us that he tried to get a job in civil life for a comparatively young officer, and failed. The director of the organisation—and I presume that the hon. Member had some influence with him—said, "We cannot do it. It would be unfair to those young men whom we have taken into the organisation to train. In addition, it would be very difficult for such an ex-Air Force officer to be integrated into our organisation." I do not think that that industrialist was callous. I believe that he would honestly have tried to take that ex-officer into his organisation if he could have done so. It was a big undertaking, and there must have been plenty of jobs available, but he felt that in the interests of his own shareholders and his own organisation he could not give a job to that ex-officer.
  I say to the Secretary of State that he need cast no glances at the Opposition benches when he talks about alarm and despondency. He and his associate, the Minister of Defence, have created all the alarm and despondency for us. I will not say that they were wrong to make these cuts, but I object to the impetuous way in which the new Minister of Defence and, before him, the present Prime Minister, then Minister of Defence, went like a knife through the Department, and said, "Away with this and that." First, it was Anti-Aircraft Command. That should have been done a long time ago. If the Government had phased this dispersal there would have been less hardship on those now being dismissed with a wave of the hand.
  Having seen that his forces were unable to run a small operation in the Suez Canal with no opposition whatever from an enemy, the present Minister of Defence said, "Let us cut down these forces." What is the aftermath? What is the result? The result is plain for all those who will study and read between the lines. The result is that if war were to break out tomorrow our military forces, including the Army, would be in a hopeless state of confusion. I say that
  312
  having spent many years as a Member of the House, I say it as one who has studied military matters, and I say it as one who has had some experience in Ministerial office. I do not say it merely to embark upon partisan criticism of the Government.
  I have observed all the Ministers as they presented their Estimates, and I think that they are all disappointed men. They know that in their Departments there has been considerable resistance to many of these cuts. I will not say whether it was right or wrong that there should be resistance, but such has been the case, and it needs strong Ministers, sure in their own minds about what their policy will be, to overcome that resistance. I have not much faith in certain of the Ministers who lead the Service Departments today.
  Hon. Members opposite are the people who have always claimed military knowledge; it was to the Conservative Party that we were supposed to look for the defence of this country. How well they did it we know from reading the books of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). They had the tradition, but where are they today? They are in the position of not knowing where their military forces are going. They are not in the position to recruit their military forces, and they never will be until they get the co-operation of the Opposition. I say to the Under-Secertary of State, who has had a good deal of experience, in conjunction with certain hon. Members of the Opposition, in studying military matters, that it would be well worth while for the War Office to take a leaf out of the book of the Admiralty and to give us a chance to help, because many of us want to do so.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: In a debate which, on the whole, has been soporific in its general harmony. the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has struck a much-needed discordant note, the first which has ben struck so far. It is quite likely that I shall add another chord of the same kind to the debate. I found myself agreeing with some things which he said, although obviously he would not expect me to agree with everything he said.
  I would make only one other passing reference to his speech, and that is to his

  313
  remark that it would be a good thing if hon. Members sometimes watched the arms being used and watched the forces in action. That is a very interesting idea, and I can suggest another to him—that we can all learn a great deal by going to see an example of the four Services—four if we include the Civil Service—co-operating in the Joint Services Staff College very near London, at Chesham.
  Mr. Bellenger: We are not invited.
  Mr. Hall: If the right hon. Member were to go there he would see the way in which the four Services learn to work together as a team. I was alarmed not lone ago when I heard a rumour, which I hope is only a rumour, that the College might be closed or that the amount of money available to it might be reduced. I hope that instead of the amount of money available to it being reduced, more will be made available, because it has done magnificent work.
  When I first read the Defence White Paper, and the Army Memorandum which followed, I very nearly dislocated my shoulder patting myself on the back, and I imagine that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) may also have done so, as he is not present at the moment, Last year, at about this time or a little earlier, I had the privilege of moving what was, apparently, the last of the line of intervening Amendments. On that particular occasion, by my own Amendment, I called for
  "…drastic and far-reaching changes in the defence structure…"
  and urged
  "…the appointment of a committee to examine the organisation of the Army…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1956 Vol. 549, c. 1442.]
  In moving that Amendment, I remember finishing with a suggestion that to meet the kind of war that we were most likely to be called upon to fight, and to relieve our economy of a burden which it obviously could not continue to carry, we should develop a small, highly-trained, efficient and fully-mobile army. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey), who seconded the Amendment, has since soared into the stratosphere of the Foreign Office, and it is quite clear from that high eminence he has been able to exercise some little influence, because the very things which
  314
  we urged a little more than a year ago are coming to fruition in the Defence White Paper.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: He came down from the stratosphere last week.
  Mr. Hall: Even the Committee for which we asked at that time has been decided on, though not quite in the form that we had in mind. The Minister of Defence has set up a Committee to consider the closer integration of the Services. But I do not really flatter myself, nor am I sure would by hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, that the Amendment had anything to do with the present move. I rather think that it is the result of the lessons learned from Suez, which drove home the need completely to re-organise the type of force we now need.
  In the new organisation we are aiming at reducing our Forces between now and 1962 to 375,000, of which between about 160,000 and 170,000 will be for the Army. And I am delighted to know that this is without National Service. I have always thought that the introduction of National Service men, though essential at a certain stage of our history, took way from the efficiency of the Army and made it very difficult for it to work on the most efficient basis.
  We have had a great deal of discussion about manpower and the possibility of recruitment. I looked up the figures of the Forces before the war, and I find that in 1937 we had total forces of 371.000. A year later we had 402,000. In those two years the Army had a strength of 194,000 and 209,000, respectively.
  Mr. Bellenger: Military service.
  Mr. Hall: This was before National Service was introduced. I do not think that it was introduced in 1937—
  Mr. Bellenger: 1938.
  Mr. Hall: I think that the first year of National Service was 1939—or late 1938. But the figures I have quoted are without National Service altogether.
  I appreciate that recruitment to the Army in those days was, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) pointed out, against a very different background than we have today, when we are considering the problem against the background of full employment. I appreciate,

  315
  too, that today a higher percentage of technicians and skilled men is required than was necessary in the days before the last war. Nevertheless, I still think that it would be possible, given certain conditions—improvements in conditions, pay and the like—to reach that target figure of between 165,000 and 170,000.
  Reference has already been made to pay, and I firmly agree with everything that has been said—that it must be competitive. We know that it is essential to improve living conditions, both in barracks and married quarters. Everybody is fully aware of that need.
  I want, however, to follow up the point about education made by the hon. Member for Fulham. The younger officers, especially—and, indeed, the other ranks —are having to consider the future education of their children who are approaching secondary school age. Many of them have, until recently at any rate, been persuaded to leave the Army because they could not see themselves able to give their children the educational opportunity which they felt those children ought to have. When even in this country men are asked to move three or four times in almost as many years, so that they have to take their children away from school after school, it is impossible for those children to study or to concentrate on passing the examinations without which it is impossible for them to move up in the educational system. This must be a cause of anxiety to parents.
  I would support the hon. Member for Fulham and hon. Members on both sides in proposing the establishment by the Services of boarding schools, or for the provision by the Services for the children to take places at existing boarding schools. I do not think this idea should be confined to the three Fighting Services. Some time ago, when talking on a similar subject, I suggested that boarding school places should be available for the children of members of the five Services, the three Fighting Services and the Foreign and Colonial Services as well, so that anybody serving overseas who was unable by reason of Government service to stay in one place could ensure his children's education, just in the case of anyone in static employment, and without being in any worse financial position as a result.
  316
  It is possible that the establishment of a central reserve, which was envisaged in the Memorandum, may make it possible to restore what used to be the normal trooping system, with interchanges between the reserve and the garrisons in different parts of the world. In those circumstances it might be possible—I put it no higher than that—for officers and other ranks so to arrange their affairs as to be stationed in this country when their children go through the most critical period of their education. I do not see that happening quite like that, and I think that the problem can be dealt with only by direct help, either additional financial assistance or the provision of facilities.
  Some hon. Members have referred to the question of resettlement, and I would agree that certainly after the first six years or so the question of his future career when he leaves the Army comes to the forefront of the soldier's mind. This is a difficult problem. It is very difficult to persuade industries to guarantee that they will accept a certain percentage of men who have served their time in the Army. The Government do their best, I know, in taking many ex-Service men into Government service and giving them priority treatment when considering them for examination for various Departments of the Civil Service, but that is not enough. I do not know the answer to this problem. I do not know that anybody does, but I think we should applaud the decision of the Minister of Labour and National Service to set up a Departmental Committee to go into the ramifications of this problem. I hope that that investigation will find an answer. That is one of the necessary things to do if we arc to encourage recruitment.
  Above all, I think it is right to say, what many of my hon. Friends on this side have stressed, that we must try to restore in the soldier pride in his profession. A man will put up with inadequate pay, will accept conditions of hardship, even separation from his family, if he feels that he belongs to a profession which is outstanding, which is second to none. If he feels that as a soldier he belongs to an Army which for its size is the best in the world; if he feels that as an individual he has been trained to a pitch of physical and mental perfection to carry out his job, that will

  317
  give him pride which will enable him to overcome the many disadvantages inseparable from military life.
  There are many aids one can give to help the establishment of this prestige and pride in the profession. The provision of a good. attractive uniform is, of course. only one.
  One problem we have to examine is whether an Army of between 150,000 and 170,000 is large enough to deal with all the commitments which we have and which we may have to face. Although the Army before the war was larger, its commitments then were probably not very different from those it has now. It is true that we did not have troubles in Malaya and Kenya. On the other hand, we had 50.000 British troops in India, which we have not got now. We had a force in Egypt which we have not got now. We did not have a commitment in Germany, it is true, but we had roughly the equivalent in divisions for the establishment of a continental expeditionary force. The commitments were not so very different, although the percentage of fighting men was greater. If we are to spread an Army of 165,000 or thereabouts over our commitments, the Army is going to be stretched, even allowing for the fact that the R. A. F. undertakes a certain amount of those commitments.
  As several speakers have stressed, much will depend upon the effective mobility of our central Reserve. On this point several questions come to one's mind. What is to be the size of the central Reserve? Can we regard our forces in Germany as part of that Reserve, or are they still in the category of the untouchables? What part of the Reserve do we think we must have available for immediate movement, and what is the size of that force? Is it to be the new brigade group? Is that to be the force which we are to have available to move rapidly at a moment's notice—5,000 or 6,000 men?
  Are we capable—and this question has been asked by several hon. Members—of lifting such a force now, and if not when shall we be capable of doing so? I am told that it would take about twenty Britannias seven days to lift a light brigade to the Far East. I may be wrong, but I am told that if we wanted to lift a heavy brigade capable of undertaking
  318
  limited operations on arrival and marrying up with the much heavier equipment coming from other established bases it would require thirty Britannias to do the same job.
  The hon. Member for Dudley, in the debate on the Air Estimates, pointed out that it would take almost the entire American transport fleet of 806 aircraft to lift what was described as a 5,000-ton division—a light division. To move an 11,000-ton division, which was considered necessary to engage promptly in combat operations in undeveloped areas, would require many more aircraft than that. It seems doubtful to me whether we could lift a light division or even half a light division.
  The Committee must have sonic information on this point, for I do not think security is necessarily involved. I am sure that other countries have a fairly good idea of the number of transport planes that we have at our disposal. I should like to know what sized force we are planning to make fully mobile and available for rapid deployment at, say, 48 hours' notice. Have we enough planes to lift that force? If not, are we diverting enough of our resources which we are proposing to spend on the Army to the immediate provision of those transport aircraft?
  Another question which has not been asked so far is whether we are proposing to increase the number of airborne troops as opposed to air portable troops. Do we propose to increase the number of paratroops? We have one brigade at the moment, although I doubt if we could deploy a paratroop brigade if we wanted to deploy it as a brigade and not as individual battalions.
  We had a discussion on mobilisation following the Suez operation, and it became clear in the debates that followed that the mobilisation procedure was not all it should be. I should like to know whether that has been improved. Will the brigade group, or some other such formation of the central Reserve earmarked for rapid deployment, be capable of movement at very short notice?
  That brings me to the question of the reserve Army. I think everybody will agree that that has been the least satisfactory side of the Army organisation. It says a great deal for the spirit of those who are in the Territorial Army that they

  319
  have remained in it as volunteers, despite the many official N. A. F. U. s from which they have suffered from time to time. In my view it has an essential place, not only in the defence of the country. I am not at all sure—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that it could be mobilised or deployed in this country in the event of a third world war. I think that it has a vital part to play in the operations which we might have to face in reinforcing our forces overseas in what might be a large-scale local war. There is always the possibility that in certain areas there could be an operation which would be large in the sense of the number of troops employed, but which would not call into use the nuclear weapons. I think it ought to be trained to meet that contingency.
  I have been one of the few people who regretted the demise of the Home Guard. I do not think that as a military force it would be very effective on the field, but there is one very important task that it could perform. Obviously, it would only operate in a third world war if we were going to be attacked with nuclear weapons. For that kind of warfare it is admirably organised. The only troops that I think we could mobilise and be able to use for the preservation of civil order in this country would be small units mobilised on a local basis. If there were a number of small units all over the country which could be mobilised locally at points only a short distance from their homes, that would give us disciplined bodies of men who could be called upon to perform certain tasks in a war in which this country was involved.
  I am very sorry that the Home Guard is to all intents and purposes dead. I am particularly sorry when I look at the Report of the Army League Sub-Committee published in 1955 when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War was acting as secretary to that organisation, because on page 36 of the Report it says:
  "The Army's third task would be the organisation of factory, town and communication defences against deep penetration or airborne raids by the enemy. This would call for a Home Guard. which would be a compulsory service in time of war."
  I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and I am only sorry that he has not, apparently, been able to make his influence felt in
  320
  the War Office. I hope that there is still time for the War Office to think again in the matter of the Home Guard.
  I return now to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in connection with our forces in Germany. Those forces are to be reduced by about 13,000 over the next twelve months or so. What exactly is the purpose of our forces in Germany? I have never been altogether clear about this. I understand that the purpose of our forces and of the allied forces in Europe is to compel a potential enemy to concentrate a large body of troops prior to an attack which would provide a target for nuclear weapons and make it quite clear that such an attack was the signal of a third world war.
  What size of force is required to make an enemy deploy considerable forces against one? I should have thought one needed ten to fifteen divisions at the most; that a force of that size was large enough to achieve the purpose.
  Mr. Strachey: That is about all the hon. Gentleman would get.
  Mr. Hall: I suppose that on paper we have a good deal more at the present moment, and that brings me to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is a question of nomenclature. We call our formations large brigade groups, but, in fact, they are light divisions if we compare them with the forces employed by our allies. I am wondering whether we could not use our present forces in Germany, admirably situated as they are, for training, and so on, as part of our central Reserve instead of keeping them there untouchable and unusable. I can see no objection to that except a political one. The political objection, of course, arises from the effect on our allies if we take away these forces, as the French did, for use elsewhere. if, however, we call these brigade groups by another name, as far as I can see, we shall have eight divisions employed in Western Europe instead of four, so that we shall have four available for use elsewhere.
  Mr. Strachey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, to do that, we really must have five major units in these brigade groups or divisions; otherwise, nobody will admit that they are divisions?
  Mr. Hall: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one would have to

  321
  develop the brigade group as it now exists, but I think that it could be done and would make available to us some additional troops, which we shall badly need in 1962 when we run our army down to 170,000 men.
  Having asked all these questions, the answers to which I do not for a moment suppose I shall get in their entirety tonight, I join with hon. Members on both sides in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his opening speech today and the way in which he presented the Estimates. Also, I congratulate him, and the Minister of Defence, on the very forward step they have taken—in my view, rather overdue—in re-organising our fighting forces on a much more realistic basis. I have made it quite clear in the last two or three years that I have not thought that our forces were organised for the kind of war we may have to fight. Now that we are getting down to a very much more realistic basis, the only thing which worries me is mobility. Without proper mobility, the whole conception of the central reserve, designed to reinforce our overseas garrisons will fail.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: We have had one or two rather long speeches which have shortened the time available, so I hope that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) will forgive me if I do not reply to his speech. I wish to raise three points, the first concerned with a personal case and the other two arising from the Memorandum.
  As regards the personal case, I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has gone out, because my quarrel is really with him. It is a case about which I wrote to him, and I warned him that I proposed to raise it in the debate today. It concerns a young Service man, a constituent of mine, about whom I wrote to the Minister in an effort to get his release, on two related grounds. His father is a widower, who has no relatives of any kind; he lives alone and is in very bad health. A short time ago he had a serious illness. I obtained a doctor's certificate, which I sent to the Minister. Of course, I wrote to the Secretary of Stale, but for some reason or other the Secretary of State, unlike other Ministers, does not reply to Members of Parliament and I got my reply from the Under-Secretary.
  322
  The doctor's certificate which I sent to the Secretary of State said that in January of this year this gentleman, the father, had a serious illness and since then
  "he has had recurring attacks of bronchitis "—
  and something else which I cannot read. The certificate goes on:
  "These attacks are likely to continue, and are the legacy from a recent severe attack of broncho-pneumonia Mr. X ' is a widower, who lives at home. In my view, it is essential that his son should be at home with him as soon as possible."
  The second ground upon which I made my request was this. The father is the sole proprietor of a building business which is wholly engaged in modernising colliery houses in the North of England. The importance of the work was recognised by the chairman of the Coal Board, who himself asked the Secretary of State to release this young man because of the good work which had been done.
  Mr. John Hare: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for one moment, I gather that the letter was sent to me when I was in Germany, and therefore the case was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  Mr. Short: Yes, that was the case with the last letter, but this correspondence has been going on for some time, and I originally wrote to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The point I am making is that during this man's long illness, his son, by his ability in the trade, had become the lynch-pin of the organisation, and the father was, through him, able to run the business and achieve considerable success, and, in fact, set the pattern for house modernising for the rest of the country. The work which he has been doing has been visited by builders from all over the country.
  The request for this young man's release was turned down, so I asked the Minister if he would consider a home posting for him. It seemed to me to be a very modest request in view of all the talk that we have now about a central Reserve being created in this country and in view of all the talk about cutting down reserves overseas. if this man had had a home posting he could have kept an eye on the business and given some comfort to his father, who, as I said, has no relatives and lives alone.

  323
  I submitted the doctor's certificate, but the home posting was turned down also. So I made inquiries about the postings of other young men who had been in this fellow's training unit. I discovered that some of the men who had asked specifically for overseas postings had been given home postings, whereas this young man, who had very good reasons for a home posting, had been sent to Singapore of all places. I sent to the Minister a week ago particulars of the men who had asked for overseas postings, but I have had no reply of any kind.
  Such an unsympathetic, rigid attitude is no use if we are to have a voluntary Army. This is a year when there is talk of an active run-down of the Army. Presumably, some official somewhere in the War Office, some petty bureaucrat, dug his toes in about this case in the early stages and refused to be budged and has used the Under-Secretary to show that he is continuing to exert his power to move men from one Continent to another, just like pawns, irrespective of the circumstances. There is not very much hope of attracting recruits to a voluntary Army if this sort of unsympathetic attitude prevails in the War Office. I should be unworthy of the confidence of my constituents if I did not place on record this protest against the rigid attitude of the Under-Secretary of State for War.
  The second point I wish to raise arises on the Memorandum and concerns the future shape of the Army. What the future shape of the Army will be, of course, we cannot say. It appears that there is one certainty, that the next war, if it does come, will be a nuclear war. That certainty is bound in the next few years to make a considerable impact on Army organisation. The one obvious development which was discussed at length by the right hon. Gentleman was that Army groups in future are likely to be a good deal smaller, and he talked about the brigade group.
  In this emerging picture—and what will finally emerge nobody can say—I want to put in a plea for the retention in some form of the county regiments. In the voluntary Army which we are to have in a few years' time, recruiting will become a number one priority. I fully realise, as a number of hon. Members on both
  324
  sides have said, that the new weapons with their mass of electronic equipment will be in themselves a tremendous attraction.
  A few days ago I had the privilege, if it is a privilege, of seeing the "Corporal", a great massive new weapon which will require an enormous amount of electronic equipment and a lot of highly-trained men to set it off. I realise that that sort of equipment and weapon will have a great attraction. Nevertheless, I believe that the old county regiment, with its uniforms, its glamour and its traditions, all of which count for a good deal, has been one of the most important factors in recruiting in the past.
  I fully realise that a good deal of ingenuity will be needed to adapt a regimental system, which evolved really in medieval times, to the sort of Army that that will emerge in the future, but we would be very foolish indeed if we did not use the tremendous attraction of the old county system in some way.
  My third point, which has not been mentioned in this debate but is referred to in the Memorandum, is the question of the Army Cadet Force, which, I believe, will become a good deal more important in the future than it has been in the past.
  We are told in the Memorandum that there is a Committee sitting or going to sit under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State, and that at once arouses my apprehensions. I do not know who is to sit on the committee, but I should like to put forward a plea that it should contain some members who understand young people. With all respect, and I have a great deal of respect for them, I do not think the normal Army officer understands young boys. He certainly understands men, but not young boys. I would suggest that perhaps a i headmaster of a school in which there is a successful cadet corps would be a suit- able person to sit on this committee.
  Again, perhaps someone from the Scout movement might be suitable, and I suggest that because the Scout movement has shown much more imagination than any other youth organisation in the appeal which it makes to young people. I hope that this is not going to be a committee of civil servants and generals. I cannot imagine anything more frightful

  325
  for the future of the Cadet Force than a committee with generals sitting on one side of the table and civil servants on the other, and with the Under-Secretary of State at the head of it. I therefore hope that imagination will be shown in setting up this committee.
  Apart from the personnel of the committee, since I was mentioning the county regiments a moment ago, I suggest that there should be much closer links between the Cadet Force and the county regiments. I know that there is a link at present, but it is not nearly strong enough. I cannot imagine anything that would give these young boys greater pride than to feel that they really belonged to one of the old proud county regiments, and I hope that the War Office will not underestimate the pride that there is in our localities in the county regiments. In this debate today, I am very proud to wear the tie of my own regiment.
  The third point about the Cadet Force is an appeal that it should have more positive training, less weapon training, and drill, and something far more positive. Here again, I think we can learn a great deal from the Scout movement. For example, training in the basic skill of maintaining oneself out in the wild is a thing that really gets young boys. and in a nuclear war I can imagine nothing more important. What a good thing it would be if the Cadet Force could go in for something like that. It does need, perhaps, something on the lines of the "Outward Bound" school. If the War Office could sot up one or two schools rather like the Aberdovey school or the school in the Lake District to which cadets might go, it would make a tremendous appeal to the cadet movement. That sort of initiative in young people is the very thing we need.
  The Cadet Force needs a new and imaginative approach. Hence the importance of the personnel of this committee —and this is of very great relevance to recruiting—because under the voluntary system the Cadet Force would be a tremendously important recruiting branch. Odd though it may seem in this debate on such tremendous issues, I think that the question of the Cadet Force is perhaps going to become fundamental in making the voluntary system work.
  It may well be that the way in which we treat the Cadet Force today will deter-
  326
  mine whether or not we can make the voluntary system work in an age of full employment and a high standard of living. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) pointed out that we have never before had to make the voluntary system work under these two conditions. In view of the contribution that the Cadet Force can make to recruiting when we have got the voluntary system, I hope that the Secretary of State will give a good deal of thought to it and to the composition of this committee.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. William Whitelaw: I was delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) said about the association of the county regiments and the regimental spirit. I absolutely agree with him about that, and it leads me to the first point that I want to make about recruiting for the new and wholly voluntary Army.
  As nearly everyone who has spoken in the debate has said, this is the vital point with which we are faced at the present time in considering the future of the Army. Apart from pay, and I agree with what has been said about that, it is clear that a successful recruiting campaign must be based on an understanding of human nature. It is absolutely essential to decide why a boy wants to become a soldier. Personally, I cannot believe that he is attracted by the civilian-in-uniform, home-from-home mentality which has grown up with National Service.
  On the other hand, I am sure that such a boy looks for glamour and excitement. The small boy who decides to become a soldier because he is thrilled by the Trooping the Colour ceremony or the changing of the guard does not want, or expect, to wander about in an ill-fitting battledress. He wants a smart uniform and the opportunity to show it off, and to show off the smartness which he has gained through drill and drill movements. I believe that in the new voluntary Army we should give him both, particularly as these lead also to a highly efficient Army. After all, the experience of every single war has proved conclusively that the smartest units are always the best fighting units, and we should he ridiculous if we now departed from that experience.

  327
  Secondly, I am certain that regimental loyalty and spirit is essential to this recruiting, particularly, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central has said, when these regiments have associations with counties and areas. I hope that in the interests of recruiting, indeed of the Army as a whole, my right hon. Friend will do everything he can to encourage the regimental spirit as much as possible.
  Now I want to turn briefly to two other aspects of successful recruiting, good accommodation and good food. Little need be said about the modernisation of barracks, but of course it is essential. I think we were all delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend that it is proceeding as fast as resources allow.
  As to food, of course I welcome the recent increase in the ration scales, but I am inclined to think that the cooking is far more important. Too often Army cooking is regarded as a rather bad joke. We all know about the days of the menu which read "jam roll baked" for two days and "baked jam roll" for the other two. Those days have fortunately gone for ever, but there is still far too great a difference between the best-fed and the worst-fed units. I hope that a great deal of attention will be paid to the training of cooks in the Army Catering Corps. because good cooks produce good food, and there is plenty in the rations to enable it to be produced.
  Finally, on the subject of recruiting, I wish to refer to the importance of resettling into civilian life those whose Army career is ending. This applies particularly to those officers and warrant officers who are about to become redundant as a result of the policy in the Defence White Paper. I cannot agree with those who suggest that, whether they are needed in the Army or not, they must be retained. That seems to be a policy of total despair. Of course good compensation is essential, but I fancy there is involved something more than that. I believe that the Government must take steps to find those people suitable employment. While I appreciate all the difficulties, I would agree with those who have pressed for some kind of resettlement committee. If it were composed, in part, of industrialists and trade union leaders, that would do a great
  328
  deal of good, so I hope that something like that will be established.
  Now a word about the organisation of the new small and highly mobile force. If the Army is to be reduced in size, then it is all the more essential to concentrate the maximum proportion of the available manpower in fighting formations. If that is to be achieved, then the staffs and the administrative units must be ruthlessly cut down.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will start that operation at the top, in the headquarters staffs at all levels. The advantage of that method is that the reduction of one brigadier at the top produces increased savings, like a snowball, in the lower ranks, whereas the removal of one driver or orderly at the bottom merely causes irritation and leads nowhere. In fact the principle of empire building in staffs, which everyone got to know so well in the war, must now be put into reverse.
  Secondly, if the Army is to be highly mobile, then the ever-growing cumbersome organisation behind it will have to be changed. Anyone seeing a division on the move at the end of the war must have been impressed by the enormous number of vehicles trailing behind it like a circus. I am inclined to think that they are still on the establishment today, and I am sure that in a nuclear war, with the need for a highly mobile Army, they must go. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay great attention to that.
  In conclusion, I want to make one general point. While I am sure that the right Army for the future will not be devised by thinking in the past, I am equally certain that it would be disastrous to abandon any of the regimental traditions upon which so much of our Army's success has been based.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Boyd: I want to follow what has been said by several hon. Members about the importance of getting quality in the recruitment of this new voluntary Army. I do not think that we ought to be especially optimistic about the numbers which will be obtained voluntarily. I think that most of the estimates are overoptimistic and that we shall get smaller numbers. But, of course, modern weapons enable us to provide almost as much fire power as we wish in the hands of as few

  329
  people as we wish, even fewer than we shall be able to get. So there is no fear of not being able to get enough fire power to wipe out the human race.
  However, there will be a need for skill and quality and powers of endurance in any military operations which may occur, and I want to make one or two suggestions about quality. I wonder whether during the last two or three years of the call-up it would not be right for the Army deliberately to accept only those of above average physique and intelligence. That would be a kind of selective service, but not necessarily a very unfair kind, and it would he something which perhaps we could more easily accept now that the whole Committee seems to be committed to moving rapidly towards the final abolition of conscription. That is something which in the space of even a couple of years could do something to raise the status of and public respect for soldiers and the Army in general, and which might, therefore, increase both the numbers and quality of voluntary recruits to the Army in a fairly short space of time, thus facilitating the still earlier final abolition of conscription.
  During this short remaining period of conscription, could not the Army recruit, as far as possible, those whose existing skills could be used in the Army, and recruit them for that reason and keep them employed during their couple of years in the Army on work which they would he continuing again in civil life afterwards? Of course, not every job in tile Army has a corresponding civilian job, but there are Army activities in which a corresponding civilian skill has some relevance.
  I have a suggestion to make about the filling of vacancies, and this applies in the War Office itself, and perhaps to other establishments. Those beautiful charts of who is on duty to do what and to supervise whom are becoming rapidly out of date, and with the rapid transition of the Army they will become out of date more rapidly than usual.
  It has always seemed to me quite wrong that vacancies on an establishment are automatically considered to be something which must be filled, whereas really what should be done is to utilise the personnel available. Some of those available are people with long experience and a
  330
  good deal of accumulated useful knowledge. Instead of periodically sending away a batch of people, some of whom could have continued to be of great use in the organisation, the way to get a reduction with the greatest efficiency, which is what we are after, is to use the natural wastage.
  There is an inevitable natural wastage, and we should simply not fill the vacancies as they occur, but we should allocate the duties as much as possible among those who remain. If it could go out from the Secretary of State for War himself that in the War Office in future only 50 per cent. of the vacancies will be filled, we could in practice get the best of both worlds in that way. We could get the best value out of existing personnel and achieve a gradual reduction in numbers at the same time.
  A number of hon. Members have mentioned the morale of an army in this nuclear age. We have come to the stage where war, if it really is total, will wipe out the human race. If there are not enough weapons to do that at the moment, there very soon will be, and it will be within the power of an increasing number of nations to wipe out the human race. Warfare, if it is to continue, will have to be limited, and most hon. Members seem to think that that is impracticable. It may be that in practice there is not much possibility of the human race having a future, because war cannot be prevented and also, once war starts, it cannot be prevented from being total and, therefore, wiping out all life on this planet.
  However, we obviously simply cannot accept that. We have to go on trying to find ways of enabling the human race, or part of it, to survive. Therefore, if we have Armed Forces at all, we must think in terms of limited operations of some kind. It has been very rare in the past for a war to come to a negotiated conclusion, but I suppose that we must think of something like an operation stopped half-way, such as that at Suez. if we have to have warfare at all.
  If the morale of the Armed Forces is to be secured against intellectual doubts nowadays, it must really include an understanding of the relationship of the Armed Forces to the process of disarmament and of regulating and settling international disputes in other ways. At

  331
  a time when we are to have some Army officers to spare, those men, with their experience, are exactly what will be needed for the United Nations Disarmament Commission's control and inspection machinery, and it would happen to be very convenient if that machinery could be growing at about the same time as the Army officers are becoming available. In fact, other countries also will probably find it more easy to spare senior and experienced army officers within the next two or three years.
  In an Army debate, we tend to assume that disarmament and the prevention of war and so on are more or less impracticable. I am afraid that during a great deal of the discussion one has had the feeling that everybody is accepting that view. In the days when there was always a possibility of carrying on somehow when war did come, if an army was defeated there were still the beaches, the streets and guerilla warfare in reserve, and it was, perhaps, inevitable that realistic statesmen would always accept that war could not be abolished or limited and had to be fought to a conclusion. That did not seriously undermine the morale of an army.
  However, in a position where we have to face the fact that, however heroic an army might be, there might be no country left to defend, we have at the same time to make disarmament negotiations a part of defence policy, and the Army officers themselves have to be able to feel that their job is not only to run an efficient Army but that they are also the people who will probably have the job of checking up on the armed forces of the opposing side. They will have to staff and make effective the control and inspection machinery, and their minds should be on that. Their experience will be just as relevant to that as to fighting a limited sort of war that may or may not still be possible.
  If we can be sure that that is all included in the Army's task, then it seems to me that the Army will be making its contribution to foreign policy as well as to defence, and it will be possible for a man to go into the Army—the intelligent, even the intellectual type of man to some extent, and the intelligent modern man capable of using modern scientific developments and of using a rapidly changing series of new, modern
  332
  weapons—able to feel that he is going in with a tremendous job to do, a vocation as important as any other in the country.
  9.26 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Boyd) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting speech, but there are other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have not contributed to the debate and wish to do so, so I want to keep my remarks as short as possible.
  The Government's policy of reducing the size of the Army and of our bases overseas, and abolishing National Service and establishing a strategic reserve here at home, all of which I personally fully agree with, seems to me, as it does to other hon. Members, to depend for its success on two things. One is the mobility of our strategic reserve and the second is our capacity to recruit enough volunteers for the Regular Army to enable us to do without National Service men in the future. I want to say something on those two points.
  The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised quite strongly the question of mobility, and I was not particularly surprised, because in the section of my right hon. Friend's Memorandum devoted to movement we were told very little about the ability of Transport Command or any other agency to transport large numbers of troops at any one time.
  Some of us thought that it took a very long time to mount the Suez intervention by sea from Malta. It actually took six days, but it seemed to me very much longer at the time. As, in future, a much larger proportion of our Army is to be kept at home in strategic reserve—and I am quite sure that is the correct decision—the quick movement of troops by air to possible trouble spots overseas becomes increasingly important. As we know, forces may have to be moved thousands of miles in a short time, and at short notice. We should like to know how that operation is to be carried out. Presumably there is to be a large expansion of Transport Command. The right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the growing ability of Transport Command to discharge this duty.

  333
  I wonder if we could be given some idea as to the scale of the expansion that is contemplated. if we cannot be told the number of aircraft to be employed, can we be given a rough idea of the number of troops which can be moved at short notice, and also what is the policy? Is there to be a reserve of aircraft suitable for transporting troops but used meanwhile for other tasks which could be called upon as a reserve to supplement the work of Transport Command, which obviously cannot possibly cope with a large expedition at the present time.
  I was very glad to hear the Secretary of State say that the heavier equipment would be stored to some extent in appropriate overseas bases and that the men would be flown out to the equipment as the need arose. It would be interesting to know how ninny men are to be conveyed in one airlift. I appreciate that it would take some time to work up to an optimum figure. Perhaps we could be given some rough indication of what might be the position in say two years' time. Could we within two years transport a brigade group? And what would he the position in, say, five years' time?
  Mr. Paget: The last time that we debated this matter I asked whether there could not be a commandeering organisation which was ready to take over all existing civil aircraft when required for a military lift. I believe that that is very necessary. but I have not yet had a reply to my question.
  Mr. Fisher: Although I was not present in the House when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made his speech, I remember reading it and thinking at the time how very sensible it was. It is because he has not had a rerly that I am venturing to press the matter on this occasion. I hope that we can be enlightened a little, if only in a guarded sort of way because I realise that security considerations come into these matters. It would be helpful to hon. Members to have a little more information than they have had so far.
  The second problem is one which many hon. Members have covered, namely, the recruitment of Regulars to replace National Service personnel, and the need to improve recruiting to make sure that men who have joined only for three
  334
  years or, as it will now be, six years, will extend their service when the time comes. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said a good deal about pay—with which, in the long-term, I absolutely agree. It must be competitive. But in the short-term I do not think that it is the major consideration that it was a few years ago. Pay is now reasonably good for the soldier who is making a career in the Army, and has been in for nine years or more It is not unsatisfactory for him, although it is not so attractive for the newly joined private soldier.
  Pensions are still not too good. A pension of £1 13s. a week for a private soldier after 22 years' service does not seem to be a very good talking point for recruitment. It is nevertheless fair to say that there must be very few men in the Army who, after 22 years, have not become non-commissioned officers.
  Then there are the complaints about the food. There always were and there always will be such complaints. I do not think that it is the quantity which is criticised—although I am pleased that the meat ration has been increased recently. It is usually the quality which is complained about. If better cooking facilities, equipment and accommodation could be fitted up in some of our older barracks we should get better results by way of the food on the soldiers' plates. It may be materialistic, but what appeals to the tummy is very important to the men.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West was concerned about the lack of married quarters. That used to be a major cause of complaint, but many have been built in the last few years and the private accommodation renting scheme is very good and is working very well. I do find that some men think that it is only temporary and may be changed at any moment, and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could make it quite clear that the scheme will continue until enough permanent married accommodation is available.
  So far my right hon. Friend has got off rather lightly on the question of barrack accommodation for the unmarried soldier. I and other hon. Members have raised this matter in many Estimates debates. I remember four years ago describing Wellington Barracks as a whited sepulchre.

  335
  I believe that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) remembers it too, because he reminded me of it the other day. I called it that then because it was being painted white for the Coronation. As it happens, it is being painted white again today—but only on the outside. Why only on the outside? It would surprise and shock some hon. Members to see the conditions which exist behind its beautiful, glistening, newly painted walls. They are none too good.
  I know that modernisation and important building projects are in prospect, and I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend gave us further assurances on that matter today. I believe—because I have a very trusting nature—that the promises made in successive years by successive Secretaries of State will be kept—but they are taking a desperately long time. When they are put in hand I hope that there will be no mistakes. I remember that on one occasion two barracks were being designed at the same time—one for India and one for the United Kingdom. Unfortunately the plans became mixed up in the War Office. The result was that the barracks intended for the tropics was duly built in the United Kingdom while the barracks erected in India was of English design. I do not know whether the barracks in India still exists, but I know that the one in the United Kingdom still does. It is a source of perpetual surprise and discomfort to the soldiers who have to live with those open verandahs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"]
  In 1953 my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) admitted that the Army was becoming "a Service of slum dwellers." I use his words. That was said more than four years ago. I know things have not improved since then at some of the older barracks. Many barracks date from the Crimean War and some go back to the Napoleonic Wars. In 1954 my right hon. Friend again admitted "the barrack accommodation in this country is frankly deplorable." That was no exaggeration when it was said, and it is still no exaggeration today.
  In a barracks I visited recently, there were six rather old-fashioned washbasins for three barrack rooms, in other words, six basins for about sixty men. The rooms had bad floors and were badly decorated. In some cases they were damp
  336
  and usually overcrowded. I saw no difference between the barrack rooms now and during the war except that the men used to sleep on straw paliasses while now they sleep on beds. There is nowhere for the men to read, or write or relax except the N. A. A. F. I. There is nothing at all except a small bed and a small locker. These are not conditions which will tempt men to sign on again after enduring them for three years.
  I will not elaborate upon the question of dress because the points I would have made have already been made by others who have already spoken. But a bit of glamour always helps recruiting. The Army today is very drab. Battledress is comfortable and convenient in wartime, but it is slovenly and sloppy in time of peace. The chaps like to have a bright uniform for walking out. The blue dress is an improvement on the battledress, but I do not think very much of it. Aesthetically blue and a Sam Browne belt do not go terribly well together. I much prefer the scarlet tunics in which the guardsmen walked out before the war.
  A smart walking-out uniform is a social and, I might almost say, a courting asset. The girls like it very much, and anything that gets the girls pleases the men. It will be a help to recruiting to improve on this. If scarlet is considered too expensive, I suggest that at least the blue walking-out dress should be available for the private soldier as well as for the non-commissioned officer.
  I know that all these things may seem very small, but it is often the small everyday things that add up in a man's mind when he is considering whether to sign on again. I am sure that, taken together, they would be helpful in the recruiting problem which now faces the British Army.
  9.39 p.m.
  Mr. George Craddock: I found the speech made by the Secretary of State for War a more forthcoming speech than that of last year. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), who offered criticism about personal cases.
  I have found difficulties with the Under-Secretary in regard to personal cases, particularly cases of a widow with an only son in the forces. The War Office might be a little more decent in

  337
  those cases. Subsequent to the case which I submitted to the Under-Secretary recently, and in which he refused to grant a concession, the hon. Gentleman made some discoveries a few days afterwards for himself, and the young man was discharged from the Army.
  In these days when we are told that we are damping down the strength of the forces—we are reducing the strength of the Army this year from 373,000 to 335,000—and in view of the general approach. when we have a case of hardship of a very sick widow whose only son is in the forces the War Office ought to be more forthcoming than it has been within my recent experience.
  We have had many speeches today in which we have heard from experts in nuclear warfare. I do not know how it has happened, but they have all gazed into the crystal and have come to the Committee with all the answers about how we arc to function in a nuclear war or in a limited war distant from these islands, with our forces spread all round the world. Frankly, nobody knows the answer. In my opinion, a few H-bombs will make all that we have heard today miscalculations which will come home to roost. I think that we have today been listening to a lot of nonsense.
  I want to address myself to the important factor in the Army, which seems to me to he the men. They seem to have been forgotten today, and I want to remember them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) and I some time ago went round camps and barracks in this country and Western Germany. What did we find? We found that our men were living under terrible conditions. The Duke of Wellington Regiment's headquarters at Halifax was a beastly place for our men to have to stay in. I complained about all the dark paint, most dull, drab and dreary, which the men had to endure all day long for the whole of their training period, in my opinion quite unnecessarily. Those barracks were built in 1875. I discovered that the Derby Barracks were built in 1887, and the conditions there were nearly the same.
  I understood that we are to step up the improvements to accommodation. In his speech last year the Secretary of State said that the Government had allocated £17 million to improving the lot of the men
  338
  in the forces. We must get on with the job, for men will not volunteer for the forces to live in the conditions which they have to suffer today and to undergo the the present treatment and the many ridiculous orders which they get all day long.
  The ridiculous orders and the general treatment of the men is why they are so dissatisfied when they are in the Army. There is too much Army "bull." We discovered, during our visit, that the lids of the tins in which the men kept their boot polishes and brushes had to be polished. In one place they had to make their laces into cartwheels. There should be better occupations than that for men in the forces in this country and in Western Germany.
  It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk; most of them belong to the officer class. After all, the backbone of the Army will be the non-commissioned officers and those in the ranks. A suggestion which I should like to pass to the Minister is that before a man becomes an officer he should serve for a number of months as a private and for a year or two as a non-commissioned officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] Not all do. It is surprising how quick people are to intervene when we mention the officer class as having any easement which the ordinary rankers do not have.
  If we are to build up forces in line with these new ideas of which we have heard today, I hope that we shall have more space for them. I hope that, while reducing the numbers in the Services, we shall not leave the present old accommodation but will pull down a lot of the buildings. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that in Western Germany we found that the German soldiers had been housed by Hitler very much better than we have housed our men in this country. The German barracks were wonderful places, in which the men were accommodated in fours, sixes, eights and dozens. and there were wonderful rooms with cabinets. All these things add up to something when we are expecting people to go into the Army.
  Very little has been said about Army pay. In fact, I do not think that the Minister himself really touched on it. cannot see how we can expect to get the men we want in the Army at the rate of 40s. a week. It just will not happen. If,

  339
  in the modern Army, we are to have the men to do the job that has to be done—and we shall want an increasing number of technicians—we must treat them well, and give them a pay packet equal to that received by people in civil life.
  It seems to me that we have so far had the Army on the cheap, notwithstanding that last year the private's pay was brought up to 38s. a week—38s. a week. Well, if that is good pay, I invite all hon. Members to join the ranks at that rate. They certainly would not do it. Therefore, we have to make up our minds that, in order to attract a sufficient number of people into the forces with the necessary scientific and technical "know how," it is necessary to give them proper accommodation, good food and proper pay.
  9.47 p.m.
  Captain F. V. Corfield: At this time of night, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock), because I want to confine myself to what I know from personal experience.
  None of us relishes the spectacle of units with long historical records being about to disappear. I know that my right hon. Friend will do all in his power to retain, where possible, the identity and territorial associations of regimental units, even if, in some cases, it means a change of rôle and, possibly, closer association with another unit of the same type. But. although I regard tradition, history and territorial association as of immense value in contributing to the morale and fighting efficiency of a military unit, I think—n contrast with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer)—that there is a danger in trying to combine that continuity of names and associations where a change of functions has to be forced upon a unit which itself cuts across those very traditions. We have to use these traditions to help and not to impede the reorganisation of the units for modern conditions.
  To achieve this smaller Army with greater fire power involves a bigger proportion of essentially artillery weapons. We shall not achieve anything at all if we try to divide types of essentially artillery weapons between the Royal Regiment of Artillery on the one hand,
  340
  and converted cavalry and infantry units on the other. I suggest that, with its enormous single list of regimental officers, the Royal Regiment of Artillery has reached standards as high as any in the Army with neither a territorial association nor regimental service confined to a single unit. I suggest that it is quite unrealistic, if these infantry battalions or cavalry regiments are to become essentially artillery units, to treat them differently from the organisation of the Artillery as a whole.
  Although we are naturally concerned with the future of units, we must never forget that their future depends primarily on the careers we offer to the men who are going to serve in them. Redundancy there is bound to be under these new proposals. I hope my right hon. Friend —I know he will—will do his utmost to see that those people who are redundant are treated fairly and generously, for to do otherwise would indeed jeopardise the whole system of Regular recruiting. on which the future depends.
  I hope he will also bear in mind, when considering suggestions put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing, that perhaps artillery weapons should be given to other units, thereby inflicting a bigger cut than would otherwise fall on the Royal Artillery, that the Royal Artillery has already suffered a very considerable problem of redundancy in recent years as the result of the abolition of A. A. Command.
  When all is completed and we have this smaller Army, we shall still be faced with problems in offering a worth-while career, particularly for long service personnel, those who would become senior N. C. O .s and warrant officers on the one hand and commissioned officers on the other. The great difficulty, of course, arises, in the officer ranks at any rate, because the main bottleneck comes at the comparatively early age for the selection of majors and because of the comparatively small number of vacancies in the rank of lieutenant-colonel. It is an age when it is not easy to find comparable employment in civil life, and it is the age when family commitments are probably at their most expensive.
  I hope that in considering those problems for the future my right hon. Friend will bear in mind two suggestions. I believe it is very questionable whether

  341
  we have not gone too far since before the war towards the rapid and more or less automatic promotion of junior officers. Nobody wishes to go back to the days when an officer did fifteen or eighteen years as a subaltern with the consequent and inevitable deadening effect upon efficiency, but in these days when we talk, as we have been talking today, of a relatively small combat group as the fighting unit of the future, and allied with that very close co-operation indeed not only between different arms of the Army but between the three Services themselves, there is an enormous amount to be said for allowing time during the junior officer's period in junior rank for him to serve seconded either to other arms or to the other Services. That would automatically bring him to senior rank at a somewhat higher age. On the other hand, that would have advantage in extending the average length of career, and, above all, it would bring him to that senior rank with very valuable experience indeed.
  Alongside that suggestion there is quite definitely room for some measure of accelerated promotion for outstandingly brilliant men, and I hope that my right hon. Friend is considering the introduction and extension of the old system of brevet rank.
  Secondly, it is quite clear that Service life, with its liability for constant postings abroad, periods of discomfort, and so on, and a relatively short career except for the outstanding officers and long-service other ranks, is always going to offer difficulties in recruitment in comparison with any form of civil occupation. When we make the comparison, as, I think, we are entitled to do, with the recruitment of civilians within the Service Departments themselves, I do not think it is unreasonable that the Fighting Services, because of those difficulties, should be granted some priority. There are a great many jobs performed by civilians in all the Service Ministries which could very well be done by, and, I think, should be reserved for, officers of middle rank who have no further chance of promotion. Indeed, there are in the Army, or there certainly used to be. a considerable number of jobs which were done by comparatively young and junior officers, which come into the same category and could be equally well done by officers who have reached the rank of
  342
  major but with no chance of going any further. It must be emphasised that the fact that such an officer, equivalent to the rank of lieutenant commander in the Navy, has no chance of promotion by no means necessarily implies any degree of inefficiency. Competition at that level is bound to be very acute and is reflected in the great difference between the numbers of majors and the numbers of lieutenant-colonels. That being so, at any given time the choice between any two people may be so close that promotion amounts to little more than a matter of luck.
  I should like to add my voice to those of many Members on both sides of the Committee who have expressed concern about the mobility of our central Reserve, We should be particularly concerned because certainly in the country, and perhaps also in the House, the impression seems to have been given that this is the way to defence in conventional weapons on the cheap. But if this force is really going to be mobile, we have got to have what the Americans call pre-positioning of stores and equipment over a very wide area in a number of places throughout the world. Whatever else may be involved, that will be extremely expensive in the provision and maintenance of stores and equipment.
  Perhaps some of these depots or bases can be of a floating nature, such as the American Sixth Fleet. Nevertheless, they will he very costly, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to give an assurance that we shall meet that cost, because unless the central Reserve is truly mobile it is a concept which is not only valueless but which I believe can be highly dangerous as a complete delusion.
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I am very grateful for five minutes in which to speak before we hear from the Front Bench.
  This is entirely a problem of manpower. Of course, there is a supply price at which we can get the manpower, but the trouble is that that supply price is a marginal price. If we can get 100,000 men at £5 per week, we may be able to get 110,000 men at £6 per week or 120,000 men at £7 a week. But the price which we have got to pay to get a lot of men is the price which is necessary to attract the last man, and that price is going to

  343
  be frightening. We shall not get the number of volunteers which we require.
  Therefore, the problem here is to consider how we can do with less men, and it is on that matter that I want to use the very few minutes at my disposal. Do not let us throw away the volunteers that we have got. There is a supply price for going out of the Army as well or for going in, and I urge the Minister to say that nobody will be prematurely retired compulsorily, but that we shall offer to those whom we cannot employ terms of compensation which will be attractive enough to get adequate volunteers to go out, because if we break our faith with people to whom we have offered a career we shall not get other people to "buy it." That is what it comes to.
  To find the most valuable volunteers, the senior N. C. O. s and relatively senior officers, we should go to where we can get volunteer troops, and that is Africa. It is the easiest thing in the world to raise an African division. It would be immensely valuable to Africa. I do not want to expand this—I did not do so on the last occasion when we dealt with the matter—but in Kenya among the military tribes, and certainly in Tanganyika, we can get all the volunteers we want. They love an Army life. It is in their tradition, and it is what they want. It makes them extremely good citizens. In fact, the one reason why the Wakamba did not go over to the Mau Mau was because of the ex-soldiers in the Wakamba Reserve who remained loyal. The hon. Member who made such a good maiden speech knows that very well.
  Let us raise an African division. It would be a substitution for the Indian Army. We have been told time and again that it cannot be done because we have no senior N. C. O s. Now we have got the senior N. C. O. s, and the officers. Appoint a young general and say to him, "We are very hard up, but we want an African division. You cannot have any money, but we have these surplus N. C. O. s and officers, and surplus stores. Go through the stores and see what you can use. Go through the officers and N. C. O. s. If you want barracks, you can use your men to build them out of wattles. When you have bricks, you can build them of bricks". One can do that sort of thing in Africa.
  344
  It would remove from the Army its commitments in Aden, Malaya and the Carribean.
  The other thing is with regard to the mobile reserve. We cannot, in fact, provide an expeditionary force without transport. It is quite impossible. The Navy can do that. The Navy has got the ships and is about to scrap them. We can have an expeditionary force, a reserve division, which we can move anywhere by sea transport, and the ships are there. Pass that on to the Navy because the Navy can get the volunteers. I do not know why, but it can. There are the volunteers there. Tell the Navy that the mobile reserve is its job. Tell it that, instead of doing these ridiculous jobs for a broken-back war, such as anti-submarine work which does not exist today, its principal task is to provide that mobile reserve and to be in a position to transport, to land on a hostile shore, to support with aircraft from its carriers and to supply a mobile reserve.
  That would take away two major commitments from the Army and would put us in the position, with the volunteers which we shall have, to fulfil, instead of falling down on, our N. A. T. O. commitment, which is having such a horrible effect upon the morale of Europe. I urge the Government to consider these very short points.
  Deputy-Chairman (Gordon Touche): Mr. Fienburgh.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: On a point of order. When the Leader of the House, Sir Gordon, announced the days on which the Estimates were to be taken, I, along with a number of my hon. Friends, asked him to see that the Rule was suspended in order that all hon. Members who wished to do so might voice their opinions before the Estimates were actually passed. The Rule has been suspended for only one hour. We have been dealing today with Estimates amounting to roughly £400 million, and some of us have not had an opportunity of taking part in the debate.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The House has decided that the Rule shall be suspended for one hour.
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: The imposition of a five-minute

  345
  time limit on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has had a very stimulating effect on his normal rate of delivery. In fact, he has said in five minutes as much as it usually takes him twenty minutes to say, so I think we should make it the rule of the House that he should—
  Mr. V. Yates: Does my hon. Friend allocate the time in this Committee?
  Mr. Fienburgh: My hon. Friend asks if the time is allocated by me. No, it is not. I was asked if I would rise to speak at ten o'clock, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton asked if he could have five minutes out of the half-hour normally allocated to a winding-up speech. I let him have it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) had asked me for five minutes, no doubt I should have given it to him too. I am sure that he would have spoken as much sense in five minutes as did my hon. and learned Friend, but we cannot now put that to the test.
  When I joined the Army, we were presented in the first week with a schedule of drills. One of the drills which intrigued me and which was spatchcocked among rifle drill and tactics was a little drill called domestic economy."For a while, I was a little perturbed about that; I wondered what dome-browed professor was coming down to the Rifle Brigade barracks to lecture 32 of us on economics. But I found cut that domestic economy" meant scrubbing the barrack room and polishing the one lump of coal that we had in the fireplace.
  Today, we have reached the domestic economy stage of our series of Army debates. This is the third Army debate that we have had in a very short time. and between these debates we have had a two-day defence debate. Therefore, I do not propose to embark into the stratosphere tonight; I do not intend to discuss thereto-nuclear weapons or the rôle of the Army. All these matters we have tried to discuss in previous debates, and today is the day to consider domestic economy, and I am glad that the debate has, on the whole, taken that course. Here, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock); we have discussed the problems of the men in the Army and how
  346
  those problems are to be met. That was the proper thing to do, and I propose to do the same.
  Before I deal with the many points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I must say a word or two about a couple of very distressing inaccuracies in the Memorandum which has been put before us. The first—this is very serious—is to be found in paragraph 69, where hon. Members will see the following allusion to a work of literature:
  "An army is always tempted, like the White Knight in Alice in Wonderland, to equip itself for every conceivable contingency."
  I am all in favour of the War Office bringing a little literature into its more arid documents, but I must remind all concerned that the White Knight was not in "Alice in Wonderland". The White Knight was in "Alice Through the Looking Glass". What was in "Alice in Wonderland" was the White Rabbit; the white rabbit has got mixed up with the hares which run around at the War Office, with the result that we have this confusion in a very important document.
  I hesitate, from the very junior position which I have occupied in the Army and my very temporary position on the Opposition Front Bench. to correct the War Office in military history, but that also is necessary. In paragraph 22 of the Memorandum, reference is made to Glubb Pasha as the founder of the Arab Legion. Glubb Pasha was not the founder of the Arab Legion; he was a very distinguished officer, and he will, I am sure, be the first to admit that Brigadier Peake— Peake Pasha—who is still alive, and, I believe, living in retirement in Roxburghshire, was the founder of the Arab Legion. The least that the Minister can do is to drop a note of apology to Brigadier Peake—
  Mr. Strachey: And to the White Knight.
  Mr. Fienburgh: Yes and to the White Knight, and the holder of Lewis Carroll's copyright today. A document which contains, in two paragraphs, such distressing inaccuracies, one in English literature and the other in military history, really gives us some cause for concern.
  The document gives more serious cause for concern by its omissions. Two hon.

  347
  Members today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), have mentioned the Suez operation. Why does not the Memorandum give some detail of the Suez operation? Previous Memoranda have discussed the major operations in which the Army has been engaged during the year under review. The Air Force document and the Navy document both discussed the Suez operation to some extent.
  We discuss in this document in meticulous detail the problems of the Trucial Oman Levies, the capture of Mau Mau, Cyprus, Jordan—all extremely important matters—but the really important matter in which the Army was concerned this year, a matter which exposed most clearly the deficiencies in the present organisation of the Army, which gave most cause for concern not only in its general strategic and international aspect but also in relation to our interest in the Army, was the Suez operation. It has not been mentioned.
  Many points arise from the Suez operation: the incapacity of the War Office to mount a force quickly to carry out an operation with some degree of urgency, the misconceived nature of the operation not from the political but from the military point of view—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I offer the explanation that these things were originally in the document but that the hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Suez rebels, crossed them out.
  Mr. Fienburgh: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) gets enough quips in during his own speeches, so he has no need to rob me in advance of the quips that I have prepared for my own use. It is most unfair.
  There was in the Suez operation a demonstration of the lack of training of some of our paratroops. There was the confusion over the cease-fire. All these things are pertinent. I will use the point which I was going to make. Why has it not been mentioned in the Memorandum? I do not really think that it is the influence of the Under-Secretary of State. In the past, he has been an influential figure in the Conservative Party,
  348
  but his influence has waned a little during the last few weeks.
  At present, I am not sure whether to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ease with which he has disentangled himself from those whom he so recently led to the barricades or to congratulate him on his decision to stay within the Government and reform it from within. Obviously, some degree of congratulation is warranted to somebody who has performed such a remarkable feat in such a short time.
  The second section of the Memorandum deals with organisation. One of its main points is the discussion of the assembly of a central Reserve and the possibility of deploying that central Reserve by air transport to wherever it may be needed. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and, not today but in the debate on the Air Estimates, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) have both referred to the difficulties in which the Army will find itself when this concentrated central Reserve is asked to deploy itself quickly to some distant theatre of operations.
  We really have to be realistic about this. There cannot be, and there will not be in the foreseeable future, any possibility of whole divisions being picked up, flown three thousand miles and deposited within a couple of days in full fighting trim. That just will not happen. We shall never have the transport aircraft capable of fulfilling that rôle.
  Indeed, in the event of rush-fire warfare, I am not so sure that we should seek so quickly and with such speed to mount large forces in the area of the rush-fire war. The danger that always exists in military operations when trying to deal with a sudden outbreak of activity is of trying to do it too quickly, of feeding in piecemeal forces which are defeated piecemeal and which are nibbled up in the mincing machine. It is sometimes much wiser to hold off for a while until it is possible to mount, by air and by sea, the forces required to make a really good job of the operation.
  I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, who referred to the United States Sixth Fleet. He drew our attention to the fact that this really was a

  349
  floating army base as well as being a fleet and an air base, and he wondered whether it was not possible for us so to organise our naval forces as to have such a base available to us. In principle, it is a sound idea. It is, however, just as impracticable as the idea that we can transport whole divisions by air in a short period of time. Again, the factor which breaks down the theory is that of cost. For a nation of our size, it would be a prohibitively costly thing to do.
  There is, however, a possibility of a solution, and that is why I was so interested during the debates on the Navy to listen to the general theory of building fleets around aircraft carriers. In thermo-nuclear or broken-back warfare, I do not feel that there is likely to be a terrific rôle for the Navy, but in rush-fire warfare, in the deployment of the central reserve, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton has just pointed out, fleets of this nature, with aircraft carriers, can, in a reasonably short time bring the Army to a point of conflict.
  Now, I have a word to say about the Territorial Army, which has not really been discussed by any Member on either side of the Committee. Before posing one or two questions to the Government on the future rôle of the Territorial Army, I want to ask what sort of Army camps we are to have this year. We are no longer to have the National Service element present at Army camps this year, so we are left with a force which will go to camp of 11,692 officers and 59,397 other ranks. These are figures which I got from the War Office this afternoon, so I assume that they are correct.
  Out of these 59,000-odd other ranks, there are, perhaps, 20,000 non-commissioned officers, so that this is the Territorial Army which deploys itself this summer in the camps of Britain on a military exercise. It is in the proportion of one officer and two n.c.o.s to four soldiers; in other words, three officers of commissioned and non-commissioned rank will be queueing up to give the orders to four soldiers. This is going to be the most massive tactical exercise without troops which has ever been undertaken by the British Army, and I cannot help the feeling that if the object is to run a tactical exercise without
  350
  troops, it were better done on the sand table in the mess rather than by this expensive operation, with all that it involves.
  Why, in view of this and of the new and restricted rôle of the Territorial Army, did we last year begin to build twelve new Territorial Army centres? These are not cheap. Even where I live, at Hemel Hempstead, a new Territorial Army centre has been built. It is practically unused in an area which is desperately in need of schools. That kind of thing does not lead the public to take the Army seriously. It leads to a certain amount of resentment which those of us who have the interests of the Army at heart tend to deplore.
  I think that the Government should look again at the rôle of the Territorial Army. It is suggested that the two divisions of the Territorial Army will be used for home defence. In the event of an airborne invasion? Are we anticipating an airborne invasion of these islands, and, if so, would two divisions be able to do anything about it?
  The point I wish to make is that the thermo-nuclear deterrent is, in itself, a deterrent against airborne invasion, for this reason. Once an airborne force has landed on these islands and has been deployed throughout the length and breadth of Britain. we should be in a position to use the mobile thermo-nuclear deterrent provided by the Fleet, for example, without the fear of retaliation, because no enemy could then retaliate on these islands for fear of destroying the invading force which it had itself deposited on these islands. I therefore believe that there is no likelihood at all of the type of invasion which is being postulated, and, therefore, I cannot seriously see the need to maintain the Territorial Army on its present basis, with its present size and present scope.
  As for the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that we should resuscitate the Home Guard, I think that, if he will forgive me saying so, that is an even more stupid suggestion. We went through all this before when the Home Guard Bill was introduced at the beginning of the lifetime of the previous Government. We opposed it then, and said it was not necessary and that it would not work, and it did not. Let us now thank the Home Guard for

  351
  the services which it has given and say that it is not necessary to revive it at this stage.
  Mr. John Hall: The hon. Member has made reference to a point in my speech. What body of disciplined troops does he think will be available in the event of a nuclear attack on these islands, because we would require some disciplined troops to maintain order, if nothing else? Where would they come from?
  Mr. Fienburgh: I suggest that if a thermo-nuclear attack is to be launched on these islands, we should have our central Reserve here, because, if the beginning of the war were by H-bomb attack on Britain, we should not have had time to deploy our central Reserve anywhere. It would be available in this country to do the very task which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  The next section of the Memorandum deals with weapons and development, and we had a very interesting maiden speech from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. 'Goodihart), who raised some pertinent points about the weapons being supplied to the Army. I was interested in the long list of new weapons which the Minister has promised us. Let me list them. A new tank called the Conqueror, a new armoured car called the Saladin, a new scout car called the Ferret, new wireless sets, a new field gun, a new L.70 A. A. gun, a new Bren gun, a new Sten gun, and new heavy machine guns. Have any of these projects been discussed with N. A. T. O. with a view to the standardisation of weapons.
  After all, when the proposal about the F. N. rifle was first presented to this House the argument of hon. Gentlement opposite for its use was that we were to have a standardised rifle which would take the same round as the rifle in use by other N. A. T. O. countries. That has not quite worked out as was originally hoped and anticipated, but that is no reason for now embarking on this enormous new family of weapons, from the great uncle field gun right down to the baby Sten gun, without making some attempt at standardising the supply of these weapons with our other N. A. T. O. allies. Does the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing wish to interrupt?
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am merely absolutely staggered. Does not the hon.
  352
  Gentleman realise that the Conqueror tank, and all the other things he has enumerated, have been in service in the B. A. O. R. for nearly three years, with the exception of the very last thing he mentioned? I agree with him about standardisation, but it is a little late in the day to talk about it.
  Mr. Fienburgh: Then the right hon. Gentleman the Minister is a little late in the day to come to this House and promise these things as new toys. If they have been in service for three years with B.A.O.R.—and that is not really so—then the right hon. Gentleman has been deceiving the House in promising us today these new things as an expression of the determination of the Army to be more efficient in future.
  Mr. Hare: I have been deceiving nobody. The Conqueror tanks have been on trial with B. A. O. R.
  Mr. Fienburgh: But not the other new weapons.
  I am sure all hon. Members here will agree that the entire range of weapons should be standardised as far as possible. It may be that some talks have taken place with our N. A. T. O. allies. If so, the Minister regrettably failed to mention it, and I would like some reply from the Under-Secretary when he winds up the debate.
  The main point of the debate has ranged around the manpower problem of the Army, and we have had two rather distinct viewpoints on how we are to attract the number of volunteers whom we need now that the period of service has been extended as a minimum from three to six years. There have been those hon. Members who have said that we do not have to bother very much about pay, as for example my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). There are others who have said that pay is extremely important, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing.
  I think that both views are right, because we have to realise that this is a double problem. There is first the problem of getting a man to sign on for his initial six years, and at that stage pay matters to him very much indeed. Then

  353
  there is the continuing problem of persuading him to stay on for another three, or another three or another three after that. At that stage these other considerations begin to come into play, considerations of the quality of barracks, the existence of married quarters, the educational amenities for his children.
  Therefore, I say that we cannot solve the problem by concentrating on either the one method of improving amenities or on the other method of improving pay. Both will have to be done, and I was glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. who usually is a pacifist in these debates. in suggesting that Army pay ought to be increased. I only hope that when the Army Estimates come before the House. perhaps augmented in size because of increased pay. we shall continue to have his support in this matter.
  Many other points were raised by various hon. Members about the way to increase the status of the soldier. There was the question of improving his uniform. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) talked about smart sets of blues. That is a contradiction in terms. Blues, as at present available, are not smart, neither officers' blues nor N. C. O. 's blues nor other ranks' blues. The British Army looks like a corps of superannuated postmen when it goes out walking. The Minister has seen the Army at close quarters, but he has not worn blues for a considerable time.
  I last wore blues a mere nine months ago, just before I resigned from the Territorial Army, and I did not feel particularly glamourised by the blues as at present available. Although I would not expect to wish to be glamourised at my age, that is a point to be considered in attracting the young men to the Army. The comments of the other ranks in my unit about the blues were that they were a waste of time and that they did not want to put them on when they went out of camp. If we are to use the uniform as a means of attraction, and it is only a minor one, let us have a reasonable uniform for the men.
  Then we come to the point of the extension of service beyond the initial six years. It is here that the other factors begin to he important, including the
  354
  factor of a future career for the soldier who has signed for a further three or further six years. It is important, because on the short engagement of three years a man had not reached the breaking point in his life, as it were. He was still young enough to go out into civilian life and start afresh. If he has signed on for 6, 9 or 12 years, he has got beyond the point at which it is easy for him to take up civilian employment, and therefore it becomes a responsibility on the Service, a responsibility on the trade union movement, on employers, on the Civil Service, and on the nationalised industries, to find and create some opportunities for men who have served a long period with the Armed Forces.
  It should be put to them in this way, that the soldier who stays in the Regular Army for. say, nine years has disrupted his own life by nine years, but by so doing he has saved maybe five other men from disrupting their careers by two years' National Service. Therefore, if we wish to get rid of National Service, everybody has a responsibility towards those soldiers who serve for a considerable period of time and who carry the burden of the disruption of a career and thereby remove that burden from the rest of the young men in the community.
  I am sorry that I cannot take up all the points which hon. Members have made. The final point on which we had some degree of argument was that of the reorganisation of the infantry regiments. Here we had a terrible argument raging between those who said that not a single infantry regiment must be disbanded, because of the long traditions associated with those regiments, and those who said that we ought to have a corps of infantry —this is the extreme view, but it has been expressed—numbered from about one to sixty, in which there would be cross-posting and a loss of regimental tradition.
  Regimental tradition is a very great thing. I was susceptible to it as a cynical young Socialist when I first went into the Army at the age of 19. I was susceptible to it and everybody is susceptible to it. It is right and proper that we should be susceptible to the traditions of the regiments in which we have served. Once broken down, they can never be reestablished. When talking of traditions, I am always reminded of the story of the

  355
  American university, three years' old, which published a notice in the undergraduates' magazine, saying, "It is a tradition of this university that only senior members of the faculty will enter by the main door. This tradition will start tomorrow morning at nine o'clock."
  Traditions have grown over a period, but not all the traditions of our regiments are good traditions. I have always deplored some of the traditions which have given the Brigade of Guards a superior position in the hierarchy of the Army over some of the line regiments and county regiments. I have always deplored the tradition which says that the Commander of the London District must be a Guardsman. I have always deplored the tradition that in any division or brigade in which a Guards battalion is brigaded, the brigade commander must be a Guardsman.
  Those are the kind of traditions which in the past have inculcated a rather false snobbery among units of the Army. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, who served with distinction in a cavalry regiment or in a lancers' regiment, is beating his head in anger at this moment, but it is not political bias from which I am speaking, but experience and knowledge. I was not on the bad side of this. I have no chip on my shoulder. I served in the Rifle Brigade, which I regarded as a crack regiment, as I think most people do, but I know what a lot of us young puppies in the Rifle Brigade thought of the other members of our own O. C. T. U. who went to what we thought to be inferior line regiments.
  This is the sort of thing which is bad for the Army, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it exists in the Army. Therefore. what I want established is a corps of infantry in which the regiments continue to have their place, in which they retain their regimental traditions, but in which we do not altogether rule out a fairly considerable degree of cross-posting between one regiment and another. That is the only way in which we can properly and effectively organise the infantry component of an Army as small as the one we are likely to have in the future. By that we should lose neither flexibility nor tradition. I commend that suggestion to the Government.
  To conclude, I would say that I have enjoyed this debate particularly because
  356
  we have got down to the domestic economy of the Army. We have discussed what makes the Army tick and what we hope will make men join it. In the speeches on both sides of the Committee has been an awareness that this is a completely new start for the Army, and out of this approach—the desire to increase the status of the soldier, the desire to create an effective and efficient and smaller Army—out of this common agreement, I think there is a fair chance that there will grow an Army in the future of which both its members, the House of Commons, anti the country, can be proud.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): When we came to the Committee two months ago and asked for a Vote on Account, my right hon. Friend and I were in the embarrassing position of not being able to say very much. Today my right hon. Friend has been able to give the Committee some idea of the first steps we shall be taking in applying to the Army the new conception of defence outlined in the White Paper.
  In most of what I have to say tonight I shall be speaking about the future. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), however, has raised one or two questions in connection with the Memorandum, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and I will try to deal with those first. I accept the hon. Member's correction about the Arab Legion. He is quite right about that, and I have no doubt that in his correction about the White Knight, he has fortified himself by investigation first.
  On the question why we have not said rather more about the Suez operation in the Memorandum, I would say this. We have had a whole day's debate on the subject. It seemed to us that to have a paragraph or two, or even a page, would not really deal adequately with so large an operation, which, after all, concerned other Services besides our own. The hon. Member, no doubt with kindly intent, sought to impale me on the horns of a dilemma. He offered me congratulations of an alternative character, either for disengaging myself from those of my hon. Friends with whom I had worked earlier or to split me from those of my colleagues

  357
  in the present Administration. I reject the gift he proffers me. We on this side of the Committee, whatever differences may exist from time to time about our methods, are united in mutual respect for one another and in a determination to pursue relentlessly one abiding goal—the greatness and independence of this country.
  I suppose that the most far-reaching decision in the White Paper as far as the Army is concerned—and as far as the nation is concerned—is the decision to end National Service, thus changing altogether the composition of the Army and halving its size. We pass, in fact, from the conception of the citizen Army, which has been the central conception of our military thought since 1939, and return to the idea of the all-Regular professional Army.
  The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), in a speech which was mainly devoted to urging us to maintain our military installations—a fine, martial speech, if I may say so—also asked us why we had not ended National Service before or why we could not end it next year. I would say right away that, while I am sure it is right to bring National Service to an end in 1960, I do not think it was wrong to keep it until now or to go on keeping an element of it until then.
  It was only when the hydrogen bomb became an operational weapon that we were able to contemplate dispensing with the massed forces and the reserve forces which only National Service could give us. It was only as the tactical nuclear weapon came on to the horizon that we were able to contemplate lighter operational units. It was only as air transport began to achieve a longer range that we were able to contemplate backing our influence world wide with a central reserve based on this country instead of with strong garrisons scattered at different points overseas. National Service has been indispensable hitherto and will still be important in the period of transition during which the new weapons and the new aircraft are brought into service.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked whether our decision to end National Service was a firm one. Yes, it is. The policy is expressed in the White Paper, and on
  358
  that policy we stand. Let me also say that, as an earnest of our intention, the Minister of Labour and National Service will, I understand, bring another White Paper before the House within a short time setting out in some detail the classes that will be called up and the classes that will not, and the different categories in each age group and how they will be affected by the ending of National Service.
  I think there is general relief in the country at the idea that National Service is to come to an end. It has meant a sacrifice on the part of individuals and families, and a considerable burden on industry. Yet when we are discussing the end of it we ought perhaps to face the fact that it has had many compensating advantages, both national and individual. On the individual side, the medical records alone bear witness to a very considerable improvement in the physique of National Service men, and the promotions to N. C. O. and officer rank are an indication that it has developed powers of leadership in a way which I, for one, doubt whether civil life ever could have equalled.
  From the country's point of view, it has been a great mixer socially, bringing people from very different backgrounds to rub shoulders with one another and deepening their understanding, and in 50 per cent. of the cases taking young men overseas, broadening their horizon and giving them some idea of what the world is about.
  These things will be missed. They are not a reason for keeping National Service —it was too expensive for that—but I think they should be remembered at this time, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will remember them as worth stressing to young men and the families of young men who still have to be called up between now and 1960.
  We have had a good deal of discussion on the effect of the rundown of the Army on individuals and regiments. We in the War Office are fully seized of the urgency of announcing our decisions on these matters as to how individuals and regiments will be affected. We realise the need to end the uncertainty. But nothing could be worse in this matter than to take snap decisions. Individuals whose future is concerned have a right to know that the fate of their careers has been

  359
  decided with the greatest care and on the best possible grounds on which human judgment can be based. It has been said by an eminent retired officer that delay would be a serious blow to morale. I believe a far greater blow to morale would be to reach hurriedly decisions which were afterwards shown to have been taken on faulty grounds.
  On the question of the reduction of infantry and cavalry regiments, I am not yet in a position to say whether this will be done by amalgamation or disbandment. We must, of course, take the fullest account of the sentiments of the Army in all this. We shall be guided by two considerations: first of all the need to produce efficient units in which both officers and men can be proud to serve. At the same time we have got to strike a balance and to preserve the regimental spirit. That has been the chief inspiration to recruiting and, indeed, to morale. Yesterday, at Liverpool, I was told a story by a friend. It was in the war. A dying soldier from his regiment said to him, "I very nearly ran away." "Why didn't you?" my friend asked him. He replied, "It was the memory of what we learned in that awful period of regimental history which stopped me doing it." There is something in regimental pride.
  We have to strike a balance between two things here. I think we are in agreement with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart)—though at one point in his speech he seemed to move towards a corps of infantry. He did appreciate the great importance of preserving the regimental spirit.
  In the run-down of the Army we shall, of course, be able to get rid of a number of surplus stores. This was a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) in a maiden speech which the Committee very much enjoyed and which, on the War Office side, we found almost too well informed. Substantial progress has been made over the last year in this matter, and we think we shall continue to make progress at a pretty rapid rate. Already 70,000 tons of Anti-Aircraft Command stores have been disposed of. In Ordnance, 67,000 tons have gone and another 46,000 are to go. Already over 10.000 vehicles have been disposed of and there are 14,000 to go. Of ammunition, 84,000 tons have been disposed of; there are
  360
  114,000 tons to go. We have made, as hon. Members will see, an estimate of £14 million of receipts from disposals over the next year. Receipts in March were over £1 million, so it looks as if our calculations are right. In addition, some £25 million worth of stores have been used up as maintenance.
  I was relieved to find the other day, when asked for some eighteenth century horse furniture on behalf of a sculptor, that we have none left in our depots.
  Perhaps the essential question which has been raised in the debate has been how we are to get the Regular recruits we need. I was very glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West agreed with us in regarding the 3-year term of engagement as an integral part of National Service and was with us in thinking it was right to dispense with it at this time.
  He raised some extremely interesting and important points about the retirement of N. C. O. s and officers. Some retirement, I think, there must be in a reduction of the size we contemplate. I hope there will be close co-operation with industry over the resettlement of those who are retired. I believe myself that they will hold their own in civil life. I have been rather struck, in going round factories in this country and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, at how often retired soldiers are employed by big firms as personnel managers. They do know about man management. Where they are not so qualified is on the technical side. We shall do what we can by War Office resettlement courses to put them on the right road, so to speak, to resettling themselves in civilian life. I hope and believe that industrialists will show imagination in judging applicants for jobs not by their paper qualifications alone but by their potential value after a short period of training.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of employing these officers and non-commissioned officers in a strengthening of Commonwealth forces. I will say a word about that in a moment. I am doubtful, however, about what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) suggested that they could be used for internal security duties. The training now is increasingly arduous.

  361
  I think there is general agreement that the crucial issue in our debate has been: how shall we get the Regular recruits? This will depend upon material and psychological inducements. I think it was Gibbon who wrote the words
  "All must be persuaded where none can be compelled."
  That is the situation we face in this country. If we go on to an all Regular basis there is all the more need for the War Office to adopt a good-employer policy and keep the Army in step with the progress made in civil life since the War.
  The pay code of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head) has been a great improvement, but these things do not stand still. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West expound the Liberal economic doctrine of supply and demand. I agree with him that this is a matter we shall have to watch carefully. We shall have to watch the balance all the time. His point about the New Zealand Army is well worth noting.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing raised a point about disturbance allowance. We will look into what he said, and also into the points about education made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and the hon. Member for Fulham.
  The Secretary of State has rightly stressed the importance of accommodation. In the short time I have been in this job I have seen some of the best and some of the worst. The best is superb. I am thinking of the new two-storey blocks at Caterriek. These have 8-men barrack rooms, a well-furnished reading room, comfortable installation and are well heated and well lit. Some of the worst is very, very bad, and is like the worst parts of our industrial towns. Much has to be done in this sphere, but much has been done already.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, West asked specifically about married quarters. About 10,700 new married quarters have been built since the War, out of a requirement of 12,000 to 13,000. A further 425 will be completed within one year provided that the redeployment plan is arranged in time. About 2,300 old-type quarters are to be modernised
  362
  while 1,400 old-type quarters require replacement. I hope that will give some idea of the kind of work we have been doing. I have a lot of figures here about the construction of barracks but I will not weary the Committee with them at the moment.
  Hon. Members rightly put even more weight on the psychological inducements to recruiting. When we have an all-Regular Army we shall not be dealing with a broad cross-section of the country any longer but rather with a special element to whom the profession of arms makes a special appeal. My hon. and gallant Friend stressed the importance of imaginative training. I have not had the opportunity of seeing much training practice, but I was with the 24th Brigade the other day and was very much impressed by the imaginative quality of the training there, particularly on what to do when ambushed and how to ambush the other chap.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Where was it?
  Mr. Amery: The 24th Brigade is at Barnard Castle. My hon. and gallant Friend questioned whether the training of B. A. O. R. was imaginative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from a visit to B. A. O. R. and tells me that individual and sub-unit training is in full swing and that any criticism which might have been valid on this score is so no longer. My hon. and gallant Friend made an important point about battle-dress and walking-out dress. He will not expect me to give a reply straightaway on that. It concerns the Treasury, among other Departments, but the point will be fully noted.
  Our aim as we move towards a long-term professional Army is no longer to make the Army as much like civilian life as possible but to give it a distinctive appeal. This is why questions like training and dress assume in our view a more important aspect than previously. Under National Service there was, naturally perhaps, a tendency to take the Army for granted. We cannot afford that now. The defence of our rights and interests will depend in future on enough young men coming forward to dedicate their lives to the service of the country in the Army. I think that we are agreed that whether they do so or not will largely depend on the status that the Army enjoys

  363
  in the eyes of the public. This never has been, and please God never will be, a militarist nation, but if we are to do without National Service, leaders of opinion, in the House and outside, must ensure that Regular soldiers receive the recognition which the country owes to those who defend it.
  The ending of National Service will greatly increase the importance of the Territorial Army. The figures which the hon. Member for Islington, North quoted are quite a respectable cadre, but we want to get back to something much more like the Territorial Army as it existed before the war. Incidentally, I understand that the Sherwood Rangers and the Scots Guards together have just had an excellent camp, one of the best, they say, since the war.
  The fact that we are not expecting to mobilise reserve divisions and send them abroad in the old way does not mean that there is no rôle for the Territorial Army in the future. This is the answer to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw. In our view, the primary task of the Territorial Army will be home defence, in global war and in limited war. The rôle in limited war is easy enough to see. It is to enable the Regular Army to be sent almost totally overseas. It is much harder to see exactly what shape a global war will assume, but we cannot exclude the possibility of raids or a landing during or after a period of strategic bombing. I do not think that anyone can forecast with certainty what form future war will take. Almost every prognostication on that score in the past has been wrong, but a disciplined body of armed men is worth its weight in gold in an emergency. That is why we believe that the Territorial Army should continue to train as a fighting force. We think it the best value for money in morale, manpower and training of any reserve army in the world.
  The all-Regular Army faces some serious problems in the technical field, The complexity of modern weapons calls for highly skilled men. Under National Service we have been able to command the services of the most intelligent young men in every age-group. We cannot expect that all these will volunteer in the future. Therefore, we must seek some new methods if we are to have all the
  364
  technicians we need. We are hoping to have a good number from the boys' apprentice schools and thus to train our own technicians. It may be that the W. R. A. C. can help us with this. I should have thought that in many cases, in base areas, civilians can do the work. I am told that in the United States firms provide civilian technicians under contract to the armed forces.
  Mr. Bellenger: Like Pickfords.
  Mr. Amery: I do not know whether such a scheme would be appropriate here but we are studying and exploring all these possibilities at present.
  One newspaper has chosen to attack the W. R. A. C. We think that the ending of National Service makes it more important than ever that there should be recruitment into the W. R. A. C.
  The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of Colonial forces, which I think he also did in the debate on the Vote on Account.
  I have always been attracted by the idea of expanding our colonial forces and have advocated it more than once in our debates in previous years. We have, of course, to distinguish between responsibility for internal security in the Colonial Territories themselves and the use of colonial forces for wider duties in substitution for forces provided by the United Kingdom.
  On the first head, we are already beginning to reap a benefit because the Colonial Territories, especially in Africa, are one by one assuming full responsibility for maintaining internal security with their own forces. The second head raises more difficult issues. Some of them may, however, not be quite so great as once they were. In the past, one of the troubles was that we were short of officers and N. C. O. s required to form new colonial units. There was also a shortage of equipment. As the Army is reduced, however, we shall have a surplus of officers and N. C. O. s, and of some equipment, and arrangements might be worked out for making both men and equipment available more readily than could be done in the past.
  I do not claim that Colonial forces can in all circumstances be regarded as the complete equivalent of British Forces.

  365
  They would not have the same mobility as the central reserve of British troops in the United Kingdom; and there might be political considerations affecting their employment. I cannot say as yet what conclusion we shall come to when we have weighed up the difficulties against the advantages. But I can tell the Committee that we are looking at this whole question again in the light of our plans for the reorganisation of the Army.
  I think it was the right hon. Member for Dundee, West who asked me about the F. N. rifle. Four thousand are being produced in this country this year, and 14,000 are already in service. Thirty-six thousand will be produced next year, and the whole Army will be supplied with them by 1961–62. I think the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw described the weapons which were explained by my right hon. Friend as "stale stock." I should have thought that the Thunderbird was a pretty interesting development.
  On the question of the airlift for a brigade, I cannot give the figures as yet of the aircraft that will be needed for that purpose. That is really a matter for the Royal Air Force. I can say, however, that there is no reason for undue pessimism. We could already move a brigade to the Middle East in a very few days by air.
  Mr. Strachey: With equipment?
  Mr. Amery: With equipment not with heavy equipment, but on a jeep basis.
  The Committee will forgive me if I do not answer all the other points raised. We are confident that the Army will be capable in the future, on the new basis, of maintaining the strength we have shown hitherto to defend our interests, to meet our responsibilities, and perhaps even of increasing its power.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question,That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Oakshott]—put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION (SCOTTISH SERVICES)
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]
10.59 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I want to begin by saying how sorry I am that Mr. Dinwiddie is leaving the Scottish B .B .C. His great services to Scotland in the B. B.C. will be recorded in due course. I only want to thank him for his courtesy and kindness in carrying out those services. I must say that he has not always had a very easy task, and in our humble way we have, even in Orkney and Shetland, from time to time done our best to make his life a burden to him because we have continually complained about the bad wireless reception from which we have suffered. We know that if he could have helped us he certainly would have done so, and I am sure that if the Assistant Postmaster-General has tonight any good news to give us no one will be more delighted than Mr. Dinwiddie. I should like to say that we welcome his successor, who will, I have no doubt, continue the excellent work which Mr. Dinwiddie has done.
In Orkney and Shetland, we have never had good reception, and the same is true. I am told, of other areas in the north and west of Scotland. We realise the difficulties of the B. B. C., but once again I must put on record, as has often been put on record before, that our feeling is that the B.B.C. has not been able to meet what we take to have been its obligations. In the Charter, it is laid down that the Corporation is to provide
"as public services, broadcasting services of wireless telegraphy by the method of telephony for general reception in sound, and by the methods of television and telephony in combination for general reception in visual images with sound, in Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters thereof, and on hoard ships and aircraft…"
We may be off the coasts of Great Britain, but if the Corporation has an obligation to provide these services for ships, we feel that we are entitled to have them too.
I need not go over again in detail the ways in which our reception is bad. The B. B. C. has kindly sent its engineers to

367
visit us several times in Orkney and Shetland, and I think they agree that it is unsatisfactory. We were at one time told that if we had more modern sets and larger aerials we might get on better, 'but it is now admitted, I think, that even with normal, good sets, reception is not what it ought to be.
One point I particularly want to bring to the attention of the Assistant Postmaster-General. The Third Programme is generally inaudible in Orkney and Shetland, unless one has a very large and special aerial. In various parts of the islands, particularly at dawn and dusk, there is bad interference with the Light and Home Services. That is partly due, I believe, to international difficulties, but once again we wish to express our hope that the Government are doing their best to resolve them.
In many islands, and, indeed, in many mainland districts of Scotland and the Highlands, wireless is by far the most important source of entertainment and instruction, and is generally the method people use to keep in touch with what goes on. To take my own constituency of Orkney and Shetland, we certainly, have very good cinemas in the towns of Kirkwall and Lerwick, and we have occasional visits from touring companies. But in the outlying islands there is no form of general entertainment other than what we provide ourselves, and although this is, we think, very good, we are very much more dependent on the wireless than is a southern town or even agricultural district.
I am told that the Scottish Department of Education has lately been circularising local authorities to inquire what they 'are doing about what I believe arc called, visual aids to education through television. To send this inquiry to the Shetland County Council is really to add 'insult to injury. We feel that if television 'is to play an important part in education, 'as I think it is, our children have as much 'right to take advantage of this development as any others.
It will be generally agreed, therefore, that if any area in Great Britain needs 'broadcasting services, it is the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. Apart from these 'old bogeys of bad reception, we have lately faced a new bogey, the possibility of deterioration of sound broadcasting
368
before the onset of television. My first 'question to the Government, therefore, is this. What are their intentions about sound broadcasting? Have they, on the 'one hand, plans for improving reception in the North and West of Scotland? Will v. h. f., for instance, be of any help? May we have some assurance that the standard of programmes will be maintained, at least for so long as we are outside the area of normal television reception? If the Third Programme is to go on, have we any chance of ever receiving it?
The second part of my speech I wish to devote to television. In one of my capacities, as Member for Orkney, I feel a certain amount of encouragement about this. I trust that I have not been misled when I detected, as I think, a more optimistic undertone in some of the Government answers to my Questions about when television is going to reach the far North. It is no secret that we have had engineers—in fact, I think they are there now—in Orkney. They are there, I believe, examining how far it will be possible to relay television from the masts at Netherbutton. That is most encouraging, and it has aroused a great deal of interest in my constituency, I very much hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us something about it, and something good.
As far as my inquiries go—and I must say that they do not go very far because I am no technical expert in this matter —there should be no great difficulty in picking up television at Netherbutton and relaying the programme if it can be boosted on its way north. There are still at that station two masts which I think are about 360 feet high, and from these apparently it should be possible to broadcast television not only to Orkney but to a considerable area on the north mainland of Scotland.
As I say, I imagine the trouble may possibly be that the signals from Old Meldrum, which I understand is the nearest television station at present, may be weak and may have to be relayed on their way. I should perhaps say that so far as I am told, if Netherbutton for any reason proves unsatisfactory, there are other possibilities. There are a great many stations in Orkney left over from the war, and there appears to be a lot of equipment on the top of Wideford Hill.

369
There are a number of people in Orkney who already, being television enthusiasts, have sets and pick up a certain number of programmes, and I am told that there is now a set on Wideford Hill which is achieving very good results.
Therefore, I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to say that if there is trouble over Netherbutton he will have a look at Wideford Hill. I imagine that part of the reason for choosing this means of giving television to the north of Scotland is that it is easier to rebroadcast backwards, so to speak, from Orkney south than to attempt to broadcast over the hills to the north. On the other hand, I am told that if it is successful, this will be a new departure because so far no pick-up has been attempted over distances anything like those between Old Meldrum and Orkney.
This raises a point about which I should like to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General. Is it true that the Post Office charge for relaying is £500 per mile per year? That may be untrue. but that is the figure that I have been given. I must say that on the face of it, that seems to be an inordinately large sum. If that is the real charge, one cannot altogether blame the B. B. C. for saying that one of the great difficulties about providing service in remote areas is the charge made by the Post Office. I should like the Assistant Postmaster-General to give us some hope that if that is the correct sum, in cases like this it might possibly be reduced, because it seems to be almost a prohibitive charge to lay on the B. B. C. I hope that if the only question is the distance between Old Meldrum and Orkney, we shall not be denied television because of the heavy charge for relaying.
Another point that I should like to ask about is this. If it proves reasonably satisfactory to relay television in this way, is there a chance of extending that relay system to other areas? One would think that there must now be round the coast a considerable network of radar installations, with these big masts, and that it should be possible to carry out a similar relay of television to other remote areas. Incidentally. I have a cutting from the "Wireless World" which points out that today in Italy there are 98 television stations and that some of them are serving comparatively small and remote communities in alpine valleys. It seems
370
that the Italians have developed a series of satellite stations which can rebroadcast with practically no human attention and do that comparatively cheaply and fairly satisfactorily.
We appreciate that the B. B. C. sets itself very high standards in these matters. Naturally, having pressed for better radio reception, it may be odd to say that we would be content with something less than perfection in television, but it is nevertheless true. We hope that if it proves possible to give us a reasonably high standard of reception, we shall not be denied the chance of television at all because the B. B. C. cannot quite make it 100 per cent. perfect.
There is also a rumour that some enterprising private firms have been experimenting in the north of Scotland with the possibility of "piped" television. We are grateful for that, but it would not be the same thing as a general service from the B. B. C. It would cover only comparatively small areas and it would be a different matter altogether. There is no doubt that what we want is a television coverage particularly for the more remote islands.
So much for the position in Orkney, but what gives me more concern is the position in Shetland. I am told that though there may be spasmodic reception from a station in Orkney, it will not be able to cover Shetland. I want to press the Assistant Postmaster-General about this. If the experiment in Orkney succeeds, will he do his best to see that a similar arrangement is made for Shetland? The islanders are very dependent, as I have said, on radio and television nowadays for a great many services, including education, entertainment, and general information.
We have a suspicion that one factor which might have hastened the experiments in Orkney is the influx of an inductrial population at Dounreay. Naturally, if it will give us television, we do not in the least object to that, but a moment's reflection will show that fundamentally the native islanders have a much better case for the service of this sort than even Dounreay. After all, at Dounreay one is on the mainland and can get to the cinema and to all the normal mainland facilities. On the island of Unst, or Yell, Whalsey or Skerries, that is not possible.

371
A special point arises concerning the position of people like doctors, schoolmasters, etc. who have to keep abreast of modern developments and who cannot get away easily for holidays and visits. They are dependent on wireless and television in a way which people living in, say, London, do not always appreciate. These services are today their great contact with the outside world. Newspapers are late in arriving, cinemas do not exist, theatre companies do not come, and even books take some time to reach them. They have a very strong claim indeed.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to tell us whether the B. B. C. can improve our sound reception and that he can give a reassurance that sound programmes will not be relegated to a lower position because, on the whole, television is now the popular form of radio in most of Britain. I hope that he will be able to say a little about the future in Orkney, even if the experiments are not complete and this may be somewhat premature.
I hope the hon Gentleman will bear in mind that satisfactory as it will be, I hope, to have television in Orkney and on the north coast of Scotland, in Caithness and Sutherland, there will still remain areas such as Shetland and, I believe, parts of the west coast which will not be covered and where there is, I think it is generally agreed, a particular need for this form of service.
11.15 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): May I first join with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in the tribute which he has paid to Mr. Dinwiddie, who is about to retire from the position of Controller in Scotland, a post which he has held since 1933 with great distinction to himself and, I think, satisfaction to all those who have been served by the work which he has done. We all, I think, hope that he will carry into retirement a sense of achievement, and we wish that his successor may have a similarly happy and fruitful career in the work which he is about to undertake.
The hon. Gentleman has made out what I am sure the House will recognise to be a powerful case for the interests of his constituents. That is a duty which
372
falls upon all hon. Members and which most of them discharge very effectively but which, nevertheless, leaves the hon. Member making the case, and the Minister who has to reply, aware that much of what is said in relation to a specific constituency can be found to apply with equal force to other constituencies in other parts of the country. Scotland has never been slack in presenting its case for the extension of B. B. C. sound and television services, and both the Government and the B. B. C. are aware of the need for the extension of those services; and also of the very strong feeling with which the Scots put their case.
Indeed, a very long series of representations has been made to the Government and the B. B.C. on the point which has been so ably covered by the hon. Gentleman tonight. Hon. Members on both sides of this House have brought forward claims for those areas not receiving B. B. C. programmes, and local authorities, separately or together, have put their case. Private individuals who have felt the need for those services have made their representations. The Advisory Panel for the Highlands and Islands has been very active on this matter, and the representations made by them all are known and recognised by the B. B. C. The Secretary of State for Scotland has also been in correspondence with the Postmaster-General on this matter. So there is no lack of representation on behalf of those parts of Scotland which at present have no B. B. C. sound or television programmes. As the House would expect, those representations have been equalled in their number by the forthrightness with which they have been put forward.
We have every sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the desirability of extending the B. B. C. services to those remote parts, and the advantages which would accrue to the people receiving those services. We know and share the views which he has expressed about sound and television programmes for rural communities, which are often denied the more normal forms of pleasure and entertainment upon which other communities in more populous areas have come to rely.
It has been said that although those remote areas have not had these services in the past, in today's climate they feel

373
the need for them, and we recognise that there is a real social value in being able to provide those services in remote rural districts. It may well be that if those services were readily available in those areas there might be a tendency to slow down, or even stop, the drift to areas where more active social life is possible. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, a very real educational use can be made of wireless broadcasting of every kind.
I hope that the House will not get the impression that Scotland has been completely neglected in this matter. The hon. Gentleman did not say that it had, and I am grateful to him for that. I had visions of being assailed by Scots from every side and of going on to defend the position, which is quite defensible, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. A great deal has been done for Scotland. Before I finish speaking tonight I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, at least in part, as to what is planned for the areas to which he has referred.
There are very real practical and technical difficulties in dealing with this seemingly simple problem. It is true that many of the present services of the B. B. C. suffer from interference from other broadcasting stations. There is a station in Spain the interference from which is, I understand, worst in the Highlands and Islands. Representations have frequently been made to the Spanish authority about the matter, and those representations are being maintained. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that there has been some improvement during the last few days as a result of combined representations made by the Government and the B. B. C.
One of the difficulties that stand in the way of being able to circumvent interference of that kind is that there is, technically, a limit to the number of wavelengths that can be made available for broadcasting, and it is just not possible for the B. B. C. to switch from one which is suffering from interference to another which is clearer.
There is the further difficulty, when we move on from the question of the use of medium and long waves into the world of v. h. f. and short waves, that waves of that kind do not carry very well in mountainous and difficult country. The
374
north and west of Scotland will need to have a number of such stations to satisfy the needs of the various communities, which, apart from being sparse on the ground, where they become collective units are also very scattered one from another.
Those who are to provide the services to which we are now referring will be faced with the necessity for meeting very high capital costs in the setting up of such stations and for meeting the very high costs of getting programmes from the point of origin to the stations for broadcasting to the people affected. So, clearly, however willing the providers of programmes may be, I think I should warn the House that there is no quick and easy solution to the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Let me say a few words about the Post Office charges which cause the hon. Gentleman not improper concern. The Post Office is faced with a physical and geographical problem of providing a link which stretches over long distances and over, very often, difficult country. It can provide that link only by investing very large capital sums and can maintain it only at very considerable cost. The Post Office, it seems to me, is under an obligation to fix its Charges so that capital investment and maintenance costs are reasonably met. It may very well be that there are cases where the cost might run to about the £500 per annum per mile to which the hon. Member referred. If that is so, I find it difficult to see on what grounds the Post Office could be advised to reduce its charges to an unreal or uneconomic level.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that there are compensating advantages in living in some parts of the country which are remote from some of the less desirable places. If a disadvantage is the cost of running cables for long distances over this beautiful country. then I am afraid the cost must be met by those who enjoy the benefits of the service. In this connection I might remind the House of the words of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland in its Report of last year. It says:
"It is obvious that the mountainous nature of the Highlands…"
and this applies equally, of course, to Orkney and Shetland

375
"makes the penetration of glens and straths and small fishing posts, sheltered by high cliffs "—
picturesque and beautiful language of a picturesque and beautiful country—
"a very difficult proposition. The big centres of population must have priority in the provision of satisfactory reception but the Council will not rest content until the whole country can receive its programmes at good strength."
Mr. Grimond: Of course, from the mainland of Scotland. Shetland is directly across almost flat sea—or relatively flat sea—and Orkney itself is not a mountainous place.
Mr. Thompson: The House is obliged for the hon. Gentleman's description of how to get to his constituency—in fair weather.
These are the practical difficulties and, of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are very special practical and technical difficulties in getting television programmes across that stretch of water. Scotland is not alone in that kind of trouble. There are parts of England and even larger parts of Wales where similar, if not precisely the same problems are met in getting television and v. h. f. programmes to the people.
Nevertheless, by the end of the year 98 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom will be able to receive B. B. C. television programmes—provided that they have television sets—and already 90 per cent. of Scotland's population is within the range of B. B. C. television. In addition, three v. h. f. sound
376
stations have been approved for Scotland. They are the one to which the hon. Member referred, which I think he called Old Meldrum and which I intended to call Meldrum, which is already in operation: at Kirk o'Shotts, which will be completed this year, and at Rosemarkie, which will be completed in 1958. In addition, a new station approved for Carlisle will, when it is completed in 1958, help the Scots who live near to the Border. By that time 96 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom will be able to receive v. h. f. programmes.
Scotland already has two television stations, one at Kirk o'Shotts and the other at Meldrum. In the summer of this year the television station at Rosemarkie will be completed, all being well, and an I. T .A. station will be operating, all being well, this summer at Blackhill in Lanarkshire. The programme is going on with what I think can justly be claimed to be reasonable speed. The B. B. C. has just been making a review of its sound services in the North of Scotland. I understand that the review is completed and is now being studied. As a result of this I am happy to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that the B. B .C. intends to seek approval for a v. h. f. and a television station in the Orkneys—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Crofters' Commission (Report)
  Crofters' Commission (Report)
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  NUCLEAR TESTS
  RADIOSTRONTIUM
  RADIOSTRONTIUM
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  PARIS CONSULTATIVE GROUP
  PARIS CONSULTATIVE GROUP
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabbits
  Rabbits
KENYA
  Detainees
  Detainees
  Education (Estimates)
  Education (Estimates)
CYPRUS
  Police
  Police
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Rates and Taxes
  Rates and Taxes
  Industrial Establishments
  Industrial Establishments
  Population
  Population
  Land
  Land
  Government Employees
  Government Employees
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
JAMAICA
  Police
  Police
ANTIGUA
  Co-operative Building Societies
  Co-operative Building Societies
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Ghana (United Kingdom Honours Lists)
  Ghana (United Kingdom Honours Lists)
  Mr. Gilbert Sekhabi (Passport)
  Mr. Gilbert Sekhabi (Passport)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Industrial Injuries (Claims)
  Industrial Injuries (Claims)
  Old-age Pensioners (National Assistance)
  Old-age Pensioners (National Assistance)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
ROADS
  Wickford and Brentwood (Accidents)
  Wickford and Brentwood (Accidents)
  London-Yorkshire Motorway
  London-Yorkshire Motorway

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

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PETROL RATIONING
2.34 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to make a considered statement indicating the petrol stocks in this country on the 1st of May, 1957, and whether this statement will give all the relevant considerations which prevent the immediate removal of patrol rationing.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with the permission of the noble Earl and your Lordships' House, I should like to make a statement on petrol rationing after the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made his statement on the Suez Canal.

TROOPING FLIGHT CASUALTIES
LORD OGMORE: 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 how many Service personnel and members of Service families have been killed or injured in trooping flights in (a) 1956, (b) 1957; and whether they will now permit B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to tender for trooping contracts.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, in 1956, 51 passengers were killed and 4 injured in accidents to Royal Air Force transport aircraft engaged on trooping or to aircraft on charter to the Air Ministry. In 1957, 61 have been killed and I injured. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been that the Corporation should be concerned primarily with the operation of scheduled services and should not maintain aircraft solely for charter operations. This does not prevent them from tendering for ad hoc trooping contracts.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I understand the policy to be that the Corporations are not allowed to tender for trooping contracts, would the noble Lord explain what is meant by "ad hoc trooping contracts"? How do ad hoc contracts differ from any other contracts?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, roughly, that form of contract is a short, individual and abnormal journey that does not come in any routine trooping programme.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not time that the Government permitted the Corporations to tender for contracts in competition with individual and independent contractors? What is the reason for this refusal on the part of the Government to permit the Corporations to attempt to contract, if they so desire?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the reason is that which I have already given; and it is also a reason which was elaborated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the Air Estimates debate in another place a short time ago. I am quite prepared, if the noble Lord wishes, to explain it in much greater detail and to defend and justify the policy of the Government, but, with respect to the noble Lord, I should find it difficult to do this in supplementary answers across the Floor of the House. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Motion on the subject, or, indeed, to raise it when we debate the Air Estimates, I shall do my best to be of service to him.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether any particular aerodrome has been conspicuous in the number of fatal accidents which have taken place? For

631
example, would it be right to say that Blackbushe Aerodrome is a rather bad example?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I cannot possibly answer that important question without notice. I was not aware of the fact that Blackbushe Aerodrome had a particularly bad record.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while I am quite willing to debate this matter at some length, if the noble Lord so desires, I should have thought that it was possible for him to give a short answer to the question why the Government do not permit the Corporations to tender. It does not need a debate to answer that; there must be a reason in the Government's mind. Is it that they do not like the continuing success of the Corporations and do not want to encourage them to do more business?
LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the two nationalised airlines should concentrate on the scheduled services. I know that when the noble Lord and his friends were sitting on these Benches a contrary policy was pursued, but I think I am right in saying that, even then, both the nationalised airlines were always beaten on price.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, is it not also a fact that at least one of these lamentable disasters was probably due to sabotage?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the two questions bear out the wisdom of the policy I was begging leave to suggest. We are now getting two totally different matters hopelessly confused, and I think it would be better, if we possibly can, to keep them separate.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: 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 the number of fatal casualties per million passenger-miles flown in Service trooping in each of the last four years.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, a record of passenger-miles flown by aircraft on trooping flights is not maintained centrally. I can, however, give the number of passengers carried in aircraft on charter to the Air Ministry and on
632
Transport Command scheduled services in each of the last four financial years: in 1953–54 there were approximately 141,000; in 1954–55 170,000; in 1955–56 155,000; and in 1956–57 143,000.
Figures for passengers carried by Transport Command on ad hoc trooping flights and by overseas transport squadrons moving troops within the Middle East and Far East Commands are not available. Over all these flights, both scheduled and ad hoc, the number of passengers killed was 3 in the financial year 1953–54; 4 in 1954–55; 45 in 1955–56; and 14 in 1956–57. In the two accidents since March 31, that to a Valetta of Middle East Air Force near Akaba resulted in the death of 24 passengers, and that to a Viking on charter to the Air Ministry in the death of 29.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, is he aware that the right honourable gentleman in another place last week said:
" Let me say emphatically that the Government completely rejects the suggestion that our trooping policy has, directly or indirectly, endangered life unnecessarily."
If that is the attitude of the Government, may I suggest that they start forthwith taking adequate figures by which the respective safety of the two methods of flying, Service and civilian, can be assessed?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think it is easy to draw evidence from some of these figures which does not bear out the sentiments the noble Earl has in mind. I quite agree with him as to the need for maintaining the highest possible degree of safety.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question that has puzzled me for a long time? As I said on the previous occasion, I would not charge the noble Lord with complacency in this matter; but to what figure has the death roll to amount before this question is treated as something of major importance?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the whole question of the safety of trooping is, of course, treated as a question of major importance. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that it is impossible to say at what figure any conclusions can possibly be drawn.

THE SUEZ CANAL
2.38 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, although the Prime Minister made a statement in another place yesterday of which your Lordships are aware, I think that it is desirable and that it would be the wish of the House that when important statements on policy are made they should be made in both Houses.
Your Lordships will recall that a few weeks ago Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of the United States, France and Norway, made certain proposals designed to lead to an interim agreement for the use of the Canal, which would, at the same time, safeguard the interests of users for the future. Shortly afterwards, the Egyptian Government put forward counterproposals. These were made informally to certain Governments, including that of the United States.
Since it seemed that these proposals were not in a final form, the Government of the United States undertook a detailed negotiation in an effort to secure improvements before the proposals were formally communicated to all the Governments of the user countries. As a result, certain modifications were secured, particularly with regard to arbitration procedures. On April 24, the Egyptian Government published, as a unilateral declaration, the terms on which it proposed that the Suez Canal would be open to shipping. This position was reported to the Security Council, which was, of course, as it still is, seized of this whole problem. Although the improvements were acknowledged, objection was still strongly taken to the unilateral character of the Egyptian declaration.
The next step was to ascertain the views of the member Governments of the Suez Canal Users' Association. The Council of the Association met on April 30 and has since held a series of discussions which ended in the issue of a statement last Thursday. It was the virtually unanimous view of the Suez Canal Users' Association that the unilateral Egyptian declaration was insufficient and fell short of the six requirements for a settlement of the
634
question which were embodied in the resolution of the Security Council of October 13, 1956. The member States have reserved all their rights with respect to the operation of the Canal and do not accept the Egyptian declaration as a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the question. We share this view to the full.
Meanwhile, your Lordships will wish to know the latest position with regard to the actual use of the Canal by the shipping of the user countries. The great majority of the foreign lines in the shipping conferences serving the principal trades east of Suez have indicated that they will henceforth route their ships through the Canal, as many of them have already done. The shipowners' associations in West Germany and the Scandinavian countries have officially informed their members that the Suez Canal Users' Association statement should be interpreted as meaning that every country and every shipowner is now free to use the Canal at their own discretion.
In these circumstances, and with the reservation of their rights which, as I have already said, has been stated on behalf of the member countries of the Suez Canal Users' Association, Her Majesty's Government can no longer advise British shipowners to refrain from using the Canal. Payments made in connection with the Canal—for Canal dues and other purposes, such as port dues, or water—will be made in sterling.
Your Lordships will wish me to give an outline of the financial arrangements. A new Transferable Account, to be known as the No. 1 (Special) Account, has been opened by the Bank of England in the name of the National Bank of Egypt. So far as payments by residents of the United Kingdom are concerned, this account can at present be used only for Canal dues and other shipping disbursements. Since, of course, non-resident holders of transferable sterling will be able to make payments to the account in the normal way for current transactions, Her Majesty's Government will examine the possibility of extending its use to British residents also for such transactions.
Her Majesty's Government will not interfere with the free disposal of the No. 1 (Special) Account. The existing No. 1 Account, of course, remains blocked. Removal or modification of the existing

635
restrictions must naturally depend upon satisfactory arrangements covering all financial claims against Egypt. Discussions will be held on this basis in a neutral centre. In addition, it will be possible to consider favourably allowing payments to be made by Egyptian traders from the existing No. 1 Account in respect of certain contracts entered into before July 28, 1956. One result of this would be to enable British exporters who had entered into these contracts in good faith and have been prevented by our own restrictions from receiving payment to recover their debts.
The necessary Statutory Instrument to enable the new Account to be opened has been made, and has been laid before both Houses.
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving here to-day the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday. It is not surprising, perhaps, that the great majority of the Press this morning described the position as humiliating. That does not give any joy or satisfaction to anybody in this country. The end of what the Prime Minister called this stage of the situation is as deplorable for the country as was the adventure from which it arises. We are now, I think, bound to do what we can to keep the Government up to the mark in the further steps which apparently the Prime Minister and the Government hope to take to achieve some improvement in the terms at present made public. It seems to us that the terms at present made public are certainly not better, and probably are worse, than the terms which could have been obtained in October, 1956.
There are certain omissions from the Prime Minister's statement to which attention was called in another place yesterday, and perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House may have had an opportunity of consultation since the statement was made and will be able to let your Lordships know what is in the Government's mind: for example, as to what is to be done about the six points which were agreed to by the Security Council many months ago. What steps are the
636
Government taking actively now to see that those very important points, dealing not only with our situation but also with the general rights of all the users of the Canal, are safeguarded? And what is the present attitude of the Government towards the question of the free passage through the Canal of ships of all nations, including, especially, the shipping of Israel?
There is the matter of compensation for the gross breaches made by Nasser in his method of taking over the Canal last July and, therefore, the considerable claim for compensation that arises in that connection. On that, and certain other cognate matters—I do not wish to delay your Lordships too long—I would ask whether it is the intention of the Government to make some appeal to the International Court and have these subjects thoroughly threshed out. I feel that the people in the country, as well as the Members of the two Houses of Parliament, are entitled to immediate guidance by the Government on what steps are being taken in these directions. I hope perhaps that the noble Earl the Leader of the House may be able to give some indication as to what progress is intended to be made in that direction.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the questions that he has put to me. I do not wish to turn this occasion into a debate—that would be wrong. He will not expect me to accept his interpretation of events; indeed, I would say that there is no evidence whatever, looking back over events, that we should have obtained better terms in October last than we are able to get now. The noble Viscount asked me about the Six Principles. We have always made it perfectly clear that we think that a settlement of this problem should be within the Six Principles laid down by the Security Council. As I said in the original statement, this matter is still before the Security Council, and we will pursue by every means in our power the objective of getting Egypt to agree to a permanent agreement within the Six Principles.
So far as free passage of ships through the Canal is concerned, we have always held that under the 1888 Convention there was freedom for all shipping of all nations, including Israel, through the Suez Canal. So far as compensation is

637
concerned, I have indicated that talks are to be opened with Egypt, and all these economic questions including the question of compensation, will be considered then.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are able to make any statement with regard to the implications of all this matter so far as it affects rationing of motor fuel in this country?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I was not in my place at the beginning of Business, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Mills indicated that he was going to make a statement at about half-past three. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Howe will possess himself in patience for another fifty minutes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House most warmly for repeating here the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday. This was far too important a subject, I think, for a statement not to have been made to your Lordships. For many of us, of course, the gist of the statement must have been received with a feeling of very deep regret. It goes far too near complete capitulation to Colonel Nasser than many of us would have felt palatable—I was almost going to say endurable.
The Leader of the Opposition, in the remarks he has just made, asked a number of questions. I quite expected that one of those questions would be: is there to be a debate on the subject? He did not ask for a debate—I do not know why. Possibly he thought that his own Party had not a completely clear conscience on this particular question. But, at any rate, I should have thought it very desirable to have a debate, not merely because questions of this moment should be discussed in Parliament but also because there are, no doubt, numbers of questions about the future which all of us, in every part of the House, would wish to ask. The noble Viscount himself has asked some of them to-day. I really rise to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government would be disposed to give time for a debate on this subject. If so, I should be happy to put down a Motion which could be discussed, and possibly all these matters could be properly explored.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps I ought to intervene to say that it is by no means without precedent that the Opposition in this place, to whichever Party they belong, often withhold a decision about a debate until a full-dress debate on the matter has taken place in another place. I do not think that that is an unexceptional rule. But the attitude of our Party and our views upon this matter are fully explained by the Motion of censure which is already down for discussion in another place.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not know that I find the noble Viscount's explanation quite convincing. Like the noble Marquess, I was a little curious to know why the Opposition had not on this occasion asked for a debate. On the whole, I think that this matter probably should be debated by your Lordships, if that is the general wish of the House, I think there will be quite a lot to say under a number of headings. As the Prime Minister said in another place, this is really one chapter of a pretty long story; but it is the end of one chapter, and it would be appropriate that we should debate this matter before we began another. If the noble Marquess will put down a Motion, although we are very tight for time, I will try to find time.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE:My Lords, there is one question which stands out and does not concern the broader issues that have been raised by the noble Marquess, and that is the question of the Israeli ships. It would appear to most people in the world that for eight years the Egyptian Government have been in breach of the Treaty of 1888, yet no-one appears to have done anything effective or taken any steps to put that to rights. I was reading the whole of the debate elsewhere yesterday and I was amazed that so little had been made of that point.
I should like to ask the noble Earl who leads the House: has this matter been discussed in the Canal Users' Association? Are we in favour that Israel should be made a member of the Canal Users' Association? Are we prepared to ask Colonel Nasser under what section of the Convention of 1888 he is acting in excluding the Israeli ships? This is a specific matter which does not raise Party issues as all. It is a matter of straightforward

639
dealing, and it concerns an organised and international effort to extinguish a State which was established by the United Nations. I was going to say that I think it is a pity that we should have been congratulating King Hussein at about the moment when he was announcing that he was campaigning for the life of the neighbouring State of Israel. I leave that—that is a matter of passion; this is a matter of straightforward dealing.
Under the Convention of 1888, provision is made for the meeting of what are called "agents" to examine breaches of the Convention. I imagine that those agents are now represented by the Canal Users' Association—I do not know. I would therefore ask the Leader of the House specifically what is his opinion about membership of the Canal Users' Association by the State of Israel and their right to raise this question in that assembly.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I should like to support the request which the noble Viscount has just made for a discussion on, among other matters, this question of the rights of Israeli ships to pass through the Canal, a discussion which, as he said, is many years overdue. But is there not another question closely related to that which ought also to be discussed—I refer to the right of Egypt (a right which I could never agree to recognise) to declare that she is in a state of war against another member of the United Nations? Are the Government going to allow the United Nations to stand meekly aside while Egypt declares that she is at war with another member of the Organisation?—I am told I should have said, more accurately, in a state of belligerency?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as I said earlier, the view of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has been made clear—namely, that, like many noble Lords, we have always felt that Israel had a right to send ships through the Canal, as indeed any other country has, under the 1888 Convention. I should like to see on the Paper the question which the noble Viscount has asked me about the membership of the S.C.U.A. I would say this, however. First, it is for Israel to decide how she proposes to tackle this question of the right of Israeli ships to go through the Suez Canal.
640
Secondly, I should have thought it was a question for the United Nations to grapple with and to settle.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, these are answers which have been given from time to time before. They have led to no action at all. I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that if Egypt has the right unilaterally to declare that she is in a state of belligerency with this or with any other country, and therefore to exclude her ships from the Canal, it means that she has torn up all the guarantees that the Convention of 1888 is supposed to provide.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I also ask whether this latest announcement on the part of Her Majesty's Government gets us any further forward with another question which is of great interest in your Lordships' debates: that is, the question of the refugees from Egypt, who have been six months without any compensation. Surely something should be done for them.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we are at the present moment compiling the claims. We shall shortly have reached a point, in about ten days, I think, when the claims will be in. The situation has been slightly altered by what the Prime Minister said yesterday, in that discussions will be opened with the Egyptian Government on all these economic questions, including, of course, the question of compensation for the many refugees who had property in Egypt. All these questions seem to me only to underline what the noble Marquess has said, that it would be as well if we debated these points. So perhaps we might return to these problems in debate.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I have one pertinent question to ask at this moment. Will the noble Earl say whether the Canal Users' Association is still in being, and also whether its members are going to work collectively to get an arrangement or an agreement in harmony with the Six Principles of October 13? Otherwise, we are leaving the Canal in the unfettered control of a single nation. As my noble friend has just remarked, although the Egyptian Government say that they intend to abide by the Suez Canal Convention of 1888, they have

641
already broken it in two respects: for eight years they have denied the right of Israel to use the Canal, and then, during the recent troubles, they blocked the Canal, although they are specifically prohibited from doing that, either in peace or in war.
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes. It is because the unilateral declaration by Egypt was unsatisfactory in these respects that we were unable to regard it as a satisfactory basis for a permanent agreement. I understand that the members of S.C.U.A. are agreed that it would be a good thing to keep themselves in being and available to act as a collective body representing the users. So far as the Six Principles are concerned, they were laid down by the Security Council, and the Security Council is at present seized of them. They are on the Security Council agenda. Therefore, it is through the Security Council, I think, that we should endeavour, in every possible way, to secure the Six Principles, so that a unilateral declaration may be turned into a permanent agreement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Are the Government in favour of Israeli membership of S.C.U.A., and, if so, will they take some steps to secure it?
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think that I can answer a question on behalf of the Israeli Government. I do not know what the view of the Israeli Government is, and therefore I asked the noble Viscount whether he would put that particular Question on the Paper.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was not speaking about the Israeli Government. I asked the Leader of the House what was the view of Her Majesty's Government: are they in favour of Israel being a member of S.C.U.A.?
THE EARL OF HOME: I asked the noble Viscount to put that Question on the Paper, and I hope he will do so; then I will give him an Answer.
VISCOUNT THURSO: May I ask the noble Earl whether the Government refuse to recognise any claims by the Egyptian Government, in the Suez Canal or in the Gulf of Akaba, or elsewhere, which are based upon the alleged existence of a state of belligerency between the Egyptian Government and Israel?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is a matter of International Law and a matter eventually, I suppose, for interpretation by the International Court. But it has always been the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that Egypt does not have the right to claim this state of belligerency and to act under it.

AFFILIATION PROCEEDINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to bastardy, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949; and I move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PETROL RATIONING
3.3 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should now like to make my statement. Petrol stocks in this country are at a satisfactory level, and now that interim arrangements have been made for the resumption of traffic through the Suez Canal, the Government have decided that petrol rationing can now be brought to an end. I have to-day made an Order giving effect to this decision from to-morrow.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his statement, which I am certain will be received with great satisfaction in all quarters of your Lordships' House, as well as throughout the country. May I ask him this question: will he forthwith, now that he has deemed it expedient to bring petrol supplies back to normal, have an inquiry made into the price build-up of petrol to see that all the uplift and price increases in petrol that were brought about by petrol rationing and the reason for petrol rationing are reduced as soon as possible?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that matter already

643
has my attention and that the petrol companies know my views on the matter. I hope that a decision will be made very shortly.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I ask the noble Lord whether, if a Question is addressed to him at his convenience in a reasonable space of time, he will be prepared to answer?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not quite understand that question. Of course I will answer any Question that is addressed to me. On this subject of prices I have already assured the noble Lord that the matter has my attention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should not like the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension. It was not a trick question, but experience has proved that imposts and surcharges which are put on the prices of commodities such as petrol in time of emergency have an uncomfortable habit of "staying put".
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I can say that I am hopeful that he will have further information this week.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank the noble Lord very much.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL
House in Committee on Re-commitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RENT BILL
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill. Before the Motion is put by the Lord Chancellor, I should like to say, on behalf of noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, and, I believe of noble Lords in all parts of the House, how much we shall miss the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was to have taken an active part in our deliberations this afternoon. As most of your Lordships know, the noble Lord is now in hospital. We all hope that his stay there will be of very short duration, and that he will return to us at an early date fully restored to health. In whatever part of the House noble Lords may sit, I think we should on this occasion send to Lord Silkin our best wishes for a complete and speedy recovery.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kindly reference to our colleague Lord Silkin. I am glad to say that, although he was obviously very poorly indeed last week, when he had to go home from the House, we are hoping that he will not be in hospital longer than perhaps the remainder of the week, although we cannot yet be sure of that. He is then ordered a period of rest, and I hope that none of us will try to persuade him to give up that rest until he is thoroughly fit for duty. We shall miss him very much on this Bill, and upon other Bills and Motions connected with his activities in the House. We join with all the other Members of the House in sending him our best wishes.
Before I look to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to see if he is putting the Question, I should like to ask a question of the Government: that is, whether, in the state of the developing political circumstances, the Government have reconsidered the question of proceeding further with this Bill. The agitation against it proceeds apace. My postbag grows day by day. I have

645
had two further communications to-day from very large associations, not political associations but tenants' associations, protesting against the process which is going on, which I think ought to be taken note of. Moreover, the continued growth of losses of Independent and Conservative members in the urban and municipal elections, elections which have this time been fought very largely upon the rents issue, show clearly, in spite of some extraordinary statements made with regard to the issue in these elections, that on this Bill the Government have not got the country behind them. I should have thought that in the political circumstances now revealed to us in by-elections, and in the municipal and urban district council elections, it was high time that the Government considered withdrawing the Bill altogether.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should not like this corner of the House to be left out of the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has done so much good work in this House. I have had the opportunity of calling at the hospital, and my own information in regard to the noble Lord is such that we hope to see him back soon. On the later point mentioned by the noble Viscount, who has just sat down, I cannot entirely agree with him. Whilst I feel that the country is not behind this Bill, I feel that it is not entirely against it, and I would say that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to try to put the Bill in a better condition than it is at present.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would my noble friend remember that at the last General Election Mr. Aneurin Bevan was charged with having said something quite wrong? He said that the Government would introduce a Bill of this kind. The intention to do so was stoutly denied by the Conservative Ministers and propagandists at the last General Election. Here is the Bill before us, with all its iniquities.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows very well, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue with this Bill and to pass it into law at the earliest opportunity. I am not really concerned one way or the other with what Mr. Bevan has said in the past or, indeed, with what he will say in the future. But I am aware of the gains which have been made by the Conservative Party in the last
646
local elections in the large towns and cities, and that result would seem to us to be eminently satisfactory.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rent limit of controlled houses]:
3.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to add to the clause:
" (5) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this section no increases of rent (other than increases under subsection (1) of this section or under section five of this Act) shall at any time exceed in the aggregate fifteen shillings per week."
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will know, the object of Clause 1 is to limit the rent to which controlled tenancies may be assessed. This is the most important clause in the Bill and its object is to increase the permitted rent under a controlled tenancy to an amount "equal to the 1956 gross value of the dwelling multiplied by two." Our object in this Amendment is to limit the maximum increase which can be obtained under Clause 1, except in those cases in which the tenant agrees to a reasonable sum or to an increase for certain specified reasons, such as the improvements mentioned in the Bill.
We have had a look at the number of dwelling-houses which are likely to be affected by this clause, and at the way in which they will be affected. According to the Government's own table of statistical information, published in November last year (Command Paper 17), the facts are as follows. There are 4,250,000 houses which are at present controlled, and they are split up into various categories of houses; of those with a present net rent of up to 5s. a week, there are some 983,500; from 5s. to 10s., there are 2,062,500; from 10s. to 15s., there are 835,200; from 15s. to 20s., some 325,400, and over 20s., 43,400. Those figures give the Committee some indication of the rentals which are paid now by controlled tenancies. In other words, except for 368,800 premises, all the remainder of the 4,250,000 premises are paying rents of 15s. or under. The vast majority are paying rents of from 5s. to 10s. a week. On that basis, even a maximum increase of 15s. is a very substantial sum.
When we analyse the figures still further, we find that, taking the excess of twice the 1956 gross values over the net rents, the figures are these. The houses for which twice the 1956 gross value will exceed the present weekly net rent are as follows: up to 5s., 963,000; from 5s. to 7s. 6d., 954,000; from 7s. 6d. to 10s., 1,109,000; from 10s. to 15s., 897,000; and over 15s., 327,000, again making a total of 4,250,000. So there we see that, as assessed by the Government, there will be only 327,000 tenancies which under the Government's proposals will have an increase of more than 15s. In fact, as I understand it, having come somewhat late on the scene, for the unfortunate reasons which have already been given, our Amendment really applies to only these 327,000 houses—as I think the Government agree. That is, assuming that all the landlords who own these 327,000 houses decide to give the notice of increase, or, by virtue of the state of the premises and so on, are entitled to give notice of the increase. We are asking the Committee to fix at 15s. the maximum increase which a landlord can claim.
I should have thought that that was a most reasonable and, indeed, proper Amendment. In this instance, it seeks not to destroy the principle of the Bill—it is not in any sense of the word a wrecking Amendment, as I think the Government will agree; it is an Amendment by which it is intended to try to remove from those who are likely to pay the most under Clause 1, the harshness of the top limits. I might perhaps say here that I have an interest—not necessarily in this clause but throughout the Bill—which happens to be in the other direction to that in which I am speaking, because for years past I have been a landlord. I am happy to say that I am now to a much lighter extent than I used to be a landlord. I do not know whether one ought to divulge a sort of contrary interest to the one in regard to which one is speaking, but if, in accordance with the rules of procedure, it is necessary to do so, then I do so. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships, as I feel it is a very reasonable one which will temper the wind to the lamb that
648
is going to be most heavily shorn. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: This is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill, and I should declare an interest which is just the reverse of that declared by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, in that I am a tenant of a controlled flat in London and I have no doubt that when this Bill is passed into law my rent will increase. In that sense I have a financial interest in this Bill. Nevertheless, I very much hope that, like any other member of the Committee, I shall make an effort to see that my personal interest in no way affects my judgment on the Bill.
I should like to support the Amendment put down by my noble friend because I believe it is both important and reasonable. It is reasonable because it is so limited in scope. It deals with a certain category of houses that are already controlled and will remain so after the Bill has passed into law; and it will not affect rent increases due to such factors as local rates, cost of services or improvements made by a landlord to his property. Clearly, these are variables which cannot be taken into account. But surely if we disregard these factors, it is not unreasonable to say that the increase in the rent of a controlled tenancy should be anything up to, but not more than, 15s. a week. I am sure that that provision would prevent a great deal of very real hardship.
My noble friend has given the figure of 327,000 dwellings in England and Wales of which the rent is likely to be increased by more than this amount. Though this is a small proportion of the total number of controlled dwellings in the country, there are living in these houses a large number of tenants, such as pensioners, people on fixed incomes, people with small salaries or those at the lower end of the wage scale, who will suffer real hardship if they have to pay a rent increase of more than 15s. a week. I hope therefore that Her Majesty's Government will look at the Amendment from that point of view and will see it as a moderate and reasonable effort to mitigate the hardship which otherwise will be caused to a certain number of tenants with small incomes.
LORD WISE: Before the noble Earl the Minister replies, I should like to call attention to the country aspect of this particular Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it referred to a total of 327,000 houses as being affected, but if noble Lords will look at Table IV supplied with the White Paper they will see that there are 4,000 houses of a gross value between £21 and £26, and 210,000 houses of a gross value of between £27 and £40. These 214,000 houses in country areas, apart from London and Scotland, are affected by this particular clause, and we must bear in mind that some of these houses of a gross value of between £21 and £40 are let at comparatively low rents—perhaps as low as 15s. a week. Thus by this one particular clause the rent of those people is being doubled. We must bear in mind that those who live in houses of these gross values are, in many cases, retired people living on fixed incomes or pensioners who cannot bear this big increase in rent.
Noble Lords will remember that when I spoke on Second Reading I made a suggestion that rateable value should be used as the basis instead of gross value. That would have had the effect of taking out from this particular increase many thousands of the 210,000 dwellings shown as being of a gross value of between £27 and £40. Apart from that fact, it must be remembered that as the years have gone by landlords have had, in addition to the standard rents of years gone by, increases of rent to the tune of 15 per cent. or 40 per cent., or whatever the figure may be, and have also had a certain amount of tax relief in respect of repairs. I hope, therefore, that in this particular instance Her Majesty's Government will consider not only the landlords but the tenants who will have to find this particular increase in rent.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore pointed out very clearly in moving this Amendment, its intention is to prevent the landlord of a house which remains in control from increasing the rent of that house by more than 15s. a week. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, drew attention to Table IV of the White Paper which shows the number of houses where a rent increase of over 15s. a week would be needed to bring the rent up to twice the gross value. In fact there are 327,000
650
such houses. If noble Lords will study that Table carefully, as no doubt the mover and other noble Lords have done, they will realise that dwellings in respect of which the rent increase would be over 15s. a week (apart from the 4,000 houses in the £21 to £26 category) are only those whose gross value is over £26. All the other cases are those in which the 1939 market rent of the house was between 10s. and £1 per week. They are, therefore, as the Committee will see at once, the larger houses among the controlled group—those on which we believe a higher rate increase would be more justifiable.
Since the increases permitted by the Bill are not percentage increases but increases to bring the rents up to a uniform level, the greater the rent increase the lower must be the rent as compared with the present rent of other similar houses. In other words, the rent increase in respect of any particular house will be over 15s. a week merely because the present rental is low, even compared with the 1939 values. I am told that, for reasons for which I am never quite clear in my own mind, it often occurs that the rent which was being paid in 1914 or 1939 can be described as a more or less nominal one. It may be that the house was let to a relative of the landlord, and that therefore the rent was kept at a very low figure. But whatever the rent may be, the effect of control has been to "freeze" the rent, ever after, at the level at which it happened to be in 1914 or 1939, when control was first imposed. That, I think, in these modern days, is fundamentally wrong, and it is one of the main purposes of this measure to try to put that matter right.
Furthermore, any arbitrary limit to the total amount of rent increase would be bound to work, in many ways, extremely unfairly. I believe, therefore, that what we have decided to do within this Bill provides a very reasonable rent level. The noble Lord will remember that under the Bill protection is afforded to the tenant against an increase in rent of more than 7s. 6d. during the first nine months. I should have thought that that would be adequate to safeguard his personal expenditure on rent for his house and at the same time to enable him to adjust his financial situation accordingly. I could quote—but I do not wish to weary noble

651
Lords—many instances of houses which have a gross rateable value of £40, and yet the present rent is something under 5s. per week. The noble Lord will realise as well as I do that to continue in that position would be quite ludicrous. At the same time, to lay down that a house in that category shall not have its rent increased by more than 15s. is really not of much value. I hope that in these circumstances, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD OGMORE: Just as a matter of elucidation I should like to ask this question. Did I hear the noble Earl aright? Did he say that he could quote many instances of houses of £40 rateable value—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Gross value—
LORD OGMORE: Many instances of houses of £40 gross value and £30 rateable value for which the rent paid is less than 5s. a week? Where on earth did he find those houses?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I can tell the noble Lord of two offhand—perhaps he would like to go and live in one of them. One is at Portsmouth and the other is at Basingstoke.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I should imagine that those are cases in which the rates have been constantly increasing on the houses, and it would have been wholly within the power of the landlords to raise their rents according to the increase in rates. These must be examples of extraordinary benevolence on the part of landlords. I must say that I am not very much impressed by examples of that sort. On the other hand, I have read reports of some parts of the Committee stage debates in another place, and I found mention of cases where houses with gross assessments of £30 to £40 are lived in by working class people. The case of one such house, which is situated in the East End of London, was quoted by Mr. Charles Key. A man who has several children and who earns £7 a week lives in it, and his rent by this Bill will almost certainly go up to 30s. a week or more. How that sort of thing can have anything else but a bad effect on the workers as well as a
652
general inflationary effect I cannot see. It must have a general inflationary effect on the whole of our costs of production throughout the country. If you look at the particular categories you will see a large number of such cases coming within the limits which we want to avoid. I think this is a much more important Amendment than the noble Earl seems to consider it to be. I am not satisfied with his answer and I shall ask my colleagues to divide.
LORD OGMORE: Before the Chairman puts the Question, may I say, with all respect—for I like the noble Earl—that if the Committee stage is going to be conducted with the sort of arguments to which we have just listened, it is not treating Parliament seriously. Out of a total of some 4,250,000 houses, or whatever it is, to instance the case of two houses, one at Portsmouth and one at Bermondsey as having rents of less than 5s. a week with gross value of £40 and rateable value of £30 is fantastic. I have no doubt that if the noble Earl says that there are two such cases they do in fact exist, but they are so highly exceptional that they must be due to some very peculiar circumstance—such as a father permitting children to live in a house—and they can have no bearing on this problem as a whole. I ask the Government to treat the House seriously and to give us arguments upon which we can base reasonable conclusions. I do not regard that as an argument that should be put to this House. It can do no good and can only be frivolous and misleading.
LORD MESTON: Really this matter is within a very tiny compass. The test is twice the gross value. If someone's rent has to be increased by more than 15s. a week to come up to that limit, it means that they have been paying a very small rent indeed. Therefore there is no injustice in the matter.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but, having been a Member of this House for over twenty-five years, I think, if I may say so with respect, that I do know how to treat the House—at least I hope I do. I have quoted two cases, one of a house at Portsmouth and one of a house at Basingstoke. According to the advice I have been given there are literally

653
hundreds of houses in a similar category. The noble Lord knows in his heart of hearts as well as I do that that is really the position.
Clause 1 agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think that it would be appropriate for me to move that the House do now resume in order that my noble friend Lord Mancroft can make a statement to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR LOCAL OFFICES
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement similar to that
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Ammon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Listowel, E.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Darwen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Faringdon, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Hastings, L.

Ridley, V.

Hawke, L.

Sutherland, D.

Templewood, V.

Hayter, L.

Thurso, V.

Killearn, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Leconfield, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Aberdare, L.

Lloyd, L.

Reading, M.

Amulree, L.

Luke, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Meston, L.

Albemarle, E.

Broughshane, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Chesham, L.

Moyne, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Salter, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Perth, E.

Dowding, L.

Sinha, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Somers, L.

Crookshank, V.

Glyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Devonport, V.

Grantchester, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Falmouth, V.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Gage, V.

Hacking, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service about the proposed changes in the local office network of his Ministry. Your Lordships may know that Her Majesty's Government have recently undertaken a comprehensive review of the network of local offices of the Ministry of Labour, which number 1,144 full-time and 129 part-time offices. This network has been esablished over the years in response to the needs of particular times. There has been no similar comprehensive review since 1921. Meanwhile, changes in the level of unemployment, in population and in public transport, both generally and in particular areas, have considerably affected the pattern of needs.
It has been the aim of Her Majesty's Government in this review to maintain a convenient and efficient service. After

655
giving careful consideration to the local circumstances of each office concerned, including both the long-term and the immediate employment situation, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that it should be possible to amalgamate some offices which are close together in areas where transport facilities are good and to close a number of offices where the volume of work is now very small. He is now referring proposals to the local employment committees for their consideration. One hundred and eleven full-time offices and 46 part-time offices are in the field of consideration for closure, and 39 full-time offices for conversion to a part-time basis. I wish to emphasise that no decisions will be taken in advance of these local consultations. Her Majesty's Government will give tomorrow a list of the offices affected.
To maintain a more flexible organisation in the future, the need for individual part-time offices will be kept under periodic review, and, in addition, there will be comprehensive reviews of the whole network at somewhat longer intervals.
Further consideration is being given to the best means of providing a satisfactory and efficient service to the public in the light of modern methods; for example, by making use of mobile vans. It is the Government's intention to introduce a limited number of experiments of different methods and different patterns of organisation in suitable areas.

RENT BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause 2:
Procedure for increasing rents
(2) Subject to the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act, the rent may be increased as aforesaid by the service by the landlord on the tenant of a notice of increase in the prescribed form specifying the amount of the increase; but—
(c) except so far as may be necessary for giving effect to an adjustment under section three or five of this Act, a notice of increase shall be of no effect if given at a time when—
(i) the dwelling is within a clearance area under the Housing Act, 1936, or is or forms part of premises with respect to which a demolition order or closing order under that Act or a closing order under section ten or eleven of the Local Government
656
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, has been made and has not ceased to be in force, or
and (except as aforesaid) if the date specified in a notice of increase in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection falls at a time when the condition specified in sub-paragraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph is fulfilled, no increase shall be recoverable by virtue of the notice for any rental period beginning at any such time.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in subsection (2) (c) (i) after the first "is" to insert "unfit for human habitation and for that reason is". The noble Lord said: As everybody appears to be unburdening his bosom and declaring an interest, I should say that for the past seventeen years I have been a landlord of some rent-controlled houses in Aberdeen. During that period I have either made 2s. 6d. or lost 2s. 6d. out of the property, so that no one can suggest that I have been leading a double life as a result of the proceeds of property owning.
So far as the Amendment is concerned, your Lordships know that a house which is unfit for human habitation may be included in a clearance area, and a house which is fit for human habitation may also be included in a clearance area for a number of reasons, one of which is that, owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, the houses in that area are injurious to the health of the inhabitants. I appreciate that it is not in order to refer in detail to what has been said in another place, but I have been carefully watching this Bill from its inception and I understand that this is the view of the Government. If a house which is fit for human habitation is at any time—and I underline the words "at any time"—included in a clearance area, then the landlord of that house is entitled to take advantage of the proposals of this Bill with regard to increasing the rent. If that is the correct view, I am very glad to hear it. However, the Bill makes it perfectly clear in ordinary English that if a house—without specifying whether it shall be fit or unfit—is included in a clearance area, then the landlord will lose his right of increasing the rent while it is in that clearance area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 45, after (" is ") insert the said words.—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has fully described the purpose of his Amendment. As I think he is well aware, Clause 2 (2) (c) prevents the landlord of a controlled house from serving a notice of increase of rent if the house is within a clearance area under the Housing Act, 1936. If such a notice of increase has, in fact, been served, and the house then comes within a clearance area before the notice takes effect, then the notice cannot take effect at all. The noble Lord went on to describe the reasons which might prompt a local authority to declare a particular area a clearance area, and, indeed, he was correct in his description and I need add nothing to it.
Going into this Amendment with care, I find there are two reasons why it is difficult to accept it. The first is that houses of the kind described in the Amendment which are in a clearance area are, in general, likely to share the general run-down character of the whole area and, therefore, will probably not be in good repair. Nor, I am told, is any landlord likely, once the Bill has come into force, to incur expenditure by putting them in repair if he knows that as soon as practicable or reasonable they will, in fact, have to be pulled down. The second reason is that the period of time which such houses will be allowed to stand will be relatively short, and most of the houses will be of the smaller and cheaper kind. Therefore, I venture to suggest that little is at stake for the landlord in the amount of extra rent which he might otherwise receive.
In these circumstances, to make special provision for any house which may happen to be in repair seems to me not to be justified. Generally speaking—and I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of this—Clause 2 (2) (c) is aimed at preventing an increase for houses which are in an area which the local authority has already decided, by taking appropriate action, should be cleared. Therefore, power to discriminate between particular houses in that area on the ground that one may be in somewhat less disrepair than another is something which I should not like to see inserted in the Bill, because I think it would complicate it a great deal. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like to support what the noble Earl has said on this Amendment. I have some experience of this matter, because I am a member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, who often have to deal with areas in London which have been scheduled for clearance. As the noble Earl rightly pointed out, in a block of houses that has been condemned and scheduled for clearance there may be one or two houses which are still technically fit for human habitation; but it seems to me, not merely, as the noble Earl said, undesirable, but unjust that a landlord should be able to increase the rent of these particular houses. In the first place, they are in a bad state of repair, even though they may not be uninhabitable; and as they are going to be pulled down, in any case, the landlord is not going to spend money on improvements and repairs. I am glad that the noble Earl has taken the line he has in resisting this Amendment.
LORD MESTON: I do not want to waste time when there is so much work to do, but the noble Earl does not appear to have appreciated what I said. A house which is in absolutely first-class order can be put into a clearance area because, for example, owing to the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, houses in that area are injurious to the health of the inhabitants. That is the position. I understand (and here again, if I am out of order, kindly correct me) that the answer given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place is totally different from that given by the noble Earl to-day. I understand that the right honourable gentleman in another place said, in effect, that if a house was in a fit condition, the landlord would be entitled to increase the rent under the provisions of the Bill. I hope the noble Earl will look up Hansard and see precisely what was said by the right honourable gentleman in another place. I must confess that I find the position a little confusing. Obviously I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division, because I doubt whether anybody would vote on my side. But, apart from that consideration, I think the position at the present moment is somewhat confusing, and I hope the noble Earl will look into it. In the meantime, so as to save time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I wonder whether I might raise a small point by way of seeking information. In subsection (2) of this clause reference is made to "the prescribed form" giving notice of increased rent. I should like to know whether this form will afford an opportunity for the landlord to disclaim responsibility for internal decorative repairs. I think it is implicit in the Bill that an opportunity will so be given to a landlord, as indeed it was in the 1954 Act. In the case of this Bill, a prescribed form is to be afforded where an affirmative election has been made—that is to say, where the landlord wishes to assume responsibility for internal decorative repairs. But I cannot find in the Bill any explicit reference to the contrary circumstances, and I wonder whether the noble Earl could explain.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I could not at this stage of the proceedings explain to the noble Lord exactly how the prescribed form will in fact be drawn up, but I will certainly let him know.
LORD WISE: May I draw attention to one point? The noble Earl, in regard to Clause 1, referred to the period of nine months before an increase of 7s. 6d. a week can be made. In Clause 2 a period of nine months is similarly mentioned, and I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government, before the Bill becomes an Act, would consider increasing that period of nine months? It is a little difficult for people of fixed incomes to rearrange their financial arrangements and pay extra rent. I therefore hope that, in order to ease the situation somewhat, that particular period of nine months might be increased.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I regret that I could not possibly give the noble Lord that guarantee. It is one of the purposes of this Bill to maintain that period of nine months, and certainly without very close consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister I could give the noble Lord no opportunity whatever for believing that I could bring In an Amendment to suit his requirements and to meet his purpose.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Adjustment as respects rates borne by landlord]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 41, leave out the first (" in ") and insert (" for ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Adjustment as respects services and furniture]:
LORD MESTON: As the clause is drafted, I am not quite clear whether the word "services" includes non-contractual as well as contractual services. I think I am correct in saying that, under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, the landlord is entitled to take into consideration the non-contractual services in arriving at the figure which the services cost him. I am not quite clear of the position under the present Bill. I think that in all fairness to the landlord he ought to be entitled to the benefit of non-contractual as well as contractual services. I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, after (" services ") insert (" whether contractual or non-contractual ").—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If my noble friend will refer to Clause 1 (1) (b) he will see that the words are
"…a reasonable charge for any services for the tenant provided by the landlord or a superior landlord…"
Those words clearly include non-contractual services, as well as contractual services. In fact, what the noble Lord wants put into Clause 4 of the Bill is already incorporated in Clause 1.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply. I confess at once that he is much more clever than I am, and I am sorry that I wasted his time in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Increase for improvements
(3) A tenant on whom a notice specifying an increase authorised by this section is served may, not later than one month after the service

661
of the notice or such longer time as the court may allow, apply to the county court for an order cancelling or reducing the increase on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or that a greater amount was expended on it than was reasonable, and the court may make an order accordingly:
Provided that no application shall be made on the ground that an improvement was unnecessary if an improvement grant has been made in respect of the improvement under section twenty of the Housing Act, 1949, or if a tenant under the controlled tenancy consented in writing to the improvement.
4.6 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "ten" for "eight" [per cent.]. The noble Lord said: Before moving the Amendment which stands in my name, it is my duty to declare an interest, in as much as I am connected with a property company owning controlled property in London. This Amendment is designed to increase from 8 to 10 per cent. the income which a landlord is entitled to derive from improvements which he may do in respect of property owned by him. The things to which this clause will ordinarily apply are appliances, such as sanitary appliances, cooking, heating and the like, which, ordinarily speaking, have a life of no more than about twenty-five years. That is to say, the cost of such improvements would fall to be written off over such a period. To amortise this over a period of something like twenty-five years, with taxation at 8s. 6d. in the £ and with the sinking fund of 5s., would absorb, so I am informed—although the mathematics I cannot explain in detail now—some 3 per cent. of gross income, to which would fall to be added a charge of 1½ or 2 per cent. in respect of maintenance. Thus, the 8 per cent. allowed, by existing legislation and by this Bill, to landlords in respect of improvements done to property is in fact little more than 3 per cent. The Amendment which I put forward to increase that 8 per cent. to 10 per cent. will result in giving a landlord a real income of little more than 5 per cent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out (" eight ") and insert (" ten ").—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, as the noble Lord has explained, would increase from 8 to 10 per cent. of the cost of the improvements the amount by which a landlord may
662
increase the rent. Clause 5 repeats in a slightly revised and different form the longstanding provisions which enable a landlord to increase the rent by an amount equal to 8 per cent. of the cost of improvements which may have been borne by the landlord. This provision came in the very first Rent Restrictions Act which was ever approved by Parliament—that which was passed in 1915, when the percentage was 6 per cent. It was increased to the figure of 8 per cent. in the year 1920 because of the increase which had occurred in interest rates since the passing of the original Act.
Between 1920 and to-day, as we all know, interest rates have fluctuated to a considerable extent. Nevertheless, this figure of 8 per cent. has stood the test now for a period of over forty years. As we all know, interest rates go up and down, and it would be practically impossible to reproduce in any legislation a figure which would correspond exactly to the true conditions which might be met in one year and which might be quite out of date in the next. It therefore seems reasonable to my right honourable friend that he should take this figure at 8 per cent., which has remained for so many years, and reproduce it in this clause.
There is little further that I can add. If we were to give a very close examination to the matter, I believe that we should, in point of fact, find that the interest rates to-day were generally lower—I do not say appreciably lower, but generally lower—than those which prevailed in 1920. If, therefore, I were to follow the proposal of the noble Lord and suggest to my right honourable friend that he should accept an Amendment of this sort, my immediate reaction would be to suggest to my right honourable friend that he should delete "eight" and substitute a lower figure. But, in view of the fact that these rates fluctuate so frequently, and that the present figure of 8 per cent. has stood the test over many years, I would suggest to my noble friend behind me that it might be advisable to leave the clause as it stands in the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: We on this side are glad that the Government are taking this attitude. We feel that the contention of the noble Earl is the proper one: that this percentage has been in existence for forty years, has stood the test of time and has

663
not changed with fluctuating circumstances of interest, and that there is no reason at all to increase it. In fact, of course, for many people, even an 8 per cent. charge is heavy, especially for those with small and fixed incomes. Also, as my noble friend behind me points out, with higher costs it means very often that the charge is much greater than it would have been ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. However that may be, we feel that the Government are right. We support them and, if the noble Earl decides to go to a Division, we shall be in the Division shoulder to shoulder with the Government.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I entirely support the attitude of the Government in this matter, but for reasons quite different from those brought forward. The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment brought it forward in such a way as to imply (though I do not suppose for a moment that it was his intention) that all improvements to property are merely the provision of better cooking facilities. Far more important improvements are the provision of extra rooms, baths, better sanitation, sculleries and the like. These are permanent recoupments, on which a return of 8 per cent. is entirely adequate. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that, where these new extra mere cooking facilities and the like are provided, 10 per cent. should be charged, because surely, when those facilities come to be renewed at the end of twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, or whatever it may be, a great deal of such renewal will count for maintenance and would not, therefore, fall heavily upon the owners. It is for that reason that I think Her Majesty's Government are entirely justified in resisting this Amendment.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: The noble Earl replying for Her Majesty's Government did not say whether or not he admitted the exactness of my arithmetic. It may be that there are certain improvements which are for a period longer than twenty-five years, but I took twenty-five years as being a reasonable average. If my arithmetic is right, and the real income to the landlord is no more than 3 per cent., I claim that the law, as it stands to-day, will not serve as any inducement but will discourage the landlord from carrying out improvements. However, I
664
I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert (" relating (if it is so provided by the order) not only to future but to past rental periods ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to add to subsection (3):
" and such consent contains an agreement by the tenant to pay the increased rent provided for in subsection (1) of this section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the consent by a tenant to pay the increased rent provided for in subsection (1) of this clause. In this case, we feel that when a tenant consents to the improvement for which he is going to be charged, he should be fully aware that he will be charged with an increased rent and that there should be no doubt about it. Not all tenants—nor for that matter, all landlords—are able to understand these questions, which are very complicated, and it may well be that the tenant does not appreciate that he is going to be charged with the additional 8 per cent. which we have just been discussing. We feel that in such a case it must be made quite clear to the tenant, and the tenant should be fully aware, that he will have to pay the 8 per cent. on the improvement. We on this side feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. I am not going to argue much about the exact wording—it may be the Minister can think of better wording—but, if the Government could meet us on the principle, which, I suggest, is a reasonable principle, then we could consider before Report stage whether the wording meets the views that we on this side have in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has put up a case on this Amendment which I think is one that my right honourable friend would certainly like to consider. If the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment

665
which stands in his name to-day, I will bring forward an Amendment on Report stage, or else ask the noble Lord to bring one forward in his name, so that we can meet the point which he has in mind.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for meeting us in this matter. I will certainly do as he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On this Motion, there is a point covering the general policy of subsection (3) in regard to which it is not very easy to put down an Amendment, but I thought it would be convenient to take this opportunity to ask what could be done about it. So far as I can see, Clause 5, in general, follows the same shape as earlier Acts of this kind. The position must, however, be different, in the sense that, under the Act of 1949, repairs and improvements can be done with a grant—and, indeed, the proviso to Clause 5 (3) refers to that. Cases where improvements are done by grant from local authorities under the 1949 Act seem to be covered. If it is likely that many improvements will be done without grant, as must be envisaged if this clause is to operate, there comes the very difficult question as to what powers the owner may have or should be given to enable him to effect improvements which are desirable for the sake of the house in which the occupier lives—and, indeed, are very often desirable for the sake of his neighbours.
This is quite an old question. I remember its being argued at considerable length before the Committee which sat on this matter in 1945. The Committee recommended that some form of steps should be taken so that an unreasonable tenant who objected to an improvement which would be of mutual benefit to his neighbours as well as to himself could, by some means, be made to agree. There must, of course, be very careful safeguards and the right of the tenant to appeal, and so on. Suppose such a tenant does, however, object to an improvement, it would seem to be that a landlord would never be in a position to carry out an improvement, because he would
666
have no right of entry to the house. I agree that the Amendment: which has just been discussed is certainly a help on this point, but I should like to ask whether something could be done or has been considered in these cases where joint improvements may be held up by the objection of one occupier.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this matter again, and I am also grateful to him for having let me know that he was interested in this point. If I might divide what I have to say into two sections, I should like to say one word about the clause itself. The clause provides for an increase in rent if improvements are carried out, and the tenant can ask the court for an order cancelling or reducing the increase on the ground that the improvement was unnecessary or too much was spent on it. He cannot go on the first ground if he has consented in writing. As my noble friend is aware, this has been Rent Act law since 1920, and it is essentially a rent provision and gives the landlord no rights not otherwise given in the law of landlord and tenant.
But, quite apart from the rent issue, my noble friend Lord Ridley is arguing that a landlord should be given the right to enter and carry out works against a tenant's wishes; and he argues that for some work, such as the provision of a sewer or electricity supply or other service to a row of houses or block of flats, the refusal of one tenant can prevent the service from being supplied to the others. There are really two answers, and I should like my noble friend to know that this matter has been considered carefully by my right honourable friend the Minister, both before and after his letter. The first is on the practicalities of the situation: that it is seldom that a case will arise where it is impracticable to provide the service to all the houses but one in a terrace. For example, arrangements can be made so that a connection could later be made to the odd house if and when the tenant moves or changes his mind. What is most likely to weigh with the landlords is the fact that the difficult tenant can probably avoid paying the extra rent, and that would make the work uneconomic. An Amendment which gives the landlord an additional right of entry would not affect the rent provision.

667
There is the other aspect: in so far as the problem is purely a matter of getting right of entry, then a more fundamental issue than rent is involved. To give the landlord such a right would affect a basic principle in the landlord and tenant relationship. It is commonly put in the words that "an Englishmen's house is his castle ", and that is not without force. My noble friend may remember that it was put even more graphically by the elder Pitt. I think before he was Lord Chatham and a Member of your Lordships' House, in that graphic passage which is not irrelevant to my noble friend's thoughts on this matter, where he says that the wind and the rain may enter but all the king's horses and all the king's men may not come in. That is a basic idea, although we all hope that after this Bill the wind and the rain will not enter so frequently as they have done before. But it is a difficult matter, as my noble friend realises. There may be many good reasons, apart from the unpleasant state of mind which my noble friend has put before us, why a tenant may not want work done in his house at a particular time which may seem so desirable to others. There may be sickness continuing for a long time in the house, or an elderly relation or something of that kind, which removes the matter from the general sphere of ordinary "cussedness".
For both those reasons we have thought that it would not be practicable to comply with my noble friend's suggestion. But I should like to assure him again that we have considered it and given weight to the immense knowledge and experience of my noble friend in this section of activity. I am sorry that we cannot help him any further, but I have tried to-day to give him the reasons; and if, after he has considered it, he has anything further to put before us, I shall of course be happy to look at it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said and the information that he has given about the discussions and thoughts the Government have had on this point. I entirely agree that there is difficulty. I mention the matter because I remember being forcibly impressed by the large volume of evidence on this point before the Committee in 1945. I think, however, it must be of much less importance now, because of the 1949 Housing
668
Act; the situation is to that extent largely different.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct in saying that there are often good reasons why a tenant refuses extra amenities, not merely out of ill-nature or a desire to be a nuisance. I have known several cases where, for example, the provision of new baths has been refused simply because the tenant was a person of small income and stated frankly that he could not possibly afford the extra rent which would be required for the 8 per cent. charge. I think we must be perfectly fair to the tenants in that matter.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Variation of rent under contractual tenancy]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after (" served ") insert (" by the landlord ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Increase of controlled rents]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE) moved in subsection (1), to leave out "two" and insert "three". The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the next following Amendment, No. 10, on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: I am not moving any Amendment to this clause, but I should like the Government to consider whether the increase of controlled rents in Scotland is an increase that cannot be compared wholly with the increase allowed by Clause 1 of the Bill, because I think it has been admitted in another place that this is a temporary measure so far as Scotland is concerned and another Bill will, of necessity, have to be introduced later when the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act begins to operate in 1962. As the noble Lord will be

669
aware, the rents from the 1st May of this year have not been the rents as Hitherto calculated, because they no longer carry with them that portion which is owner's rates. The tenant now pays a reduced rent, reduced only in the sense that what he formerly paid by way of owner's rates is now part and parcel of the total amount of rates he has to pay as occupier, the owner being no longer responsible for his portion of the rates. I am wondering whether the Government would not consider postponing the operation of this clause until the coming into operation in 1962 of the Rating and Valuation Act.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: What the noble Lord has said in relation to the situation in Scotland is quite correct; but your Lordships will understand that houses have to be maintained, and it is essential that even this modest increase should be granted for that purpose. In fact, as the noble Lord no doubt knows, the increase granted by the 1954 Act is exactly the increase which has taken place in the cost of repairs since the passing of that Act.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4.31 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
Rents of subsidised private houses in Scotland
" .—(1) The conditions which are mentioned in any of the enactments specified in the next following subsection or which have effect by virtue of any undertaking or agreement entered into in pursuance of any such enactment shall, in so far as they relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling-house in Scotland, limit that rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to an amount equal to the rent which might properly be charged in respect of that dwelling-house by virtue of those conditions together with any sum recoverable in respect thereof by way of repairs increase under the Act of 1954 or by way of 1957 Act increase.
(2) The enactments referred to in the foregoing subsection are—

(a) section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. 1924;

(b) section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926;

(c) section one hundred and one of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950;

670

(d) sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and fourteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950."

The noble Lord said: This new clause is moved to make it clear that the repairs increase under the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954, or the 1957 Act increase under this Bill, can be charged—of course, subject to the conditions laid down in the 1954 Act and in this Bill—in respect of certain houses which were built or improved with the aid of Exchequer subsidy under a number of statutory provisions. The rents of these houses may in some cases have been fixed as long as thirty years ago. Your Lordships will appreciate that there is no reason why owners of houses in the categories referred to in the clause should not be entitled to the repairs increase or the 1957 Act increase if the conditions laid down in the 1954 Act and in the Bill are observed, and that it is as important that these houses, as well as other houses, should be maintained in a reasonable state of repair. The new clause clears away all doubt on that score. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot say that we on this side of the Committee fully support the noble Lord in moving this Amendment. He is including a new category of controlled houses in Scotland that will be liable to rent increases under this Bill. The consideration that I should like him to bear in mind is this. These are all privately owned houses that have received assistance out of public funds. Subsection (2) of this new clause specifies the different Acts—the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and two more recent Acts under which these grants have been made towards improvements in these dwellinghouses. I cannot help feeling that at the time this public money was spent there must have been an understanding with the landlord that a certain rent would be charged. What this Amendment does is to release the landlord from this bargain so as to enable him to increase his rent, in spite of the fact that he has received this substantial contribution—a more or less substantial contribution, as the case may be—from public funds under previous Acts of Parliament. We shall not oppose this

671
Amendment in the Division Lobby, but we do not like the idea of this new category of houses in Scotland being included among the houses where rents will be increased under this Bill.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I think it would be only right to say to the noble Earl that I am not quite sure that he is correct in saying that this is a new category of controlled houses. The reason I say that is that the matter has never been tested in the courts. The matter is in doubt in the minds of some people, and it is to remove that doubt that we introduce this Amendment. But surely the noble Earl will agree with me that, if the rent was fixed some thirty years ago, the landlord cannot possibly maintain that house on a rent fixed so long ago. The object of the Amendment is to see that houses are properly maintained and we want to see that the necessary funds are there to maintain them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Release from control under Rent Acts
10.—(1) The Rent Acts shall not apply to any dwelling-house the rateable value of which on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, exceeded, in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London forty pounds, elsewhere in England or Wales thirty pounds, and in Scotland forty pounds.
(3) The Minister may by order provide that the Rent Acts shall not apply, as from such date as may be specified in the order, to dwelling-houses the rateable value of which, ascertained as on such date as may be specified in the order, exceeds such amount as may be so specified; and an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified.
The power conferred by this subsection to make orders shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall have effect until it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "forty" and insert "sixty". The noble Earl said: We regard this Amendment as of special importance, and I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite on the Front Bench will take the same view. Our
672
object in putting down this Amendment is to prevent the decontrol under this Bill of dwellings in the London area if their rateable value is less than £60 a year. Of course, as it stands at the moment, the clause will affect the London area by releasing from control all houses of not less than £40 a year rateable value. I think there is a very special case to be made out for London, which is harder hit by this Bill than any other part of the country. I should like to give the Committee some figures which substantiate this proposition.
In London no fewer than one in four houses will be decontrolled as the result of this Bill; in England and Wales generally, the proportion will be one in seven, and in Scotland about one in ten. Therefore I think there is a particularly strong case for reducing the number of dwellings that will come within the scope of the Bill and for allowing these dwellings in the London area to remain controlled. What this Amendment does is to retain control for dwellings of between £40 and £60 per annum rateable value, which will be decontrolled under the clause as it stands. The number of dwellings affected would be considerable—in fact, it has been estimated that about half the flats and houses that would otherwise be decontrolled in the London area would remain controlled if this Amendment were accepted. But this, I think, would bring the proportion passing out of control in London somewhat nearer to the figure for the rest of the country.
There is another consideration that I think is of especial importance in regard to this Amendment. The people living in flats and houses where the rateable value is between £40 and £60 per annum are clearly people of small means—they are people of smaller means than the tenants of houses of a higher rateable value. These people, therefore, will be less able to afford the higher rents they will have to pay when landlords are authorised to increase their rents under the terms of this Bill. Here we have a question of fairness to London and a question of fairness to tenants—people of small means, possibly people living on fixed incomes, but certainly people in the lower range level of wages or salaries; people who, in many cases, will suffer great hardships if their present rent is substantially increased because they no longer have the

673
protection of the Rent Acts. I do not pretend that I expect the Government to accept this Amendment—it goes right to the marrow of the Bill—but from our point of view it is a vastly important Amendment affecting thousands of tenants in the London area, many of whom will experience really acute hardship if the Bill is passed in its present form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 45, leave out (" forty ") and insert ("sixty").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that this is an Amendment of great importance and that, with the two concomitant Amendments, it deals with one of the most important aspects of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords who are especially concerned with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 will not take it amiss if I devote my general arguments to this Amendment, because it is on these general arguments that the case of Her Majesty's Government stands or falls. I shall, of course, be very happy to consider other points when I come to those other Amendments.
The effect of the three Amendments would be to substitute higher rateable value limits for control than those in Clause 10 (1) of the Bill. The present rateable value limits for control are £100 in the Metropolitan Police District, £90 in Scotland and £75 elsewhere in England and Wales. On the basis of those figures, the Bill will decontrol 190,000 dwellings in London, 560,000 elsewhere in England and Wales and 60,000 in Scotland—that is, 810,000 in all. The reason why I have dealt with all the categories is that Her Majesty's Government believe it is necessary to decontrol a considerable "slice" at one time so as to create a considerable market of accommodation for letting unfurnished.
The number of houses in each rateable group increases very considerably as one goes down the scale. To make the limits £65 and £45 would be to keep controlled a large proportion of houses which Clause 10 (1) will decontrol. The result would be to concentrate the demand for unfurnished accommodation on the smaller number of houses that were decontrolled. Her Majesty's Government are sure that, by spreading the demand over the 800,000 houses which will come out of control,
674
the transition to a free market can work smoothly without landlords being able to obtain excessive rents. But if the demand were concentrated on the relatively small "slice" which the Amendment would decontrol, there would be a danger of a rise in rents, possibly to an unreasonable level. That is the real difference between us; we firmly believe that the danger will be that which I have stated.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government it is in the interests of landlords and tenants alike to return to a free market for unfurnished accommodation for letting as soon as possible; and it is only by this means that the drain of houses from the unfurnished letting market will be stopped, and that landlords can be encouraged to make available the maximum amount of accommodation for letting unfurnished. If the scope of decontrol were to be limited in the way proposed in the Amendment, it would postpone the full creation of a free market and, therefore—apart from the possibility of a concentration of demand on too limited a sector—the achievement of the Government's aim.
Your Lordships may conceivably have in mind that the control limits at present are based on the 1939 rateable values and that decontrol would be in terms of 1956 rateable values. We have taken that fact into account and have faced up to that position. In spite of that, we have come to the conclusion that, if we are to give the free market a chance of bringing down the general level in rates, this is necessary. As I want to deal with the argument as a whole, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, will not object if I concentrate on the Scottish figures in defence of my general argument. He will know that they are very striking and point to the difficulty in this matter.
In Scotland, the estimated number of houses at present let under controlled tenancies, which will be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1) of the Bill is of the order of 60,000. That figure appears in one of the tables before your Lordships. That represents only about 8 per cent. of the estimated total of 700,000 rent-controlled houses in Scotland. To be absolutely frank, the corresponding percentage for England and Wales is about 14 per cent. If the figure of 60,000 were to be substituted for 40,000 as the new limit of control the number of houses in Scotland

675
to be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1) of the Bill would be reduced to about 6,000, That illustrates most acutely the point that I am making. If there is to be decontrol of an upper band or "slice" of houses—and Her Majesty's Government have fully explained the reasons why they regard this step as necessary—it is important that the number of houses to be decontrolled should be sufficiently large to encourage reasonable market conditions and to give the opportunity of a free market. How can it be argued that if the number of houses in Scotland to be decontrolled is to be reduced from 60,000 to 6,000, there is any hope of testing the market under free conditions?
Those are our arguments. We hope that the result of what I have tried to put before your Lordships, in a period when there will be continued activity in municipal housing and slum clearance, will be to make more accommodation available; and we believe that to reduce these figures as strongly and forcefully as these Amendments would do, would cause that hoped-for situation completely to fail and be defeated. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, this is the basic difference of view between us. I am sorry that it should exist, but I have tried to show the reasons why Her Majesty's Government take this view. I realise that noble Lords opposite do not agree, but I hope that they will feel that I have tried to state with complete frankness the reasons why we differ from them.
4.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: I cannot help feeling that this is a doctrinaire approach on the part of Her Majesty's Government. So far as I can see, there is no reality in it. This Government have become increasingly doctrinaire in all fields of their activities. They will not allow the Air Corporations to tender for air contracts because they do not like the Air Corporations. We always allowed them to tender and the best man got the contract. They are trying to kill the Colonial Development Corporation because it is a State Corporation. They forced commercial television on the country, much against the wishes of many of their supporters, purely for doctrinaire reasons. Here is another doctrinaire step.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just put forward
676
what is, in my opinion, a specious argument, to the effect that you cannot decrease the number of houses that are to be available in a free market because if you do there will be more people for them and thus prices—and rents—will go up. Of course the two things are not relevant. In fact, if you decrease the number of houses that are decontrolled, there will not be the same number of people for them, because there will be a larger number of houses still under control, so that people in controlled houses will not need houses that are decontrolled; they will stay where they are. As I say, I think the Lord Chancellor's is an entirely specious and misleading argument. I have already said that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was misleading. I do not accuse him personally, but I say that those who briefed him made his brief a misleading one. I stick to that. Whether the noble Earl has been in the House twenty-five years or twenty-five minutes does not make the slightest difference. Either a thing is misleading or it is not. What difference does it make how long the person who makes the statement has been in the House?
We shall divide on this Amendment because we feel very strongly about this matter. To some extent the next Election will be fought on this. The Liberal Party seem to be getting more and more reactionary as the Bill goes on. In fact, already the Government have suffered severe electoral—not defeats as yet but severe electoral casualties, because of this clause. And who can wonder? If the Government would only accept our Amendment quite a number of Conservative candidates would save their deposits. It may be that they would have cause to bless the Opposition in this House. They will do much better at the by-elections which are pending—and certainly very much better in the General Election—if they listen to the words of wisdom from the Opposition. We are, in fact, talking against our electoral interests because we are speaking in the interests of the country as a whole.
This situation, as I see it, has been put very clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He knows very well the London scene; and so do we. We know that there are comparatively few houses in London which have a rateable value of under £40 a year. We know that a large

677
number, at all events, especially in the residential parts of Greater London, are of more than £40 rateable value. When you get out into suburbs like Wimbledon and Putney, you will find houses with rateable values of £80, £90 or £100, which in the country would be only £30 or £40. The clause is going to catch a vast number of people who are already being hit badly by the Government's inability to stop inflation. The professional classes, the middle classes, have been hit, and there is very little doubt that there is revolt on the part of the middle classes—it is a revolt in a mild way, and carried out in a respectable manner; but it is still a revolt.
Many of your Lordships may have had a copy of a letter which has been sent to me from Hampstead. It has been sent by an organisation entitled the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee. So far as I am aware, Hampstead has never been regarded as being in the "Red Belt". It has always been the home of respectability and has with monotonous regularity returned Conservative Members to another place. It may be regarded as significant that the Minister himself not only represents Hampstead but is an alderman of the Hampstead Borough Council, and has long been connected with its municipal life. I will read just a portion of what is said by the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee, representing a number of residents' associations which I imagine normally are all of a Conservative flavour, showing what they think about this particular Bill and this particular clause of the Bill. The letter states:
" My Committee, which is strictly non-Party, was formed in consequence of the widespread anxiety aroused among controlled tenants living in Hampstead by some of the provisions of the Rent Bill.
" Hampstead may reasonably claim to be a ' key area ' as it has almost certainly a higher proportion of tenancies with rateable values between £41 and £100 than any other London borough. This fact, coupled with the high amenity value of the district, means that the impact of full decontrol is a matter of the gravest concern to the vast majority of the tenants affected.
" Hampstead's concern is shared by other London boroughs, where similar organisations to our own have emerged in reaction to the Bill. Nor is apprehension felt only among tenants. Some property owners, twenty out of twenty-nine Metropolitan boroughs and the Association of Municipal Corporations have spoken against the Bill, while severe criticism has been levelled against it not only by the
678
official Opposition but by Government supporters both on the Floor of the House of Commons and in Committee, where some crucial issues were decided by a margin of only one or two votes."
I will not read any further.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Hear, hear!
LORD OGMORE: I do not know why the noble Viscount says: "Hear, hear!"
VISCOUNT THURSO: If the noble Lord wants to know, it is because we have all had copies of this letter, and I thought we might take it as read.
LORD OGMORE: I said that no doubt other noble Lords had received copies of the letter. A House of Parliament is not a club, and what we do here goes out very widely to the country. It is just as well that not only noble Lords in this House but the country as a whole should know the arguments for and against this clause. I think this is a very relevant letter, and if I want to read it I shall read it. If necessary, I shall read the whole lot of it. Is this a House of Parliament or is it not? We come here unpaid, unhonoured and unsung; and unless we are entitled to do our duty I, for one, will not come here. We are not paid for this. I have taken on this job at very short notice, owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I must be allowed to put forward my arguments in the way I think fit.
VISCOUNT THURSO: Why did the noble Lord turn on me when I said: "Hear, hear!"?
LORD OGMORE: Because it was a sardonic, "Hear, hear!"—not a genuine one.
LORD TEVIOT: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I, like other noble Lords, have also had this letter. What I am anxious to find out, and what I am not quite clear about is what the noble Lord is going to do. He has made what I would call a very strong Party political speech—a speech, in my view, almost irrelevant to the Amendment. It would be very interesting to hear what the vote is going to be on—whether it is going to be on a technical matter relating to a part of this Bill and the administration of it, or whether it is going to be on the question of how people are going to vote in the next Election. I should be glad of enlightenment.
LORD OGMORE: AS I have pointed out before, this is a House of Parliament and we are entitled to know here what the public think. The public have expressed a view in no uncertain terms about this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is entitled to express his opinion. He can express it as often as he likes, subject to the Rules of Order about saying the same thing over and over again. I am entitled, as this is a House of Parliament, to point out that this has been, and is, a major issue. Suppose that a letter to the reverse effect, a letter supporting the Bill, had been received from an important trade union, would noble Lords opposite not have quoted it? I guarantee that they would. We are quite entitled to make our case. We have not occupied any more time than has been necessary. After all, we are on Clause 10 and it is only five o'clock: and I must ask for as much time as I think necessary without getting out of order.
In the Daily Telegraph to-day there is a letter which I want to quote to your Lordships, because it is relevant to this clause. The letter reads:
" You rightly note the ' special relevance ' of the Rent Bill to the political trend revealed in the municipal elections. Is this not mainly due to the serious consequences of Clause 9 of the Bill, removing all protection against dispossession, as against excessive rent, from nearly a million middle-class tenants, who face not ' immediate financial loss ' only but eviction?
" As an owner of controlled property, though fortunately not dependent on it, I know the necessity for a legitimate, controlled, rent increase. But I am shocked by complete decontrol in a period of continuing housing scarcity, and by the acute misery already arising from the threat and by the greater hardship yet to come.
" Should Clause 9 become law. I shall feel myself unable to support the Conservative Party at the General Election. I prefer even Socialist nationalisation of houses to Conservative eviction of their tenants into acute scarcity, though neither is necessary.
" As a landlord I think I understand the situation. It is that complete decontrol is yet premature. Cannot this folly be stayed even yet on the Third Reading in the Upper House? "
That is an appeal to us here to take action, and I think that I am entitled to ask that the notice of the House should be drawn to this letter in the Daily Telegraph from a Conservative and a landlord. What he says is, in fact, our argument on this clause. We certainly do not like decontrol. I do not like any
680
decontrol at this stage, in the manner proposed by the Bill; but if we are going to have decontrol, then in ordinary justice to London and Greater London, I say, fix it higher, so that the majority of householders will not be affected.
This provision is causing the greatest concern. I know the type of people who are living in the houses which are going to be affected: they are most upset and anxious. For some years I was a member of another place for half of the Borough of Croydon, which is typical of the areas which are going to be affected by the provisions of Clause 10. There are thousands and thousands of property holders in Croydon living in difficult circumstances, coming up to the City every day, living on fixed incomes and unable to charge expense accounts, trying to educate their children in a proper manner to the best of their ability—in fact, having an extraordinary hard time to live at all. It is not a question of their being faced merely with a rent increase; they will also be faced with the possibility of eviction on a large scale. If I were one of these people I should feel—and I guarantee the same is true of any noble Lord opposite—that I was in a very hazardous position indeed. I say, as a landlord, that the Government have no right at this stage to plunge the country and many honourable people into this state of uncertainty.
5.5 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: With customary frankness and clarity, the noble and learned Viscount has explained his attitude towards the Amendment which I have ventured to put down. Looking at it from the point of view of Scotland, I can only say, first of all, that the figure in Scotland has always been higher than in England and Wales, excluding London, because of the peculiar make-up of the figure for rent in Scotland which, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, includes an element of rates. Secondly, in the noble and learned Viscount's own admission, we are facing here a phase of decontrol, and the only question is whether the extension of the present phase should be increased or reduced? Our answer is perfectly clear. We think that the present control should continue over as many people as possible, because it is protecting them from a hardship which is contained in this Bill. It would

681
be untrue to pretend, of course, that we approve of the Government's intention to make what is called a free market. We think that to give a certain section of the community freedom to impose the conditions they wish to impose, without some definite control by the Government over their actions, is a bad principle to follow, particularly in these days.
I also would venture to quote from the letter which has been criticised. My reason for doing so is this. We all receive a great many letters, many of which, we should all agree, are exaggerated in tone and make claims of which many of us would not approve; and what struck me about this letter was the reasonable terms in which the whole case was stated by the writer. It does not emanate from one political Party; it is composed by the Secretary of what is called the Hampstead Anti-Rent Bill Committee, which apparently is composed of tenants' associations. Here I must declare that I have no interest in one of them, which is called the Greenhill Tenants' Association. I think that what they say here is convincing, because it is based upon fact. I now quote one sentence which my noble friend Lord Ogmore omitted to quote:
" The Minister himself found it necessary, while the Bill was still in Committee—and this is surely without precedent—to warn tenants against unscrupulous landlords already trying to anticipate its passing. Moreover, he tacitly admitted that the decontrol provisions of the Bill in their present form are at best a gamble when, in a speech to the Institute of Chartered Surveyors, he said that the Bill could be either ' a triumph or a disaster ', depending on the behaviour of landlords."
Later on in the letter, the writer says this:
" The general consensus of opinion among municipal housing officers, public health inspectors and the more reputable estate agents (as well as data from surveys carried out by local tenants' associations) confirm my Committee's conviction that there will be no pool of unfurnished accommodation at reasonable rents available in London and the larger cities for a considerable time to come."
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are also aware that in Scotland spontaneous representations have been made to the Secretary of State for Scotland by the Scottish T.U.C. that there has been an unusually large amount of opposition to this threat to the people of Scotland. I would seriously ask the noble and learned Viscount, even if he finds that the figure I have suggested in
682
my Amendment is not wholly acceptable, not to insist on adhering to the figure in the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I feel that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. I believe that there is a prospect of hardship in London and in South Eastern England, but what: completely weakens the argument of the Opposition, so far as I can see, is the suggestion that this Bill has been put forward purely for doctrinaire purposes. I thought the main purpose of the Bill was to endeavour to keep these houses from going into decay. I have often listened to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has made most impressive speeches showing the extent to which houses are going into decay at the present time. I had hoped that on Second Reading some member of the Labour Party would expand their own policy for a solution of this question, but when I asked the question I was told that it was an inappropriate moment to ask it; and the information then given by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, differed in some degree from the explanation given by other members of the Labour Party. I feel that, if we are to consider this matter seriously, some reference ought to be made to the main purpose for which this Bill was introduced.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: There are one or two points I should like to make on this clause which, so far as I know, have not yet been made. I am sorry that I was not present to hear the opening words of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but in so far as I did hear him, he gave no evidence in support of the supposition of the Government that the result of this decontrol will be the lowering of rents. I have not heard in this Chamber, or anywhere else, any evidence, only surmise, that that will be the result; and, in fact, this morning I happened to hear of a case which seems to me to point the contrary way. It related to a flat in a semi-luxury block in North London, let at £500 a year, with the lease running out shortly, where the tenant has been invited to renew the lease at £800 a year. That does not look as if rents generally will respond to this rather drastic treatment that the Government are giving them; in fact, it seems to me, as the Hampstead Tenants' Association, said, "one enormous gamble."

683
It has been pointed out by other tenants' associations that Clause 10 gives the Minister power to act only in one way; that is to say, to release further houses from control. What I should like to ask the Government is: have they no thought that in some areas, some of these provisions may not work out quite as well as they expect? Should not the Minister have powers to reverse the trend, for a limited time or in a limited area? I have in mind, particularly, some of the London boroughs, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, expressed doubt about the effect of the Bill on London. In the Borough of St. Marylebone, out of 22,000 houses we have 8,500 that have a rateable value between £40 and £100. I think the Lord Chancellor said something about a smooth performance of this operation, but I can conceive of nothing less smooth: it is like using dynamite to restock a pond to do this tremendous operation covering the whole country. Will not the Government think again? Remember that the Minister has powers under the Act as it is to extend the decontrol at any time, at any place, by as much as he likes, by Order. Why not moderate the extent of this blow that the Government are inflicting on the country?
LORD MESTON: I should like to draw attention to one erroneous observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He said that he did not think there were many houses in London with a rateable value of less than £40. The truth is that there are a large number of dwellings in London with a rateable value of less than £40.
LORD OGMORE: May I correct the noble Lord? What I said was that there were comparatively fewer; that, on the whole, rateable values in London are much higher than those in the country.
LORD MESTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord; the last thing I want to do is to misinterpret him. However, as your Lordships know, there are a considerable number of houses which are let out unfurnished in single rooms, and, on an apportionment, the rateable value of those dwellings—that is to say, of those single rooms—would be much less than £40. Therefore, I think on that point
684
the fears of the noble Lord are not justified.
LORD WISE: Before the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, replies, as I understand the discussion is taking place on three Amendments, I want to say a word or two about Amendment No. 12 and the 560,000 houses that will be affected by this Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that conditions outside London are much different in regard to rating generally. It is likely that, owing to there being a lack of uniformity in regard to rating matters in the country, houses in some districts will be decontrolled, while similar houses in other districts will still be controlled. That would make matters most awkward. The Lord Chancellor said that the Government believed that they should take a good slice at one time. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has just referred to the question of moderating the blow, and I share his view.
I think the figures shown in the Bill are too drastic. It must be remembered that the present control is on houses of a rateable value in the Provinces of £75 and under, and the Bill brings it down to £30 which is a difference of £45. Those living in houses with, rateable values of between £30 and £75 are generally middle-class people, and I am certain they will feel hurt at the suggestion of decontrol in their case. The figure we set is £45. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill threw out an idea in regard to Scotland that, if the Government were not committed entirely to their £40, and refused to accept £60, there might be some compromise. I think there might be some compromise in regard to the figure for the country areas, too. I hope that the Government on this occasion will be inclined to meet us. I cannot agree with the Lord Chancellor when he says that the greater decontrol of houses will open the free market and lower the rents. I am sure that when these houses are decontrolled the rents will go up by leaps and bounds and the people who will suffer are those 560,000 householders who are faced either with the payment of a much higher rent or the transfer to other houses, which may be well-nigh impossible. I hope that in regard to Amendment No. 12 whatever the Government may see fit to do in London they will help us a little in the country.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their views. I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has trailed his coat with delightful vigour. It is with the greatest of difficulty that I restrain myself from treading on it, but I shall try, in the interests of relevance to the general Amendment, to get as far away from it as I can. I would give him only one piece of advice as an old friend in a non-political sense—I will not compromise him by calling him "my noble friend," in case anyone might think his politics had become less well dyed. But, at some time, at a convenient stage of the Division, I should be grateful if he would ask his noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who carries all these things in his head, what Oliver Cromwell said to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is always well to remember that when one is being rather dogmatic on the strength of one's own views.
With regard to the general position, noble Lords opposite have asked me two things; first, for an alteration in the general phasing of the decontrol, and, secondly, whether I have considered sufficiently the special position in London. With regard to the general phasing, I will not go through all these figures, which are well known to noble Lords, but I just remind your Lordships once again that if you will look at Table I you will see that the number of houses let unfurnished at controlled rents is given there as 5·7 million. As I have said, we are taking a slice, from the top of that, of 800,000. I do not want to go into general politics, but I would ask noble Lords, who I am sure feel genuinely on the point, to consider that as our suggestion—800,000 out of 5·7 million—and consider the effect of decontrol as it would be under the scheme to which noble Lords opposite are committed, if the houses are municipalised and the local authority is entitled to possession and to put up the rent. That would apply to the whole number of these houses, and any general insecurity, I think, would be infinitely greater.
I am not going into the general argument, because this is an Amendment to the Bill. I am afraid I am not greatly impressed by the letter from that delectable borough of Hampstead. It is now
686
thirty-three years since I fought my first election, and if in these circumstances it were not possible to produce a letter against his Bill from a Minister's own constituency, I should think that politics had greatly declined in energy at the present time. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, brought us back to the London problem. It is easy to call it a gamble and, indeed, any prophecy has an uncertain element in it; but I should like the noble Earl to consider not only the number that I mentioned, not only the other houses that are being built and the question of the slum clearance which is going on, but also the number of houses in London that are not now let under a controlled rent but are similar to the houses which are being decontrolled and which we are discussing in this Amendment. That gives some idea of the field available to the tenant who has to move.
As I said, in London 190,000 houses will be decontrolled. The total number of houses in that group of rateable value is 700,000. If my arithmetic is right, four nineteens are seventy-six, so it is just under 1 to 4. In the Provinces, the figures are 561,000 to be decontrolled, and the total in the similar rateable group is 2,050,000. So there again approximately 1 to 4 in the rateable value group are decontrolled houses. I think that that is an answer which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will consider on the point which he made with considerable force. From that point of view, the figures in London and the Provinces are much the same. May I take another aspect, which I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, had in mind? The number of houses in London below the £40 rateable value is 1,550,000, and the number above somewhere over 800,000. So two out of every three dwellings in London are below the £40 rateable value. I think these are relevant figures.
On the general point may I say this? No-one that I have heard discuss this problem has denied my major premise that something must be done in this country if we are to maintain the great national asset of existing houses. We have tried to find the right number, and I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that we have taken this step only after every political Party has said for seven years that this problem ought to be dealt with. If, after seven years, we

687
come forward with that relatively small movement in the way of decontrol—I have given the figures: 800,000 out of 5·7 million—I find it difficult to believe that we are going at an excessive pace. That is the major point, and that is the step. As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has pointed out with great frankness and accuracy, after that, one can consider not only whether there should be a next step or how big the next step should be, but where the next step should be. One has complete flexibility to consider the step that is to be taken. To say that you should take a lesser step than the small percentage we are taking at the present time to deal with a problem that is so universally stated to exist is, I think, quite unthinkable.
I would answer the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—I will just allow myself this one answer. He and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned the local elections. In 1949, the Labour Party lost not 233 but 1,300 seats at the local elections. Yet they came back with a majority of six in 1950. But when from 1950 to 1951 they decided that they would not take any political action that was controversial and would just sit down, then in the 1951 Election they lost even that small majority and have been out of power ever since. I believe that in politics nothing strikes so hard, nothing is rewarded so badly, as inaction. I believe that if the Government had not dealt with this problem, then indeed they might well have been rejected on the simple ground of cowardice.
5.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have not, of course, the slightest objection that the noble and learned Viscount has ranged widely over the three Amendments, referring to London, England and Wales and Scotland, or to the fact that other noble Lords have responded to his invitation so that the debate has taken place on all three Amendments. My only grievance is that my case was made slightly the weaker, because I feel that London is a special case and that the arguments for reducing the amount of decontrol in London are even stronger than the arguments for doing so in other parts of the country. I am replying now on the first Amendment, which deals only with the Metropolitan Police District
688
and the City of London—that is to say, the Greater London Area. I should like to answer what I think were the two main arguments used by the noble and learned Viscount in regard to London.
The first of these was that, by the decontrolling of a smaller number of houses, the rent of those houses would be likely to go up even higher than it will do in any case under the provisions of the Bill. That argument, of course, according to the classical economist is unanswerable. When demand exceeds supply, then prices go up. I should like to assume that the noble and learned Viscount is right. I should like to remind him that the people who occupy these houses, if their rents go up, are, after all, in a far better position to pay a higher rent than are the people who occupy houses in London where the rateable value is £40 to £60 per annum. These are the people by whom the real hardship will be felt. I would remind your Lordships that this measure has been more unpopular I think in London than in any other part of the country. There have been protests against it from the local authorities, from associations of tenants and from ordinary householders. These protests and this unpopularity are due to the great hardship which this measure will impose on people living in the lower level of rateable values in the London area.
If I might criticise the noble and learned Viscount's reply, my criticism would be this. I think it perhaps omitted a little the human element. It omitted perhaps to evaluate the effect on many families who are to be decontrolled in London as a result of the passing of this Bill into law. These are the people we are thinking of in the lower rateable values of between £40 and £60 per annum. They will be placed on the horns of a really cruel dilemma: either they will have to pay a higher rent, which may be double the existing rent, or they will have to face eviction from their homes at the end of a period of fifteen months from the passage of this Bill into law. Imagine the distress, imagine the insecurity and anxiety, which this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will cause in the minds of many thousands of householders in this category who will be decontrolled.
The other argument of the noble and learned Viscount was that there will be

689
a reasonable pool of alternative accommodation in London for people who find that they cannot afford the higher rents. I always disagree with much hesitation when I am contradicting an argument of the noble and learned Viscount, but I honestly think that he is wrong when he assumes that in the next couple of years there will be a substantial pool of alternative accommodation in London. Private building is very expensive. The flats, houses and cottages that go up in London built by private builders are available only to a very small number of people, of substantial means.
I know something about municipal building, and can tell your Lordships of the appalling position with which the London County Council, which is the largest municipal authority building for London, is faced. We have a waiting list of 165,000 applicants. Of those, 50,000 are urgent cases where applications have
been made on the ground of ill-health or overcrowding. We have had to tell them that we can re-house only 2,000 of them in the next two years. Does that mean that there will be an adequate pool, whether or not decontrol is right? It may be right, but, if it is right, it should be done gradually over a longer period of time. Does this mean that there will be an adequate pool of alternative accommodation in London when this Bill comes into effect? Because it is within fifteen months of the passage of this Bill that people, if they cannot pay the higher rents, will have to leave their homes. On these grounds, we ask those of your Lordships, who have no Party position on either side, Liberal or Conservative, to support us in this matter in the Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 69.

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Margesson, V.

Hylton, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Ridley, V.

Killearn, L.

Thurso, V.

Lloyd, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Mancroft, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Merthyr, L.

Reading, M.

Birdwood, L.

Meston, L.

Brocket, L.

Middleton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Broughshane, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Chesham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Colyton, L.

Rea, L.

De La Warr, E.

Conesford, L.

Remnant, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rockley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Savile, L.

Morley, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sinha, L.

Munster, E.

Dovercourt, L.

Somers, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

Radnor, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grantchester, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L.

Crookshank, V.

Hastings, L.

Teynham, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gage, V.

Hayter, L.

Waleran, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.50 p.m.
LORD WISE: As we have had that discussion I formally move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 46, leave out (" thirty ") and insert (" forty-five ").—(Lord Wise.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Darwen, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Jowitt, E.

Faringdon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E.

Greenhill, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Haden-Guest, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ridley, V.

Hylton, L.

Thurso, V.

Killearn, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Lloyd, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Luke, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Birdwood, L.

Mancroft, L.

Reading, M.

Brocket, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Albemarle, E.

Chesham, L.

Meston, L.

Bathurst, E.

Colyton, L.

Middleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Conesford, L.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rea, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Remnant, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller]

Sinha, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Somers, L.

Selborne, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crookshank, V.

Hampton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Gage, V.

Hawke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hayter, L.

Waleran, L.

Margesson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wolverton, L.

LORD GREENHILL: Since the appeal on behalf of Scotland has not been satisfied, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 46, leave out (" forty ") and insert (" sixty ").—(Lord Greenhill.)
Wise. I have adduced my general arguments on the last Amendment, and I do not think that I ought to take up any further time of your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 66.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the noble Lord's consent, I adduce the arguments on the other point, and I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 59.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Thurso, V.

Lloyd, L.

Luke, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brocket, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Reading, M.

Chesham, L.

Meston, L.

Colyton, L.

Monson, L.

Albemarle, E.

Conesford, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bathurst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rea, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Rennell, L.

Munster, E.

Dynevor, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Savile, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Sinha, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Somers, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crookshank, V.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hampton, L.

Gage, V.

Hastings, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hawke, L.

Waleran, L.

Margesson, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ridley, V.

Hylton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
" (2) Where a dwelling-house was lawfully sublet on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six, and the tenant was en that date in occupation of the part of the premises not so sublet, the rateable value of the dwelling-house for the purposes of the aforementioned subsection shall be the rateable value of that part so occupied by the tenant."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will have noticed that this is almost a duplicate of Amendment No. 49 on the Marshalled List. It has been slightly altered and removed to a different part of the Bill. I am moving this Amendment owing to the illness of my noble friend Lord Silkin, as it was he who drafted it and had discussion upon it. I believe that I am right in saying (I speak subject to correction by the noble and learned Viscount) that if a house is sublet in a number of different dwellings, it may mean that each of those individual dwellings is of such a rateable value that it will still be controlled. If, on the other hand, a tenant decides to keep half or three-quarters of the building for himself and lets off only a small part, then his share of it may be larger and may take him within the decontrol limits. This Amendment, I understand, seeks to avoid that situation. Other noble Lords know much more about this point than I do, so without saying any more I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 47, at end insert the said sub-section.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has raised an interesting and difficult point. I hope he will not take it amiss if I try to put the arguments both ways, because I understand the position in which he finds himself in view of the much-regretted illness of Lord Silkin. The effect of the Amendment, which deals with the position of a tenant of a house which is above the rateable value Limit for decontrol, would be that if the tenant has sublet part of the house, and what he retains to live in is below the rateable value limit for decontrol, he would be kept in control as respects the whole house. It should be noted that what the Amendment would achieve would be in line with the decontrol provisions of the Act of 1938. But there is a difference. Under that Act, sub-lettings of any part of a house were controlled so long as the tenancy of the whole house remained controlled. The position under Clause 10 is that any part of a house—controlled or decontrolled—which is sublet will come out of control on a change of sub-tenant.
We have very carefully considered this point, and I should like to weigh up the arguments which we are disposed to put against it. I will try to put them as objectively as I can. I think the main argument in favour of the Amendment is that the tenant who sub-lets parts of his house and retains only a part having

695
a rateable value below the control limit, is often the same sort of person as his sub-tenants and for that reason should remain controlled, because the object of rent control is to protect a tenant in respect of his home. If, therefore, a tenant who rents, say, a £35 rateable value flat in London is to continue to be protected, so should a tenant who lives in a fiat of the same rateable value, even if he rents the whole house and sub-lets the rest. I think these are the arguments for the Amendment.
Now as to the arguments against the Amendment. The first is that it would reduce the number of dwellings that would be decontrolled, and, therefore, would limit the free market that would be created in the higher rateable value group. To the extent that houses of this kind were not decontrolled, the pressure of demand would increase on the houses that were decontrolled, and the result might be to increase the rent that could be claimed for the decontrolled houses. That is the general argument which I have advanced on the last group of Amendments. The second point against the Amendment is that we are advised that it would, in practice, be unnecessary, since the tenant is not likely to be in any real danger. Assuming that the parts sub-let would also be below the rateable value limit for decontrol, the sub-tenant would continue to be protected. If the landlord—that is, the main landlord—therefore, gave the tenant notice to quit, that main landlord would still find himself with the controlled sub-tenants. The only part of the house, therefore, of which he could obtain vacant possession would be the part actually retained by the tenant.
I hope that I have made that point clear. I am looking at it from the point of view of the main landlord and of the main tenant. The main tenant has subtenants, and, on the basis that the subtenants are protected, the main landlord cannot get rid of the sub-tenants. The only bit he could get possession of would be the main tenant's flat. In those circumstances, he would either let the tenant continue as tenant of the whole house, but ask him to pay a higher rent, so as to obtain a market rent for the part
696
he actually occupies, or grant him a new tenancy, at a market rent, of the part which he was previously occupying. In either event, it is unlikely that the tenant would have to leave, provided, of course, that he was prepared to pay a reasonable rent in respect of his own part of the house.
I want the noble Earl to appreciate the difficulties, because this is a case where the balance is rather difficult to see. Let me go back to my original scheme about the main landlord and the main tenant, on the basis of the Amendment that the tenant is to be protected and allowed to remain on. If one of the sub-tenants left, the tenant would be in the position of a landlord vis-à-vis that part of the house, and would be able to let at an uncontrolled rent the part occupied by one of his subtenants. In other words, he might be in the position of occupying his own part as a controlled tenant yet being able to get uncontrolled rents for the other parts.
I hope that this is not a Party argument at all. This, according to what I am advised by the Ministry, and as I have tried to work it out for myself, is just what happens. So if the Amendment were accepted, the tenant would be able to let at a free rent the part of the house which he did not require, while remaining protected in respect of the whole house as against his landlord. That is the difficulty. I have tried to put both sides very carefully. We have considered the matter, not in any sense of a Party plea, and we feel that it is batter to keep to the general simplicity of the Bill and not break into that simplicity by bringing back into control houses outside the control limit. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for taking so long, but I wanted the noble Earl to appreciate that I was not advising the Committee against the Amendment for any Party reason, but only after due consideration of his point.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I can only say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the attempt he has made to explain this Amendment to the less legally instructed brains on this side, and I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is an extraordinary subsection. It provides for delegated legislation of the widest possible kind. I imagine that there can be few examples of a clause which gives wider delegation powers to the Government. It seems an odd provision to come from the Party opposite, who, while we were in power, always strongly opposed the policy of delegation of power, however necessary it might have been. In his case, the Minister has power of the widest scope put into his hands. Can noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite regard this as a proper subsection to put in the Bill? I should like to hear what they have to say.
The Donoughmore Report, which deals with this subject, says at page 58:
" …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 whenever 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."
On page 21 the Report says:
" …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."
I cannot imagine anything which departs more widely from the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report than subsection (3) of Clause 10.
As I understand it, delegated legislation should apply only in three cases: first of all, where it is a matter of great complexity; secondly, where the subject of legislation is of a technical nature, and thirdly, where it is desired to have flexibility owing to the fact that unforeseen circumstances may arise. I would suggest that in this case none of these principles applies. Yet what do we see? If your Lordships will look at subsection (3), you will find that it says:
" The Minister may by order provide that the Rent Acts shall not apply, as from such date as may be specified in the order, to dwelling-houses the rateable value of which, ascertained as on such date as may be specified in the order, exceeds such amount as may be
698
so specified; and an order under this subsection may be made so as to relate to the whole of England and Wales, to the whole of Scotland, or to such area or areas in England and Wales or in Scotland as may be specified in the order, and so as to apply generally or only to, or except to, such classes or descriptions of dwelling-houses as may be so specified."
The Minister has to come to both Houses of Parliament for an Affirmative Resolution, I agree, but the fact is that he makes the order and himself decides what its contents shall be. This subsection puts the whole of the Rent Acts into jeopardy. The Minister can make an order to apply to such premises as he wants. He can decide on the rateable value of the premises to which an order applies, and make an order to cover the whole of England and Wales or some part of them. In short, by one administrative act, the Minister can upset the Rent Acts and create an entirely new situation in the country, so that all we are now doing and have done, and all that has been done in another place, will be so much wasted time, labour and paper.
I do not know what your Lordships think, but surely this is the sort of delegated legislation which should never be permitted to any Minister in these days on a matter like this, which affects the homes of so many millions of people. The Rent Acts have not had any great measure of delegated legislation attached to them. The original Act and the series of amending Acts have stated the law and the amendments to the law; but, so far as I know, there has been no body of delegated legislation. Now, however, we have to consider the question of giving the Minister this enormous power, which goes right against the recommendations of the Donoughmore Report and conflicts with everything that the Party opposite said upon this when they were in Opposition.
I should like to hear what the noble Viscount the Minister of Education, for example, would have said, not only when he was in Opposition in another place but also when the present Government were in power and he was on the Back Benches. I imagine that his comments on this subsection would have been as virulent as they were against the Government's television measure, to which I have already referred. I cannot imagine that the noble Viscount would have supported a subsection of this nature, which goes contrary to everything he has ever maintained on the public

699
platform, in this House and in another place; yet when he enters the Cabinet, he, as a Cabinet Minister, is partly responsible for the inclusion in the Bill of this obnoxious subsection. This is 1957, not 1657, and in this Year of Grace, I would ask the Government to look at this again and try to import into this Bill some modicum of modern legislative practice and not go back several hundreds of years to the time of the Stuarts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD MESTON: I confess that I feel a little uncomfortable about subsection (3), but I am a psychologist and can see deep down into the bosoms of the human race, and I can see that in the bosom of the Government spokesman there is the observation that this can be done only after an Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. That makes very little difference. We cannot deal satisfactorily with the subject of rent restriction by means of an Affirmative Resolution. Not only that, when we come to deal with rent restriction we have all manner of ancillary matters to consider, such as services, furniture, subtenancies, transitional permission and so forth. I feel that the Government do not really require subsection (3). I do not want anyone to think that I am opposed to the Bill. I am a keen supporter of the Bill in every way, but at the same time I have been surprised from my first sight of subsection (3).
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: AS my noble friend Lord Ogmore has said, this Amendment raises an important constitutional issue—namely, the proper use of delegated legislation. I think this is an issue that can be properly discussed by your Lordships, because it is a matter that we can consider on its merits, without Party bias. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had to say. Although I agree with his argument about the practical difficulties of discussing these orders on Affirmative Resolutions, because they have to be accepted or rejected—they cannot be amended—I think the more important point is the constitutional one, of whether or not the Government are trying to do
700
by administrative order what should be done by legislation. What this subsection does is to allow this process of decontrol, which is only begun, and in a comparatively small way, in the present Bill, to be continued by administrative orders made by the Minister—subject only, so far as Parliamentary control is concerned, to an Affirmative Resolution of each House. This tremendous power of decontrol by order for which the Government are now asking, is far more substantial than the power that the Government are seeking in the present Bill to effect a very limited measure of decontrol.
Let me substantiate that proposition. The number of dwellings let unfurnished that will pass out of control when this Bill becomes law has been estimated by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor at about 800,000, for England, Scotland and Wales. This will leave nearly 5 million dwellings of this type (I think the precise figure is 4·9 million) which will still be subject to the Rent Acts. An order, or a series of orders, made under this clause can free any or all of the remaining 4·9 million controlled dwellings in England, Scotland and Wales, for such orders can be made to apply either to the whole of England and Wales, or to the whole of Scotland, or to any part of this area. This tremendous power of abolishing control—because that is what it amounts to; it is the power to continue and ultimately to abolish control—is surely not one that should be exercised by the Executive without further legislation. There is no precedent in earlier Acts for decontrol by administrative order. This is a matter that goes back some forty years, when the first measures of control were introduced during the First World War. There have been small doses of decontrol since 1914, but these doses have always been administered by Act of Parliament and never by order. My noble friend Lord Ogmore referred to the Report, which is the locus classicus on this subject, of the late Lord Donoughmore, and we all know what a great authority he was on Parliamentary procedure. I am certain that this proposal would make him turn in his grave.
I very much hope that the Government will reconsider asking for this tremendous and drastic power to act independently of

701
Parliament by administrative order. There might be a case for some further measure of decontrol by order, but to be able to sweep away the legislation of the past forty years and to decontrol every house in this island by administrative order is, surely, power that no Government should ask for. I hope the Government will see whether they cannot ask for a more limited power that they might reasonably wish to exercise within the next year or two. I support my noble friend's Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: AS the noble Lord who moved this Amendment pointed out to your Lordships, Clause 10 (3) enables the Minister of Housing and Local Government to bring new groups of houses out of control by order. I agree with him that the subsection is drafted in wide terms: it can relate to the whole of England and Wales, or it may relate to the whole of Scotland, or to particular areas of the country at large; and it may apply to houses over a certain rateable value, or to particular classes or descriptions of houses. I feel sure the noble Lord will agree with me at once that it is certainly based on flexibility of the highest order. There is really nothing new about this. Although it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, that it has not yet appeared in housing legislation, it was recommended in 1937 by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in the first Report of his Committee. He recommended then that a scheme for progressively reducing rent control by order on a geographical basis, area by area, should be included in the housing legislation.
It is true that when the 1938 Act came along this recommendation was not implemented, but the Government at that time stated quite clearly that they were giving further consideration to the proposals for relaxing control by order. I can claim, therefore, that the proposals which were put up by Lord Ridley in 1937 are now to be implemented. I think all your Lordships know that the view of the Government is that it is in the national interest to abolish rent control progressively, as and when conditions permit. The first step in that direction is taken under Clause 10 (1) of this Bill. We shall have to see how this clause operates, and then to decide at a suitable time what use can be made of this subsection.
702
The argument has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and others that giving power to decontrol by order is, to all intents and purposes, by-passing Parliament. The order, as it says in the clause, will be subject to Affirmative Resolution, and therefore will be debated in this House and in another place, and at all times we should still be preserving the control of Parliament over the question of the decontrol of house property. I cannot see that there is any fear or danger that the Minister might work in a manner which would be singularly inappropriate in the particular circumstances. Do your Lordships really wish the Government to leave out this subsection, and to say in place thereof that, whenever there is one small area which the Minister thinks should be decontrolled, special legislation, with all the complications and ramifications which will follow it, should be introduced in this House or another place?
We believe that it is absolutely necessary here to keep the whole clause and the whole purpose of reducing rent control as flexible as possible. It is also required because from time to time the Minister may decide to advance at quite a different pace, according to local circumstances. The provisions in this subsection have been framed with that point in mind. I would say this, in conclusion. I do not think it would be right to ask my right honourable friend to leave out this subsection and to put the burden upon him of introducing special legislation on any and every occasion when he thinks it is necessary for some small portion or area of the country to be decontrolled. I would suggest to the Committee that, in these special circumstances, and in view of the fact that this was recommended a long time ago by the Ridley Committee, your Lordships would be well advised to leave subsection (3) in Clause 10 of the Bill.
6.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I make one point? The noble Earl referred to the Committee which sat in 1937. My recollection is that this decontrol by order was on the basis of the overcrowding statistics for each area at the time. In those days, twenty years ago now—I have not looked at this Report for some time—overcrowding statistics were of importance because

703
they related to the building by local authorities. My recollection is that the plan we proposed then was that as the overcrowding statistics in any particular area showed that there was not any bad shortage, then that area should become decontrolled. I do not think that that could be applicable now, because the statistics are not kept and, at any rate, the standard of housing is entirely different. I like the flexibility of this system, and I have wondered whether some variation might not have been included in the earlier part of Clause 10. I share the view that some people would probably be much happier to feel that while there is this flexible and adaptable system operated by order, there might be some limit to the rate at which the decontrol could go under this part of the clause.
LORD MESTON: If everything is as simple as the noble Earl makes out, why did he bother to have a Bill with twenty-four clauses and eight Schedules? Why not simply make an Order and send us all home to bed? Does the noble Earl really think that, in practice, the flexibility of this clause is attractive? Does he suggest for a moment that, in a few years' time, the Minister is going to make an order saying that the rateable value in Wigan is reduced to £25 but in Cornwall it is reduced to £15? Nothing of the sort is likely to be done in modern times, and I submit that there is little, if anything, to support the noble Earl's case.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I reply to one point? I do not think we should object if the Government were asking for power to exercise a limited extension of decontrol in the next two years. That is logical. The Government will have the authority, and if they want to do it it is not unreasonable that they should do it, and do it by order. But the principle here is that they should not ask Parliament for more power than they want to use, and they are asking Parliament for power to abolish rent control altogether. That is what we object to.

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Grantchester, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Quibell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rea, L.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Darwen, L.

Meston, L.

LORD OGMORE: We are not at all satisfied with the answer of the noble Earl. We feel that our objections have not been met in any way. I must say that I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. I think he is absolutely right. I cannot conceive of the position which the Government have envisaged of little bits and pieces; of altering the Rent Acts here and there up and down the country. From a practical point of view, I feel myself that it is going to be difficult to work by order, and from the point of view of constitutional practice it would be a bad precedent to insert into the Constitution at this stage.
Maybe we shall have to recall the words of the noble Earl on this matter, because on this occasion he has made a defence of delegated legislation which I should think has rarely been made in the whole history of Parliament, when he says that it is much more convenient to come here and push through an order which cannot be amended. Every totalitarian Government has at some time or other claimed this power, and it is the start of totalitarianism. I am not suggesting that the Government are going to do that, but it is a bad precedent. I am not supposing that we on this side, when we are in Government, should want to do it either. The time may come when we should want to do something like this and then, of course, we shall be able to quote the noble Earl in strong support of our arguments for the imposition of a clause of this kind. If you wish to amend a matter like the Rent Bill, I think you should bring in a fresh Bill. Nothing the Government has maintained has altered my mind, and in those circumstances I must ask your Lordships to go to a Division. I hope that many of the Back Benchers opposite who, I feel certain, agree with me, will join me in the Division.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 48.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Hawke, L.

Ridley, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Hylton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broughshane, L.

Merthyr, L.

Albemarle, E.

Chesham, L.

Monson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Conesford, L.

Remnant, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rennell, L.

Morley, E.

Croft, L.

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Digby, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Somers, L.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Strathclyde, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Selborne, E.

Gifford, L.

Stratheden, and Campbell, L.

Glyn, L.

Waleran, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Gridley, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gage, V.

Hastings, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (3), after "date," where that word first occurs, to insert:
" not being earlier than three years from the date of: he coming into force of this Act ".
The noble Earl said: We get back again to the subsection which your Lordships have just voted to retain in the Bill. As this subsection of the clause now stands, the Minister would be able to start further measures of decontrol, decontrolling more dwellings immediately this Bill is passed into law. I do not say that he would do it; I do not suppose for a moment that he would; but he would have the power to do it. What we are proposing in our Amendment is that there should be a period of respite from decontrol; that no further decontrol should take place for three years after the passage of the Bill.
I think it will be generally admitted that any further measure of decontrol that is at all substantial, removing dwellings from the protection of the Rent Acts while there is a serious housing shortage, is bound to cause hardship to the tenants affected. So long as there is a housing shortage, it is obviously difficult to get alternative accommodation, and a landlord is in a position to drive a hard bargain. It has been said in another place—and I rather think that this was the view that the noble and learned Viscount took this afternoon—that the housing shortage will, if not be over, at any rate be very much less within quite a short period of time, perhaps a couple of years from now. I have already said that I do not agree
706
with that point of view—I wish I could. I do not feel that either private building or local authority building will fill the gap between demand and supply for a long time. I must say that I should be surprised if the Government really believed that its programme for slum clearance could be carried out within the next two or three years, at the present annual rate of clearance.
Our case on this Amendment for the maintenance of control for another three years—and that, of course, will affect the 4,900,000 dwellings which will remain controlled if this Bill is passed into law—is that it will take at least that amount of time for the supply of new houses to get at any rate a little closer to demand than it is at the present time. It is all very well to talk about a free market in accommodation, but a free market of this kind is bound to be unfair to a tenant who has nowhere to go if he is evicted from his home, so long as there is a housing shortage and he is forced either to accept a hard bargain from his landlord or to lose his present home.
The Minister in another place on the Third Reading of this Bill said that he did not propose to take a further measure of decontrol for at least a year. I have not his exact words, but I think that was the sense of what he said. We do not feel that this period of one year is by any means sufficient, but perhaps the noble Earl (if he is going to reply to this Amendment) would say whether, if the Government take the view that a year is a reasonable period of time before a further instalment of decontrol should take place, he would be willing to include something to that effect in the Bill.

707
Because, as this clause now stands, the Minister would be able to start the next instalment of decontrol the day after the Bill came into law. I hope that this process of decontrol will be as gradual as possible, because that is the only way to lessen the hardship on the tenant, and that the Government will go some distance towards meeting our plea that there should be a respite of three years after the passing of the Bill before any further decontrol takes place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, after (" date ") insert (" not being earlier than three years from the date of the coming into force of this Act ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD WOLVERTON: There is a very important provision in the same clause just below that passage, where the Minister: is taking powers to vary the areas if he thinks necessary. He can take off control for the whole country or area by area. I think that is a very important provision, and if there are areas which give some difficulty he need not take control off those areas; he has powers to leave it on.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment, as the noble Earl pointed out, would prevent the Minister for a period of three years from making an order for further reducing the rateable value limits for decontrol. I think my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing, certainly my noble and learned friend behind me, and myself, in the course of the discussions we have had on this Bill, have made it clear again and again that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abolish rent control progressively, and, naturally enough, after we have taken the first step to decontrol outlined in Clause 10 (1) we shall wish to see what progress has been made under this clause before we decide on the next step.
It is quite true that, as the clause is drafted at the present moment, my right honourable friend the day after the Royal Assent was received could present to another place an order for Affirmative Resolution, but that is very unlikely; indeed, it is an impossibility for the Minister to consider presenting an order before he has had any opportunity of seeing how Clause 10 worked and functioned
708
when it was in operation. My right honourable friend does not think it would be desirable to introduce into the Bill any precise date by which the next step should be taken, or before which the next step should not be taken. At the same time, my right honourable friend could not possibly tell Parliament when he would consider taking the next step, but obviously some time must elapse to see how the clause works as a whole before my right honourable friend would contemplate asking Parliament to approve an order.
I think, therefore, that it would be very unfortunate if we should insert in this particular subsection the time limit before which the Minister could not operate the order if he so wished. Indeed, the very fact that we had put a time limit into this subsection would, I venture to think, lead a number of people to believe that the next order for decontrol would automatically take place the moment the three years were up. Here, again, we feel strongly that we must keep that flexibility which we discussed on the previous Amendment, and we must, at the same time, give my right honourable friend the opportunity to decide upon the timing of the next step and, indeed, its adjustment to certain areas, as is laid down in the subsection. For those reasons I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, because it is one which, with the best will in the world, I could not ask the House to accept.
LORD OGMORE: I support my noble friend on this Amendment and for the reasons he has given, which seem to me to be the natural and logical consequences of our previous argument on the subsection as a whole. My noble friend, I think, has put the case quite clearly and quite distinctly, and there is no need for me to go over it again. But Lord Listowel did refer in the course of his speech to a promise or undertaking or statement by the Minister in another place with reference to the period within which he would not make any decontrol order. As I understood the noble Earl who has just spoken, he said to your Lordships that there was, in fact, no period decided upon; they might make an order at any time and the Minister had not decided, or at least had not announced his decision, and that the whole matter was, so to speak, at issue. If I

709
understood him correctly, what he said is quite contrary to what was said by the Minister in another place, because on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, Mr. Brooke, the Minister, said this:
" I have no intention whatever of bringing in any decontrol Order at all within twelve months."
So the Minister has categorically stated in the House of Commons that he will not bring in a decontrol order within twelve months. Yet, here to-day the noble Earl gets up and says the Minister may bring in an Order at any time.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord really must not misrepresent me like that. I said that, as the clause stood at the moment, my right honourable friend could bring in an order at any time, but that it was absolutely out of the question that he would conceive of doing such a thing until he had had an opportunity of seeing how Clause 10 worked.
LORD OGMORE: In fact, having made that statement when the Bill is going through, he cannot possibly bring an order in within twelve months. Therefore, I ask the Government why do they not put that in the Bill? What is the objection to putting it in the Bill? When we were on that side, noble Lords then on this side, who have a conveniently short memory, were constantly telling us, "Put it in the Bill". Now you put it in the Bill. You were always telling us to do it. You do it. Here is a definite statement by the Minister in another place. Did he mislead the House of Commons? If he did not mislead the House of Commons, why do the Government not put it in the Bill? We say that three years is the proper time—though, of course, what is the correct period is a matter of opinion. We say: have a definite period in the Bill; and we say, in view of this commitment by the Minister in another place, that a definite period should go in the Bill, and that that period should be three years. We ask your Lordships to support us in the Division Lobby on this Amendment.
LORD ARCHIBALD: On this clause it seems to me that the arguments we have had have been that the Government policy of complete abolition of rent control should be carried out with maximum
710
ease for the Minister. The doctrine of making it easy for the Minister and making it flexible seems to be regarded as of much greater importance than the welfare of the 4,900,000 families who will still be left in rent-controlled houses after the Bill has gone through. If it is maximum ease for the Minister, it is maximum anxiety for the general public, and I think when we put this in the scale in this House we ought to come down against ministerial ease and for public happiness and safety.
The situation on this clause, simply, is that, after it has been passed, 4,900,000 families will not know what the future is for them, so far as their rents are concerned, or even the occupancy of their houses. I sometimes feel that a number of noble Lords do not appreciate sufficiently how important the element of rent is in the budget and the lives of working-class families. In regard to the 700,000 or 800,000 houses that have been decontrolled under the Bill, it is mainly middle-class families that are concerned. Bad as the consequences will be to them, in many cases they will not be as bad as the consequences of decontrol are likely to be among the poorer sections of the population, where, as I say, rent is a tremendously important element in their budget and in their lives. Where their means are limited and inflexible, the prospect of being asked for an increased rent may mean for them the upheaval of trying to find inferior and cheaper accommodation. It is that sort of fear which is going to hang over these millions of families if this clause goes through in its present form. What we are asking for now is little enough—a three-year period of grace. At least in that time there will be more houses built; the housing situation will be just that little easier. That will reduce the anxiety a little. But to put them under that anxiety for the sake of the doctrine of ministerial ease and convenience is, I think, completely unworthy of any Government.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: In regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, under this Bill the tenants have the protection of an Affirmative Resolution in Parliament. All these terrible fears that the noble Lord spoke about will be the fears of the tenants without any such protection if the Socialist

711
measure of municipalisation of houses is passed, because then the tenants will have no protection at all such as we are giving them in this Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Is it not the fact that local authorities are elected, subject to popular choice, every few years? Is not that one good safeguard for the tenants?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I would only say that I would rather have the protection of having my house owned by an elected municipal authority than depend on the result of an Affirmative Resolution, with a Conservative majority in both Houses and with the Government Whips on.

CONTENTS

Listowel, E.

Darwen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greenhill, L.

Quibell, L.

Kershaw, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Lawson, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wise, L.

Archibald, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Broughshane, L.

Hylton, L.

Home, E. (L. President.)

Chesham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Conesford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cottesloe, L.

Merthyr, L.

Croft, L.

Monson, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Dynevor, L.

Remnant, L.

Morley, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Rockley, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Savile, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Somers, L.

Radnor, E.

Glyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Selborne, E.

Gridley, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Hastings, L.

Waleran, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Wolverton, L.

Waverley, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: Before we leave Clause 10, may I ask a question concerning subsection (2)? This is drawn in a such a way as to condemn to non-occupation all houses and flats becoming vacant after the printing of the Bill, and thus the housing shortage has been considerably aggravated. Representations on this point were made to the Minister, but without effect; and not only without effect but without any explanation. I raised this point on Second Reading, and was invited
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Is the majority not the elected majority, representing the will of the people? And is not what the noble Lord is really saying that the people do not behave as the noble Lord thinks they should at elections, but are wise enough to return a Conservative Administration?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The people were assured by the Conservatives at the last Election that no such Bill as this would be introduced. The Government are passing the whole measure without mandate. I should be ashamed to raise that sort of argument.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 44.
to raise it again at this stage, which I now do. The matter has become largely academic, since it is hoped that the Bill will become an Act in the course of the next two months or so; but in view of the persistence of the official silence on this matter, perhaps I may be forgiven for my persistence in raising it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was not aware that any representations had been made to my right honourable friend the Minister concerning subsection (2) of this clause. I am sorry that I have no instructions whatsoever from my right honourable friend regarding this matter.
Clause 10 agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-jour minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half-past eight.]
LORD GRANTCHESTER LORD GRANTCHESTER moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
Option for new lease for tenancy excluded from control under Rent Acts
" 11.—(1) The tenant of a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by the provision of subsection (1) of section ten of this Act who immediately prior to date on which the Act shall come into force shall have been in occupation of the premises comprised in such tenancy for a period of not less than two consecutive years and who shall be given notice to quit such premises within a period of two years after the date on which this Act shall come into force may at any time before such notice to quit takes effect serve a notice on the landlord requiring a new lease of such premises.
(2) Where such a notice as aforesaid is duly served the tenant shall be entitled to a new tenancy of the premises for such period not exceeding three years and on such terms as shall be agreed between the tenant and the landlord or in default of such agreement as the county court shall determine to be proper:
Provided that the rent fixed by the county court as the rent payable under the new tenancy shall be such rent as the county court shall determine to be the rent which a willing lessee would agree to give and a willing lessor would agree to accept for the premises having regard to the terms of the tenancy."
The noble Lord said: I hope that I should be one of the last to think the Government wrong in restoring freedom of contract between landlord and tenant as contemplated in Clause 10. Rather are the Government to be congratulated on their courage in tackling this problem. I believe it to be right to get rid of what is to some extent—probably more than many of us think—an artificially created shortage of accommodation, and I do not regard this Amendment as in any way in conflict with this principle of freedom. It is agreed by all in this House, I think, that a transitional period is required to allay unnecessary nervousness, and to avoid hardship and too much disturbance within too restricted a period. In the decontrolled houses sector, I think that the payment of a fair rent, and removal, or the giving of notice to quit, are two separate questions; and I feel that those two questions should be divided into two stages. First, get the rent right. If that is done, I think that in all the circumstances, recognising that a transitional period is unavoidable, landlords would not feel that the protection
714
given by this Amendment was entirely unreasonable. The Amendment which I am moving gives the option to a tenant who has been in premises for two consecutive years of a tenancy for a period not exceeding three years to tide over what might be a very awkward "general post," if too many notices to quit were given immediately. I think this Amendment would allay the fears of many tenants and so help the cause of freedom from control, which it is the aim of this Bill to achieve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Grantchester.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate entirely the spirit which has animated the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to move this Amendment, but I think I shall be able to convince him that there are considerable difficulties in its way. The Amendment would enable a tenant of a house decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), who had been a tenant for at least two years previously, whose tenancy was determinable by notice to quit and who was given notice to quit within two years after the time of decontrol, to claim a new tenancy. The terms of the tenancy would have to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, or, in default of agreement, settled by the county court. The term of the tenancy could be any period not exceeding three years, and the rent, if it had to be determined by the county court, would be what the court found to be the market rent for the premises. Your Lordships will have noticed that under paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Fourth Schedule the type of tenant with which the Amendment is concerned would be entitled to remain in possession of his dwelling-house for at least fifteen months at the rent he was paying immediately before the time of decontrol. If, in the interim, the parties agreed upon a new tenancy for at least three years, that tenancy would take effect at once, and the rent under it, which no doubt would be higher, would become payable.
Let us pause there to consider the difference between the Amendment and the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. The main difference is that the Amendment would give a decontrolled tenant of the class in question a right to a new tenancy, whereas the Fourth

715
Schedule merely enables him to agree upon a new tenancy with his landlord. Another difference is that in the case of the tenant protected toy the Fourth Schedule the rent has to be agreed between the landlord and the tenant, and there is no overriding limit, whereas under this Amendment the rent would be settled, in the last resort, by the court and would therefore be a controlled rent. There is also the difference that under the Fourth Schedule the tenant, if he can agree a new tenancy, can insist on a term of three years, whereas under the Amendment this is merely the maximum period which can be demanded.
There are two smaller and one larger objection to the Amendment. The first of the smaller objections is that the landlord may have good reasons for not wishing to grant a new tenancy to the decontrolled tenant. He may have been a thoroughly bad tenant. On the other hand, the landlord may want the premises for his own occupation or for the occupation of some member of his family. The second smaller objection, which is particularly my own, is that the Amendment would be likely to result in an excess of applications to the county courts, who would be in the difficulty of having this class of work put upon thorn, lasting for a relatively short period and then disappearing. The main objection, however, is, one of principle. If the Amendment were drafted in order to make its operation certain, it would substitute one form of control for another—the county court in place of the Rent Acts—and it would prolong control for three years or more, instead of, as the Bill does, bringing it to an end after fifteen months.
Then there is the general point, which I would ask my noble friend Lord Grantchester to consider, in view of what he said. His basic desire is to help towards freedom in this matter. We have considered what is going to help tenants to secure unfurnished accommodation, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that what is ultimately going to help them is the creation of a free market. A free market would carry with it all the advantages of bringing more accommodation into the letting market. The Government's objective, above all, is to stop the constant drain
716
of accommodation to let. The availability of this accommodation is shrinking all the time, for the reasons we have discussed, including those that make for over-accommodation at present. If this process is to be halted and reversed, we believe, and I think the noble Lord believes, that it can be done only by recreating a free market.
As I have stressed throughout my remarks, the decontrol provisions of the Bill are largely directed at the considerable amount of under-occupied accommodation existing in properties in the higher range of rateable values. In all the controversy we have had on the Bill, that point has never been seriously challenged. We find that it needs a free market to release all this under-occupied accommodation and bring it on offer for letting. I believe that if we were to put off effective decontrol for three years, as the Amendment proposes, it would postpone for that period the time when a free market can be created. To meet the anxieties of the noble Lord, which I fully realise, we have conceded the fifteen months' standstill period, and we believe that this is sufficient for new agreements to be negotiated and to bring new accommodation into the market. On the other hand, to postpone the operation of decontrol would be inimical to our major policy. I have tried to deal adequately and seriously with the important points raised by the noble Lord, and I hope that, in view of the difficulties that I have indicated, he will not press the Amendment.
8.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: We have listened with interest to the exposition of the new clause by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but I am bound to say, from this side of the Committee, that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, appeals to us and we come down on his side. I cannot understand why it is not possible to give this right, particularly that of going to the county court, to the tenants. The Lord Chancellor said that that would impose the court as the body to arbitrate, instead of the Rent Act. But, in fact, all business premises throughout the country now, by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, are in that position. At the end

717
of a lease of business premises, if there is no agreement between landlord and tenant, the tenant or the landlord can go to the county court and apply for a new lease, and the court, if it thinks fit, can give a lease of up to fourteen years, and assess the rent. That is the situation with regard to all business premises. I really cannot see why a modified form of such a provision—because that is all that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is proposing—cannot be imported into the Rent Acts.
I feel that this is the sort of case in which the Government could give way. That is why I call them doctrinaire. I think they are so much obsessed with this free market—which, in my view, in any case is largely a miasma; it does not really exist and will not exist in the way that they think—that anything which is thought by them to impinge upon the trademark cannot be considered, however desirable it is. I call that doctrinaire, but the Lord Chancellor does not agree. I feel it is doctrinaire if you are not prepared to be empirical; if you will not agree to an Amendment which does perhaps impinge on the theory, but which would help a large number of people if you agreed to it. We on this side do not want to take up time unduly, but we support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and hope that the Government will give way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I cannot take the line which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has suggested, for the reasons that I have given. I only want, in deference to his argument and because I was responsible in another place for the Landlord and Tenant Act, to point out to him that there we were dealing with the problem, which he will remember well from his professional work, set up by the original Act of 1927; that is to say, the immense technical difficulties that fell in the way of establishing a new lease. It was in the light of that background that I came to decisions and put forward the proposals in the Land lord and Tenant Act. I am not going to make a lawyers' holiday of this debate by going into the differences in detail, but I felt it was only due to the fair and proper argument advanced by the noble Lord that I should say that I think there are great and serious differences between the positions.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation. I admit that it is really a question of balance of advantage. I do not think the fixing of a rent by the county court should be called control quite in the sense in which he has used it. I think there is some fear on this point that a landlord may have good reason for refusing a new lease; but he has accepted a tenant, and the tenant may also have good grounds for expecting to be allowed to stay at a full and fair rent. I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I should like the noble and learned Viscount to look at paragraph 4 of the Fourth Schedule again, and see whether some little strengthening of that right of the tenant might not be desirable. May I withdraw the Amendment, and I will not move the consequential Amendment on Clause 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Premiums not to be charged for decontrolled tenancies
12.—(1) As respects grant, renewal, continuance or assignment at any time during the period of three years beginning with the commencement of this Act, a tenancy excluded from the application of the Rent Acts by the provisions of subsection (1) or (2) of section ten of this Act shall be treated as one to which section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, applies (which section prohibits the requiring of premiums on the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of tenancies to which the Rent Acts apply).
(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.
8.46 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, in subsection (1) to omit "three" and to insert "five" [years]. The noble Lord said: This Amendment to the clause extends the period within which premiums are not allowed to be charged for decontrolled tenancies from three years to five years. There is, of course, no virtue in any particular period—it may be two, three, four, five or six years, but we should prefer a longer period than three years.

719
We thought that three years is rather a short period, considering that there is bound to be, during the operation of what the Government optimistically call "the free market," a considerable amount of dislocation and hardship. Into that field, as we know, there will come the landlord who will try to get the maximum benefit that he can. I am not for a moment suggesting that all landlords are villains, because I know perfectly well that they are not: there are good and bad landlords. But there are some bad landlords and, unfortunately, the type of bad landlord we have in mind will undoubtedly try to take the utmost avantage of his rights under this Bill.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have been unfortunate enough to be without a residence in London in the last two or three years. If you have, and you have gone to the various agents in London—and I have no doubt that to a lesser extent the same applies to the larger towns in the country—you will find that enormous premiums are being charged for premises that are not rent controlled. It would be an interesting experience, if you have not had it, to go to any London estate agent and ask him for a list of unfurnished premises, and see the premiums that he or his principals will want for the letting of flats for a period. I have seen these lists, and I have a member of my family now who is in the unfortunate position of trying to get accommodation in London. As much as £8,000 is being asked as a premium. It is common for £4,000, £5,000 and £6,000 to be asked for premiums. They are not controlled tenancies—I am not talking about those—but uncontrolled, where what is called the "purchase of a short lease" may amount to many thousands of pounds. That is, in fact, a premium; it is the same thing called by another name. And very often you have to pay a heavy rent on top of that.
At other times the transaction is disguised by being termed "fixtures and fittings" which generally means a couple of dilapidated carpets, some tattered and frayed curtains, a few old chairs and a table. They are regarded as furnishings and the unfortunate tenant has to pay hundreds or thousands of pounds for such rubbish when a £5 note would probably
720
cover the lot, with a few shillings to spare. But that is the sort of thing which is happening now, and one is very much afraid that, as premises become decontrolled and available in the market, the unscrupulous landlord—I am not, of course, suggesting that they are all unscrupulous, by any means—may take advantage of the position and charge people heavily for the accommodation.
I am particularly sympathetic with the young people to-day. I should not have thought that there was ever in history a time when it was more difficult for young people to set up housekeeping than it is to-day. I do not think that this provision, unless there is some way in which we can limit the possibility of their being victimised, will help their case at all. I cannot see it. They will have great difficulties in getting accommodation in the future as at the present for some years to come, and they may well be charged large sums for vacant premises which have become decontrolled by reason of this Bill. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 41, leave out (" three ") and insert (" five ").—(Lord Ogmore.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The ban on premiums for three years which is mentioned in Clause 12 is intended, and indeed designed, to prevent landlords, when decontrol comes into operation, from requiring a premium for the renewal of tenancies to sitting tenants. At the same time, the clause prevents premiums from being charged to incoming tenants. This has been designed in such a way that it offers no incentive to a landlord to turn out a sitting tenant, from whom he could not obtain a premium, in favour of an incoming tenant from whom he could obtain a premium. The ban on premiums is related to a period of three years, which is the minimum period for a lease which, if agreed between the landlord and the tenant, breaks the standstill period of fifteen months after decontrol. By the end of three years after the coming into operation of the Bill a free market with reasonable rents, which we believe will not result in dislocation or hardship, should be restored for houses in the higher rateable value groups. The temporary safeguard of the ban should not be required. In those circumstances, my right honourable friend thinks it would

721
be undesirable to extend this period from three to five years. Accordingly, I would suggest to the Committee that we should keep the clause as it stands at present and not increase the period from three to five years.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next five Amendments which stand in my name on Clause 12 are all drafting. I beg to move the first.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, after (" by ") insert (" reason only of ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Amendment No. 20 is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after (" Act ") insert (" or of those provisions and of 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) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" Provided that this subsection shall not affect the assignment of a tenancy granted before the commencement of this Act and not renewed or continued thereafter, being a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section twelve of the Act of 1920 applies.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THL EARL OF MUNSTER: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 12, leave out (" subsections ") and insert (" subsection ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, leave out (" subsection (1) of this section ") and insert (" the foregoing subsection")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Minimum length of notice to quit]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROUGHSHANE: May I say a word on Clause 15, merely to ask that it be confirmed that this clause refers to notice given by tenant to landlord, as well as by landlord to tenant? I understand that this is the intention, and although the meaning of the clause is clear to the legal mind, I have reason to believe that it has not such clarity in lay circles. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government will consider whether a useful purpose might be served by using, for the sake of clarity, some such words as "on the part of the landlord or tenant".
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly look into that point and let him know in due course.
Clause 15 agreed to.
8.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
Provisions to facilitate exchange of controlled dwellings
".—(1) Where it is so agreed in writing between the tenant under a statutory tenancy of a dwelling and a person proposing to occupy that dwelling (hereinafter referred to as the ' incoming tenant '), the incoming tenant shall subject as hereinafter provided be deemed as from such date as may be specified in the agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ' date of exchange ') to be the tenant of the dwelling under that statutory tenancy; and the question whether the provisions of the Rent Acts as to the succession by the widow of a deceased tenant or by a member of his family to the right to retain possession are capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant shall be determined according as those provisions have or have not already had effect in relation to the statutory tenancy.
(2) An agreement under the foregoing subsection shall not have effect unless the landlord is a party thereto, and if the consent of any superior landlord would have been required to an assignment of the tenancy on the coming to an end of which the statutory tenancy arose the agreement shall not have effect unless the superior landlord is a party thereto.
(3) An agreement under subsection (1) of this section may provide that the provisions of the Rent Acts mentioned in that subsection shall be capable of having effect in the event of the death of the incoming tenant notwithstanding that they had effect in favour of the tenant to whom he succeeded.
(4) It shall be unlawful to require the payment of any pecuniary consideration for entering into an agreement under subsection (1) of this section; and—

(a) the amount of any payment made which under this subsection could not lawfully be required shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was made either by proceedings for its recovery or, if it was made to the landlord, by deduction from any rent payable by the said person to the landlord;

(b) a person requiring the payment of any consideration in contravention of this subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and the court by which he is convicted may order the amount of the payment to be repaid by the person to whom it was paid:

Provided that subsection (4) of section two of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949 (which allows an assignor to charge the assignee for apportioned outgoings, improvements, and goodwill) shall apply with the substitution for the reference to subsection (2) of that section of a reference to this subsection, and for references to the assignor, the assignee and the taking effect of the assignment of references to the tenant, the incoming tenant and the date of exchange."
The noble Earl said: This clause is of some importance. It gives effect to an undertaking which was given in another place by my right honourable friend that he would consider the possibility of providing for a voluntary but not compulsory exchange of tenancies. The new clause is not in terms a provision for the exchange of tenancies, though that is its principal object. It has a wider application, since it enables a statutory tenant to assign his statutory tenancy, with the consent of the landlord and, if necessary, of any superior landlord as well, to any other person. It would thus make possible an exchange not only between two statutory tenants but also between a statutory tenant and an owner-occupier who was willing to let his house if he could obtain in exchange a controlled tenancy. It would also enable an exchange to be made between a statutory tenant and a tenant of a local authority I or housing association, or, in fact, of a housing trust.
The reason why power to assign a statutory tenancy is all the clause provides for is that it is unnecessary to confer power on a controlled contractual tenant to assign his tenancy with consent, because his landlord can always consent, whatever the tenancy may provide, and
724
the incoming tenant will have the rights of a statutory tenant when the contractual tenancy comes to an end. The incoming tenant under this Amendment will step into the shoes of the outgoing tenant as regards succession to a statutory tenancy. If the outgoing tenant was the original statutory tenant, then the incoming tenant will be able to pass on to a successor the statutory tenancy. I think the Committee will be well aware that a statutory tenancy can be passed only once by succession; and if the outgoing tenant had himself succeeded to a statutory tenancy, then the incoming tenant would not be able to pass the tenancy on to a successor. The landlord could, however, agree to regard the incoming tenant as the first statutory tenant.
It will also be unlawful, under subsection (4) of my Amendment, for landlords or tenants to require a premium in connection with any of these transactions. There is, however, an exception in the proviso, following the precedent in the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949, to enable the outgoing tenant to charge the incoming tenant an appropriate amount for improvements or other items on which he has incurred a lawful expense. That is the purpose of the clause which, as I have said, is the result of an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. Although it may appear at first sight to be a somewhat complicated matter, I hope that I have explained it in such a manner that the Committee will be prepared to accept it. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
9.2 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to add to the proposed subsection (2):
" Provided that if the landlord or any superior landlord refuses to be a party to such agreement the tenant may apply to the county court and the court may make such order in relation to such application as it may in all the circumstances consider to be proper."
The noble Lord said: Broadly speaking, we accept the principle behind this new clause moved and clearly explained by the noble Earl. As he says, it was put down as the result of a promise made in another place. I am sure that our

725
Amendment will commend itself to the Committee, because it in facts stops a gap or loophole in the new clause. As the Committee will see, by subsection (2) the exchange of controlled dwellings, which is the object of this clause, can take place only provided the landlord, and the superior landlord, if there is one, agree to it. If either or both of them do not agree, however desirable it may be—even if one agrees and the other does not—then this transaction cannot take place. I believe I am expressing the position clearly and rightly.
Our Amendment is designed so that in such circumstances the tenant may apply to the county court, which will hear the case and, if it thinks it desirable, will make such order as it thinks proper. In other words, if there is obviously a case where there should be a transaction of this nature, where it is desirable that the exchange of dwellings should be facilitated, then a landlord who, for some other reason nothing to do with the merits of the transaction, does not want to agree, cannot hold the thing up. This may well be the case particularly with superior landlords. You may get a superior landlord who thinks, "I am not going to have a person I do not want or of that type in my house. I do not want a person with a certain background in my house, and I am not going to agree to it." He may take a completely illogical and improper view, but, however improper and illogical his view may be, there is nothing that the tenant, or the two tenants, and the other landlords can do—he can prevent the whole thing from coming into operation.
What is wrong with the county court? The county court has more and more jurisdiction put upon it. In this Bill it has many important tasks, and I, for one, would feel entirely confident about leaving a matter of this kind to the discretion of the county court judge. If he thinks, that the objection of the superior landlord or of the landlord is well founded, then, naturally, he will not overrule the decision of the landlord. On the other hand, if he thinks it is for the general benefit that the transaction should take place, he will make such order as he thinks fit to give effect to his views. I would commend my Amendment to your Lordships because I believe it stops up a gap in what is, on the whole, the
726
desirable new clause put down by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (2), insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ogmore.)
LORD GRANTCHESTER: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask whether this Amendment to the Amendment would operate only during the fifteen months' transitional period?
LORD OGMORE: It would operate during the period of the new clause itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be glad if, before making up his mind whether to press this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would consider certain matters. The Amendment would, as he says, enable a tenant to ask the county court to compel the landlord to consent to an assignment of his statutory tenancy, thus introducing an element of compulsion. The subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee which in 1953 produced a report on the general subject of exchanges of tenancies, stressed that, to be successful, exchanges must be arranged on a voluntary principle. It is quite true that the Minister was chairman of the sub-committee, but that body also included the chairman of the London County Council Housing Committee; and, in spite of the difference of political views on the sub-committee, its report was unanimous. It is therefore an important matter for consideration that the sub-committee stressed that, to be successful, exchanges must be arranged on a voluntary principle.
If we look at that a little further we shall observe that while at present a landlord cannot let his house free of control if the tenant leaves, he can at any rate decide who the new tenant should be. In practice—and this is one of the problems which we are facing by this Bill—since the landlord cannot let the house free of control he naturally tries to sell it. Under the Bill the landlord would normally be able to let a vacant house free of control and thus have an incentive to let rather than to sell. It appears quite reasonable to enable landlords to agree voluntarily to create what is in effect a new controlled tenancy to

727
facilitate exchanges; but if the Amendment to the Amendment were accepted the landlord could lose his choice as regards the new tenant. The two tenants wishing to exchange tenancies would ask the landlord to agree, and if he did not agree application could be made to the county court to compel him to accept the incoming tenant.
There is another important point. The noble Lord will remember that the Amendment moved in another place provided that this element of compulsion which it contained should not apply where the landlord was a local authority. This exclusion is not provided for in the present Amendment because the new clause does not apply to local authorities since their tenants are not statutory tenants. In considering this matter it is very relevant to know whether the sponsors of the Amendment would be prepared, as regards choice of tenants, to apply the same degree of compulsion upon local authorities as is provided for private landlords. This is an important point. If they are prepared to do that, I will consider it and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister. If they are not, I do not see how one can agree to an Amendment to force this compulsory exchange on to private landlords when it is not wanted for local authorities.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Would the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor consider a provision which appertains to many furnished tenancies, which is the inclusion of the words: "such consent not to be unreasonably withheld "? That would surely have some influence on the recalcitrant landlord, and he would hesitate before blocking a voluntary exchange for reasons of his own, because he would know that if he did so unreasonably the tenants would have recourse. I suggest that that is a half way course between the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and what is in the Bill. Would the noble and learned Viscount consider it?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I also feel that something might be done here. Perhaps, as the noble Viscount has said, this Amendment is too rigid and goes too far. But I think that, as the noble Lord has just said, something could be done to
728
prevent a really unreasonable landlord from stopping an arrangement which is in everyone's interest. There must be safeguards to see that a genuine landlord who does not want to let but wants premises for his own occupation or for his children has a reasonable chance of getting them. I hope that some sort of half way compromise can be found.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall be prepared to discuss with my right honourable friend the suggestions which have been put forward by both my noble friends, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Viscount Ridley. I have not got it clear in my own mind how this could be worked out, but I will certainly have a look at it.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord on the other side of the House. I think that they feel as we do, that there is a gap here and that it is not beyond the wit of all of us to devise a way to fill it in a way which will satisfy us. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will look at the matter between now and the Report stage, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps he could bring forward at the Report stage something on this point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have said, I will certainly look at this point, but I always like to make it clear that, when I say I am going to look at anything and an Amendment is thereupon withdrawn, I cannot give any promise. However, I will certainly look into this very carefully.
LORD OGMORE: The noble and learned Viscount will realise, of course, that if, after looking at it, he cannot do anything about this matter, we shall put an Amendment down again at the Report stage and, if necessary divide the House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Could the noble Lord help me about the local authority point?
LORD OGMORE: That is a completely different point and I am inclined to think that it is somewhat of a red herring. Local authorities are not concerned under this Bill at all. They do not deal with rent-restricted premises. The whole point about the clause, as I understand it, is that it provides for the

729
case of two premises which are rent-restricted and which are to remain so. It is merely a case of exchanging one tenant for another. Local authorities have absolutely nothing to do with this matter, so far as I can see. I think it is quite a subtle move on the part of the noble and learned Viscount, but it is one upon which we on this side of the House will not be drawn.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like to add a word here in connection with the position of local authorities. I have not carefully considered the point, but the implication of the word "compulsory" does not appeal to me in regard to this, though I know that situations often arise in which it would be very helpful if one could effect an exchange between a local authority owned house and some privately owned house. How that is to be embodied in this clause I do not know, but it would be helpful if it could be done.
LORD OGMORE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Jurisdiction of county court or sheriff and procedure]:
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 16. The noble Lord said: Rather than move the Amendment in my name, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a word or two on the Motion that this clause stand part.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: I confess that I am a little perturbed about this clause. I am told that it deals with machinery, and machinery for the implementation of this Bill is very necessary. What I fear is that this Bill is so complicated a measure that no layman, however well informed he may be, can possibly become master of its contents without advice. If it be true that we pride ourselves on the law being the same for the rich as for the poor, I feel that the very complication of this Bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, to give to the tenant we have in mind the protection and care which it is intended to give him in the Bill. The county courts, and equally the sheriff courts, are satisfactorily manned by men well able to deal with the provisions
730
of the Bill; but when one considers the position of the tenants who are concerned, when one has met them and seen the difficulties with which they are faced, even in smaller problems than this, I feel that the noble and learned Viscount might consider the desirability of including in this procedure, in some way or another, an extension of the rent tribunals which have worked so successfully in Scotland. There we have a body, not necessarily of legal members, to whom the harassed tenant can come and state his case, without incurring the expense and difficulty of putting up a legal argument, and obtain the advice he is seeking. He may not always be successful, but I think that he would feel much more confident in approaching a tribunal of that kind than he would in having to go through this complicated and expensive procedure.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has said, I think that it would be convenient if I first gave, to put on the record of your Lordships' House, a general sketch of the function of this clause, and then came to the Scottish position, of which the noble Lord has spoken. The clause gives to the county court, and to the sheriff in Scotland, jurisdiction to determine questions arising under the Bill. In this it follows the precedent of earlier rent control legislation, including Section 17 (2) of the 1920 Act. The clause goes further than this, however, inasmuch as it confers on the court and the sheriff general jurisdiction to determine any question on the application of the Rent Acts—and may I stress "application"?—the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, whether or not the question arises under the Bill. So far as the Acts of 1946 and 1943 are concerned, this is an entirely new jurisdiction. So far as the Rent Acts are concerned, this jurisdiction is new in so far as it enables the county court or the sheriff to determine any question as to the application summarily, and not merely in the course of other proceedings.
I now pass to the Scottish position, and, although I know my limitations in the matter, I am proud to be Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and, therefore, I assume this task with a modest

731
pride. The clause provides that in Scotland the sheriff shall determine questions arising under the Bill, or as to the application of the Rent Acts or the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. In England and Wales the county court will have the additional power to determine questions as to the rent limit under the Bill, or as to the rent actually recoverable, but this additional power is not necessary for Scotland.
The noble Lord has in mind the power given to the sheriff to determine questions as to the application of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943. Clause 16 does not take away any of the present duties of the rent tribunal; it merely gives the sheriff power to decide whether a rent tribunal has jurisdiction in any particular case. The clause is, in fact, a simplification of the present procedure, because if under present law a rent tribunal acted outside its powers, the decision could be brought under review only in the Court of Session in an action of reduction; and the new procedure would be, and ought to be, simpler and less expensive, since the sheriff will be able to decide on any question as to the tribunal's jurisdiction. Your Lordships may remember, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, I am sure, has it in mind, that there was an Amendment to delete the Scottish subsection (2) of the clause in another place, and that was withdrawn on my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General for Scotland giving an explanation of the position. If the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has not got that in mind, it might be useful for him to have the reference. It is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Standing Committee, February 27, columns 1043 to 1045.
On the more general question, whether the tribunals under the 1943 Act should not be given increased scope, for example to decide disputes about rent increases under the provisions of the Scottish 1954 Act and the Scottish clauses of this Bill, I have considered the matter with my right honourable and learned friends, because, as the noble Lord knows, Amendments on this point were moved in the Commons Standing Committee. The view I have formed, after consideration, is that such questions as arise on
732
the Scottish rent provisions are essentially legal questions. The sheriff has always been the accepted arbiter under the Rent Acts, including the Scottish 1954 Act, and a great deal of experience has accumulated from extensive litigation. Again, I have tried to put it shortly, but if the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, would like to consider that matter, he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons Standing Committee, February 7, columns 609 and 610. I think I have covered the point and I hope that that information will be useful to the noble Lord. I have not gone into the English provisions, but I can if necessary, and if he would like the English provisions and communicates with me, I should be pleased to give them to him. I thought it would be mainly the Scottish aspect he had in mind. At any rate, that would be useful for him to consider, so that he might form his view before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD GREENHILL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the trouble he has taken.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Rents of subsidised private houses
17.—(1) In so far as the conditions mentioned in any of the following enactments, that is to say,—

(a) section two of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act. 1924;

(b) section three of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. 1926;

(c) section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938;

(d) section twenty-three of the Housing Act. 1949;

(e) section three of the Housing Act, 1952,

relate to the rent to be charged in respect of any dwelling they shall limit that rent, and if imposed before the commencement of this Act shall have effect as if they limited that rent, to the amount of the rent limit; but if the conditions were imposed before the commencement of this Act and then limited the rent to an amount exceeding what would be the rent limit if ascertained under subsection (1) of section one of this Act, the rent limit shall be that amount, subject however to the provisions of subsection (2) of that section.
(3) Where any such condition as aforesaid limits the rent under a tenancy which is not a controlled tenancy then, subject to the next following subsection.—

(a) subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, in relation to that tenancy, as if for the reference to the amount of the rent limit

733
there were substituted a reference to the amount which would be the rent limit if the tenancy were a controlled tenancy; and

9.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1), after the first word "limit" to insert:
" or to such higher amount than the rent limit as the local authority may decide; "
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to try to find out precisely what the position is. It refers to houses which remain in control and houses which are known or called in this part of the Bill "subsidised private houses." I am concerned mainly here with those which have been the subject of improvements and improvement grants under the 1949 Act. It has been suggested to me that, as the clause is drafted, houses which are referred to do not have with them the provisions in Clause 5 which refer to increases in rent for improvements. That may be entirely wrong. I must say that I am doubtful if in fact they are controlled by this clause. I should have thought that this Amendment was redundant, and I would apologise to your Lordships for having moved it. I merely ask that question and formally move so that it can be answered.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 4, after (" limit ") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I take it that my noble friend would have no objection if I dealt with both his Amendments together?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should be grateful if I could move the second Amendment, because it is an entirely different point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I hope the answer I shall give the noble Viscount will satisfy him on both. Clause 17 enables the landlord of a house which has been provided or improved with the aid of a subsidy to increase the rent of that house to the Clause 1 (1) rent limit, notwithstanding the fact that the subsidy was granted on conditions limiting the rent to a lower figure. If the rent fixed under the subsidy conditions is higher than the rent limit of Clause 1, that higher figure remains applicable.
This Amendment would enable the local authority, when approving a house
734
for subsidy, to fix a higher figure than the Clause 1 rent limit. For practical purposes, the effect of the Amendment would be limited to improvement grants made after this Bill comes into force. As I think the noble Viscount is well aware, when making an improvement grant under the Housing Act, 1949, either for the improvement of an existing house or for the provision of a new dwelling by conversion of existing premises, the local authority is required to fix the rent. In future, after the passing of this Bill, if a house is improved with the aid of an improvement grant, the rent will be the normal rent limit (for instance, twice the gross value) plus the 8 per cent. of the cost of the improvement borne by the landlord—that is to say, the part which is not borne by the improvement grant. If a landlord obtains an improvement grant to convert a house into flats, then the rent of each of the flats will be limited to twice the gross value which is given to the flat. I believe it is true to say that in recent years a number of local authorities have, when making improvement grants, fixed rents for flats produced by conversion which are above twice the gross value. On the other hand, other local authorities have fixed them below this level. The Bill is based on the view that twice the gross value is the general fair level of rent. It should, therefore, apply where new dwellings are produced by conversion with the aid of grant, and the landlord has to accept some limitation of rent as a condition of receiving a grant.
It must also be remembered that the landlord will get not merely the rent of twice the gross value but also the benefit of having probably half the cost of conversion paid for by an outright grant. I am aware—and I am sure that my noble friend is, too—that it could quite easily be argued that some local authorities would be prepared to allow the landlords more than this, and that they should be entitled to do so. But it could equally be argued that those local authorities who would like to give the landlord a lesser return should equally be entitled to do so. What we have tried to do here, then, is to steer something like a middle course between these two possibilities, by fixing the rent limit for new dwellings produced by conversion on the same basis as that for all other controlled dwellings. The noble Viscount has, as I said, raised an

735
important point, and I hope that the somewhat lengthy answer which I have given him will meet his inquiries.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: The noble Earl has exactly the point on the first Amendment. What we wanted to be sure of was that in the wording Clause 5 would operate in the case of houses which had received improvement grants after the passing of the Bill. The noble Earl has told me that that is so. That is important because one of the things about this Bill is that it should lead to and encourage improvement wherever possible. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (3) (a) after "controlled tenancy" to insert:
" or to such higher amount than the rent limit as the local authority may decide, as the case may be; "
The noble Viscount said: This is a rather different matter. The intention of this Amendment is to see that houses which are not subject to control are looked after in the same way. Houses which have come out of control, as I understand it, are dealt with in subsection (3) (a). I think that rents fixed before the passing of this Bill will provide that whatever return is fair to the landlord for improvements done under the 1949 Act is incorporated in the rent. But what will be the position of those houses which are outside control? I take it that this paragraph brings them in again, at least partially. When they are brought in in this way, will Clause 5 apply, or will it mean that supposing the owner of a house goes to a local authority and applies for an improvement grant and gets it, his rent is therefore fixed at twice the gross value of the house without any reference to the expenditure he has incurred on the house?
May I leave out for the moment the more complicated question of a house divided into two, but take a similar case of a straight improvement to a house. If this house had been within the Rent Restrictions Acts, I take it that Clause 5 would apply, and the landlord would be entitled to add to the rent 8 per cent. in respect of the cost of the improvement he has done. But as these houses are, I
736
assume, out of control, will Clause 5 apply to them, or does it mean that the owner will get no increase of rent after doing the improvements? That, clearly, would be a mistake, because to encourage people to do improvements to these older houses is one of the important things, and one of the means whereby the purpose of the Bill—which I take to be to prevent many older houses going out of repair and becoming obsolete and useless to the country as a whole—can be achieved. In the case of the houses to which I have referred, supposing Clause 5 does not apply, I imagine the increase of rent which the landlord might get would be due to the increase in the gross value of the property after the improvement. But if that is so, and if that is thought to be satisfactory, why is it that Clause 5 appears in the Bill at all? In the case of controlled houses, if it is right to use the criterion of increase of rateable value due to improvements, surely it is equally right to use it in the case of uncontrolled houses. I want to achieve here the position whereby the owner is not discouraged from improving his house with a grant by the fact that he cannot get what he thinks is a reasonable rent, and particularly related to what happens under Clause 5, which we have already passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 21, after (" tenancy ") insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think, at least I hope, that I can set the noble Viscount's mind at rest in a very few words. This Amendment deals with almost precisely the same point as the previous one. The only difference is that the second Amendment applies only to decontrolled houses, because subsection (3) (a) of the clause deals only with decontrolled houses. The earlier Amendment applied to controlled houses, but in point of fact Clause 5 of the Bill applies to subsection (3) in the same way as it does to his previous Amendment, No. 27.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am puzzled by this. If a house is out of control Clause 5 cannot apply to it, can it? Is it brought in here by this subsection (3) (a)? It seems to me that is a contradiction. I do not know the correct legal form, but as soon as the house becomes decontrolled

737
it is decontrolled, and Clause 5 does not apply. Here you are saying that if a landlord gets a grant from the local authority and improves his property it is not put back under control so that Clause 5 applies, but is controlled in a different way.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I do not know the legal complications of this. All I know is that Clause 5 does apply to this subsection (3).
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It is beyond me, but I hope that perhaps the point can be looked into before Report stage. I think the noble Earl has the same intention that I have, and what he has said is what I want to see; but it is difficult for a layman to understand how it can be so. Perhaps he would look into it, and we might have some discussion on the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
9.39 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:
" . The provisions of this Act permitting increases of rent shall apply to rental compensation payable in respect of requisitioned dwellings other than those to which section nineteen of this Act applies."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. With the Bill as drafted the owners of requisitioned premises who have not elected to accept the licensee as a statutory tenant under the Act of 1955 are not at present entitled to the benefits of Clause 1 of this Bill. There seems no good reason why this should be. In many cases the rent received by such owners of requisitioned premises is considerably less than the four-thirds of the gross value to which they would be entitled under the terms of my Amendment. I can see no reason why the owner of requisitioned premises who has elected to take the vacant possession of his property, instead of accepting the licensee as a statutory tenant forthwith, should be denied the benefits of Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend who has moved this Amendment has done it, presumably, to enable the owners of dwellings held under requisition to obtain an increase in their rental compensation comparable with that obtainable by landlords of controlled dwellings. I well remember introducing into this House the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act, 1955, to which the noble Lord refers, and he will remember that that Act provided for the transfer to local authorities of dwellings which were held under requisition. Under Section 4 of the Act, owners: of these requisitioned properties have been invited to accept the local authority's licensees as statutory tenants. If they do so, they receive a capital sum as compensation for loss of vacant possession value. In addition, owners who have accepted, or will accept in the future, the licensees as statutory tenants will be able to get the rent increases given to other landlords by the Bill. Their houses will, however, not be decontrolled, unless the tenant leaves before 1965.
Owners whose houses are under requisition, because they have not taken advantage of or may have refused this invitation to take over the licensees as statutory tenants, should not complain. Generally, such landlords who have refused offers in the past may now expect to have a further opportunity to accept them and so get the benefit of the provisions in the Bill. My right honourable friend certainly hopes that landlords will accept such offers. There will, in all probability, remain some landlords who will not be given this invitation. Generally, this will be because their houses are in a slum clearance area or are due otherwise soon to be pulled down. Here also my right honourable friend does not think there is reason for increasing the compensation payable. As regards the minority of landlords who will not have the opportunity of getting the higher rent and the compensation, my right honourable friend again does not feel that an increase in rental compensation out of public funds is justified for four reasons, which I think I must repeat to the Committee.
First, the landlords of these houses incur no expenditure in respect of them. The local authorities, with the aid of subsidy,

739
alone incur expenditure in their maintenance and repair. The position of these landlords, therefore, is not at all comparable with that of landlords who get rent increases under the Bill, which will help them to pay for repairs or the other expenses of maintaining a house. Secondly, these houses to which the noble Lord has referred must be handed back in 1960, unless the local authority arrange to lease or purchase them. When the houses are handed back, the owners will be able to let them on uncontrolled rents, or sell them if they wish. Thirdly, many of these houses will not, in fact, be held right up to 1960; I understand that a considerable proportion will have been returned to owners in the next year or so. Fourthly, there can be no question of serious hardship in these cases, since the Act of 1955 provides specially for the owner of any requisitioned house who can show that he would suffer severe hardship unless enabled either to obtain vacant possession or to dispose of his interest in it, to ask my right honourable friend to direct the local authority to release it to him or to offer to purchase it from him direct. I have dealt at some length with certainly a rather complicated point, I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with my observations.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am not only not satisfied, but I am a little confused by the extent of the information that I have been given on this matter, and I should like an opportunity of studying it after I have read Hansard. Is the noble and learned Viscount right in saying that owners of premises who have no responsibilities for repairs of any kind are denied any benefits under Clause 1? My recollection is that an owner of premises who has no responsibility for repairs is entitled to a rent equivalent of four-thirds of the gross value. I understood that the noble and learned Viscount, in addressing me, gave that as one of the reasons why he did not feel, in the circumstances which I adumbrated, he could give the owner of requisitioned premises what I asked for. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would allow me to read what he has said and to defer the matter to the next stage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Concurrence of superior landlords to agreements as to 1956 gross value and rateable value]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 6, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" the provisions of this Act relating to controlled tenancies and to the application of the Rent Acts ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
"improvement" includes structural alteration, extension or addition and the provision of additional fixtures or fittings, but does not include anything done by way of decoration or repair;
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in the definition of "improvement," after "fittings" to insert, "and the making up of the road". The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I attach no importance to the wording of the Amendment, or to its position in the Bill, but if the idea behind it is sound perhaps Her Majesty's Government might care to look at the matter between now and the Report stage. I have never been able to understand why a landlord could not regard as an improvement money he has spent in causing the road outside his property to be made up. Many landlords have to spend considerable sums of money, under the Private Street Works Act, 1892, in having the road opposite their premises made up to the required standard. I believe I am right in saying that under the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, a landlord is entitled to consider such expenditure as part of the amount which he has to expend in order to take advantage of the provisions of that Act, yet so far as the Rent Acts are concerned, money spent on making up the road immediately outside the premises is not regarded as having been spent on an improvement. For that reason I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 44, after (" fittings ") insert the said words.—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The advice which has been given me is that normally

741
a tenancy of a house includes the road up to the line down the middle of the road, and therefore improvement work done on the road might reasonably be regarded as work done "in a dwelling." The advice which I am given is that we intended by this particular clause to repeat the existing law back to 1920. That is certainly our intention. I should like to consider the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in introducing his Amendment, and to discuss the matter again with my advisers; and if the matter is not clear, I will put down an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD MESTON: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his observations. I speak subject to correction, but I believe there have been definite decisions that money spent by a landlord on road improvement outside demised premises are not improvements in respect of which he is entitled to an 8 per cent. increase under the Rent Act. 1920. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for saying he will look into this matter again, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.49 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, to add to subsection (1):
" ' services ' shall include (in addition to the matters set out in subsection (1) of section twelve of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946) the maintenance of a lift, the cleansing and lighting of the common parts of a dwelling and its precincts and facilities for the removal of refuse."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954—the last Rent Bill to come before your Lordships' House—included no definition of the word "services", and, as a result, an enormous amount of time and money has been spent by the public and officials in arguing what does and what does not constitute "services". I have no doubt that the definition which I have put forward can be amplified and improved, and I hope that it will be. But if subsection 1 (b) of Clause 1 of this Bill is to be made at all workable without overwhelming the county courts, I think some definition of the word "services" is absolutely necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The problem which my noble friend has adumbrated has given us a lot of thought, but we have come to a different conclusion. I think it would be convenient if I stated why my noble friend might be good enough to consider our thoughts, and then perhaps we could have a word about it if he still so desires. I anticipated that the Amendment would be based on the suggestion that a definition of "services" is necessary because difficulties have been experienced from the absence of a definition for the purposes of Section 40 of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, but the Department who advise me in this matter have no knowledge that any such difficulties have been experienced.
If I might, I would remind my noble friend of the statutory history of this matter. He will remember that the word "services" was defined by Section 12 of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. 1946, as including
" attendance, the provision of heating or lighting, supplies of hot water, and any other privilege or facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house, not being a privilege or facility requisite for the purposes of access, cold water supply or sanitary accommodation."
I do not suppose that my noble friend would, on consideration, think that that was the most elegant of definitions that had been put into a Statute. But that was how it went. Then, when the Act: of 1954 was being drafted, this definition was deliberately not applied, because it is not a comprehensive definition but proceeds by way of inclusion and exclusion, thus leaving arguable the question whether any particular privilege or facility not mentioned in the definition is, or is not, a service. As my noble friend may, or may not, know—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will agree with me—one of the great difficulties that stand in unwritten letters over every lawyer's room is " Inclusio unius exclusio alterius ". That is one of the difficulties when you include something: that always there is a doubt as to whether you have not excluded something else. In that case, the definition excluded lifts, which are one of the most important services provided by landlords. It was therefore decided to leave the term "services" undefined and thus so general as to allow of agreements between landlords and tenants as to what any reasonable man

743
would regard as services provided for the tenant.
I think we get some support for this from the case of The Queen v. Paddington Rent Tribunal, ex parte Perry, because the courts have shown that there is no difficulty about giving the term "services" for the purposes of Section 40 of the Act of 1954 a wide and general connotation. My noble friend may or may not have been told, but it is a fact that in his judgment in that case the Lord Chief Justice said that there was no doubt that the following were services: lighting and heating of lounge, hall, passages and staircases, the maintenance of lifts, the cleaning of common parts and the provision of floor coverings for common parts. This decision is equally applicable for the interpretation of the term as used without definition in this Bill. My noble friend will see that when he considers Clauses 1 and 4.
What the Amendment does is to include in the definition of "services" in the Act of 1946 which it imports, some of the items expressly excluded by that definition—for example, lifts,—and some, but not all, of the items which have already been held in the Paddington Rent Tribunal case to be services—for example, the provision of floor coverings for common parts is not included. The very fact that my noble friend had to put forward the definition in that way illustrates the difficulty of trying to build up a definition by way of listing items to be included and excluded respectively, when one is dealing with a situation in which a comprehensive definition is not practicable. The conclusion we have come to is that the position can more safely be left as it is, with the assistance of the decision on the Paddington Rent Tribunal case and particularly the inferences to be drawn from it. So that I hope my noble friend will appreciate that his attempt, which I am sure is prima facie non possimus, is essentially beneficial for the point he has put forward and we will reconsider it on those lines.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I cannot pretend that I have followed every word that the noble and learned Viscount has spoken. I hold no pride of authorship in the definition I have put forward. The only point I wish to make is (I cannot
744
follow in the Latin in which he said it and would put it a little more simply) that "half a loaf is better than no bread." I should like to see some definition, however exclusive or inclusive it may be. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment and possibly, if I may, I will return to the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
First Schedule:
Adjustment of rent in respect of repairs
4.—(1) If, on the expiration of six weeks from the service of a notice under the last foregoing paragraph, any of the defects specified in the notice remain unremedied, then unless the landlord has given 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 tenant may in the prescribed form apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 26, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 4 (1), to leave out all words from "unremedied" down to and including "sufficient". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent any unnecessary or unreasonable delay in urgent repairs that may be required for controlled dwellings. I think that delay may be caused by the procedure set out in this part of the Bill, which could be extremely dilatory. I do not say that it would be dilatory if a good and conscientious landlord were using it, but it could be if the landlord were not a good and conscientious person, and it permits sufficient delay for serious damage to occur to a controlled dwelling before the landlord comes under a legal obligation to do the repair needed for a structural defect.
May I ask your Lordships to look at the procedure envisaged in this Schedule? First of all, the tenant, who has noticed some defect in the structure of his house or flat—say, a hole in the roof, or something less serious—serves on his landlord

745
a notice stating the defect he wants put right. Then if, six weeks after the serving of the notice, the landlord has done nothing to remedy the defect, the tenant can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. But—and this is the point of the Amendment—he will not even then get the certificate of disrepair if the landlord gives a written undertaking that he will do the work. I cannot see why this written undertaking should be included—it is not the start of the work, but merely a written undertaking to do the work—and my Amendment proposes to omit it.
Surely the tenant should get his certificate of disrepair if his landlord has failed to start the work within a reasonable period of time, say, six weeks, from the time of receiving the original notice. After all, if the defect is a serious one, such as a hole in the roof, great damage may be caused if the work is not begun fairly quickly, especially if that defect should arise during a typical period of our British summer. If the landlord has not given his written undertaking, as it is proposed he should under the Schedule, the tenant still fails to get his certificate of disrepair after six weeks. The local authority, after the tenant has applied for the certificate, has first to notify the landlord that it proposes to issue a certificate of disrepair. That is the next step. Then, after the local authority has notified the landlord, three further weeks pass; and if in that period of time the landlord has done nothing in the way of repair the local authority will issue the certificate of disrepair.
But even that is not the end of it. The landlord then has another six months in which to comply with the terms of the certificate. This means, in all, that the repair work may not be started until eight months have passed since the unfortunate tenant served his original notice on the landlord. Surely, this is unreasonable and opens the way to abuse. I am not saying that a good and reasonable landlord would take advantage of this procedure—I am sure he would not—but the wrong sort of landlord might. I feel that the Government should find some means of protecting the tenant, in the sense that he should be able to get the repair work done within a reasonable time from the original notification to the
746
landlord of what is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 7, leave out from (" unremedied ") to end of line 9.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
10.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Earl, in explaining the purpose of his Amendment, has dealt accurately with the disrepair machinery contained in this Schedule to the Bill, but if I were to accept this Amendment it would mean that the landlord would have to carry out repairs within a period of six weeks; and that, if he did not do so, the tenant would be able to go to the local authority and ask them to give him a certificate of disrepair. The noble Earl will be as well aware as I am that there can be only a small number of cases where it would be physically possible for a landlord to inspect his property to see what required to be done, then find a builder and see that he did the work all within a period of six weeks.
I think that if my noble friend will consider this matter again, he will agree with me that such a proposition is really not feasible. It will not be possible to get the landlord to remedy the defects within a period of six weeks, and I think it is essential, without going into this matter in any great detail, to give the landlord an opportunity of undertaking to carry out the repairs within the six months' period, such as the noble Lord described. But, whatever else we do, let us leave these words in, and not decide that a landlord should carry out repairs in a period of six weeks.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl realises that the certificate of disrepair cannot be given except with the consent of the local authority. Surely, one can credit local authorities and their officers with a certain amount of common sense and reasonableness in dealing with these matters. The noble Earl, I noticed, has not offered an opinion on my noble friend's main point, which was that, under this machinery, it is possible for eight months to pass before work is started on a repair sufficiently serious for the tenant to consider it worth asking for a certificate. I think the Government ought to say whether they think it is adequate protection for tenants in the matter of repairs.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I am sorry if I do not quite understand the full technicalities of this provision, but it seems to me that on the practical side of it the noble Earl's reply fell short of what was required. In fact, it might be described as rather perfunctory. The tenants would not, in the normal course of events, serve a notice if there had not been previous communication between tenant and landlord on the subject of repair. In the normal way, I think it is true to say that a notice would not be served until the tenant had exhausted every other possibility of getting the repairs done. In that situation, why should there be this special pleading by the noble Earl about the landlord's not being able to do it in six weeks? The situation I am dealing with is the situation where a recalcitrant landlord, having had ample notice, and having had ample opportunity to do the repair, has failed to do it. Why this undue sympathy for him and not for the tenant? I suggest that if a landlord puts himself in that position, it should not be the purpose of the Bill to give him further protection in being a bad landlord, which is what it amounts to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If the noble Lord had really read and understood the Bill, he would not have made a speech such as he has. I hoped we might be able to cut the discussion on this Amendment somewhat short by explaining what I think was clear to nine-tenths of the noble Lords in this House, that it was not possible. In fact, it would be a physical impossibility to get the landlord to repair his premises within six weeks. If he did not do so, then the tenant could go to the local authority to ask them to give him a certificate of disrepair. As the noble Lord is anxious for this to be discussed at length, let me see whether I can explain it in much more detail.
The disrepair machinery, which is set out in Part II of the First Schedule, enables a tenant to serve on the landlord a notice stating that the dwelling is in disrepair by reason of defects specified by the tenant in the notice, and requesting the landlord to remedy these defects. The landlord then has six weeks in which to remedy the defects or to give an undertaking that he will do so, or such of them as the tenant may agree in writing to accept as sufficient. The landlord then
748
has six months in which to carry out this undertaking. If the landlord neither carries out the necessary repairs nor gives an undertaking to do so, then the tenant can apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. If a certificate is granted, then the tenant can abate the rent. If we should leave out these words which the noble Lord seeks to exclude, there would obviously be a large number of applications to local authorities for certificates of disrepair, and in all probability the great majority of them would be quite unnecessary since the landlord would be willing to give an undertaking to remedy the defects if only he were given an opportunity to do so.
The object which my right honourable friend had in his mind, which seems to me to be an admirable one, was to get as many of these defects remedied by agreement between the landlord and the tenant without the tenant having to apply to the local authority for a certificate of disrepair. If in every case where the landlord is unable to carry out the repairs within a period of six weeks the tenant has to go to the local authority for a certificate, the local authorities will be swamped by the applications which they will receive from the tenants—so far as I can see, many unnecessary applications. Moreover, the local authority in this case will have to spend so much time in inspecting the houses and dealing with the unnecessary applications that dealing with the cases of bad landlords will be very much delayed, to the detriment of the tenant of the particular house. I feel sure that if the noble Lord will consider again this Amendment, he will realise that it is really necessary to give the landlord some opportunity and some time to remedy the defects which may be found in any houses of which he is the owner.
10.11 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I started by saying that I did not claim fully to understand the technicalities, but I think I did understand the main purpose of the clause just as well as the nine-tenths of the Members of your Lordships' House to whom the noble Earl has referred. His reply has not convinced me to the contrary. He has not really met the substance; he has only met the technicalities. The assumption on which he is

749
arguing is that the serving of the notice by the tenant is the first stage in this procedure. I suggest to him that, in fact, that is the last stage in the attempt of the tenant to get repairs done, and that if the landlord were as willing as the noble Earl suggests, he would not need the six months which is provided here; that, in effect, what the noble Earl is doing in this clause is to put a premium on delay up to that additional six months and that, in fact, the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Listowel, is amply justified.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Looking closely at my Amendment, I must say that I was not very happy about the wording and felt inclined to say something much ruder about it than would have been said by the noble Earl opposite. On the other hand, I felt most dissatisfied by the noble Earl's reply. I could not help agreeing warmly with what my noble friend Lord Archibald said when he pointed out that the noble Earl was really paying more attention to the technicalities of the Amendment than to the substance of the case I have made.
The point is this, if I may repeat it briefly. Of course, we all should like the repairs to be done by agreement between the tenant and the landlord, without recourse to notices, certificates of disrepair and all the legal paraphernalia which are necessary if such agreement is not obtained; but we have to consider cases in which this agreement is not possible, in such cases, it seems extremely undesirable that as long a period as eight months should elapse before a landlord has to start the work of repair that may be required for a particular dwelling.
All I am asking the noble Earl to do is to try to cut down the period. Why not make it three or four months, instead of eight months? It seems to me that the period occupied by these various stages of procedure is in itself too long. I am not maintaining for a moment that the work can be done in three or four weeks, but I think it ought at any rate to be started, and that there ought to be a legal obligation to start it if no agreement is reached within a few months from the time the tenant notifies the landlord of the repair required. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I regret
750
very much that the noble Earl has not been more helpful about the substance of the case I have put.
EARL BATHURST: Does the noble Lord opposite realise that many of the small landlords are old-age pensioners, who have coming in, perhaps, only the rent of one cottage next door to the one in which they live? It is difficult enough to find the money to do an extensive roof repair, for example, in the six months specified. I should think the longer the time the landlord has to do the repair compulsorily, the better the landlord will be. Some of these small landlords are in a very bad way indeed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON moved, in paragraph 5 (c) to leave out
", or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority,".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The position is that the local authorities shall not issue a certificate of disrepair until the expiration of three weeks after giving a certain notice, and if within the said three weeks the landlord gives an undertaking to remedy those defects and serves a copy of the undertaking on the local authority the authority shall not issue a certificate. Then there is the proviso that where
" 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 un-remedied on the expiration of six months "…
" the local authority may refuse to accept the undertaking and may issue a certificate of disrepair."
I am not trying to defend bad landlords in any way whatsoever, but I am desirous of excluding the words "or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority." It occurs to me that if a landlord has not carried out his undertaking in respect of some other dwelling, that is to say some dwelling other than the dwelling which is for the moment under consideration, it is going too far to penalise him in this way. He may have some perfectly good defence or some reason why he has not been able to carry out his undertaking in respect of some other dwelling in the same area, and therefore I respectfully suggest that the words which I have indicated in the Amendment should be excluded in order

751
that the landlord should not be unreasonably penalised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 19, leave out (", or any other dwelling in the area of the local authority,").—(Lord Meston.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The proviso to paragraph 5 of this Schedule provides that in any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) the local authority may refuse to accept an undertaking from the landlord, and the proviso is aimed at landlords who have shown themselves to be unreliable. One of the tests of unreliability is that the landlord had previously given an undertaking under this Schedule in respect of the house in question, or any other house which he may own situated in the local authority's area, and had not carried out the undertaking within the statutory period of six months.
The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to omit the reference to any other house, so that the landlord is to be deemed unreliable only if he fails to carry out the undertaking in respect of the one particular house. My right honourable friend does not feel he could accept this. For instance, a landlord may own a row of houses and the local authority will know that he has given an undertaking which he has not honoured in respect of, say, the house next door, and therefore they must have discretion not to accept his undertaking in respect of the house now in question. I hope the noble Lord will accept my right honourable friend's view that, in all the circumstances, it would be better to leave this matter with the local authority, who ought to be in the position to know whether or not a particular landlord who owns a variety of premises within the local authority area is reliable.
LORD MESTON: I had an idea at the back of my mind that the noble Earl would not accept my Amendment. I thank him for his courteous reply, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is consequential on the substitution in another place for the original provision of a new paragraph 7 (4) of this Schedule in the form in which it now appears in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 17, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
" 9.—(1) If a certificate of disrepair is issued to the tenant of a dwelling, and the dwelling, or any part thereof which is in disrepair by reason of defects specified in the certificate, is subject to a sub-tenancy, being a controlled tenancy, then unless a certificate of disrepair in respect of those defects has been issued to the sub-tenant the same consequences shall follow as between the tenant and the subtenant as if a certificate of disrepair had been issued to the sub-tenant when the certificate was issued to the tenant, had specified the same defects as the certificate issued to the tenant, had been issued on an application made by the sub-tenant when the tenant applied for the certificate issued to him, and had continued in force for the same period as that certificate.
(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph has effect as between the landlord and the tenant, the foregoing sub-paragraph shall have effect accordingly between the tenant and the sub-tenant.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph shall prejudice the power of the sub-tenant to obtain a certificate of disrepair or the effect of any undertaking given to the sub-tenant."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether the First Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I desire to raise a point or two in order to obtain some explanation from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I am not at all clear, in regard to this Schedule, when the abatement of rent begins in the event of the landlord not carrying out the repairs in respect of which a certificate is in force. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us that information. It is not at all clear. It appears in paragraph 7, which is headed
" Abatement of rent where certificate issued or undertaking not carried out."
Does the abatement date back to the date of the application for a certificate of disrepair, or does it begin at the end of the six months in the event of the landlord not having carried out the repairs, or what is the position?
Then, further, I ask, more or less on the same point: whether there will still remain in force the existing law, which in

753
my recollection provides for a tenant to be enabled to apply to the local sanitary authority and obtain a certificate whereby he can withhold rent if he obtains a certificate that the premises are not in a habitable state of repair; or does this Schedule or this Bill, when it becomes an Act, do away with that existing right on the part of tenants? Of course, if that law still remains in force it will presumably be possible for a tenant whose house was certified not to be in a habitable stale of repair, to withhold rent and not to await the passing of the period set out in this Schedule. I should be grateful for information on those two points which seem somewhat material to the Schedule.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think the answer to the noble Lord's question on the abatement of rent is that it will operate from the date when the certificate is issued and back: to the date when the application is made, or to the date when the undertaking was given. In regard to the noble Lord's question concerning the sanitary authority, I must ask him to let me have notice of that question.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am obliged to the noble Earl. Perhaps he will let me know what is the answer on the second point.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not quite clear about the noble Earl's reply on the first point. Does the abatement of the rent go back to the date when the certificate of disrepair is issued by the local authority, or does it go back to an earlier date? The noble Earl mentioned the undertaking given by the landlord to do the repairs. I am not sure whether he also mentioned the notice given by the tenant that the repair was required. These things are different in point of time, and I believe my noble friend would like to know at what point in time the landlord becomes liable for an abatement of rent.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a very complicated Schedule and I should like notice of that question; but I understand it dates back to the date of the application. I should like to check that matter and let the noble Lord know about it at a later stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should be much obliged if the noble Earl could make a report on the Schedule at the
754
Report stage of the Bill, as I do not think any of us are clear on this matter, which is of considerable importance, in view of the long period of delay admitted by the procedure laid down in the Schedule.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It has been suggested that in paragraph 5 of the Schedule the term "landlord" is capable of misinterpretation because of the definition in the Act of 1920, and that the present landlord, who may be perfectly innocent of the past misdemeanours of another person—his predecessor in title—might be liable to be caught under these two subsections, although that is not the intention. It is only a matter of interpretation, but we should like to have full information on that point.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly look into that point although we had not heard of there being put on subsections (c) and (d) the interpretation of "landlord" made by my noble friend.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not myself wish to put that interpretation upon it. It is a legal point going back to the Act of 1920, but perhaps it needs clarifying.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to ask a question on the Motion that the Schedule shall be agreed to. This is a fairly complicated Schedule. Although these various formulæ are admittedly arbitrary, I understand that their object is to lay down how far the landlord can be the judge in certain varying circumstances, with the object of avoiding, as far as possible, unnecessary legislation. As a layman, I believe that that is a very good principle, although it does not always succeed in its object. It has been represented to me, however, and indeed it is obvious, that although we have these different formulæ—two-thirds, four-thirds, five-thirds, and seven-thirds—there will still be a number of cases not covered by them which will still have to be settled by the courts. It seems to my lay mind a somewhat untidy arrangement and I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that there cannot be wording which is at the same time simpler and more comprehensive. I shall have to accept what my noble friend says, for I am quite incapable of suggesting any improvement on such a technical matter.

755
Nevertheless the whole effect of this seems very complicated and I am hoping that it can be simplified.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to the point raised by my noble friend, Lord Ridley, it has been suggested to me that should there be any doubt about this paragraph meaning what we all hope it means, the matter could be made clear beyond a doubt by the insertion, in line 30, after the word "undertaking" of the words "of such landlord."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might revert to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ridley and taken up by my noble friend Lord Conesford, I ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the purpose of paragraph 5 (c) of the First Schedule. I think your Lordships will agree that this paragraph picks out certain types of landlord from whom the local authority have discretion in refusing to accept an undertaking to carry out works when a case has reached the stage at which a tenant has applied for a certificate of disrepair. It does this by reference to a landlord's default under other Acts requiring repairs to houses, or a default under this Bill in carrying out an undertaking to do work on a dwelling in the local authority's district; and also, to the fact that a certificate of disrepair has been issued against him in respect of the particular dwelling under consideration.
My noble friend Lord Ridley asks that it should be made clear that the reference to "landlord" would not apply to a new landlord of a house when his predecessor had defaulted. My right honourable friend is advised on this that the provision is open only to the construction which Lord Ridley wants. That is, the reference to "landlords" could apply only to the landlord for the time being at the time when the local authority are considering the landlord's application to give an undertaking. However, I yield to no one in my admiration for the ingenuity of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I will look at his suggestion and ask my right honourable friend to consider it. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that Lord Ridley's worries are ended and that we can negative them even more conclusively.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, he was good
756
enough to give me notice of it, and also to send me some Amendments which he had considered putting down. Again, I hope it may help him in the difficulty if I say one or two words on the general position. The basic rent limit provided for in this Bill, apart from the cost of rates and services, is a multiple of gross value. The multiples specified are 1⅓ if the tenant is responsible for all repairs: 1⅔ if he is responsible for all repairs except internal decoration; 2 if the landlord is responsible for all except internal decorations and 2⅓ if the landlord is responsible for everything. If, in any particular case, the respective responsibilities are different from any of these, the appropriate factor is to be settled by agreement or, failing agreement, by the court.
The proposal in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, would give intermediate factors at 26/15ths if the tenant is responsible for everything other than fair wear and tear, 28/15ths where the tenant is responsible for internal repairs but not external repairs, and 31/15ths where the tenant's liability for internal repairs is limited to other than fair wear and tear. I am told that various other proposals have been put forward for intermediate fractions. The difficulty is, as I think Lord Gage realises, for the fractions already in the Bill, that any figure is necessarily arbitrary. The Bill allows for adjustment between the fractions it specifies, to meet the varying conditions found in contracts. If further fractions are inserted, this elasticity will be destroyed. While it will require extra discussion and negotiation between landlords and tenants in the cases outside those falling at the steps now in the Bill, the discussion will at any rate be able to take into account the actual facts of each case. It does not seem a good thing to tie people down to further arbitrary levels which may fit the cases which my noble friend has in mind but may not fit others of a similar sort varying in detail. As I have tried to show, we have given careful consideration to this point, and I feel that we ought to leave it where it is. If my noble friend Lord Gage, after doing me the honour of reading what I have said in answer to his point, has any further suggestions, I think he knows that I shall be only too delighted to consider them.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
Transitional provisions on decontrol.
2.—(1) Where immediately before the time of decontrol the dwelling-house was the subject of a statutory tenancy or of a controlled tenancy which would or might come to an end within fifteen months of that time by effluxion of time or notice to quit, the tenant under that tenancy shall be entitled until the date hereinafter mentioned, and subject to the following previsions of this Schedule, to retain possession of the dwelling-house in the like circumstances, to the like extent and subject to the like provisions (including in particular provisions as to recovery of possession by the landlord) as if the Rent Acts had not ceased to apply to the dwelling-house.
(2) The said date is such date as may be specified in a notice served on the tenant by the landlord, at or after the time of decontrol, being a date not earlier than fifteen months after the time of decontrol nor than six months after the service of the notice, but nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the execution of an order for possession obtained by the landlord before the time of decontrol.
3. Where sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph applies the rent recoverable from the tenant for any rental period beginning after the time of decontrol shall, whether the tenancy continues or he retains possession by virtue of this Schedule, be the same as was recoverable from him for the last rental period beginning before that time.
4. If before the date specified under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule the landlord and tenant agree for the creation of a tenancy of the premises of which the tenant is entitled to retain possession by virtue of that paragraph, being a tenancy not expiring, or terminable by notice to quit given by the landlord, earlier than three years from the commencement thereof, the two last foregoing paragraphs shall cease to apply as from the commencement of that tenancy.
5.—(1) Where sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule applies, then if the tenant gives up possession 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 tenancy, and completed after the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five.
(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.
10.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in paragraph 2 (2), to leave out "fifteen months" and insert "three years". The noble Earl said: This is one of the most important Amendments we have put down at this stage of the Bill, but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to speak to it at great length, because most of the arguments that could be used to support it have already been used in the course of discussion this afternoon and this evening. The object of the Amendment is to give the tenants of these dwellings—800,000 or so in all—which will be decontrolled when this Bill comes into effect a reasonable period of delay and security before eviction takes place.
The Government are proposing that if a decontrolled tenant fails to renew his lease by agreement with his landlord within fifteen months from the passage of the Bill, he can then be turned out. Of course, the landlord has to give six months' notice to quit before this can happen, but that will not be much consolation to a family who will find it extremely difficult to get alternative accommodation. That is why we are proposing a longer period of delay before eviction can take place. We propose to substitute three years for fifteen months. This would give tenants of decontrolled dwellings a far better chance of finding alternative accommodation. Within three years from the passing of this Bill some, at any rate, of the arrears of new building will have been made up. There will be more flats available and, therefore, more chance of finding alternative accommodation.
I do not want to emphasise again the gap between the demand and supply of houses and flats. I would only say that I think it is profoundly unfair that any tenant who is decontrolled by this Bill

759
should be faced with the grim alternative of paying what may be double the present rent or of losing his home within fifteen months from the passing of the Bill into law. If he cannot afford the higher rent, he should be given a longer breathing space. I am certain that that would mitigate a great deal of the hardship that would otherwise be caused to people of small means occupying these decontrolled dwellings when this Bill is passed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 5, leave out (" fifteen months ") and insert (" three years ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I think that fifteen months is a very fair period. When the Bill first started, it was six months, and it was then extended to fifteen. Moreover, there is the other important provision that if landlord and tenant come to an agreement within fifteen months, as we hope they will, the landlord must give security to the tenant for a further three years. It is to the advantage of the tenant to try to get agreement within fifteen months, and it is also of advantage to the landlord, because he does not want to have a lot of empty places. I think fifteen months is reasonable and, as I say, added to that there is the security for three years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Earl who moved this Amendment indicated, it is one of those matters on which controversy has been joined, and he showed a benevolent brevity in dealing with it which I will try to emulate. I think one ought to say this with regard to the fifteen months' standstill period. Its object is to ensure that tenants of dwellings which are decontrolled have a reasonable time in which to agree new tenancies with their landlords or to make other arrangements. I should like to point out that, even where a decontrolled tenant is a statutory tenant or holds a contract expiring within fifteen months after the date of decontrol, no notice to quit can take effect during the period of fifteen months following decontrol, nor can there be any increase during that fifteen months unless the landlord and tenant agree on a new tenancy for a period of at least three years.
760
We have considered and reconsidered this matter, and we feel that fifteen months is an adequate period to enable landlords and tenants to carry out the necessary negotiations and agree upon new tenancies. Equally, if for some reason the tenant has to leave at the end of the standstill period, fifteen months will be adequate to enable him to make other arrangements. Of course, as we have said it is our belief that during that period of fifteen months more dwellings will have become available for letting unfurnished, since landlords will now have the incentive to let unfurnished on uncontrolled tenancies where previously they have kept their houses vacant for sale. The three years' period is longer than is necessary to enable this alternative accommodation to be made available, and it would have the effect of prolonging for almost two years longer than we think is necessary and so postponing the free market of which I have spoken.
Turning from the arguments to authority, I think there is an interesting point which I do not know whether the noble Earl who moved the Amendment has in mind. A standstill period of eighteen months was recommended in a memorandum submitted to the Minister by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and the Chartered Auctioneers and Estate Agents Institute suggested a period of twelve months. The fifteen months' period adopted by the Government is, therefore, halfway between the proposals of these two leading professional bodies. For these reasons, which, of course, I could extend, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I think it might be said that the arguments on both sides are standard arguments, but when they are put by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, they are always rather higher than standard. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROUGHSHANE LORD BROUGHSHANE moved to add to paragraph 3:
" but increased or decreased by the amount of the difference between the amount of the rates (borne by the landlord) in respect of the

761
dwelling for the last rental period aforesaid and the amount of such rates for the rental period first mentioned in this paragraph."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is simple and self-explanatory and merely serves to pass on to the tenant any increase or decrease in rates which may occur during the transitional fifteen months of which we have been speaking. It would surely be inequitable if, during this transitional period, the landlord, who is still receiving only controlled rent, should be put in any worse position than he was before the passing of the Act. The Amendment provides equally that the tenant shall get the benefit of any decrease in rates, so the effect is to put both landlord and tenant, during these fifteen months, in exactly the same position as they were before the passing of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 28, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Broughshane.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There is probably much in what my noble friend has said, and if he could see his way to withdraw his Amendment at this stage of our proceedings, I will see whether it is possible for me meet the noble Lord by putting down another Amendment—I am afraid much longer than his—at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: I am obliged to the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, to add to paragraph 4:
" Provided that in default of agreement the county court may determine on the application of the tenant made at any time not later than three months before the expiry of the tenancy the terms upon which such tenancy shall be continued."
The noble Lord said: This particular clause is a difficult one to follow. I do not think any of us would claim that the Rent Acts or this Bill are of crystal clarity, and this particular provision is an extraordinarily difficult one. Before going on with the Amendment, may I say that a report has gone out that I am looking for furnished or unfurnished accommodation in London. If I had been I would have declared it. I am not looking for accommodation in London of any kind. One of my family and at least two of my friends are. It was because
762
of that that certain circumstances came to my notice. I say this in order to avoid being bombarded by estate agents, embarrassment all round and a waste of postage stamps by estate agents.
To get back to the Amendment: the point here is that as we understand it—although at this late hour our understanding is not perhaps as dear as it was four or five hours ago—if an agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant, then the other provisions of this, particular section of the Fourth Schedule do not apply, and the agreement between the parties takes the place of the period which my noble friend has just tried to extend. If that is so, then at the end of three years, or whatever the term may be, there is, so to speak, a vacuum. To fill that vacuum, we have suggested that the county court should have the power of making a new tenancy, or a further tenancy, or an extension of the tenancy, for such term as it may decide.
I am the first to agree that, as put down—and I did not see this Amendment before it went down—it obviously will not do. If the Government are prepared to meet us, then I presume they will want to look at it, and possibly put it down in a better form. If they could agree to the principle that I assume is enshrined in this Amendment, then their own draftsmen could easily draft something which would carry the purpose out. I am afraid that my explanation of the Amendment is not as clear as it ought to be. The reason is that this paragraph is, to my mind, not nearly as clear as it should be. But perhaps the Lord Chancellor would give his views on the clause and on the effect of the Amendment which I have tried to explain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 47, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ogmore.)
10.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said. May I first give what I understand to be the effect of the Amendment? The Amendment would enable the tenant who had obtained a three-year tenancy to apply to the county court to settle the terms on which he could get the tenancy continued. Paragraph 4 provides that if during the fifteen months' standstill period

763
after decontrol the landlord and the tenant agree upon a new tenancy for a period of at least three years, that tenancy can come into force as soon as it is agreed. Landlords, therefore, have an incentive to grant these new tenancies in order to get an increase in rent, whereas, if the tenancy were not granted, the rent would be frozen for the whole of the fifteen months' standstill period.
Our difficulty with regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord is that, if the landlord knew that when he granted such a tenancy for a period of at least three years he would be faced with the possibility at the end of the tenancy of having it prolonged, he would be much less likely to grant it. It would, in fact, be equivalent to the reimposition of control, and if he were faced with that prospect the landlord would merely allow the tenant to retain possession only until the end of the fifteen months' standstill period. We feel that this would be contrary to the tenant's own interest in the great majority of cases, because it is in his interest to get out of the standstill period into a period of at least three years so that he will have the anxieties of which we have heard removed from that period. It is a question of psychology, of how it would appeal to the parties concerned. I think that, on consideration, the noble Lord will feel that there is much to be said for the Government's point of view. I do not think that this is one of the straight Party points that we have had. It is a question of considering which would be most likely to have the most beneficial result. Those are the reasons why we take this view. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider them before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD OGMORE: I think there is a good deal in what the noble and learned Viscount has said. As a matter of fact, what he said is exactly what I imagined to be the effect on the clause of the Amendment. I certainly was very doubtful about this, but I thought that perhaps I did not understand the clause, which is not at all clear. How some of these old ladies are going to manage to interpret it I cannot imagine. However, I see the force of the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, and in the circumstances I propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in paragraph 5 (1), after "improvement made" to insert, "with the consent in writing of the landlord". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the next two deal with the paragraph in the Fourth Schedule which concerns the right of a tenant to compensation for improvements. This is a very difficult question, I think, not from a technical or legal point of view, but from the point of view of what is really fair. It is one of these things involving the balance of advantage and of the greater and lesser hardship, and so on. I think it is an innovation that the owner of a house will, on the passing of this Bill, become liable for compensation in respect of improvements made some years earlier, without his knowledge or consent—I think that is the strongest way to put it, from that point of view.
It is also, I think, in that sense retrospective. To many owners of property it may be an advantage to have had their property improved, and it is improvement of property for which we are looking all through this Bill. An owner may well be better off and should properly pay for it, and there should be no criticism on that score. On the other hand, he may be a person of very small means and may have the greatest difficulty in finding the means of paying the tenant his compensation. It is curious to note that, under paragraph 4 (4), if the landlord had objected to the construction of the improvement there would be no claim. But I think the practical point is that very often the landlord does not know that such improvement has been made. He has not had notification. Rent collectors very often do not go all through a house to find out if there is an improvement of this kind. The fact that this Schedule recognises the right of the landlord to object if he has not been notified of the improvement would seem to be some argument in favour of requiring notification in cases where he has not known about it and has not had the opportunity to object.
I agree that it is rather hard that a tenant who has carried out improvements he has not enjoyed for long should receive nothing for them. This Amendment and the two which follow it are different ways of suggesting some easement of this

765
position. It would certainly seem that an improvement carried out by a tenant which increases the rateable value of the house, perhaps even to the extent of taking it out of control, would be one for which he deserves, and should get, compensation. It does seem, however, rather hard, if I may for the moment speak on the next Amendment, that improvements made since 15th August, 1945, can be brought into account in this way, even though the landlord knew nothing of the improvement and has to pay money to the tenant who goes out.
I do not think that either of these Amendments I have put down really meets the case, but I feel that something should be done to make it a bit easier, particularly for the landlords who have not the necessary resources In fact, my object is to meet the case of the landlords who have not got the resources to meet these compensation payments. One cannot, in the Bill, separate them from those who have the resources, but that is the point I have in mind. Having said that, I will formally move the first Amendment, No. 43, to see whether something can be done—probably not what I have suggested here—to make it easier for those who are going to get into difficulties over this part of the Bill, which I think is entirely new.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 5, after (" made ") insert (" with the consent in writing of the landlord ").—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think these Amendments, Nos. 43 and 45, are linked quite closely; and No. 44 deals with almost the same subject by another method. As I understand my noble friend's proposals, his object is to prevent the tenant from obtaining compensation for an improvement which was made by him if it was not made with the consent in writing of the landlord before the improvement was carried out. If my noble friend will look at sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 5—he did refer to it—he will see that it precludes the payment of compensation to a tenant who makes an improvement in breach of the terms of his tenancy. If, therefore, the landlord's consent to the improvement is required under the terms of the tenancy, the tenant will get no compensation, unless that consent was obtained. If the tenancy does not preclude the
766
making of an improvement by the tenant, and this would not otherwise be a breach of any of the terms of the tenancy, compensation will be payable unless, again under sub-paragraph (4), the landlord has notified the tenant in writing before the improvement is completed that he objects to it. This is as far as it is possible to go.
The whole purpose of paragraph 5 is to ensure that tenants who have already made improvements before their houses become decontrolled at the commencement of the Act, as it will be, will get the benefit of them by way of compensation if, as a result of decontrol, they have to leave them. I appreciate the point which the noble Viscount made in the course of his remarks. I will certainly look at it again, but I am bound to say that I do not think it will be possible to meet what he has in mind.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look into it. I would rather agree to withdraw this Amendment and perhaps say something on the next one. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I should particularly like to draw attention to this point, because this is where the retrospective effect comes in. I think many people dislike legislation which penalises one for things which happened some time ago. If there were any choice in the matter, I think I should prefer to have this Amendment rather than the previous one. At least everybody starts level—everybody starts as from the date of the Act, knowing what the law is, and the owner has an opportunity to say whether he wants the improvement done. I appreciate that conditions in the agreement would be welcomed, but I think there are probably a good many houses which are not subject to agreements at all, let alone to any conditions in them. To that extent. I think that part of the thing is weakened. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, leave out (" fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five ") and insert (" date on which this Act comes into force.")—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I was saying on the previous Amendment, this

767
is a point which we have carefully considered. Paragraph 5 of this Schedule enables a tenant who has to give up possession as a result of decontrol to claim compensation for improvements that he may have made. The effect of this Amendment would be to preclude the payment of compensation in respect of improvements made before the commencement of the Act.
I should like to consider this point under two heads: first, in relation to houses decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), and secondly, in relation to houses which may be decontrolled by an order under Clause 10 (3). In relation to houses decontrolled by Clause 10 (1), the Amendment would mean that no compensation for improvements made by tenants between the end of the war and the commencement of the Act would be payable. These are, of course, the main class of improvement in question. I think it is true to say that they were made at a time when it was alleged that landlords were not looking after their property, and that, if anything was to be done to keep them in repair or to improve them, it would not be done unless it were performed by the tenants themselves. That is the basis upon which paragraph 5 proceeds. To accept the Amendment in relation to that class of property would therefore defeat the whole object of the paragraph.
This same paragraph will also apply if an order is made under Clause 10 (3), and the improvements which will be within its scope in relation to houses thereby decontrolled will be improvements which have been made not only since the commencement of the Act but in fact since the end of the war. It ought not to be forgotten that if the tenant has improved the value of the property the landlord will undoubtedly obtain the benefit of the improvement in the rental which he may obtain or in the selling value which the house will command when the tenant quits at the end of the standstill period permitted to him by the Fourth Schedule on the decontrol of the house.
Again, the landlord will also be better off in these respects than the landlord of a similar house which the tenant has not improved; so that the tenant can claim compensation only if the landlord has
768
failed to grant a new three-year lease, and the tenant therefore has to give up possession at the end of the standstill period. From what I have said, the noble Lord will at once appreciate that in fact the landlord would be in a more fortunate position if he had a tenant of his premises who did some degree of repair to them rather than a tenant who in fact did nothing to the premises during the time of his tenancy. In view of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not press the Amendment, but in view of the noble Earl's last few words I am not quite sure that he has the point. It is not a question of the tenant's doing repairs but of whether improvements were done. Another point which might arise is that an improvement or addition made to a house which, in the eyes of the tenant, might be a great benefit and improvement might be held by the owner of the house and by many prospective tenants not to be such an advantage; yet that might have to be paid for. If the noble Earl will be good enough to think about the point in general before the next stage of the Bill, and perhaps think about the long period from 1957 back to 1945, in so far as the retrospective part of the paragraph arises, I shall be very glad to leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after paragraph 8 to insert:
" 9.—(1) Where a tenancy which immediately before the time of decontrol was a controlled tenancy not falling within sub-paragraph (1) of paragaph 2 of this Schedule contains a provision (however expressed) whereby the landlord is entitled, on or after the Rent Acts ceasing to apply to the dwelling-house, to increase the rent otherwise than in respect of rates, the provision of services or the use of furniture, and the amount by which the rent may be so increased is not specified by the terms of the tenancy, the tenant may by notice in writing served on the landlord not later than three months after the time of decontrol elect that as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
(2) Where a notice is served under this paragraph the tenancy to which it relates, and any sub-tenancy thereof (whether or not an immediate sub-tenancy), shall come to an end on the service of the notice; and if any such

769
sub-tenancy was one falling within the foregoing sub-paragraph, then as from the service of the notice the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall apply as if the sub-tenancy had been such a tenancy as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule.
This sub-paragraph shall not prejudice the power of a sub-tenant to serve a notice under this paragraph where no such notice has been served by a superior tenant.
(3) No notice of increase served after the time of decontrol shall have effect, in the case of a tenancy falling within sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, earlier than the expiration of three months after that time.
10. For the purposes of this Schedule the power of a tenant under a tenancy for a term of years to terminate the tenancy at a specified point during the term shall not be treated as a power to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the case of a decontrolled contractual tenancy which will not come to an end until after the end of the fifteen months' standstill period, but which contains the provision entitling the landlord, in the event that premises become decontrolled at any time, to increase the rent without limit. The fifteen months' standstill period during which a tenant has security of tenure and cannot have his rent increased applies only to a statutory tenancy or a tenancy for a term which expires or can be determined by a notice to quit during the fifteen months' period. The Amendment is tabled to meet a case which has been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend and which he believes is typical of others. The tenancy is a controlled tenancy, having many years to run, of a house which will be decontrolled under Clause 10 (1), which entiles the landlord to give three months' notice of increase of rent, and it gives the tenant the option, if he is unwilling to pay the increase, of surrendering the tenancy. He would thus, if he did not agree to the increased rent, be subjected to the full rigour of decontrol almost immediately after the commencement of the Act, instead of at the end of the tenancy which has many years to run.
It is not considered that this type of case can go unprovided for and the Amendment deals with it accordingly. It gives the tenant three months after the time of decontrol in which he can elect to have the protection of the fifteen months' standstill period. If he serves a notice so electing, any decontrolled sub-tenancy of the same type as the mesne
770
tenancy will automatically be similarly protected. If the landlord seeks to increase the rent under the terms of the tenancy, the increase will not become effective before three months after the time of decontrol, during which the tenant has the right of election conferred by the Amendment. If the tenant obtains the protection of the fifteen months' standstill period, his rent, under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, will be frozen. The last paragraph of the Amendment is little more than drafting and I do not think on this occasion I need weary the House with it any further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 43, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL moved to leave out paragraph 11. The noble Earl said: Let me say first that I should be deeply distressed if the Government were to accept this Amendment. I do not know whether it is necessary to say that. As the Government have not accepted a single Amendment from this side since we started work on the Bill at three o'clock, the risk is not very great. I am not reproaching them. This Amendment was tabled on the assumption that subsection (3) of Clause 10 which we proposed to omit from the Bill, would be omitted, but that subsection has been retained. Therefore, the effect of omitting this paragraph 11 of the Fourth Schedule would, I think, be that a tenant decontrolled by order under subsection (3) of Clause 10 could be evicted without any period of notice at all.
But what I should like to do is to ask the noble Earl a question regarding this paragraph and to make one rather important point. This paragraph differs from the Bill in one extremely important respect. The Bill gives what has been called a standstill period of fifteen months before decontrolled tenants can be evicted. This paragraph proposes that any order that is made by the Minister for further decontrol of tenancies after the Bill has passed into law may specify a much shorter period, not shorter than six months, before decontrolled tenants can be evicted. There is a big difference between fifteen months and six months. I believe that when this Bill was first introduced the standstill period was only six

771
months. Why is it that if further decontrol takes place by order, the decontrolled tenants will only have six months if they fail to reach agreement for renewal of their tenancy before they can be turned out?
The other point is this. The period of six months is a very short period indeed to give the tenants a reasonable time to make further arrangements, either to go elsewhere or come to an agreement with their landlord. If an order is mad and an Affirmative Resolution is introduced by the Government, it is not possible for us to amend the order by extending the period of time; we shall be obliged to accept the shorter period specified in the order. This is extremely unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Government will consider giving a longer period, not necessarily fifteen months but something longer than six months, for decontrolled tenants who may lose the protection of the Rent Acts under orders that would be made by the Minister after this Bill is passed into law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 11, leave out paragraph 11.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl who moved this Amendment has concentrated his remarks on what I may call the six months' point. Therefore, may I deal with that primarily? The noble Earl will appreciate that this relates to any possible order making a new "slice", and it may be an order many years ahead when we are dealing with a larger "slice". We have to provide sufficient elasticity for that position. In taking the period of six months, we had in mind that decontrol took effect under the 1933 Act just over three months after the Bill received the Royal Assent, and a notice to quit could be served which took effect in one month. In 1938, the position was the same, except that decontrol took effect after four months. Therefore, the minimum standard is much longer than the period provided under the 1933 and 1938 Acts. That is the general position and, as my right honourable friend has made clear, there is no intention of using this for sudden and unexpected action.
The noble Earl made the point, which, of course, is technically accurate, that we cannot amend an order in this case. But
772
I think that the noble Earl would agree that if an order is produced by the Government which obviously requires amendment and there is general consensus on the point, it is not difficult to get the Government to withdraw the order and substitute another making the amendment. I have known this done in another place, and although my experience of your Lordships' House is much shorter, I see no reason why it should not be done should occasion present itself. Therefore I can give the noble Earl certain solace in the matter. I assure him that the period of six months which worries him has been put in to deal with a possibly different situation in what must still be a matter of futurity. I hope that I have assuaged some degree of his worry.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said about what the position may be in the distant future in regard to decontrol. The time may come when there will be no hardship because there will be enough houses to go round. But I am thinking of the immediate future, and I can only say that I very much hope that, if and when orders are made bringing about a further number of decontrolled dwellings, then the Minister will give real consideration to the position of the tenants and give them as much time as possible—certainly more than six months, if possible, because that is the minimum period—in which to make alternative arrangements. I merely express that wish and hope it is shared by other noble Lords.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Ascertainment and adjustment of rateable value and 1956 gross value]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 22, leave out (" sub-paragraph ") and insert (" sub-paragraphs ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in paragraph 2 (2) (a), to leave out
" fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven;"

773
and insert:
" expiration of six months from the date on which this Act comes into force; "
The noble Earl said: The date to which this Amendment refers was originally the 7th November, 1956, which was the date of the publication of the Rent Bill, while in another place an Amendment was passed substituting the 15th March, 1957, that being the date, I am told, when the Amendment was published. My Amendment seeks to give a clear six months after the passing of this Act for people to appeal against their rating assessments if they think they are unjustly being brought within the scope of decontrol.
There is no particular merit in the term I suggest, six months; but what I think is not appreciated, particularly by politicians, and probably also by civil servants, is that the ordinary member of the public does not study White Papers and Acts of Parliament. And he does not, get the Order Papers of the two Houses, and the Parliamentary news of events that are likely to affect him occupy but a small space in the newspapers, unless he is a reader of The Times or Manchester Guardian. Therefore, to expect tenants to apprise themselves of the risk to their tenancies, so that they may take the necessary steps to examine their rating assessment and to appeal against it in a period of weeks or a month or two, is quite unrealistic and undoubtedly imposes hardship on them.
This is illustrated by a case or two that I feel I must quote to your Lordships. A tenant with a valuation of £41 found that this was based on an incorrect figure in the records of the valuation department. Eventually, the tenant made her point, and the rateable value was reduced to £38; and the proposal for reduction was on 27th March of this year. A similar case was where a valuation of a flat of £44 was found to be incorrect. The matter could be cleared up only after visits to the neighbouring flats and comparing rents, and after a visit by the valuation officers to inspect the flat. To cut a long story short, that is another case of a tenant who had every right to a reduction of rateable value which would have kept her within control. But because this arbitrary date of March 15 is in the Bill, there was another case where the tenant lost the
774
right she should have had. Do not forget that these cases arose and came to the notice of tenants' associations. If there had not been this tremendous upsurge of tenants' associations for the precise purpose of assisting tenants to secure their rights, thousands of people, I am quite sure, would never have become aware of their rights or of the dates of any of the processes involved in this Bill. Therefore, I hope most sincerely that the Government will give this small concession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out (" fifteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven ") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Bill provides that the normal test of whether a house remains in control is its rateable value on November 7, 1956. It may be, however, that a proposal for altering the value had been made before that date, or was then contemplated, and the rateable value may thus be altered at some later date as a result of that proposal. The Bill accordingly provides that such a proposal will be given effect to, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a dwelling is decontrolled, if it was made before March 15 this year. That date was chosen, as the noble Lord said, because it was the date on which the relevant Amendment to the Bill was put, down. The present rateable values came into force on April 1 last year, and a person who wished to make a proposal therefore has had virtually a year in which to make it. If it were possible to get the rateable value altered for the purpose of decontrol resulting from a proposal made after March 15 in the way the noble Lord has suggested by his Amendment, then I have not much doubt that innumerable tenants could make proposals between now and the six months from the date on which the Bill comes into force. Equally, landlords might also make proposals in the hope of getting the rateable value increased.
While it is not likely that many of these proposals either way would be successful, they would all have to go through the valuation appeal machinery; and, as the noble Earl will probably appreciate, would put an intolerable strain upon that machinery. The provision that a proposal must have been made before March

775
15, 1957, therefore excludes all proposals except those genuinely made to alter the valuation list on the ground that the assessment was too high from the rating point of view. When the proposals were made, it was not known that alteration in the assessment would necessarily affect the position as regards decontrol, and the proposals were therefore genuine. I think it would therefore be right that we should maintain this date of March 15 and wrong to insert the words which the noble Earl proposes, which might cause all the difficulties and troubles which I have briefly outlined to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Earl realises that it is an anomalous position that March 15 is the date for these proposals, as appeals against the rating can be made up to March 31. It seems that the Government are not considering the interests of the type of tenant who does not become aware of Government action and Parliamentary action as soon as people probably think. I am sorry that the noble Earl is not more sympathetic to our proposals.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 35, leave out from (" made ") to (" on ") in line 36.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 45, leave out from beginning to (" bears ") in line 46 and insert ("(d) what proportion his contribution, if any ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule:
Minor and Consequential Amendments and Application of Enactments
22. Section two of the Housing Act, 1936 (which implies, in contracts for letting at rents below specified limits, a condition as to fitness for human habitation), shall have effect, as well in relation to contracts entered into before as in relation to contracts entered into after the commencement of this Act, as if for the words "forty pounds", "twenty-six pounds" and "sixteen pounds" there were substituted respectively the words "eighty pounds", "fifty-
776
two pounds" and "thirty-two pounds"; and in relation to statutory tenancies current at the commencement of this Act the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed always to have had effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 38, after (" Act ") insert (" (including any sum irrecoverable by virtue of section fourteen thereof) ")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.33 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved to delete paragraph 22. The noble Lord said: The purpose of my putting down this Amendment is to obtain an explanation and justification of a paragraph which I think did not have the advantage of a discussion in another place. I do not doubt for one moment the excellent intentions behind this paragraph, but I wonder whether, in its wording, it may not go too far. The paragraph amends Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1936, which was, as your Lordships are aware, a consolidating Statute. Section 2 laid down certain conditions to be implied in certain contracts, and this paragraph amends the figures in that section of the 1936 Act by doubling them.
I think there will be general agreement—and, in particular, I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will agree—with two general propositions. The first is that it is not generally wise to write into contracts terms which the parties did not think fit to put there. The second proposition is that it is not generally desirable to do anything of that kind retrospectively. I concede at once that to those rules there are quite properly certain exceptions. For example, we are all familiar with the conditions implied in contracts for the sale of goods under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. But in that case the section concerned embodied the wisdom of the Common Law. Because of those two general rules to which I have referred, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will be good enough to let me know, first, how far this implied condition laid down by Statute has proved useful in practice; and, secondly, if, as I assume, it has proved useful, whether he thinks that it is right not merely to amend it and to make it apply in its

777
amended form to future contracts, but also to apply the new form to existing contracts and tenancies where it has not hitherto existed. For those exploratory purposes. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 23, leave out paragraph 22.—(Lord Conesford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do my best to give my noble friend my interpretation of the effect of the paragraph to which he has referred. He was good enough to tell me about the difficulties which he has found. Paragraph 22 has no retrospective effect, in the sense that a tenant of a house to which it applies, who has not previously had the benefit of Section 2 of the Act of 1936, will be able to hold the landlord responsible for things that happened before the paragraph applies at the commencement of the Act. But the paragraph will apply to contracts which were entered into before the commencement of the Act at a time when Section 2 of the Act of 1936 did not apply to them.
In such cases, first of all, the parties will have contracted on the basis that the landlord had no such implied liability for repairs as is put on him by Section 2 of the Act of 1936; and secondly, the repairing obligations of the parties will have been agreed on this basis. If Section 2 of the Act of 1936 is now applied to such a contract, it will, of course, upset those obligations, and any repairing obligations put upon the tenant by the contract will have to be treated as being modified so as to exclude any repairs which are necessary to make the house fit for human habitation, for which the landlord will hence forward be responsible under the condition implied in the contract by Section 2. As my noble and learned friend will appreciate, that applies, notwithstanding anything in the contract. This may lead to difficulties in determining what is the appropriate factor for the purpose of Part I of the First Schedule, which governs the ascertainment of rent limit under Clause 1. If I have correctly anticipated the sort of point which my noble and learned friend has in mind, I shall be pleased to consider it, but by noble friend must not take that as an undertaking to introduce an Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I am much obliged for my noble and learned friend's explanation. I shall be grateful if he will give the matter the consideration he suggests, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Clause 15 of the Bill provides for a minimum period of four weeks' notice to quit any house. There are, however, certain Scottish statutory provisions which provide for periods of less than four weeks—one of them as short as forty-eight hours. This Amendment will bring these other provisions into line with Clause 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 1, at end insert:
" 28. Section five of the Removal Terms (Scotland) Act, 1886, shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the following:—
" Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
29. Section thirty-eight of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were added the following:—
" Provided that in no case shall notice of removal be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
30.—(1) The House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, shall be amended as follows:
(2) In section four for the words "the next payment" in the first place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "a payment", and for those words in the second place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "that payment", and in paragraph (b) of the proviso for the words, from "except" to the end of the section there shall be substituted the words "so, however, that in no case shall the notice be given less than twenty-eight days before the date on which it is to take effect."
(3) In section five for the words "forty-eight hours" there shall be substituted the words "twenty-eight days".—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 34, after (" 1 ") insert (" Paragraph 1, ").—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [General Transitional Provisions]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 25, leave out (" subsections (1) and (2) ") and insert (" subsection (1) ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TAMAR BRIDGE BILL ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON—COXGREEN FOOTBRIDGE) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Order made on the 6th February last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before twelve o'clock.