Sitting of 9 April 1964

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

    Certificate of Secondary Education
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will postpone the date of the introduction of the Certificate of Secondary Education until 1966.
    The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): Fourteen regional examining bodies have been established to conduct the examinations for the Certificate of Secondary Examination. I propose to leave the timing of its introduction to them. I understand that most expect to introduce the examination in 1965, but that a few are likely to wait until 1966.
    Mr. Farr: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that certain curriculum study groups are not likely to have completed their studies into the syllabuses of this examination in time for the examination to be held for the first time in 1965?
    Mr. Hogg: I believe that of the 14 boards eight expect to offer the examination in 1965, two are likely to wait until 1966, and the remainder have not yet made their decision.

    Secondary Education (Selection Procedures)
    Mr. Merlyn Reesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is aware that there is research evidence to show that when standardised mental and performance tests are dropped from selection procedures for
    1182
    secondary education the chances of grammar school entry decline for the children of manual working-class parents; and if he will advise local education authorities to take this into account whim devising new systems for selection of children for secondary education.
    Mr. Hogg: I am advised that the evidence is small, and in any event its significance is not clear.
    Mr. Rees: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the evidence in the Douglas Report recently seemed to be conclusive on this, and does it not tie up with the statistical evidence in both the Crowther and Robbins Reports to show that selection of a social nature takes place not only at 11 under the new procedures but already takes place with the 18-plus selection for universities?
    Mr. Hogg: I am advised that there was indeed an assertion in the Douglas Report, unsupported by evidence, but that the evidence collected by Dr. Douglas suggests that it is not social class, as is suggested in the Question, but parental encouragement irrespective of class which has the effect to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Brockway: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to parental encouragement. Is it not much more the appalling housing conditions in which so many of these boys and girls live which give them no opportunity to study at home?
    Mr. Hogg: I hope that that will be taken care of by my right hon. Friend's slum clearance programme.
    Mrs. White: Does not the Secretary of State agree that with all these doubts and difficulties it would be far better not to have any selection procedure required at all for the 11-plus?
    Mr. Hogg: That appears to me to be totally irrational.

    Chelsea College of Science and Technology
    Captain Litchfieldasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether it is intended to transfer the

    1183
    Chelsea College of Science and Technology to another site; and what use will be made of the present buildings.
    The Minister of State for Education and Science (Sir Edward Boyle): The question whether the Chelsea College of Science and Technology should move from its present site has not yet been settled. The Governors are convinced that the development of the College on the general lines recommended in the Robbins Report will not be possible, unless a new site is obtained, and they are at present exploring, in association with my right hon. and learned Friend's Department, the possibility of a move to an area outside London. If a move should be approved, the future use of the present buildings will be a matter for consideration by the Governors, the London County Council or its successors, and my right hon. and learned Friend's Department.
    Captain Litchfield: I appreciate the reasons why it may be necessary for this establishment, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree has a very high reputation, to be transferred elsewhere, but ought it not to have been obvious some time ago that this situation would arise? Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of artists' studios and houses had to be demolished and a very valuable building site lost to make room for the extension of the Chelsea College of Science and Technology? Is it not a plain fact that the future of this new building, which has not yet been completed, is already in doubt? Finally, will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the future of this building will not be hawked around Whitehall but that if possible some use for Chelsea will be found for it?
    Sir E. Boyle: In regard to the future of the institution, informal talks have taken place between the College and Hertfordshire County Council about a possible site in that county. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend on his question about the existing buildings that there is no danger of them, as it were, being wasted, particularly in view of the great demand there is these days for new buildings for institutes of higher and further education.
    Mr. Crossman: When the Minister is considering the site in Hertfordshire will
    1184
    he remember that Chelsea has, I think, virtually no technological side while the Hatfield Regional College has an excellent technological side, which might provide a suitable possibility for the two merging, with Hatfield becoming the faculty of technology of the new university?
    Sir E. Boyle: I have seen that suggestion and while obviously it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it now, I can assure the House that the hon. Gentleman's point is being fully borne in mind by all those concerned.

    Television
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consult the Postmaster-General concerning the experience gained relevant to his department's work from the educational television experiment which the Independent Television Authority has authorised between Queen's University, Belfast, and Ulster Television; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is in close touch with his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on questions of educational television, including this proposal for an experiment. As the Postmaster-General said on 19th February in answer to a Question on this subject from my hon. Friend, a comprehensive study is in hand, and this is bound to take a little time.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Does my right hon. Friend consider that educational television is worth developing? Does he consider that this particular experiment, which the I.T.A. is supporting financially, could be of value in obtaining further experience?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of the offer made by the I.T.A. to provide funds to meet the capital and operating costs of this experiment. I can only say that an examination of this proposal is going on by the working party of officials from all the interested Departments, and that working party is making this study into these and other proposals as fast as possible.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we have had

    1185
    sufficient experience of this to know its great potentialities? Should he not be more positive about it and resist the lack of enthusiasm of the Postmaster-General and say that these experiments should be encouraged?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am aware of the interest in this subject in all parts of the House, but there are a number of technical points which must have full examination.

    Christchurch School, Clifton
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will authorise the replacement of Christchurch School, Clifton, with a new building on the Royal Park site.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): Yes. This project has been included in the Bristol authority's school building programme for 1965–66.
    Mr. Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the best news that we in Bristol have had this year? Will my hon. Friend convey the grateful thanks of my constituents to his right hon. Friend? Further, will he do all he can to continue to help the excellent work that this school has done in very difficult circumstances?

    School Premises and Playing Fields (Use)
    Miss Leeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what schemes have been worked out to enable school playing fields and, where suitable, playgrounds and assembly halls, to be made available for the use of school children in the evening and at weekends.
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend does not collect this information, but it is generally recognised that the use of school premises out of school hours under suitable arrangements can provide valuable recreational facilities for school children and young people; the wear which playing fields can stand is, however, limited.
    Miss Lee: Are the Government taking seriously their responsibility for giving
    1186
    leadership end direction to local education authorities so that many school playgrounds and, where suitable, assembly halls, are made available? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that many parents are now beginning to feel that keeping school playgrounds tidy is considered to be rather more important than keeping the youngsters safe?
    Mr. Chataway: I agree with the hon. Lady about the value of this dual use of such school facilities. The Department's development group has been studying the, design of school buildings and playing fields to facilitate their use out of normal hours, and suggestions will be made in our forthcoming building bulletin on this subject.
    Mr. K. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend seek the support of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who is still, I think, the Minister for Sport? A good many school playing fields, although used in the mornings by the schools, are not used in the afternoons. Does not my hon. Friend agree that many of them could be utilised for the benefit of clubs in the neighbourhood, and could not my right hon. Friend bring some influence to bear on local education authorities in this respect?
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is anxious that playing facilities shall be used to the maximum, but the fact is—and I know this, having looked into one or two cases—that there really is a limit to the use to which playing fields in particular can be put. There are many instances where a school makes the maximum use of its playing fields.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science say something for himself for a change?
    Mr. Speaker: During the last Session I had occasion to point out that rising to points of order which are not points of order is really a method of cheating one's fellow Members. I hope this practice will cease.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in congested areas where streets are now cluttered up with stationary motor cars there is great

    1187
    resentment that school playing grounds are locked at 4 o'clock and that children are not given an opportunity to use them? In view of the fact that, so far as the Government are concerned, there seems to be a change in the situation, will the Minister notify local authorities that he is prepared to agree that school playing grounds shall be used, with the provision of persons to look after them, until it gets dark, so that the children are not chased away by the police or by others who fear that their cars may be damaged by the children?
    Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend's permission is not required in the circumstances which the hon. Lady has described. It is first and foremost a matter for the local education authorities themselves. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is extremely anxious to see that the fullest use is made of such playing facilities.
    Mrs. White: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether in the bulletin on primary school building which has been sent round to local authorities this question of dual use has been taken fully into account? If not, what value are we to place on his general good intentions in the matter?
    Mr. Chataway: As I have told the House, the development group has been studying the design of school facilities in order to ensure that a great deal of use can be made of them. Certainly much of this information was available when the primary school bulletin was issued, and it was included in that bulletin. We are anxious to devise new facilities which will stand up to still greater use.

    Training College Places
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications have been received by the Clearing House for Training College places; how many students have now been provisionally accepted by the training colleges; and how many places remain to be filled.
    Mr. Hogg: Up to 1st April just over 31,000 applicants had registered with the Clearing House. This figure takes no account of subsequent withdrawals, and will include applicants who are un-
    1188
    qualified or otherwise unsuitable for entry. By 1st March some 20,800 applicants had been offered places. It is too early to say how many students will finally be admitted, but the colleges estimate at present that the figure will be about 23,750.
    Mr. Boyden: In spite of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's qualification of the first figure do not the figures reveal that a considerable number of suitable candidates will not get places? Could he, for a change, offer us some hope that he will take emergency measures to deal with this year's crop of students who have not got places by the end of August?
    Mr. Hogg: It is early days to anticipate this year. Last year the final total figure was 31,500. About 6,400 candidates withdrew and 1,500 were either unqualified or unsuitable. Of the remaining 2,600, 290 were classified as acceptable and the remainder as borderline. The position this year is likely to be better.
    Mr. G. Thomas: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is very ironic that whilst he is campaigning for a greater supply of recruits to the teaching profession, last year many who had two A-levels were turned away, and it is quite clear that already this year able recruits will not have places unless he takes emergency measures.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman should also stress that only two years ago the colleges admitted 17,250. This year, if the estimate is right, the figure will be 23,750, which shows a very remarkable increase.
    Mr. Boyden: Does not the Minister realise that many of those borderline candidates are suitable people for admission if they are encouraged properly and the proper arrangements are made? Will he do something about that?
    Mr. Hogg: My last answer shows that that is exactly what is happening. If one takes the expected figure of 27,500 entries by 1968, this year's estimate shows that we are making very good progress.

    Married Women Teachers
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what new action he has taken recently to

    1189
    encourage married women teachers who left the teaching service on marriage to return to teaching.
    Sir E. Boyle: A national publicity campaign is due to begin next Sunday, 12th April. Its aim will be to stimulate the return to the schools of qualified married women teachers, and to reinforce the vigorous local efforts already being made in many areas.
    Mr. Lewis: I do not expect to be asked to come to see the right hon. Gentleman, but will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor the possibility of these teachers having their salaries separated from their husbands' salaries for tax purposes so that they can be taxed on their own individual incomes? A number of women are being deterred from coming back to teaching because the fact of the two salaries being taken together puts them into the higher taxation class.
    Sir E. Boyle: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first remark, I shall be pleased to see him at any time. In answer to the second part of his supplementary question, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whatever the pros and cons of the Surtax reliefs which we debated three years ago, they certainly did a great deal to ease this problem.
    Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any negotiations have started on the other important matter about which married women are concerned, namely, the counting for superannuation purposes of part-time service?
    Sir E. Boyle: That is another question, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we are still looking at it. As she knows, it presents considerable difficulties. It was raised when we discussed the quota last time, and it is a matter in our thoughts.

  UNIVERSITIES

    Scottish Universities (Student Success Rate)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the student success rate for the latest available year at each of the Scottish universities, respectively, showing separately the results for students in arts and social studies, pure science, and applied science.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. The student success rate at universities in Great Britain as a whole is published in paragraph 81 of the quinquennial report University Development 1957–1962—Cmnd. 2267. With regard to figures for individual universities and faculties, these figures are supplied by the universities to the University Grants Committee on the understanding that they will go no further than the Committee itself, and my right hon. Friend does not consider it would be right to ask the Committee to depart from this undertaking.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the Minister agree that without such information it is impossible to tell whether any particular university is doing its job or whether it is falling down on its responsibilities to the nation? Is there not something reprehensible in that the individual university figures are carefully hidden from hon. Members and the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that we are given this type of information, without which we cannot decide whether or not a university is doing its job?
    Sir E. Boyle: With great respect to the hon. Member, that form of supplementary question emphasises the difficulties here Universities are autonomous institutions. Figures of student successes for individual universities would be liable to misinterpretation and misleading comparison and would not be a suitable subject for controversial supplementary questions and answers in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must ask the House to recognise that we must bear in mind the special position of the universities in our system.
    Mr. Crossman: Is not that an extraordinary doctrine? Does the right hon. Gentleman really tell us that these apparently vital statistics are available but are being denied the students who are trying to make up their minds where they should go? Should not such students be allowed to have these statistics? Why should these figures be held back by deliberate intent?
    Sir E. Boyle: It would be easy for misinterpretation and misleading comparison to be made through the detailed production of these statistics.
    Mr. Crossman: But there are many truths which can be misinterpreted. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one cannot suppress the truth merely because it may be misinterpreted?
    Sir E. Boyle: We must bear in mind, as I have said, the fact that universities are autonomous institutions. My right hon. Friend does not believe—though he will take into account what has been said in the House—that it would be right to ask the Committee to change its policy on this matter.

    Students (Science Degrees)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students successfully completed science degree courses at United Kingdom universities in 1951, 1961 and 1963.
    Sir E. Boyle: The number of first degrees in pure and applied science obtained by internal students at universities in Great Britain were as follows: 1951, 6,252; 1961, 9,300; 1963, 9,958.
    Mr. Holland: Would my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of those figures, that the increasing additions in the number of qualified scientists to the total number in the country in recent years has given a flying send-off to the massive new programme of expansion on which we are now embarking?
    Sir E Boyle: One must bear in mind, when considering these figures of the output of qualified scientists and technologists, the number of students who obtain external degrees and diplomas in technology and the number of other professional qualifications.
    Mr. Lubbock: Do not the figures mask the trend of more and more students taking pure science while the proportion of technological students has remained constant? What steps is the Minister taking to correct this undesirable tendency.
    Sir E. Boyle: When considering the technological figures, one should look at the 1956 White Paper, where it is shown that we sought 207,000 over eight years. It will be seen, from the present figure of 312,000, that we have more than exceeded the 1956 target.
    Mr. W. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way these figures can be misinterpreted?
    Sir E. Boyle: There is no reason for anyone to wish to misinterpret them, because they show that the targets laid down in the Government's White Paper of 1956 have been more than exceeded for scientists, technologists and technical teachers.

    Scotland (University Grants Committee)
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to set up a separate University Grants Committee for Scotland.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for the reconstruction of the University Grants Committee to allow for co-ordination of policies with regard to universities in Scotland.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. A separate University Grants Committee for Scotland would be in accord neither with the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Higher Education nor with the wishes of the Scottish Universities themselves. My right hon. Friend is confident that the University Grants Committee will be no less effective than hitherto in its co-ordination of policies with regard to universities in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Whilst accepting the probable necessity for a single University Grants Committee, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that quite a number of people feel that in Scotland the Committee ought to be responsible to the Secretary of State and that this is necessary if we are to have the fullest co-ordination of educational services in Scotland?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Member that the Scottish universities themselves, through their principals, have made it quite clear that they would be very concerned about any arrangement which involved their being dealt with separately by a method different from that which applies to universities in England and Wales. The hon. Member will be aware that members of the University Grants Committee are

    1193
    appointed only after the fullest consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Millan: Since the unity of the educational structure under one Minister has been accepted for England and Wales, are there not similarly valid arguments for having that unity in Scotland? How will the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will be responsible for primary and secondary education and teacher training colleges, be brought into discussions about universities in Scotland?
    Sir E. Boyle: With respect, I do not believe that the Scottish universities would feel it a step forward towards greater unity that they should be dealt with separately from universities in England and Wales. All that has happened is that Ministerial responsibility for the University Grants Committee, which used to lie with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was with my right hon. Friend until this month, now rests with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. We have not, therefore, created a new division which was not there before.
    Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that a change has been made and duties have been given to the Secretary of State for Education and Science for reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has mentioned, because we must retain unity and continuity in education? If that is obtained by means of this change in England and Wales, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we do not get it in Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman think about this matter again and bear in mind, with reference to the original Answer, that the Government themselves did not accept the recommendation of the Robbins Committee in relation to Scotland?
    Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Member that there is no difference in the relationship between the Scottish universities and the successor Department to the Treasury. On this matter we must bear in mind what has been said to us, through the principals, by the Scottish universities.
    Mr. Ross: They have given us wrong advice all along.

    University Expansion, Scotland
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he has made to ensure that the pattern of university expansion in Scotland meets the special requirements of Scottish education.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is confident that the University Grants Committee and the Scottish universities will continue to take full account of the needs of Scottish education in making their plans for expansion.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Answer to be extremely vague even for his Department? Can he give us specific figures, and in particular an assurance that the emergency programme which the Robbins Report recommended will be amply carried out and in good time?
    Sir E. Boyle: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about the figures, but on the urgency of the matter a special sub-committee of the U.G.C. will be visiting Scotland in the course of this month or next to discuss and consider approved alternative sites for the creation of a new Scottish university.

    University Students, Scotland
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what plans he has for meeting the short-term emergency in university education in Scotland.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what is the present number of students in universities in Scotland; and what he estimates the figure will be in 1965, 1967, and 1969, respectively.
    Sir E. Boyle: The University Grants Committee estimate that the number of full-time students in the present Scottish universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow will be 28,000 to 28,500 in the academic year 1967–68, compared with 20,400 in October, 1963.
    No separate estimates have been made for 1965 or 1969.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister satisfied that those who possess a certificate of fitness issued by the University Entrance Board in Scotland will get a place next October?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures which I have quoted are designed to meet the rate of demand for places by home students as estimated by the Robbins Committee.

    University Places
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications have been received by the Universities' Clearing House; how many students have now been provisionally accepted by the universities; and how many places remain to be filled.
    Mr. Hogg: The chairman of the Universities Central Council on Admissions has sent me a statement which gives the information available on the points raised by the hon. Member. With permission, I will circulate this statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Boyden: Do not those figures reveal that there is still a considerable shortage of university places? Does the Minister propose to do anything about emergency arrangements in the universities for this year's crop of students?
    Mr. Hogg: What the hon. Gentleman says is manifestly true in the light of the Robbins Report, and our acceptance of the Robbins target shows that we are treating the matter extremely urgently.
    Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is now reliably estimated that, last year, there were 16,000 fully qualified candidates who failed to get entrance to university? Does not he accept this as a grave indictment of the Government's failure in university policy? Further, is he aware that, notwithstanding that, at the end of last year it was discovered that there were 1,000 vacancies unfilled? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that, this year, the machinery is improved to prevent that happening again?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the 1,000 vacancies unfilled, if they were in truth genuine vacancies, are any evidence of the failure of this particular machinery. The fact that in one faculty there were potential vacancies unfilled does not assist
    1196
    in other faculties which are over subscribed. One must not assume that a potential place in one faculty can necessarily be filled by a candidate for another faculty. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has taken this consideration into account at all.
    Following is the Statement:
    The Universities Central Council on Admissions has received applications from about 57,750 individuals so far for entrance to a university in October, 1964. Up to 3rd April, U.C.C.A. received and processed on these applications 230,000 decisions from universities. These include unconditional offers, provisional offers, rejections and waiting lists. It must be understood that the main part of the operation will not be concluded till the end of May. I regret that it will not be possible until mid-summer to say with any degree of accuracy how many provisional acceptances have been given.
    So far as unfilled places are concerned, these cannot be known until the end of the whole process has been reached after the publication of the results of the G.C.E. Examinations, in the late summer.

  SCIENCE

    Meat Research
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research has been conducted, or is being conducted, by the Meat Research Institute into the nutritional value of the food produced at factory farms.
    Sir E. Boyle: Some work has been done at the Low Temperature Research Station and elsewhere on the meat quality of broiler chickens. Little difference could be detected between the meat of these birds and that of poultry produced under other systems. The general subject of research into meat quality will be within the scope of two institutes, the Food Research Institute and the Meat Research Institute, which are now being established.
    Mr. Rankin: The Question is not concerned merely with birds but with all animals which are reared on factory farms. Is the Minister aware that to compensate for the unnatural conditions in which these animals are reared they are given, at appropriate times, estrogens, antibiotics, tranquillisers and a little arsenic? Have his researches shown whether or not unassimilated residues of these drugs are in the flesh of

    1197
    the animals before they are killed? Is he certain that when that flesh appears on the table to be consumed by human beings it does not contain these drugs?
    Sir E. Boyle: I cannot answer in detail the point the hon. Member raises about arsenic. The Ministry of Agriculture has made some comparisons between broiler and roasting chickens produced on free range and has found that there is no significant difference from the point of view of nutrition. Likewise, the Low Temperature Research Station is studying the shell strength of eggs and has so far found that battery produced eggs have shells no weaker than those produced in other conditions.
    Sir J. Maitland: Is any progress being made in the production of proteins from vegetable matter, which is one of the experiments being carried out and which has a bearing on this Question?
    Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question on that topic.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in America the factory farm is proportionately much more used than in this country as a source of food supply? Is he also aware that in America more school children die from cancer than from any other disease? Has he thought of trying to discover, through his research department, whether the growth of cancer in this country is in any way related to the growth of the factory farm?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there is no known connection between these facts.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to reply to these question show ridiculous it is to saddle him with these diverse responsibilities?

    Science Graduates (Immigration)
    Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of state for Education and Science how many science graduates entered this country to take up employment during each of the years 1961, 1962 and 1963; and how many of these came from the North America continent.
    Sir E. Boyle: I regret there is no comprehensive information. The number of scientists recruited from North America as a result of the work of the Joint Interviewing Board acting on behalf of the Civil Service Commission, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as regards D.S.I.R. Fellowships is as follows: 1961, 50; 1962, 68; 1963, 32.
    Mr. Holland: Yes, but would my right hon. Friend concede that the estimated influx of experienced scientists into this country has reduced proportionately to a mere trickle through the overflow pipe the net outflow of those who are beguiled by Yankee blandishments and the almighty dollar?
    Sir E. Boyle: The figures that I gave do not include private arrangements made by industrial concerns. Secondly, my hon. Friend will, I am sure, wish to bear in mind what my right hon. Friend said in the debate on 24th February and in his statement on the recommendations of the National Incomes Commission on the remuneration of academic staffs at universities.

    World Health Organisation (Research Centre)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from universities and other interested persons in support of the establishment of the proposed World Health Research Centre in the United Kingdom.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend has received one letter, from a university professor; the reply contained substantially the information given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in answer to the Question from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) on 19th March. He also has received a copy of correspondence on the subject between the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
    Dr. Mabon: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that this World Health Research Centre might attract a great number of scientists from abroad and help to correct the balance

    1199
    of scientific outflow and inflow which we have been talking about? Will the right hon. Gentleman take an active interest in this matter, in view of the contradiction of policy expressed between the Secretary of State for Scotland on the one hand, who favours the project, and the Minister of Health on the other, who, to say the least, is unsympathetic?
    Sir E. Boyle: We have taken an active interest in this matter. There are other Questions on the Order Paper on the subject. The representations received by the Government do not suggest that there is widespread and general support among the scientific community for an establishment of this nature in its present form.
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he now has for a United Kingdom contribution to the World Health Research Centre proposed at the recent World Health Organisation Conference.
    Mr. Smallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further research is now being undertaken in the United Kingdom on the desirability of establishing a World Research Centre of the kind proposed at the recent World Health Organisation Conference.
    Sir E. Boyle: I believe that further study of these proposals would best be undertaken after it is known whether the member countries of the World Health Organisation are likely to agree to establish a World Health Research Centre, and what form any such centre is likely to take.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that that is not likely to be for another 12 months, is not this rather unsatisfactory? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a much wider feeling than he thinks that the Government are dragging their feet about this matter and that there is no unanimity in the Government about it? Is he aware that what we would like to see is some positive action and the Government coming forward with proposals to place this new research organisation in Great Britain?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is quite misinformed about the matter. There has been no dragging of feet.
    1200
    We have taken the advice of the A.C.S.P. and these proposals have been referred back to the Director-General of the W.H.O. for further consideration. There were certain aspects of the original ideas which we were ready to support, but the plans for large laboratories for medical research did not seem to us to be the best means of scientific advance.
    Mr. Small: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake further and deeper research and establish some positive criteria, assuming that we are willing to house a voluntary world health centre in the United Kingdom so that we can take part in the international infrastructure of the United Nations?
    Sir E. Boyle: I think that we should await the result of this reference back first, but I assure the hon. Member that there is no question of the Government dragging their feet.
    Mr. Crossman: As for the Government dragging their feet, is it not a fact that on the original proposition the Government's representative was the only representative who gave a flat negative in opposition from the beginning? Is it not worth considering whether we should not do for a molecular laboratory what C.E.R.N. has done for nuclear physics by international co-operation, and should we not consider whether we might take an active rôle in assisting other people to make up their minds about this?
    Sir E. Boyle: In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, the success of the international research laboratory for high energy physics in C.E.R.N., for example, is not an argument for similar research facilities for subjects which do not require equipment of the same degree of high cost. There is no precise parallel here. The original Answer shows that we did not present a flat negative to the scheme, and clearly it is right that the Government should take advice from their duly constituted advisers on the subject.
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the Medical Research Council on the proposal for a World Health Organisation Research Centre.
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what scientific advice he is now seeking on the proposal to establish a World Health Research Centre.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further scientific advice he has now received on the proposal made at the recent World Health Organisation Conference to establish a World Health Research Centre.
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend received advice on these proposals from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy before the World Health Assembly met last month. The Medical Research Council also offered its advice. There is no cause to seek further advice until we have the result of the further study being undertaken by the Director-General of the World Health Organisation.
    Mr. Millan: Is it not a fact that the proposal put forward by the Director-General of the World Health Organisation was the result of the work of an advisory committee of 30 persons, including a number of Britons, with two Nobel prizewinners among them? Could not the Minister at least take the advice of these British members of the Director-General's working party? There is certainly a division of scientific opinion in this country on this matter.
    Sir E Boyle: I assure hon. Members that we will take all relevant advice into account, but we must bear in mind in particular the advice that we have had from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and the Medical Research Council.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the very fact that there has been so much evidence of widespread disagreement among scientists indicates that advice from others is at least something to be looked at? Will he not see that something is done urgently in this matter?
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman may genuinely be exaggerating the difference among scientists on this matter as compared with other members of the public. The Medical Research Council expressed its opinion on proposals
    1202
    which were based on the findings of a conference of independent scientists.
    Mr. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman make available to us the advice that he has been given by the various scientists whom he has so far consulted?
    Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend is certainly looking into the possibility of publishing a full statement of the advice that we have received from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy.

    Food Research Institute, Norwich
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated cost of providing facilities at the new Food Research Institute at Norwich for a continuation and enlargement of the research programme on post-harvest problems, at present carried out at the Ditton Laboratory, and of ensuring that the new accommodation at Norwich provides for the standard of tolerance for high humidity constant ten perature at present achieved at Ditton.
    Sir E. Boyle: It is not possible to give any estimate at this stage of the cost involved in providing particular facilities at the new Institute. It is intended that the work on post-harvest problems, including those of storage and transport, should be continued and enlarged, and adequate facilities will be provided for this purpose.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "adequate"? Can he guarantee that the degree of control in high humidity temperature work will be as effective in the new accommodation as it is at present? This is a matter of considerable concern.
    Sir E. Boyle: I know that this is a matter of concern. If the hon. Lady would care to come to see me, I will discuss it with her. The Agricultural Research Council is thinking in terms of expanding and not reducing the scope of the food research programme as a whole, including research on post-harvest problems, and I repeat my remark that all necessary facilities will be provided at this new station.

  SHIPS (NUCLEAR PROPULSION)
  Commander Courtneyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the success of the Atomic Energy Authority in developing a nuclear reactor which, apart from capital cost, is comparable in fuel costs with conventional marine propulsion machinery, and having regard to the importance of nuclear propulsion to the future of the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy and the British shipbuilding industry, he will authorise the construction of a replenishment tanker or other Royal Navy auxiliary vessel for the purpose of acquiring the sea-going experience needed for the development of a fully economic nuclear-powered merchant ship and without which the necessary information leading to the reduction of capital costs will not be obtained.
  Mr. McMasterasked the Prime Minister whether he will authorise the construction of a nuclear-powered ship for the Royal Navy, to be built in a shipyard in the United Kingdom.
  . Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Padmore Report on nuclear-powered ships.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 17th March, a statement on the Government's future policy will be made as soon as Ministers have considered the report by the Working Group.
  Commander Courtney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply, one of a number, will be greeted with some disappointment because of the delays which have occurred and the conflicting nature of much of the information which is available on the subject? Can he say how this country expects to gain the practical sea-going experience which alone can bring down the capital cost of the reactor? Further, does not my right hon. Friend consider that £5 million is a rather small amount to allocate for this very important project in comparison with the hundreds of millions of pounds allocated to other fields of nuclear research?
  The Prime Minister: The technical assessment of this question has proved to be very difficult, and we had to give the experts time to do their job properly. We have had the report of the Working Group, which included shipbuilders, shipowners and Lloyd's Register as well as officials, for only about four days. In order to get the decision right, we had better take a little longer.
  Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend, in considering this problem along with his colleagues, bear in mind the importance of this country retaining her position as a leading shipbuilding nation and having the same amount of "know-how" as the Americans, the Russians and also the Germans are going to obtain in this subject?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wall: Several committees have sat on this matter during the past four years. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, even though a ship may not be economic, British shipbuilders and engineers can gain great credit by experience with this reactor afloat? Can he say when he expects to make a final decision on the matter?
  The Prime Minister: As I have said, we have only just got the report of the Working Group and I think that we had better look at it. The matter is very complicated. Six types of reactor had to be considered. If my hon. Friends will allow me, I should like to have a few more weeks to consider it.
  Mr. Albu: Is not the Prime Minister aware that on this matter as on the matter of the future electricity generating programme there has been a spate of rumour and counter-rumour for about six months which is very disturbing to all concerned and has serious implications for the Atomic Energy Authority? Will he consider publishing the technical advice which has been given to the Government on both matters?
  The Prime Minister: I think that I have previously told the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider publishing a White Paper on the nuclear power programme. On this question, I want to look at the Working Group's report.
  Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although this is a

  1205
  matter of great technicality and difficulty, it is vital at this stage to find some way of getting a financial agreement between the Government, on the one hand, and the shipping or shipbuilding industries, on the other, on the methods of financing and operating ships when a particular reactor is chosen?
  The Prime Minister: The first thing to know is what one has got to finance.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (SPEECHES)
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development on economic matters on Sunday, 15th March at Folkestone represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: If the Prime Minister agrees with the Minister, could he, in view of the current disintegration of the Conservative Party, explain this statement which the Minister made: "We are going into the General Election"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am quoting from the Minister. If hon. Members opposite do not want to hear their own Minister's statements, they should dismiss them at once. Can the Prime Minister explain the statement made by the Minister:
  "We are going into the General Election with immense confidence in the outcome."?
  Does that mean that the General Election will be in June or October?
  The Prime Minister: Or October, or June.
  Q6. Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development on economic matters at Bexley on 6th March represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Wyatt: Arising out of that unexpected reply, in view of the fact that the Minister referred to bringing food within
  1206
  the ambit of the Restrictive Practices Act, could the Prime Minister say what his view is of the very wide gap between what the farmer gets for his produce and what the housewife has to pay for it in the shops?
  The Prime Minister: I do not know that that arises out of the original Question.

  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether, in his last conversation with President Johnson, the subject of Great Britain's representation at a summit or any other important conference concerned with promoting world peace was discussed; and what agreement was reached.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my reply to his Question on the same subject on 25th February.
  Mr. Shinwell: in view of the doubts expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about whether the United Kingdom could be represented at an international conference dealing with world peace or any other international topic, would it not be desirable to ascertain some clarification from President Johnson so that the doubts could be removed?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. President Johnson and I did not talk about hypothetical questions. When there are great international conferences, Britain is represented.
  Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but did not the right hon. Gentleman himself deal with a hypothesis when he suggested that we could not he represented at an international conference unless we had an independent nuclear deterrent—that we could not go naked into a conference?
  The Prime Minister: What I said, I think at an earlier stage—I should have to refresh my memory—was that we would not have been at the Moscow Conference dealing with the nuclear Test Ban Treaty unless we had been a nuclear Power. That is what I said to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Prime Minister explain why we were not in the inner conference room in the discussions on disarmament between the United States and the Soviet Union which were announced in Geneva last week?
  The Prime Minister: We and the United States are putting forward at Geneva a joint plan to every part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] J thought that hon. Members knew that. We were agreed on every part of it. Sometimes we may discuss with the Russians some particular aspect of disarmament and the United States may discuss some particular aspect. But we are agreed on the general plan and, indeed, on all details of it.
  Mr. Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman now answer the Question that I put to him? Is he aware—he must be aware, but will he tell the House that he is aware—that last week the American Government representative at Geneva announced that there had been secret talks between America and the Soviet Union on the vital question of measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and that these were being held up because of Soviet feeling about the multilateral force on which the right hon. Gentleman is so equivocal? If all his speeches on this subject are to be believed, will he say why we were not at those inner talks?
  The Prime Minister: We sometimes talk to the Russians and the Americans sometimes talk to the Russians. If we talk to the Russians alone, or the Americans talk to the Russians alone, we subsequently exchange the information with each other.

  UNITED NATIONS STAND-BY FORCE
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the provision of a British contingent as part of a United Nations stand-by force.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 26th March.
  Mr. Henderson: That was a fortnight ago. May we take it that Her Majesty's Government accept the proposal which
  1208
  my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made on that occasion that a strong contingent of B.A.O.R. troops should be earmarked for this purpose of a United Nations stand-by force and that the delay is caused by Her Majesty's Government being in consultation on ways and means with our other allies in N.A.T.O.?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We have been more concerned, both in the United Nations and in this country, with dealing with the United Nations force in Cyprus for the time being. I said that we would discuss the other matter with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with the allies, and so we will. Our troops are fully trained and they are always ready. We have great responsibilities overseas. I am not very sure that it would be in the national interest to earmark forces in particular places to be sent to United Nations actions automatically.
  Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend say that never again in any circumstances will British troops be employed for United Nations purposes under orders of which this House is ignorant?
  The Prime Minister: We know as a Government the directive under which the British forces in Cyprus operate. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says," What about the House of Commons?" We promised to see if the Secretary-General of the United Nations would allow these directives to be published. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members say. "Why not?" They have been pressing for this all this time. However, some of these directives are operational. We will have to give further consideration to this with the Secretary-General.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is some disquiet among British forces serving in Cyprus under the United Nations auspices at the fact that they are the only forces serving there which are not receiving from their own Government some sort of United Nations allowance because of this type of service? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see whether it is possible for the British Government to pay a similar allowance and to put

  1209
  British troops on the same basis as other forces serving in the United Nations force?
  The Prime Minister: I will look into that matter.
  Mr. P. Williams: While accepting that the Government must go through the diplomatic niceties with the United Nations, may I ask my right hon. Friend to understand that the House of Commons wishes to know, and deserves to be told, exactly under what conditions British forces have been committed?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It may relieve some anxiety if I say that the directive provides that the British troops, and indeed all United Nations troops, can fire in self-defence. I am trying to see whether we can get the Secretary-General's leave to publish the directive, but, of course, it is to some extent operational and it is not very easy for the Secretary-General to do it.

  REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Ginsburgasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister of State to assist the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development in work connected with regional development.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Ginsburg: Will the Prime Minister look at this again, because did not the former Prime Minister indicate last year that he would keep this matter under review? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development has got too much to do at present and is falling down on his job? In particular, is it not the case that many of the older industrial areas are not getting their proper share of modern growth industries?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the complaint of hon. Members opposite was that my right hon. Friend had been too active, not that he had been inactive.
  Mr. Wade: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that there is adequate coordination between the different
  1210
  Ministers and Ministries concerned directly and indirectly with regional development? If he is not, what does he propose to do to ensure that there is better co-ordination and, in particular, that conflicting policies are not pursued?
  The Prime Minister: I am satisfied on co-ordination. If I may follow up a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), if I thought that the Secretary of State wanted reinforcing by a Minister of State or another Minister, I would do it. But I do not think that that is the case.
  Mr. Ross: If the Prime Minister changes his mind about this, will he take great care not to appoint the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)?
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the important and invidious fact that in all the Government's attempts at regional development, such as the Channel Tunnel, new towns, and that kind of thing, the north-east of Scotland has been markedly neglected? Would he therefore appoint a Minister of State whose duty would be to look after the north-east of Scotland, to stop the drift south and to encourage trade, industry, commerce and employment to go to that region?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. and learned Member knows that we are carrying out a series of surveys, and one in the north-east of Scotland—[Interruption]—no, in the Borders and the Highlands of Scotland as well. I should like to see the results of the survey which I hope we shall have soon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH APRIL.—Housing Bill.
Completion of the remaining stages, which it is hoped to obtain by seven o'clock.
Second Reading of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill.

1211
TUESDAY, 14TH APRIL.—As already announced, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH APRIL AND THURSDAY, 16TH APRIL.—The general debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Situation will be continued and be brought to a conclusion on MONDAY, 20TH APRIL.
FRIDAY, 17TH APRIL.—Private Members' Motions.
Mr. Shinwell: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday, on the matter of the American Maritime Commission's intervention as between British shipowners and British shippers, the Minister of Transport informed the House that he would make a statement to the House on the subject?
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when his right hon. Friend will make such a statement and whether he is aware that, after his right hon. Friend yesterday announced that he would make a statement, I received, along with other hon. Members, a full statement on this matter?
Can the Leader of the House explain why his right hon. Friend, who appeared not to have the Answer to some Questions in his possession, merely said that he would make a statement on the assumption that it would be made during the course of next week or some other time in the future, whereas the Answer was conveyed to hon. Members about an hour later?
Mr. Lloyd: I was present in the House when the right hon. Gentleman questioned my right hon. Friend and the inference which I obtained from the interchange was that my right hon. Friend would like to make a fuller statement some time next week.
Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that in the statement which is in my possession it is stated that a Note has been sent to the United States Government, when will a fuller statement be made to the House?
Mr. Lloyd: Speaking from recollection, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has his tense wrong. I thought that my right hon. Friend's answer was that a Note would be—not had been—sent,
1212
but I may be wrong. My recollection was that my right hon. Friend was speaking of the future. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the right hon. Gentleman's views. My right hon. Friend wishes, I think, to make the statement as soon as he can conveniently do so.
Mr. W. Yates: My right hon. and learned Friend will, no doubt, have noticed the report of the debate in the United Nations concerning the use of Royal Air Force aircraft in the Yemen without the authority of this House. In view of the fact that 12 Members of Parliament have visited south-west Arabia and that area, will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for the House to have a debate so that the whole nation can understand what is going on?
Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, there will not be a debate on this matter next week.
Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when is it intended that the Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill should be resumed?
Mr. Lloyd: Not next week, but early, at a convenient stage, thereafter.
Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the electors of Devizes, Bury St. Edmunds and Rutherglen have been without representation in the House since January? Can he say whether, next week, it will be the intention of the Government to move to issue the Writs for these by-elections?
Mr. Lloyd: That is not a question which, by precedent, falls to the Leader of the House to answer on the business question.
Mr. Brockway: In view of the likelihood of this Session of Parliament lasting rather longer than many people anticipated and the absence of any constructive legislation to fill that time, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now agree to give facilities for the Bill against racial discrimination and incitement, which has been introduced on nine occasions over nine years and on which the Government have never allowed facilities for discussion?
Mr. Lloyd: While certainly not accepting the hon. Gentleman's second

1213
premise, if he is right in his first premise there are obviously interesting possibilities open in the future.
Mr. Lipton: May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that it is not the Government's intention to introduce amending legislation to prolong the life of this Parliament beyond next October?
Mr. Lloyd: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that such legislation will not be introduced next week.
Mr. A. Lewis: Reverting to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), may I ask the Leader of the House to discuss with the Patronage Secretary a change in Monday's business to enable the Patronage Secretary to move the issue of the by-election Writs, as is his duty? Wilt the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend and afford this opportunity?
Mr. Lloyd: Probably not.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Mr. Lewis: How long are the electors in these constituencies to be disfranchised?
Mr. Lloyd: That is not a question for me.

MR. JOHN WILLIAMS AND FAMILY (ENTRY PERMIT)
3.38 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the application made today to the Home Secretary for a temporary entry permit for Mr. John Williams and his family, who have today arrived in Cape Town, about which a decision is required within the next 12 hours before the return boat leaves tomorrow.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is certainly definite in that an application has today been made to the Home Office by solicitors acting on behalf of Christian Action and Mr. Williams. It is equally definite that he has arrived in Cape Town and that he seeks to return to this country with his family if he can have permission to do so.
This matter is urgent in that the Union Castle Line has told solicitors in Cape Town today that it requires a sum of money to be paid to it before the boat leaves tomorrow if the Williams family is to be given passages on it and because, if they are not given passages on it, we cannot know what steps the South African Government may take in relation to their liberties of all kinds.
I submit, finally, that the matter is of real public importance in that there are many strong feelings in this country on the whole of this question and the way it has been handled in the last two weeks. Feelings are running very high. Many people care very deeply and feel that far too little consideration has been given to all the implications of this application for permission to enter the country. The matter is of real public importance when the tradition of the generosity and hospitality of Britain is at stake in relation to people such as the Williams family, who are seeking to come here away from the system of apartheid to live in a civilised society.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this application comes within the terms of Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move, under Standing Order No. 9, the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

1215
matter of urgent public importance, namely
the application made today to the Home Secretary for a temporary entry permit for Mr. John Williams and his family, who have today arrived in Cape Town and about which a decision is required within the next 12 hours before the return boat leaves tomorrow.
I do not know anything about the fate of the application and, treating it at its maximum in favour of the hon. Lady, as though one could amend it to be a refusal of the application, or something like that, I would not be able to hold that to be within the Standing Order, except in defiance of precedents. I must say "No".
Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. We understand that in recent years, contrary to the previous practice of the House, we have not been given your reasons in these matters, Mr. Speaker, but it will be within the recollection of the House that fairly recent a very similar request for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 was made in respect of an immigration application for, I think, a Portuguese seaman—I am not quite certain—and was accepted.
In view of the arguments of my hon. Friend, and as no other means are available to the House to deal with it in the period before this situation becomes critical, and in view of our long tradition in matters of both political asylum and entry into this country, may I ask whether you would reconsider this matter, or, at any rate, say why—as it appears incomprehensible to some of us—you have given the Ruling you have?
Mr. Speaker: The actual precedent I was looking at was followed by a passage where the Prime Minister asked whether it was in order to debate a Speaker's Ruling, and comments on that. However, I appreciate the extreme difficulty of this matter and it is important. I am rather sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, in effect, that I have been more reluctant than others to give reasons. I rather thought that I had erred the other way. In any event, I will explain.
The case the right hon. Gentleman had in mind was that of a man whose name was Perez-Selles, a Portuguese or Spaniard, and there was no dispute, as I understand, about the allegation that,
1216
if returned to the place from which he had come, his life and limb would be in danger. That is the only exception, so far as I know, that we are able to make in this matter. Otherwise, these matters of acceptance or non-acceptance into this country fall within the class and always have fallen within the class of the ordinary administration of the law, which my predecessors have held to be outside the Standing Order.
That is my reason and I think it to be entirely consistent with precedents. It is much easier to say "Yes", than "No" in these things and I would much rather do it if I thought that, consistently with my duty, I could.
Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order. We should not have to take your time, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order.
Mr. Wilson: I am on a point of order.
Hon. Members: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Wilson: Of course it is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will be sensible about this. The right hon. Gentleman is not abusing the situation. He is perfectly entitled to ask reasons in a difficult matter and I am trying to help.
Mr. Wilson: Further to the point of order. I recognise the difficulty of the Chair in these matters. No one in the House wants to take your time, Mr. Speaker, or the time of the House, when we have urgent business before us, but in cases of this kind—and we have been put into this situation not by any general wish of the House, but by decisions of the Government, decisions which have been announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there was a statement by a Minister in another place yesterday afternoon. The House of Commons must seek to preserve its rights, and when human rights are involved, we must have a say in the matter and not leave it to another place.
In this situation, while not wanting in any way further to raise the question of your Ruling, Mr. Sneaker, would it

1217
not be the right thing for the House and for you and for the importance of this case, on which the Government ought to have some feeling, and to save a lot of time, for the Prime Minister, or some other Minister—I do not see the Home Secretary here—to tell us what the situation is?
On many occasions in the past, when there has been an argument about an application under Standing Order No. 9, the matter has been disposed of and the time that the House has been saved by the Minister making a statement. I submit that the time of the House could be saved if the Prime Minister were to rise.
Mr. Speaker: Obviously, we cannot make that into a matter about which I should pronounce.
Mr. W. Yates: Further to that point of order. This is a case in which we are trying to discover whether your Ruling, Sir, means that you are not empowered to leave the decision to the House to vote on. That is what I understand your Ruling to be. You say that this matter may not be referred to the House because, under Standing Order No. 9, it is within the rules of the House that you may in your discretion allow the House to decide by vote whether a debate should take place.
Mr. Speaker: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is under some illusion. I have to decide whether, under the terms of the Standing Order, I can leave the matter to the House. My Ruling means, regretfully or not, that I do not think that I can.
Mr. Wade: Further to this point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to answer this one question for the guidance of the House? I understood that in the precedent which you quoted the person in question was in danger to life and limb. In this case we know that the person concerned has been classified as coloured. Is it necessary for the House to prove that he is in danger to an extent similar to the case which you have already quoted? Is the difference between the other case and this merely one of proving what one would imagine to be very likely?
Mr. Speaker: What we imagine may be very likely, or what are hypothetical
1218
matters, r ass out of the realms of what is definite for the purposes of the Standing Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". It is a valid distinction from my point of view.
Mr. Brockway: I was responsible for seeking the Adjournment under Standing Order No 9 in the case of the Spanish seaman, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you, if it is necessary, that on that occasion the then Speaker at first declined to accept the Motion, but then did so when we were able to indicate to him that there was some danger to the life and limb of Perez-Selles? Mr. Williams is a coloured person who is opposed to the system of apartheid in South Africa, and there seems very little doubt that if he is not permitted to leave South Africa he will suffer in a way which would be equivalent to the suffering of Perez-Selles.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member need not remind me about the case. I have read it very often in trying to work out the right Principle for my own guidance. I do not think that the facts are parallel in this case, or can be made so.
Mr. P. Williams: On a point of order. Is this whole issue now debatable?
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: I am trying to be helpful. It would appear to be desirable that we should pass to other matters if hon. Members wish to shout while I am on my feet. These matters are difficult. Naturally, they cause great anxiety and the time factor in this case might be very difficult. In the circumstances, I wanted the House clearly to understand the principle on which I was working.
Mr. Fell: While realising fully the gravity of this matter and that it does affect the consciences of a number of people very deeply, nevertheless it will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, and, I think, within the recollection of the House, on a number of occasions hon. Members have tried to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9. I have been involved perhaps in three of those occasions and on every single occasion, certainly without any dispute by anyone concerned,

1219
you have said, I think I am right in saying, that your Ruling was final and that it could not be questioned when you had laid it down.
It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that you felt it necessary, after all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry, but one of the occasions was on a question affecting the lives and limbs of many, many British people abroad, and, therefore, it is somewhat surprising to some of us that you have felt it necessary to be as elastic as this on this occasion.
Mr. Speaker: What is the hon. Member trying to do? If an hon. Member wants to criticise me for something I have ruled, and he does not like it, the matter can be dealt with on another occasion, but he cannot do it now. I think that we had better bring this to an end.
Mr. Grimond: Mr. Speaker, while the House is deeply appreciative of your care in explaining your position in this matter, there are precedents where, in cases like this, the Government have intervened to make their position clear. This matter has changed, as I understand it, since permission was refused to this man and his family to land in this country, and now the position is extremely urgent.
May I, therefore, add my plea to those which have already been made that the Government should tell us that at least they will urgently consider this matter?
Mr. Hirst: A point of order?
Mr. Grimond: I am amazed at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I am asking is that something be done as has been done in this House before. When it is a question of life and limb surely the House has not come to the position that it cannot spare five or 10 minutes—
Mr. Fell: Where is the point of order?
Mr. Grimond: We have precedents like the one mentioned. I do not want to raise tempers over this matter, but I have attempted to intervene because this is important. All I am asking is that the Government should consider it again, as a new set of circumstances has arisen, and inform the House of their intentions.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mrs. Hart: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I think, raised a point of order, and I have not yet had an opportunity of answering him. These matters which he raised do not appear to be for me.
Mrs. Hart: On a point of order. To make certain that a statement was made and that there was an opportunity for it, I telephoned the Home Secretary's private secretary at lunchtime today to ask him to ask the Home Secretary to seek your permission to answer Questions which are on the Order Paper today and this he refused to do.
Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a point of order for me.
Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with this matter?
Sir C. Taylor: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Then I will hear it.
Sir C. Taylor: I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) say the word "bastard" to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Does that meet with your approval?
Mr. Speaker: I have great difficulty in landing the epithet in any particular direction, and would say that there are parts of the country where it is used as a term of endearment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

  New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AFTER MAKING OF COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER.)

  (1) The provisions of this section shall apply where—

  5

  (a) a local authority have made an order under Part I of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, as applied to the acquisition of land under the Act of 1957, authorising the compulsory acquisition of a house which, or a part of which is let in lodgings, or which is occupied by members of more than one family, and

  (b) any premises forming part of that house are at a time in the relevant period occupied by a person (in this section referred to as "the former lessee") who was the lessee of those premises when the order was made or became the lessee thereof after the order was made, but who is no longer the lessee thereof.

  10

  In this section "the relevant period" means the period of nine months beginning with the making of the said order or, if at a time before the expiration of the said period of nine months the Minister notifies the local authority that he declines to confirm the order, or the order is quashed by a court, the period beginning with the making of the order and ending with that time.

  15

  (2) It shall not be lawful at any time in the relevant period for the person who, as against the former lessee, is entitled to possession of the premises to enforce against the former lessee, otherwise than by proceedings in the county court, the right to recover possession of the premises:

  20

  Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

  (a) where the person so entitled is the local authority, or

  (b) where the net annual value for rating of the premises exceeds the limit imposed by section 48 of the County Courts Act 1959 (jurisdiction in actions for recovery of land).

  25

  (3) If any person contravenes the provisions of the last foregoing subsection he shall, without prejudice to any liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

  30

  (4) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 23 of the Act of 1961 (criminal liability of directors and others officers of body corporate) shall apply in relation to an offence punishable under this section.

  35

  (5) In the application of this section to Scotland—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the reference to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, to the Act of 1957 and to the Minister there shall be substituted respectively references to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947, to the Act of 1950 and to the Secretary of State;

  40

  (b) for subsections (2) and (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—

  45

  "(2) If at any time in the relevant period the person who, as against the former lessee, is entitled to possession of the premises enforces against the former lessee, otherwise than by proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, the right to recover possession of the premises, he shall, without prejudice to any liability or remedy to which he may be subject in civil proceedings, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both:

  50

  Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the person entitled to possession of the premises is the local authority."—[Sir K. Joseph.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.55 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  1222
  I do not know what would suit your wishes, Mr. Speaker, and those of the House and of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), but there is an Amendment to this new Clause, in line 12.
  May I take it that we may debate that simultaneously?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes. When we get to that in due course it will be selected. I should have given some guidance before. When we get to the later Amendment another Question will then arise, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, after this new Clause has been read a Second time, on that Amendment, think that that will suit everybody.
  Sir K. Joseph: This new Clause seeks to meet a point of substance made in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and supported by a number of hon. Members of the Committee, that some landlords, faced with works orders under the 1961 Act for improving conditions in multi-occupied property might, in vindictiveness, give notices of eviction to the tenants concerned. After considerable debate in Committee, during which I had maintained that the proper remedy for such courses was the use of the compulsory purchase order powers by the local authority, I took note of the strong views of some hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, that compulsory purchase orders would not be effective for such a purpose and that this danger was likely to arise frequently, and undertook to consult a number of local authorities who had had particular experience with this special problem.
  I have now to report to the House that I have consulted 15 authorities, and I have had some advice from one or two other authorities in the ordinary way of administrative business. The result of those inquiries shows that there is evidence of a handful of cases—I think four cases—which have been shown to me where, following a compulsory purchase order, a landlord has sought, in some cases successfully and in some cases not, to evict the tenant.
  I cannot, therefore, continue to assert to the House that there is no risk whatever of this happening, but I should like to stress that the number of cases indicated to me by those authorities, 15 in number, is at most four. I say "at most," because it is always difficult to enter into the mind of the landlord concerned. All that is known is that in these four cases the notice followed the compulsory purchase order, but, of course, there is no way of absolutely proving that an evic-
  1224
  tion notice was not in the mind of the landlord, apart from the compulsory purchase order.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: When the right hon. Gentleman says "at most four" he means in relation to the 15 local authorities with whom he has had consultation? There are many more local authorities.
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is technically right, but they were local authorities with what I believe to be among the largest problems of multi-occupied property and pressure upon accommodation, and I went particularly to the local authorities mentioned in the debate.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Any London ones?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly. These local authorities included Islington, Willesden, Deptford, Paddington, Kensington, Lambeth, and, outside London, Newcastle, Nottingham, Salford, Leicester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. Those were specifically consulted. A few others volunteered information in addition.
  The result of this is to show that, if we are to ensure that the 1961 Act procedure for improving conditions of multi-occupied property can be carried out at the lowest possible risk to the tenants concerned, there is need to do something. But the Government still maintain that the proper way to increase the protection given to tenants is to make the compulsory purchase order procedure practicable for local authorities to use with special protection for tenants in multi-occupied property who might be at risk because of this danger.
  4.0 p.m.
  We still maintain that the control order procedure, which was perfectly understandable as suggested by hon. Members opposite, is not the right way to go about the problem. This new Clause therefore provides that, in the case of multi-occupied property, the power of the landlord to obtain possession of property on which a compulsory purchase order has been made by a local authority is limited for a period not to exceed nine months.

  1225
  The limitation imposed on the landlord is that he cannot, for a period of nine months, or such lesser period as I shall describe, obtain vacant possession of any property on which a compulsory purchase order has been made. The period of nine months is not in itself a definition of protection for the tenants. It is an outside limit. Some outside limit must be proposed otherwise a local authority, if it wished, could put on a compulsory purchase order without ever intending to carry it through. The landlord can, however, within that nine months recover possession, even despite the protection given by the Clause, if he can show, to the satisfaction of the county court, that, despite the making of the compulsory purchase order and despite the risk of eviction, vacant possession should be given to him.
  I now deal with the administrative background. If the House accepts the Clause, I propose that advice at a suitable stage should be given to local authorities that, where faced with the need to use the 1961 Act powers on any multi-occupied house, and where they envisage from the character or the previous behaviour of the landlord that there might be some such danger of eviction, they should prepare administratively. Very little preparation is needed to have to hand a compulsory purchase order procedure if it proves to be necessary.
  I also propose to advise them that they should, whenever making a compulsory purchase order in such a situation connected with multi-occupied property, advise all the tenants of the buildings concerned of their rights: first, their existing statutory rights, which include four weeks' notice before eviction can take effect, and, secondly, the increased rights given under this Clause.
  I would expect, therefore, that tenants, in co-operation with the local authorities, should be able to be absolutely secure from eviction for a number of months. I am not saying for the whole nine months, because during that time the landlord could go to the county court and justify vacant possession.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Does the landlord have to justify vacant possession? Has the
  1226
  county curt any discretion in that matter if proper notice has been served?
  Sir K. Joseph: This is a point of some difficulty for me to answer since, obviously, it affects the judiciary. But subsectior (2) of this new Clause reads:
  (2) It shall not be lawful at any time in the relevant period for the person who, as against the former lessee, is entitled to possession of the premises to enforce against the former lessee, otherwise than by proceedings in the county court, the right to recover possession of the premises:
  I imagine—without being impertinent in relation to the judiciary—that the county court might consider that the landlord was entitled to possession, but that Parliament, by passing this new Clause, had ensured that during the submission of a compulsory purchase order, the power of eviction should not bite as quickly as it could. I imagine that, even if the court were sympathetic at least to giving the power of eviction, then it would do so rather slowly.
  I want to come to the substance of the protection here. I am not saying that in every case the tenants in such a house will be completely safeguarded. There are still obvious risks. The first is that the compulsory purchase order will be refused by the Minister in due course on its merits; but that is a risk we must all accept.
  Secondly, there is the risk that, during the process of considering the order, which normally takes months because of the statutory requirements for hearings, the landlord may take the trouble and shoulder the expense of going to county court. Thirdly, the risk following upon that is that the court may give him what are his bare legal rights. However, consider that this Clause would operate to deter most landlords from that trouble.
  We are aiming here at the vindictive landlords, of whom there are relatively few. There are inefficient landlords and landlords and landlords indifferent to their property and tenants. But there are relatively few vindictive ones who will cut off their noses to spite their faces—which is what they would be doing if they left property vacant on which compulsory purchase orders had been made, for then they would lose the income.
  If there is a combination of a vindictive landlord who takes the trouble to go to court and a series of events which

  1227
  leads the court to give him vacant possession, then eviction might bite but I would expect the local authorities, in order to deal with these very rare cases, to be able to bridge the short period of months that may well have to pass before the order is confirmed—assuming that it is confirmed—by housing the tenants temporarily.
  We cannot assume, however, that an order will be confirmed, because some are not. The Clause is put down, first, because of the substantial protection it gives and, secondly, and even more important, because of the deterrence it will bring to bear on almost every landlord faced with a compulsory purchase order after works orders have been made under the 1961 Act.
  Mr. Walter Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that London local authorities have a pool of housing accommodation that they could give to people who might suffer, as a result of the action under the 1961 Act, by being evicted? Does he think that these authorities have housing available to put these people in temporarily? There are no such pools in the London boroughs although there may be in some other parts of the country.
  Sir K. Joseph: I have no such fantastic notion, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the scale of the problem. During our long debates in Committee it was not maintained that there were large numbers of people here at risk from landlords in these circumstances. It was common ground between us that the compulsory purchase order power in the hands of the local authorities would deter most landlords who might be tempted to evict when 1961 Act orders were made on the property, for the very good reason that such landlords would simply be cutting off the income they could draw from the property for the remaining months before the order was confirmed.
  I now accept the point made from the Opposition benches that there is evidence—I have had four cases—to show that despite all that I said, landlords, despite all the damage to their own interests, give eviction notices. Four cases out of many hundreds in which local authorities have made compulsory purchase
  1228
  orders show the scale of the problem with which we are dealing. I hope that the House will feel that this is a sensible and practical way of going about improving the security of tenants in this situation.
  Mr. Lipton: For what reason has the right hon. Gentleman decided on the period of nine months as a suitable period during which the full rigours of possession or eviction will not bite on the unfortunate tenant in the premises concerned? The only clue that I can find to this period is that in reply to a question that I put to the right hon. Gentleman some time ago he said that, on average, it took him eight months to decide whether or not to confirm a compulsory purchase order. It seems, therefore, that I am right in assuming that because the average time for confirmation is eight months, he has selected nine months.
  I have had difficulty in getting details from the right hon. Gentleman's Department—because the number of compulsory orders is very large—but from my experience of the municipal authorities in London I do not think that it is true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman does, that, on average, it takes only eight months to confirm a compulsory purchase order. I think that, given the time, I could produce numerous cases—and quite simple cases, too, involving no complications—in which it has taken the Minister far longer than eight months to make up his mind. As eight months is only an average figure, and has to include the simplest possible cases as well as the most complicated ones, I think that there is a strong argument for extending the period of nine months.
  My other point concerns the discretion of county court judges. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) asked the Minister what discretion a county court judge would have when considering a case of this kind. The Minister replied that he could not interfere with the judiciary. That is a very worthy sentiment on the part of the Executive. The Minister may not be able to answer my question offhand, but I should like to know what discretion a county court judge will have when a landlord seeks possession of a property even if it is affected by the new Clause.

  1229
  I have known many heartrending cases in which the judge, much against his will, has had to give judgment for the landlord and order a husband, his wife, and his large family to be dispossessed, simply because the court was bound by the law as it stood. In the present state of the law the county court judge has no discretion whatever. He has to grant possession to a landlord. He can defer the actual date of leaving the premises for two or three weeks, but that is about all that he can do. The unfortunate tenant is lucky if he gets a month's extension. If he is still in difficulty after that, he might, on further application to the court, get an extension of another two or three weeks, but after that he has to go. I can see nothing in the new Clause which will make it possible for a judge to refuse to grant a possession order to a landlord, whether he is vindictive or not. The landlord knows his legal rights, and he will insist on them.
  4.15 p.m.
  Sir K. Joseph: If I might deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first, the county court judge can grant a stay in the date, and in the particular circumstances that we are adumbrating, where a compulsory purchasing order has been made on a property, I should have thought that in many cases the judge would use his power to grant a stay of execution.
  But the more important thing to bring home to the House is the number of weeks which will normally be involved. The hon. Gentleman is right. The average time taken by me to make a decision on a compulsory purchase order is eight months. But that is an average, covering the most prolonged, widespread and comprehensive compulsory purchase orders for large-scale slum clearance or redevelopment schemes, on the one hand, and, on the other, the least complex compulsory purchase orders which are made by local authorities in respect of single houses where exorbitant rents are being charged, threatening homelessness to the tenant. It is the second sort of compulsory purchase order which is analogous to this sort of case, and if I were able to isolate these cases I would tell the House that the average time taken to come to a decision is very much less than eight months.
  1230
  Occasionally, there are cases in which sheer legal problems defeat speed. There is also bound to be a lapse of time to give notice to all the interests concerned, and that sort of thing, but I would still expect to be able to decide in almost all these cases well within the nine month period. But nine months is not sacred. Subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the Government would be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment to increase that period by a matter of a few weeks, or months, to make sure. But the nine months, or even 12 months, would not be a guarantee to the tenant. It would merely set a limit to the period during which the protection given by the new Clause would be provided.
  I do not know how the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to the new Clause will be argued by him, but, if it would help him, may I say that the Government would be willing, either by means of a manuscript Amendment now, or by doing it at a later stage in another place, to lengthen the nine-month period to some extent. But there must be some limit, otherwise we shall put into the hands of 1,500 local authorities the power to slap on a compulsory purchase order, without ever meaning to proceed, to provide security for the tenant.
  I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's questions, and that the House will accept the new Clause.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg, to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 12, to leave out from second "period" to the end of line 16 and to insert:
  "beginning with the making of the said order and eroding when either—

  (a) the Minister notifies the local authority that he declines to confirm the order, or

  (b) the order is quashed by a court, or

  (c) the local authority becomes the owner of the house".

  I should have liked to have seen the protection afforded by the new Clause occurring in the case of any compulsory purchase order. It does not seem satisfactory that when an application has been made for compulsory purchase order and they there are the inevitable delays,

  1231
  either long or short, both because of the Minister's power to confirm or refuse, and because of the actual legal process of purchase even when the Minister's consent is given, that during that period of delay the landlord should have the power to do something to the tenant which we all know he will not have the power to do if the order is confirmed and the house comes into the possession of the local authority. It seems an affront to common sense that that should happen.
  I therefore welcome the general principle of the new Clause, as far as it goes, but I would have thought that my Amendment to it was a matter of common sense. Is it necessary to specify any period, in terms of weeks or months? Cannot we rather look at the nature of the problem, which is to prevent a tenant's being turned out until either the compulsory order has achieved its purpose and the local authority has possession of the house or the Minister has turned the order down, or it has been quashed by a court? That is what my Amendment proposes.
  I agree that in the great majority of cases the Minister will have reached his decision before nine months have elapsed, but there will be the occasional case where, for exceptional reasons, he has not done so. Is the tenant to be put at risk for that reason? Furthermore, even when the Minister has given his consent the local authority must still go through the process of purchase, and the period of nine months may run out before that is complete. It would be deplorable if the tenant were turned out during that period.
  Is there any objection to what I propose, namely, that the period of protection of a tenant should be simply the period during which the compulsory purchase order is in balance, that period being ended either by the quashing of the order by the Minister or a court, or by the order completely fulfilling its purpose and the house passing into the possession of the local authority.
  I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about local authorities putting compulsory purchase orders on all over the place, with no intention of continuing with them. Am I not right in thinking that if they do so the owners of the properties con-
  1232
  cerned can make objection to the orders, and that if the local authorities fail to meet those objections within a certain time the Minister can decline to give consent to those orders? If a local authority tried to behave in that manner, by simply putting on a compulsory purchase order without intending to continue it, the Minister could—and would have to—deal with the matter by turning down the order.
  I can see no danger, under my Amendment, of a lavish or unnecessary use of compulsory purchase orders by local authorities. My Amendment has the advantage of not obliging us to try to estimate exactly how long it takes from the local authority's first action to the completion of the process. It simply provides that the tenant's protection shall last as long as that process continues.
  I welcome what the Minister said about his willingness—if he cannot accept my Amendment—to accept a manuscript Amendment prolonging the period, or to accept an Amendment in another place to that effect. But I do not see why he should not be able to accept my Amendment, which would achieve all that a manuscript Amendment would achieve and would tie the matter up permanently, so that everybody—landlord. tenant and local authority—would know exactly where he stood. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Albert Evans: It is evident from what the Minister has said, and from the contents of his new Clause, that he has gone quite a long way towards meeting our fears about the operation of the compulsory purchase order procedure. The Minister knows that in recent years the compulsory purchase order has become almost an instrument of Government policy. There was a time when it was used less frequently. Having found from our experience in London that an increasing number of families were being faced with eviction and homelessness, the Minister and his predecessor have urged local authorities to use the instrument of the compulsory purchase order. That has been done to an increasing extent, certainly in London.
  The Minister has admitted that there are weaknesses in this procedure, and

  1233
  that in a limited number of cases the use of the compulsory purchase order brings into activity the ruthless landlord, who moves ahead of the Minister and the compulsory purchase order, so defeating Parliament's intention. The Minister has, therefore, introduced the new Clause.
  Nevertheless, I am sure that he will agree that in trying to close the gap so as to prevent this sort of action by the landlord who is quick off the mark it is necessary to try to ensure that there is no possibility, under the new Clause, of a landlord getting round Government policy. The only way in which the gap can be closed effectively is by accepting the Amendment to the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and to lengthen the time of protection.
  If the Minister accepts my hon. Friend's Amendment his Clause will be complete and Parliament will be able to have its way against the exceptionally bad landlord who seeks to foil its purpose.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) raised two points. One of them—his desire to see this protection given to the tenants of all houses covered by compulsory purchase orders, and not only those which are in multi-occupation—is not part of his Amendment, and I shall, therefore, limit myself to dealing with the point of that Amendment, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) has referred, namely, the extension of the time limit.
  I must apologise for not spelling out my fears before. What the hon. Member for Fulham said is right. If a local authority does not pursue its order effectively before the Minister it lapses. But it would be possible for a local authority to make an order and then, although the order was confirmed in due course, never to go ahead and buy the property. In that case, under the hon. Gentleman's Amendment security of tenure would be given for all that period, subject to the right of the landlord to go to the county court. That is why it makes sense to impose a tune limit.
  I do not suggest that we should take time in dealing with the point this
  1234
  afternoon. I am willing, at a later stage, to advise the acceptance of an Amendment extending the period of nine months to 12 months. But there will have to be a limit. In the light of my reply, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  Mr. J. Silverman: The Amendment does not ask for very much, and the new Clause does not give very much. It does not give security of tenure. All it says is that if the landlord wants to get rid of his tenant he must go to the county court; he cannot throw him out without doing that. In substance, it extends to a particular sort of tenant or lessee the rights which are already enjoyed by people whose property is rent-controlled.
  Even if the time were extended beyond what the Minister would consider reasonable, nothing much would be lost. It would simply mean that in a greater number of cases landlords would have to go to county courts, instead of being able to throw out tenants at will. Personally, I think that this procedure should extend to every tenant and not merely to tenants of rent-controlled property, or tenants covered by the new Clause. It is a shocking thing if it is possible for landlords to evict without going to a county court. Therefore, I think that nothing will be lost by extending this time, because all it means is that the matter will be done by process of law in the few cases where it extends beyond the period of nine months. I cannot see why the Minister should resist any part of the Amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: I hope that the Minister will very carefully reconsider what he has said about the Amendment. What my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has been saying is very true. We are in a most complex field.
  In introducing the new Clause, which we have now accepted, the Minister has tried to deal with one part of the complex field which has been brought to his attention. But it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that what we really need is to extend this protection to all tenants. I know that the Minister will not do that, but if he could extend it a little further, as suggested in the Amendment, he would

  1235
  bring within the net some cases which have not yet been brought to his attention but which may very well arise.
  I say that particularly because I have in my hand a whole list of cases which have arisen in the Borough of Tottenham and which will not be caught by the new Clause, for the reason that it would appear—it is not very clear what happened—that landlords have got wind of the fact that the local authority might be making compulsory purchase orders.
  The Minister will know that a local authority committee may take a decision which then has to be confirmed by the full council, and in the intervening period the landlord may get to hear of it and give notice to quit to tenants before the compulsory purchase order has actually been made. This has happened on quite a big scale. The Minister will find that there are many more than four such cases, and we are not covering that possibility at all in the new Clause or this Amendment.
  There are so many variations of this kind of behaviour by landlords that if we can bring a few more such variations into the net by accepting the Amendment we should do so. Even then, we shall not have covered all the cases where the landlord gives notice to quit to his tenant in circumstances which we would all like to cover.
  Mr. James MacColl: I cannot advise my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, although we appreciate that the new Clause is a substantial step forward and that his attitude towards the proposal to extend the time shows that he is anxious to do what he can to give the Bill a few more teeth.
  The critical question is that it is not until a local authority becomes the owner of the house—that is in paragraph (c) of my hon. Friend's Amendment—that it can really begin to do anything, and the question when it becomes the owner of the house is not altogether in its hands. There may well be delay in the Minister's confirmation of the order, as well as delay in pushing the procedure by the local authorities themselves. We talk a lot about local authorities being lazy, but it is occasionally possible for the Minister to nod.
  1236
  The right hon. Gentleman said that eight months is the average, but with an average there are always as many on the wrong side as there are on the right side. It may well be that there are a number of cases in which there are delays before the Minister gives approval to his order. That is what causes the delay, and during that time the local authority has to watch the sands of time running out and eviction threatened without being able to do anything about it.
  Although the Minister has given the impression of being reasonable about this, I feel that he is missing a point of great value, and I hope that my hon. Friends will press this to a Division.
  Sir K. Joseph: There are one or two points that I should like to answer. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) spoke of this as if it were an operation to help the tenant on its own. It is not. It is to reinforce the compulsory purchase order. We are dealing here not just with the protection of the county court for the tenant. We are dealing with this under the umbrella of a compulsory purchase order made for the property in which the tenant lives.
  I accept the point of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), who was responsible for the upturning of this evidence, that we are not here dealing with the whole range of problems of this sort. We are dealing with problems that immediately concern the House—that is, the result of the 1961 Act—and whether the control order procedures in the Bill should not be used to help. As for the wider range, we must await the Milner Holland Report to see what scale there is on this problem and how best it can be tackled. It may well be that the compulsory purchase order procedure will not be the way to tackle any problem that the Milner Holland Committee comes out with.
  Finally, I would say to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that this is not a question of the local authorities or the Minister being lazy. There are a series of steps that have to be followed and they take time, and in some cases there are legal complexities. I would gladly move to 12 months at a later

  1237
  stage. I cannot believe that if a local authority were, at the end of 12 months, to apply to purchase a property on which a compulsory purchase order had been made a county court judge would be in a hurry to give vacant possession. I am sure that a stay notice would be given in such a case.
  As to the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green that a landlord may have wind of a threatened compulsory purchase order and give a notice before it is made, I have two things to say. First, the council may delegate its powers to a committee to make a compulsory purchase order. There is no need for it to be remitted back to the full council. Secondly, tenants should be aware that they have the right to four weeks' notice and that if, during the four weeks, a compulsory purchase order should be made under the new Clause, the protection will be retrospective. I hope particularly that in the light of the Milnor Holland Committee's report, which we must expect this year, the House will accept the new Clause without the Amendment.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: This Clause applies to Scotland and all the talk we have had from the Minister about county court procedure would not affect the position in Scotland. I appreciate that the Minister has tried to meet fears which were expressed in Committee, chiefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). But when thinking of the Scottish position and subsection (5) of the new Clause—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going rather wide of the Amendment to the first new Clause.
  Mr. Manuel: I am dealing with the applications of compulsory purchase order procedure and the recovery by the landlord in respect of Scotland—
  The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but the position is that we are now discussing the Amendment to the new Clause.
  Mr. Manuel: I was trying to convey to the Minister that he had attempted to meet the position and I was alluding to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend, which represents an endeavour to strengthen the position of the lessee.
  1238
  The effect of the Amendment will apply equally in Scotland and in England. As this is a United Kingdom Bill we are concerned that the necessary protection shall be extended to tenants in Scotland. We must recognise that there is increasing evidence that development companies are taking over town centres, which may comprise hundreds of tenancies. There will be compulsory acquisition by the local authorities obviously on behalf of development companies. Would not the Under-Secretary of State agree that complete protection should be afforded to the tenant in such a situation? Obviously, local authorities have not sufficient accommodation to rehouse all these people, and the authority possesses no power until it becomes the owner of the property. The tenant should be protected against eviction during the period of negotiation.
  I know from my experience in local authority work that the Minister is being sanguine about the period of time involved. The kind of redevelopment to which I am referring could take two years of negotiation before everything was agreed. The proposal of the Minister about a 12-month period is a move towards our point of view, but he will realise that in some cases that period may not prove sufficient.
  I wish to know, therefore, what proposals the Secretary of State for Scotland may have in mind to protect tenants in Scotland.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I am interested in the fact that the Minister is willing to extend the period of protection from nine months to 12. But, obviously, he is not au fait with the Scottish situation if he thinks that in certain cases compulsory purchase orders may be obtained within nine months. I wish to disabuse the right hon. Gentleman of any idea that all the Scottish local authorities will start making compulsory purchase orders because he has become a little generous. The authorities are reluctant to entertain the idea. I have tried to persuade the local authorities in two towns in my constituency to apply compulsory purchase orders in respect of two lots of property, but the authorities would not act.
  In Scotland, there is a vast amount of abandoned house property, and if

  1239
  local authorities were foolish enough to propose taking compulsory purchase orders, they would find themselves the owners of the largest slum empire in the country. That is why to talk of extending the period to 12 months raises difficulties regarding the position in Scotland. It is not an unusual situation to encounter difficulty when trying to trace the owner of property. I recall one occasion when the attempt to find the owner of property resulted in inquiries being made in Melbourne, Australia. Long and protracted legal processes, passing through the Register of Sassines, in Edinburgh, were taken to protect the acquired property in the event of the return of a former owner, and that took years. It is not an isolated example.
  These are matters to which the Minister should pay some attention, because the Clause and the Amendment contain provisions which will relate to the United Kingdom as a whole. He should keep in mind the difficulties of Scotland before he insists on a period of 12 months. The Scottish Minister has been promoted to that office only recently, and he has our good wishes. He has the duty of dealing with the shocking housing situation in Scotland. But in view of his limited period in office I should not expect him to be as familiar with the problem as are some hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies.
  I think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend meets the situation. He wishes that protection should last until the local authority becomes the owner of the property involved. That would cover the situation in which it was possible to take out a compulsory purchase order within a period of six months, or where, because of local difficulties and the nature of the social problem in Scotland, the procedure might take two years. In each case the tenants would be protected. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not be emphatic in wishing to draw the line at 12 months. I hope that he will introduce a certain elasticity so that when Scottish local authorities, who are faced with a peculiar type of ownership problem from time to time, have to apply for compulsory orders, protection will be afforded to the tenants.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The
  1240
  hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and the hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) have both raised the question of the application of the proposed Amendment to the situation in Scotland. The effect of the new Clause we have just accepted would be similar in Scotland to that in England and Wales. I hope that without going out of order I may mention that the difference in subsection (5) is to take account of the different legal position in Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes the same view as the Minister of Housing and Local Government that there ought to be a limitation of time. The two hon. Members gave rather gloomy pictures of a long wait of two years, but the cases to which they referred were complicated ones concerning redevelopment. I am advised that we have never yet had in Scotland a compulsory purchase order on multiple-occupied houses. When it arises we should see this as a straight forward question which would not take the same time as the difficult and complicated cases described by the hon. Members.
  Mr. Manuel: The Under-Secretary mentioned redevelopment. Does he not know that in many towns this is now being arranged and there will be very comprehensive redevelopment? The future of many towns will be in jeopardy and compulsory purchase orders will have to be introduced.
  Mr. Campbell: The new Clause relates to multiple-occupied houses and these are particular cases which will crop up rarely. When these compulsory purchase orders come forward they should be of a kind which can be dealt with more quickly than the average kind, particularly the complicated ones to which the hon. Members have referred. For these reasons the Secretary of State also considers that a period of nine months, or 12 months if necessary—that order of time—is appropriate to the Clause we have just passed.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I am amazed at the excuse that the Under-Secretary has given. If the time to be taken in getting a compulsory purchase order through is to be short as he suggested, what has he to worry

  1241
  about in accepting this Amendment? The Amendment would not prevent the time being short. All it would do would be to provide a longer time in the case of what he called rather more difficult and complicated cases which might take longer than 12 months. The Minister said that this Amendment cannot be accepted because of the cases which will take only a short time. That does not make sense. It is a sort of non sequitur.
  In this case the Minister should be willing to accept the Amendment and be prepares to give the additional flexibility my hon. Friends are anxious to get to protect the local authority and the tenant.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left of out stand part of the proposed Clause:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 128.

  Division No. 64.]

  AYES

  [4.54 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Grosvenor, Lord Robert

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Allason, James

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, Sir John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Balniel, Lord

  Hay, John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Peel, John

  Baisford, Brian

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pitt, Dame Edith

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Biffen, John

  Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pym, Francis

  Bishop, Sir Patrick

  Holland, Philip

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Holt, Arthur

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

  Box, Donald

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Renton, Rt. Hon. David

  Braine, Bernard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Buck, Antony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bullard, Denys

  James, David

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Burden, F. A.

  Jennings, J. C.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Campbell, Gordon

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Sharples, Richard

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

  Shaw, M.

  Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Speir, Rupert

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stainton, Keith

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Leavey, J. A.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Cole, Norman

  Lindsay, Sir Martin

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Cooke, Robert

  Litchfield, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Condle, John

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)

  Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

  Costain, A. P.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Teeling, Sir William

  Coulson, Michael

  Longbottom, Charles

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speltherne)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Critchley, Julian

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Curran, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  McLaren, Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Dance, James

  Mackay, Rt. Hon. John

  Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Wade, Donald

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Walker, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maddan, Marlin

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Duncan, Sir James

  Maitland, Sir John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

  Marshall, Sir Douglas

  Webster, David

  Farr, John

  Marten, Neil

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fell, Anthony

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Whitelaw, William

  Finlay, Graeme

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Mawby, Ray

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Freeth, Denril

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gammans, Lady

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

  Woodhouse, G. M.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Mills, Stratton

  Worsley, Marcus

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Goodhew, Victor

  Montgomery, Fergus

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

  Green, Alan

  Morrison, John

  Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  O'Malley, B. K.

  Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

  Hannan, William

  Oram, A. E.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Owen, Will

  Benson, Sir George

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, John

  Blackburn, F.

  Healey, Denis

  Parkin, B. T.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Peart, Frederick

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bowles, Frank

  Holman, Percy

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Boyden, James

  Houghton, Douglas

  Randall, Harry

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Howie, W.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hoy, James H.

  Reid, William

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)

  Rhodes, H.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Callaghan, James

  Hunter, A. E.

  Ross, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Chapman, Donald

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Silkin, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Daiyell, Tam

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Darling, George

  Kelley, Richard

  Small, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Steele, Thomas

  Driberg, Tom

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Edwards, Robert (Briston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Thornton, Ernest

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Evans, Albert

  McBride, N.

  Warbey, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  McCann, J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Finch, Harold

  MacColl, James

  Whitlock, William

  Fitch, Alan

  MacDermot, Niall

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Willey, Frederick

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

  Manuel, Archie

  Woof, Robert

  Ginsburg, David

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Zilliacus, K.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Grey, Charles

  Moody, A. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Mr. Lawson.

  Clause added to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: New Clause 4. Mr. MacColl.
  Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you may have noticed an excellent new Clause in my name—Register of rented houses. Does the fact that you have now called new Clause 4 mean that my new Clause is not selected? It provides for owners of property compulsorily to register their names with local authorities.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The fact is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that his new Clause is not being called. He will be aware that it was posted in the Lobby that it was not being called.

  HOUSING BILL

    New Clause.—(IMPROVEMENTS To HOUSES OCCUPIED BY AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.)
    A person occupying a dwelling under a contract of employment within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1957 (houses occupied by agricultural workers otherwise than as
    1244
    tenants) may make representations under section 19 of this Act as if he were a tenant of the dwelling. The cost of any works required to be carried out under section 19(5) which in the case of a tenant could be recovered by the an increase of rent may be recovered in accordance with the provisions of section 7(3) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.—[Mr. MacColl.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The new Clause is in exactly the same words as a new Clause mover in committee. At that time the Parliamentary Secretary expressed considerable interest, and promised to consider it. I gather that he is still considering it—at least, I hope so. I am rather perturbed that he has not been able to come to a decision on it. I do not want to be obstructive, or unduly take up time, but in the absence of any clear indication from the hon. Gentleman of what he intends to do it may be necessary to

    1245
    press this further than I would have wanted to press it.
    The point is a simple, but important one. In Clause 19 there is provision for a tenant who wants to have improvements made to his house to make representations to the local authority and ask it to exercise its powers to make an improvement order. The word "tenant" is used there in its strict and legal sense. It means a tenant. It does not cover the occupant of a tied cottage. It was argued on Second Reading and in Committee that it should be extended so that a person occupying a tied cottage would have the right to go to the local authority to get his house improved.
    The new Clause suggests, first, that
    "A person occupying a dwelling under a contract of employment within the meaning of"—
    the 1957 Act, which covers agricultural tied cottages—
    "may make representations…as if he were a tenant…"
    The second part of the Clause deals with how to get back the cost of the improvements if no rent is being paid for the house. This is a subject about which I know absolutely nothing, but I understand from those of my hon. Friends who know something about agricultural tenancies that this can be effected by the second sentence of the new Clause, which provides as follows:
    "The cost of any works required to be carried out…which in the case of a tenant could be recovered by an increase of rent may be recovered in accordance with the provisions of section 7(3) of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1948."
    I gather that is fully understood by people who know something about this.
    This proposal has the active support of the National Union of Agricultural Workers. Indeed, the union suggested it. Between the tabling of the Clause in Committee and the tabling of the Clause here I received a letter from the National Farmers' Union saying that it thinks this is an excellent idea and supports it. Therefore, if the two most important organisations connected with this question want to see this done and tied cottages improved, short of abolishing tied cottages altogether, which would seem to me to be a workmanlike solution of the problem, what is the difficulty?
    1246
    I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to get to grips with this. What does he propose? We do not want to have a tremendous clash on this, because it is not a matter on which there is much difference of opinion. It is only a certain amount of dilatoriness on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. I move the Clause in the hope that he will draw my fire by saying that he is now in a position to give a specific undertaking on it.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I apologise to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for having taken some time in these consultations, but he will realise, when he looks at the Notice Paper, that we have undertaken a fair number of promises to meet points which were raised in Committee. That is the only reason why we were not able to come to a decision to table an Amendment of our own before today's proceedings. However, I can assure him that it is our intention to table an Amendment to meet the point in another place.
    I do not want to quibble with the hon. Gentleman, out I am advised that there are defects in the wording of the proposed new Clause. They are rather complex and it would be tedious if I went into the precise points. I can assure him that we will table an Amendment to meet the full intent of his new Clause in another place and I hope that, with that assurance, he will withdraw his proposal.
    Mr. MacColl: The Parliamentary Secretary need not apologise for criticising my drafting. He criticised it often enough in Committee upstairs. It would indeed be the start of an epoch if he now said that it was perfect. I am flattered that he should describe it as complicated. Since he has made a specific pledge to do something in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, Withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(SECURITY OF TENURE DURING THE OPERATION OF NOTICES UNDER PART II OF ACT OF 1961.)
    (1) Where any notice under section 15 or section 16 of the Act of 1961 is in operation in respect of a house possession of that house

    1247
    or of any part of it shall not be obtained by means of a notice to quit until the works listed in the notice or in the notice as varied by a court under section 17 of the Act of 1961 have been executed or the notice has been revoked under that section:
    Provided that the person who has served the notice to quit may apply to the court for possession if the local authority certifies that that is necessary for the proper execution of the works and that alternative accommodation is available for those dispossessed.
    (2) On the application of the local authority or of any person to whom the notice to quit applies and after considering any representations by the person who served the notice to quit, the court may suspend its operation for a period of three months from the date when it would have come into effect under the foregoing subsection.—[Mr. Mulley]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The proposed Clause is designed to provide security of tenure during the operation of notices issued under Part 2 of the 1961 Act. It has been tabled in response to representations made by the Sheffield City Council and it arises from the experience of that council in trying to give effect to the terms of the 1961 Act. It is the view of that council that because of the defects of that Act, which this new Clause seeks to remedy, the purposes of the Act have not been carried out.
    5.15 p.m.
    As the House knows, Section 15 of the 1961 Act is concerned with the provision of additional facilities—for example, washing facilities and sanitary conveniences—for houses in multiple occupation. Section 16 of the Act relates to the provision of means of escape from those houses in case of fire. In our experience in Sheffield the Act has not worked properly because although it was designed to permit the local authority to regulate the balance between the condition of the premises on the one hand and the state of the occupation on the other, I understand—and I quote from a communication I have had from the town clerk:
    "In practice, the system can operate rather differently. At present, a landlord who receives a Notice under section 15 for example, can serve Notice to Quit on his tenants or a proportion of them, reduce the occupation, and thereby create a situation in which he can ignore the local authority's Notice. The reason why he can afford to ignore it is that if the local authority execute the works in default
    1248
    their power to recover their expenditure is limited to expenses reasonably incurred. If their Notice is rendered irrelevant by a reduced occupation they cannot carry out the works and assert that the expenditure was reasonably incurred.
    These Notices, therefore, lack the positive force which the Act intended them to have. All that they do, in effect, is to give the landlord an option either to comply with the Notice or to dispossess some or all of his tenants. Abrupt dispossession can obviously inflict grave hardship on tenants."
    Naturally, this aggravates the already difficult housing situation, which the city council is doing its best to meet. It also takes out of the pool of potential housing to let these houses which are removed from the pool to avoid the operation of the local authority's notice.
    I understand that in Sheffield the council has already served about 100 notices under Sections 15 and 16. The result has been that in 36 houses notices to quit have been served in respect of 93 families and 72 single persons. This has been the consequence of the authority trying to carry out its responsibilities under the 1961 Act. As I have shown, a substantial number of people have been given notice to quit.
    If one chooses a purely hypothetical case, of a large house, in all respects ideally suited for multi-occupation—save for a deficiency in toilet accommodation—if the landlord is using the house for multi-occupation and deriving from it the sort of income which these houses yield, he should be prepared to incur the expenditure to which the local authority would put him by serving a notice under Section 15. Conversely, taking a completely different hypothetical example—that of a house in multiple occupation, but unsuited to that use and incapable of being rendered suitable for it by reasonable measures under Section 15—the local authority may be relied upon to prefer action under Section 19 of the 1961 Act, to limit the occupation, rather than under Section 15, and seek to require the landlord to improve the facilities anti incur additional expenditure.
    Sheffield City Council anticipated this problem some time ago and instructed the town clerk to make representations to the effect that tenants in these properties should be given a measure of security of tenure corresponding to that accorded by the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. Where a contract

    1249
    under that Act has been referred to a rent tribunal, either by the lessee or the local authority, and a notice to quit is served on a tenant before the decision of the tribunal, or within three months after it, the notice to quit is not to take effect for three months unless the rent tribunal substitutes a shorter period or the reference is withdrawn.
    The purpose of the new Clause is to attempt to apply these principles to houses in multi-occupation so that local authorities may effectively carry out their responsibilities under Sections 15 and 16 of the 1961 Act. The proposals which the Minister has belatedly introduced in the new Clause with which we have dealt do not meet this point because they deal only with the question of acquisition. My submission is that there should be security of tenure whether or not the houses are to be acquired by the local authority; that is, security of tenure during the period that the local authority is carrying out the works.
    There is a safeguard in the new Clause, for obviously in certain circumstances it might be necessary for families to move out while the work is being properly done. In addition to the purpose of the new Clause, it should be recalled that there is a tendency on the part of landlords, when they see a local authority inspector going around a property, to anticipate that a notice will be issued under either Section 15 or 16 and, as a safeguard, they immediately serve notices to quit on their tenants.
    I hope and believe that the wording of the new Clause is such that this tendency will be avoided. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the new Clause because we must give tenants security of tenure, albeit in a limited measure. Had it been possible and had we had some chance of succeeding we would have introduced a wider form of security of tenure, but we believe that the new Clause will do something to relieve the hardship which has been inflicted on tenants under the 1961 Act system, will prevent local authority action horn being rendered abortive and may save tenants from being dispossessed in many cases because landlords can easily avoid their responsibilities as the law now stands. As I say, it may save tenants from being dispossessed because once a
    1250
    landlord has incurred capital expenditure in complying with the instructions of the local authority, that property will naturally be added to the limited pool of houses available to let. It is obvious that if landlords are obliged to put these houses into proper condition they will, having done so, be anxious to continue to let them.
    I hope, with this explanation, that the Minister will accept the new Clause or at least the principle of it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I do not claim that it has been drafted immaculately. If need be, the Minister can amend the drafting or introduce a completely new Clause, so long as he accepts the principle involved.
    Mr. John Hynd: The Minister has already broadly accepted the principle which we are asking for in the new Clause 1 in its application to houses under compulsory purchase order. If it applies in that case I am hopeful that he will agree that it should apply also in this case because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) pointed out, we are concerned here with preventing the tenants of houses in multi-occupation from becoming the victims of action which it is considered necessary for the Government and the local authorities to take to maintain housing standards.
    In order that houses in these conditions are brought up to standard, the Government and the local authority take action through the law to ensure that the landlord shall put them in proper condition. Unless what is proposed in the Amendment is adopted, the unfortunate tenant on whose behalf we are supposed to be acting will suffer by being given notice to quit. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention that that should be the position. As distinct from the situation which the Minister reported when he moved the new Clause 1 and said that he had found that there were only four cases throughout the country, we are dealing here with a situation in which many more cases are affected.
    Sir K. Joseph: Clearly the hon. Member is not comparing apples with apples. The case which I undertook to look into was that where a compulsory purchase

    1251
    order having been made in connection with works required on a multi-occupied property the landlord thereafter gave notice to quit to his tenants. The 93 families given notice in Sheffield were not connected with compulsory purchase orders. Therefore, this is not a comparison of like with like.
    Mr. Hynd: I am not suggesting that they are compulsory purchase orders. The right hon. Gentleman must have missed my comment. We are asking for the principle here which was accepted by the Government in connection with compulsory purchase orders under the new Clause 1, but in that case the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been only four instances throughout the country where notice to quit had been given by the landlord after notice had been served.
    In this case, in Sheffield alone, out of 100 notices served on landlords, no fewer than 93 families and 72 single persons have received notices to quit from the landlord in order to avoid the force of the local authority's order. Surely this is not defensible, and it does not apply only to Sheffield. We have had figures provided and know exactly what the position is in Sheffield, but we also know that Sheffield in this matter is typical of a large number of industrial cities.
    On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park, where the landlord has tried to anticipate notice by the local authorities by giving notice to quit, this is in my view the most serious aspect. I hope that the Government will unhesitatingly say that they will give protection in these cases where the landlord has given notice to quit after a local authority notice has been served.
    It is certainly the experience in Sheffield that landlords find out beforehand that notices are likely to be served, either because inspectors have come round and examined the property or because things have been discussed in a council committee and in one way or another people have heard about them. In these cases, where the landlord serves notice on the tenants, hardship is caused to the tenants. The housing situation is intensified because the council has to do something about
    1252
    housing those to whom notice to quit has been given, and the landlord is enabled to escape his obligation. I am therefore very concerned with this question of notice having been served by the landlord before the local authority notice is served on him.
    Although the proposed new Clause may conceivably cover the point, I am not certain that it does, because of the words
    "where any notice under section 15 or section 16 of the Act of 1961 is in operation…".
    This could be taken to mean that it is in operation, having been given before the notice was served and the notice to quit has not yet been enforced, so that the tenant is still in the property. I am not sure that it would cover all circumstances in which a tenant is given notice to quit before the local authority notice is served and the tenant is already out. But even if he were not already out, under the wording of the new Clause 5—if it is interpreted that it could cover such cases—I am still worried about the position of the tenant who although protected is not sure whether he is protected by the Clause. He might be inspired by fear, having received notice to quit, of being involved in all kinds of inconveniences and expense in trying to find other accommodation, quite apart from all the worry that he would be caused.
    Assuming that the Government may be persuaded to adopt the new Clause, I hope that the Minister will look carefully and consider whether it would be better to make it specifically clear in the wording that where notice to quit has been served by the landlord in anticipation of notice from the local authority, that notice to quit shall not be applicable. In view of the size of the problem, and the intense unhappiness, disorganisation, and perhaps expense involved for hundreds of people throughout the country, judging by the fact that there have been 165 individual units in one city alone, I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the Clause in principle. I hope that the Minister will look at the point that I have raised and will try to make it crystal clear that the Clause would also cover cases where notice to quit has been served before the local authority has served notice on the landlord.
    Mrs. Butler: I hope that the Minister will accept this important new Clause, though possibly in a revised form. The principle is so important that the right hon. Gentleman must do something about it. I speak only to emphasise that this is a very common problem throughout the country. In the London area local authorities are becoming increasingly worried at the way in which landlords are able to drive a coach and horses through this Section of the 1961 Act.
    It is important for two reasons that we do something about it on the lines of the new Clause. In the first place, local authorities are trying desperately to carry out what the Government have laid upon them to improve the amenities of houses in their areas, but as soon as they try to do that, landlords are giving tenants notice to quit and are making nonsense of what the local authorities are trying to do. Officials of the local authorities are becoming completely frustrated in their efforts to improve amenities, and they are worried and quite sickened that what they try to do often results in families being made victims and made homeless.
    The other reason why we should do something on the lines of the new Clause is the present chain reaction. In my area families come into these multi-occupied premises from other premises in multi-occupation from which they have been evicted in these conditions. They are then evicted again by the new landlord, as soon as notice is served upon him, and they go on to similar premises and the same thing happens again. These poor, unfortunate families go from one misery to another without ever having the benefit of the improvements which the legislation provides for them. This is a shocking situation which is getting worse rather than better. Something on these proposed lines must be done.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. W. Edwards: I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). I assure the Minister that the sort of thing to which they referred is becoming very widespread in London, and particularly in the East End. Only recently my attention was drawn by the
    1254
    Stepney Borough Council to what are now becoming large numbers of cases where, as a result of the borough council carrying out the provisions of the 1961 Act and sending officials round to view various properties with the idea of serving management orders in respect of those premises, the landlords are immediately taking advantage of the situation and giving their tenants notice to quit. In many of these cases they are decontrolled tenancies in multi-occupation and the tenants are liable under the 12 Rent Act, 1957, to notice to quit at any time.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green has pointed out, whereas the Government can be made responsible under the Rent Act for the eviction of people because they are in decontrolled tenancies, it is the local authorities which are now being blamed, as a result of Government action, for causing the eviction of people by their landlords. It is the responsibility of the Government, in this case even more so than under the Rent Act, to ensure that in cases of eviction resulting from the operation of the 1961 Act, protection shall be afforded.
    I do not know how far one can go in this matter. I know that the Government are op posed to security of tenure. But where action is taken by local authorities as a result of governmental action, it is not fair to blame the local authorities for the shocking conditions in which these people are left after they are given notice to quit. In London there is no spare accommodation to offer to anybody who is evicted. It would be different if there were a pool of accommodation to which evicted people could go.
    I ask the Minister to be reasonable and to give some hope to local authorities when they carry out the pro, visions of the Act which the present Government put upon the Statute Book. It is only by including in the Bill some provision on the lines of this proposed Clause that the situation can be remedied. I hope the Clause will be accepted, at least in principle, so that if necessary it can be amended to give it proper legislative effect.
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a very difficult point, and I do not believe anybody

    1255
    thinks it is easy. I am not going to waste time commenting on the drafting. Certainly if the Government were to accept the spirit of the proposed Clause we would undertake to put down something to incorporate the gist. But I fear I cannot be as encouraging as that.
    The problem is that in conditions of shortage, whether the landlords are deliberately exploiting or whether they are men of low standards, unaware of the harm that they are doing, we face the task of improving living conditions of the tenants, and we must accept that there is some risk that we may drive the landlords to give notices to quit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] The answer is that we are dealing in this case, as I say, sometimes with landlords who are deliberately out to exploit shortage, and more often I believe with landlords who have very low standards. The houses that are mostly seen in this category are owned by landlords of the second class, with very low standards, and who do not realise what the obligations of a landlord should be.
    The problem has been brought out by all hon. Members who have spoken. It is that if we seek to give security of tenure during the period during which works are carried out under the 1961 Act to improve the property, then at the first sniff of danger of such an order being made some landlords may take alarm and give a notice to quit. I do not see how one can draft to deal with this. We might get to a situation where every visit of a public health inspector to a multi-occupied property put the tenants of that property at risk of notice to quit. That would be to assume that all landlords have these sorts of standards. Mercifully that is, even in the worst cases cited, nothing like true.
    I have got some record, though nothing like comprehensive records, of the number of works orders made under the 1961 Act by a number of major housing authorities and the number of cases of evictions which they have reason to believe have followed from those works orders. I think the Sheffield experience is the worst that has been brought to my notice, but I have not systematically sought this information yet, so I am not making that as a categorical statement from this Box.
    Mr. Mulley: The Sheffield City Council is alarmed at the fact that out of 100 attempts to carry out the responsibilities placed upon it by the House, in 36 cases its efforts have been completely abortive because notice to quit has been given. Also the City Council has found that it has been held responsible by the people concerned. There are 160 housing units for which it feels responsible, at a time when the city is facing serious housing difficulties. The Minister ought to find some way of meeting this very real difficulty in the city.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not propose to deal with the proposed new Clause summarily. I have a lot to say and I hope the hon. Member will allow me to develop it.
    Certainly the Sheffield experience is alarming. I hope I am not—I am not deliberately—in any other way misusing figures from, for instance, Manchester which, it says, has taken action under the 1961 Act on 500 houses, in 45 of which cases some degree of vacant accommodation has been found. Manchester does not say that all those 45 houses have been vacated or that all the vacant property resulted from notices to quit due to the 1961 Act. But certainly there is a problem here.
    It is difficult for a Tory Minister to stand here and say this, but I have to accept that in this situation compulsory purchase orders by the local authority may be the best way out. If a landlord first packs his house beyond what we would regard as reasonable standards and then, on the approach of the local authority with what one must presume—although it may not always be so—a reasonable proposition about the works that need to be done, proceeds to kick people out, then I am not very indulgent towards that landlord's right to go on owning that particular property. Of course, the case has to be judged on its merits and, if a compulsory purchase order is made, it is my job to act in a quasi-judicial fashion. But I do not stand here to assert the sacred right of ownership of property in an undiluted form when this takes place.
    Nevertheless, we have to recognise the basic difficulty in the overcrowded towns. There is not the land in these towns by which quickly to relieve the shortage. We have to follow the much more

    1257
    laborious processes of overspill, and this means providing work for the people who are moved out to be decently housed. We must recognise also that, in conditions of shortage, landlords who take in large numbers of people, often immigrants who are not, for no fault of their own, widely welcome, do serve a purpose. We are here caught in a very difficult dilemma between the satisfaction of the human need of a roof and the improvement of housing standards.
    For the general policy in this situation, particularly in connection with London, we must, I think, wait the few months needed to read what the Milner Holland Committee has to say. We must not, even in this Bill, try to find a definitive solution on what is a narrow base of evidence at the moment. But we have to put in the hands of local authorities a means to prevent landlords, first, overcrowding houses and then, when the local authority takes the action which Parliament requires it to take, kicking people out.
    The Government's new Clause which the Committee has accepted today does, as hon. Members have already acknowledged, go a long way to meet the situation. The criticism which would be made of the new Clause if we were debating in a council chamber would be that the compulsory purchase order is a cumbersome weapon. It is an effective weapon.
    Mr. MacColl: An expensive one.
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman murmurs that it is an expensive weapon. It is expensive managerially. It is expensive administratively, that is, in the time of busy officials, but I do not believe that it is expensive financially. We are dealing here with property which may well have made a very big profit for the landlords while it was being sweated, and we can, I think, take it for granted that, when it is no longer being sweated, even when it has had reasonable works carried out to it and even after it has been allowed to run down in terms of numbers by the normal effluxion of time, there should be no burden on the ratepayers of the community. I think that that is common ground.
    1258
    Therefore, to hon. Members who are impatient to find some panacea, I say that the compulsory purchase order procedure may be the best we can do at the moment. If we try to pursue the will-o'-the-wisp of security in this particular instance, we shall, I fear, simply drive forward in time and ever more forward in time the action of those few landlords whom we have in this case to worry about. They will start giving notice to quit as soon as a public health inspector comes near them, and we shall be worse of than we are now.
    I hope, therefore, that the House will take very seriously the difficulties which I have mentioned, will be content to wait for the Miner Holland report for the wider policy issues, and will recognise that the Government's new Clause, with the limited but real security which it does give during at least some of the time taken by a compulsory purchase order on its way to confirmation, if it is confirmed, will enable local authorities to remedy this trouble. I do not believe that we need fear that a local authority such as Sheffield, for instance, will have to exercise 36 compulsory purchase orders to prevent the eviction of all these families from the 36 houses which they were occupying. I believe that some compulsory purchase orders well publicised in the locality will serve the purpose. I cannot prove this, but I think that this is a case in which the instrument we are providing may have a deterrent value.
    5.45 p.m.
    I do not pretend that this is a perfect answer to the Opposition's new Clause. I am not attacking the new Clause on many of its technical defects, which could be put right if we wanted to remedy them. But I hope that the House will recognise the very real difficulties I have mentioned and be content to rely, and to ask the local authorities to rely, at least until Milner Holland reports, on the security we are giving and the encouragement we are giving for the use of compulsory purchase orders in these limited numbers of cases. That is why I hope that the new Clause will not be pressed.
    Mr. M. Stewart: On many occasions during the consideration of the Bill in Committee, we were inclined to praise the Minister for the zeal with which he

    1259
    took up points and endeavoured to meet them. I find it very difficult to be patient with him on this occasion.
    What has the right hon. Gentleman told us? First, he says that the basic object which we wish to achieve by the new Clause can be achieved and that, if there are defects of drafting in it, this would not of itself be a reason for rejecting the Clause. He rejects the thing on principle. He does not say that it is impossible to draft a Clause to do it.
    Next, the right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a problem. He told us more than once that there is some risk that, when these notices under the 1961 Act are served, landlords will give notice to quit. We know this very well. My hon. Friends from Sheffield, from Middlesex and from a Metropolitan borough have told us, and I have received letters from other local authorities indicating that this is a serious problem.
    In the light of that problem, and with knowledge of the fact that, if we were resolved to draft a Clause for the purpose, we could do it and we need not bother about the technicalities of drafting, what does the Minister suggest? First, he says that one should rely entirely on the compulsory purchase procedure. But he has been told, and he has had to admit, that this is often slow, cumbrous and expensive. The more frequently he advises local authorities to use compulsory purchase to deal with this, that or the other problem, the more dilatory the process is likely to become because his desk will be crowded with a growing number of such orders to be considered. It has been remarkable on how many occasions, over the past few years, when we have brought one housing abuse after another to the notice of the Government and the House, we have been told that the remedy is compulsory purchase by the local authority. In this case, we want a quicker and less cumbrous remedy.
    The next argument the Minister used was that we ought not to put in an Amendment like this because it was prudent to wait for the Milner Holland Committee's report.
    Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
    Mr. Stewart: Then what was his point about Milner Holland?
    Sir K. Joseph: I did not rebuke anybody for putting down the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman takes it wrongly. I simply advised that we shall get a lot more information and guidance from the Milner Holland report.
    Mr. Stewart: If I said anything which misrepresented the Minister, I am sorry.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the implication of what he is saying. He is suggesting that we should reject the new Clause, giving as one of his reasons that we still have to see what the Milner Holland Committee says. I ask him to consider the implication of that. He, surely, would not argue that, until we know what the Milner Holland Committee says, we should not legislate on housing at all. What he is a saying, then, is that it is prudent to wait for Milner Holland and that this is a reason for not adding an Opposition new Clause to a Bill but it is not a reason for not adding a Government new Clause to it. If the Minister were to say, "Let us have a stand-still on housing legislation until Milner Holland reports", that would, at least, be a logical position; but, of course, he knows that it would be an impossible one. We must take certain decisions about housing policy before the Milner Holland Committee reports. A decision to reject this new Clause is taken just as much in ignorance of what the Milner Holland may say as a decision to accept it. We must take one decision or the other. We cannot be inhibited by the mere fact that the Milner Holland Committee has not yet reported.
    The one argument with any approach to substance in it which the Minister advanced was this. He said, in effect, that the landlord of the type that we are considering gives the notice to quit when the notice under the 1961 Act is served, whereas, he argued, if the new Clause is carried he will start putting in his notices to quit even earlier—at the first sniff that a 1961 notice may be served on him or at the first visit of the official from the town hall.
    Let us see whether there is substance in that objection. Suppose that the landlord has reason to fear that a notice

    1261
    under the 1961 Act will be served on him. He knows, if the new Clause is carried, that if he waits until that notice is served it will be no good giving notice to quit. Therefore, having read the Minister's recent speech in reply to the new Clause, he promptly puts in the notice to quit before the 1961 Act notice is served. But a notice to quit must run for at least four weeks. Within that four weeks the local authority can serve the notice under the 1961 Act.
    The new Clause says that when a notice under the 1961 Act
    "is in operation"—
    that is, at any moment after it has been served—
    "in respect of a house possession of that house"
    cannot be
    "obtained by means of a notice to quit".
    I take that to mean that, even if the notice to quit had been served before the 1961 Act notice was served, possession could not be obtained once the 1961 Act notice had been put on. If that is not the legal effect of the new Clause, there would be no difficulty, as the Minister admitted, in altering the drafting to make absolutely certain that that was the effect.
    Therefore, that one argument of the Minister which seemed to have any substance in it is really an empty bogey. If landlords, fearing that 1961 Act notices may be served on them, start giving notice to quit, the local authority can reply by promptly serving the notice under that Act. There is really no substance in the Minister's objection to the new Clause, and I cannot imagine that my hon. Friends will wish to withdraw it.
    Mr. Herbert Butler: Some of us sometimes feel a little sorry for the Minister, who has to stand at the Box and apologise for the fact that compulsory purchase orders appear to him to be the only way out. He cannot shift his responsibilities for the 1957 Act by apologising for not doing something which the tenants of London, in particular, and the main cities really require.
    When the Minister starts analysing the figures of possible evictions arising from the 1961 Act, he should understand that
    1262
    members and officers of local authorities are, in many cases, very diffident about serving these notices because they realise that people will be evicted as a consequence of serving the notice. Therefore, local authorities must proceed extremely cautiously in serving management and improvement orders. The Minister, from his figures, may be able to say that there is no particular problem, but those of us who live with it know that the problem is ever present and cannot be exposed to its true extent because local authority members and officials realise the difficulty in which they will place tenants.
    I attended a court in my constituency the other day. The magistrates were hearing a case in which the management order of the local authority said that there should be seven tenants in the building. It was found that there were thirteen, and that rents of £2 15s. and £3 a week were being charged for the rooms. It was discovered that if the order were enforced, as is will have to be, the tenants would be evicted and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) pointed out, the local authority will get the opprobrium for the eviction of these tenants.
    The Minister cannot ride away from this situation and say that compulsory purchase orders are the solution Every Metropolitan borough has had experience of going to the Minister for compulsory purchase orders. We have had the experience of property owners briefing the best legal brains that they can find to protect them against the legitimate requirements of the citizens of our boroughs, and in many cases we have failed to get the orders. What will happen to these tenants while all these processes are going on?
    I hope that my hon. Friends will press the new Clause and give some encouragement to local authorities in the towns to endeavour to bring old property up to a reasonable standard so that people can live a decent lfe.
    Mr. Graham Page: The new Clause deals with notices under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the 1961 Act, and it is worth having a look at them to realise what we ate talking about. They put certain controls on the owners of houses. Section 15 gives power to require the execution of works. Section 16 deals with

    1263
    the provision of means of escape from fire. Section 17 deals with the right of appeal. If an owner deserves notices under those Sections to be imposed on him, I think that he deserves all the controls, directions, regulations and restrictions which should follow from them.
    For that reason, I am inclined to agree with the principle behind the new Clause. After all, the notices served under these Sections of the 1961 Act are served for the benefit of the tenants. The purpose is to improve the house for the tenant's benefit, and if by a side wind we do some harm to those tenants we are hardly carrying out the purposes of the Bill.
    As hon. Members know, frequently in this House I put the view of the owners of property. I endeavour to put the view of the good owners of property. The view of the good owners about those who draw upon themselves notices of this sort under the 1961 Act is that they are bad owners and deserve all that they get. But it is right and proper that they should be obliged to put their houses in order, and if by doing that, or if to escape doing that, they cause hardship to their tenants, I should have thought that it was reasonable to impose some control such as that suggested in the new Clause. I can see no harm in slamming on control immediately these notices are served.
    Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will answer this point in a little more detail. He has asked hon. Members opposite to await the Milner Holland report. Frankly, I cannot see where the Milner Holland report comes into this. It will not deal with these specific cases, examples of which have come from Sheffield. It will not deal with specific cases of the eviction of tenants merely because notices under the 1961 have been served. Its scope will be much wider than that. Although I am not sure that this new Clause is the right way to deal with this specific instance, I should like to see landlords who have been served with notices of this sort prevented from evicting their tenants, thus giving local authorities the greatest possible difficulty in finding accommodation for the tenants and probably landing many of the tenants in accommodation for homeless families, which is the last thing that anyone should want to do to his tenants.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: One has lived to see the day when a Tory Minister would stand at the Dispatch Box and, speaking on a housing issue, say, "How can you expect me, as a Tory, to deal with this?"
    Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
    Mr. Ede: It is within the recollection of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will see that the speech that the Minister has delivered is printed and circulated throughout the country, particularly in those areas where the housing problem is most acute.
    What can one do but sympathise with the Minister in having made the speech which he did? He received from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), of all people, an incentive to act in the spirit of the Amendment that he had rejected. The only thing that the Minister can do with any credit to himself after two such episodes is to make way for someone else.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have shared the Committee room upstairs with a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), for 85 hours. The hon. Member maintained a high standard of debate. Today, however, in replying to me just now, he fell far below his own standard. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
    I produced, or purported to produce, only one main argument against the new Clause. I did not lean heavily on waiting for the result of the Milner Holland inquiry. I said—and this point has not been properly answered—that if we sought to give security from the time when a works order under the 1961 Act is made, we face the danger that a mere visit of the public health inspector, which would not lead in that case to a works order at all, might precipitate evictions which would not otherwise have happened.
    It is not enough for the hon. Member for Fulham to pick out only those cases in which a works order results from a public health inspector's visit. It is quite true that in such a case where the tenant knows, realises and insists upon four weeks' notice, within that four weeks the works order can be made and the

    1265
    protection that would be given by this new Clause, or another rendering of it, would bite. But what about all those cases w here a landlord takes fright from a hint, real or imagined, of the possibility of a works order and then gives notice to his tenants and no order follows? There is no protection there. I have tried to draft in this way myself for this purpose, but I do not think that it is possible to draft to avoid making things worse rather than better if we use this method.
    If the House thinks it wrong of me to state frankly as I see it the position in the big towns, I must go on offending hon. Members. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) teased me throughout the London Government Bill, and I am glad to see him back on this memorable election day teasing me again, but for the first time on this Housing Bill.
    Hon. Members must recognise the situation in the big cities where the land is running out. There is the greatly increased rate of household formation and the greatly increased demand for houses from a declining population due to younger marriages and longevity and greater prosperity. There is imposed upon all these the difficulty, which hon. Members opposite must be careful never to forget, of large numbers of immigrants concentrated against their will in small sectors of towns.
    In this situation, we face a real problem in trying to raise the quality of houses. It is not enough for hon. Members to behave and to speak as if the Government are not putting into the hands of local authorities a strong weapon. The hon. Member for Fulham spoke about the cumbrous and, as he called it, expensive and lengthy nature of the compulsory purchase order procedure, but that, surely, was not the main attack upon the compulsory purchase order weapon in Committee upstairs. The main attack was that during the necessarily laborious unfolding of the compulsory purchase order procedure, the tenants were at risk. That was the attack and it proved to be justified.
    I have turned up evidence, of which I told the Committee, of at least four cases, and there may well be more, in which evictions have taken place after
    1266
    the compulsory purchase order was made. That is where the Government have by today's first new Clause, which the House has accepted, strengthened the hands of the local authority and much increased the safety of the tenant. It is not, therefore, nearly as necessary now to deal with the problem that the present new Clause seeks to settle.
    I believe that a number of local authorities would prefer to use the procedure in the present new Clause. If we could find a way to draft to overcome the difficulties to avoid the risk of leaving matters worse rather than better. I believe that a number of local authorities would prefer this way.
    Mr. Graham Page: I understand my right hon. Friend's chief argument against the new Clause to be that the landlord will see it coming, or will imagine it to be coming, and will give notice but will not the same thing happen under the compulsory purchase order method? Would not the landlord see that coming? Is there not exactly the same argument against it?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, because there are two distinctions. The compulsory purchase order procedure that we are using for this purpose is the compulsory purchase order procedure advised to local authorities by my right hon. Friend who is now Home Secretary where homelessness is threatened by the charging of exorbitant rents. It is the compulsory purchase order procedure which the Government have encouraged local authorities to use where appropriate to increase their housing stock or to improve existing houses.
    Landlords, it seems to me, do not have the same fear of this from a mere visit by a public health inspector as they would have in a case under the present new Clause, which is specifically tied to a works order under the 1961 Act. I admit to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that in any protection which we give to tenants, there is danger that we shall merely throw earlier into his vindictive action the landlord who wishes to act in this way.
    There are two further distinctions. The new Clause purports to give security of tenure for a limited time, but we all acknowledge that we are dealing with

    1267
    a limited number of vindictive landlords. What comfort is it to the tenant if the security is given until the works are completed and then the landlord is vindictive afterwards? In that case, the compulsory purchase order is a great deal more protection for the tenant.
    Mr. Mulley: The reason that the amendment of security in the new Clause is rather limited is that we did not expect to get much sympathy from the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make it a much longer period and bring back the Rent Acts, we shall be very happy to support him.
    Sir K. Joseph: We ought to recognise that most of the tenants we are discussing would never have got into the accommodation they have now if it had not been for the Rent Act, 1957.
    Mr. H Butler: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many of these tenants living in these properties which became decontrolled as a result of the Rent Act were living there before the Rent Act?
    Sir K. Joseph: We know exactly how many: 400,000. All the rest of the properties which are now decontrolled have been decontrolled by creeping decontrol and would not have been available for letting had the Rent Act not been passed. They would have been sold. Therefore, the accommodation we are discussing has been made available by the operation of the Rent Act.
    Mr. A. Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the underlying difficulty as expressed in this new Clause and in his own new Clause is the insecurity of the tenant. That was the case for his own new Clause and it is the case for this. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that before the 1961 Act can be effectively operated he or some other Minister must do something about insecurity of tenants.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that. The problem arises from sheer shortage in the big towns and lack of land. To give security to one lot of people merely makes it impossible for another lot of people to be housed. Of course any Housing Minister is on a sticky wicket in a housing shortage, but a shortage is not eliminated by freezing the pattern
    1268
    of tenancies, but only by producing a larger number of houses, for which there is not the land in the big cities while we hold the green belts. That is why the Government have produced the South-East Study and that is why we shall produce similar studies for the other congested areas. I must return to the new Clause.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) misinterpreted the statistics about compulsory purchase orders. It is important that hon. Members should appreciate the effectiveness of this procedure if they are to be willing not to press this new Clause. We have approved and rejected about the same number of compulsory purchase orders, but by far the largest number of compulsory purchase orders submitted to us have been withdrawn by the local authorities because they had served their purpose by taming the landlords concerned—otherwise the local authorities would not have withdrawn them. The effectiveness of the compulsory purchase order weapon cannot be judged purely by the number of orders which have been approved. One has also to add the number withdrawn.
    6.15 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked me why I referred to Milner Holland. I do not want to make too much of this, but I referred to Milner Holland because we shall get far more knowledge of the scale and detail of these and other problems between tenants and landlords in London when we have his report. People are now apt to exaggerate. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) quoted Stepney experience, and I know how experienced he is, but he did not give figures. I am sure that he could. I do not happen to have the Stepney figures. Does he?
    Mr. W. Edwards: I do not have the exact figures, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the effects of the management order procedure under the 1961 Act are now being felt and will be felt increasingly, and that any figures given today would be much lower than I would be able to give in three months' time, because they are increasing weekly.
    Sir K. Joseph: It helps if hon. Members speaking on these detailed and local

    1269
    points give the figures, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) did. It helped a lot.
    I must ask the House to recognise the difficulties. I can offer to look at this problem again but, in the light of the time given in my Department to trying to get round the difficulties I have outlined, I fear that it would be almost bound to be a barren undertaking. If the House does not expect too much from me, I will undertake to do that, but I do not want to try to buy off the Opposition from pressing the new Clause by giving any false promises or false hopes. If we attacked the problem in this way, we could not be sure that we would not make things worse rather than better. I think that we have to rely on the compulsory purchase order procedure both in substance and as a deterrent. We must rely on the increased protection to the tenant that the first new Clause undoubtedly gives.
    I hope that in the light of this we shall encourage local authorities to press on with the use of the powers of the 1961 Act. At the moment, we face, inevitably in a free society, cities in which the larger part of the housing is better and better each year while the smaller part gets worse and worse. It gets worse and worse because the immigrants are crowded into relatively small areas of the cities.
    Mr. A. Evans: We know that.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am very glad to hear it, because the hon. Gentleman's speeches do not indicate it.
    Mr. Evans: It is impertinent for the right hon. Gentleman to lecture London Members of Parliament who live and who all their lives have lived in the centre of these troubles. It is impertinent for him to tell us to recognise the facts, when we have been brought up with and have known these things most of our lives.
    Sir K. Joseph: I wish that in his speeches the hon. Gentleman would recognise more that the freezing of the pattern of tenancies will not solve any of these problems. We do no benefit to the people who seek houses simply by confirming the occupation of those who at the moment happen to have them. The problem is the increasing
    1270
    number of young people marrying earlier and seeking homes of their own. They, too, have a claim, but that takes us much wider than the new Clause.
    Mr. MacColl: It is wide of the new Clause. All the new Clause says is that until the works are done in the house, the landlord is not to have power to evict the tenant. In other words, the local authority would be able to decide whether the best way of handling the problem was for the tenant to go or stay. It is a temporary arrangement, a temporary suspension to deal with the problem of the works order. All this stuff about the South-East Study and the rest of it is absolutely irrelevant to this question.
    Sir K. Joseph: I must leave it to the hon. Gentleman and the House. I am willing to undertake to consider this problem yet again, but I am not willing to give any promise that I shall come up with a satisfactory answer. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park will withdraw the Motion and Clause, I will undertake to consider it once again. I will even discuss it with a few of the local authorities concerned. I really cannot offer, however, any prospect that in this limited context I can find something that will assuredly leave things better off !hart they are now.
    Mr. J. Silverman: I hope that, in reconsidering the matter, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the principle is supported not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but by 100 per cent. of the back benchers opposite who are present.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Birmingham. Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) is wrong. It is supported by only 50 per cent.
    Mr. Brockway: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that further consideration of the Bill should be postponed while he makes these inquiries? There will be plenty of time for him since it has just been announced that we are not to have the General Election until the autumn. There is a vacuum in legislation that the Government wish to introduce. Why not postpone this Bill while he makes inquiries?
    Mr. Mulley: I am not disposed to withdraw my Motion and Clause, but at

    1271
    the same time I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's words were not put in the way of threat. He said that if the Clause were to be withdrawn he would be prepared to reconsider the problem. I hope that while the right hon. Gentleman continues to hold his great responsibilities and is faced with the evidence that local authorities cannot get on with their work, he will not make it a condition of his looking at this problem again that I should withdraw the Clause. I hope that he will at least undertake to meet the City of Sheffield to discuss this problem.
    Sir K. Joseph: I will not undertake specifically to meet Sheffield, but I will undertake to see that discussions take place with Sheffield and to receive any other representations that any other local authorities want to make to me on this.
    Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It was worth having this debate if only to get from him two extraordinary pieces of advice, almost in the same breath. First, he said that the only way to deal with the problem was by compulsory acquisition—this at a time when he and his friends are spending vast sums of money putting quite a different doctrine on the hoardings, denouncing public ownership.
    Secondly, he ventured—and perhaps this is a stronger point—to criticise this Clause because it would not give a suffi-
    ciently long period of security of tenure. If his purpose is to make any sense of the Housing Act, 1961, then it is rather silly to produce now legislation designed to assist the tenant but which will in many cases destroy the tenancy.
    The evidence available shows that in 36 cases out of 100 this has been the effect in Sheffield and surely the right hon. Gentleman must consider doing something to help local authorities to do their job. How can he expect them to undertake their duties under the 1961 Act if in 36 per cent. of the cases they are wasting their time and the ratepayers money? They are incurring a 36 per cent. chance of seriously aggravating an already desperate housing situation in their cities.
    It is because of these stark facts that Sheffield asked us to raise this matter. While I know from what the right hon. Gentleman said that even if we do not succeed with our Motion he will go on trying to find a better solution than the one he proposes, I remind him that his own new Clause, on which he rests his alternative, was only got out of him by the diligence, eloquence and persistence of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Committee stage.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 153.

    Division No. 65.]

    AYES

    [6.25 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    MacColl, James

    Benn, Anthony Wedgwood

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Benson, Sir George

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Blackburn, F.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, Archie,

    Bowies, Frank

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Boyden, James

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Millan, Bruce

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hilton, A. V.

    Moody, A. S.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Holman, Percy

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Moyle, Arthur

    Callaghan, James

    Howie, W.

    Mulley Frederick

    Chapman, Donald

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Darling, George

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Parker, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Dempsey, James

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pursey Cmdr. Harry

    Diamond, John

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Randall, Harry

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rhodes, H.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kelley, Richard

    Ross, William

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

    Evans, Albert

    Lawson, George

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silkin, John

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Small, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Steele, Thomas

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Whitlock, William

    Woof, Robert

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Willey, Frederick

    Zilliacus, K.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Warbey, William

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. McCann and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Green, Alan

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Allason, James

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Neave, Airey

    Arbuthuot, Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Batsford, Brian

    Hastings, Stephen

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Powell, Re, Hon. J. Enoch

    Biffen, John

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pym, Francis

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Quenneil, Miss J. M.

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Holland, Philip

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter

    Box, Donald

    Hornby, R. P.

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Ridley Hon. Nicholas

    Buck, Antony

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Bullard, Denys

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Burden, F. A.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Sharples, Richard

    Campbell, Gorden

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shaw, M.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Shepherd, William

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Speir, Rupert

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Stainton, Keith

    Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cole, Norman

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Cooke, Robert

    Longbottom, Charles

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Coulson, Michael

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Teeling, Sir William

    Dance, James

    MacAdden, Sir Stephen

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    McLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    du Cann, Edward

    Madden, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Elliott, R. W. (New'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Walker, Peter

    Farr, John

    Marten, Neil

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Fell, Anthony

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Webster, David

    Fisher, Nigel

    Mawby, Ray

    Whitelaw, William

    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mills, Stratton

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gammons, Lady

    Miscampbell Normal

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Worsley, Marcus

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

    Goodhew, Victor

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Morrison, John

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.

    Clause 1.—(THE HOUSING CORPORATION.)
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, to leave out second "and".
    Mr. Speaker, if it is convenient to the House, I think that we could usefully discuss Amendment No. 2 in line 3 with this one.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.
    Mr. Corfield: These two Amendments are designed to meet the point raised in Committee by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) who sought to specify among the duties of the Housing Corporation the particular duty of publicising housing societies. I think that the hon. Lady was particularly concerted with the co-ownership society, but the Government felt that it would be wrong to distinguish one from the other. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that this Amendment meets her

    1275
    point, which I think was generally approved by the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 3, after "societies", insert:
    "and to publicise, in the case of societies providing houses for their own members no less than in the case of those providing houses for letting, the aims and principles of such societies".—[Mr. Corfield.]
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from the beginning to "of" in line 17 and to insert:
    "whether or not the purposes or objects of the society include any of the supplementary purposes or objects mentioned in subsection (8) of this section, so however that the expression shall not include a society which, in addition to the purposes or objects mentioned in paragraph (c) above, has any purposes or objects not mentioned in the said subsection (8).
    (8) The supplementary purposes or objects referred to in the last foregoing subsection are those—
    (a".
    Mr. Speaker, this Amendment and Amendments No. 4 in line 19 and No. 5 in line 20 are closely connected, and with the approval of the House they could usefully be discussed together.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House approves.
    Mr. Corfield: These three Amendments are basically a redrafting of the existing provisions for the purpose of meeting the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who felt that the present wording needed some clarification. The purpose is, first, to differentiate between the basic objects inherent in the definition of a housing society and those legitimate, but nevertheless supplementary, objects which are now listed in the new subsection (8). The new wording also makes it clear that the supplementary objects must be not only ancillary to the particular scheme, but also for the benefit of the residents in the proposed houses.
    Mr. John Farr: I welcome the Amendments, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify one point. The redrafting is an improvement, and I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation that it is the intention to encourage an existing experienced housing association to stimulate
    1276
    the growth of other housing associations or societies within its ambit.
    I have in mind the experienced and flourishing East Midlands Housing Association which is concerned with building operations in my constituency, and I should like my hon. Friend to confirm that it is in order, and indeed, permissible, for that association to stimulate interest and, as it were, sow the seeds of new housing associations within its area in the East Midlands.
    I think that an experienced association such as the East Midlands one has a great part to play in encouraging the formation of other housing associations, and I should like to know whether this trend is envisaged, and, furthermore, if the Minister will encourage it.
    Mr. Corfield: The short answer is "Yes". We know of the East Midlands Housing Association and the fine work that it has done. In fact, my right hon. Friend recently visited it. We have specifically put the supplementary purposes in a separate subsection under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), one of which refers to
    "encouraging the formation of other housing associations',
    to make it clear that this is a supplementary activity which we welcome and which we will encourage.
    Mr. Farr: Would it be in order for these new societies to be affiliated to a parent society such as the one to which I have referred?
    Mr. Corfield: Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 19, after "society", insert "(b) of".
    In line 20, after "and", insert "(c) of".—[Mr. Corfield]

    Clause 2.—(POWER OF CORPORATION TO MAKE LOANS TO HOUSING SOCIETIES.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 14, at the end to insert:
    (5) The reference in subsection (1) of this section to expenditure incurred or to be incurred by a housing society in carrying out its objects includes a reference to expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it in acquiring land on which to construct houses or in acquiring houses to be managed by the society,

    1277
    whether after improvement by the society or in the condition in which they are acquired.
    The object of the Amendment is to make it clear beyond any doubt that a housing society can buy and manage existing houses which may not need to be improved or repaired, and that the Housing Corporation can make loans to the housing society for this purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(PROVISION OF LAND FOR HOUSING SOCIETIES.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 3, after "prepare", to insert:
    "and submit to the Minister".
    This Amendment could conveniently be discussed with Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 11, Amendment No. 9, in line 12, Amendment No. 10, also in line 12, and Amendment No. 11, in line 15.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Corfield: Of these Amendments, that which I have just moved is a paving Amendment. The main Amendments are Nos. 8 and 10, and Nos. 9 and 11 are consequential thereon. The main Amendments follow an undertaking that I gave in Committee on a discussion of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to insert words in the latter part of subsection (5) to the effect that before the Minister approves a scheme prepared by the Corporation for itself to build and manage houses, in the absence of a housing society, the local authority should be able to make representations, and the Minister should take those representations into account.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 11, leave out "and" and insert:
    (6) Before submitting to the Minister a scheme under subsection (5) of this section the Corporation shall send a copy of it to the local authority in whose area the land to which the scheme relates is situated.
    (7) Where a scheme under the said subsection (5) is submitted to the Minister by the Corporation.
    In line 12, after "land", insert:
    "to which the scheme relates".
    In line 12, leave out "may" and insert:
    1278
    "and that the requirements of the last foregoing subsection have been complied with, and after considering any representations which may be made to him by the local authority in whose area the land is situated, may, if he thinks fit".
    In line 15, leave out "subsection (5) of".—[Mr Corfield.]

    Clause 4.—(COMPULSORY PURCHASE BY CORPORATION OF LAND.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 36. after "satisfied", insert:
    "after consultation with the authority".
    This Amendment could be discussed conveniently with Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 5, Amendment No. 14, also in line 5, and Amendments Nos. 177 in Clause 95, page 100, line 2, No. 178, in line 21, and No. 179, in line 22.
    Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.
    Mr. Corfield: The latter Amendments—Nos. 177 to 179 inclusive—are the Scottish equivalents of the English Amendments which appear next on the Order Paper. The purpose of the Amendment that I have moved is to make it clear that the Housing Corporation should consult the relevant local authority before using its powers of compulsory acquisition under subsection (1). The object of the other two English Amendments is to give the local authority the right to be heard by the Minister of it should so wish, when it has declined to acquire land on behalf of a housing society and the Housing Corporation seeks to acquire the land compulsorily.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 3, leave out "and".
    In line 5, at end insert:
    "and as if in Part I of Schedule 1 to that Act (procedure for authorising compulsory purchases) references to an owner of any land comprised on the compulsory purchase order included references to the local authority in whose area the land is situated".—[Mr. Corfield.]
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 5, at the end to insert:
    Provided nevertheless that a dwellinghouse, to the tenancy of which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 applies immediately prior to the corporation acquiring the interest of the landlord therein,

    1279
    shall be valued for the purpose of the compensation payable upon the acquisition of it by virtue of this section as if the said Act no longer applied thereto.
    I wish that I could sweep as majestically through this Amendment as my hon. Friend has just done through about a dozen previous ones, and get it on the Statute Book in the same way. I must be a little more laboured in explaining my Amendment than my hon. Friend has been so far.
    The Clause deals with the powers of the Corporation—the statutory body created under the Bill—to acquire land. It gives the Corporation power to acquire land compulsorily—in one case directly and in another case through the local authority. If we turn back to Clause 3(7) we find that when the Corporation has acquired the land, if that land comprises a controlled dwelling house, that dwelling house is no longer controlled. The mere fact of the Corporation becoming the landlord decontrols it.
    After acquisition—whether it be voluntary or compulsory—the Corporation will have power to increase the rent of what was previously a controlled dwelling, or to evict the tenant. One might say, "Of course, the Corporation which we have created by Statute, with our blessing, would not do such a dreadful thing." If that is so, what is the purpose of Clause 3(7)? The Housing Corporation is given the power to do it, and we must assume that the subsection has some purpose. It at any rate confers on the Corporation certain rights of value.
    The Corporation will not pay for those rights. If it is acquiring a controlled property it will pay for it as a controlled property. It will not pay for the enhanced value arising from its becoming decontrolled in the hands of the Corporation. In fact, it will be receiving a sort of statutory bargain. That might be right in the case of elected local authorities. We have recognised for many years that it may be considered right for them to get a bargain in this way. But there can be no justification for this Corporation, created under the Bill, obtaining a windfall in this way.
    6.45 p.m.
    As I see it, the Corporation is unlikely to acquire single dwellings here and there. There would seem to be no point in that. It will probably acquire a block of dwel-
    1280
    lings or a terrace of dwellings—all similar houses, some controlled and some decontrolled. It is mere chance what Price the Corporation will pay. It will be a small price for a controlled property and a higher price for a decontrolled property, but once property gets into the Corporation's hands the value will be the same, because the control will have gone.
    There is a substantial difference in value between the controlled and uncontrolled property of the small type which one imagines the Corporation will purchase. When this occurs there is bound to be a grave feeling of unfairness among the several owners of the properties. This all comes about by the rule that in assessing compensation we look not at the purposes for which the property is being acquired but at the value immediately before the moment of acquisition. When, at the moment of acquisition, the value of the property is enhanced, I submit that we should not extend to a statutory corporation the powers that we recognise in respect of local authorities. We are creating a sort of betterment in value, by Statute, which the Corporation will enjoy. If anyone should benefit it should be the deprived owners, and not the Corporation.
    This is not a case of the neglect of a house, which has become unfit and where, in the local authority's taking it over, there is some element of punishment on the owner for allowing it to become unfit. That does not apply in this case. The Corporation can acquire property simply because it considers that that property, together with other property in the area, is appropriate for a housing association. The house could be perfectly fit but a controlled house. Immediately the Corporation acquired it, it would become a decontrolled house and that much more valuable in the Corporation's hands. If my Amendment were accepted, this would be recognised in the compensation and the owner would receive appropriate compensation for it.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: I apologise for the fact that I have not perhaps been very greatly interested in this particular—and, no doubt, from the Minister's point of view important—Measure. One reason was that it did not seem to me very likely that it would

    1281
    have much application north of the Thames, and certainly not in the County Borough of Oldham.
    I want to raise the question of this Amendment. I know the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and I know his ability. I know that he has achieved some success of a type which is a tribute to the work that he has done so when I say that he steps in where angels fear to tread, I hope that he will not feel that that has some subdued connotation about it.
    In the Borough of Oldham in the last few days this issue of compensation has become of some importance. I have often said that in many spheres of activity one of the troubles about this House is that it is apt to have rather a metropolitan mind, and it is not easy to get over to it the position of the northern county boroughs and for it to keep them in mind when we have legislation.
    The County Borough of Oldham occupies a total area of less than 10 square miles. It has a population now of 114,000, which is less than it was many years ago. Whether the mills are dark and Satanic or not, they occupy a great deal of ground. There is no land for building and there has not been for a very long time.
    I do not propose to weary the House with figures. We have built since the war several thousand houses. The housing associations in the County Borough of Oldham have up to now bought none. Perhaps I ought, having said that, to give the brief figures that I have.
    We have less than 10 square miles, £12 million of local authority debt, practically no land for building, and we have to clear the sites every time we build, whether it is done by a housing association or by a local authority. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we pay him tribute. We have not got very much out of him, but we have always had a careful hearing, and he knows the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) has been singularly active in this capacity. He was a member of the Committee and he has taken a very active part in raising this question. But in the last few days the chairman of the housing authority—
    Mr. Speaker: I am not quite following this. I thought that this Amendment related to compensation paid by this Corporation which comes into existence under the Bill.
    Mr. Hale: It is compensation to be paid by the Corporation, but under the provisions of the Bill the Minister can give directions to the local county borough councils to acquire land on behalf of the Corporation but remain in possession of some of it, and this Amendment directly affects the cost.
    I do not propose to keep the House long, although it is a matter that I find sometimes difficult to speak upon without a certain emotion. The chairman of the housing committee referred to our most recent clearance scheme in the constituency of my hon. Friend—an overcrowded area in which we are clearing 28 acres. Oldham Council had to face the miserable situation and decide whether to wait until there was reasonable compensation or go forward at whatever the cost. It decided to go forward at whatever the cost.
    The product of a penny rate before the recent evaluation was £5,000 a year and whatever the increase the potential revenue can be computed on that. It has 114,000 population and less than 10 square miles of area, including the whole of the industrial premises. We decided clearance of what is known as St. Mary's Ward with the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman, who has certainly been as helpful as his political philosophy permits and always as courteous as his nature demands. I have a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman and I certainly do not mean that phrase to mean anything other than what I have said. I have always found him courteous, friendly and co-operative in spite of the fact that I believe that his political views about housing limit the sort of thing that I would like to see.
    There are 28 acres and we had to apply for a loan of £275,000 for the site value when cleared. How is it to be paid? The chairman of the housing committee said—and we have a good Liberal paper which commented on it—most of these buildings are valueless; 95 per cent. of the buildings. There is some building compensation in it although I have left out of my figures one important building

    1283
    which is a place of worship where another £40,000 will be involved. Five good houses have to go in order to have a site on which we can operate. These 28 acres will cost over £10,000 an acre, or £2 1s. 6d. a yard.
    An hon. Gentleman who represents a constituency which is not this sort of constituency says, "Let us put the price up". I know that there are always widows who own houses—there are always widows in every political sphere. May I tell him this? About six weeks ago I called on one of my constituents in the urban district of Chadderton, which is adjoining and which has much the same layout. They bought a house because they were living in one room, and because they could not qualify for a council house, or perhaps because they had found nothing else suitable. They bought the house and said, "We will give it to the council if they will let us have a council house.".
    7.0 p.m.
    The husband cannot get upstairs. The wife has both hands and feet in plaster, but she keeps busy about her duties, and is happy. The astonishing thing is that when I visit them I come out of the house happier than when I went in. A woman next door, who is 66 years of age, has a total income of £3 5s. 0d. a week and does not qualify for National Assistance. She has to pay rent out of that.
    Here we have an Amendment in which it is proposed to put up the compensation paid for every house pulled down. As I said, we have built some thousands of houses in Oldham, but we have pulled down nearly half as many. There have been 2,000 demolished already. We know that we have 10,000 houses to pull down and the hon. Gentleman is saying that the compensation should be increased. It is true that most of these houses were built in 1875 and their capital value was paid off in 1900. It is suggested that for anyone who has been drawing rent from them for years, because someone is drawing a controlled rent, there should be a special provision to get extra compensation if the property falls within the Clause and is in an area to which the provisions in the Clause relate.
    1284
    Who is to pay? Who is to finance this? Heaven knows how we are to finance these over-crowded boroughs in the North. Here there is a £12½ million debt. Housing charges are running at about £400,000 a year—I speak from memory. Now it is suggested that the figure be increased. I am not sure whether I should be in order in quoting from the local paper, but I quote from memory. It said that for 28 acres of festering slum in St. Mary's ward something like £320,000 must be paid. That works out at £11,500 an acre. That is not quite a fair figure because—and the local paper is being perfectly fair—they have included some buildings in respect of which compensation is properly to be paid in order to clear the area. But it is £10,000 an acre for land which the chairman of the housing committee said ought, at the maximum, to be valued at £200 an acre. The hon. Member would increase the compensation for the people who own this property. May we be told who is to pay? How is it to be paid with the present rate of interest charges and so on? It is adding to the burden of an authority with a magnificent record in almost every social sphere of activity; in the provision of accommodation for the aged, and special schools; in the provision of its own institutions for mental health, which are the envy and admiration of the world. Oldham has tried. With a limited budget year by year the local authority has had to cut down everything. It has had to face miserable problems because there is no productivity which could provide a new town out of an old one.
    The hon. Member proposes that we should impose new and heavier burdens in the interests of a fairly large class of people. Some of them may have difficulties and I sympathise with them. Many, particularly the owners of working-class houses in Oldham, are multiple landlords. Multiple companies have been formed to acquire property that no one particularly wanted in order to exploit the tenants. Heaven forgive us in this House if we pay extra compensation to those companies which have done everything they could to stop the development of the town, and if we propose to hold up development in order to consider propositions of that kind.
    Mr. Norman Cole: We have listened with great sympathy and interest to the problems outlined by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and which may to some extent be familiar to some hon. Members. May I say, with respect, to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the Amendment which we are discussing is applicable to the conditions which he has been describing. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said that he was not speaking of unfit houses but of clean houses which were in a proper state for habitation. He was merely seeking to ensure that if, by a legal transfer to the Corporation of the ownership of a house, an immediate asset was created, in justice that asset should belong to the property or its former owner and not necessarily to the Corporation. What the hon. Member for Oldham said will happen—that the Corporation would arrange with a local authority to acquire properly under various public health acts—would not happen. Only the minimum property site value would be paid, not any enhanced value such as is envisaged in the Clause. We are here discussing something different. Even the rubric to Clause 4 says,
    "Compulsory purchase by Corporation of land."
    I am sure that we have been impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but the Amendment does not relate to it. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. If this Amendment is not accepted, we shall put the clock back to pre-1959 before the town and country planning legislation in which this House said that never in the future—if property was acquired at leasehold value, or the land on which the property stood was acquired at a similar value and was enhanced because of freedoms allowed to the acquiring authority and because of betterment—should the value be transferable to the new owners. We said all that in the town and country planning legislation, and I served on the Standing Committee which considered that Measure.
    My hon. Friend is trying to insert the same kind of provisions in this Bill. We are not dealing with local authorities in this Amendment, but with housing societies which will let houses at £4 to £7 a week. They may charge £4 to £7 a week on a house which they
    1286
    have acquired. They may take over a house which has had a limited rent and, quite properly, if the market will stand it, charge a rent of £4 a week. In my view that is quite wrong. This Amendment amounts to no more than an extension in this Bill of what we already decided, in respect of the 1959 legislation, was no more and no less than justice. In many cases housing societies will not acquire houses, because that is not their function. They wish to acquire land and they will acquire houses merely because one happens to stand on a large piece of land or because a number of houses have to be demolished in order that use may be made of the site. But the moment the property belongs to them it is derestricted, and has a market value far greater than under the 1920 Act, and they will be able to charge on the capital value. All this should not be done at the expense of the present owner.
    Mr. J. Silverman: He does not lose anything by it. He gets the existing market value, at which he could sell to a sitting tenant.
    Mr. Cole: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, all I can say is that he and those who agree with him must think that everything which we tried to say in the 1959 Act about market value, or future market value if local authorities change their minds about the use of an acquired site, was nugatory and a waste of time. I do not think so. I think that the 1959 Act brought a great measure of justice and whatever may have happened since has no connection with it. The Act was overdue and represented the culmination of efforts to bring justice in respect of this whole matter.
    A man may suddenly find he has an asset. Something may have had a sentimental value to him, perhaps a picture, and it is discovered that it has a value of £20,000. Suppose I bought a picture for £100. What sort of thoughts would the former owner have about me if I said to him, "You did not think it was worth more than £100. I have sold it for £20,000, but you should be perfectly happy." I like to take the other point of view. A man has a house, part of a large site that a housing society wishes to buy. It buys the site and finds that there is one house which is still subject to the provisions of the 1920

    1287
    Act. The housing society then says, "We shall buy at the rent values of the 1920 Act." The moment it has acquired under Clause 4 it will have all the accretion of value rent-wise and capital-wise that goes with the house and the piece of land on which it stands. It is right that that position should be remedied.
    If this Clause is imported into the Bill I believe it will stop much of the acrimony, the delay, the arguments and sense of injustice which many experience. It will enable the housing society for a comparatively small sum of money to get on with its job. A man who feels he is having a raw deal will fight to the last ditch, whereas if he thinks he is getting justice he will be prepared to sit at a table and negotiate. Since the 1959 Act, the various negotiations between local authorities and owners of property have been on a much happier, easier and better basis than they were. What is more important, there has been a sense—whether we all agree with the prices or not—that justice is available to all. That was not the position before the 1959 Act.
    This provision will apply only to areas which local authorities wish to acquire nevertheless, it will relieve the nagging thought of injustice and harsh treatment of housing societies. We should start this project on a reasonable and proper course; not with something which rankles because of injustice.
    Sir Stephen McAdden: I would not have intervened but for the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), speaking under the stress of great emotion, was in my view a little unjust to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) through not understanding the purpose of the Amendment he moved.
    I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Odham, West would not have been so unjust as to attack my hon. Friend if he had followed what my hon. Friend said. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Odham, West was in the House at the time. Although I sympathise with his feelings, I see nothing in the Amendment which would make any difference to the situation to which he sought to draw attention. The Amendment is devoted solely to the question of acquisition of property by a housing cor-
    1288
    poration and has nothing to do with the acquisition of property by a local authority for its own purposes. It deals solely with housing corporations to be set up under the Bill.
    In those circumstances, my hon. Friend says that it is desirable that we should not give housing corporations powers to acquire properties at present controlled without their paying an equitable rate of compensation such as would be paid in similar circumstances between different people who seek to acquire property. My hon. Friend was saying that if a housing association wishes to acquire a parcel of land on which one or more controlled properties are situated, in view of the fact that it is a housing association and not a local authority it should be authorised not to pay an amount of compensation greater than if it were a controlled tenancy which could not command a proper market price because of that fact. He was perfectly reasonable. He was not trying to inflict unfair burdens on Oldham and should not be accused of so doing.
    Mr. Hale: I said in my opening words that I thought it highly unlikely that housing associations would regard Oldham as a fruitful source for their activities, but this is one of the great faults of the Bill. I appreciated that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) had in mind other areas where often there was mostly land and a few houses. After all, Oldham is not the only overcrowded county borough. There may be other towns which offer a few more opportunities. The Minister has already taken powers and laid down that the local authority has to be consulted and may virtually be instructed to take proceedings to buy on behalf of the Housing Corporation and to hand over to the Corporation the sites required and, if there is anything left over, to keep it for themselves. This will add to the cost of the operation.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member that we are not in Committee and that this is a little hard on the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), whose speech it was.
    Mr. Hale: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not do it again.
    Sir S. McAdden: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member in being able

    1289
    to make a speech on the particular problem of Oldham on this Amendment which, as he admitted, has nothing to do with the problem before the House. I congratulate him on having got away with it so far. I intervened in order that in his enthusiasm and naturally sincere desire he should not be unfair to my hon. Friend by referring to something which has nothing to do with the case he so skilfully and emotionally deployed.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) argued his case persuasively, but he has missed the basic principle, as also did my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South, however, in that I do not think the Amendment is applicable to the problem which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) had in mind. He said that my right hon. Friend had powers to direct local authorities to hand over land to housing societies.
    That is possibly where the misconception arose because this is not what happens under the Bill. What happens is that the powers of the Corporation to acquire compulsorily arise only where local authorities have refused, or do not wish, to acquire the land themselves. The Corporation can use its powers only when it has asked the local authority to acquire land and the local authority has declined to do so. We have discussed. Amendments which make it clear that, should there he a demand by the local authority for the same land, the local authority is in the same position as the owner and can appear and make its case to the Minister concerned.
    My hon. Friend's main argument on the Amendment was that there would be some benefit to the Corporation from acquiring property which was controlled because, as soon as it was acquired, it would cease to be controlled and therefore would be vacant possession value. My hon. Friend said with some force that where there was an element of profit of this sort it ought more rightly to fall to the owner than to the acquiring authority. I remind him that the definition of a housing society and of the Housing Corporation is that it can
    1290
    operate only itself or on behalf of a society. It is non-profit making, so it is not altogether self-evident where the profit arises in this transaction.
    Another point which is important is to get this matter in perspective. This is not the kind of property which will be acquired, because it stands to reason that anything which is controlled will be houses built before the war. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill that that sort of property should be acquired for the use of an association. A piece of open ground may have one or two houses on it which happen to be controlled. An association may conceivably put the case that to develop the open land it is necessary to acquire the houses.
    Another point to which I draw attention is that as I read Clause 3(7), although the Rent Act does not apply to the Housing Corporation, if a house is sold into private ownership with a tenant in it, it remains controlled. This is not a means by which creeping decontrol operates. I will certainly check that with my legal advisers and write to my hon. Friend if I am wrong.
    Mr. Graham Page: This raises a most interesting point. What happens if the Corporation has raised the rent in the meantime and then disposes of the property? What is the standard rent then?
    Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will appreciate that if it is sold to an owner-occupier it is decontrolled under the Rent Act. If it is sold with a tenant in it, if the Rent Act applies at all it must apply to the original standard rent, whatever it happened to be. I do not know the Rent Act sufficiently well offhand, but I think I am right in saying that it remains based on the 1956 gross value.
    To my way of thinking, the real argument against the principle is in part the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman), that if the value of a house or a piece of property in the open market is £X there cannot be any case for varying the price depending on who the purchaser happens to be. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South sand. He said that not to put this in would be to go back to pre-1959. On the contrary, I think that he will give me credit for taking some part in the

    1291
    1959 Act. The one thing that I fought for, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby collaborated so closely, was to do away with a two-tier system. Heaven forbid that I should ever be associated with re-establishing one, because I think this is something which introduces hardship, which we have got away from.
    Mr. Cole: This is an important matter. I pay due tribute to my hon. Friend's two or three private efforts to introduce a Bill to the House, which eventually became a Government Bill. That is very clearly in my memory. My hon. Friend did all he could to do away with the two-tier effect in land. Does he realise this? I do not want an answer off the cuff, because it may be a little bit of a legal conundrum. If the Amendment is not imported into the Bill, it may be cheaper for a man to demolish his house and sell the piece of land, if it is his house, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, as land for housing purposes, for which he will get housing compensation which will probably be more than the restricted value of the rented house.
    Mr. Corfield: I think not. As far as I recollect, there is a ceiling on the value of a house which is not rented equivalent to the value of the land, it that is greater, cleared of building. I will certainly accept my hon. Friend's invitation to think about that question before committing myself across the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Hale: Once someone starts to demolish, either he has a tenant, in which case he is liable for action for immense damages, or it cannot be a controlled house.
    Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether that has any ramifications with regard to the sum of compensation.
    Mr. J. Silverman: One point has been overlooked. An important difference in the value is the fact that the Corporation, if it has the right to displace a sitting tenant and does so, has to find him alternative accommodation.
    Mr. Cole: At £4 a week.
    Mr. Speaker: Interventions upon interventions are intolerable and become
    1292
    more intolerable if they are made from a sitting posture. Do let us get on. We are not in Committee.
    Mr. Corfield: I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was getting a little confused. I wanted to conclude by saying that I feel strongly that we should not re-establish a two-tier system where the price depends on who happens to buy. I believe this is wrong. Whether or not my hon. Friends accept that argument, I am certain that this is the wrong place to attempt to alter the law of compensation or the code by which it is calculated. I cannot accept that there is this vital difference as an acquiring body or an acquiring authority between a local authority for this purpose or any other public body—the War Office or anybody else acquiring for public housing of one sort or another—and the Housing Corporation which calls upon us to make the Housing Corporation pay some sort of premium on houses which are controlled under the Rent Act. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, at the end to insert:
    (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 29 (Provisions as to the purchase of condemned houses at site value) and subsection (2) and (3) of section 59 (Compensation at site value for land in a clearance area purchased compulsorily) of the Act of 1957, the rules specified in Part III of the Third Schedule to the Act of 1957 (Rules as to the assessment of compensation where land is purchased otherwise than at site value) and not the provisions of the Act of 1957 as to site value shall apply to the acquisition of land by a local authority under Part V of the Act of 1957 for the purpose of selling it or leasing it to a housing society and to the acquisition of land by the corporation under this section.
    This is an Amendment of a similar character to the last one, but the arguments are a little different. If a dwelling house which is to be acquired under the Clause by the Corporation is capable of being found to be unfit under Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1957, or happens to be in a clearance area, the Corporation will obtain the property at site value. Under Section 4 of the 1957 Act there are many occasions when a house can be declared to be unfit, although it may have a life of many years and be perfectly habitable. If it

    1293
    is declared unfit and if it happens to be in an area which the Corporation desires to acquire, the Corporation may acquire it merely at site value. The same may apply if the house is in a clearance area.
    That may be right for a local authority. It may be right for the local authority to acquire unfit houses, or houses in clearance areas, at mere site value, no matter that those houses may have a fairly substantial life ahead of them. There seems to me to be no justification for extending that benefit to the statutory Housing Corporation which the Bill is creating. The more the number with power to acquire property at site value is multiplied, the more the power to acquire at site value is extended, the more the hardship to the many owners which arises from that is multiplied.
    I must justify why I say that there is hardship to owners out of acquisition at site value. I justify it by reference to one type of case which arises. It is where a property is purchased when a clearance order has been made. If it was purchased before 1939 or after 1955, the owner receives, if the local authority acquires it from him—and in future if the Corporation acquires it from him—only the site value. It depends merely on the date on which the owner occupier acquired the property. If it was before 1939 or after 1955, he gets site value. If he happened to purchase between 1939 and 1955, he receives market value.
    I have investigated scores and scores of cases of this sort, particularly those in streets of similar houses and subject to a clearance order and subject to compulsory purchase orders. In such streets where houses were purchased between 1939 and 1955 and some outside that period, the differences between the compensation given have been in the neighbourhood of 10 to 1. The fortunate person who purchased at the right lime gets £500 for his house. The person who purchased just outside that time gets £50 site value. In some areas it varies between £1,000 and £100 for the plot. I am quoting real figures because I have gone into at least a hundred of these cases. I have found the most devastating hardship caused to small
    1294
    owners who have suffered in this way. The blow is softened at times by the "well maintained" payment, but that is a paltry sum compared with the full market value.
    7.30 p.m.
    This is not only a question of hardship but a feeling of bitterness. One often knows that one's neighbour is getting 10 times more for no apparent reason and the difference in compensation to similar persons for similar houses in the same street is something which should be abolished and not extended. We are ex tending it under the Bill by giving the Housing Corporation power to acquire property on this basis.
    It is unintelligible and incredible to the man who is offered £100 for his house, which is exactly the same sort of house as his neighbour's, although his neighbour is receiving £1,000. One cannot explain the law to that man and try to show that it has all happened because ho purchased his house at such and such a time. This is happening in many cases throughout the country and we are adding to the public bodies which are entitled to commit what I would call statutory robbery.
    Why should certain unfortunate owners who happened to buy at the wrong time subsidise this Housing Corporation by giving their property to it at site value? It seems grossly unjust. I agree that the Corporation is carrying out admirable work in endeavouring to house people, but so are other statutory corporations, including those which run nationalised industries or services. Are we to say, because they are doing good work, that the individual owner should subsidise them by giving away his property? That it is a statutory body does not mean that it warrants having these powers. We would not be warranted in extending the occasions when gross injustice can be imposed on home owners. Considering the unfairness that is, and will continue to be, meted out to individuals, the means does not justify the end.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am glad, after that philippic, that I have a good answer for my hon. Friend. For some reason—and it is most unlike him—my hon. Friend has misunderstood the powers which are given to the Housing Corporation. He will note from Clause 4(1) that the

    1295
    Part of the Housing Act, 1957, which is invoked is Part V. It is under Parts II and III of that Act that site value acquisition is authorised. Acquisition by compulsory purchase under Part V is at market value. I can, therefore, wholly reassure my hon. Friend that the Bill does not give to the Housing Corporation any power of compulsory acquisition on a site value basis, and I hope, as a result of that assurance, that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that explanation, but if a local authority has a house in a clearance area which the Housing Corporation wants, would not the Corporation under this Clause be able to acquire that house from the local authority at site value? It was only in cases where houses could be declared unfit or were already in a clearance area where this would happen. That was what I had in mind.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is relatively unlikely that a housing society would be interested in an area that had been cleared for local authority purposes, but if that were to be so I do not see that the mere fact that a piece of land ware passed in due course to a housing society would justify a reopening of the transaction between the local authority and the individual original owner of the site, which might have been years and years before. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to examine the powers of the housing Corporation, but what he is now seeking to do is to reopen the question of the powers of local authorities which are, from the point of view of Parts II and III of the 1957 Act—which authorise site value acquisition—not referred to in the Clause.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am delighted with my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the Clause, and I hope that the judges interpret it in the same way. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 6, line 6, to leave out subsection (3).
    I think it would be convenient to the House also to discuss the following Amendments: Amendment No. 18, in
    1296
    line 10, leave out from "(1)" to second "for" in line 11.
    Amendment No. 19, in line 19, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert subsection (2)".
    Amendment No. 21, in page 13, line 10, Clause 12, at end insert:
    "local authority means the council of a county borough. London borough or county district or the Common Council of the City of London, and in relation to Scotland means a local authority for the purposes of the Act of 1950.
    (2) In the case of land which is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another, references in this Part of this Act to the local authority in whose area the land is situated shall be construed as references to each of those local authorities.
    Amendment No. 21A, as an Amendment to my proposed Amendment (page 13, line 10, Clause 12), in line 1, after "means", insert "the Greater London Council".
    Amendment No. 78, in page 43, line 12, Clause 40, after "London", insert:
    "or, until such date as the Minister may appoint under section 21(5) of the London Government Act 1963, the Greater London Council".
    Amendment No. 180, in page 100, line 33, Clause 95, at end insert:
    (6) In the case of land which is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another, references in this section to the local authority in whose area the land is situated shall be construed as references to each of those local authorities.
    Amendment No. 182, in page 103, line 26, Clause 102, leave out paragraph (a).
    Amendment No. 183, in line 29, "after authority'", insert "in section 12".
    Amendment 184, in line 32, after "borough", insert:
    "and in the definition of 'local authority' in section 40(1), for the words until such date as the Minister may appoint under section 21(5) of the London Government Act 1963, the Greater London Council.' there shall be substituted the words 'the London County Council'".
    All these Amendments turn on the definition of "local authority", and I have, in listing the Amendments which I have suggested it would be convenient to discuss with the one I moved, referred in passing to some Amendments which are in the name of the hon. Member for

    1297
    Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I hope that it will be convenient to take them together.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is not here.
    Mr. MacColl: I think that my hon Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) is interested in those Amendments. I do not think that my hon. Friends would object to them being discussed, on the understanding that, if necessary, we could divide later.
    Mr. Speaker: It is without prejudice to any hon. Member's rights when Amendments are taken together. I am somewhat diffident about taking them together in the absence of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am content to deal with the group of Amendments standing in my name. If I deal with those Amendments it will be for other hon. Members to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. MacColl: I do not know whether your difficulty is that of abiding by the rules of the House or whether you require to ascertain the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, Mr. Speaker. I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend and I have his authority to say that he would be willing to have the in Amendments discussed n any way convenient to the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I was wondering how we would manage to deal with Amendment No. 21 on this basis because we cannot get to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) to Amendment 21 until we have something proposed in respect of Amendment No. 21, which that hon. Member could amend. That is creating some difficulty for me technically, and I think we will have to go ahead on the basis of having a wide discussion now on Amendment Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, and that is before I get to my difficulty.
    Sir K. Joseph: in which case, Mr. Speaker, it may be preferable if T say something about my small group of
    1298
    Amendments which are designed to amend the definition Clause.
    Mrs. Butler: On a point of order. Did I understand you to say that we would, at the same time, discuss Amendment No. 20, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I did, but by mistake. I got confused with the numbers. That is a separate and distinct Amendment and I should have said that we will discuss Amendment No. 17, which the Minister originally moved, together with Amendment Nos. 18 and 19.
    Sir K. Joseph: My group of Amendments are concerned with altering the definition Clause at the end of Part I so to define "local authority" once and for all. There are a number of consequential Amendments. That is the only explanation I think I need give to the House. It follows, however, that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may wish to raise questions about the definition of "local authority" and that is why I thought that it might be convenient to take the other Amendments in his name with this group. The explanation I have given is all that is involved and I do not think I need say more. No other alteration is involved.
    Mr. MacColl: I only want to say that I have no objection to moving out subsection (3), provided that it will be possible to discuss the substantial point of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is that we ought to put the Greater London Council into the Government Amendment. But if the right way of showing my annoyance with the Minister for not having put the Council in the Amendment is that I should oppose leaving out subsection (3) and therefore prevent his moving Amendment No. 21, I suppose that I ought to do that.
    Mr. Speaker: Having created some confusion, most unwillingly, I suggest that the right way to do this, and it would be understood as such, would be for the hon. Member eloquently to support the Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to the Government Amendment 21 when we get there and that with that we should discuss Amendments 78, 183 and 184 which are precisely on that matter.
    Mr. MacColl: I am much obliged.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 10, leave out from "(1)" to second "for" in line 11.
    In line 19, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)" and insert "subsection (2)".—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

    Clause 6.—(DISPOSAL OF LAND NOT REQUIRED BY HOUSING SOCIETIES.)
    Mrs. Butler: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, after "may", to insert:
    "after consultation with the local authorities in whose area the land is situated".
    There was some discussion in Committee on the Bill on the point which is covered by the Amendment, and on 16th January my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) moved an Amendment, somewhat on these lines, designed to ensure that if there was surplus land which had been acquired by the Housing Corporation, in whatever way, it should be offered to the local authority before it was disposed of in any way. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary intervened in that discussion to say that he hoped to shorten it by pointing out that there was substance in what my hon. Friend was moving and that
    "We accept that where there is a surplus of land there is a case for some form of consultation with or offer to the local authority…on the undertaking that we will seek to meet the spirit of what the hon. Member for Fulham has in mind, but without committing ourselves to any particular wording or any particular stage. I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee E, 16th January, 1964; c. 291.]
    The Amendment was so withdrawn by my hon. Friend.
    There does not appear to be anything on the Order Paper at this stage to cover this point, and this is the purpose of the Amendment which I have now moved. I do not know what the Minister had in mind or whether he had found it difficult to find the right form of words and was proposing to bring it in at a later stage, but it is important that where land has been acquired by the Corporation for housing of a public nature—and these housing associations have the support of public money—for people with limited incomes it should not be disposed of before, at any rate, the local authority has been consulted.
    1300
    The Amendment does not include any offer to the local authority, but since the local authorities are the main bodies providing public housing for people of limited incomes, then clearly where the land is to be disposed of consultation should take place.
    I appreciate that it is difficult to ensure that consultation is adequate, but at any rate some wording should be put into the Bill to cover the point. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment or, if he does not, will tell us what he proposes to do to cover the point.
    7.45 p.m.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not disagree with anything the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) has said, but something else happened in that discussion which she has not mentioned. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also undertook to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) that, in disposing of any surplus land, the Housing Corporation or a housing society would have an obligation to the original owner, just as a local authority has when it has compulsorily purchased land. The difficulty is to put into statutory form a duty upon the Housing Corporation which will take account of all the possible range of cases. What, therefore, we have in mind is that we shall by direction to the Housing Corporation impose upon it an obligation, but leave to its discretion as a responsible body the exact exercise of judgment in each case in considering offering the land to the original owners, if the original owners would be entitled under present convention to be offered the land back by a public authority and, subject to that, to consult with the local authority before disposing of any surplus land.
    I hope that I have explained why we have not put down a detailed Amendment. There certainly will be direction to the Housing Corporation and, except in cases where the public authority is obliged to offer land back to the original owner, it will be required to consult with the local authority. To that extent I can give an undertaking which I hope will satisfy the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Cole: The Amendment is quite innocuous. It says nothing more than the Housing Corporation can already

    1301
    do without instruction. It can already consult anybody it likes. This is its function as a public body, but I am concerned with what the Amendment might mean under the surface. We are all concerned about land being, as it were, shuffled between two public authorities, one the local authority and the other the Housing Corporation. We hear echoes of the past when this happened with disastrous results to public confidence. We do not want it to happen again. If the hon. Lady wishes nothing more than that this body should consult, then the Amendment is innocuous and unnecessary because, as I have said, it can already do that.

    "local authority" means the council of a county borough, London borough or county district or the Common Council of the City of London, and in relation to Scotland means a local authority for the purposes of he Act of 1950.

    (2) In the case of land which is situated partly in the area of one local authority and partly in the area of another, references in this Part of this Act to the local authority in whose area the land is situated shall be construed as references to each of those local authorities.

    This Amendment has already been explained.
    Mr. MacColl: This is perhaps an appropriate moment—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that it would be convenient at this point to discuss the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "means", insert "the Greater London Council", and also Amendment 78, the Amendment to the Government Amendment No. 183, and also Amendment 184.
    Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. MacColl: I have not explored quite to the depths that you have suggested, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It seems reasonable that we should discuss Amendment No. 78 because it clarifies the position.
    I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "means", to insert "the Greater London Council".
    This is perhaps an appropriate day, when the Greater London Council is dramatically coming into existence, that we should ask why it is excluded from these functions. This definition Clause deals with the whole of this Part of the Bill. It is not attached only to one Clause
    I am much more interested in my right hon. Friend's statement that, as local authorities are required, so the Corporation will be required, where the convention runs, to offer the land to the man from whom it was bought. I am perfectly happy about consultation. I do not mind who is consulted, but I do not like the suggestion that the innocuous word "consult" means to consult with a view to an offer and that the public or the original owner will not get a look in.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 12.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10 at the end to insert:
    as the other one was. If the Greater London Council were not going to be a housing authority at all, I could conceive of a case for saying that it should not do this work, but it is, in fact, going to be a housing authority.
    I have always been very much a borough man in argument about housing as between the L.C.C. and the boroughs but, in fact, as I understand it, the Greater London Council is likely to take over a good deal in the way of housing responsibilities, and it seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to have an arrangement whereby the Greater London Council has parallel powers with those of the boroughs and arranges with the boroughs by agreement as to how to allocate those responsibilities.
    There may presumably be cases—in fact, the cases are common—where the housing authority wants to provide houses for Londoners outside the London area where there is land available. It might be a matter in which the Greater London Council is very interested. Why should it not have such responsibilities under this Part of the Bill? It seems to me that somebody has been working on the assumption that the ordinary county council authorities were not housing authorities and that the district authorities should do the work. That seems to me to be an unreal position in London.

    1303
    particularly at a stage when we do not know what is to be the apportionment of responsibilities between the boroughs and the Greater London Council, because they have not yet come into existence, they have not reviewed the position and have not discussed it together. Therefore, it would be silly to tie their hands by excluding them in this way. I think it is only reasonable to include them and to leave the exact apportionment of responsibilities to be worked out afterwards.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Greater London Council will have very large and continuing housing responsibilities of a strategic order. It will have certain powers to provide housing within Greater London, but its major responsibility will be for overspill housing. As such, it will be the authority responsible for the co-ordination of arrangements for overspill housing, but the overspill will generally be in the areas of other authorities.
    It seems natural, therefore, in the light of this, that the housing societies and the Housing Corporation should deal with the primary local housing authorities which in Greater London will be the London boroughs. That is why it seems sensible to the Government to exclude the Greater London Council from Part I of the Bill.
    However, the Greater London Council will have powers of acquisition of land for housing, and if it likes to make available some of that land to the Corporation or to a housing society, it will be able to do so without specific mention or without this Amendment being made.
    However, that is, as it were, peripheral to the main argument. The main argument is, as was pointed out in Committee, that the Housing Corporation's contributions will generally be relatively small in terms of the Greater London Council's work, and far more suitable, therefore, to be dealt with on a purely local basis by the London boroughs.
    I shall be making much the same answer if the hon. Gentleman asks the same question on Amendment No. 78. I do not know whether we are going to have any exchange on that Amendment. There the issue is not the Housing Corporation and which authority it shall
    1304
    deal with, but whether the Greater London Council shall have compulsory improvement powers. The answer will be the same and it will primarily fall to the immediate housing authority, which should be the London borough. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 13.—(DECLARATION OF IMPROVEMENT AREA.)
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 13, line 18, to leave out "a quarter" and to insert "one half".
    We are now moving on to Part II of the Bill and reverting to something which occupied the Committee for quite a long time, namely, the proper balance in an improvement area of houses capable of full improvement as opposed to improvement to a reduced standard.
    To remind hon. Members of the position at the moment, improvement grant is payable only where a house has a minimum 15-year life ahead of it and where it can be brought up by improvement to possess all the five standard amenities. This Bill makes it possible for a proportionately lesser grant to be payable where it is only possible for three standard amenities to be provided, always on the condition that the house for which the grant is made must have a minimum life of 15 years.
    The Bill rests heavily on the definition of improvement areas. The definition of an improvement area requires that of the houses within an improvement area capable of improvement, at least one-half should be capable of improvement to the full standard. This was how the Bill was originally presented to the House. In order to enable discussion in Committee to be free and unfettered, I myself introduced a manuscript Amendment to reduce one-half to a quarter, but I gave no undertaking at that time that I would not put the original drafting back at this stage. The Amendment that we are now discussing restores the Bill to its original draft.
    Mr. Bruce Milan: The manuscript Amendment

    1305
    surely was a drafting Amendment. I thought, as a matter of fact, that the figure of a quarter was an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). I am only speaking from memory, but surely that was the position.
    Sir K. Joseph: I hate to recall an episode which found me in some confusion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I think it was creditable confusion. What happened was this. At the time I pointed out a certain ambiguity in the drafting of one line. I proposed to correct that drafting, though I was assured—and, of course. I accept from the Parliamentary draftsman—that the line did carry out the intention of the Government. Nevertheless, from the layman's point of view there was a certain ambiguity in it. But I found that, in order to be able to present a manuscript Amendment to correct what I thought was the ambiguity in one line, it was, for procedural reasons, necessary to accept the Amendment which either had been or was to be proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. It was all perfectly honourable, and I think that we all accepted the position as, on the whole, helpful.
    8.0 p.m.
    We return now to what may well be a clash of principle or, at least, of priorities. May I remind the House of the situation in its starkest form? It would be practicable, under the Bill as it is proposed to amend it, for a local authority to take an area containing 1.000 houses in which only ten tacked all modern amenities, but if of those ten houses out of the 1,000 which were capable of improvement six were capable only of improvement to the reduced standard because there was not room, let us say, for a bathroom, it would not then be possible, under the Bill as it is proposed to be amended, for the local authority to declare those 1,000 houses an improvement area.
    I have put the case in its extreme form and, of course, no local authority would dream of declaring an improvement area of 1,000 houses if its interest was, in fact, in only ten houses. Local authorities will proceed by way of a
    1306
    systematic marshalling of their houses in greatest need and most susceptible of improvement in groups where the largest number of houses both need and are capable of improvement.
    The issue, therefore, which developed between the parties in Committee was whether, when the local authorities do this, they should be free to choose an improvement area in which as many as 75 per cent. of the houses could be improved only to the reduced standard. The Government's attitude is that at least 50 per cent. of the houses should be capable of improvement to the full standard. The reason for the Government's attitude is that, with the limited amount of management energy available in any local authority, the limited number of plumbers, craftsmen and small builders available, it only makes sense to deploy this great administrative machine if we are to get a large output in terms of full-standard improved houses. It does not make sense to use all this effort in order to get a relatively large number of houses improved to the reduced standard, without even a bath in a bathroom or without a bath at all, for instance. That is the issue, as it happens, between the two sides of the House.
    I still maintain that the Government are right in stressing the need to go for full improvement wherever possible There will be the occasional house in any improvement area which, because of its design or its size, does not lend itself to full improvement. The Bill enables grant to be paid for that house to be improved to the reduced standard. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept that the Government's view of the priorities is right anti will accept this reversion to the original drafting, that is, that the improvement area must contain, of the houses which can be improved, at least half which can be improved to the full standard.
    Mr. MacColl: I do not think that it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman has in any way gone back on a pledge in This matter, but J think that his somewhat intense searching of his conscience was justified. It is a great pity that he has not taken this opportunity to start off our consideration of this part of the Bill in a rather more amicable and co-operative atmosphere so

    1307
    that we could hope to reach agreement about something which is welcomed by everyone.
    The issue is not whether or not one likes reduced standards. The right hon. Gentleman himself made this clear. We are all agreed that it would be much better to have full-standard rather than reduced-standard improvements where-ever possible. The issue is not whether we should have any reduced standards at all because, when it comes to the question of grant, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, it is possible to obtain a grant for a reduced-standard improvement. The point is whether the local authority should have a discretion to use compulsory powers where there is a substantial number of houses capable of reduced-standard improvement.
    This is essentially a question for the local authority to make up its mind about. The local authority knows the ground locally. It knows the possibilities. It knows the particular problems which may arise because a certain area of houses may have weaknesses which make it impossible to bring them up to the full standard. But, because of this, they are debarred from enforcing these improvements.
    I do not for a moment pretend that I like all this talk of reduced standards. Of course, it would be very good if we could say, "All right. Write these houses off, demolish them and rebuild". But even the Minister in his most emotionally electoral moods prophesying the future progress of the slum clearance programme never hides the fact that there is an enormous amount of property which is really awfully mucky stuff to live in but which will have to remain for ten years or more. This is the kind of stuff which the local authorities are continually urged to improve. Therefore, I should have thought that the sensible course here would be to accept what appears in the Bill now, which is a compromise reached in exchanges—dramatic exchanges, as the Minister says—in Committee. Let us accept that and get on in that kind of spirit to examine the rest of this part of the Bill. It is really a question of local authority discretion, not of the absolute comparative virtues of reduced or full standards.
    1308
    If we are to have all this elaborate machinery of improvement areas, and if we are to introduce, as I think it right that we should, the valuable principle of coercion to get improvement, this discretion ought to be given to the local authorities to deal with areas which can be brought up to tolerable standards. It should not be forgotten that just one or two improvements can sometimes be of very great value indeed to the tenant. If this can be done, it is well worth doing.
    There is not much in the argument that it might be a waste of resources. The whole improvement operation would in many cases be a waste of resources if we could find a more fundamental way of dealing with the problem. But we accept that we have a desperate situation in which we must adopt this particular method, for what it is worth. Therefore, it should be left to the local authority, which knows the local situation and knows what are the locally available resources, to decide the balance between reduced and full standards in an improvement area. I should have thought that everybody would support giving the local authorities some initiative and discretion in tackling the problem and would welcome the provision as it is at present in the Clause. I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Cole: On this occasion, I strongly support my right hon. Friend. Indeed, unless I completely misunderstand the position, which is quite possible, I think that my right hon. Friend did not state his case at its strongest. As I understand the Bill as it stands at present, it could be that an area of 1,000 houses could be declared an improvement area although 750 of the houses were not capable of any kind of improvement whatever. Because 250 were capable of improvement to the full standard, that would be an improvement area of 1,000 houses. That is an even stronger position than if 750 could be improved to the partial standard. That seems to me all the more reason why, with our limited national resources, we should improve at least one out of two of the houses to the full standard, which is what 50 per cent., or one-half, means.
    The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) spoke about leaving local

    1309
    authorities with their autonomy. But this is not a local authority matter only. We are dealing with the utilisation of the resources of the nation, not in money but—I was going to say in bricks and mortar—in all the things which go to make up these amenities. We must make a thorough and proper start to deal with the millions of houses still in this category.
    It is right that we should make a large incursion first by insisting that at least one out of two houses should be amenable to improvement. Once we have got rid of this first barricade against improving the housing situation—it may take a year or two, possibly more—we can get down to more detail and have a lower proportion of improvable houses in the improvement areas. But if we start off by allowing only one out of four houses to be amenable to improvement—and the other three may well be entirely outside the possibility—we are taking the risk of dissipating our resources in all sorts of areas. It would be much better to start dealing with those areas in which there is some possibility of improving 50 per cent. of the improvable houses.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will insist on putting back one-half into the Bill. What we do in two or three years' time is anybody's guess at this stage, but I am sure that at the moment one-half is the right figure.
    Mr. Milan: I hope that the Amendment will be resisted. I think that the Minister misunderstands his own Clause. I say that with considerable diffidence, but, if I recollect correctly, I made the same point in Committee. I thought that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) would comprehend what the Clause said, but even he came to the wrong conclusion, although he got a bit nearer to the right conclusion than the Minister.
    The Minister says that, as the Clause stands, of the houses which would be improved under the Clause, only 25 per cent. of them need to be improved to the full standard and the other 75 per cent. would be improved to the reduced standard. With respect to the Minister, that is not what will happen under the Clause. The first condition required
    1310
    for the signifying of a development area is that there should be some dwellings in the area lacking one or more of the standard amenities. The requirement is not that all these dwellings are capable of improvement even to the reduced standard. Many of the dwellings will not be capable of improvement to either the reduced or the full standard.
    To give an example, there may be 100 dwellings in what is to become an improvement area lacking one or more of the standard amenities. Eighty of them may not be capable of improvement even to the reduced standard, but the other 20 will be capable of improvement to the full standard. In those circumstances, the improvement area would just not be designated. Even so, if there were an improvement area, there would be no waste of resources in improving houses to the reduced standard, because all the improvements would be to the full standard.
    Mr. Cole: As an accountant, the hon. Member will realise that what he has just sad would be outside the Bill. Incidentally, the hon. Member said 20 out of 100; he meant 25 out of 100. Does not he realise the effect on the local authority of having three-quarters of the houses in the area not within the full standard and the temptation to do something with them and thereby dissipate resources?
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Millan: If the houses are not capable of improvement to either the reduced or the full standard, the Bill does not affect them at all. Therefore, there is no waste of resources, because there is no power under the Bill to do anything with the houses. If the hon. Member looks at an Amendment which has been tabled to Clause 23, he will see that some of us on this side of the House appreciate the point and would like the Bill to be rectified in that respect. However, houses which are not capable of being improved even to the reduced standard are not affected by the Bill, although they come within the definition in line 16 en page 13 of the Bill, namely, that they are
    "dwellings lacking one or more of the standard amenities."
    If I understood the Minister correctly, he was concerned with the balance of effort in improvements which are done

    1311
    to get a sufficiently high percentage of improvements as improvements to the full standard. My figures were not inaccurate as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South intimated. The example which I have just given would be an improvement area where the whole effort could be directed towards improving 20 houses out of the 100 to the full standard. There would be no effort at all in respect of the other 80 because they were not capable of being improved even to the reduced standard.
    In circumstances like those, the Minister's argument falls completely to the ground. He has argued for a different kind of Clause from the one with which we are dealing. He did so in Committee upstairs, and this was pointed out to him. I hope very much that we shall stick to the figure in the Bill, namely, a quarter. If the Minister wants to define the qualifying dwellings from the point of view of designating an improvement area as being dwellings capable of being improved either to the full or reduced standard and then apply the proportion to that, we can argue intelligibly. But we cannot do that at the moment because that is not what the Bill says. As the Bill is drafted, a large number of dwellings will not be capable of any kind of improvement. Therefore, it is impossible to argue intelligibly about a fraction of a quarter, a half, or any other. But, in view of the determination on this side at least to get as many dwellings as possible improved, we should stick to a quarter. However, I hope that the Minister will consider the point that I have made.
    Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
    Sir K. Joseph: I have intervened deliberately knowing that I am deferring the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) because I should like to have us all arguing about the same thing. If I have misled the House, let me try again. Let me put the matter as sharply as I can.
    Local authorities, when they try to administer Parts II and III of the Bill, will have to look at the housing map of their area, and they will know their administrative and craft resources. They may well at a certain stage have a choice between two areas next door
    1312
    to each other each containing X houses in total, of which in one case half X and in the other case a quarter of X can be improved to the full standard regardless of what can happen to the houses which cannot be improved to the full standard. It must be common ground at this stage, in 1964, whatever may be the case in 1967 and 1968, that any sensible local authority will decide to deploy its resources in the area where half X can be improved to the full standard. I am attracted here by the argument of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who suggests leaving it to the discretion of the local authority. That is an attractive argument. I hope that so far at least, however, we are all at one on what a sensible local authority would do.
    But there is more to it than merely leaving it to the local authority's discretion. We are all at one in believing that the improvement area concept means more than the aggregate of the improvements of the individual houses. It means that the local authority will contribute a great deal to the environment in those areas. We want local authorities to clean up and improve their environment. We want them to be able to say to owner-occupiers, "We are insisting upon the landlords improving their houses subject to a certain right of deferment of the tenants. We will contribute an improvement of the street scene. We will go ahead with clean air. We want you, the owner-occupiers, to keep pace."
    All that means that we should guide the local authorities clearly in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite often point out that what I am saying is sensible but, they ask, why not put it in the Bill. This time, they must accept that from me. If what I am saying is sensible, let us put it in the Bill.
    Mr. Manuel: The Minister will appreciate that the Clause applies to Scotland and that, under subsection (6), what he is saying as to application to Scotland is not being put into effect, because the proportion will apply to either the full or the reduced standard, while in England the Minister applies it only to the full standard.
    Sir K. Joseph: I shall not presume to cross swords with the hon. Member.

    1313
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will, I hope, speak later, and I am sure that he will be able to explain this. I hope that I may be allowed to finish the argument.
    I intervened to put this as clearly as I could before the hon. Member for Salford, East sought to rise. I hope that I have gone some way to justify to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) why I believe that this is right, but I leave it to the House.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: My main interest, and that of hon. Members on both sides, in the Bill is to provide as many as possible of the 15 million men, women and children who are without a bath, and many of them without hot water and a lavatory, with these amenities. This is the vital part of the Bill. Experience, as I am sure the Minister will agree, has shown that improvement areas are the way—in many towns, the only way—to get this job done. I see that the Minister agrees, because he knows that whilst many owner-occupiers sensibly use the grants, the individual landlord will not. If it is to be left to individual tenants to go to their landlord and ask for the grant to be used to install a bath and hot water, it will take another 100 years to do the job. Therefore, the Minister has been convinced by experience in Leeds and elsewhere that improvement area schemes are the only way to get the job done if, like a military operation, it is to be done quickly. I am sure that all who study this matter will accept that viewpoint.
    My main opposition, however, to the Minister's proposal is precisely that it will drastically reduce the number of improvement area schemes. A 50 per cent. proportion is far too high. My own City of Salford is going ahead with an improvement area scheme. It so happens that in the area about 50 per cent. of the houses are lacking these amenities and can be given the full standard grant. When we have done that scheme, however, we will move to another area where, possibly, the percentage is not as high. Under the Minister's Amendment, we would not be able to do this, because it insists upon a 50 per cent. basis.
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member forgets that the local authority can design
    1314
    the area as small as it wishes. If necessary—I am carrying the argument to the extreme—x would be 3, provided that two of the houses could be improved to the full standard. That is carrying the matter to a caricature.
    Mr. Allaun: I understand that to be possible, but it might be more convenient to have a larger area. The Minister's proposal would negate the possibility of a larger and possibly more suitable area being chosen.
    Why is the Minister putting forward this proposal? He has said that we have limited craft skill and, therefore, that it should best be concentrated upon houses where the fall improvement can be made. I agree that there are areas where this should, and will, be done. In Liverpool, however, thousands of skilled building workers are out of work. Surely, the Minister will not say that the whole of that force must not be used. That is what his case means.
    The Minister then states that we have a limited amount of craft resources and that a local authority may have to choose between two areas; in one of them 50 per cent. can be improved to the full standard, and in the other area 25 per cent. can be improved. Therefore, the Minister says that the local authority should, naturally, concentrate upon the area where 50 per cent. can be improved.
    When that area has been given priority and has been done, however, why should not the local authority be able to proceed to the second area, where the percentage is not as high?
    Sir K. Joseph: Because it does not make sense, with the scarce management resources of local authorities, to ask them to undertake all the effort of improving the streets, promoting clean air, children's play spaces and all the rest if only 25 per cent. of the houses in the area can be made decent.
    Mr. Allaun: We have left craft resources behind and now come to management, which the Minister has not mentioned previously.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I have.
    Mr. Allaun: I am sorry. Then we will deal with management. Suppose that only a limited amount of management skill is available. Naturally, the local authority would not assume a bigger

    1315
    burden than it was capable of handling. The Minister speaks about guiding local authorities. He is not guiding them, however, but is restricting them, which is a very different proposition.
    It may be that I have a suspicious mind, possibly with good reason from past experience, but I cannot help feeling that this change is being attempted not for the reasons the Minister has given, but because it will suit the landlords, who will be less subjected to improvement grant schemes. I hope that I am mistaken, but the Bill will certainly have that effect.
    Why not lessen the standard in areas which are not short of building labour? I agree that where there is only a limited amount of skilled labour it should be concentrated on improvement to the full standard grant, but in other areas houses can often be given limited improvement. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that local authorities are the people who know best in these cases. They know better than the landlords and certainly better than the Government, and I hope that the Amendment will be defeated.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) pointed out that there was an exemption in subsection (6,a) but that refers only to an improvement area comprising only tenements. In this case half the houses need be capable of improvement to only the reduced standard. The reason for this is that in Scottish tenements the individual houses are usually too small to allow space to be set aside for a bathroom, and so it would be unrealistic to require more than the reduced standard which, as defined in Clause 39, requires a hot water supply, lavatory and food storage facilities, but not a bath.
    That standard will at least provide individual lavatories and hot water, which would be a substantial advance in many tenements. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is a certain exemption in the case of tenements in England which comes under subsection (5). They are also treated rather separately.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman justify the Amend-
    1316
    ment in relation to the already reduced standard? I did not have the privilege of being on the Committee and listening to the Under-Secretary's explanations at that time. However, as I read the Clause it now says:
    "If a local authority are satisfied any area in their district contains dwellings lacking one or more of the standard amenities…"
    This is a standard to which we might well be striving with the reduced standard which we are now to permit in Scotland. If there has been confusion about the 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. in relation to the full standard, there will be even more confusion when we start by accepting a reduced standard. According to the Amendment, at least one-half of the houses would have to be so constructed that it was practicable to improve them up to the full standard, although I gather from subsection (6,a) that in Scotland it is not the full standard but the full or reduced standard. How many standard amenities is that?
    Sir K. Joseph: Three.
    Mr. Ross: We are getting ourselves into a pickle. Perhaps it is as well that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, or it would not have finished yet! The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that he wants to conserve resources for concentration as much as possible, but in some areas it may be worth having discrimination for an improvement area of a reduced figure. Some local authorities might otherwise be cut out because of the nature of their housing, and yet tenants of the 25 per cent. lacking one or more of the standard amenities would still want them and would still not get them unless the local authority took action. It would be desirable to have discretion to have a lower proportion.
    I do not think that any local authority will jump to the point of doing the worst kind of job first. A local authority has no obligation to do anything. It "may" define an area and "may" pass a resolution. I am sure that if it does it will not go out of its way to get the least affected area. It is desirable that it may be the most affected area and that the local authority should have the power to act on the basis of one quarter.
    Surely this could be left to the good sense of the local authorities. I am sure

    1317
    that we would have been able to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland about this if we had had him on the Scottish Grand Committee. But it is a big effort to get him to any Committee or indeed to the House. Some of us are beginning to wonder what he looks like.
    I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will look at this again. It is not a matter of far-reaching importance but one of testing the good sense of the local authorities. Surely at this stage, with his influence, the local authorities will be so tar improved that they will not dare do anything wrong. If he will not think about this again, I hope that the tripartite Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give us the benefit of his opinion on the merits of the Amendment as it applies to Scotland.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I will try to explain further. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government explained at some length about specifying one half or one quarter. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked about special exemptions for tenement areas in Scotland covered by subsection (6,a).These exemptions
    should be helpful in such areas in Scotland because of the point about reduced standards, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although he was not on the Committee upstairs, his hon. Friends from Scotland gave the Bill most searching inquiry and a very good account of themselves. My understanding was that they recognised that these exemptions helped in tenement areas.
    Mr. Ross: I do not want to usurp the authority of the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman is surely out of order. We are not talking about the reduced standard. We are talking about one-half of one-half and I wanted him to deny the discretion implicit in the Clause as it stands and to insist that the discretion be reduced by putting in the fraction one-half.
    Mr. Campbell: The argument put by my right hon. Friend applied to Scotland in areas where there are not only tenement blocks, and I see no reason to make a change in relation to Scotland.
    Question put, That the words "a quarter" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 121.

    Division No. 66.]

    AYES

    [8.40 p.m.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, Archie

    Bence, Cyril

    Hayman, F. H.

    Millan, Bruce

    Blackburn, F.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Moody, A. S.

    Bowles, Frank

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mulley, Frederick

    Boyden, James

    Holman, Percy

    O'Malley, B. K.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Peart, Frederick

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Howle, W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Chapman, Donald

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Ross, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Silkin, John

    Darling, George

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Small, William

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Dempsey, James

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Steele, Thomas

    Diamond, John

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Evans, Albert

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lawson, George

    Whitlock, William

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Gunter, Ray

    MacColl, James

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Mr. McCann and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Allason, James

    Box, Donald

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Braine, Bernard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Batsford, Brian

    Buck, Antony

    Cole, Norman

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Burden, F. A.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Biffen, John

    Campbell, Gordon

    Corfield, F. V.

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Critchley, Julian

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    du Cann, Edward

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Duncan, Sir James

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Farr, John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Finlay, Gracme

    Longbottom, Charles

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Sharples, Richard

    Freeth, Denzil

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Shaw, M.

    Gammans, Lady

    MacArthur, Ian

    Shepherd, William

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    McLaren, Martin

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maddan, Martin

    Speir, Rupert

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Maitland, Sir John

    Stainton, Keith

    Green, Alan

    Marshall, Sir Douglas

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Marten, Neil

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mills, Stratton

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Holland, Philip

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Walker, Peter

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Peel, John

    Whitelaw, William

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Joseph, Rt. Hon, Sir Keith

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Worsley, Marcus

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Pym, Francis

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. More.

    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 14.—(PRELIMINARY NOTICE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY'S PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF DWELLING.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 15, line 16, to leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 17, and to insert:
    "the person having control of the dwelling, and every owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling".
    This Amendment could conveniently be taken with Amendment No. 38, in Clause 19, page 20, line 40, and Amendment No. 43, in Clause 20, page 23, line 5.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): So be it, if that is agreeable to the House.
    Mr. Corfield: The Amendments make it clear that a person with an interest in a dwelling, irrespective of whether he is served with a preliminary notice or a copy of such notice, is entitled to be heard when the local authority's proposals, contained in that preliminary notice, are discussed. I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who pointed
    1320
    out that as the Bill stood there was some risk that the failure to serve a notice might deprive one of these people from being heard. These Amendments are designed to correct that situation.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 15.—(IMPROVEMENT NOTICES.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 15, line 28, after "years", to insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".
    With this Amendment, the Committee could conveniently take Amendment No. 26, in Clause 16, page 16, line 27; Amendment No. 30, in Clause 17, page 17, line 30; Amendment No. 32, in Clause 18, page 19, line 25; Amendment No. 33, in line 30; Amendment No. 39, in Clause 19, page 21, line 9; Amendment No. 40, in line 18; Amendment No. 44, in Clause 21, page 23, line 35; Amendment No. 45, in line 43; Amendment No. 46, in Clause 22, page 24, line 30; Amendment No. 51, in page 25, line 9; Amendment No. 57, in Clause 23, page 26, line 16; Amendment No. 59, in Clause 24, page 27, line 20, and Amendment No. 60, in line 22.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House.
    Mr. Corfield: These Amendments fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. J. Silverman). It was suggested during that debate and on other occasions that the period a two years within which a local authority must follow up action under Part II of the Bill by the service of an improvement notice was unnecessarily long. Similarly, it was thought that perhaps the one year allowed for carrying out the work in compliance with an operative improvement notice might again be over-generous. I took the view in Committee, which I think was generally welcomed, that these periods could properly be regarded as experimental and that it would be right to take power to alter them in the light of experience.
    The same applies to the period of one year within which a local authority may serve a final improvement notice at the expiration of the five-year period from the date of the declaration of the improvement area where the tenant has not consented. I should point out that the regulation-making power by which the alternative period could be prescribed, if experience shows this to be desirable, arises under Section 168(2) of the Housing Act by which this Bill by virtue of Clause 40(3) is to be construed.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 16.—(IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT NOTICES.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 16, line 23, to leave out from "notice" to the first "the" in line 24.
    This Amendment, I suggest, could be discussed with Amendment No. 27 in page 16, line 31, Amendment No. 28, in page 16, line 32, Amendment No. 29, Clause 17, in page 17, line 12, and Amendment No. 31, in page 17, line 33.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is agreeable to the House.
    Mr. Corfield: These Amendments arise from a discussion in Committee which was mainly at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington), and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee took the
    1322
    view that once a tenant had given his consent the local authority or the landlord should be free to proceed with the necessary arrangements to bring about the improvement without being exposed to the risk that after a lot of preliminary work had been done the tenant could withdraw his consent and bring those efforts to nought. It was agreed that we should introduce an Amendment which would make the tenant's consent once given in writing irrevocable. That is the purport of all these Amendments.
    Amendments agreed to.
    Farther Amendments made: In page 16, line 27, leave out "of" and insert
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed) from".
    In line 31 leave out from first "consent" to end of line.
    In line 32 leave out from "and" to end of line 33 and insert
    "shall be irrevocable".

    Clause 17.—(SUSPENDED IMPROVEMENT NOTICES.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 17, line 12, leave out
    "in writing signed by him".
    In line 30, leave out "of" and insert
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed) from".
    In line 33, at end insert—
    The tenant's consent given for the purposes of this subsection must be in writing, signed by him, and shall be irrevocable.

    Clause 18.—(SUSPENDED IMPROVEMENT NOTICES: EFFECT AFTER 10 YEARS.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 19, line 25, at end insert
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".
    In line 30, leave out "of twelve months" and insert:
    "beginning from the said date".—[Mr. Corfield.]
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 19, line 43, to leave out "afford" and to insert "make arrangements for affording".
    This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in line 45 at the end to insert:
    "provided by the local authority".
    Both Amendments are designed to meet a criticism by my hon. Friend the

    1323
    Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the obligation here put on the local authority was not clearly stated. Consequently we have substituted the words: "make arrangements for affording" instead of the word "afford" to make it clear. These are somewhat stronger words. They are important Amendments. The second one makes clear that the alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority.
    Mr. Millan: This is a more important Amendment and is a good deal more than a drafting Amendment. I do not feel disposed to accept it. Taken together, these Amendments, particularly the second one, place a definite obligation on a local authority to provide suitable alternative accommodation for a tenant who has resisted an improvement notice. Some of us feel that in this part of the Bill we are leaning over backwards to be fair to a tenant who is objecting to an improvement notice. Obviously there is a balance of rights to be taken into account.
    There is the desire of the local authority, on the one hand, to get the houses improved. On the other hand, there is the protection which is to be offered to a tenant that the improvement will not be done without his consent. These suspended improvement notices will come into effect only after 10 years, which may now be altered to five years. The rubric in my copy of the Bill says 10 years, but it is five years in the body of the Bill and the rubric appears to be wrong. Whether it is five or 10 years, there will be considerable delay before the actual operation of an improvement notice.
    9.0 p.m.
    If a tenant has been able to delay the operation of an improvement notice for a considerable time, it is rather unfair that the local authority at the end of the day should have a definite obligation placed on it to provide suitable alternative accommodation. While being as fair as one can be to the tenant, if he feels so strongly about the improvement that he will not give his consent, there should be some obligation on him either to stop his opposition or to find another house for himself. We must not be too tender towards the tenant in those circumstances. There will be an attempt being made to improve his house. One
    1324
    must make every possible attempt to protect the tenant, but it seems wrong to place a definite obligation on the local authority to provide suitable alternative accommodation.
    This gives a recalcitrant tenant a considerable interest in holding out as long as possible and getting a council house in the end. It may be important for a local authority to get a particular house among a number of houses but the one tenant is standing out in his opposition. He may be holding out for very good reasons, but they may be very bad reasons. I do not like the present wording of the Bill, but there is at least an element of ambiguity which would be removed and a definite obligation would be placed on the local authority. We would be leaving the local authority open to blackmail. I hope we shall resist the Amendment.
    Mr. M. Stewart: In view of the powerful argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan), we ought to have a further comment from the Government on this Amendment. I remember from discussions in Committee that there is a balance of argument here. If the Government want this Amendment to be accepted, they must make a reply to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Corfield: The only reason why I did not rise at once was that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, beat me to it and I could not be on my feet at the same time.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has put forward an argument with which many of us will have sympathy, but I certainly do not have sympathy for his suggestion that there is merit in having ambiguity in a Bill. The real trouble and difficulty, which was well brought out in another context by the hon. Member for Central, Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in discussing the problem of tenements in Scotland, is that most of these tenants who are likely to be refusing up to the last moment to give consent for one reason or another—old age, infirmity and so on—will be afraid to face an increase in rent. If therefore the local authority thinks it right after five years to serve the notice—it is not mandatory but discretionary at this stage—it may well be

    1325
    that in some cases those people should be regarded as potential local authority tenants.
    I do not deny for a moment the point of view of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton, that amongst these tenants there may well be some who are refusing for quite different reasons, simply to be obstructive. However, I should have thought that they would be very much in the minority. It would be extremely difficult to write into the Bill a categorisation of tenants where this should apply and where it should not. It is right that, when the tenant is someone who is afraid of the increase in rent which will arise because of the improvements—this will cover the great mass of tenants—and the local authority still thinks it should proceed, it should regard that person as a local authority tenant.
    Mr. Millan: If it is so right to give these considerable protections to tenants under this Clause, why is it also right under Clause 22 to give no protection to tenants in tenements in Scotland who have no rights whatsoever, neither to appeal against the notice, nor to get alternative accommodation, nor anything else?
    Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is an Amendment to the Scottish part—I think it is
    Clause 27—which increases the rights of tenants in tenement buildings in Scotland.
    Mr. Manuel: I well remember the speech I made. I was referring at that time to the immediate improvement notice, not to the suspended improvement notice.
    Mr. Ross: Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell me what this means? If the Amendment is made, the Clause will now read at the end:
    "it shall be the duty of the local authority to make arrangements for affording to the tenant a reasonable opportunity of taking up suitable alternative accommodation provided by the local authority."
    Exactly what does this mean?
    Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman would explain to me where he has difficulties, I will try to explain. It is as plain as a pikestaff to me.
    Mr. Ross: We are in a difficulty in that we are not in Committee. If we are to insert words such as "provided by the local authority", I should have thought that it would be sufficient to say—
    "it shall be the duty of the local authority to provide, if required, alternative accommodation."
    It does not say that.
    Mr. Manuel: It does not mean that.
    Mr. Ross: There is a long winded bit about—
    "a reasonable opportunity of taking up suitable alternative accommodation provided by the local au hority."
    I agree with the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). This obligation is laid upon the local authority in a very disguised form. This is the kind of obligation which has obviously grown from the acceptance of ideas in Committee. I do not know whether the Committee realised the import of what was being laid upon local authorities It is right that the local authority can get out of this at the end of the day by not proceeding with the final improvement notice, but it would be at the cost of not proceeding with a plan it had already set out on. Was it the Government's intention to lay this strict responsibility upon the local authority to provide accommodation in cases like this?
    It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to argue that this will apply only in certain cases. He should remember the housing situation in Scotland, where at Present people must wait ten years for a house. Many people will see in this a way of getting a house earlier than they otherwise would, merely by refusing the improvement. The same thing may well apply in some parts of England.
    Mr. Willis: I must intervene at this point, because I recall the lengthy discussion we had on this subject in Standing Committee. I want to prevent the House placing hindrances in the way of improvement work being done. Whenever it is said that a local authority must provide accommodation it is made less easy for the authority to proceed with improvement works. We all know how difficult it is for local authorities to provide accommodation for people in the category we are discussing.

    1327
    I should have thought that the words in the Clause were specific and adequate enough to cover the situation the Minister has in mind without the inclusion of the Amendment. The words in the Bill leave a certain amount of elbow room for local authorities to do the job. We should prevent cluttering up the Statute. Suffice to say that local authorities should provide suitable alternative accommodation.
    Mr. A. Evans: I agree that the Amendment will limit the activities of local authorities. It will mean that the alternative accommodation must be local authority accommodation. I recall that in Committee the Minister saw the wisdom of the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends and agreed that in some instances it might be possible for local authorities to make arrangements for people to be alternatively accommodated in other dwellings owned by the landlord, in housing association property or elsewhere and—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the hon. Member is intervening, whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had given way or had completed his speech or whether the hon. Member is making his own speech.
    Mr. Evans: I was not intervening.
    Mr. Willis: I had finished my remarks. Brevity at this time of night.
    Mr. Evans: I thought that I had been called to speak. I was merely pointing out that the Minister inferred in Committee upstairs that the local authority could make alternative arrangements with the landlord or some other property owner to rehouse the person concerned.
    Mr. Corfield: I would not wish to press on the House something which goes against an undertaking which I or my right hon. Friend gave, and if hon. Members feel that my right hon. Friend said in Committee something that is not consistent with the Amendment I will look at the Amendment again. I am sure that most hon. Members would wish to afford the tenant the opportunity of being rehoused, but it is not an easy matter when one bears in mind the fact that the landlord will probably not have another house or, if he has, that it is probably in the same improve-
    1328
    ment area, so that the same conditions apply. Thus, to put in an obligation to afford the opportunity merely to consider rehousing would leave the tenant in some doubt about his rights and what the situation will be when the improvement notice is served. I will certainly look at it again, particularly in the light of what the hon. Member has just said, but I cannot promise that I shall go a long way from the principle of what is here. I will certainly see whether it can be tidied up.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have refreshed my memory of what the Minister said. As has just been said, the right hon. Gentleman was drawing our attention in Committee to the fact that we were talking about something that would happen several years after the Bill had been passed. He said:
    "It may be that the local authority will secure alternative accommodation by an indirect or triangular or even quadrilateral method. It may be that at this time there will be housing societies available; it may be that the local authority, the tenants and the landlord will enter into some sort of arrangement by which the tenant moves into a housing association dwelling, the local authority helps the housing association by accepting somebody from them, and so all are satisfied."
    I particularly draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "It is only to provide this discretion to the local authority that lines 30 to 32 are couched in this form. I think that hon. Members would agree that it is sensible to give the local authority some such discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 28th January, 1964; c. 470–1.]
    The right hon. Gentleman added that, in view of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), he would look again at the matter. I cannot help feeling that, having looked at it again, he has found a worse answer and that his original argument about local authority discretion was sound.
    Could not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary screw up his courage and even in the absence of the Minister withdraw the Amendment? After all, if it seems overwhelmingly to the Government later on that they must have it back again, there is another place. I have been a junior Minister and I admit that I never ventured in the absence of my chief who was my right hon. Friend the Member

    1329
    for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to make alterations in Bills of which he might or might not approve. This is an added reason for my now making this suggestion, because I shall be interested to hear what happens when a junior Minister does that.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 19.—(DWELLINGS OUTSIDE IMPROVEMENT AREAS.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 20, line 24, after "standard", to insert:
    "or, if not, is capable of improvement at reasonable expense to the reduced standard".
    This Amendment goes with Amendment No. 37 in line 26 and Amendment No. 41 in page 21, line 24. It might be convenient also to consider Amendment No. 42 in page 21, line 26, which is consequential upon it although it is slightly different.
    The three Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 41 are designed to fulfil an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) in Committee. Their effect is to require the local authorities, on the initiative of tenants occupying dwellings outside improvement areas—that is the Clause 19 case—to enforce the improvement of dwellings to the reduced standard where it is not possible at reasonable expense to improve to the full standard. I think that that had the general consensus of the Committee. Amendment No. 42 is consequential and follows upon it but I shall not try to abbreviate my explanation over-much.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 26, after "standard", insert:
    "or, as the case may be, to the reduced standard".
    In line 40, at end insert:
    "and the person having control of the dwelling, and every owner, lessee or mortgagee of the dwelling, shall be entitled to be heard when the local authority's proposals are discussed in accordance with the notice".
    In page 21, line 9, after "years", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".
    In line 18, leave out "of" and insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed) from".
    In line 24, after "standard", insert:
    "or, as the case may be, to the reduced standard".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is in page 21, line 26—
    Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this Amendment was consequential. It is not, in fact, consequential. It is rather more than that. In fact, I am not sure whether it has been considered.
    Mr. Speaker: Whether it has been discussed or not, in view of the hon. Member's intervention let us proceed accordingly.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 21, line 26, at the end to insert:
    "and the novice may require the improvement of the dwelling to the full standard or, as the case may be, to the reduced standard notwithstanding that, the preliminary notice provided for the improvement of the dwelling to the other of the two standards".
    This Amendment is consequential.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. Millan: The Minister said that this Amendment is consequential, but it does not seem to me to be consequential at all, The Amendment says that in the case of an improvement of a dwelling outside the improvement area, the immediate improvement notice may be different from the preliminary improvement notice in the sense that if the preliminary notice were for the improvement to the full standard or, as the case may be, to the reduced standard, the immediate notice can be to the alternative standard. In fact, a preliminary notice to the reduced standard can go up to the full standard and a preliminary notice to the full standard can go down to the reduced standard.
    This is not quite consequential. This point was raised in Committee on Clause 15. If I may refer to that Clause, it says in subsection (5) that the works specified in the improvement notice shall not be different from what was required in the preliminary notice. But when we come

    1331
    to Clause 19, we are doing exactly the opposite. It seems to me, therefore, that a little explanation is required.
    I am not necessarily disagreeing with the Amendment. On the whole, the more flexibility there is in the matter, the better. But it seems rather strange that, whereas in the rather more important part of the Bill in the sense that it will deal with a very much larger number of houses no flexibility at all is required—indeed, flexibility is specifically excluded by Clause 19—we are here introducing an element of flexibility. I regard this as a good thing, and I hope that it means that the Government may, at a later stage, go back on what they have done in Clause 15 and elsewhere before this Clause.
    Mr. Corfield: I did not wish to mislead the House. It is true to say that this is a consequential Amendment. The Clause as at present drafted applies only to dwellings which can be improved to the full standard, and we have to introduce this element of alternative standard only because of Amendments we have recently made.
    However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right in this. There is a valid distinction between Clause 19 and Clause 15. Under Clause 15, a tenant having consented after discussions on the preliminary notice has given his consent on the basis, first, of cost, which, obviously, depends upon whether the work goes to full standard or to reduced standard, among other things, and, second, on the amount of disturbance and inconvenience which he is prepared to put up with, bearing in mind that, if it goes to full standard, he may, for instance, lose a bedroom for a bathroom or something like that. I think that, after he has once given his consent on a specific basis, it would be wrong to alter the basis thereafter.
    Under Clause 19, the whole initiative comes from the tenant himself, and the initiative, basically, is for improvement to such a standard as the building is capable of bearing. Since the initiative comes from the tenant and he has the opportunity to discuss what can be done before any question of compulsory improvement arises, it seems to the Government perfectly logical that we
    1332
    should have this rather more flexible approach in subsection (5), without any necessity to go back to restart negotiations. I hope that this explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20.—(TENEMENT BLOCKS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)
    Amendment made: In page 23, line 5, leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 6 and insert:
    "the person having control of the premises and every owner, lessee or mortgagee of the premises".—[Mr. Corfield.]

    Clause 21.—(IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT NOTICES AS RESPECTS TENEMENT BLOCKS.)
    Amendments made: In page 23, line 35, after "years", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".
    In line 43, leave out "of" and insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed) from".—[Mr. Corfield.]

    Clause 22.—(IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT NOTICES IN RESPECT OF DWELLINGS IN TENEMENTS IN IMPROVEMENT AREAS IN SCOTLAND.)
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 30, after "years", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]
    Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 25, line 5, at the end to insert:
    "and every person on whom the notice or a copy is served shall be entitled to be heard when the local authority's proposals are discussed in accordance with the notice".
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this the following three Amendments: Amendment No. 48, in page 25, line 6, after "shall" to insert "(i)".
    Amendment No. 50, in page 25, line 9, to leave out "and" and to insert:
    (ii) state the date (being a date not less than twenty-one days after service of the notice) and time and place at which the future use of the dwelling, the local authority's proposals for the carrying out of the works, any alternative proposals, and the views and interests of the tenant and other matters may be discussed; and
    (iii) state.
    Amendment No. 52, in page 25, line 13, at the end to insert:
    (4) The local authority shall take into consideration all representations made on OT before the occasion when their proposals with respect to the tenement block are discussed in accordance with the immediate improvement notice, and in particular, any representations with respect to the nature of the works proposed by the local authority for improving the tenement block, and may thereafter make such modifications in the immediate improvement notice as they consider necessary. Notice of such modifications shall be given to every person on whom the immediate improvement notice or a copy thereof has been served.
    Mr. Millan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As you have suggested, the other three Amendments form with this Amendment a group with the same purpose.
    Clause 22 deals with the improvement of tenement areas in Scotland, and the procedure which is laid down in the Clause is distinctive to the improvement of tenement areas in Scotland, differing quite considerably from the procedure laid down for other kinds of property, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, and differing also from the procedure laid down for tenement blocks in England and Wales.
    9.30 p.m.
    Under Clause 22 as drafted, there is no long and complicated procedure of preliminary improvement notices, immediate improvement notices, suspended improvement notices, final improvement notices, and so on. What has gone before in the Bill is extremely complicated and difficult to follow. With regard to tenements in Scotland, the Government have taken the view that, if the work is to be done, it is necessary that there shall be a rather speedy procedure. Therefore, all that is provided in Clause 22 is that an immediate improvement notice shall be served which becomes effective immediately.
    I would not dispute—and I think that my hon. Friends would agree with this—the necessity for dealing with these matters fairly expeditiously. On the other hand, the occupants of tenement dwellings should have certain rights when improvement notices are served. Under the Clause, the tenants have absolutely no rights in the carrying out of these improvement notices. A copy of the immediate improvement notice under subsection (2) is served on the tenant
    1334
    or tenement dweller, but that does not avail him very much, because, apart from serving a copy of the notice, the local authority need not in any other way take account of the rights or feelings of tenants about the improvement of their dwellings. At present tenants have no right of appeal under Clause 22 against the improvement notice, No procedure is Lid down to enable tenants to make their views known to the local authorities.
    This must be contrasted with the very considerable rights which are given to other tenants in other parts of the Bill. For example, in Clauses 14 and 15, which deal with dwellings, whether in England and Wales or Scotland, which are not in tenements, the tenants have the right to make representations to the local authority once the preliminary improvement notice has been served. Under Clause 16, which deals with immediate improvement notices, the tenant's consent is required. Under Clause 18, which is the final stage in this long, complicated procedure for non-tenement dwellings, the tenant is able to hold up the improvement to an extent which allows him to demand from the local authority the provision of alternative accommodation.
    For non-tenement tenants, all this is extremely useful and, I should have thought, afforded very generous protection. In the case of dwellings outside improvement areas, the tenant takes the initiative and therefore his rights are fully protected. In the case of tenement blocks in England and Wales which are covered in Clauses 20 and 21, there are provisions for the tenant to make objections against the preliminary improvement notice. We are, therefore, left with the position that the tenant in tenement properties in Scotland is singled out among all the classes of tenants concerned in any part of the Bill in that he has no right to object to improvement notices.
    In reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will refer us to Clause 27 and to Amendment No. 66, in page 32, line 38, where we will find that in the special cafe of Clause 22 the Government intend to provide for the tenant appealing to the court against an improvement notice. We can discuss

    1335
    that when we reach it. There is, however, a tremendous difference between the tenant having the right to discuss matters connected with his own dwelling with the local authority before the improvement notice becomes effective and then giving the tenant the subsequent right, when the notice is effective, to appeal to the sheriff court.
    Anyone who knows tenants of tenement dwellings in Scotland will know that the vast majority of them will be extremely reluctant to appeal to the sheriff court. Perhaps misguidedly, they are concerned with keeping away from sheriff courts. One does not blame ordinary people for not wanting to be involved in legal proceedings. They are expensive and troublesome and many people are apprehensive about them. I make the point only because the Under-Secretary will use it in reply. However persuasive he may be on Clause 27, I shall not accept that that is a suitable substitution for what these Amendments would do in Clause 22.
    To explain in slightly more detail, Amendment No. 47, in page 25, line 5, simply states that every person on whom the immediate notice or a copy of it has been served—which includes the tenant—shall be entitled to be heard when the local authority's proposals are discussed in accordance with the notice. Amendment No. 48, in line 6, is merely a small matter of drafting.
    Amendment No. 50, in line 9, states that it will be an obligation upon the local authority to state a date, time and place at which the local authority's proposals for the dwelling and any alternative proposals that the tenant, landlord or anyone else may be put forward, and the views and interests of the tenant, may be discussed. The wording is similar to the protective wording for tenants which appears in earlier parts of the Bill and which does not apply to tenement dwellings in Scotland. Amendment 52, in line 13, simply places it upon the local authority as an obligation to take into account the representations which are made by the tenant or the landlord before making the final arrangements for the improvement of the property. All four Amendments go together and I have, I hope, explained them sufficiently well.
    1336
    As a final point of emphasis, I report a matter which I raised on Second Reading and more than once in Committee. The Under-Secretary knows how strongly I and my hon. Friends feel about this proposal. We are not concerned with writing into the Bill protections for the tenant which would have the effect of preventing the improvements from going ahead. We are just as anxious as the Government—perhaps more anxious—for these improvements to be carried into effect. It is, however, necessary to get the good will of the tenants.
    Nothing would be more disastrous than for a local authority to serve an immediate improvement notice on which the tenant had no rights whatever, not even to make his views heard. If that is the way in which things are done, the job will not proceed successfully.
    I am perfectly sure that the best local authorities, and perhaps every local authority anxious to have these improvements made to tenement properties, even with the Bill standing as it is, will take some kind of steps to see that the tenants are consulted in one way or another. But that is not good enough, and we require some kind of legislative protection written into the Bill. What is good enough for the tenement dwellers in England and Wales and for every other kind of tenant in England and Wales and Scotland ought also to be good enough for the tenement dwellers in Scotland. It is completely incomprehensible that the Government should take the view that no kind of protection should be given in Clause 22.
    I do not consider that what they are doing subsequently in Clause 27, involving an appeal to the sheriff's court and so on, is anything like as adequate as what we propose in our Amendments. I should like to see Clause 27 and the Amendments to Clause 22 accepted. I do not consider them to be genuine alternatives. This kind of protection for the tenant, his right to have his voice heard at the start of the whole process, is indispensable, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has explained very clearly the purpose of his group of Amendments. They would establish for Scottish tenements the same

    1337
    sequence of service of preliminary notice, consultations at a formal meeting and the service of an immediate improvement notice as applies to other dwellings, since the local authority would then serve a second notice amended in the light of the formal representations made to it. Thus, the immediate improvement notice envisaged in Clause 22 would no longer be immediate. This proposal, therefore, strikes at the principle which is proposed for dealing with Scottish tenements.
    There are special difficulties about improving Scottish tenements which do not arise in the case of other dwellings. In particular, their physical structure is such that, owing to interference with common services, such as plumbing, the improvement of all the dwellings in a tenement must be carried out at the same time and on a regular pattern. It is not possible to allow an individual owner or tenant the same degree of freedom to vary or delay the work of improvement as he has in other types of property. Moreover, the ownership of Scottish tenements has become fragmented with individual dwellings within the tenements themselves sold off for owner-occupation; so that, unlike English tenement blocks, there is no one owner with whom the local authority can deal.
    For those reasons, we must recognise that if we are to get substantial numbers of Scottish tenements improved, as we all on both sides of the House wish, sensibly and economically, it will be necessary to have a somewhat different procedure for Scottish tenements. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) telling us a short time ago how important it was to press on with improvements. Here is an example when we are trying to make sure that one individual tenant cannot hold up a scheme for a whole tenement in Scotland.
    Although I can give an assurance that the local authorities will be instructed administratively to sound out opinion and secure improvement by voluntary means wherever possible, we consider it essential to give local authorities in Scotland a simple, speedy procedure for securing improvement of Scottish tenements, and it is set out in Clause 22.
    Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary said that we should not allow one tenant to hold up the whole process. How does telling the tenant what is intended and inviting him to discuss it hold up the whole process? It does not prevent the local authority from going ahead, but simply enables the tenant to be informed and to have his views taken into account before the work goes ahead.
    Mr. Campbell: Instead of becoming an immediate notice, to all intents and purposes it would cease to be immediate. The local authority would go through the process visualised and might well then have to take further steps. All this could be done simply as a result of one or two persons holding up the work on the whole block.
    9.45 p.m.
    Although I could give no undertaking in Committee upstairs to reconsider the point, we recognise that this procedure gives tenants of Scottish tenements less protection than tenants of other types of dwelling. To remedy this we will move an Amendment to Clause 27 to give a limited right of appeal to such tenants on grounds of hardship. We had hoped by this to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Craigton in Committee. We considered it to be the best way of dealing with the matter and I hope to be able to explain our reasons when we reach that Amendment.
    I regret that the hon. Member has already indicated that he does not view that Amendment with favour, since a great deal of careful drafting was done to meet his point and the Amendment is also designed to make sure that we do not lose the impetus of improvements in dealing with these buildings, where the job must probably be done for a whole building while the different dwellings in it are under different ownership.
    I know that he and his hon. Friends felt strongly about the Bill, as it was drafted, for not having any recourse for tenants in Scottish tenements. We have tabled the Amendment to Clause 27 which we had hoped would meet the point which he argued in Committee upstairs and again today. I am afraid that for the reasons I have given we

    1339
    cannot accept his Amendment. Instead we propose to move an Amendment to Clause 27.
    Mr. Willis: I am not greatly impressed when the Under-Secretary of State talks about urgency. This improvement work could have been carried on for a great many years. It is ironical that the Government, when a great number of people thought that their office might come to an end in two months' time, should come along at this late stage of Parliament and ask us to do nothing to hold up this work. But that work has been held up by the Government for 13 years. Now we are told that we cannot give the right of appeal.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I explained that that is just what we are doing by our Amendment to Clause 27. We shall give the right of appeal. I may add that this provision was put down by the Government as a result of the fluency and cogency of the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) upstairs.
    Mr. Willis: We will discuss that when we come to the Government Amendment which is very limited. The right of appeal will be limited by it to one factor. The phrase covering hardship refers to "unreasonable hardship". We know very well that the word "unreasonable" can cause much disputation in the courts. It is a very limited right of appeal.
    The Government are denying the wider right of appeal proposed in the Amendment before us now. This means that the great majority of people in Scotland who will be affected by these orders will have no right of appeal—except in a very limited sense—because most of the areas to which the orders will apply are practically all tenement property. I can visualise streets of houses in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and other large towns which will be scheduled, or which we hope will be scheduled, under the provisions of the Bill, and everyone of the houses will be a tenement house. This affects a large number of people, and the first point which the hon. Gentlemen tends to ignore is that these people are not to be given the same right as other people.
    The hon. Gentleman says that it is urgent that we should get on with this
    1340
    work. The question arises whether the rights of the people affected by these orders are as important as the necessity for getting on with the job and the degree to which the conferring of these rights on the people may delay this work.
    To what extent would it be delayed? The hon. Gentleman has spoken as though there was an army of workmen in St. Andrew's House waiting to be dispatched to the remoter areas of Scotland for the purpose of carrying out vast improvement schemes all over the place. There is no such army, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. All that my hon. Friend is suggesting is that every person should receive a notice stating the time and place at which the matter can be discussed, and giving them certain rights to put their points of view, and the local authority can amend the order in the light of discussions with, and representations by, the people affected. It would not take very long to carry out that procedure.
    Amendment No. 50 says that the notice shall
    "state the date (being a date not less than twenty-one days after service of the notice) and time and place at which the future use of the dwelling, the local authority's proposals for the carrying out of the works, any alternative proposals, and the views and interests of the tenant and other matters may be discussed."
    All that can be done within a month. That is not a long time. In fact, when one realises the speed at which the Government generally operate, I think that one could regard a month as dealing with the matter urgently, using that term as the Government would use it. So much for the hon. Gentleman's first argument. I think that he overstressed the question of delay, because I am confident that the so-called delays which he has conjured up exist only in his mind and will not be of a material character.
    The hon. Gentleman's second argument—and this is the point which we heard over and over again in Committee upstairs—is that all this property is fragmented—in other words, tenants have bought their houses in tenement property, in many cases because they have had to, and there are sometimes four or five owners on a single stair, and sometimes all the houses on one stair are owned by different people—and that that may be another cause for delay. But what

    1341
    is the difference between notifying half a dozen people that there is to be a meeting, and informing 60 people of that meeting? This provision would give the people occupying the tenement block, whether it be two people, or 200 people, the opportunity of attending the meeting and putting forward their views.
    The meeting is to be held at the place where these people live, and where they will live in the future. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the people concerned are actually living there. Their lives are to be disrupted for perhaps two or three months while this work is going on. They have to live in the property afterwards, but, says the hon. Gentleman, "We know best. It is urgent, and we shall do what we like, never mind what the people want". This is not the way to treat citizens of Scotland. The hon. Member will not win many votes in Scotland at the next election if he acts in that fashion.
    The argument of fragmentation is not a good one. If it is reasonable to expect one person to attend an inquiry it is equally reasonable to expect quite a number out of, perhaps, 100 people, to attend the same inquiry. Some may not be able to do so, but at least they will have had the opportunity, and they can submit their ideas. I cannot understand why the hon. Member should refuse to accept the Amendments.
    If I thought that this process of improvement was going to be conducted with the urgency that the hon. Member has depicted I should be very glad, but I would still think it right to consult the people and hear what they wanted to say about a process that would affect their daily lives. I cannot imagine this process being carried out with such urgency that it will not be possible to consult anybody. If the hon. Member puts his feet on the earth again he, too, will surely agree that it will not happen like that.
    It takes time to go through the council. People have to inspect the premises, and draw up plans, and many other things have to be done. Tenders have to be submitted, and all this work takes time. If, while all that is going on, we do not ask the tenants to let us know what they want, we are acting in an intolerable manner. I hope that
    1342
    the hon. Gentleman will consider these Amendments more realistically and will come down again into this world of 1964 and into the towns and burghs of Scotland, as they are today, and not live in some airy-fairy ivory castle in the remoter corners of St. Andrew's House, where things are done according to some arithmetical process.
    If the hon. Member comes down to reality I am sure that he will realise that the proposal made in the Amendments is an eminently reasonable one, and certainly one that would give the people rights which they should have.
    Mr. Manuel: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has not given more sympathetic consideration to these four Amendments. I was very surprised to hear him say, quite deliberately and after much thought, that to give tenants this right would mean that the order would no longer be an immediate improvement order. We have only immediate improvement orders and suspended improvement orders, and if the hon. Member says that it would no longer be an immediate improvement order he must be saying that it will be a suspended order, which provides for a period of five years, and then another twelve months afterwards, before anything take; place—a period of six years altogether.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I said that the immediate improvement notice would no longer be immediate.
    Mr. Manuel: It would mean a difference of something between 21 days and a month. I do not think that such a delay would take the aspect of immediacy from the order. Recourse to the sheriff court—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
    Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Manuel: We have always opposed the idea that ordinary people should be driven to the sheriff court to appeal in order to protect their interests. These people are afraid of the sheriff

    1343
    court. The action of the Under-Secretary of State will have the effect of shutting the door on appeals. His suggestion is of no use. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) would bring in a good dividend. The Under-Secretary of State will find himself in stormy waters if he accepts what the bureaucrats at St. Andrew's House ask him to say at the Government Dispatch Box. He must have a mind and a conscience of his own. The hon. Gentleman has a very good conscience and should allow it free play. He must recognise that among the heads of departments of St. Andrew's House there are not many who come from tenement property. There have been many people with excellent consciences who have done much moral good in the world who did come from such dwellings. The hon. Gentleman should not rely too much on heads of departments to decide matters of this kind.
    It would be worth while to secure the co-operation of tenants by inviting them to a meeting. Many might not come, but among those who did might be one or two who could make practical suggestions about the way in which improvement work should be carried out. The Minister of Housing and Local Government does not know much about tenement property in Scotland and we do not want him trying to exert influence on Scottish Ministers. We shall not allow that to happen. It should be recognised that we might get good suggestions from tenants about the nature of the work to be carried out and I ask the Minister to appreciate that a recourse to the sheriff court is no answer.
    Mr. Dempsey: I find the argument of the Under-Secretary very weak indeed—just about the weakest we have heard in debates today. He showed an abysmal ignorance of the practice which exists whereby local authorities invite owners of property to meet them to discuss the condition of their property. All that the Amendment asks is that the same privileges as are accorded to landlords should be accorded to those who for reasons beyond their control have been compelled to own or tenant single ends and buts and bens in tenement buildings.
    1344
    The Under-Secretary does not seem very much interested at present. If he were he would appreciate that all we are asking is an extension of the privilege by which landlords are consulted. There are several types of tenement buildings in Coatbridge and Airdrie which have fragmentary ownership. If the local authority decides that some of them are not in a fit state for habitation and specifies what improvements should be undertaken, it does not send a notice to the individual saying that he should get this and that done and that if he opposes he must go to the sheriff. The authority invites the property owner to meet the local authority and discuss business. Property owners have the courtesy extended to them of appearing before the local authority to discuss why they should be asked to expend money on improving their houses. I cannot understand why the Under-Secretary objects to other occupiers of property having exactly the same privileges. There appears to be a contradiction in terms.
    What annoys me about the whole business is that we find more protection in this Bill for English occupiers than for Scottish occupiers of single ends and buts and bens. This is indicative of the philosophy that the Englishman's home is his castle, but the Scotsman's home is not his castle for he does not have the courtesy extended to him to discuss proposed improvements to his little abode. No Scottish Minister can justify this treatment of Scotland. What is sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander. "What is good to gi'e is good to tak'." I hope the Under-Secretary will tak' that himself.
    One can imagine a circular arriving at one of these little homes instructing the occupier to do this or that and to effect improvements, but the cost will be his business and he has not the right to be consulted. This is nothing less than Whitehall dictatorship. We in Scotland cannot accept this treatment of property occupiers who, for reasons I have explained, happen to own or occupy a little single end or but and ben in which they are attempting to raise a family. I ask the Under-Secretary to afford the same privilege to them as is afforded to Scottish landlords. The time factor is a lot of nonsense. The local authority serving notices meets landlords once a month

    1345
    When the notice is served before 21 days have elapsed it can be discussed with the local authority. This would not affect the immediacy of the notice. There is no validity or logic in his argument. If he had the experience of some of us of serving on large housing authorities, he would appreciate that notices can be served and that the individuals can conveniently be called to meet the authority, discuss the problem and indicate their willingness or otherwise.
    The Amendment to which the Under-Secretary referred has little to do with the problem. It would operate only at a later stage after discussions had taken place between the property owner-occupier and the local authority. If the tenant as tenant of a small home is still aggrieved and dissatisfied, he would probably consider taking action at the sheriff court, but surely it is common sense that first the local authority should discuss with the person concerned its proposed improvement to the property before there is any talk of appealing to any other source.
    By arguing that an appeal to the sheriff is an alternative the Under-Secretary reveals his lack of knowledge of the workings of the local authority. If two or three dozen people are invited to meet a local authority, it does not follow that they will all come. Most of them will agree with the proposals. Others who demand the right to express their point of view would take advantage of that opportunity. I hope the Under-Secretary does not think it would delay the business of local authority because of a demonstration outside the building of people waiting to discuss proposed improvements. That situation never arises. The Under-Secretary should disabuse his mind of the idea that an appeal to the sheriff is a suitable alternative. It is not.
    There are 68,000 single ends in Scotland. People occupying houses of that nature, or people occupying buts and bens, are not likely to run to the sheriff. They are of limited means. They are afraid of an action in the sheriff court. There is the prospect not only of their own legal fees but of costs being awarded against them. They cannot face that prospect simply because they are aggrieved at the decision taken by the local authority. It is unfair to argue that
    1346
    an appeal to the sheriff is an alternative. Such a procedure is costly.
    A simple and effective action to take would be to accept the Amendment, which would eliminate any need to appeal to the sheriff. It would satisfy those concerned. It would ensure that after consultation they would be cognisant of all the proposals involved. It would lead to much smoother working arrangements and harmony between the local authority and the individuals concerned.
    10.15 p.m.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: I had no intention of taking part in the debate, particularly at this late hour, but I have felt obliged to do so, having been amazed by the reply of the Under-Secretary of State to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
    I recall the propaganda that was put out by the party opposite in 1959. I remember the posters saying "Tory Freedom Works"—although hon. Members opposite are very chary about using that sort of propaganda today. When one heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks rejecting the Amendment one realised that the Government have not begun to know what real freedom means. Why should not these tenants have the right to be consulted? These people may have great disturbance; caused to their way of life and may have good alternative proposals to put forward. Do the Government believe that these owner-occupiers of tenement property of Scotland are devoid of ideas? Does the Joint Under-Secretary consider that only he and the local authorities haw suggestions to make? I am sure that many of the people who have been obliged to live in tenement property for a long time and who have been crying out for improvements to be made have some good advice to tender if they were consulted. This is almost a matter of civil liberties. Justice must be done and the Government would be well advised to accept this modest Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary said that if the Amendment were accepted the immediacy of the whole proposition for tenement property in Scotland would disappear. This is the last Government who should talk about immediacy for tenement property. I can think of tenement properties in Glasgow—and some of my hon. Friends know such property

    1347
    in Edinburgh and elsewhere equally well—where people have been waiting for many generations to get something as simple as one lavatory for one household. There are still families living on what are called "one landing" arrangements, with several families using one lavatory. There are thousands of families without bathrooms and although the Tories have had ample power for many years—until 1945 and since 1951—they have done virtually nothing for people living in this sort of tenement property. It is nonsense for the Joint Under-Secretary to say that if the Amendment—which might hold up work for only a month—were accepted it would upset the immediacy of the proposition in the Clause.
    I have noticed a number of documents being exchanged between the Front Bench and the Ministry's officials. I am not like one of my hon. Friends who spoke about bureaucracy in St. Andrew's House. The officials do an excellent job and they must advise and help the Minister, but ultimately it is the Minister who must make the decisions. In view of the excellent case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton, who has given much thought to this matter, the Joint Under-Secretary should now say that because of the cogency of the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends he is willing to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the Under-Secretary will change his mind. This is typical of the Tories. They just do not seem to be able to do the right thing. I can understand their impatience. Here they were for more than a decade determined to suggest to the people of Scotland that they meant something about getting improvements in tenement property, but they placed all the onus and responsibility upon that weak vessel, the Scottish landlord. Now they realise that they will not get anything done in that way and they decide on immediate improvement notices and they over-ride altogether the feelings and the rights of the tenants.
    Mr. Willis: And the owners.
    Mr. Ross: I am not worried to the same extent about the owners at the present time. It is the tenants who have to live in the houses.
    Mr. Willis: And the owner-occupiers.
    Mr. Ross: I am coming to the owner-occupier in a moment. Great sections of our cities consist purely and simply of these tenements, and the position has come about as a result of Government legislation that the landlords over the past few years have been able to sell these unsatisfactory houses to people who are starved of housing accommodation. The Under-Secretary now says that we must get something done and must hurry it up. He proposes to serve notice on the owner of the property, with a copy to the tenant, including owner-occupier tenants, and there is a year or some such period during which something must be done.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) suggests that the Government should consider the rights and the feelings of the tenants, who are more involved than anyone else. They will have the benefits of improvements if they come, but they will also pay for them. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this was one of the reasons why the Government were prepared to accept a tenant's being obdurate for five years about improvements being done and then, because of his obduracy, having a corporation house. But what about the Scottish tenants?
    It should be remembered that full standard or reduced standard improvements can be required as a result of notice. It might well be that if the local authority consulted the tenants they would suggest that it should be either a reduced standard or full standard improvement. Indeed, many tenants regard this as a penalty if it is visited upon them because it may mean that they will be tenants for 15 years and they may well think that the local authority is wasting its time and money in improving such a property. There is some value in consulting the tenants. My hon. Friend suggests that this should be done within not less than 21 days of serving the notice and therefore there will still be plenty of time. My hon. Friend does not suggest that the tenant or owner-occupier should be given the right of veto on the improvement. It is essential to understand that. It was unfair of the Under-Secretary to impute

    1349
    to my hon. Friend that he was further delaying this urgent work. Urgent—these death-bed speedsters!
    The Under-Secretary will see that there is an Amendment to Clause 27 relating purely to the right to go to the sheriff and appeal on the question of unreasonable hardship. Apparently the Government are prepared to accept reasonable hardship for the tenant, but not unreasonable hardship. Regard must also be had to the age, health and infirmity of the members of the family concerned. That is a very limited right. Where do they go? They go to the sheriff. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the people of Scotland at all. He might as well suggest to supporters of Celtic that they should spend their Saturday afternoons at Ibrox. I hope he will listen to us on this side of the House because we really know what we are talking about. Many of us were brought up in tenements. At least, I was. We know the kind of properties that we are talking about and the kind of people whom we are discussing. We know their reactions.
    It is surely simple humanity, if we intend to do things to people's homes, to consult them, to let them know and give them a chance of expressing their opinions. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is afraid of. I have read the Amendments. There may be a lot of work involved in them—I am not going to quarrel about that—but they are full of sound sense. I hope the hon. Gentleman will say that he is prepared to accept the Amendments or, if he is not prepared to accept them as they are, that he will accept the principle. I hope he will not merely suggest that what is intended to be effected by these Amendments is in any way effected by his later Amendment dealing with the sheriff, because that does not meet the case at all.
    Mr. G. Campbell: First I should like to remind hon. Members opposite that we are discussing the question of the improvement of dwellings. It sounded from some of the speeches as though some great imposition were to be placed upon a tenant or occupier. I think I shall put the matter more into perspective by recalling that this is a question of improving somebody's dwelling and
    1350
    that the majority of persons effected are in favour of the proposal. It is the few who may have objections whom we are considering.
    I have mentioned that we have put down the Amendment to Clause 27, by which the minority—very few, we think—who might suffer hardship as a result of the improvement work being carried out can appeal. I have explained that there is a special problem concerning Scottish tenants. The position is different in England. I understand that in England all tenement blocks are in single ownership [Interruption.] There are many fewer tenements in England and I am informed that they are in single ownership, and it is a much smaller problem because of that fact. In Scotland the large majority of tenements are not in single ownership. I use the word "tenement" especially and not "tenement block", because tenements in Scotland are inclined to be shapeless and to have a common stair. The dwellings in them are in multiple ownership.
    Mr. Ross rose—
    Mr. Campbell: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have already heard this point in Committee. About one-third of the tenements in Scotland are in single ownership and about two-thirds are in multiple ownership. Therefore, it is that majority of tenements with which we are concerned. They are in multiple ownership and also they are of a shape which makes it difficult for improvements to be carried out to individual dwellings. The improvements, to be carried out economically and sensibly, have to be done to the whole building, the whole tenement, at the same time.
    10.30 p.m.
    Hon. Members have talked of the whole procedure being carried out within one month, because under the system which they suggest a meeting would be held within 21 days; but it is as a result of the views, the comments and the objections which might be made simply by one or two persons at that meeting that the local authorities might then have a considerable number of things to consider before they could perhaps bring in another, altered notice, and this would take time. This is where

    1351
    time would be consumed. It is very optimistic to think it could be done within a month. We are at issue on that.
    Miss Herbison: The Minister has referred to objections by perhaps a few people in a tenement and said that the local authority might find it hard to make alterations in its plans. A local authority would not make alterations in its plans unless it had decided as a result of those consultations that it ought to make the alterations in its plans and that they would be worth while. It seems to me that the case the Minister is now putting backs our Amendments rather than goes against them.
    Mr. Campbell: I differ from the hon. Lady. I think that what she is saying supports my case, because she is taking the line that the local authorities would not take much notice of views expressed by a few objectors.
    I would remind the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and the hon. Lady that I said that the local authorities will be instructed to sound out opinion in the area. I have a high opinion of the good sense of the local authorities in Scotland, and I am sure that they will carry out that consultation, but not within a system of the kind hon. Members opposite have suggested.
    I refer to the Government Amendment to Clause 27, and remind hon. Members that in Standing Committee one of our troubles was that if we gave wide grounds for appeal we would meet the very difficulty which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was speaking about, the housing difficulty and people trying to jump the queue because if they appealed they would leave the local authorities with some obligation to rehouse them. The hon. Member spoke extremely fluently about this. That was one of the problems with which we were faced when we discussed this matter upstairs.
    The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred to my conscience. I can assure him that my conscience is applied to this question, but my conscience would certainly not be serene if I felt I had been a party to preventing a speedy procedure for compulsory
    1352
    improvement of these tenements in Scotland, the conditions of which the hon. Lady described just now most lucidly.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to this speedy procedure. Surely he knows that these schemes can be initiated within two years after the resolution has been passed by the local authority? What is to prevent a local authority from bringing a scheme forward by one month at that time to enable this to take place? There is no delay there.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Member refers to the one month. That is something which has emerged from his own calculation. I think it extremely optimistic.
    There is the consultation which I described and which the local authorities will be advised to carry out in order to sound out opinion. In addition to that we could consider requiring the local authorities, when advertising the declaration of an improvement area, to invite the views of all concerned, including the tenants.
    Mr. Willis: That is better.
    Mr. Campbell: That would, I think, go some way to meeting what hon. Members have been asking for, and we are certainly prepared to do that, but I hope that hon. Members opposite will not try to press this group of Amendments which, however optimistically they view the carrying out of the operation they suggest, we believe would simply and unnecessarily put obstacles in the way of the speedy improvement of Scottish tenements which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those representing Scottish constituencies, would like to see hastened.
    Mr. Millan: At the end, the hon. Gentleman has come a little way towards us, but nowhere near fat enough. I shall not go over the matter again in detail, but most of the hon. Gentlemen's arguments were completely irrelevant. All this business about fragmentation of ownerships and so on has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing now. There may be a case for doing all sorts of things, but it has nothing to do with this Amendment.

    1353
    The hon. Gentleman said that speed is important. My hon. Friends have dealt with that point. It is rubbish. Some of these houses have lacked bathrooms for 50 or 60 years. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that another month to consult the tenants is going to make any difference? It is a ludicrous argument, and I am surprised to hear this kind of thing coming out of the Scottish Office. The English Ministers have not used this kind of ludicrous argument regarding tenements in England. We have had plenty of ludicrous arguments from the English Ministers, but not that. It is quite absurd that we should have this sort of point put to us.
    The hon. Gentleman said—I do not know whether he thinks that this is a concession—that there are to be administrative arrangements to allow the local authorities to consult tenants, and he proposes to suggest to them that they invite representations from the tenants. But, since there is no provision in the Bill for changing the improvement notice once it has been sent out to the tenants what on earth is the use of tenants making representations? They can make representations till they are blue in the face, but the improvement notice will stand. There is no point in representations unless modifications can be made in the improvement notice. This is why we have covered the whole subject of modifications in these Amendments.
    Next, the hon. Gentleman said that, if there were modifications, this would hold things up. But there would be
    modifications only if the tenants were right and the local authority was wrong in the first place. This is an argument for giving the tenants permission to give their view s on the matter before the thing is finalised.
    Mr. G. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. What I said was that we could consider requiring local authorities, when advertising the declaration of an improvement area, to invite people's views.
    Mr. Millan: This is even more ludicrous. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to show a glimmer of understanding. An improvement area can cover hundreds or even thousands of individual dwellings, and it can take anything up to two years, according to the first line of Clause 22, before anything happens about a particular dwelling. I am not sure that it even has to be advertised. The resolution is passed by the local authority. Does the Under-Secretary seriously suggest that individuals living in the area, who have no idea at all what the local authority is ultimately going to do with the dwellings, will make representations at that stage? It is too silly for words.
    If that all that the Government have to offer, I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 105.

    Division No. 67.]

    AYES

    [10.39 p.m.

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Millan, Bruce

    Bowies, Frank

    Hilton, A. V.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Boyden, James

    Holman, Percy

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Howie, W.

    Peart, Frederick

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Rhodes, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Dempsey, James

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Small, William

    Diamond, John

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Albert

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Thornton, Ernest

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Lawson, George

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Whitlook, William

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hannan, William

    Loughlin, Charles

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hayman, F. H.

    MacColl, James

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Manuel, Archie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. McCann and Mr. Ifor Davies.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Batsford, Brian

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Allason, James

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Biffen, John

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Box, Donald

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Braine, Bernard

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Panneil, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)

    Hooking, Philip N.

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Holland, Philip

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pym, Francis

    Cole, Norman

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Dance, James

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    du Cann, Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Sharples, Richard

    Elliott, R W (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Shaw, M.

    Farr, John

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Stainton, Keith

    Finlay, Graeme

    Longbottom, Charles

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Freeth, Denzil

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Gammans, Lady

    MoLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maitland, Sir John

    Walker, peter

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Marten, Neil

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Green, Alan

    Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)

    Whitelaw, William

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Mawby, Ray

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

    Mills, Stratton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

    Amendment made: In page 25, line 9, after "months", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

    Clause 23.—(LOCAL AUTHORITIES MAY ACQUIRE DWELLINGS, ETC., IN TENE- MENTS IN IMPROVEMENT AREAS IN SCOTLAND.)
    Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move, in page 25, line 44 to leave out from "comprised" to the end of line 6 on page 26 and to insert:
    "if—c

    (i) the authoriqty in satisfying themselves that the dwelling falls within the said paragraph (a) have formed the opinion that it is capable of improvement at reasonable expense to the full or, as the case may be, to the reduced standard only if the said part is used or made available, wholly or partly, for the purposes of such improvement, and

    (ii) in the opinion of the authority it is unlikely that the said part will be used or made available as aforesaid unless it is acquired by them.

    In this subsection the references to a part of a tenement include references to any yard, garden, outhouses, pertinents or rights pertaining to any estate or interest in the tenement or any part thereof or usually enjoyed along with that estate or interest."
    As Clause 23 now stands, it applies to a single dwelling comprised in a tenement in an improvement area, and it could be that this will operate satisfactorily in relation to the ordinary case of a house which may be improved internally or with the addition of another part of the tenement which includes another dwelling. There is, however, a case where there might be doubt about the local authority's power to acquire a dwelling for conversion if the work of reconstruction were so great as to result in reducing the number of dwellings, none of which was recognisable as the original dwelling.
    This Amendment is in accordance with an undertaking which I gave in Committee and it now makes it clear that the Clause gives local authorities wide power to undertake works of reconstruction and conversion of dwellings in tenements which they have acquired and so facilitate the improvement of older tenement property.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The next Amendment is No. 57.
    Mr. Millan: On a point of order. I understood that the next Amendment selected was No. 56.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that is so, but as I understand the notice which was displayed it was to be taken with the Amendment which we have just discussed. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to a Division on his Amendment if he would like it.
    Mr. Millan: It was not made clear that my Amendment was to be discussed with the Government Amendment which we have just discussed. I had nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the notice was clearly displayed and I heard no comment about it. It said that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be taken with the Government Amendment which we have just discussed but that there could be a separate Division on it. I called the Government Amendment, which has been agreed to. If hon. Members would like a Division on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, they are welcome to have one, but I cannot allow a second debate on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because it was taken with the previous Amendment.
    Mr. Millan: Whatever may have been said in the notice—and, obviously, I cannot go out and check it now—when the Under-Secretary moved the Government Amendment there was no indication, either from him or the Chair, that my Amendment was being taken with it. No notice could possibly affect that. It would be different, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you were saying that it had not been selected.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sure that nobody wants to deprive the hon. Gentleman of the opportunity to make a speech, so let his Amendment be debated now.
    Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 25, after the words last inserted in the Bill, to insert:
    (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, at am time after the passing by a local authority in Scotland of a resolution declaring an area in their district to be an improvement area such authority may if they

    1359
    are satisfied that any of the dwellings comprised in a tenement in that area is in an unsatisfactory state of repair and falls within, or is capable of being improved to a condition enabling it to fall within, paragraph (b) of section 22(1) of this Act, and whether or not they have served an immediate improvement notice in respect of the dwelling under section 22, acquire—

    (a) the dwelling if in the opinion of the authority it is unlikely that it will be put in a satisfactory state of repair or will be improved to a condition enabling it to fall within paragraph (b) of section 22(1) of this Act, unless it is acquired by them;

    (b) any other part of the tenement in which the dwelling is comprised, or any yard, garden, outhouses, pertinents or rights pertaining to any estate or interest in the tenement or any part thereof or usually enjoyed therewith, if in the opinion of the authority it is unlikely that the dwelling will be put in a satisfactory state of repair or will be improved to a condition enabling it to fall within paragraph (b) of section 22(1) of this Act, unless such part, yard, garden, outhouses, pertinents or rights is or are acquired by them.

    As it stands, Clause 23 is remarkable because it gives Scottish local authorities power to acquire tenement dwellings in improvement areas simply if, in the opinion of the local authorities, it is unlikely that they will be improved to the full or reduced standard unless they are acquired by the local authority. This is a substantial extension of the principle of municipalisation of tenement properties in Scotland and as such, of course, we on this side of the House welcome it very much.
    My Amendment simply extends that principle a little, because as the Clause stands the qualifying circumstances in which this municipalisation can take place are that it must be possible to improve the property either to the full or reduced standard, and, as was pointed out earlier, there may be many dwellings in improvement areas which are not capable of being dealt with by the process of standard improvement but which, nevertheless, are in an unsatisfactory state of repair and which should be put in a proper state of repair and which have a potential of 15 years' useful life, as laid down in subsection (1,b).
    This Amendment would allow the local authority to take over tenement dwellings, not just to bring them up either to reduced standard or to full standard by
    1360
    the provision of standard amenities, but in circumstances in which it would be possible for them to be brought up to a satisfactory state of repair and be given a life of at least 15 years. It is this kind of wider power, for reasons which we developed at length in Committee, which is required for local authorities in Scotland if they are to give a face-lift to the many substantially built but dilapidated tenements, bring them into repair and improve them. Since the principle of municipalisation has been accepted in restricted circumstances by the Government in this Clause already, I hope that they will accept this limited extension.
    Mr. G. Campbell: This Amendment is directed to houses in unsatisfactory repair, but it is too sweeping and would amount to a general power to enforce repairs, whereas the Bill is directed to enforcing improvements. As there have been some misconceptions about the application of compulsory improvement, I make three points in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
    First, the reduced standard is an alternative to the full standard only if improvement to the full standard is impracticable at reasonable cost. Even if a designated dwelling already satisfies the reduced standard, there is nothing to stop a local authority from serving a notice requiring improvement to the full standard.
    Secondly, many tenements do not have internal lavatories but share them on the landings in the ratio, for example, of three or four dwellings per lavatory. But this does not make them up to the reduced standard, because standard amenities must be provided for the exclusive use of the occupants of a dwelling.
    Thirdly, we have just approved a Government Amendment to make it clear that local authorities will have the power to acquire dwellings in tenements in order to improve them. It is clear that local authorities will have compulsory powers to acquire dwellings in order to provide proper standards.
    Therefore, much of the point of the Amendment disappears. Virtually the only remaining point is that it would enable compulsory powers to be used in

    1361
    order to acquire dwellings and enable repairs to be carried out. But local authorities already have powers to do that in Scotland and therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 16, after "years", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be prescribed)".—[Mr. G. Campbell.]

    Clause 24.—(ACCEPTANCE OF UNDER-lb/> TAKINGS TO CARRY OUT WORKS.)
    Amendments made: In page 27, line 20, after "years", insert:
    "(or such other period as may be deseribed)".
    In line 22, after "period", insert "from".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 97.

    Division No. 68.]

    AYES

    [10.58 p.m.

    Blackburn, F.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bowies, Frank

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

    Boyden, James

    Howie, W.

    Peart, Frederick

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Ross, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Small, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Dempsey, James

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Diamond, John

    Lawson, George

    Thornton, Ernest

    Evans, Albert

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacColl, James

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, Archie

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hayman, F. H.

    Millan, Bruce

    Mr. McCann and Mr. Whitlock.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Allason, James

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Batsford, Brian

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Biffen, John

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pitt, Dame Edith

    Bishop, Sir Patrick

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Pym, Francis

    Box, Donald

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Braine, Bernard

    Holland, Philip

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hornby, R. P.

    Renton, Rt. Hon. David

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cole, Norman

    Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Corfield F. V.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Sharples, Richard

    Critchiey, Jullan

    Kirk, Peter

    Shaw, M.

    Dance, James

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Stainton, Keith

    Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Drayson, G. B.

    Longbottom, Charles

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    du Cann, Edward

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

    Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Farr, John

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Finlay, Graeme

    Madden, Martin

    Walker, Peter

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maltland, Sir John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Marten, Neil

    Whitelaw, William

    Freeth, Denzil

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gammans, Lady

    Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

    Mawby, Ray

    Worsley, Marcus

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Stratton

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

    Grosvenor, Lord Robert

    Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 28, line 4, at the end to insert:
    "being a dwelling in respect of which an immediate improvement notice has been served under section 22 of this Act."
    As subsection (7) now stands, it excludes from the provisions of the Bill a dwelling comprised in a tenement in Scotland. This would mean that a local authority could not accept an undertaking in respect of a Scottish tenement dwelling before service of the improvement notice under any circumstances. It

    1363
    would prevent a local authority from accepting the undertaking in respect of a dwelling in a Scottish tenement where action had been initiated by a tenant under Clause 19, or after the area had been declared an improvement area but before the improvement notice had been served.
    Mr. Millan: On a point of order. The Under-Secretary is reading his brief so rapidly that it is completely impossible to follow what he says. He did the same thing on the last Amendment. Is there some rule of order in respect of this?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am bound to say that I was hearing what the hon. Gentleman was saying very well.
    Mr. Campbell: I am very sorry. I did not realise that I was going so fast as that. It was because of the lateness of the hour and the fact that this is a fairly straightforward Amendment, although it does deserve an explanation. I shall speak at a slower pace if that will be helpful.
    In the circumstances I have described, it should be possible for a local authority to accept an undertaking under Clause 24 without having to serve an improvement notice, and this is achieved by the Amendment.
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry to have to ask the hon. Gentleman what he said. I certainly heard what he said, but he said it so quickly that I did not follow it.
    Mr. Campbell: I think I can sum it up for the hon. Member. As the Clause was drafted, it would mean that a local authority could not accept an undertaking in respect of a Scottish tenement dwelling before the service of an improvement notice under any circumstances. Now we are making a change so that an undertaking can be given under Clause 24 in the circumstances of the two examples I gave.
    Mr. Willis: It is more clear than it was, and I certainly begin to have a glimmer of what the Amendment means. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that although it is ten past 11 it must not be understood that we are not anxious to follow what the Government are trying to do. I point out to the Under-Secretary and to the Minister in
    1364
    charge of the Bill that we have not delayed the passage of the Bill. A large part of the discussion has been by hon. Members opposite. On that I have no complaint to make, because they have raised points of substance, but because this takes a long time and the Government have not allowed sufficient time wt should not be brushed aside and not allowed to understand what we are doing.
    I understand the Amendment to mean that an undertaking can be given by a person in respect of a dwelling prior to an improvement notice being served in respect of a tenement. This seems desirable, although I find it difficult to discover how it will work. If a local authority passes a resolution declaring a certain area an improvement area, obviously the work covers all the houses in the area. From my experience of tenements in Edinburgh, I think it would be difficult to carry out improvement schemes in many areas without undertaking all the work at once. The block has to be treated as a whole. To talk about carrying out improvements separately, even to a reduced standard in some huge blocks of tenements, seems to interfere with the principle we are trying to follow to make these houses contain all modern amenities. If that principle is breached to a considerable extent we shall not do what we desire.
    I understand that the local authority is the authority responsible for accepting this proposal. It is able to make its own judgment as to the wisdom of permitting various people to carry out work when other work is being done at the same time. I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO IMPROVEMENT NOTICES.)
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 30, line 24, to leave out from "(1)" to end of line 25 and insert:
    "for the words from 'and any' to the end there shall be substituted the words and any improvement notice against which an appeal is so brought shall—

    (a) if and so far as it is confirmed by the sheriff, become operative on the final determination of the appeal;

    1365

    (b) if, in the case of an immediate improvement notice served under section 22 of this Act, it is suspended by the sheriff under paragraph (a) (ii) of section 27(10) of this Act, it shall become operative on the suspension ceasing to have effect in terms of the said paragraph.';"

    It might be convenient to the House also to discuss the following Amendments: Amendment No. 66, in Clause 27, page 32, line 38, at the end to insert:
    (a) the persons who may appeal under subsection (1) against an immediate improvement notice served under section 22 of this Act in respect of any dwelling shall include a tenant occupying that dwelling, and subsections (2) to (9) shall not apply in relation to an appeal by such a tenant, but—

    (i) such a tenant may appeal only on the ground that the carrying out of the works specified in the improvement notice will cause unreasonable hardship to him or to any member of his family residing with him, regard being had to the age, health and any infirmity of the tenant or any such member;

    (ii) on such an appeal the sheriff may either confirm or suspend the improvement notice as he thinks fit, and any such suspension shall cease to have effect when there is a change in the occupation of the dwelling;

    (iii) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph there is a change in the occupation of a dwelling when the tenant who was occupying the dwelling when the improvement notice was suspended by the sheriff ceases to occupy the dwelling, except that there is no change in the occupation of the dwelling if, on the tenant ceasing to occupy the dwelling, it is occupied by a member of his famiy who was residing with him immediately before he ceased to occupy the dwelling.

    Amendment No. 67, in Clause 27, page 32, line 38, at the end to insert:
    (a) in subsection (1) the words "other than a person whose only estate or interest is as a tenant occupying the premises" shall not apply in relation to an appeal against an immediate improvement notice served under section 22 of this Act.
    Clause 22 has been criticised on the ground that in a tenement in an improvement area in Scotland a tenant has no appeal or right to express his views. An hour or two ago we had a considerable discussion on the possibility of earlier procedures so that a tenant may have a say at an earlier stage. During that discussion reference was made to the appeal which is now being suggested in Clause 27 and which is introduced in Clause 26, which would be an appeal for tenants in Scottish tenements.
    1366
    I explained the reasons why a Scottish tenement presented very different problems from other buildings in this country and I need not repeat them. In Committee upstairs I was unable to accept a general right of appeal by a tenant against an improvement notice because that would have jeopardised the whole basis of a scheme for the comprehensive improvement of whole tenements at a time in Scotland. I also pointed out that it might incidentally encourage tenants to appeal against an improvement notice simply in the hope of forcing the local authority to rehouse them so that the scheme could proceed. Even if the local authority had no intention of rehousing them, there was this opportunity for the tenant to try to hold the authority to ransom and so delay progress.
    The Government have felt able to introduce this limited right of appeal and the protection is also extended to any member of the tenant's family who is residing with him. This ground of appeal is similar to that proposed by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) when we considered this matter in Committee. It also rules out any possibility of a tenant lodging an appeal simply in an attempt to get rehoused by the local authority and it has in this way been drawn to avoid possible abuse.
    Mr. Willis: We are discussing three Amendments together and the really important ones in this instance happen to be not the first which the Minister moved but Amendments 66 and 67. I propose, therefore, to devote my remarks two those two. It is interesting to note that paragraph (a, i) of Amendment No. 66 states:
    "such a tenant may appeal only on the ground that the carrying out of the works specified in the improvement notice will cause unreasonable hardship to him or to any member of his family residing with him, regard being had to the age, health and any infirmity of the tenant or any such member."
    As we suggested earlier, this is a limited appeal. We have sought in Amendment No. 67 to provide for a wider appeal. The Under-Secretary will appreciate from a study of the wording of the Amendment that we are widening the basis of appeal considerably. Our Amendment therefore would do greater justice to the tenant. The grounds of appeal contained in Clause 27(2,c) deal

    1367
    with matters which are of great concern to the tenant. They are matters on which he should be given some rights. We submit that if the Under-Secretary will examine this whole subject in greater detail he will come to the conclusion that our Amendment is better than his own.
    One of the arguments which the hon. Gentleman has advanced ad nauseam in these debates is that conditions in Scotland are different because of the large number of owner-occupiers there. We should like to give these people the same rights as other tenants to appeal on the grounds that we have indicated. In moving his own Amendment the Under-Secretary did not suggest why it was impossible to accept ours. Neither did he explain Amendment No. 66 very well. He explained the other Amendment rather more fully. I hope that he will now give us a much fuller reply.
    Mr. Millan: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said. These are important Amendments and we ought to have an adequate explanation of them. I understand that Amendment No. 62 in Clause 26 simply paves the way for the provisions of Clause 27, but of course it also introduces the conception of the suspended immediate improvement order. There is, therefore, the introduction into the Scottish procedure of what could be a complication as compared with the very straightforward procedure which is laid down in the Bill at present.
    Obviously, it would be out of order to go back to the debate that we had on Clause 22, but it seems to me that it is rather unfortunate that the Government should favour the kind of procedure which is proposed in their Amendments to Clauses 26 and 27 when we could have had a much simpler solution to the whole problem if the Government had been willing to look more sympathetically at the Amendments which we previously moved from these benches.
    My hon. Friends and I are not in principle very attracted to the idea of doing this by means of an appeal to the sheriff court. That does not mean that we do not welcome the Government's Amendment so far as it goes. I think the Under-Secretary gave the impression earlier that we would object to the introduction
    1368
    of these safeguards into Clause 27. That is, of course, completely missing the point. In fact, our own Amendment No. 67, which we are discussing with the Government Amendments, introduces into Clause 27 safeguards, and we would think very much better safeguards, for tenants.
    The protection proposed by the Government is the kind of protection which one introduces, as it were, only as a last resort. One wants to avoid the necessity of tenants having to appeal to the sheriff court. There is a tremendous difference between giving a tenant the right to do this kind of thing and giving an owner the right to do it. There are, no doubt, many owners of small amounts of tenement property who are not used to legal proceedings and who might be relucant to go to the sheriff court to appeal against an improvement order, but, on the whole, owners of property are familiar with legal proceedings. At least, they will normally have solicitors and will normally have been involved in some kind of legal transaction or another. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect them to be willing to use the safeguards that are given in Clause 27 by means of an appeal to the sheriff court.
    What some of us feel about giving the tenant the right to make the appeal as is provided for in Amendment No. 66 is that it will be largely negatived in practice by the reluctance on the past of tenants to go to the sheriff court, a reluctance which has been described in discussion on a previous Amendment this evening.
    We are not, therefore, attracted to Amendment No. 66 as compared with other procedures for the protection of tenants. Neither are we attracted by Amendment 66 in comparison with the much simpler Amendment No. 67 that we have drafted. Our Amendment would simply provide that the tenant, as well as the owner of premises, in the case of tenement buildings in Scotland, would have the right to appeal to the court on the grounds which are already laid down in Clause 27. By Amendment No. 66 the Government are restricting the rights of the tenant very considerably. At least, they are restricting the grounds on which the tenant can appeal.

    1369
    I think it is a fair comment that the Under-Secretary did not produce any very convincing explanation as to why we should prescribe the rights of the tenant in this way. There are, after all, in Clause 27(2) as it is expressed at present, a number of grounds which one would have thought would be very appropriate to an appeal by a tenant, and all of this is specifically excluded in Amendment No. 66 in the case of tenants' appeals. I would have thought so particularly of the grounds given in paragraphs (b) and (c).
    11.30 p.m.
    After all, we are not, even with the Amendments which are being made now, providing in any way for a discussion between the local authority and the tenant of the tenant's proposals for dealing with the property. Tenants are not necessarily stupid people, and many of them must have many ideas how their property could be improved, ideas born out of the long years of experience of actually living in the property. It seems to me reasonable that they should in one way or another have an opportunity of expressing their views about the way in which the property could be improved. They have no power at all to do that, and if they have not power to do that at the early stage when the improvement notice has been served on them, it seems to me that they ought at least to have the power to do that when the thing goes before the sheriff under Clause 27.
    It surely ought to be possible for them then to be able to say, "We are appealing against this improvement notice because, speaking from our experience of living in the property, we honestly do not think that the proposals which the local authority has for this property are really suitable, considering the construction of the property, the amenities of the property, and the general nature of the property, from the point of view of the tenant." What is wrong, what is unreasonable, about giving the tenants the right to say that kind of thing?
    Yet that is specifically excluded from the Government Amendment. What the tenant has to do under the Government Amendment to page 32, line 38, is to prove that the carrying out of the works will cause unreasonable hardship to him or any member of his family residing
    1370
    with him. Not just hardship to him, as under previous provisions in the Bill. In previous provisions the tenants have rights if any hardship is involved. Even if quite wealthy, and able to afford higher rents and so on, they have considerable safeguards. Here, however, the tenant does not only have to prove hardship: he has to prove unreasonable hardship.
    What is unreasonable? I suppose it rather depends on whether one is suffering the hardship or inflicting the hardship. A local authority might think the hardship is really quite reasonable for the tenant to undergo. It might think that the desirability of the improvement of the property is so overwhelming that a little bit of hardship will not do anybody any real harm. One suspects that the tenant might have rather different views about this. He might feel that amount of hardship to be unreasonable. I must say I would have a considerable amount of sympathy with him.
    It seems to me that it would be practically impossible for a sheriff to decide what is unreasonable hardship at least from the legal point of view. Sheriffs are, no doubt, very good people at interpreting the law, but it really is undesirable, it seems to me, to have sheriffs deciding on these matters, which really are matters of judgment. One sheriff might come to a completely different conclusion from another, not because he is any better or worse a lawyer than the other, but simply because he looks upon hardship in a different light from the other one of his colleagues. There are, I suppose, sentimental sheriffs on the bench; and I suppose there are sheriffs for whom the Spartan virtues have a considerable amount of appeal. There are all kinds of sheriffs. It seems undesirable that we should have this kind of thing written into a Bill and then leave it to the individual sheriff to decide in a particular case whether the point is proved.
    Hardship is defined
    "regard being had to the age, health and any infirmity of the tenant or any "
    member of his family. There is nothing about financial hardship. One of the most common causes of complaint or anxiety on the part of a tenant in tenement properties when an improvement notice is served will be the effect upon

    1371
    his rent. It will be very much the most common cause of anxiety, as anyone familiar with tenements and with attempts to improve them knows. Yet there is no mention of it in paragraph (i) of Amendment No. 66.
    Why should not financial hardship be a consideration? The whole Amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. I should not mind the introduction of some hardship ground as one of the grounds of appeal in the case of a tenant, but I see no reason why the definition of the hardship should be limited as it is. Why should not some of the other grounds of appeal which are provided by Clause 27(2) at present apply to a tenant equally as they apply to a landlord?
    It seems to me that our Amendment No. 67 is very much better than the Government's Amendment. It would be much more easily administered. It would give to the sheriff court issues to be decided which would be much more appropriate for decision by a court of law, and it would in every way afford a much better approach to the problem. I hope that we shall have a very much fuller explanation of the Government's approach and a far more detailed refutation of the approach which we have advocated.
    Mr. G. Campbell: I can tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that at an earlier stage I explained Amendment No. 66 and indicated that the Amendment which I had then to move was simply a paving Amendment. I did mention briefly the question of hardship and the tenant's family.
    I turn, first, to Amendment No. 67 and the grounds of appeal suggested. In Committee, we considered a similar Amendment but we found that we could not accept an Amendment drawn in such wide terms. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East spoke about owner-occupiers. They already have appeal rights under Clause 27. We are concerned with the tenants here.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) sees some merit in our Amendment after all. At an earlier stage, he seemed to pour cold
    1372
    water upon it. I am glad that he accepts it, though I realise that it does not go as far as he would like.
    The object is that the sheriff court should judge what is unreasonable hardship. This is a matter of improvement of a dwelling, and there might be hardship such as the supply of water being off for some hours while work was being carried out. There might be a degree of hardship which in other circumstances might not be acceptable but which, for a short period in the improvement of a dwelling, might be acceptable. It is left to the sheriff to decide what, in these circumstances, is unreasonable hardship.
    It was the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) who suggested that we should have a form of appeal much on these lines. He courteously told me that he could not be here after 11 o'clock because he had a train to catch, otherwise I know that he would be in his place. He also suggested that it should be the sheriff. I noted that the hon. Member for Craigton was critical of the fact that the appeal should be to the sheriff court. His hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire said that these issues must be decided by someone who was above the local authority and the tenant.
    As hon. Members know, the Government's concern is not to give opportunities for abuse in jumping the housing queue. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) reminded us earlier this evening of the situation in Glasgow, where, unfortunately, housing is very short and where the housing queues are long. It is in Glasgow where the majority of these Scottish tenements are to be found. Therefore, as I explained earlier, we are particularly anxious not to give an opportunity—a temptation, I might say—for appeals or objections which are based on the possibility, albeit a false one, that a tenant might be able to jump the queue to a council house.
    For these reasons, I cannot commend Amendment No. 67, but I suggest that the two Government Amendments, which provide this new appeal for tenants in a Scottish tenement, should be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 27.—(APPEAL AGAINST IMPROVEMENT NOTICE.)
    Amendment made: In page 32, line 5, after "may", insert
    "subect to subsection (7) of this section".—[Sir K. Joseph.]
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 32, line 12, to leave out from "proceedings" to the end of line 13 and to insert:
    "an undertaking to carry out the works specified in the improvement notice, or any such works as might have been so specified if the court exercised its jurisdiction to vary the improvement notice".
    Amendment No. 68, in page 33, line 8, is consequential on this one, which limits the power of the court when accepting undertakings in connection which improvements in the same way as the local authority's powers are limited: that is to say, that it must accept an undertaking only in the light of the preliminary improvement notice.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, Amendment No. 65, in page 32, line 19, after "section", to insert:

    (a) so as to require the carrying out of works to improve a dwelling to the full standard if the works specified in the improvement notice appealed against were works to improve the dwelling to the reduced standard, or

    (b).

    At present, Clause 27 prevents the court altering an improvement from full to reduced standard. In compliance with an undertaking given in Committee, the Amendment makes explicit that the court may not alter an improvement the other way also.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. MacColl: My recollection of what we wanted done was precisely the opposite. We wanted power to be given to vary the thing both ways, to vary and reduce the grant to a full grant and the full standard to the reduced standard. I cannot remember that anybody on our side was very keen on limiting the flexibility in dealing with this. It seemed to us a very reasonable arrangement that where the matter came to court, rather than throw it out and start all over again, the sensible thing to do was to give the court power to make a variation either way. Therefore, I am rather sorry to see this Amend-
    1374
    ment. Although it is consistent, it is consistent in the wrong direction.
    Sir K. Joseph: That is another point which is dealt with in another part of the Bill. All this does is spell out that the court's powers do not enable it to increase against an appellant who is appealing against a requirement to improve to the reduced standard a requirement to improve to the full standard. This was the criticism in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 38, at end insert:
    (a) the persons who may appeal under subsection (1) against an immediate improvement notice served under section 22 of this Act in respect of any dwelling shall include a tenant occupying that dwelling, and subsections (2) to (9) shall not apply in relation to an appeal by such a tenant, but—

    (i) such a tenant may appeal only on the ground that the carrying out of the works specified in the improvement notice will cause unreasonable hardship to him or to any member of his family residing with him, regard being had to the age, health and any infirmity of the tenant or any such member;

    (ii) on such an appeal the sheriff may either confirm or suspend the improvement notice as he thinks fit, and any such suspension shall cease to have effect when there is a change in the occupation of the dwelling;

    (iii) for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph there is a change in the occupation of a dwelling when the tenant who was occupying the dwelling when the improvement notice was suspended by the sheriff ceases to occupy the dwelling, except that there is no change in the occupation of the dwelling if, on the tenant ceasing to occupy the dwelling, it is occupied by a member of his family who was residing with him immediately before he ceased to occupy the dwelling.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    In page 33, line 8, leave out from "accepts" to "he" in line 9 and insert:
    "an undertaking to carry out works on a dwelling comprised in a tenement, being a dwelling in respect of which an immediate improvement notice has been served under section 22 of this Act."—[Sir Keith Joseph.]

    Clause 39.—(DEFINITION OF STANDARD AMENITIES AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS.)
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 41, line 35 after "hot", to insert "and cold".
    There is a very large number of Amendments that go together with this.
    These all follow from that discovery by the hon. Gentleman the Member for

    1375
    Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) that there is no provision explicitly in the present Housing Acts for improvement to include cold as well as hot water. The Government have agreed to amend the Housing Acts appropriately and these Amendments, which are numerous, are dotted in all parts of the Bill. All they do is, wherever hot water supply is involved, is to write in cold as well as hot water. It has no implication for grants and its legalises what has been going on for a very long time.
    Mr. MacColl:When were were discussing extending the provision for having baths, I suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) ought to celebrate by having the first bath under the new arrangement. Perhaps it would be a little cruel to suggest that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) should have the first cold bath. This is a matter he picked up and pressed very hard. We are very pleased to see it has been put in the Bill. We are glad to accept all the Amendments dealing with it throughout.
    Mr. Millan: As well as hot and cold, we do have some standardisation of the description of standard amenities, which is the point I raised in Committee. I am glad to see that has been taken care of. I take it our definition now stands all the way through.
    Sir K. Joseph: I did not want to take away the credit that hon. Member deserves. He is quite right; we have met his point by standardising the definition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 41, line 35, leave out from "shower" to end of line 36 and insert:
    "which, if reasonably practicable, is to be in a bathroom;
    (cc) a hot and cold water supply at a wash-hand basin;
    (ccc) a hot and cold water supply at a sink.".
    In line 42, after "hot", insert "and cold".
    In page 42, line 13, after "amenities", insert:
    "listed in paragraph (ccc), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of this section.
    In line 16, leave out "following standard amenities" and insert:
    "said standard amenities listed in paragraphs (ccc), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of this section".
    In line 17, leave out from "have" to end of line 20.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 40.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF PART II.)
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 43, to leave out lines 6 to 9.
    It may also be convenient with this to take the Amendments in Page 89, Clause 87, leave out lines 4 to 8 and in page 103, line 6, Clause 102, at end insert:
    "and 'lease' includes an underlease, sublease or any tenancy, and any agreement for a lease, underlease, sublease or tenancy, and 'lessee', 'lessor' and 'leasehold' shall be construed accordingly".
    In view of the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), I undertook to look again at the definition of "lease" in Clause 40. This is the interpretation and construction Clause for Part II of the Bill. The point at issue was that the definition of "lease" included a reference to any tenancy", but "tenancy" is later required to be construed in Clause 40, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, as excluding a tenancy held under a lease granted for more than 21 years at a low rent.
    This conflict has been resolved by taking the definition of "lease" out of Part II and transferring it to Clause 102 in Part V which is the general interpretation Clause for the Bill as a whole. The effect is that the words "any tenancy" which appear in the definition of "lease" are no longer required to be construed by reference to the particular meaning given to "tenancy" for the purposes of Part II. The Amendments taken with this are consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move, in page 44, line 16, at the end to insert
    "(a)".
    It may be convenient with this to take the Amendments in page 44, line 17, leave out "or will be" and in line 17, leave out from "habitation" to end of line 19 and insert:
    "or
    (b) will be likely, subject to normal maintenance, to remain fit for human habitation and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years,

    1377
    and in determining the question under paragraph (b) of this subsection the term 'normal maintenance' shall include only such repairs as are reasonable having regard to the prospective life of the dwelling".
    These Amendments are to enable the Government to meet a commitment which I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) who pressed upon us that it was only sensible to consider the normal maintenance of the building which a local authority might assume to be carried out when judging whether it had a fifteen-year life in the light of the age of the building itself.
    Mr. MacColl: This may go rather wider than the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, for in this context it raises the whole problem of the expectation of life of a house. We have had a lot of argument about whether or not there is a case for reducing the expectation of life from 15 to ten years. We put a proposal for having proportionately reduced grants in order to meet that difficulty. One of the problems here is not just the question of the expectation of life—I hope this will not be thought an indelicate remark to make—but the question of the burden of proof.
    In other words, when a local authority looks at a house to decide whether it will last 15 years, does it—or the Ministry, when it comes to consider consent—say that it has no certainty that the house will last that time and that it must therefore assume that a grant should not be made in order to safeguard public money? Or is it considered that as much work as possible should be done and therefore it should be assumed that the house will last 15 years although the probability is that it will not?
    This makes a considerable difference in the case of many houses. Very often, the cause of misunderstanding and complaint arises from the fact that people are sure that the local authority will not get round to doing anything within 15 years but lose their grants because there is no certainty that the house will stay up 15 years.
    Sir K. Joseph: This point was much stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) in Committee. I said then that the administrative advice given by me to local authorities is that they should give the benefit
    1378
    of the doubt to applicants whose buildings are expected to last 15 years unless some rather unexpected redevelopment scheme by the local authority happens to come earlier. This Amendment deals with a much narrower point. It deals with what maintenance can be assumed by the local authority in considering the normal expectation of life of a dwelling.
    Obviously, the local authority must assume that some maintenance is carried out. At the moment, the drafting requires that if the local authority believes that a house has 15 years life it only has to take into account the normal maintenance. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) asked what normal maintenance meant and was concerned about old buildings.
    To meet his case, this Amendment spells out that, in considering normal maintenance, the local authority should assume only such repairs as are reasonable, having regard to the prospective life of the dwelling. That is a narrower point than that made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I have tried to remind him of the answer I gave in Committee to the larger point he raised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 17, leave out "or will be".
    In line 17 leave out from "habitation" to end of line 19 and insert
    "or
    (b) will be likely, subject to normal maintenance, to remain fit for human habitation and available for use as a dwelling for a period of not less than fifteen years,
    and in determining the question under paragraph (b) of this subsection the term 'normal maintenance' shall include only such repairs as ire reasonable having regard to the prospective life of the dwelling".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 42.—(AMOUNT OF STANDARD GRANT.)
    Amendments made: In page 46, line 17, column, after "hot", insert "and cold".
    In page 46, line 19, column 1, after "hot" insert and cold".
    In page 46, line 21, column 1, after "hot", insert "and cold".
    —[Sir K. Joseph.]
    12 m.
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 47, line 3, at the end to insert:
    (4A) References in this section to the cost Incurred in executing or carrying out works shall include references to the cost of the employment in connection with the works of an architect, engineer, surveyor, land agent or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity.
    Mr. Speaker, I think that this Amendment could conveniently be discussed with Amendments No. 86 in page 47, line 17, and No. 95 in Clause 47, page 51, line 6.
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so wishes.
    Mr. Corfield: The first Amendment makes it clear that in assessing the improvement grant that is payable professional fees may be included as a legitimate expense, that is to say, within the ceilings provided. As the House knows, the normal maximum grant will be £155, or 50 per cent. or £310. Therefore, provided that there is some leeway, something short of the maximum of £310, the professional fees may be included up to that amount, and the same applies with the more exceptional higher figure.
    Amendment No. 86 applies that principle to Scotland, and Amendment No. 95 provides similar arrangements where local authorities are concerned with the improvement of their own dwellings and we are concerned with the contribution from my right hon. Friend rather than with the contribution from local authorities and private individuals.
    Mr. MacColl: We welcome these substantial Amendments. My hon. Friends were very much concerned about this and a little uncertain about its implications. These Amendments make the position clearer, and I am glad that the Government have proposed them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 17, at end insert:
    (a) in subsection (4A), for the words from "the cost of the employment" to the end there shall be substituted the words "fees payable to professional persons employed in connection with those works".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 45.—(STANDARD GRANT FOR PRO- VISION OF FIXED BATH OR SHOWER.)
    Amendments made: In page 48, line 18, at beginning insert:
    1380
    (1) For section 4(1)(c) of the Act of 1959 (which, as amended by section 30(2) of the Act of 1961, includes in the standard amenities a hot water supply at a bath or shower, a wash-hand basin and a sink) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
    "(c) a hot and cold water supply at a fixed bath or shower which, if reasonably practicable, is to be in a bathroom;
    (cc) a hot and cold water supply at a wash-hand basin;
    (ccc) a hot and cold water supply at a sink".
    This subsection shall have effect as respects applications made under the said section 4 after the commencement of this Act.
    In line 19 leave out from "1959" to "may" in line 20.
    In line 22 after "hot "insert" and cold".
    In line 34 leave out" and section 4(1)(a)" and insert
    "section 4(1)(a) and section 4(1)(c)".
    In line 35 leave out from "19" to end of line 36 and insert
    "section 19(1)(a) and section 19(1)(c) of that Act, and for the reference to section 30(2) of the Act of 1961 there shall be substituted a reference to section 17(1) of the Act of 1962".—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 47.—(AMOUNT OF MINISTER'S CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER S. 13 OF ACT OF 1959.)
    Amendments made: In page 50, line 22, column 1 after "hot" insert "and cold".
    In line 24, column 1 after "hot" insert "and cold".
    In line 26, column I after "hot" insert "and cold".
    In page 51, line 6 at end insert:
    (5) References in this section to the cost incurred in executing or carrying out works shall, where the local authority employ a person who is not one of their officers as an architect, engineer, surveyor, land agent or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity in connection with the works, include the cost of his employment for that purpose.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

    Clause 50.—(CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS AND STANDARD GRANTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 52 line 28, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven".
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be sensible to discuss also Amendment

    1381
    No. 97, in Clause 51, page 53, line 12, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven".
    Mr. MacColl: A similar Amendment raised a point of substantial disagreement in Committee upstairs. We very much regret the direction in which the Government have moved in this Clause and in Clause 51. Clause 50 is the English Clause and Clause 51 the Scottish Clause.
    They both deal with the same point—the altering of the period for which the conditions are to be attached to improvement grants. We do not see any need to reduce the present period. It seems to have worked very well up to now. But we were so startled by the action of the Government that we have tried to meet them by coming part of the way. We have not contented ourselves with proposing to retain the period of ten years, which we feel is the sensible course. In a spirit of good will, and a desire to reach a compromise, we have done our best by suggesting a reduction to seven years.
    Everybody would agree that if we are to give public money away in improvement grants we must impose some conditions in order to prevent exploitation. In this case public money is being paid to private individuals—in most cases to private landlords—by way of grants in respect of private property, which will ultimately be reflected in an increased value of that property. People do not spend money putting in a bath or a water closet, or whatever it may be, unless they expect eventually to be able to obtain a substantial improvement in the value of the property.
    The point at issue is the question how long should we prevent the full benefit of the improvement from being reaped by the landlord. The period of ten years has operated for a considerable time. I am not sure how far back it goes. Quite a substantial amount of money can be involved, and we cannot understand why the Government want to reduce the period of three years. The maximum grant is now about £500, which can be a considerable amount in the case of some houses, and can considerably increase their value. What possible case can there be for
    1382
    being so lax in the administration of public motley as to allow people to reap the benefit after a wait of only three years? In the meantime, before the three years are up, they will be getting the benefit of increased rents and other benefits from the property.
    It is not as if the full cost of the improvements fall on the persons doing the improvements. Very often, in other contexts, we have considerable discussions about how to prevent people who have bought something under the market value suddenly reaping the benefit by selling at the full market value. A house which is worth £2,000 can be improved, so that it is worth considerably more. Yet, after waiting for only three years, the owner can get the benefit of the increase. We consider that the period should be not less than seven years.
    Mr. Corfield: As the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) indicated, this is a point on which there is a genuine difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. It must be remembered that the Government's objective remains basically to speed up the rate at which these old but sound houses can be improved and brought up to modern standards.
    Although the Bill provides for compulsion, it is still hoped that the maximum amount of improvement will take place on a voluntary basis. The Government take the view—and I think there is a good deal of evidence to support it—that the 10-year period has been a disincentive to landlords taking advantage of these grants and improving houses as fast as they would otherwise have done. It is possible for the so-called regulated rent, following improvement, actually to be lower than the rent before the grant one would expect for doing the improvement. I hardly think anyone in this House will suggest that this is an incentive to get on with this important job.
    I fully appreciate that one cannot satisfactorily argue the sanctity of three years as against four or five years or two and a half years, but the Government take the view that all these restrictions which act as a disincentive should be looked at very carefully where they have a discouraging effect. The Government take the view that three years

    1383
    is a suitable period to remove this discouragement while at the same time being long enough to prevent any active speculation in improvement grants. I therefore hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. A. Evans: I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has told the House that it will be possible for the landlord, after having made an improvement, to receive rent lower than that he received before making the improvement. I do not follow that argument. I understand that the landlord is entitled to an increase in rent equivalent to 2½ per cent. of his capital outlay. It follows that he would receive a rent higher after the improvement has been made than before he made it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary made a slip there.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes Mr. MacColl) said, there is not only the question of encouraging the landlord to effect improvements. There is the other side of the matter, the point of view of the local authority and of the tenant. That aspect previously made it incumbent on the landlord to keep a house available for letting for, originally, 20 years, which was later cut to 10 years. The landlord must also arrange his rent at a level satisfactory to the local authority for that period of 10 years.
    The Government would like to see the number of improvements very much increased. We can understand and share that hope, but in previous attempts to increase the number of improvements the Government have not been content with reducing the period over which the control should continue. They have allowed an increase in the amount of rent and a percentage increase in the capital outlay of the landlord. It would be quite possible to effect the purpose of the Government and to increase the number of improvements and grants by allowing the landlord a larger increase in the rent he can require the tenant to pay. It would be possible to arrive at the purpose of the Government in that way. In the past that course has been adopted. The most preferable course would be for the Government to allow the rent to be increased and encourage landlords to im-
    1384
    prove their houses so that those properties remain available for letting. The housing problem generally is bad, but the shortage of houses to let is the most acute. As I say, it would be better to increase the rent rather than decrease the number of years in which the control continues.
    12.15 a.m.
    One hon. Member opposite dealt with this problem in Committee, representations having been made to him by one of the larger local authority associations. That hon. Member suggested that discretion should be given to local authorities to require the period of control to continue for five years. That might have been a suitable compromise, remembering that the whittling away of the period of control when public grants are involved is the cause of complications and difficulties for local authorities, which are already faced with acute housing problems. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter further and, if an Amendment is required, he can make one at a later stage.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 52.—(CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO IMPROVEMENT GRANTS AND STANDARD GRANTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: RENT LIMIT.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 55, line 14, to leave out subsection (8) and to insert:
    (8) Section 12 of the Act of 1959 (under which the local authority may fix a rent limit higher than that prescribed by paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 4 to the Act of 1958) shall apply in relation to the said paragraph 4 as amended by this section, and accordingly—

    (a) the references in subsections (1), (2) and (5) of the said section 12 to the limit imposed by section 20 of the Rent Act 1957 shall include references to the limit imposed by subsection (2) of this section, and

    (b) in the said section 12(2) as applied by this section the reference to section 20(3) of the Rent Act 1957 shall be omitted.

    As the House knows, under the existing law the controlled rent which has been imposed as a condition after the approval of grant is normally assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Act, on the basis of twice the 1956 gross value. There is, however, provision under Section 12 of the 1959 Act which gives a discretionary power to local authorities to fix a higher rent.

    1385
    When the Bill was originally drafted the Government took the view that, in the light of revaluation and the current 1963 gross value being the basis for the controlled rent, it was no longer necessary for local authorities to have this discretionary power. However, in Committee was represented to us that in certain areas there might be a case for a higher rent and, therefore, for retaining that power.
    Since the Committee stage we have discussed this matter with the local authority associations and others and the Government have decided to move this Amendment, which restores the position and gives a discretionary power to local authorities to consider a higher rent in any particular case.
    Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman has given one side of a rather more complicated story about how all this arose. He was tactful enough not to mention that the initial proposal for giving flexibility to go over the gross value came from me. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) took strongly the point that in many parts of the country where the relationship between gross values and market rents was rather different from what it is in London there was just as much ground for giving flexibility and discretion for a local authority sometimes to go below gross value when it was fixing rents. Although the Minister tried to suggest that there were differences, both views are compatible because conditions are different in different places. It is certainly true that in parts of the country market rents are very much more than gross value particularly where property has been converted.
    It can be said therefore that the Amendment is a reasonable proposal, but in its present form I cannot support it. Discretion should be both ways. It is a monstrous injustice that discretion should be only one way. There is absolutely no limit to the hysteria with which the Government are determined at all costs to bribe landlords to carry out these improvements and get improvement grants.
    Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member is saying that we must not base rentals on rateable values put right as recently as last year.
    Mr. MacColl: As the hon. Member knows, this is a rather delicate matter, because the relationship of gross values of different types of property in the Borough of Paddington is sub judice and I do not want to get involved in discussion of the principles. The short point is that for certain types of new property, such as new blocks of flats and post-war houses, gross values seem to some people to be very high. On the other hand, gross values of Victorian houses, which often receive grants for conversion, are frequently rather low. I quoted figures in Committee.
    In certain areas market rents are perhaps two or three times the gross value. On the other hand, the position is entirely different in other parts and with other types of property. It is not possible to be absolutely sure that one can stick to current gross values, but I would prefer to stick to them for better or worse than have the position under the Amendment where the landlord is given more than is necessary to bribe him to do the work and power is not provided to give him less where the state of the market indicates that this is desirable. I think therefore that this is a most unfortunate way of meeting the situation.
    Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Could my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the complete absence from the Chamber of any representatives of the Liberal Party means that they have previously indicated agreement with or dissent from this important proposal?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to connect that with the Amendment.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was thinking that when my hon. Friend comes to reply he might have some message to communicate to the House which would indicate whether the Liberal Party, who are absent from the Chamber, agree or not with the proposal which is before the House at the moment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 99, in page 55, line 26, at the end to insert:
    (10) A request under section 12 of the Act of 1959 to fix a rent limit higher than

    1387
    that prescribed by paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 4 to the Act of 1959 may be made not only in the application for a grant but also at any time thereafter and the local authority may fix such higher rent not only on approving the application but also at any time after such a request as aforesaid.
    This is an administrative Amendment. It is not intended to have any real principle in it. The position is that in respect of houses which are to be improved by an improvement grant or a standard grant, Section 20 of the Rent Act, 1957, fixes the rental at the 1956 gross value. Under the previous Amendment it would be the present gross value. The local authority can alter that if it is requested, but the request has to be made at the time of the application.
    Section 12 of the Housing Act, 1959, which is mentioned in this Amendment, gives the local authority power to fix another rent than that based on the gross value, but only if the request is in the application. It could only fix another rent at the time that it is granting the application. This is by reason of the wording of Section 12 of the 1959 Act.
    The request for a variation of the rent from the gross value is made by answering, I believe, question No. 12 on a form. I have known many cases when people applying for grants have not quite understood what the question means. It refers to the local authority fixing the rent for them. They omit to say "yes" or "no" in answer to the question. It dawns on them later that this is something that they ought to have done, and merely by failing to understand the question they have lost every opportunity of asking the local authority to fix a rent other than the gross value. This is unfortunate.
    I may perhaps have worded this Amendment rather wider than I intended. I think that if it were accepted as it stands it would be possible for the owner who has improved his house by means of an improvement grant or a standard grant to apply to the local authority to fix it within any time. What I had intended was that the local authority and the owner should be able to get together before the property is let. When improvements are done and the letting is coming about, they should then be able to fix a rent, and they should not both be tied to the application form—the owner tied to whether he has answered this question correctly, and
    1388
    the local authority tied to making this variation only at the time that it makes the grant.
    I hope my hon. Friend can meet me on this point because it is a very practical point. I have personally known it to arise in many cases where the owner has hoped to get the local authority to fix a more reasonable rent and where the local authority would be only too happy to do so, but has been prevented by law from doing so because the owner has not made the request at the time of sending in the application form.
    12.30 a.m.
    Mr. Corfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I certainly took it, from reading the Amendment, that he intended that it should apply in the way he suggested and that the owner should be able to apply to the local authority at any time and the local authority be able to fix at any time, and my reaction to that was that with the reduction from ten to three years this was really weighting the thing unnecessarily towards the person doing the improvements. I think my hon. Friend has now made plain that he has a much more practical point in mind, that perhaps it may be possible to improve the form in which the question is put on the form to which he referred. Although certainly not committing myself at this time of night, I certainly would look at that rather narrower point he has raised, to see whether we can ensure that at any rate it is made clear to the applicant exactly what he is answering and the full implications of whatever answer he gives; or alternatively, perhaps keeping it open a little longer, till the improvements are near enough complete to see how the terms would work out in the ordinary formula. On that understanding perhaps my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his sympathetic reception of my Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 55.—(COMPULSORY IMPROVEMENT UNDER PART II OF ACT: RIGHT TO SERVE PURCHASE NOTICE.)
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 59, line 10, to

    1389
    leave out "The person on whom" and to insert:
    "If the person having control of the dwelling or other premises is served with".
    I think Amendment No. 102, in page 59, line 12, might well be taken with this one. In the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) expressed some doubt as to whether this Clause 55 as drafted would entitle anyone on whom a copy of the improvement notice had been served to serve a purchase notice on the local authority. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that the person entitled to serve a purchase notice is the person having control of the dwelling, that is to say, the person on whom the obligation fails to incur the cost of the improvements required.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 59, line 11, leave out "is served"; in line 12, after "Act", insert "that person".—[Mr. Corfield.]
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, in page 59, line 18, to leave out "dwelling" and to insert "premises".
    The next three Amendments go with this one. These are all really drafting Amendments consequent upon Amendment No. 100. Subsection (1) of the Clause as now amended by that Amendment refers to the person having control "of the dwelling or other premises", and these Amendments are needed for consistency of language throughout the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 59, line 21, leave out "dwelling" and insert "premises"; in line 33, leave out "dwelling" and insert "premises"; in line 34, leave out "dwelling" and insert "premises".—[Mr. Corfield.]
    Mr. Corfield: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
    I am very grateful, and I know that my right hon. Friend is very grateful, for the progress which has been made, with the co-operation of hon. Members on both sides.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

    LEGAL AID BILL
    Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

HOSPITAL SERVICES, IPSWICH
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Batsford.]
12.35 a.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to raise the subject of the condition of the hospital services in Ipswich. For a long time, there, has been not only in Ipswich, but, I think, throughout the area round about, a growing sense of discontent both among the medical and nursing staff and among the general public about the inadequacy of hospital accommodation. This feeling came to a head last February when the local evening paper, the Ipswich Evening Star, published a series of six extremely well informed articles on the Ipswich hospitals.
When the first of those articles appeared, it was accompanied by a commentary, part of which I shall now quote:
"The research has been carried out with the full backing and co-operation of the Ipswich Group Hospital Management Committee who felt that the time had come for the public to know the almost impossible strain under which officials, doctors and nursing staff are constantly working…
"The fault does not lie altogether with the Regional Hospital Board although Ipswich is the Cinderella of a region starved of much-needed improvements. The blame lies with the Government in its miserable, mean attitudes towards even the most basic and elementary needs of the hospitals in the town."
Lest anyone should think that that was merely a piece of journalistic licence, I shall make one other quotation. This is from a letter written by a surgeon at one of the wings Of the Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital. This is what he wrote in January of this year:
"At the end of nearly five years in Ipswich, I have come to the conclusion that the training and experience of my colleagues and myself has been largely wasted, as we are prevented from doing the work which we wish to do and are trained to perform.
"We work under constant pressure and have little opportunity for even the most elementary scientific work or clinical research, or for

1391
training of junior staff. I am personally aware of a constant feeling of frustration in my professional work."
That, I believe, represents the general feeling among the medical and nursing staff in the Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital.
Tonight, I wish particularly to deal with the question of operating theatres at the Anglesea Road wing. At present, there are two general and orthopaedic theatres at Anglesea Road. They are about 100 yards apart. They are both very old. The ventilation is antiquated; it is difficult to keep out the duct, and cleaning presents a perpetual problem. Conditions in both these theatres increase the danger of sepsis.
In April, 1962, the medical staff committee put forward certain proposals which it regarded as the essential minimum if an adequate service was to be provided. The committee proposed to bring together the casualty and accident services in one hospital at Anglesea Road and to provide a new twin operating theatre. It was not until midsummer last year—in, I think, June or July—that they received the answer from the regional board. The board said that it could not fulfil all these proposals, which would cost up to £250,000. There are a good many people in Ipswich who do not accept that figure. The board said, however, that it would contribute £50,000 and asked the hospital management committee how it would like it spent. This offer was regarded by the management committee and by the medical staff committee as quite inadequate but, of course, they accepted it under protest and decided that this sum should be used for a new casualty and reception department. That, however, leaves the problem of operating theatres unsolved.
In this morning's issue of the East Anglian Daily Times, I observe that the Minister has made a statement, in response, I think, to interviews which he had with hon. Members opposite, in which he referred to this problem. The text in the newspaper states:
"The Minister says that operating facilities elsewhere in the group have been reviewed, and some relief will be given to Ipswich."
What exactly does that mean? Does it merely mean that minor cases are to be moved out to, say, Foxhall, or
1392
Felixstowe? According to my information, most of the minor cases have already been treated peripherally and I am told that it would be difficult to extend the process much further.
No doubt, we shall hear reference tonight to the new hospital which is to be built in Ipswich under the Hospital Plan. It was due to start, I believe, in 1969. The plan, however, is now over two years old and it was based on the expectation of a normal growth of population in Ipswich and the districts around. But since then we have had the South-East England Study and the White Paper issued with it by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
That Study contemplates that the population of Ipswich shall be increased by, possibly, 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. over a period of 15 years. I know that that is not final. I was told only two days ago by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that we must wait until next year to know whether those proposals are to be adopted. If they are adopted, it clearly follows that the Hospital Plan will need to be wholly reconsidered in relation to Ipswich, because the facilities proposed in the plan would be quite inadequate for a town which had added 50 or 100 per cent. to its population.
If that be so, if there has to be reconsideration of that nature, is there any certainty that the new hospital will be begun in 1969 and have we any information as to when it is likely to be completed? If it is not to be begun in 1969 or if the period of completion is to be greatly lengthened, the case for an interim measure, particularly in the matter of operating theatres, is enormously strengthened.
I hope that the Minister will not take refuge behind the regional board. In the Press statement to which I have referred, the Minister is reported as saying that
"The regional board, who are primarily responsible for planning, has been concerned to find reasonable interim solutions."
The regional board may, in a sense, have the primary responsibility, but the final responsibility rests with the Minister, and it is the Minister—on this occasion, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—who has to answer to this House.
12.44 a.m.
Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: This is not the first time that we in this House have discussed the subject of the hospitals in Ipswich. I am not intervening entirely on the preserve of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), because these hospitals serve a bigger area in the County of Suffolk and many of my constituents are at times patients in these hospitals. We are grateful to my right hon. Friend that he has paid great attention, since he became Minister, to the representations that have been made to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot), by my two hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and by myself. We were grateful to receive information from him a few days ago, following visits and talks we had had with him, to which the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich referred, and which has been published in our local newspaper in Suffolk.
It is true that somewhere along the line all is not working smoothly and that the Minister accepts this and is prepared, from what he said in his statement, to do his best to see that any of these difficulties are ironed out. One thing in particular pleased me in his statement. That was that a new geriatric hospital is to be built in Ipswich, because I have seen in the three hospitals in my constituency, at Stow Lodge Hospital, Stowmarket, Hartismere Hospital, Eye, and Bulchamp Hospital, Blythburgh, reports that we cannot deal with our own waiting lists in the county. The announcement is an excellent step forward.
I would like to add to what the hon. and learned Member said about the operating theatres. I was actually a patient, as I think the Minister knows, in one of these theatres only last year and I raised this matter with him by Question on 24th February this year. He told me that it so happened that on that day talks were going on about the interim position during the next four or five years, or it may even be seven or eight years, before this hospital is completed.
Whether the operating conditions cannot be made better in the Anglesey
1394
Road Hospital, is the most important thing for those doctors, surgeons and nurses who are there and who are willing to do all the work, but who have not got the conditions in which to do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary told me that the number of operations performed in that hospital had gone up 50 per cent. in the last 10 years. It seems to those who are most concerned with the hospital that the greatest need of all is a better periling theatre. There seems to be some confusion. It goes backwards and forwards from the regional board, and now a casualty clearing station is suggested to be the right answer.
In view of the representations we have made, I hope that my right hon. Friend will now take a very personal interest in this to see that at least the operating theatres an put right even if some of the other things have to go. They are the centre of all the work and appear to be the most important thing.
We are grateful for the interest that the Minister is taking at the present time, but we want to see this work going on in the interim period pending the new building of a hospital.
12.48 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I realise that a number of hon. Members are keenly interested in the subject which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) tonight, because the Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital represents not only Ipswich but a wide area of East Suffolk and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Eye (Sir H. Harrison), Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). Indeed, my three hon. Friends have long been pressing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about this matter and they had a meeting with him just before Easter.
My right hon. Friend told them that he fully agreed that hospital provision at Ipswich was not satisfactory. But it is precisely because of this that a major capital hospital project for the town finds a place in the Hospital Plan. The problem which has faced us, therefore, has been what steps should be taken to provide a more adequate service until the time when a new district general

1395
hospital is brought into commission. It is, of course, the responsibility of the regional hospital board, within the limits of its resources and in accordance with its priorities, to decide what these steps should be.
It might be helpful if I began by saying something about the present position at the Ipswich and East Suffolk Hospital. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the hospital consists of two wings. First, there is the Anglesea Road wing, the former voluntary East Suffolk and Ipswich Hospital, which dates from 1836, although the greater part of the buildings were erected after 1900. Secondly, there is the Heath Road wing, the former Ipswich Borough Hospital and ex-Public Assistance institution which was taken over as a municipal hospital in 1938.
At Anglesea Road, there are 345 acute and six geriatric beds, while at Heath Road there are 226 acute and six geriatric and 50 maternity beds. Both wings receive largely similar types of cases, general medical, general surgical, orthopaedic and fracture and a small number of geriatric. Other specialties are divided so that Anglesea Road has dermatology, ear, nose and throat, ophthalmology and radiotherapy, while Heath Road has gynaecology, obstetrics and medical pediatrics. Together, the two wings provide general hospital facilities for a population which is now about 310,000.
It is clear that a hospital on two sites and with much of its functions. its specialties and its staffs duplicated creates very great administrative problems and medical and nursing difficulties. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this has long caused concern both locally and to the regional board.
The regional board first proposed several years ago to create a new comprehensive district hospital for Ipswich on the Heath Road site and adjacent land. It was later proposed, however, to erect a new district general hospital on land in the board's possession at St. Clement's Psychiatric Hospital, to abandon the Anglesea Road wing and to retain part of the Heath Road wing as a chronic sick hospital.
1396
In the meantime, however, certain improvements are being effected. First, steps have been taken to improve the geriatric provision. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, most of the beds for old people at present serving Ipswich are too far away from the town, and this has caused difficulty and even hardship to patients and their relatives. A new 50-bed geriatric unit has been planned for the Heath Road wing and work is to start there very shortly. At the same time, provision will be made for six additional medical beds, a pathological laboratory, a boiler plant and a car park at a total cost estimated to be about £380,000.
A great deal of important upgrading and improvement work has been going on at both wings. At Heath Road, group stores have replaced huts at a cost of £15,000; a ward has been converted and equipped as a maternity block at a cost of £16,000; alterations and additions have been made to Block "D" at a cost of £34,000; theatre sterilising facilities have been reorganised at a cost of £10,000; and the nurses' dining room has been converted to a cafeteria at a cost of £6,000.
At Anglesea Road, the dental and out-patient departments have been extended and modified at a cost of £19,000; a new boiler plant has been installed at a cost of £140,000; a passenger lift has been replaced at cost of £5,000; an automatic processing equipment for the X-ray department costing £7,000 has been installed and improvement will soon be completed to the sanitary arrangements costing £10,300.
I mention this list so that it should be seen that very considerable works have been and are being undertaken. A particularly interesting feature is also being provided—a new cobalt radiotherapeutic unit costing £45,000.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the difficulties on the surgical side. We have been trying to find a solution that is both practicable and worth while. Of course, this is not easy. The board tells me it is ready to consider any reasonable suggestion. I have mentioned some improvements that are in hand; and alterations are being undertaken this year at Foxhall Hospital, which is, I believe, only about four miles outside Ipswich—though I yield to local

1397
Knowledge here—to provide additional beds for minor surgical cases.
The difficulty here is that within a decade we shall have a new and up to date hospital. It is only common sense, therefore, to recognise that there is a limit to what can be done on interim improvements that will be used only for a few years. One scheme has been put forward, estimated to cost about £190,000, by the local medical staff, supported by the hospital management committee. This proposes that casualty, accident and emergency work should be concentrated at the Anglesea Road wing. This would involve not only extension and improvement of the present casualty department, but the provision of a further 20 beds and an additional twin theatre.
The medical staff also recommended an additional twin theatre at Heath Road to cope with the greater lists of orthopaedic and surgical cases and the gynaecological and obstetric cases. The idea was to make it possible to have the use of the beds at Heath Road for cold general and orthopaedic surgery. Although the twin theatre was regarded as essential, by the medical staff, the board considered it less urgent than the work at Anglesea Road.
The board felt that the cost of the scheme was far beyond the £40,000 which was the maximum it could absorb in its own programme. As my Department had provisionally allocated to Boards all the capital money it was likely to have, and as it had no hidden reserves, it was clearly for the board to determine the priority of this proposal in relation to all the other schemes in its programme and to decide whether it could be fitted in.
I should make it plain that, even if the board could have found the money, we were doubtful—and I think the board was, too—about the soundness of these proposals, that is to say whether they were really appropriate, bearing in mind that they were intended only for an interim period. For example, a twin operating theatre at Anglesea Road, which would take some time to plan and build, might have little more than five years' life. The suggestion for 20 additional beds raised questions about whether they and the theatre could be staffed. When the
1398
suggestion was made there were, in fact, acute stall shortages at the hospital. The boars therefore informed the management committee and medical staff that they if thought that palliative measures costing, say, up to £50,000, which should suffice to provide a twin theatre, would yield worthwhile results, considering their probable life, the board would be willing to consider them.
The board then had a meeting with the management committee and medical staff, pressing very strongly for an answer to the question as to whether it was possible to give relief, by building additional theatres at either wing and re-allocating the work done in the various specialties, to make use of the operating facilities so provided. The medical staff maintained—correctly or incorrectly, it is not for me to say—that no such re-allocation was feasible and that theatres and beds at both wings were in balance at present and more theatres without more beds would achieve noshing.
It was finally agreed that a scheme should be investigated for a new casualty department at Anglesea Road on the lines proposed by the management committee. I am glad to say that a scheme has now been agreed and that the detailed plans are being prepared.
To sum up the situation, the board has been exploring with the medical staff and the hospital management committee how most advantageously to apply a reasonable but limited amount of capital to improve the existing surgical facilities for Ipswich. Certain steps have been taken already. Admittedly, the present theatres are unsatisfactory. Major structural alterations could improve them, but, for the reasons which I have given, these are not feasible
As my right hon. Friend has told my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eye and my hon. Friends the Members for Sudbury and Woodbridge and Lowestoft, he is asking the board to see whether adjustments of any other kind are possible. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the matter will be treated as one of urgency, but this will require a readiness on the part of all concerned, the board, the hospital management committee, and the consultants, to make adjustments.

1399
The hon. and learned Gentleman then raised a somewhat wider issue. He asked how the Hospital Plan will be affected by the South East Study of the problems which may be expected to arise out of the growth of population over the next 20 years. The hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect me tonight to embark on a major and detailed dissertation of the way in which the hospital service in the East Anglian region will be affected, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend has constantly in mind the possibility of changes in the plan, and this was a factor to which a great deal of thought was given when the plan itself was being drawn up.
I welcome this opportunity to stress once again that it was never intended that the Hospital Plan should be regarded as a document laying down a definite programme that was complete and final in all respects. As the Command Paper itself indicated at the time, the programme then announced provided the point of departure and the necessary basis for further studies in many directions.
But, while it did not represent a final decision on the individual items included in the plan, it was necessary to take a number of decisions at that time so that the broad intentions for the development of the service as a whole might be known, thus providing a context within which individual decisions could be taken at the proper time in the light of developments, changes in medical practice, changes in population, and any other relevant changes that took place in the meantime. For example, the first revision of the Hospital Plan, which took place last year, made adjustments to the programme, particularly in regard to maternity services, to meet the somewhat unexpected increase in the birthrate.
In view of the increased need which was then seen to have arisen, some
1400
maternity units were increased in size, and earlier starting dates were arranged for others. There was some conversion and extension of existing hospital accommodation, and it was envisaged that some hospital maternity accommodation might be retained in use for somewhat longer than had been intended. It is an essential feature of the Hospital Plan that it should be subject to constant review and that it should be sufficiently flexible to ensure that changing circumstances can always be met and the necessary services provided as the need for them becomes apparent.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the South East Study envisages the possibility of Ipswich becoming a focal point of growth and its population increasing by about half. If that turns out to be the case, the hospital services in Ipswich will clearly need to be larger. Perhaps a second hospital might have to be added to the programme, but it is not possible for me to say anything more about that tonight. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a decision cannot be taken about the possible expansion of Ipswich until the planning authority concerned has had an opportunity of giving my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government its thoughts on the subject. My right hon. Friend has asked for its views by 30th June, and I think he said that discussions would follow and a final decision would not be taken for some time.
The timing of all this does not affect the issues raised tonight. The planning of the new hospital for Ipswich is at a stage which will permit full consideration to be given to all the implications of any decision about the expansion of Ipswich which may be taken within the next year.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past One o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Preservation of Countryside and Anti-Litter Campaign
  Preservation of Countryside and Anti-Litter Campaign
  New Universities
  New Universities
  Swimming Pools
  Swimming Pools
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  School Building (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
  School Building (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
SCIENCE
  Electricity Generation (Magnetohydrodynamics)
  Electricity Generation (Magnetohydrodynamics)
  World Health Organisation (Research Centre)
  World Health Organisation (Research Centre)
  University Education (Parental Contribution)
  University Education (Parental Contribution)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
  Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)
  Mr. John Williams and Family (Entry Permit)
  Mr. John Williams and Family (Entry Permit)
  Immigration Office, Southampton
  Immigration Office, Southampton
  Metropolitan Police (Radio Receivers)
  Metropolitan Police (Radio Receivers)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  South Wales Ports (Ore Importing Facilities)
  South Wales Ports (Ore Importing Facilities)
  Electricity (Magnetoplasmadynamics)
  Electricity (Magnetoplasmadynamics)
COAL
  Coal Distribution Scheme, London
  Coal Distribution Scheme, London
  Coke Supplies
  Coke Supplies
INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee Grants
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee Grants
  Computer Exports (Eastern Bloc)
  Computer Exports (Eastern Bloc)
  Bottle-Stoppers
  Bottle-Stoppers
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Agricultural Research
  Agricultural Research
  Agricultural Liaison Officers (High Commission Offices)
  Agricultural Liaison Officers (High Commission Offices)
KENYA
  Land Policy (Discussions)
  Land Policy (Discussions)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Electoral Representation
  Electoral Representation
SHIPPING
  United States (Freight Contract Terms)
  United States (Freight Contract Terms)
ROADS
  Shrewsbury and Atcham
  Shrewsbury and Atcham
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHAIRMANSHIP)
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CHAIRMANSHIP)
  YEMENI REPUBLICAN FORT (R.A.F. ATTACK)
  YEMENI REPUBLICAN FORT (R.A.F. ATTACK)
  ADEN AND YEMEN
  ADEN AND YEMEN
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Special Commissioner's Office (Staff)
  Special Commissioner's Office (Staff)
  Ministerial Changes (List)
  Ministerial Changes (List)
ROYAL NAVY
  Rosyth Dockyard
  Rosyth Dockyard
  EAST GERMANY (TRAVEL REGULATIONS)
  EAST GERMANY (TRAVEL REGULATIONS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Interest Charges (Bother Valley)
  Interest Charges (Bother Valley)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (Review Body)
  Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (Review Body)
HOUSING
  Shrewsbury and Atcham
  Shrewsbury and Atcham
EMPLOYMENT
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
SCOTLAND
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry
The Lord Burnham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE UNITED STATES AND SHIPPING CONTRACTS
3.5 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough owing to illness, which we all deplore, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the present position following negotiations of British shipping interests on the Atlantic with the United States authorities.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT BLAKENHAM): My Lords, before my noble friend answers this Question, I know I shall be speaking for all your Lordships when I say that we were very distressed to hear of the noble Earl's illness. No one is held in higher affection or respect in this House than is the noble Earl, and I am sure it will be your Lordships' wish that we should send him a message hoping that he will recover soon and be back with us before long.
LORD REA: My Lords, as we have had that statement from the Government and from the official Opposition, may I add, from the Liberal Party and, if I may, from other Peers, our endorsement of it and say how much we miss Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, one of the most assiduous attendees in your Lordships' House.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the Deputy Leader of the House for the comments he has made, and to the
240
Leader of the Liberal Party? We all appreciate those sentiments very much. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough is a man who is warmly respected in all parts of the House. I have a deep affection for him, acquired over many years of personal work with him. I should like to say how grateful we are for the suggestion of the noble Viscount that a message should be sent from the whole House wishing him an early and a complete recovery.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I do not think I can do better, in answer to the noble Earl's Question, put by the noble Lord, than to repeat the Answer given by my right honourable friend yesterday to a number of Questions in another place. On March 20 the Federal Maritime Commission issued orders that shipowners and traders should break their existing dual rate contracts and sign new ones, in terms later to be pronounced by the Commission. These orders purport to apply wherever in the world a contract was negotiated, whether or not either party to it is American, and whether or not American goods or ships are in volved. Organisations representing traders and shipowners in this country, after consulting the Government, have advised their members that contracts executed in this country should be left in force. This assumption of a unique right on the part of America to control commercial practices throughout the world is so clearly objectionable that I cannot believe the Commission realises what it is trying to do, especially as in this particular matter the practical issues may not be of the first importance. A Note will be sent to the American Government.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for the statement that he has made. It certainly was a shock to all of us, irrespective of Party, that the American Federal Mari time Commission should have taken this step. I am inclined to think that they probably took it for mistaken reasons, not realising the consequences that would emerge. I would suggest to the Government that they should not be afraid to speak frankly and firmly to Uncle Sam, who is not a bad chap really —and I am very fond of the Americans.

241
If the Government speak firmly, frankly, clearly, and intelligently, it looks as though it will have an effect on the policy of the American Administration. In any event, I hope that the Government succeed in all their efforts to stop this rather unwise, even foolish, effort to interfere illegitimately with British, shipping.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to me to find myself at one with the noble Lord for the second time in two days. I completely agree with him that this is a matter for complete honesty and forthright speaking.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it has not nitherto been the case in international law that the law governing the contract is the law of the place where it is made? If that is so, how does this present effort of the United State; fall into line with the efforts they are making in other directions and through other departments for obtaining a rule of law throughout the world?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is a matter which, to me, as I am not a lawyer, either national or international, is one of great puzzlement and one which I think requires further study before I can give the noble Lord any sensible answer to that question.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (RIGHT OF REPLY) BILL
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the fourth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which sits under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Sellers, and has as its members a collection of the most distinguished legal luminaries in the country, was presented to Parliament in September of last year, and there is attached to the Report, as an Annex, the draft of a short Bill. It is this Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading. It was taken through another place by my honourable friend the Member for High Wycombe. It concerns the prosecution's right of reply at trials upon an indictment. I think the easiest
242
way to explain what the Bill does is to explain the four situations which at present occur, as the law stands, and as they will be if this Bill becomes law.
The first situation is that in which the defence calls witnesses to give evidence on matters of fact as well as, or instead of, witnesses as to character or a witness being accused himself. Where there is evidence of fact other than that given by the accused himself, the present law is that the prosecution has a right of reply, and this reply it can make, if it chooses to do so, after the final speech for the defence. It is chiefly with this set of circumstances that this Bill is concerned, because the major change that will be carried out, if your Lordships allow this Bill to become law, is that the prosecution's right of reply will in future be allowed to them, not after the final speech for the defence, but before it.
This change would bring the law into line with the other two common situations. The first of these is that in which the defence calls no witnesses other than the accused, or witnesses of character, and the accused is defended by counsel or a solicitor, in which case the prosecution may sum up before the defence makes its closing speech. There is a technical difference between a right of reply and summing-up, but in practice it makes no difference whatever. This situation was created by Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1865 (to which I shall have to refer again, very briefly, later), and it is proposed that it shall be unchanged, because in this case the defence often has the last word.
The third situation that might occur is where no evidence other than that of the accused himself or as to character is called and the accused is not represented by counsel or by solicitor but defends himself. In such a case there is no right of the prosecution to sum up; and, again, it is not proposed by my Bill to change this situation.
There is one curious fourth situation, and that occurs, as your Lordships will see in paragraph 4 of the White Paper, (Cmnd. 2148), when one or other Law Officers of the Crown appears in person for the prosecution. By a resolution of the judges in 1884 it was laid down that in those circumstances the prosecution shall always have right of reply. But, my Lords, although this is still strictly

243 the law, the Law Officers themselves decided in 1929 that they would no longer exercise this right. And this Bill provides, by Clause 1(1)(a), that this right shall no longer be even technically available to them. It will be seen, there fore, that the Bill is dealing only with the first and last of the four situations that I have described: the first, where evidence as to fact other than that of the accused himself is called by the defence, and the last, where one of the Law Officers appears in person for the prosecution. The general effect, as I think I said, will be that henceforth, if this Bill becomes law, in every case the defence, if it chooses, will have the last word at a criminal trial on indictment.
The Report also sets out the arguments for and against this change, and the arguments for it are these. First, in general, the proceedings of British court law ought, if possible, to favour the defence, and it is thought marginally that having the last word would do that. Secondly, there seems to be no real principle whereby there should be a distinction, so far as the order of final speeches is concerned, according to whether evidence of fact other than from the accused is or is not called by the defence. It seems unreasonable, and perhaps not very sensible, to make a distinction on these particular grounds.
The third reason that is quoted by the Report is that it seems a little wrong that counsel for the defence should have to weigh up in his mind the two ideas; one, to have the final word, and second, against that, the possibility of calling evidence of fact—because, of course, if he calls evidence of fact, as the law at present stands, he will not have the last word. Again, this seems to be possibly an unfortunate dilemma to put him in. In support of the conclusion to which they came, the Committee looked at the law of Scotland and found that there the law had always been as this Bill now proposes it should be in England, and they found that this caused no harm, inconvenience or injustice. And I learned to-day from my noble friend Lord Coutanche that for some time the law has also taken this form in the Channel Islands, and there, too, it has not caused any injustice or grievance.
The only arguments that were set out against the proposals in this Bill were,
244
first, that there is no need for a change at all, because nobody has complained about the present law. Secondly, it was suggested that there may be a case (which I suppose could occasionally occur) where counsel for the defence is able to resist pressure put upon him by his client or instructing solicitor to call evidence which he does not think would be suitable by arguing that such a course would deprive him of making a final speech in the case.
The third argument against making the change was that it might be thought that the prosecution, summing up in a long, complicated case, would be impartial and entirely free from bias, as prosecutions are always intended to be, and that this would be of more assistance to the jury than if they heard, as a final word from counsel, perhaps a somewhat one-sided appeal from the defence setting out things which were not always relevant to the main issues. As against that view, the Committee said, I think rightly, that it is not after all, the prosecution's job to sum up; that this should be left to the chairman of quarter sessions or to the judge at assizes. I myself have come to the conclusion that to make this change would be right and that the three arguments set out against it do not outweigh the ones that have been quoted in its favour.
The Bill itself, my Lords, is very brief. Subsection (1)(a) of Clause 1 deals with the position of the Law Officers of the Crown, and that I think I have explained to your Lordships. Paragraph (b) of that subsection provides for the main change in the law that I have described; that is to say, that where the defence calls evidence of fact other than from the accused himself then the prosecution's right of reply shall be exercised before the defence's final speech, if there is one. The reference to Section 2 of the 1865 Act is put in simply because some words in that particular section say that the right of reply shall be "as it is at present"—that is, as in 1865—and what ever it may have been then, it is clearly desirable to except those words from this Bill and its operation.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 really is consequential upon the removal of the automatic right of reply for the Law Officers of the Crown, and if your Lord ships will look at the Committee's

245
Report you will see in paragraph 7 how this particular matter comes about. Section 3 provides as it stand at the moment:
"In cases where the right of reply depends upon the question whether evidence has been called for the defence,"
(That is, of course, it depends upon whether or not the law officers are pre sent in person for the prosecution) then
" the fact that the person charged has been called as a witness shall not of itself confer on the prosecution the right of reply."
The first part of that sentence is now unnecessary because the special right of the Law Officers is being removed, and therefore it follows that the second half of the sentence will be an automatic requirement in the law because the fact that the person charged has been called as a witness will rot in future ever of itself confer on the prosecution the right of reply; it will depend upon whether or not any other evidence of fact was called besides the accused himself.
The second clause is entirely formal. I hope I have satisfied your Lordships this is a good Bill and that you should agree with the Committee's Report presented last Autumn. Therefore, I hope that you will be able to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has presented a very con vincing case in favour of this Bill. In any case I am sure that no one would be disposed to oppose a Bill which was recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, considering the extreme weight and distinction of the members of that Committee. It seems to me that this may be an opportunity to urge upon the Government that other matters affecting the criminal law might be referred by the Home Secretary to the same distinguished Committee for consideration.
I am sure—and here I speak entirely as a layman, for although I was called to the Bar I have never practised—public opinion is very much concerned by the very large proportion of accused persons who avoid being convicted. That, I am sure, is a very widespread
246
opinion, and just recently there have been a number of pronouncements by very distinguished lawyers in which they expressed their grave concern about this matter. I propose to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is well known as a law reformer and a most humane person. In views which were reported in the Sunday Times last Sunday he refers to the seriousness of the large number of accused persons who escape conviction. He spoke in his usual forceful and clear way. He said:
" The important thing really in the conviction rates. Take a young man who is wondering whether to do that housebreaking job or not. What really decides him by and large is not whether if he is caught he is going to get two years or three, but if he thinks he is going to get away with it he does it; whereas if he thinks he is going to be caught and punished, he does not do it. Before the war the conviction rate for indictable offences was over 50 per cent., so the odds were if you committed a serious crime you would be caught and punished. Ever since the war that rate has fallen and fallen. Last year in London for robberies it was 23 per cent. That means the odds are 3 to 1 if you do a robbery in London you will not be caught or punished at all. This is what causes the trouble."
A speech that was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid, on January 28 of this year, on the Criminal Court of Appeal Bill will, I am sure, be well within the recollection of a number of your Lordships. He said [col. 1091]:
"The result is"—
and here he was speaking of the number of convictions that were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal—
"… that scores of guilty men are escaping to-day … The public read and take note of that. Some people, I am afraid, think to-day that the public image of the law is becoming tarnished … The spectacle of a stream of almost certainly guilty men escaping on technicalities is not the least of the reasons for any disrepute into which the law may be falling in the view of the general public."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, addressed the West Riding magistrates on November 5 last year, and in a speech which I think was intended to be provocative, but at the same time was also very thought-evocative, he said:

247
"From the moment that a criminal falls under suspicion to the moment of the eventual verdict, the suspected criminal is protected against any kind of inquisitorial examination before trial or even during trial. One can almost say that our system falls over backwards to save him from conviction. In the English system the judge is not concerned with absolute as distinct from objective truth. The judge is more like an umpire in English games. He must make sure that the rules are observed. But the defence of society against crime is not a game. Is it right that judges and magistrates should sit in court not themselves to help in discovering the truth but rather to answer the question 'How's that?'?"
As a result of this speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, there was a leading article in The Times, followed by a number of letters written by practising barristers with daily experience of the courts. It is quite true that neither The Times nor most of the correspondents adopted the exact suggestions which had been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross. But among them all there was a general consensus of opinion that the present law and procedure is unduly favourable to accused persons. The Times when writing upon it said this:
" The crucial question in England seems to be, do too many of the guilty go free? To this the answer of Lord Shawcross and possibly of most police officers is, Yes."
Then The Times comments:
"Justice fails equally when an innocent man is convicted, or when the criminal is not brought to book."
The fact that there was appointed by warrant, on February 2, 1959,
"to be a standing committee, to be known as the Criminal Law Revision Committee; to examine such aspects of the criminal law of England and Wales as the Home Secretary may from time to time refer to the Committee, to consider whether the law requires revision and to make recommendations"
suggests that it would be appropriate for the Home Secretary to bring before this extremely weighty Committee the widely expressed opinion supported by three such distinguished lawyers as these three Members of your Lordships' House, and consider whether there may not be other revisions required in the law which, without incurring any danger of the wrong conviction of innocent persons, may result in the conviction of a larger proportion of the increasing number of criminals who are responsible for the
248
appalling increase in violent crime in this country.
3.32 p.m.
LORD COUTANCHE: My Lords, I greatly hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments, but I think it would be remiss of me if I did not state the reasons why I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill. For forty years before I had the honour and privilege of coming to your Lordships' House I was engaged in the practice of the law in my native Island of Jersey, first as an advocate, then as a Law Officer of the Crown, and lastly for 25 years as Bailiff or Chief Justice of the Island. I was much concerned with criminal proceedings. As an advocate I defended; as a Law Officer of the Crown I prosecuted; and as Chief Jus tice or Bailiff I presided at the trial of persons charged on indictment with the commission of almost every crime in the calendar, from murder downwards.
Almost exactly 100 years ago, the Parliament or States of Jersey enacted, and Her Majesty in Council confirmed, a Statute on criminal procedure which brought in a great number of reforms in the administration of criminal justice in Jersey. Among those changes was the introduction of the system of trial by jury in the sense in which we understand that term to-day. That Statute is, of course, as all Statutes in Jersey were in those days, drafted in the French language, and to endeavour to paraphrase it would really not be of any advantage. But I can say, with complete confidence and sincerity, that the effect of one of the sections—or articles, as we call them —of that Statute was to bring into force the rule which is proposed to your Lordships by the Bill which is at pre sent before this House. That article in fact provided, as is provided by Clause 1(1)(b) of this Bill, that the time at which the prosecution is entitled to exercise the right of reply shall be at the close of the evidence for the defence, and before the closing speech, if any, for the defence.
As I have said, in various capacities I have been concerned with that law and prosecutions brought under it for a long period. I believe that the rule which is thus established is just and reasonable, and one which is to be com mended to your Lordships' House. It

249 is, therefore, with great pleasure that I support this Bill which is brought before you by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
Having listened with great attention to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Molson, I go a long way with what he has said, subject to one great reservation. I like to think that measures will be brought before this House or before another place which will ensure that the guilty do not escape punishment. But I am convinced that it is essential in any move in that direction that Parliament should make quite sure that, so far as is humanly possible, such changes in the law would not result in an innocent person's being condemned.
3.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords who sit on these Benches, I should like to give a welcome to this Bill and to support it. It seems to me to be a really important Bill, and I was surprised to find that it passed through all its stages in another place without a word being said by way of explanation or support of it. I think we were particularly fortunate this after noon to have such a lucid and careful exposition of its terms by the noble Viscount who has introduced it.
The subsection dealing with the final right of reply of the Law Officers, as he has pointed out, is not of great practical importance; but the other subsection is, I think, most important. It is of practical importance in that it takes away the last word from the prosecution and gives it to the defence; and I think it is of substantial symbolic importance and significance. The conception of a criminal trial in this country, which has developed over the last hundred years, and to which the noble Lord opposite referred, is one in which the prosecution is in the position of making and placing before the jury a dispassionate investigation of the facts; not coming before the jury and asking them to find the accused man guilty of the offence with which he is charged, but to place impartially before the jury not only the facts which suggest that the accused man is guilty, but also any evidence which may lead them to find a verdict of not guilty. It is on that basis that it has been well said that the job of the prosecution is to prosecute and not to persecute.
250
I have always felt that it was to some extent an inflection of the conception of the administration of the criminal law in this country that the prosecution should have both the first and the last word to the jury. On the face of it, this is unfair. Generally speaking, I have no doubt that it has been quite temperately exercised. Indeed, in my experience, frequently the prosecuting counsel does not take advantage of his right to have the last word. But there are other cases where the enthusiasm which is generated in a legal contest brings him to his feet, and I have often myself had the rather unpleasant experience of hearing quite a fighting speech made by prosecuting counsel to the jury at the end of a trial. Despite the fact that there follows a careful summing-up by the Judge, such a speech from the prosecution cannot, I think, fail to have some effect on the jury, because emotion often carries much more weight than the dispassionate words of a careful summing-up. This Bill erases what has for a long time been regarded by many people, including myself, as a little blot on the high conception of criminal justice which we have in this country, and therefore it is very much to be welcomed.
Before I sit down, I should like to say a word or two on the subject of the prosecution's having the first word to the jury as well. The object of prosecuting counsel's opening speech should be just to tell the jury about the witnesses who are to be called—enough to enable them to follow the evidence which will be given. After all, it is a strange experience for a jury to be in a court for the first time, not knowing very much about what is going on. That is the purpose the opening speech of the prosecuting counsel ought to meet. It should be quite short, and the object should not be to make a detailed case against the person. That should be made not by prosecuting counsel but by the evidence given by the witnesses in the witness box. In recent years, however, it has become more and more the practice of prosecuting counsel to build up a very careful case against the accused person, and in the hands of an able advocate that cannot fail to have a considerable effect on the minds of the jury. That is the view of many people.

251
I am told by friends well acquainted with the administration of the criminal law in Scotland—and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, knows about this better than I do—that that is not regarded as the correct way for the prosecution to open a case. The view taken in Scotland is that the opening speech should be very short and should go no further than to tell the jury what witnesses are to be called, and to indicate briefly the sort of evidence they are to give, but not to go into details. In my view, that is the correct way of proceeding, and the way in which the process has been developing in England is a mistake and is to some extent an infraction of the conception of justice which I mentioned earlier.
Of course, we cannot have a Bill to deal with a situation of this kind. It can be dealt with only on the basis of a change of attitude on the part of members of the Bar who act as prosecuting counsel, but it seems to me that the Judges themselves could do something to control the situation. I hope that the Lord Chief Justice, whose sincere desire is that there should be fair play to the prisoner, will do all he can in this matter. After all, it is even more important that there should be fair play to the person in the dock than that convictions should be secured. In the last resort, one of the great prestige elements of this country is the fact that we are one of the countries in the world in which the man in the dock gets a fair trial, and anything which militates against a fair trial ought to be checked and dealt with. Therefore, I hope that the Lord Chief Justice, whose views are well known, will bring these matters to the attention of his colleagues on the Bench; so that we shall deal, as in this Bill, not only with the position in regard to the last word, but also with the position of the over-use of the first word, in order that it may be controlled and checked by the Judges themselves.
3.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the subject raised by Lord Molson, which I assume is in order on this Bill, because to some extent it affects the right of the defence, and, indeed. in most cases enhances the
252
rights of the defence. But we should be a little careful about agreeing to the sort of proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I know very well that there is a school of opinion in this country—and very eminent opinion, too—which holds that the party which they think is guilty gets too good a chance and that some guilty people get away with it. But the fact is that if one makes any amendment to the system it means going over to the Continental practice, which is an inquisitorial system; that is to say, with the judge or justice, as the case may be, brought into the case at the very beginning. The Juge d'Instruction is the examining magistrate who comes into the case right from the start. Your Lordships who follow the "Maigret" series on television will have seen Inspector Maigret constantly being upset by the fact that he has to instruct the Juge d'Instruction. This, of course, is not the case in this country. Here, the first the magistrate knows about the matter is when the case comes up in court, when it is fresh to him.
To my mind, there are two defects in the Continental system. First, it penalises the accused. To give an example, towards the end of the war I attended in Paris some of the trials of people who were alleged to have been guilty during the war of collaboration. I remember one case in particular. One old man, who seemed to me to be decrepit, and, indeed, vast knowing exactly what he was doing, a man of well over 70, was in the dock, and the very first words put to him by anybody were spoken by the presiding judge. The words were: "What excuse have you to give for the commission of this appalling crime?". To our ears, of course, such a question is absolutely unheard of.
This old man, who, as I have said, was extremely decrepit, and who seemed very vague, was alleged to have given away to the Germans a few months earlier two R.A.F. officers who were escaping through the pipe-line down to Gibraltar. The evidence was so thin that in this country it would never have got to the magistrate, and would certainly not have got past the petty sessions. But there was the picture of this old man in the dock, on extremely thin evidence, all hearsay so far as I could make out, and the first words he heard put to him by the presiding judge were the words

253
I have just quoted. It seemed to me completely unfair. If those Members of your Lordships' House who think in this way were to be put in that position, I doubt whether they would be as much in favour of that system as they are to-day.
Secondly if one were to go over to this system, one would get a completely different attitude on the part of the public to the police and the courts. In this country our police are not armed, there are comparatively few of them, and, by and large, they have the support of the public as a whole. We all support the police, and that is an important factor in civic life. But in many cases on the Continent one does not find support for the police. The: public tend to think "That's their business. Let them get on with it. It's nothing to do with me." It is partly because people here feel that they will get a perfectly fair trial; that the police will have to make out a case before the magistrate, and then if necessary before Judge and jury, with the whole matter being threshed out—and if there is any leniency shown it will be shown to he accused—that we find this attitude to the police and the courts. I believe this is a strong point in our system. The accused gets not only justice but also mercy, and a very fair deal indeed.
I am completely in favour of the Bill, but there is just one question that I should like to ask the noble Viscount or the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. Sc far as I see it, there is one case in which the accused is going to be worse off under this Bill than he is now, and that is where he is not defended by counsel or a solicitor. If I am wrong, I will, of course, gladly withdraw, and I hope I am wrong, but I see that in Clause 1(1)(b) it is said:
"the time at which the prosecution is entitled to exercise that right shall, notwithstanding anything in section 2 … be after the close of the evidence for the defence and before the closing speech (if any) by or on behalf of the accused."
Could either of those noble Lords clear that point up? Where no counsel or solicitor is appearing on behalf of the accused—that is to say, where the accused appears in person—there is now no right of reply by the prosecution, even before the accused has himself said the final word.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:
think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on that point. The distinction in this case is between the right of reply and the summing up. The Bill I am introducing to your Lordships this afternoon deals only with the right of reply, whereas the particular circum stance that the noble Lord has in mind is the case of summing up. Therefore, as I hoped I had explained, there will be no change in the situation under Section 2 of the 1865 Act. There will be no change at all so far as this Bill is concerned.
LORD OGMORE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I did not think I was really dealing with summing up, which I gather is a matter for the judge to the jury. But the noble Viscount having convinced me that the accused is not in any worse position under this Bill than he is now, then of course my solitary—I will not say objection, but my solitary hesitation, is completely gone, and I support the Bill in its entirety.
3.53 p.m.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I do not intend to intervene in this debate on a Bill dealing with English procedure, except to correct what may be a misapprehension arising out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in regard to the law of Scotland. In Scot land, unlike England, there is no opening speech by the prosecution. The evidence is led right away for the prosecution, and in Scotland it always has been the rule that the defence has the last word. I think it goes back even further than the law of Jersey which, apparently, was enacted only a hundred years ago. It has been the universal rule in Scotland that the defence has the last word, and that has worked perfectly well in Scot land, as the Committee have reported. It is for these reasons that I personally would support this Bill. I thought it right to correct any misapprehension that there might be as to Scottish procedure.
3.55 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I want to say just a word on the topic which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. I confess that I am not at all clear what it is that he has in mind, except that he starts off, as apparently some other noble Lords do, from the assumption that a very large

255
number of guilty persons, or persons who ought to be found guilty, are brought to trial and are acquitted. That may be so; but there is one fundamental principle which we have had in this country for quite a long time past, and that is to make every effort to ensure that innocent people are not convicted. The general view rightly seems to be that it is a far more detrimental and offensive thing that an innocent person should be convicted than that some guilty person should escape.
I do not know what kind of reform the noble Lord had in mind, except that he deprecated the fact that the judge in this country has to act, so to speak, as an umpire. Some of us who are familiar with the practice of the courts have occasionally had the experience of seeing a case conducted before a judge who rather departed from that practice and who continually interrupted and asked questions, and the results were extremely unfortunate. Indeed, one can call to mind cases in which that has happened and the Court of Criminal Appeal has felt obliged to quash the conviction, because of the way in which the trial was conducted.
It seems to me that you cannot have a halfway house in this matter. Either you have our system, or else you have the Continental system in which there is an inquiry by a judicial officer who interrogates the accused and the witnesses. That is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, a very different conception of the way in which proceedings in criminal cases should be conducted. I do not deny that something can be said in support of it, but I do not consider that a matter of that kind is one which should be properly referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It goes to the whole root of the system of Criminal Law in this country, and if that is to be questioned it should be done after a very strong case has been made out that it is necessary; and it should be done by a body of the utmost weight and distinction. I think we should hesitate very much before entertaining any ideas of that kind.
As to the Bill itself, I welcome it very much, because it does a comparatively rare thing in our legislation; that is, it simplifies the law, instead of making it more complicated. If it errs at all it
256
errs in the general direction which I have mentioned; that it favours, no doubt to a very slight degree, a person who is charged, by enabling him or his representative to have the last word in the discussion.
3.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend for giving us this early opportunity of considering, and indeed acting upon, the latest published Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I think, also, that tribute is due to the Bar Council, who in 1963 in formed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that they favoured an early amendment of the law on the lines now proposed. They suggested that the matter should be referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee for consideration, and that of course has been done. It is in these circumstances that we are considering the Bill which the Committee put forward with their Report.
I do not want to say very much this afternoon, but I should just like to make a few observations in relation to various matters that have been raised in the course of this debate, as well as in relation to the Bill itself. As has been pointed out, Clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill abolishes the right of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General when they conduct a prosecution to address the jury last, and that proposal merely regularises the present practice. That right on the part of an English Law Officer has not been exercised since 1922, and in 1929 the then Law Officers announced that they would not exercise it in future. Of course, they could not bind their successors, but the fact that the right existed continued to be published in every edition of Archbold's Criminal Law and Practice.
When I had to conduct prosecutions as a Law Officer, my opponents were always concerned to find out whether I was contemplating exercising that right. I made it clear on every occasion that I had no intention of doing so; and I cannot believe that, even if this provision were not contained in this Bill, any English Law Officer would seek in future to exercise that right. So, really,

257
Clause 1(1)(a) is merely taking out a bit of deadwood; and I am glad to say that my right honourable and learned friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General both agree there is no point in continuing the existence of this right, and that it should be abolished.
My noble friend Lord Molson has used this debate for introducing a subject which I am sure is lot only of great public concern but of great concern to everyone in your Lordships' House, and that is in relation to the number of per sons who are accused and who, he said, avoid conviction. Of course, one has no statistics of the persons who are accused who avoid conviction and yet are guilty of the offences, but I think there are two parts of the propositions that he was advancing to be considered. First of all, if it is to be suggested that juries are finding people not guilty when they should be finding them guilty, then, indeed, so far as I can see it, the noble Lord is suggesting, rather as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has suggested, that the burden of proof which rests on the prosecution should be lightened.
That indeed would be a major change in our criminal law as established over a very long period, and I, for one, would not be in favour of lightening in any way the burden of proof that ordinarily rests upon the prosecution of establishing the case with a sufficient degree of certainty. When there is a provision before your Lordships' House putting the onus on the defence in relation to a criminal charge, that is nearly always questioned, and a case for doing so has to be made out to your Lordships' satisfaction.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, then reminded your Lordships of the words used by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid in a recent debate, when he said that scores of guilty men escape conviction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, was on that occasion dealing with the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The powers of the Court of Criminal Appeal were under consideration at that time, and your Lordships will remember that, under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, the Court has power, although something may have gone wrong in the course of the trial, to apply the proviso to Section 4 and sustain and uphold the conviction if it is satisfied
258
that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who asked that the matter should be referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, that the Home Secretary and I have recently appointed a Committee, over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, is to pre side, and is presiding—a Committee which I believe has already started sitting—to review the whole powers, procedure, and indeed machinery, of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I think that may have escaped his notice, and if it did I am sure he will be glad to hear that that is now happening and that that matter is now under review.
A great deal has been said about its being too easy for the accused person; and I must confess that I do not myself agree with the statement in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee that there is—and I quote their words—
"… a general principle that procdure should be such as to favour the defence so far as possible ".
I do not believe there is any such principle. I know of no principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favour of the defence. The objective, surely, must be that the procedure at the trial should be as fair as possible, not that it should favour either the defence or the prosecution.
Some advocates I know take the view that it is a very considerable advantage to address the jury first—and that, of course, under our system, the prosecution do, because they have to present their case. The noble Lord, Lard Chorley, made some observations with regard to that. I am afraid I could not entirely agree with what he said. The duty of counsel conducting the prosecution is to present the case for the prosecution, and although I am all in favour of short speeches on appropriate occasions—and not least in your Lord ships' House—at the same time I can not see how a case (for instance, a long firm fraud case) with a mass of documents and possibly thirty witnesses for the prosecution can possibly be understood by a jury unless the case has been adequately presented by the counsel for the prosecution in opening, so that when the jury come to hear

259
the evidence they can see how the particular pieces of evidence fit into the puzzle. But that does not mean, of course, that prosecution should be persecution, and the most incompetent way of conducting a prosecution is to give any appearance of unfairness to the accused, because that will lead almost certainly to an acquittal. It is the duty of counsel for the prosecution to prose cute, and to present the case fairly and impartially.
Far from agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his view that there has been a deterioration in the conduct of prosecutions in recent years, my mind goes back to a considerable time ago. When one looks at the old law reports, one sees that the practice in conducting prosecutions was very far different from what it is to-day. In those days the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made would have been justified. They are not, in my belief, to-day. But if the prosecution are to have, as I think they must have, the right of opening the case and of presenting it to the jury in a way the jury can understand—and it is only if they can do that that they have any opportunity of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt—then it certainly seems fair to me that, if they have the first word, they should not have the last word, too; and that is what this Bill proposes.
I should like to say a brief word about the application of the procedure proposed in this Bill to the procedure in the magistrates' courts. The present Bill refers only to trials on indictment—that is to say, to trials before courts of assize and quarter sessions—because it is only in these courts that the order of speeches is governed by legislation. The procedure in magistrates' courts is similar, but that is prescribed, not by Act of Parliament, but by the Magistrates' Courts Rules. These are Rules which I am empowered to make after consultation with the Rule Committee of the Supreme Court. It is obviously desirable that procedure in this matter should be the same in all criminal courts, and, therefore, if Parliament accepts my noble friend's proposals for the amend ment of the law in the higher courts, appropriate action will be taken by Rule to make an equivalent change in the lower courts.
260
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked a question about the position where the accused was not represented by counsel or solicitors. I should like, if I may, just to answer that question by saying this: this Bill confers no new right on the counsel for the prosecution of making speeches. It merely alters the order in which he can speak where he has the right to do so. There fore, I do not think we need feel that the undefended defendant is in any way prejudiced by this measure. This is a short Bill. It does not purport to do more than make a small improvement in the procedure of the Criminal Courts; but it is still, I would say, an important improvement in that procedure. It is a change which many who practise in the courts have long thought to be desirable; and I think that my noble friend has good reason to hope that it will command general support.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very glad this Bill has given rise to an interesting debate induced by my noble friend Lord Molson, and I am sure your Lordships will be equally glad that it has been the occasion of so interesting a speech from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I would not attempt to add to what he has said, except to thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the support they have given this Bill and to say that I think it is an excellent thing that there should have been a full debate on it, seeing that there was no word spoken in another place to explain it at all. I feel that the OFFICIAL REPORT of to-day may be of great interest to practitioners of the law who want to know exactly what this Bill would mean. I hope that I did not muddle the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when I was talking about summing up. It was not in reference to summing up by a chairman or judge. It is, in fact, technically a right in some cases for the prosecution to sum up the evidence; and it was to that that I was referring. There is in practice no difference between that right and the right of reply. I am grateful for the reception that this Bill has had, and I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a short Bill; it deals with two unrelated matters but they are both of potential importance. The first matter, which is covered by Clause 1, provides that local education authorities may sub mit proposals for new schools having an age-range which straddles what I may call the 11-plus gulf, and provides that the Secretary of State may approve them, with or without modification. This latter provision is in accordance with nor mal practice. These two provisions are not an attempt to recast the national system of education. This is simply an operation intended to enable to take place a strictly limited number of educational experiments which are not at present permissible under the existing law. My right honourable friend proposes to use his powers to that end and no more, if the Bill is enacted.
The present law in the Education Act, 1944, lays down as a major principle of school organisation that primary and secondary education are to be provided in separate schools. The Act defines primary education as education suitable for children under 10½ and secondary education as education suitable for children over 12. Education of either type may be suitable for children between those ages. There are historical reasons behind these provisions, which follow the pattern contemplated by the Hadow Report of 1926 on the Education of the Adolescent, one of the educational milestones of the inter-war years which paved the way for secondary education in separate schools for all, and not just for pupils at selective schools.
A change is needed now because the basic reasoning of the Hadow Report and of the Act of 1944 about educational I organisation are now being questioned. In this country, and abroad too, all sorts of questions, some old—but not yet
262
finally answered—and some new, are being asked. The answers will affect, perhaps radically, the organisation of the public system of education. Many people have their own answers, often held with passion. Others are awaiting the results of the increasing amounts of educational research and experiment now being mounted, in both primary and secondary education. Up to now, however, existing legislation has pre vented any actual experiments with schools which bridge the 11-plus gulf. Within the primary or within the secondary age-range there is no difficulty over the law. It is only the 11-plus gulf which is imposed by legislation. The Bill will allow experimental bridges to be thrown across the gulf.
Clause 1(2) requires the Secretary of State to give a direction that any pro posed school with an age-range which brings it within the scope of the Bill shall be either a primary or a secondary school. My right honourable friend has no intention of using the power to give these directions in such a way as to control the course of any experimental proposals submitted to him. The approach will be entirely pragmatic and flexible, and we shall judge every case on its merits. But there is a strictly practical point. Although a school established under the Bill may well have some qualities of a primary school and some of a secondary, the fact is that existing legislation provides for two, and only two, categories of school, namely, primary and secondary. In law a school must be one or the other. The device of a direction by the Secretary of State enables a new school to be assimilated to one category or the other. The various practical consequences, for such things as the management or government of the school—not all of which can be clearly foreseen at this stage—will then flow naturally from the direction of the Secretary of State, in accordance with existing legislation. The alternative, to introduce now a new category of hybrid or middle school, would be impossibly complicated. I would add, though perhaps it is hardly necessary, that the provision for a direction by the Secretary of State does not mean that he will in practice seek in any way to control the education which is actually given in a new school under the Bill,

263
any more than he does now in any other school.
The Bill as drafted permits only local education authorities, and not voluntary bodies—promoters as they are traditionally called—to submit proposals. The explanation of this omission is purely practical. The system of partial Exchequer grants towards the capital expenses of the provision of new voluntary schools has developed over the years and is now highly complex. On the other hand, we were anxious that the Bill should be as short and simple as possible, since it is only an enabling Bill. Moreover, it seemed—though wrongly in the event—that it was un likely that voluntary bodies would in practice wish to submit proposals under the Bill. However, consultations which have been held since I introduced the Bill before Easter have shown clearly that the denominations—and I am speaking mainly of the Church of England and the Roman Catholics—feel strongly that the opportunity to submit proposals should not be denied to promoters from the voluntary bodies. They accept that there are not likely to be at most more than a very few such proposals, but they have represented to me the great importance they attach to the principle of voluntary school participation, and have strongly urged the amendment of Clause 1 so as to permit the denominations to participate. They have said that, if this is done, they will be content that no detailed and specific provision shall be made in the Bill for the payment of Exchequer grants, with the consequence that any new voluntary school established under it will have to rely for the possibility of Exchequer capital grant on the existing grant provisions in the Education Acts, 1944 and 1959.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has much sympathy with the attitude of the denominations and he has accepted it. I am happy to tell the House that, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I propose to move an Amendment at a later stage which will provide that promoters as well as local education authorities may submit proposals to the Secretary of State. There will have to be a consequential Amendment of a formal kind to the financial provisions of Clause 4.
264
It will still, of course, be for my right honourable friend to consider whether he can approve voluntary proposals. In addition, the position of the local education authorities will be safeguarded, just as it is in the case of proposals for new voluntary schools submitted under existing legislation.
I must also make one minor reservation. Circumstances might arise under the Bill when it would not be right for us to follow the normal practice of using any discretionary powers in such a way as to give the voluntary bodies all the reasonable financial and other help possible under the law. For example, if a voluntary body wished to establish a new school with an age-range of, say, 9–13, and the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for educational reasons to direct that such a school should be deemed to be a secondary school, then in certain circumstances that school would be eligible for what is called matching grant under Section 1 (2) of the Education Act, 1959. In such circum stances, however, it would probably not accord with the principle underlying this Act that matching grant at the maximum rate should be paid on the whole cost of the school.
In such a case—assuming that a substantial proportion of the pupils were of the normal primary school age—full matching grant would not be equitable and it might be necessary for my right honourable friend to use his power under Section 1(2) of the 1959 Act to pay less than the maximum grant of 75 per cent. on the whole cost of the school. I think it is right that I should make this reservation now at the outset and get it on the Record. I hope that it will be accepted by the voluntary bodies and that they will not feel inhibited by it. It really springs from the fact that this Bill does not cover the grant position at all.
The second matter with which the Bill deals is covered by Clauses 2 and 3. Their object is to remove an anomaly in the law relating to the payment of maintenance allowances as it affects handicapped children in special schools in Great Britain. The Education Act, 1944, and the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, as well as the Education (Scot land) Act, 1962, which superseded it, gave power to education authorities to

265 pay maintenance allowances, in case of need, to the parents of children attending school if the children were over compulsory school age. These allowances are not calculated to compensate in full for the loss of the earnings which parents may forgo by keeping a child at school when he could leave and go to work, but they do alleviate hardship which might otherwise fall on families of slender means by making a worth while contribution towards the cost of maintaining the child. They also afford a useful incentive to parents to keep their children at school. These allowances are payable in respect of ordinary children after they have passed the compulsory school age of fifteen; but children who, because of a handicap of mind or body, cannot attend ordinary schools and must go to special schools, remain of compulsory school age under the Acts until they reach the age of six teen. Accordingly they do not at present qualify for maintenance allowances until after they have reached that age, sixteen.
Ministers have received representations about this anomaly on a number of occasions down the years and have promised that, if there were a suitable opportunity, they would consider amending legislation. This Bill provides such an opportunity, and I hope that your Lordships will welcome the Government's decision to use it. It is a great misfortune—a misfortune which the parents must share—if a child suffers from a handicap which prevents him or her from attending an ordinary school where he or she can share the normal life of contemporaries. I am sure it is right to end a situation in which financial disadvantage is added to misfortune. The remaining clauses of the Bill are formal.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Newton.)
4.26 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I in the first place congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on his excellent speech and on the way in which he has conducted himself on the first occasion on which he has represented education. I have not observed any sign of nerves, and I am sure that he does not feel any different from the way he felt when he answered for the Government in our health
266
debates. No doubt the noble Lord thought that on this occasion the bowling might be changed on this side, as I have faced him so often before when he was in charge of health—I hope that it is bowling I mean, and not batting, and that, as a woman, I am not getting mixed up. I am not sure who keeps the wicket in this debate—but I see the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, sitting there. Anyway, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on his lucid exposition of the Bill.
This is a short Bill, but a very import ant one, and we on this side of the House certainly welcome it. We welcome it as an amending measure dealing, as the noble Lord said, with matters which have been pressed for many years by all those progressive authorities who have been wanting to experiment in new forms of education. As I see it, it will enable them to adopt a more flexible approach than that permitted by the 1944 Act. There are many authorities (I have had one, the West Riding Education Authority, brought to my attention) who are anxious to establish schools which cater for children divided into three age-groups—the 5 to 9, the 9 to 13 and the over-l3—which, of course, would not conform with the letter of the 1944 Act.
More and more local authorities are anxious to introduce comprehensive schools, and this amending legislation will enable them to do so within the framework of existing schools. The comprehensive school has already proved highly successful, notably in the L.C.C. area—and I do not say this because we are to-day having an election in London. Other counties are anxious to proceed along the same lines.
In the world of politics, it is easy to have hindsight, but on reflection it is not surprising that the 11-plus conception of education should not be universally popular. A child, irrespective of his intelligence, can be subject to a variety of stresses. There may be illness in the home, parents may be separated or divorced, or there may be constant friction between the parents. The child may even live in one of these homes where there may be what is known as a "mod" or a "rocker". The child may he a younger sister or brother of one of these rather pathetic adolescents, who are passing through a

267
difficult phase, and the younger sister or brother may, as a result, be distracted. Nevertheless, whatever the conditions are at home, and whether or not the child may be a late developer, he is subjected at the age of 11 to a test which may determine his whole future. The argument, therefore, for the com prehensive school is overwhelming, and I hope that this Bill will facilitate the establishment of more of these. I attach tremendous importance to this amending measure, because it will give local authorities the opportunity to establish schools which they, in their wisdom, think are the best for their particular communities.
The second part of the Bill deals with an entirely different aspect of education. Many educational organisations, supported by the Opposition, have made repeated representations to successive Ministers asking that children in special schools should receive maintenance allowances after the age of 15, as other children do, and, as the noble Lord has said, this Bill remedies an existing anomaly. It should not be forgotten that the parents of an adolescent handicapped child carry a double burden: they are compelled to keep the child at school until 16, and although he may have the mind of a small child, he may well have the body and appetite of a man. The maintenance grant, therefore, for the year 15 to 16 will serve to help some of our most harassed parents.
It has taken the Government a long time to grant this small concession—and the Minister has not sought to hide the fact that representations have been made for it over the years—to a family which contains a sub-normal child; indeed, there may even be two sub-normal children: that is certainly not unknown. I would ask the Minister, on his first appearance at that Box as the representative of the Department of Education, and Science, not to allow this concession to be used as a reason for postponing action in regard to the even more pressing needs of these children. There is a tendency in the world of politics to say: "Well, we gave them this a little while ago. We can now mark time: there is no need for us to hurry about these other matters for which Back Benchers are pressing." I regret that the Government
268
have not taken this opportunity to tackle the problem in a more robust fashion.
Perhaps I may mention, in this Second Reading debate, some omissions that I feel ought to be brought to the Minister's notice. There is a long list of children waiting for accommodation in these schools, and an accute shortage of teachers. It happens that in the road in which I live the London County Council, in their wisdom, have built a wonderful school for these children. I therefore have the opportunity of seeing them pass my house every day, and I realise what important work there is still to do. We do not fully appreciate the strain to which the teachers of these children are subjected. There is a strong emotional attachment between the children and the teacher which can be very wearing.
Another aspect of the case of mentally subnormal children is rarely ventilated. Although these children are carefully protected and guided at school (and, to-day, in this Bill, we have given them some more protection from the age of 15 to 16, in the way of a monetary grant), and although in many cases they are provided with transport to school, and after school the authority helps them to obtain some suitable occupation, it seems that the community's responsibility then ends. We recognise that here is a subnormal individual greatly in need of our protection; but once we have accepted that, we seem to feel that our responsibility ends. Surely pro vision should be made for some kind of follow-up and after-care for these children.
Then there is the need to provide more help for the subnormal child at home. I would point out that here is another case where the Government have set up a Committee of eminent people and then failed to take full action following publication of their Report. I refer to the Report of 1961 on the Training of Staff of Training Centres for the Mentally Subnormal Children of which Committee the Chairman was Dr. J. A. Scott. Let me just remind the noble Lord of what the Committee said. They reported:
"Many low grade and physically handicapped children remain at home at the parents' wish, and it is important that some attempt should be made to provide help and relief for them, as well as for their children. The

269
special care unit is one way of solving the problem, especially if it can be operated as part of a general plan which provides help and advice from welfare officers, short-term residential case hostel accommodation and appropriate treatment facilities."
It is evident that there are wide gaps in the provision for the mentally sub normal child. This debate has enabled us to focus some attention not only on the comparatively small concession which the Government have made, but on some other aspects of the lives of this little tragic community. While this Bill deals with one aspect of the case of the subnormal child, we should have welcomed a more comprehensive measure. Nevertheless, we are grateful for what the Minister has given us.
4.36 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY:
My Lords, having spoken for nearly 25 minutes in yesterday's debate, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long to-day. Nevertheless, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on his clear and lucid presentation of this short but important Bill. I should like to say that the Church of England very much welcomes this move to grant authoritative permission for the setting up of more flexible forms of school organisation than is possible under the existing legislation. Surely, educationally, there is much to be said for some experiments along the lines indicated in the Bill now before the House. It might interest the noble Baroness who spoke last if I inform her that we are at the moment building a Church comprehensive school in the city of Coventry.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Congratulations.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY:
We are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, assures us that the Bill will be amended to include provision for Church schools to share in these experiments. It would indeed be a serious blow to the dual system if this were not so. It is to be highly commended that county and voluntary schools should be seen to he partners in the whole enterprise of education.
However, experiments in educational organisation are valuable only so long as they are dealing with flesh and blood boys and girls, and are not just bright
270
ideas emanating from a State Department. To this end, therefore, they must be controlled, carefully controlled, so that undue confusion is avoided, particularly at a time when, not least through the process of automation, the progress of widespread mobility is maintained in this country. I was therefore glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, pro poses not to approve more than a limited number of these experiments under the terms of this Bill.
It would, I think, be unwise to anticipate any recommendations which may be made by the Plowden Committee when it has completed its inquiry into primary education and the transfer to secondary education. While I recognise that the experiments authorised in this Bill may well be of great value to the Plowden Committee in their deliberations, it would obviously be undesirable to allow a situation to develop in which any positive recommendations of that Committee would be made more difficult to implement.
Although we are anxious that the happy and, as I am sure it will be agreed, valuable partnership between county and voluntary schools shall continue to flourish for the well-being of the nation's children, we are also obviously particularly concerned for the special interests of Church schools, and we shall welcome assurances that in any proposals made due regard will be had for the interests of nearby Church schools. With these provisos, we welcome this Bill, believing that it will help to provide information and experience which will be valuable for the education service in the years which lie ahead.
One last and important point, which was strongly and sympathetically brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. While we are concerning ourselves with arrangements for the education of normal children, it is in deed a cause of satisfaction to the Church that an opportunity has been found by which local education authorities will be empowered to give maintenance allowances to children who are in special schools after the age of fifteen. In these days of advance and growth in the whole educational field, it is good to know that the needs of the less competent children are not being overlooked. With those provisos, I am indeed happy to support this Bill.
4.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are familiar with the nursery life of large families will know only too well the plaintive and sometimes tearful cry of "Me too, me too, Mummie!" When I first read this Bill I anticipated that some such cry would be raised on behalf of the voluntary bodies. I was not mistaken. They have expressed their desire to enter as fully as they can, allowing for the difficulties of the grant situation, into this valuable experiment. I have been asked to express the gratitude of the Roman Catholic authorities for the concession that has been promised to them in the form of an Amendment to this Bill.
For my part, I am extremely glad to hear of this experiment, on purely educational grounds. I am aware that child psychologists now attach a peculiar significance to the age between twelve and thirteen. They consider it an age of important development in the up-growing of a child, and many of them hold that it is a much more suitable age for transfer to a larger school. I am also very glad to hear of the concession to the handicapped children. My Church takes some part in the work for these children, and will be glad of the financial relief that has been afforded. So I join in the thanks that have been offered by the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate, and in this matter add an appreciative, "Me too".
4.45 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I was most grateful to hear from everyone who has spoken in this debate that they support the Bill whose Second Reading I had the honour to move this afternoon. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, very much indeed for the kind words which she said, not only about the Bill, but about me personally in my new Department. She said that I appeared not to display any nerves, but I suppose all of us try to conceal feelings of nervousness. The noble Baroness also referred to the fact that we have faced each other for several years from opposite Front Benches of your Lordships' House, when I had responsibility for another Department. I was slightly sur-
272
prised to find that there was no change in the bowling and batting, but I was agreeably surprised. I thought to myself, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
The noble Lady said, quite rightly, that it has taken a long time to remedy the anomaly of the system of paying maintenance allowances to parents of handicapped children. I suppose a good thing is worth waiting for. The noble Lady also asked for more action to give support to handicapped children and their parents. It was a great temptation to me to see myself back in my former office. Although I have no authority to speak for my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, except in so far as I suppose I speak for any Minister in your Lordships' House, I might say that the noble Lady might like to refresh her memory by looking again at the Blue Book which we published a year ago entitled Health and Welfare, setting out the plans of the local health and welfare authorities on the development of their services for handicapped children, among others.
I should also like to remind the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health not so long ago set up an Advisory Council under Lady Adrian to promote the training of the staffs of training centres. I recall making quite a number of speeches about that in your Lordships' House. I can assure the noble Lady that I will not cease to take the interest which I took when I was in the Ministry of Health in the problems of handicapped children and their care.
I should also like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Coventry for expressing the welcome of the Church of England to this Bill, and I am equally grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, for expressing the support of the Roman Catholic Church. I feel very gratified that the first time I have chanced my hand on behalf of the Department of Education and Science I have had such a successful afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.

TESTING OF BUILDING MATERIALS
LORD BOSSOM LORD BOSSOM asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether consideration is being given to the introduction in Great Britain of arrangements similar to the French Agrement System for testing and repotting on building materials and components; if not, whether they will consider doing so.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUS ING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My right honourable friend, the Minister of Public Building and Works, has set up a Committee on Agrement under the Chairmanship of Sir Donald Gibson. They are now examining this system and considering whether there is a need in this country for more formal testing arrangements than already exist. The Committee have announced that they will welcome the views of interested persons and organisations on this matter. Evidence should be sent in writing to the Secretary, Committee on Agrement, Room 332, Ministry of Public Building and Works, Lambeth Bridge House, London, S.E.1.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before five o'clock.